Roland

Since we are able to find so many seeming contradictions and discrepencies in the New Testament, why didn't the church fathers who formed the canon smooth out those troublesome parts?

For instance, couldn't they have seen the problerms with the four resurrection accounts or the two descriptions of Judas' death or the wildly untrue predictions Jesus made that he would return in his apostles' lifetime?

Was it just that the books were too well known and respected by that time to make "tampering" with them impossible? Or did the early fathers use the same "harmonizing" explanations we find common among apologists today? Or were they just not bothered by seeming contradictions for whatever reason?

Any thoughts on this topic? And are there any written records showing how the canonization process took place?

doubtingthomas

Well in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two of the earliest collections of scripture we have, the Gospel of Mark is missing everything after 16:8. It would seem likely then that some people tampered with the gospels in an attempt to harmonize certain portions. Also the warning at the end of the Revelation regarding adding or removing from the book suggests that tampering may have been a common practice in the late first century and early second century, or possibly even later.

Scripture may not have been widely circulated during this early stage of christianity, so it is possible that people didn't even know the contradictions. On the other, by the time canonization began the scriptures would have been established to the point where an attempt to edit them would be obvious.

Of course im just speculating here, if anyone has a better reason, or a problem with mine, I'd be glad to here it.

jbernier

I think that both these points are valid. An elaboration on the first point: It is unlikely that a single person could have held exhaustive, comparative knowledge of all 66-73 books in his or her head - but it is precisely what would be necessarily to make everything fit together perfectly, perfectly in the days before word processors and indices (remember, no concordance to look up every reference on X or Y). Editing such a huge volume on the scale and with the consistentcy suggested here would have probably been next to impossible in the 4th century.

Another point: This entire thread is predicated upon the assumption that the compilers of the canon were at all concerned about these "contradictions." Remember the tendency for allegorical exegesis in the early church. The fathers were well-aware of historical inconsistencies, etc.; they just really did not care. After all, the story of Noah was not about Noah; it was about a spiritual or theological reality being referenced by the text in an allegorical fashion. They simply did not feel the need to make every fit together in a nice little perfect narrative as we, in our post-Newtonian, post-Enlightenment, post-German historicist, minds do.

Roland

You might be right on this, but it does seem that the people voting on the canon would probably have had pretty full knowledge of what at least the four gospels contained. I have to imagine at the council that enough copies would have been floating around for everybody to read and study them before casting a vote up or down. Or maybe my image of how it all came together is wrong. Who were the people invited to the council anyway? Would all of them already have working knowledge of most of the books up for a vote or would many of them be voting, like the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences members, not necessarily for films they've seen (or books they've read), but for those they knew were popular or that other people recommended?

Chili

There are no contradictions or descrepancies except in our own understanding of it. The Gospels are different perspectives of the same event that are presented to us so we may know and understand where we are when we get there and until we do we are lost in our own journey of life.

Javaman

Like how many animals Jesus can ride at once?

Seriously, though, inerrancy is a fairly modern concept. Add to that the fact that at least one very large religious institution forbade the reading of the bible by non-clergy. Breaking this rule was punishable by death. Hasn't it been said that the best place to make atheists is the seminary?

I'm pretty certain this subject was tackled in a thread here within the last few weeks. I'll post the link if I can find it.

Chili

Yes, like the father and the son.

It is not for everyone and many are called but few are chosen.

Sven

God didn't call me up to now.
Perhaps he lost my phone number...? Oh no, he's omniscient, he has to know it. Must be another problem.
Perhaps his phone isn't working? Oh no, he's omnipotent, he could have fixed it himself. Must be another problem.
Perhaps he doesn't want to call me? Oh no, he's omnibenevolent, surely he doesn't want me to suffer in hell for eternity for not believing in his existence. Must be another problem.
Perhaps he doesn't exist. ... That's it! The simplest solution for the problem![/sarcasm]

If this thread continues in this direction, it will be split pretty fast to GRD, I think. So, please excuse my derailment and get back on topic.

Javaman

I'm going to assume you just don't know the passage to which I'm referring and leave it alone. It was a backhanded (hamfisted?) attempt at humor at your expense. Any more on this and we will get this sent to GRD (or worse).
The point here was that those that study the bible deeply realize where it falls flat. Remeber, these are the people that truly want to serve their particular aspect of the Christian god.

I still can't find the thread about this subject. I would have thought it was addressed here in BC&H but perhaps it could have been somewhere else. I'll keep looking. I think one of the main points in that thread was that, while some redaction did take place, some of it was so ingrained that changing it would have raised a huge red flag. Things that could be 'fixed', were. I have some examples in a book here somewhere but, until we move to a house with a library-room, I'll have to content myself with searching boxes and stacks.

Roland

Thanks, Javaman, for your efforts. I appreciate it.