Why Contradictions in The Bible Matter - Debating Dinesh D’Souza

metaphor is the actual conduit to truth. Now, I'd understand if that were the case if you said that perhaps after a nuclear blast somebody describes it as, you know, the gods of fire descending upon man with their flaming swords or something like that, but like a prostitute and a seven-headed dragon. Well, first of all, I'm not saying it is a nuclear explosion.

You're the problem is we we're we're given this fantasmagorical future account, right? Sure. It's it and it's it is so wrenching and powerful that many people for example have tried to render it by art and it's not easy to do it right.

It's not easy to do it because we have to stop and realize first of all that we're dealing not only with the limitations of of perception but the limitations of language. Let me give you a simple example. Uh I come to America from India.

I have never eaten a mushroom. Okay, I ask you, Alex, what does a mushroom taste like? Sure, I would submit that you would be completely unable to render to me in words, however lengthy and ornate, what a mushroom actually tastes like.

That may be true, but you know, I was asking, for example, about uh Jesus's presentation at the temple of Jerusalem after his birth. This is not like trying to describe a mushroom or the end of the world. No.

No. Okay, so now let's talk about that. Hold on a second.

This is a historical event that's being recorded by one New Testament writer. At the same time as another New Testament writer says that the family had traveled to Egypt. I don't think this is an attempt at metaphor or allegory, as I would say, of Genesis.

Whether you think that is or not, I would say that in the case of the Gospels, we can agree that on at least some instances. This is a clear attempt at mundane history. This is not attempt at writing some kind of metaphor to explain a truth that's otherwise unknowable to the human mind.

It's a very straightforward attempt to record what actually happened. And they contradict each other. They contradict each other because they're written by four different people.

Sure. So, let me ask you this. If if if God were writing it, I'm quite sure he would have written it once.

You would need four. Sure. So, so some of them are wrong then.

No. Okay. So, let's when you say they're wrong, let's consider Luke's gospel for a minute.

Luke is a medical doctor. Luke is not present at the events being described. Luke isn't is virtually in the position of Thusidities writing the Pelpeneisian war.

Now, Tusidities did fight in the war. But in most of the events described by Tusidities in the Pelpeneisian War, he wasn't there, making them very unreliable, right? No.

On the contrary, it is in fact the most reliable account of the Pelpeneisian war. Let's not say that it is let's not say that it is reliable though. No, it is.

What I'm trying to say is that when you're when you're talking about historicity and you're talking about historicity now in the ancient world, you have to recognize that these people are not these people not approaching it with as modern historians. Luke is going around interviewing people. So let me ask this very very straightforwardly then.

Okay. Luke says that after the birth of Jesus, the family fled to Egypt. Matthew says that they went to the Jerusalem temple.

Are they both correct or is one of them wrong? Who the heck cares? I mean, look, I do.

And so people say, let me say why. Let me say why. what you're what you what you care about is is not only trivial but indicates a kind of unwillingness to try to get what the text is trying to I'll tell you why I don't think it's trivial because I think that the reason why Luke may have invented the flight to Egypt or he tells us Luke says when he records the flight to Egypt and then they return from Egypt he says this is so that we can fulfill the prophecy from Hosea 11 out of Egypt I shall call my son now in Hosea where God is talking here about the nation of Israel.

At least in this case, unlike the Matthew prophecy, the prophecy actually exists and we can interrogate it. It seems to me like what Luke is doing here is attempting to display Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy. And in fact, he tells us that that's what he's doing.

Therefore, if it is the case that Jesus didn't go to Egypt and didn't come out of Egypt on his return, then this would undermine Luke's attempt to identify Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy. That's why I think it is relevant. Well, look, and not trivial, right?

But but I I think that the Would you agree with that? I mean, do you think it's a completely trivial point if it's so trivial? No, I I think that the point is included in the first The point, as you stated it before, is trivial.

The point the point you're now raising is not trivial, but the point you're now raising is is one in which you have three centuries of Jewish Christian disputation about whether Jesus is the Messiah. Okay? And by and large, the disputation breaks down in this way.

The Jews are the biblical literalists and the Christians are the um are the sort of metaphorical uh readers. And I say this because let's take a very famous passage that bears on this very topic where Jesus is talking about the destruction of the temple and the Jews go you know you said the temple would be destroyed. Now, interestingly, Jesus did say the temple would be destroyed.

And the temple was in fact destroyed in 70 AD. In fact, 40 years after Jesus said that the temple was in fact physically raised to the ground uh and the Jews dispersed in the second in a huge diaspora. But my point is Jesus doesn't reply that.

Jesus doesn't say, "Hey, listen, wait 40 years. " Jesus says, "No, you're misreading me completely. When I said the temple, I was actually speaking of the temple of my body.

" He doesn't tell them that. He well but this is statement. We're told that that's what he means.

We're told that's what he means. So what I'm getting at is here you have a case where you have an event, you have a Jewish literalist reading and a Christian metaphorical reading. Another example and and you know so would you would you say then the flight to Egypt is a metaphor?

Is that what you're trying to say? I in other words I'm trying to understand what it is that you're doing here to actually answer the question that I'm asking you which is about because here's my theory. Here's an idea.

Okay. Okay. Uh Luke, the author of Luke, uh invents the flight to Egypt in order to identify Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

Meaning that when we read Luke, we should note that where it appears that he's making historical claims, we should note his willingness to twist history in order to fulfill a theological You don't know if he's doing that. You're assuming that this is your theory. No, no, no.

What I'm saying is that that's one thesis to explain the contradiction between Luke and Matthew. If you want to say that it's trivial, then fine, but we still have to explain how it comes about. And what I'm saying is one idea of how this comes about leads to us undermining our trustworthiness of Luke.

What I'm asking you for is your explanation that would not lead to us uh having to undermine our trust the trustworthiness. I I'm I I don't I'm not I don't have the the ability to referee that passage. I'm not aware of this contradiction.

I'll have to go back and look and see. Go and look it up. But but what I am doing is I'm I'm questioning your methodology and your your kind of you're kind of um what what would I call it?

You got the Jews and the Christians arguing about events and they're very complex events and there are very powerfully meaningful events. Like let's take for example uh Abraham and and Isaac are going up the mountain. Mhm.

And Isaac says to Abraham something to the effect of, "Where is the where is the lamb for the sacrifice? " And Abraham says to him, "God will provide. " God will provide.

Now, in a Jewish reading, this whole thing has got to be understood in terms of here's Abraham. He's willing to sacrifice his son. God says stop.

It's a tale of obedience. In the Christian reading, it's not that or it's not not only that. The Christian reading is Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

So when Isaac says, "Where is the lamb? " and Abraham says, "God will provide. " It is a foreshadowing of a significant event in the New Testament.

Now again, as I say, the Jews and the Christians argued this for three centuries and more. I'm not even trying to adjudicate who's right, but I'm saying you're winging in coming with neither of these two assumptions. In fact, I assume you think that the Old Testament is as mythological as the New.

No, no, no. Okay, sorry that I need to and I guess what I'm saying is that is that people who who read the Bible to understand what the Bible is trying to say and what we can learn from it do what the the Jewish rabbis did and do what theologians like Augustine and Anel and so many others have done. They don't really do what you're doing, which is saying, "Hey, Luke must have talked to a guy who thought it happened over here, but in fact, you know, this guy says the roof was thatched, but another guy says they let the guy in through the roof who had to be healed.

" Contradiction. And I'm like, is this your way of trying to say the Bible is not true? The Yes, it is.

The Old Yes, that's precisely what I'm doing. The Old Testament is is not fully mythological. I think Genesis is mythological.

I think that Exodus makes more of an attempt at history but has mythological undertones. I think that the military conquests I mentioned in my opening statements are attempts at describing literal historical events. I think psalms are poetry.

I think that Job is mythology. I don't think a man called actually existed, right? And so there are lots of different there are lots of different genres here.

The reason I'm asking about the contradictions in the gospel and and I understand if you don't want to talk about the the specific example of Egypt and Jerusalem, fine, whatever. Maybe maybe you can uh send me an email about it later or something. That's fine.

But the reason I bring it up is to say that there are lots of these. And in each case, if we try to look at why they might be contradicting each other, the reasons I think we're given uh tell us that the historicity of this text should be in dispute. For example, I mentioned the date of Jesus's death.

The synoptic gospels specifically place this after the Passover meal. They have the last supper as the Passover meal. John uniquely uh sets it before the Passover because he has the theological purpose of wanting to depict Jesus as the Passover lamb.

Mhm. Now, this is a contradiction. If the gospels are supposed to be historical accounts of what happened to Jesus, which I imagine if we were having a debate about whether Christianity were true, about whether you know the God of the Bible existed, you might put forward, say, an argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

You might say, "Well, we have good historical evidence to think that Jesus rose from the dead. " and you might point to the to the story of the crucifixion and the disciples seeing him after he died. This is a common a common thread.

The problem is that if we're treating it as historical in a in an area like that, then we have to engage with it as a historical text. Why would they contradict each other? I would say for the same reason that Luke contradicts Matthew and the birth narratives because they're attempting to make a theological point which tells us at least and maybe you think that the New Testament is an entirely theological and in no way a historical text.

Would you agree at least that the New Testament writers are seemingly willing to adapt the historicity of an event in order to serve a theological point? Would you agree with that? Yes and no.

I would agree that definitely is a contradiction. Well, it's not a contradiction because well, I mean, Thusidities is relaying historical events to make a moral point about the nature of politics and both are completely consistent with each other. It's not as if Thusidities is so he's he's he's a student of power politics.

He is making a point. His speeches are driven at making a point, but the point is excavated out of the actual events. Now, I think that there's a reason that we're given four perspectival accounts of Jesus's life, and they're not identical.

In fact, as I say, if they were identical, you wouldn't need four. the the point of reading these and and I think the way the way I think the way to read them, let me let me say a word. The if you want to if you want to um determine veracity, you have to operate a little bit like a jury.

And by that I mean um pick up the Gospel of Mark, the first of the Gospels. Now, by the way, these gospels are written very proximate to the events they describe. And I say this by the standards of we're talking about historicity of any historical document.

70 AD. Would you say for Mark? Uh yes.

I mean I would say within decades of the events that they describe. Crucially would you say would you agree with most historians that this happened for example after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple thereby allowing the author of Mark to put the prediction in in the words of Jesus's mouth without being anything miraculous. This is a this is a highly debated point because Mark's gospel leaves off incomplete and has what seems to be at the very end an added section.

I don't actually I don't want to debate that little fragment of Mark. Here's what I'm getting at. If you've never read the Bible, and we've all read the Bible in a way.

I I was raised Catholic and so I I was habituated to go into Sunday mass and sort of felt like I know the Bible. Yeah. I mean, yeah, I' I've heard these stories read and so on.

But it was a completely different experience for me as an adult to go back with critical skepticism and just read the book of Mark straight through. It has the complete ring of authenticity. And I say this because not only does it give you little details that don't really seem to even belong there, it's clearly not written with a pmical purpose exclusively.

Mark will tell you things that not only seem irrelevant, but at other times undermine what he's trying to say. And and that is the true ring of authenticity. Because if someone were to what's an example, well, here's an example.

In the um Jewish tradition, um the testimony of a woman was considered inherently suspect, but the testimony of men generally reliable. And therefore, not that testimony of women's disregard altogether, but you needed, for example, many women to say the same thing. Yeah.

Now the gospels tell us that when when Jesus was crucified and put in the tomb, if I were Mark and I were or I were Luke and I were trying to be inventive and I were trying to establish a truth for pro posterity, I would not have it that a group of let's just say hysterical women, Mary Magdalene, whoever it was, a group of women go to the tomb and they are the ones who find the tomb This is like a little dubious because most people are going to go, "Well, yeah, we know, but women, you know. " So, here's an example of the gospels insisting upon a point that would only make sense if that was actually the way it happened. Allow me to answer that if I can.

Um, if I may. Go ahead. If I may.

Um, this is a this is a commonly presented argument for the for the historicity of the resurrection, which by the way, now we're talking as Well, I'm not so No, no, hold on. I I didn't say it's an argument for the historicity of the resurrection. I said it was an argument.

Let me say a word. Okay. Now, we're talking about these texts if they are historical texts.

The thing about the women is, look, this is quite straightforward to me. Who anoints bodies? Who goes to tombs and anoints bodies after someone dies?

It's not men, it's women. And so if if the authors of the gospels had the men go to the tomb to anoint the body, which is what Mary and the other women were doing when they uh went to the tomb, that itself would be very strange and give us reason to doubt the the the historicity of the events. In other words, it's it's like if if there's a task that women do and that task is how Jesus's empty tomb is discovered, then why would he invent it?

Uh why would he invent a story that has men going and doing it? Secondly, you said that, you know, you need multiple women's testimony. How many women go to the tomb?

Multiple. Thirdly, what do the women do immediately after seeing the empty tomb? They run and tell the men who come and verify it for us.

Right? So, I I don't think that this is this this fulfills the criterion of embarrassment at all. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

I think that if this was an invented story, not I'm not saying it is, by the way, but if it were, then of course we could expect the people who discover the empty tomb to be women because it's women who go to anoint the the body at the tomb. Okay. So, so let's let's put together what I just said and you just said and let's ask the question based upon what you said and what I said.

Did it happen that way? And I would submit that what you have done. See, you're doing special pleadings.

cuz you could argue I'm doing special pleadings, but I would admit that the thrust of the Bible and the thrust of the story is in fact aimed at delivering a truth from revelation. What you're trying to do is saying, "All right, I can't contest that because that's outside the domain of reason. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to adopt sort of the nitpicking strategy.

" And because we got four accounts, I'm going to Hold on. You're the one who brought that up. You're the one who said that that women discovering and I'm saying nothing you've said has has even slightly refuted it.

You don't think anything I just said refuted the idea that that that that would be something you wouldn't expect from the gospel authors if if if it were invented? No. Here's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that I'm saying that you let's let's look at what we agree on, what we disagree on. You agree that in that culture the testimony of women in general counts for less. I think we we that's this is something that Josephus tells us, but it's it's impossible to know what sort of culturally people actually thought at the time.

It's impossible for us to know, but I'm happy to grant it. Yeah, sure. It It's impossible for us to know even though Josephus says that, okay, that's in a court of law, right?

No, but what I'm saying is if if you say if you're applying the is it impossible for us to know, I would suggest to you it is impossible for us to know that it was the absolute and unwavering duty of women to provide all the ointments. You've stated that as a fact. No.

And I would say it's impossible for us to know. What I'm what I'm saying is that if if somebody's reading this text and you say, "Well, if this were invented, why would it be women who discover the tomb? That would be embarrassing for them.

" The so-called embarrassment criterion. I'm saying, would it not be just is not the fact that we're told why they're going to the tomb to anoint the body? Is this not just reason enough?

No. I mean, look, I'm I'm not the one claiming I know how this went down, by the way. And also, you you just accused me a second ago of special pleading.

I wanted to ask you what it was that I'm specially pleading. Well, what I'm saying is that what I'm saying is that uh you have an event. The these events are described with great um precision and a sort of eyewitness presence there.

Now, we know in some cases there weren't eyewitnesses, but they're nevertheless described. This is the way it happened. And four guys are telling you their point of view, right?

Yeah. None of them the women who actually discovered the tomb, by the way. No, you're not hearing from the women.

I agree. You're four ma male gospel writers. uh apparently.

Um now, um I lost my train of thought for a second. Sorry. Uh I also don't want to get too caught up on this specific example, but I I suppose we'll have to sort of leave it with the audience in the live stream.

Um the point that I'm trying to make is that it like the historicity of at least some of this is important for for Christianity. The historicity of the life of Jesus, like if it were discovered historically speaking that a man called Jesus never existed, that would completely undermine Christianity. Important.

No, I'm not saying that. Let me ask a different question. I'm saying that I'm saying that historic historically it matters.

The crucifixion, the resurrection, these are matters which historically matter to Christians. And so when we're dealing with a historical account of what happened when they're riddled with contradictions, I think that that's a problem. If you don't think that's a problem, then that's fine.

But I think that the people listening and wanting to find out if the Bible is true might see that as reason to undermine the trust of the text. Not first of all almost everything that we know about those events in terms of modern historical reliability for example where is the site of Jesus's crucifixion unknown disputed there are a couple of potential sites but it's not known uh what day of the year was Jesus born unknown uh we think Jesus lived for 33 years but let's say that one of the gospels said it was 33 and the other one said it was 34 for. Do you think that that would actually refute Christianity?

No. No, it would not. It would actually be quite understandable that you'd have two guys.

No. Yeah. And they would get that and they'd be off on that.

And this contradiction would be trivial because the issue is not whether Jesus lived for 33 or 34 years old. The issue is that's a different kind. Because if you could tell me that the reason why they had specifically chosen those ages was to serve a theological point, knowing that they're not trying to knowing that they're willing to sort of adapt history in order to make a theological point.

I wouldn't say that that point alone undermines Christianity. What I would say is that it undermines our trustworthiness in the Bible. I'm not saying that any one of these contradictions can tell us Christianity is false.

Of course, I'm saying firstly, firstly, hold on. The firstly, the question is not if Christianity is true, it's whether the Bible is true. It may be the case that a man called Jesus came down to earth, rose from the dead.

It's just that the gospel accounts get the details wrong, which mean that the Bible is not correct, but the story tells is true. It means that Christianity is true, but the Bible is false. That's perfectly consistent.

I'm simply saying that what what you're doing is you are supplying a motive that is completely made up and that I could engage in. Exactly. Let's just take for example the 33 versus the 34 years.

Now, here's here's what I'm saying. If if there was such a contradiction and I were being you, I would say, "Oh, the reason that Matthew said it was 33 is because three is the number of the trinity. " And so 33 has a certain theological resonance because 3 and 3 is 33.

Hold on. And then I would come around and say, well, the reason the other guy said 34 is actually 3 + 4 is 7. God made the world in seven days.

Seven is known to be a number fraught with theological significance. And I'm saying this is basically Alex BS. Dessh, the gospel writers tell us that's why it happened.

They say that the reason the family went to Egypt was to fulfill the prophecy of of Hosea. Okay. And so you so they they tell so so in in other words, if the gospel writer and now imagine that the gospel writers had written what you just said.

Imagine in the actual texts, one of them said he was 33 when he died because of the number three and its significance and another said that he was 34 because of the number four and its significance. That would be a contradiction and not and in in that instance not just a historical contradiction but a spiritual and theological one too. Uh actually no it actually wouldn't.

Oh see come on. It wouldn't you don't think that's a contradiction? No it's not a contradiction at all because the gospel writers are constantly contradicting each other.

know drawing not contingent to each other. If they were constantly contraing each other, you wouldn't have spent half an hour on a single event that frankly I haven't even heard of. In fact, no one's ever heard of.

I've never ever heard anyone discuss this in any context. So, you fish out this which this prophecy about Hosea. I'll go back and look at all this, but what I'm trying to get at is if you had a plethora of contradictions, you wouldn't be spending the entire debate on one that I'm sure no one in the audience has heard of either, but Oh, well.

So, okay, you've heard of it probably because you've been listening to his YouTube channel, right? You don't you don't think that this is a you don't think this is a highly discussed point of contention in the Gospels, the flight the flight to Egypt and its contradiction with the flight to Egypt. The flight to Egypt is an important event in the gospel.

I'm not saying also you said, you know, why could you only bring up this one example? Take your pick. the date of Jesus's crucifixion, whether they're to take a staff or not to take a staff, the the dating of Jesus flipping the tables at the temple, Mary Magdalene and what she says at the tomb, uh when the temple curtain rips, uh in in the Gospel of Luke, uh it says that this happens before Jesus's death.

And in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, it says that it happens afterwards. Like we can go through any of these contradictions that you like, but the problem is that what you're going to tell me is that it's trivial. And then when I try to explain that it's not trivial, you say, "Oh, well, you know, I haven't even heard of it and no one else really cares about this.

" when other people do. By the way, this is this is this is a highly discussed contention point of contention in the gospel. All I'm asking you to do is say that this is you know when I mentioned the staff in my opening statement and I said that whether or not they take a staff is is a is a totally trivial contradiction.

I'm not bothered by that. If I were a Christian I would say yeah of course because you know the texts are not going to perfectly accord but for some reason Augustine could not accept this and so comes up with this ludicrous idea of a literal staff and a metaphorical staff that Jesus is talking about. If you're if you were willing to just say yes, this is a contradiction, but that doesn't upset the method of Christianity.

I think it would be a much more defensible and respectable approach. But instead, it seems that you're unwilling to admit that there's even a single contradiction in these texts. I I am saying that the texts are are written from four different points of view.

Do they contradict each other? And it is quite possible that on details, Matthew tells you things that are not in Mark or different than Mark. Different than Mark.

Contradict Mark. Contradict Mark. Yes.

Contradict Mark. And and so the point is here's my point. You're acting I mean look look let look this way.

You would be scoring a point if you could say God wrote four books and they contradict each other. Just like if you're able to say Desh said this in the beginning of the debate and that at the end of the debate Desh is contradicting himself. On the other hand, if we have two guys who are here today to go and write an account of this debate.

Mhm. Right. And then we look at their accounts which are authentic first person.

I was their account with a lot of detail. And one guy says, for example, you know, the lights were dark. The other guy says the lights were dim.

Or one guy says, for example, that Desh was sitting at a 45°ree angle. Another guy says it was a 50°ree angle. Yeah.

These are and then and then someone goes DH was sitting at a 435 degree angle because he thought this was a way of maximizing his his rhetorical effectiveness to the audience. People would be like now imagine somebody said now imagine somebody said Alex was wearing a blue jacket and the reason he was wearing a blue jacket or you know someone said it's a blue jacket someone else said it's a red jacket. Who cares?

You're quite right. But if somebody said specifically, I know that the reason he was wearing a blue jacket was because there's an upcoming election in the UK that's just been announced and he was trying to represent the Conservative party and somebody else said, I know that the reason he was wearing red and in fact he told us himself that the reason he was wearing red is because he wanted to support Labor in the upcoming general election in his home country, he would say that is a contradiction and means that one of you wasn't paying close enough attention not just to the color of my jacket, but the very message that I was trying to get across. That could well be true.