Post Edited (Starkman) : 1/14/2006 8:52:25 PM (GMT-6)

Mephi: You can't just go into any right-of-center evangelical church and say that all people can be redeemed, even Satan.

Jeff: Those people are not on this forum, though.

Tom: A few are. But more are watching. Believing me, they’re watching.

TGB: The OT event in question is found in Num. 25.1-9, which specifies not 23,000 but 24,000 who died in one day. Is Paul wrong? Can the passages be harmonized?

TGB: 1Cor. 10.8 appears to me a genuine historical error on Paul’s part.

Meph: By the way, notice that I'm NOT saying just completely toss scripture or disbelieve ALL of it willy nilly.  I'm just saying that things are NOT as clear cut as people would like.  I realize the ambiguity...but what the hell you gonna do, right?

Jeff: But VFG, the question that arises is HOW did Paul know that 23,000 died in one day? I think this is what people would have problems with.

TGB: But I’m just less and less inclined to create scenarios that are “logically possible” but which “lie beyond the possibility of demonstration.” Like Jeff noted, we have to give some account for how Paul would come by this bit of information. … So given the text(s) Paul has before him, how could he have known that 23,000 died in one day and 1,000 died the next day?

Jeff: Any other ideas, Heather, as to where Paul could have gotten this knowledge?

--------------------

VFG:  (All of the above is background posts for my post here) I may have misunderstood the original question of this thread, but what I was gathering was basically this: is there some sort of conflict between Numbers 25 and 1 Corinthians 10.8 that would cause us to doubt the “inerrancy” (whatever stance one takes on that) of the Bible?  I.e., is there sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of what Paul wrote? Now, the original post seemed to ask was, is there sufficient grounds for a negative case against Paul (this passage specifically)? Now you’re asking me to give a positive case to assure the accuracy of Paul’s writing.  These are two different issues as I see it.

So, is there sufficient reason to doubt? No, I don’t think there is. (Of course this standard I have is subjective… how many unanswered questions can I handle before doubt starts to overtake?) Now if both passages specified 23,000 deaths and 24,000 deaths happened in the same day as Tom wrote in his original post, we’d have a much greater problem. However, unless someone can show that all this indeed happened in the same day, the case for the negative stance (that Paul messed up) is seriously weak.

So perhaps I should have stuck to the negative case without positing a positive case to prevent confusion. Oops.  So there’s my negative case: the grounds for doubt is insufficient. There are too many alternative and plausible explanations for this prima facie discrepancy.

As far as a positive case, I need to know what sort of training Paul went through and what literature he read at his time. We know that not all books that were available to him then are available to us now. We also know that the rabbinical and pharisee training back in Paul’s time has changed significantly throughout the past 2000 years. There was much more emphasis on the Oral tradition, there were different “commentaries”, etc. that were different. Since my current knowledge on all of that is severely limited, all I really can do is propose alternative explanations based on what I know now. So all I can really say of a positive case is, given how knowledgeable Paul was in Pharisee stuff and that he was an extremely smart scholar, I can only guess that Paul had access to other historical materials (oral and written) that may not be available today and used those materials accurately.

But it is also true that there is a LOT in the Bible that “lies beyond the possibility of demonstration”. A lot of stuff was destroyed, in the past 2000 years, so … we may never know the truth.

TGB: And since the very number Paul does mention (23,000) is found in the next chapter, isn’t that the most likely source?

VFG:  It’s possible, but a stretch too. Could he have confused 24,000 with the 22,200?  Since 22,200 was at the end of the paragraph, it would have been much easier to spot than the 23,000.  There are a lot of, ahem, numbers in Numbers!

So…. My case for the positive is weak. I think the case for the negative is weaker, though (IMHO). So I underlined what Meph wrote because it reflects one stance I take. There’s ambiguity, so sometimes all we can do is guess (intelligently) and trust.

At what point does one determine that something is a genuine historical error?

Sorry to be so long-winded.  Originally, I tried to keep this short. Another oops !

Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/15/2006 9:13:29 AM (GMT-6)

VFG: …but what I was gathering was basically this: is there some sort of conflict between Numbers 25 and 1 Corinthians 10.8 that would cause us to doubt the “inerrancy” (whatever stance one takes on that) of the Bible? I.e., is there sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of what Paul wrote? Now, the original post seemed to ask was, is there sufficient grounds for a negative case against Paul (this passage specifically)? Now you’re asking me to give a positive case to assure the accuracy of Paul’s writing.

Tom: Sorry I wasn’t clear. I guess there is a difference between “sufficient grounds for a negative case against Paul” and “positive case assuring the truth of Paul.” I guess so long as there’s a logically conceivable scenario we can imagine that’ll harmonize the two passages, then we can’t really PROVE Paul is wrong.

VFG: So, is there sufficient reason to doubt? No, I don’t think there is. (Of course this standard I have is subjective…

Tom: Yes, it is subjective, ‘cause I’m looking at the two passages and thinking that the most reasonable explanation is Paul just conflated Num. 26.65 with the 25.9. That really seems to me to be the most likely, most plausible explanation.

VFG: …how many unanswered questions can I handle before doubt starts to overtake?)

Tom: Exactly. For some people there is no ceiling to the number of questions or weight of evidence one could bring in favor of Paul’s being inaccurate. Paul MUST be viewed as absolutely truthful here. Their whole faith experience stands or falls, in their view, on strict inerrancy.

VFG: As far as a positive case, I need to know what sort of training Paul went through and what literature he read at his time.

Tom: I could be wrong, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with training, schools of interpretation, or hermeneutics. It simply has to do with the actual textual tradition of Numbers Paul would be referring to. His text would have to have all the necessary data that makes a harmonization with 1Cor. 10.8 possible. His text of Numbers would have to state that 23,000 died on the first day and 1,000 died on the follow day(s). Or his text would have to state that 23,500 died in one day which Paul then would assume was rounded UP by the author of our text, which he ALSO would be familiar with but which for some reason he’d choose instead to round DOWN.

The latter explanation seems very far fetched. Paul has our imagined text which says “23,500 died on one day” and our Hebrew text (and/or the LXX) and his knowledge of any targums ALL OF AGREE IN SAYING “24,000 died in the plague,” and he says to himself, “Instead of rounding UP like all these textual traditions do, I’m gonna round DOWN to 23,000.” But if Paul’s purpose in 1Cor. 10 is to show how MUCH damage can be done in one day through disobedience, then Paul would surely have rounded UP to the GREATER 24,000 of the majority of texts since that would make his case stronger. Why round down? It’s inexplicable.

That leaves us with the first option, which is that Paul has a text of Numbers, either in Hebrew or Greek [supposing it was Greek is very problematic, so let’s go with the less problematic Hebrew], which says, “23,000 died on the first day and 1,000 died on the second day (or subsequent days).” But then we have to account for a) the absolute disappearance of this textual tradition, b) Paul’s preference FOR it in light of the majority agreement, c) the rise of the supposed reading (assuming it’s based on the received text) and the rise of the received text (assuming it’s based on the supposed reading [which is the easier of the two to account for though it leaves us with this sole use by Paul of a text he prefers over the majority—very strange]). To create out of the blue an entire textual tradition for the existence of which there is not a single shred of evidence other than the need for it to exist in order to harmonize 1Cor. 10.8 and Num. 25.9, THEN to suppose that Paul would actually prefer it over the textual traditions he knows (which all agree in this instance but which Paul decides against), and THEN to suppose Paul goes with this particular text because he feels saying “23,000 in one 24 hour period” makes a point that “24,000 in one event” wouldn’t make is a subjective conclusion for sure, but FOR ME it's all too far a stretch. I can't do it. I prefer not to create an entire textual tradition over this one issue and to suppose instead that Paul got the number wrong. Had he a copy of Numbers before him to check, he would have written 24,000 in stead of 23,000. The greater number makes his point BETTER. And I think he's just assuming that it happened in one day. The only source we have for it's occuring in one day is Paul. 

POW: That there is "residue" in wrong names --anachronistic denotations (These ARE in fact HISTORICAL ERRORS that the editorial committee KNEW OF  and CHOSE TO leave in!!!) seems not to have ever gotten in the way of its self-claim to be inspired, or authoritive. Were the Bible not full of these little errors would be evidence that it is a dead book, and not a book inspired by the Living God in the midst of a living relationship with a living body of people.

Tom: OK, that’s what I’m looking for. POW denies inerrancy and affirms infallibility. Cool. I guess that’s where I am. Hmmm.

Tom

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/16/2006 11:28:25 AM (GMT-6)

So...what's up? Let's face the slippery slope HEAD ON!!!

Hey, Tom!
"Doesn't that Bible say....I never knew you!"

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/16/2006 11:53:06 AM (GMT-6)

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages.

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence with the Father through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried.

And He rose on the third day, according to the scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

And He will come again with glory to judge the living and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.