Cross Examiner

If the Bible asserts that P and that ~P then the Bible contradicts itself. But if the Bible asserts that P and that another (e.g. an Amalekite) asserts that ~P then the Bible does not contradict itself.

Regards,
BGic

GakuseiDon

It's the exact same thing. Where does the NT actually state that Peter was lying?

But then why did he wait? He knew from the beginning that Joe was an Amalekite, and had killed Saul.

It's not stated anywhere that Peter was lying when he denied Christ, also. David says "Your mouth testified against you, saying 'I have killed the Lord's anointed'". If you check, you see Joe flatly admitting matter-of-factly that he killed Saul. David questions how Joe could have killed Saul without indicating any fear of doing that.

True, but in this case, he asked Joe again where he was from, even though he already knew. This sounds like he was double-checking the story. Saying that the reason David didn't kill Joe outright was because he was an emotional guy seems a bit weak.

Given how Amalekites were thought of in the OT, it seems strange for the Amalekite to give the story he does to David. It is reasonable to assume that he wouldn't have told him if he thought David would kill him for it. In fact, David doesn't kill him for it. It is only later that David questions the Amalekite again, and then kills him for saying what he told David originally anyway. The change of mind can arguably be put to David deciding that the Amalekite was lying.

Yep, I agree this is a contradiction.

Vorkosigan

Your error here lies in mistaking the narrator's ominiscient point of view for the truth. That is an unwarranted and naive assumption, though extremely common. The reality is that there are two claims. One is made by the narrator (Saul offed himself), the other by the Amalekite (He killed Saul). The narrator reports both claims. Without further information, there is no way to resolve them. The narrator is just as likely to be lying/mistaken as the Amalekite. Do not mistake the omniscient point of view for actual omniscience (and good faith).

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

According to 2 Sam 1, at that point, David's only information about Saul's death has come from the Amalekite. More likely, David does not accuse the Amalekite of lying; he accuses him of killing the Lord's annointed. He then has him killed for admitting it. In any case, there is not enough information to sort out which story is true, and likely neither is.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I agree neither story is probably factual. But normally when reading (or, say, watching a Columbo episode) it is natural to assume that the narrator's view represents 'reality', while the character's claims do not necessarily.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that is true of fiction, a very common assumption, which novelists frequently play with (the bastards!). But in (presumably) historical writing, it is not necessarily the case. One has to guard against granting the narrator (spurious) authenticity simply because s/he is narrating.

The fact of the matter is that we have two stories, which flatly contradict each other, and no information in the text about how to resolve them. You can adopt, as an interpretive principle, that the narrator represents "the Bible" and the characters in it somehow do not. There is no textual support for it, and there is no rational value that can underpin that interpretation of the text. It is simply an unsupported habit of naive readers. That leads, however, to some interesting takes on what Jesus said (can we ignore it since it is not part of "the Bible?"). BGIC's position contains both completely unwarranted assumptions and some very serious internal contradictions (if the report of the Amalekite is lies, surely the reports of other figures can be considered lies). It seems the real interpretive principle at work here is: "whatever gets me out of this contradiction" -- special pleading.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

The novel said that John killed James. John said, "I didn't kill James". Did John kill James?

The Bible said that Saul killed himself. The Amalekite said, "I killed Saul". Did the Amalekite kill Saul?

Cross Examiner

Wrong again. If you look closely at my two previous posts you'll observe that I did not assert the verity of either account (e.g. the narrator's point of view) of Saul's death. I simply prove here and here that the Bible does not assert the verity of both mutually exclusive accounts thereby demonstrating that your chosen example of an actual inconsistency is not at all actual. Even if I were to assert the verity of the first account of Saul's death, and we somehow knew that the first account was erroneous, it still would not follow from this that the Bible is inconsistent with itself. In this counterfactual situation, the Bible would be at odds with an external historical fact, which is not the same thing as an internal inconsistency. So, to answer your original question, since the biblical passages that you chose do not contradict one other (i.e. do not assert the verity of both mutually exclusive accounts of Saul's death), this would be an example of an apparent inconsistency (the sort that the Chicago Statement recognizes) and thus not an example of an actual inconsistency, as I said so long ago.

Regards,
BGic

Vorkosigan

Who knows? Playing with the knowledge of the omniscient narrator is an art many novelists are skilled at. I am sure most readers of novels assume that the omniscient narrator is telling the truth. But you know, that is their assumption. This case is different. The narrator provides two third-hand accounts of Saul's death, and there is no way to choose between them.

You're making the same mistake, taking the narrator for "The Bible." "The Bible" does not so assert; "the bible" does not in fact exist, except as a label for a collection of documents. The narrator reports that Saul killed himself. The narrator also reports that an Amalekite said he killed Saul. One human provides two accounts of the same death, one of which ascribes to yet another person (the other must also be a report from other people, but the narrator does not inform us of that). Which account is correct? How are we supposed to know? The two accounts of Saul's death are contradictory, because we do not know which account is the correct account. Not enough information is available. Remember, don't get confused about "The Bible." The narrator provides two accounts, neither of which he is a witness to, both based on third-party reports.

1. As three of us have already demonstrated, there is no difference between an "apparent" inconsistency and an "actual" inconsistency. It is an inconsistency, period. All readers recognize it as an inconsistency, and certain types of believers, a priori committed to a doctrinal position, then attempt to harmonize the two stories, which all agree conflict. Or harmonization would be unnecessary.

2. As has already been pointed out, the verity of either account is not relevant to the fact that they are both contradictory. Consider:

a. John Lennon was killed by John Haldeman
b. John Lennon was killed by Jane Fonda.

The fact that neither is true does not mean that the two accounts don't contradict. At least one cannot be possible, and that is all a contradiction requires. A contradiction is a logical relationship between two statements:

A. No gorphs are glip.
B. All gorphs are glip.

There two statements are contradictory, although they are both nonsense.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I agree that "I am sure most readers of novels assume that the omniscient narrator is telling the truth" probably provides the most reasonable answer. I don't think it proves there is no contradiction, though.