Monday, December 19, 2011

Peter's denials


  1. The article says,

    A generation ago, Harold Lindsell in his widely quoted Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 174-76) found the differences between the Gospels' accounts of Peter's denials so great that he postulated that Peter actually disavowed knowing Jesus six times!

    Maybe Lindsell reconciled them in the same way E.W. Bullinger does in one of his appendices to his The Companion Bible. Appendix 160 (click here)

    I'm not so sure Bullinger's solution works. What do you guys think?

    Regardless, I do think there's a similar discrepancy with respect to the number of people crucified next to the Lord Jesus where Bullinger seems (at least to me) to successfully argue for there actually being 4 others and not 2.

    It's in his Appendix 164 (click here)

    The following link is to a YouTube video where some guy elaborates on Bullinger's view that there were 4 who were eventually crucified with Jesus (at different times). Here's the link (click here)

  2. Annoyed Pinoy, I glanced over the links you provided.

    Sometimes we become too concerned with our standards of historicity, or forget that other standards even exist. To state the obvious, the Gospel writers were not writing for Enlightenment-influenced audiences who hold historical preferences much closer to a court of law than a relating of broad narrative discourse. When you have a specific theological and historical purpose to your account (to say nothing of being bound by the constraints of writing on a physical scroll), and you want to effectively relate that purpose, only the details relevant to that purpose are going to be included. Accounts will be compressed or related accordingly, just as we regularly omit or modify minor details in a story in order to express the purpose of that story. Details that are unrelated are confusing and a distraction, causing the audience to ask the wrong questions.

    The standards of historicity are different, and when we neglect this we do a diservice to inerrancy, and end up with the kinds of strained, if still possible, reconstructions offered by Bullinger. (Unintelligent critics would suggest this means the authors of the Gospels played fast and loose with "historical facts," and that we can't trust them, but that would be unwarranted.)

  3. Matthew, I agree. I just think that if at all possible we should attempt to resolve all apparent Biblical contradictions, discrepancies and errors.