SIDEBAR 5: CONTRADICTORY PROOFS
SIDEBAR 5: CONTRADICTORY PROOFS
From Geisler and Saleeb, Answering Islam:
Insisting that the Qur’an must be divine revelation because it is self-consistent and noncontradictory is also not convincing. Some critics raise significant questions about how totally consistent the Qur’an is. For one thing, they point out that the most blatant contradiction in Muhammad’s revelations came by way of later revelations expunging former ones such as the command to stone adulterers being changed to one hundred stripes, and the so-called Satanic Verses on worshiping pagan gods being replaced with some that omit this…[1]
On the other hand, consider another book by Geisler (and Thomas Howe), called When Critics Ask, which argues that the Bible cannot err. The authors highlight 17 mistakes that (they claim) critics of the Bible make:
Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation. Sometimes critics of Scripture forget the principle of progressive revelation. God does not reveal everything at once…Therefore, some of His later revelation will supersede His former statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a change of revelation with a mistake. The mistake, however, is that of the critic. … (page 25-26).
This is just one particular example of failing to give the other side the benefit of a rule that Christians use to defend against the alleged contradictions of the Bible and other such matters.
For purposes of determining the canon, any alleged contradiction between Apocrypha and the Bible must be determined using the same rules as those set out in Protestant apologetics. You cannot apply one set of rules to Books “inside the canon,” not apply the same rules to those Books you say are “outside the canon,” and then claim that you have proved that those other Books are not canon. That is circular reasoning, and the choice of what is canon would, then, determine the outcome of such analysis.
For example, let us cover the examples the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) gives us:[2]
Condones the use of magic: Tobit 6:5-7. “Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them.”
Is it true that the smoke from a fish’s heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
Compare this to Genesis 30: 37-43, where “Jacob … set the rods … in the watering troughs … And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted”—thus does Jacob fleece Laban, using an apparently magical technique with no basis in actual science. The Apologetics Study Bible defends this: “While this passage may appear to describe a type of magic, God instructed Jacob in this through a dream.” And so, too, did the angel tell Tobit to do it. Notably, he did not tell us to do it and he made no assurances that it would ever again work for anyone else.
Or consider Acts 19:12: “from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” The Apologetics Study Bible says that: “God’s power through faith was at work in these healings, even if physical devices were a part of the process …” Discussing Acts 5:15, it also asks: “Did God heal through talismans? Not exactly. God may heal through various devices: Peter’s shadow, face cloths and aprons that touched Paul (19:12), and the hem of Jesus’s robe (LK 8:44) were all mediums for healing. However, the healing power was never contained within a device; it came only from God (see Lk 8:44-46).”
There are many, many, many more examples, from Jews putting blood on their doors to ward off the wrath of God, dream interpretation, wise men using astrology to follow the star to Bethlehem, the Disciples casting lots to choose Matthias, etc. Things that look like “magic” occur many times in the Bible, and Tobit is not even remotely exceptional on that score.
Teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort. Salvation by works: Tobit 4:11, “For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.” Tobit 12:9, “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.”
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us – not money or food given to poor people. “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin,” (1 John 1:7).
But consider the rather famous words of James 2:14, 24: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? … Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” Whatever sort of explanation you use to resolve the express contradiction involved with the words of James (and others, e.g., Luke 11:41: “41But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you”) can also work to resolve any such conflict with the conceptual contradiction provided by Tobit. In fact, James 2:14-26 is often considered an allusion to Sirach 3:30-4:10, which says much the same thing (“30Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins…”). See below on that.
But also consider Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, dated 107 AD.[3] The Church in Philippi was the first Church in Europe, founded by Paul himself. Polycarp writes: “When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death””—a quotation of exact words from Tobit, which CARM then quotes.[4] Those words may show that Polycarp and the Philippians believe that Tobit is Scripture. Regardless, the Philippians learned from Paul and yet, apparently, would be expected to see this concept as consistent with everything that they had been taught. After all, Polycarp himself instructs the Philippians to “return to the word which has been handed down to us from the beginning.”[5] That is early evidence of the teaching of this concept, perhaps even the Apostolic teaching of it.
But that is not my point. There is something else to notice:
Polycarp was a companion of Papias, another “hearer of John” … Irenaeus regarded the memory of Polycarp as a link to the apostolic past. … [saying] “I could tell you the place where the blessed Polycarp sat to preach the Word of God. … I seem to hear him now relate how he conversed with John and many others who had seen Jesus Christ, the words he had heard from their mouths.” In particular, he heard the account of Polycarp’s discussion with John and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a presbyter, and communicated with many who had seen Jesus.[6]
Depending on what dates are accepted, Polycarp may actually have been the head of the Church in Smyrna at the time that the letter to the Church in Smyrna was written down—that letter, of course, being included in the Bible as part of the Book of Revelation (2:8+), written by John.[7] We will see below that Polycarp is crucial to proving that the fourfold Gospel (including, of course, the Gospel of John) and many other writings (including the Epistles 1 John and 2 John) all “go back to the beginning” and are not just fakes made by later Christians, or frauds accepted by gullible Christians.
For example, Kruger stresses how crucial Polycarp is to authenticating the works of John, e.g., it is Polycarp’s “appearing to know” 1 John in his Epistle to the Philippians that assures us that the document we call 1 John is indeed authentically Apostolic. In fact, Irenaeus (who learned from Polycarp) is the first Father to cite to 1 John (Against Heresies, 3.16.8: “Wherefore he [John] again exclaims in his Epistle, Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ, has been born of God” (1 John 5:1)) and thereby authenticate 1 John.
Given his Epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp himself clearly believed that the doctrine that “alms delivers from death” is perfectly in-line with the authentic teaching of Jesus Christ—the teaching Polycarp personally learned at the feet of John.
Nevertheless, CARM cites to Scripture to show how this idea contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture as CARM understands and interprets the text. To prove how Tobit (and Polycarp and his Epistle to the Philippians) contradict Scripture, CARM cites to (drumroll, please…) 1 John. [8]
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead: 2 Maccabees 12:43, “And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.” Can anyone truly accept that money isn’t offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Note that, this time, CARM cites no actual Scripture that is contradicted. They are seemingly asking us to start with a presupposition that such things “simply cannot be Scripture” so that we reject 2 Maccabees regardless of actual evidence. Such metaphysical arguments are beyond my scope, so that is all I will say on that.
However, there is something to note that is part of my scope: the fact is that the Jews had been praying for the dead, sacrificing for the dead, and making offerings (including money) for the sins of the dead for centuries before Christ. You want evidence of that? You just read it. It is the Book 2 Maccabees.
Ten thousand Christian claims—but to pick just one example, the massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem—involve skeptics saying “there is no evidence” that it actually occurred. Such claims are always and everywhere wrong, for the Bible itself is evidence. Christians believe the claim based on the evidence; it is the skeptic who denies the evidence, having conveniently forgotten that the Bible is a written record of events, no less than Josephus, Herodotus, etc.
So, too, is the Book of 2 Maccabees. Whether you consider it Scripture does not matter in the slightest: it provides evidence that the Jews at the time of the Maccabees, including the entire army and the priests in Jerusalem (and apparently, the Jew who later wrote the book and the even later Jews who read it), all believed in prayer, sacrifice, and offerings for the sins of the dead, including money. Since then, sacrifice and offerings may have ended in 70 AD with the fall of the Temple, but the practice of praying for the dead continues to this day, among Jews and a large majority of the world’s Christians.[9]
And of course, among the Jews that became Christian were “a great company of the priests” (Acts 6:7), those whom the evidence says received the “twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.”
Historical Errors. Wrong historical facts: Judith 1:5, “Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him.” Baruch 6:2, “And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace.”
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians. Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. “And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”
The Bible contains books of many genres, and Judith may be seen as history, or allegory, or historical fiction. Her name just means “Jewess,” and many details were arguably included as indications that the story was not to be taken as literal factual history (such as the nonsensical travel details, e.g., an army that marches 300 miles in three days—people who walked to everything their entire lives would not be likely to gloss over such details); meanwhile, Nabuchodonosor may be a pseudonym for another person (Artaxerses III, etc.), similar to how most interpret names in Revelation (e.g., Babylon) to be symbolic of something else. Martin Luther considered the Book of Judith a kind of poetry: “I think that the poet deliberately and painstakingly inserted the errors of time and name in order to remind the reader that the book should be taken and understood as that kind of a sacred, religious composition.”[10]
Seventy years versus seven generations is merely another example of how not all prophetic numbers and references are to be taken literally (e.g., even the historicity of the 70 years in Jeremiah is debated; many claim it is a round number to make it fit). Biblical numbers often lack complete precision, e.g., 2 Chronicles 4:2: “he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and … a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.” (Diameter 10, Circumference 30, Pi = 3, not 3.14159.) Plus “even to” may not mean it will be equal to seven generations but only that it might be that long. As Tertullian advised, numbers are not to be interpreted as a math problem; sometimes, the numbers in Scripture simply do not work and must be interpreted symbolically for a deeper meaning.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
The question is not whether you accept any of those explanations in this instance: it is easy to see why one might think that such things came out of the back end of a bull. Harder to understand would be alternating between thinking they are garbage and thinking that they are genius (or, at least, good enough), depending on which Book is being discussed. Ruth: genius. Judith: garbage. Esther: tell me which part of Esther, and then I can answer…
Even if you think you have a brilliant way to distinguish between all Biblical examples and these examples from the Apocrypha, you have only faced my initial arguments (since I pulled those out of the pile of Protestant arguments myself and have not even bothered to research them or ask an actual Catholic or Orthodox apologist for help), and you have yet to fairly apply all of the procedures and rules involved. E.g., the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer gives us a list of “Recommended Procedures in Dealing with Bible Difficulties,” the first two of which are:
1. Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it. … we may have complete confidence that the divine Author preserved the human author of each book of the Bible from error or mistake as he wrote down the original manuscript of the sacred text. 2. … If the Bible is truly the Word of God, as Jesus said, then it must be treated with respect, trust, and complete obedience. Unlike all other books known to man, the Scriptures come to us from God; and in them we confront the ever-living, ever-present God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). When we are unable to understand God’s ways or are unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty or to deliver us from our trials as He sees fit. There is very little that God will long withhold from the surrendered heart and mind of a true believer.[11]
So, we just apply those rules fairly to the Apocrypha, as well. We persuade ourselves that there is an answer, bow our heads, and wait for some smart lawyer to come up with it.
[1] Baker Books 2002, p. 201. For their part, Moslems believe that the abrogation (as they call it) of a former revelation is acceptable.
[2] Specifically Matt Slick, https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/errors-in-the-apocrypha/. First thing listed on Google, one of the “fair and unbiased” processes that I used to select many things in this book.
[3] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm, Section 10.
[4] The Greek word for almsgiving (eleemosyne), appears more often in Tobit than any other Old Testament Book (22 times versus three in the Pentateuch) and is one of the major theological contributions of the Book of Tobit. Particularly emphasized is the charitable act of burying the dead. See New Interpreters Bible, Tobit, p. 986.
[5] www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm, chapter 7.
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp
[7] Revelation 2:10, from the letter to Smyrna: “Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”
Connections like this in the early Church are often haunting: “Polycarp is recorded as saying on the day of his death: “Eighty and six years I have served Him, and He has done me no wrong. … How then can I blaspheme my King and Savior? You threaten me with a fire that burns for a season, and after a little while is quenched; but you are ignorant of the fire of everlasting punishment that is prepared for the wicked.” Polycarp was burned at the stake and pierced with a spear for refusing to burn incense to the Roman emperor.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp.
[8] Consider also that Revelation 8:2 (And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets) is a possible reference to Tobit 12:15 (I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One)—and, if so, that may be an indication that John saw Tobit as Divinely-inspired Scripture. It is, after all, a description of Heaven that matches what John sees in his own Divinely-inspired vision.
[9] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_for_the_dead.
[10] Cribbed from the New Interpreter’s Bible, which cites to Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, 55 vols. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960) 35:337-38.
[11] Zondervan 1982, p. 15.
