How Not to Handle Bible Contradictions: Denying the Law of Non-Contradiction

 

I was asked by a reader to share my thoughts on an article titled “Does Scripture Contain Contradictions?” in which the author suggests the way to deal with the charge that the Bible contain contradictions is to say “the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction” and he developed this in a way that I don’t think is helpful.

Ironically he cites two Bible contradictions to prove his point.  These I will deal with later as part of my ongoing series responding to alleged Bible contradictions.  But for now I want to examine analytically the reasoning of his own view.

His statement is as follows:

Aristotle offered the clearest formulation of what has come to be known as the Law of Noncontradiction: “The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously” (Metaphysics 4.6.1011b 13-14). In other words, Aristotle asserted that opposite statements cannot both be correct at the same time. This Greek philosophical idea remains foundational to modern Western thought, but the ancient writers of Israel’s Scriptures were not beholden to the Law of Noncontradiction. When today’s readers identify what they deem to be contradictions in the Bible, such instances can either trouble the believer or galvanize the critic. However, to apply the notion of “contradiction” to the biblical text constitutes a basic misunderstanding of an ancient Jewish worldview in which opposite assertions could coexist. Although it is difficult for modern minds to conceive of such a worldview, the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction.

After the writer defined the law of non-contradiction as “opposite statements cannot both be correct at the same time” he said “the ancient writers of Israel’s Scriptures were not beholden to the Law of Noncontradiction.” Later in the end of the paragraph he also said “the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction.”  In both quotes it is interesting the guy wrote the quote in bold.

Here’s my response:

 

1. I do think there is a ring of truth “the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction” to the degree that sometimes different cultural expressions in Hebrew thought might seem contradictory because we import our own cultural meaning and expectation that are arbitrary unto the text but awareness of the different culture does clear away a lot of so called contradictions as not being contradictions at all.  For instance in my response to the skeptics claim of Was Mahli the son of Levi? I argue from the Hebrew that the word  בֵּן usually translated “son” can also be translated as “grandson.”  Now in English we don’t normally use the word for “son” to mean also as “grandson.”  So there’s no contradiction in light of the cultural consideration of the semantic range of the Hebrew term.   Still I think the writer overreaches when he said “the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction.”  The worldview outlook of the Old Testament writers while culturally condition and shape how we interpret or determine what’s a contradiction does not mean it rule out en toto the law of non-contradiction.
2. Starting with the beginning I dispute his first sentence when he said “Aristotle offered the clearest formulation of what has come to be known as the Law of Noncontradiction: “The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously” (Metaphysics 4.6.1011b 13-14).”  While Aristotle provide a clear presentation of what is the law of non-contradiction I think also people after Aristotle have stood on top of his shoulder and present even more clearer formulation of what’s a contradiction so technically the writer is not correct to say Aristotle presented the “clearest formulation.”
3. Its also strange that the author keeps referring to the law of non-contradiction with Aristotle as if the laws of non-contradiction does not transcend beyond the reflection, meditation and construction by Aristotle.  If he thinks the law of non-contradiction is only culturally conditioned to something that Aristotle formulated the burden of proof is on the writer to demonstrate this claim is true.  Also keep in mind that while I respect the writer as an Old Testament scholar that doesn’t mean he can be assumed automatically authoritative here since his assumptions about the law of non-contradiction is metaphysical in nature; and metaphysical claims must be backed up with philosophical arguments that is metaphysical in nature yet none of that can be found in the essay.
4. Since this write thinks “the ancient writers of Israel’s Scriptures were not beholden to the Law of Noncontradiction” he thinks that “to apply the notion of ‘contradiction’ to the biblical text constitutes a basic misunderstanding of an ancient Jewish worldview in which opposite assertions could coexist.”  That is, the write claims that in the ancient Jewish worldview opposites could coexists.  Yet the law of non-contradiction does not deny the existence of opposites.  I believe the color white and the opposite color “black” can simultaneously exist.  I would go even further to say the color black and white can also simultaneously exist in a being such as a cow or a Dalmatian.  Its rather sloppy thinking on the part of the writer here to assume contradictions is the same thing as opposites and therefore if there can be the existence of opposites then therefore it means there’s no laws of non-contradiction.  His argument from observing the Old Testament believes in opposite doesn’t prove his point that the Old Testament worldview denies the laws of logic.  For a man who later in the essay make a big deal about not making the Bible say things it didn’t say here He is committing a rather terrible reasoning (well lack of good reasoning I should say).
5. Ironically while the writer talks about the Jewish Testament worldview does not “beholden” (his words) the law of non-contradiction yet we see that the writer actually does believe the law of non-contradiction is held by the biblical worldview.  Let me explain.  He thinks the Jewish Old Testament view is its own view: the Jewish Old Testament view is the Jewish Old Testament view.  Note what is operating here is the logical law of identity (A=A).  A corollary of the law of identity is that what is not the Jewish Old Testament view should not be seen as the the Jewish Old Testament view .  Notice here the law of non-contradiction is assumed to be operative (A ≠ ~A).  So as the writer in the paragraph and in the rest of his article deny the Jewish Old Testament view is not that of Aristotle’s worldview or that of the modern worldview he’s assuming the law of non-contradiction.
6. Furthermore this is not just a phenomenon in which the writer cannot help himself psychologically to assume the law of non-contradiction.  The Old Testament worldview itself is obviously not something that’s not the Old Testament worldview.  So the law of non-contradiction is in escapable but rather it operates within the Jewish Old Testament worldview (as well as other areas of life).
7. Thus if the law of non-contradiction is in escapable and presupposed, a response to an alleged Bible contradiction by denying the operation of the law of non-contradiction is rather ridiculous, but also doesn’t address the issue at hand and bring about more problems than it solves.
8. Having said all that I also am not a fan of harmonization of passages that’s rather “forced” or goes against the context and authorial intent.  Sometimes the best response in demonstrating there’s not a Bible contradiction means really understanding what’s going on in a passage and its context but that of course takes time in studying; but its worth the patience.  But to simply say that the law of non-contradiction doesn’t matter seems to me the most impatient, rushed and uncritical answer we can give someone.