Yesterday I started answering a question about whether the problems in the Hebrew Bible were as significant as those in the New Testament, and my response was: Yes! Even more so! In yesterday’s post I talked about the problem with the manuscripts. In this post I’ll talk about internal discrepancies and contradictions. Rather than write the whole thing out, though, I’ve decided just to include a chunk that deals with the issue from my Introduction to the Bible, as I did once before, many years ago on the blog. In the context of my discussion in the book, am talking about what 19th and 20th century critical scholars discovered with respect to discrepancies within the Pentateuch, leading to the theory that the first five books of the Hebrew Scripture actually derived from four major sources, written at different times, that have been spliced together, creating internal problems.
******************************************************************************************************************
The internal tensions came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book of the Pentateuch, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways. Read them carefully yourself. Make a list of what happens in chapter one, then a list of what happens in chapter 2, and compare your lists. Among other things you will notice the following:
You can’t keep reading if you don’t belong to the blog. Go ahead and join. It won’t ruin your life. It will make you happy, fulfilled, and prosperous. OK, maybe not prosperous. But it will do you a world of good for a reasonable fee, and all proceeds go to charity!
Bart, how did you reconcile or explain these differences when you were a Bible believing Christian? Were they a major stumbling block for you and other fundamentalists? I suspect evangelical Christians have “no difficulty” reconciling these passages.
Nope, none at all. Most common explanation: Genesis 1 is giving the overview; Genesis 2 the play by play.
It’s too bad the people who want the Ten Commandments displayed on govt. property don’t realize or don’t care that the second set – the replacement set – given to Moses in Exodus 34 are different – and much more boring- than the ones he got in Exodus 20.
Not only are the two sets of Ten Commandments different, but I believe it is the second set that is actually called the Ten Commandments! I’ve always felt that if one is going to display them at courthouses, the second set should be used…especially to not boil the kid in its mothers milk! ????
I don’t know if this example serves as a sign of literary inconsistency.
Both in Genesis 1: 22 and in Genesis 3:26 God refers to himself as “us,” when the authors speak of God in the singular and always use the pronoun “he.”
Some apologists believe that they solve this inconsistency by appealing to the Holy Trinity, which is not possible at any time in the Hebrew Bible (nor in the NT, by the way). Others resort to the trick that God refers to himself using the royal we (pluralis maiestatis), although more than “us” should then be translated “nosism”.
You know, all this suggests that a trade book focusing on difficulties in the Old Testament would be a good project. It would pull together a lot of information and unify the discussion of textual difficulties in what Christians take to be the Bible. It would be very clear, then, that the same problems, inconsistencies, etc. are present in the entire book, both Old and New Testaments– throughout the entire document.
And I know others have done something like this but they aren’t YOU. It would be nice to have a unified perspective, from the same scholar, covering all of the Bible. Like, you don’t already have enough to do. I’m just saying it would be nice. I’m sure you would bring a unique perspective and find ways to make the work refer to your other books, particularly in regard to passages that would later be used by Christians to incorporate Christ into Old Testament Prophecy. You might reference traditional Jewish understanding of the “Fall”. If I am not mistaken, Original Sin is not a Jewish concept and never has been.
Ah, right! Yeah, it’s an interesting idea. I’ll think about it.
Please do, and also please continue this blog series on OT inconsistencies and contradictions. Fascinating stuff!
Ah, some good books like that out there, e.g., Richard Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible, and Silverman and Finkelstein, Unearthing the Bible.
Implied in your discussion is an expectation or something similar that there should be a single account that should have no internal differences. I can’t imagine why anyone would think that. I’m not blind. I see that some people claim to do. Some people also found it persuasive that their grandfathers didn’t look like gorillas.
Why should the Pentateuch be internally consistent? If it should not, then why is it important to point out all the inconsistencies? It seems like a fool’s errand.
Right!
After I read Friedman’s book Who Wrote the Bible? I went back and read Genesis carefully. Fortunately, my New American Standard bible translated Yahweh and Elohim differently, so you can tell the difference. It was so obvious that were parallel but slightly different stories woven throughout Genesis! But I never noticed it until Friedman pointed it out to me. Much like many of the things I can now see in the NT thanks to your books and seminars. I am so glad that there are scholars like you and Friedman who write trade books, so us commoners can learn what the churches don’t teach us!
A quick google search suggests that fundamentalist Christians try to resolve the creation discrepancies by using the past perfect form of the verb in chapter 2, “Now the Lord God **had formed** out of the ground…” (actual NIV translation). Is there any justification for this reading of the text?
Well, the only real justification is that it allows the text not to contradict itself. (!) But no, there’s no linguistic/grammatical justification for it.
The NIV appears to be “special”. It also has unique wording to get rid of the “didn’t know my name” problem and many other things.
Is it true that the book of Josua was written (or compiled) by whoever compiled the pentateuch, so we really have a “hexateuch”?
That was once thought by some scholars, but not so much any more. It is part of the Deuteronomistic history, probably writtenby the same person, Joshua-2 Kings. Define here in my textbook: Deuteronomistic History: Scholarly term for the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings (the Former Prophets in the Hebrew Bible), all written by the same author or authors, which record the history of ancient Israel between the entry to the land and the exile in terms highly reminiscent of, and probably dependent on, the religious views set forth in the D source behind the book of Deuteronomy.
I just love this. I wrote a little book and made quite a few mistakes which editing missed. But that was OK: Nobody read it ! (Never mind based their lives on it!)
These differences brought about the idea that a writer(s) known as E, another known as J, priests known as P and D (Deuteronomy) all contributed to the Hebrew scriptures, Then R (Redactor) wove them all together. Correct?
That’s the standard view that’s been around since the 19th century. Most real experts think it’s overly simplified, and it probably is; but it’s still what most of us teach our students, since it’s complicated enough, though usually with the proviso that “it’s probably even more complicated than this.”
Re trade books, have you gone through John Barton’s A History of the Bible: The Story of the World’s Most Influential Book. If so, do you recommend?
Highly recommend. I wrote a review of it for a British newspaper. I’m trying to see if I can put the review out on the blog.
I just read Barton’s book, and it’s terrific, as you say. Despite having many of the same insights you do into the Bible, he is an Anglican priest. I can’t quite square that; can you? I know you can’t make windows into men’s souls, but have you any insight as to what he considers persuasive about Christianity from a scholarly viewpoint? I imagine he must find the resurrection narrative to be true along the lines of NT Wright??
Absolutely — I have no trouble at all squaring it. It’s a point I’ve made repeatedly on the blog, and most readers still find it hard or impossible to believe. The vast majority of Christians thorughout Christian history — including almost all of the very best modern theologians — do not root their faith in the literal accuracy of the Bible. That’s a conservative evangelical view/insistence. Others simply don’t share it. But the evangelicals get all the press…. And he probably does think Jesus was raised from the dead, yes; but unlike Wright, he almost certainly thinks that the NT accounts are not fully accurate on the topic, and that they contradict each other.
Thank you, Bart. But how is it people believe the resurrection account when they acknowledge so many other accounts in the Bible aren’t historically reliable ? Is it just a will to believe?Have you ever debated someone like Barton who is not an evangelical and who has a nuanced view of scripture but still believes?
I think the big problem many people today have is thinking that with the Bible it is “all or nothing” — either it has NO mistakes or it can’t be trusted at *ALL*. But we don’t treat other writings like that. I certainly don’t trust my newspaper like that! Some parts I think are actually right and some are actually wrong, and I judge on a case by case basis. So there is no contradiction in saying that Jesus probably did not walk on water but that he probably did rise from the dead. You have to make an evaluation in each instance.
I would be interested in your thoughts on the parallels between the second version of creation (God creates man to work in the Garden of Eden) and the Attrahasis myth, where the gods complain of having to do all the work, so Ea creates (or has Enki create) man to “bear the load of the gods.”
Yes, this is one of a (large) number of instances where biblical myths have their parallels in other, much earlier, Ancient Near Eastern texts, esp., say, the Gilgamesh Epic (the flood) and various creation myths.
And once someone is convinced of a single contradiction in the Bible, the Bibles authoritarian hold on that person (and the hold religious leaders have on that person) is threatened.
do you think genesis has support for monogamous marriage? i think that the text is about finding a suitable match for adam and doesn’t really addressing the question of monogamy or polygamy.
Not really. Just because God created one woman doesn’t mean that later people would have more than one partner. You’ll note that the partriarchs in Genesis in fact do have multiple wives, and are never ever condemned for it. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend polygamy :-), but Genesis certainly allowed for it.
polyandry? OK?
Right. Only allowed for men. Not sure why there were so many more women available than men; except in times of war, men always outnumbered the women (because of death in childbirth)
I took a free online Old Testament class. Some people point out discrepancies in the New Testament without looking at the Old. The story of Gilgamesh doesn’t get him to heaven (eternal life). They also kill the female goddess.
You can’t base your belief in God based on the stories in the Bible or based on the historical truth of the Bible. Words we hear, say, read, and write matter. We create our own heart with these words. Loving-kindness and good are important words. Just like Hail, Triumph, etc.
The history of the first several hundred years CE is interesting. I read today that Josephus had sons with interesting names. You really need to know real history when reading the Bible. You also need to read a lot of positive stuff to counter the negative.
Later there was the addition of the Trinity and the Hail Mary.
Maybe to have better chances at eternal life?
Currently watching your New Testament classes ( from the library). Need to watch some more.
Any plans to write the OT analogue of “How Jesus became God”, to be entitled “How Yahweh became God: revealing the hidden story of how an Ancient Near East tribal deity became creator of the world”? It will be another instant bestseller 😉
Nope. Good idea though. I’ve got too many other things I’m interested in working on though!
Dr. Ehrman,
What would be the purpose of combining different accounts into one? By this I mean, surely the person or persons realized these stories conflicted and people would realize this. What purpose would it serve to include both in your professional opinion?
Thanks, Jay
To provide a fuller story.
Also people in those days didn’t see contradictions as invalidating the argument the way we do. In their minds, each text had acquired sanctity and therefore had to be preserved.
Later, these contradictions did make the rabbis of the Talmud uncomfortable, but they couldn’t remove one or edit them. So they twisted themselves into tiny knots (pilpul) looking for ways to resolve them. For example, when Noah takes 7 pairs of animals in one version and 2 in the other, the Talmud says this means 7 of all kosher animals and 2 of all the rest.
According to Friedman, the splicing occurred after Israel (the northern kingdom) was sacked by the Assyrians and many fled south to their southern near-kinsmen in Judah. Although their religions bore some similarity they were not identical, so some editing was needed to create a (semi) coherent creation story and tribal history.
Why do our English translations refer to “LORD” all the time, if the Hebrew text has an actual name, and that actual name switches between several variants? And if the Hebrew name is a plural, like “Elohim”, why render it in the singular? Shouldn’t the translation be true to the text and let the reader make up their own mind?
LORD is used to refer to Yahweh, the personal name of God (YHWH); it is placed in caps to differentiate it from the actually word Lord (Adonai), which has only the first letter capped.
How significant are the internal problems with the large-scale Exodus Narrative?
Right off the bat I remember Moses’s genealogy, two midwives, 12 wells and 70 palm trees, Ezer&Elead and probably Judah&Tamar. Not sure if these are enough to block all possible apologetic routes.
The population explosion is very unlikely but apologetics argue it’s within the realm of physical possibility so I guess I’ll give them that…
And what’s your favourite inconsistency in Deuteronomistic History?
Is it phyically possible? Interesting question. I’m not so sure. The DH has numerous inconsistencies as well.
It is theoretically possible for 70 men to expand to 600,000 in around 6 generations, assuming each has 4 male children who survive to reproduce. The real problem is that this number would represent around half of the population that Egyptian agriculture was capable of supporting in those days, so their disappearance would cause huge disruptions in the economy. And that’s not even counting all the damage the plagues had done, and the total loss of the military at the Sea of Reeds. Egypt would have to spend a couple of generations recovering.
But there is no evidence in the records, which contain no significant gaps, that a disaster of that magnitude happened during the period the Exodus could have taken place.
The 600,000 is the adult men; once you throw in the women and children (and consider death rates, infant mortality, and so on), how is it statistically possible?
Statistically, it’s not. Mathematically, it is. Which brings to mind Einstein’s observation about mathematics and reality.
There are lot of weird events in the Old Testament, but the one that I find most interesting (and puzzling) is that after God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and secure the release of the Israelites, on his journey, God tries to kill him!
Not only that, but Moses’s wife Zipporah, chases God off with the bloody foreskin of their child. How did she know?
We know that God is obsessed with foreskins, what with the circumcision requirement, but is the real story that God is terrified of foreskins, and that’s why he wants his people to dispose of them?
Yes, it’s arguably the wierdest story in the Pentateuch. Historically circumcision may have been a puberty rite. It was practiced in other cultures as well sometimes. But it’s very difficult to know what it’s all aobut.
Oh, it’s weird. But I think Job is weirder.
“But in Genesis 2 the LORD God first creates “man” (adam); he then creates all the animals in order to provide a companion for “man.” And when none of them is deemed suitable, then, and only then, does the LORD God make a woman out of a rib that he has taken from the man.”
So I guess Adam wasn’t that keen on dogs OR cats?! What was wrong with him?
On a more serious note, I find it fascinating that Gen1 portrays God as distant, almighty and remote and stresses the Sabbath law, whereas Gen2 portays God appearing in the garden as a human-like being who is dotting over his creation and the chapter tries to grapple with why humans suffer.
Have scholars been able to detect or create a portrait of the two communities who authored these differing accounts? I understand there is a hypothesis that the ancient Hebrews were likely to have been two communities who merged into one; a clan resembling the priestly Levites who fled from Egypt and settled with their ancestors in Cannan, and the (larger) Cannite population of Hebrews who were always indigenious to Cannan. Is that your sense also, and would that explain the merging of the traditions?
Oh yes, there has been a lot of work trying to figure out the theologies and views of the different groups behind the various sources. But it was much more complicated than there being only two originating groups.
For me it helps a lot Yale open course Introduction to the Old Testament by Christine Hayes.
Another important course is Introduction to the NT by Dale Martin and Introduction to Ancient Greek History Donald Kagan.
Thru Dale Martin course on you tube I found Bart Ehrman debates and other stuff.
Isn’t the competing view about the authorship of the Pentateuch gaining more acceptance now? I’ve read it called either the Fragmentary Hypothesis or the Supplementary Hypothesis.
There are a bunch of competing views, as it turns out!
Are there any books, scholarly or popular, that covers the competing views you’d recommend?
Off hand I don’t know if there are books that cover all the possibilities (most just lay out their own views). Maybe some of William Dever’s do? I’m not really sure.
In Job, we learn that God considers children fungible. Satan kills all 10 of Job’s children, but after the testing is over, God blesses Job with 10 more children, so everything is okay again. I kind of feel sorry for Job’s wife!
Yes, it’s one of the most disturbing ideas in the Hebrew Bible.
Thanks for the book suggestions, just finished ‘who wrote the bible’ and currently on ‘the death and resurrection of the beloved son’.
Re Zipporah at the inn, I’m drawn to the idea it could be saying something about moving from sacrifice of the son to his foreskin, whether foot is God’s actual foot or a euphemism?
Anyone know which source it’s by, I guess that could say something to motivation.
Bart, I have admired your works for years, but after much thought and deliberation, I have finally summarized my entire understanding of God, Jesus, the Bible, and essentially all religions.
“Everything you need to know about God and religion is in the Bible; Hebrews 11:1, which essentially states that faith is that which is unseen, but we hope to be true. If you DO have faith in God and the Bible then nothing anyone can say or do can change your mind. And if you DON’T have faith in God and the Bible then nothing anyone can say or do can change your mind. So why argue about it?”
I am fairly certain that organized religion was created as a means of controlling the masses. This is clearly sinister intent. Having said that, I believe that the masses do need to be controlled to some extent as we seem to have some rather nasty innate inclinations (read: repressed behavior). We normally do it with codified laws, and beyond that we rely on the church. So clearly there is a place in society for organized religion as long as there are people who need some extra help in being moral.
I honestly believe that the Bible is not the word of God – it is the word of men who, at best, believed that they were inspired by God and, at worst, had nefarious intents and agendas. That does not mean the Bible is of no use or even questionable use, it is a magnificent collection of books and letters that, when used properly, can bring solace, inspiration, meaning, and even purpose to a person’s life.
I do not believe that the Bible gives an unquestionable view of history although many parts of it are clearly historically correct. In light of this I believe that the Bible is best described as a collection of parables, inspiring stories intended to help us lead a better life. As such, there is no conflict in my mind between the Bible and generally accepted facts of science such as evolution. In my interpretation of the Bible they can reside side-by-side.
Hi Prof. Ehrman, After reading this post, I have started to wonder why the authors of biblical texts either didn’t notice or didn’t care to erase or smooth out inconsistencies. We use inconsistencies like you have mentioned above (and in other posts about the NT) to find the “seams” where an author stitched together different sources. Why didn’t the authors notice these seams? Were they just less sophisticated than us moderns? (Doubtful.) Did they expect their audience to not notice any such discrepancies? (Seems more plausible, but also highly speculative.) Is there any scholarship on this topic of which you are aware? What are your thoughts regarding this matter?
I think the reality is that “us moderns” almost never notice the differences until someone else points them out to them. The ancients were no different. I’ve known actual biblical scholars who didn’t realize a particular discrepancy until someone pointed it out to them. And hey, now that I think of it, I’m one of them!