Where Did King Josiah Die?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Here's a seemingly undeniable Bible contradiction. In the 2 Kings account of King Josiah's death, Josiah is killed at Megiddo and his body is brought from Megiddo to Jerusalem, but in the 2 Chronicles story, Josiah doesn't die until he reached Jerusalem.

Josiah Was Killed at Megiddo
While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. (2 Kings 23:29-30)

Josiah Died in Jerusalem

Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am badly wounded." So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died." (2 Chronicles 35:23-24)

[psychopath]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr42.html

[johnransom]

02-25-2003 @ 12:04 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
Here's a seemingly undeniable Bible contradiction. In the 2 Kings account of King Josiah's death, Josiah is killed at Megiddo and his body is brought from Megiddo to Jerusalem, but in the 2 Chronicles story, Josiah doesn't die until he reached Jerusalem.

Josiah Was Killed at Megiddo
While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah's servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. (2 Kings 23:29-30)

Josiah Died in Jerusalem

Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, "Take me away; I am badly wounded." So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died." (2 Chronicles 35:23-24)

I deny it. There - your seemingly undeniable contradiction is denied.

But if you must know, there are at least two answers to this one. JPH's site explains both here (http://www.tektonics.org/mckx.html#2kin2329).

Apart from anything else, this objection is trivial beyond belief.

And if you must inflict your sneering visage on the rest of us, kindly layer a target over it so we can at least use it for shooting practice.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc A,

What can I say? I took your invite and someone already posted my answer. Yeesh! :smile: I know, it's the kind that would make Jerry Falwell burn his own underwear, but I told ya things were different here.

Anyways, I posted a formal challenge to you for a one on one debate. Link is below for your convenience. Also dropped you a line about a dead link on your site.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1314

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
If someone will adopt and defend the argument contained on the cited website, I will be happy to respond. Until then, I don't consider the alleged contradiction to have been rebutted.

Let me elaborate somewhat on my argument that the 2 Kings author contradicts the 2 Chronicles author:

The 2 Kings author uses a word for "killed" (muwth) that everywhere in the Old Testament means "slay, or kill," and never does it mean "mortally wound." There are many words for "wound" that could have been used--and are used often elsewhere. If the author had meant for his readers to understand that Josiah was only mortally wounded, he easily could have used one of the many words used elsewhere in Scripture which mean "wound." The fact that he used a word (muwth) that EVERYWHERE else in the Old Testament means "kill, or slay, " rather than choose one of the words for "wound," is very strong evidence that the 2 Kings author believed that Josiah was killed dead on the field of battle at Megiddo.

Now, let's turn our attention to the other author: The 2 Chronicles author surely would have known that when he put the words, "and he died" at the end of the statement that Josiah had been taken to Jerusalem, that all of his readers would have naturally assumed that they were being told that Josiah died AFTER he arrived at Jerusalem, because the reference "he died" came AFTER the statement that he arrived at Jerusalem. If the writer didn't really mean for us to believe that Josiah had died after arriving in Jerusalem, he surely would have gone to the trouble to add a few words which clarified this point. The fact that the author of 2 Chronicles didn't include these clarifying words is very strong evidence that the writer actually DID believe Josiah died after arriving in Jerusalem.

Thus, the textual and linguistic evidence points to the fact that one or the other of the two writers was wrong.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc A,

I'll post my answer, I think you may actually like it.

At the time Chronicles was written, Greek historiography (exemplified by Herodotus) was not always strictly concerned with reportage, but was also didactic in nature. As such, reports were often purposely given with alterations to actual history -- in order to make a point. Josiah's death here bears a haunting reesemblance to the death of another king of the Bible -- Ahab (1 Kings 22). By the conventions of Greek historiography of the period, then, the writer of Chronicles is purposely contradicting the already-known, earlier account for the purpose of making a polemical and didactic point against Jehu. And if that is the case, the contradiction is intentional -- and therefore poses no problem for inerrancy.

It sounds like MacDonald's mimesis, don't it?

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
That's a very interesting theory, JP. But, in order for it to work, the writer would have to have left a textual clue which signalled his readers not to take his account literally. I see no such clue, do you?

[jpholding]

02-26-2003 @ 06:21 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
That's a very interesting theory, JP. But, in order for it to work, the writer would have to have left a textual clue which signalled his readers not to take his account literally. I see no such clue, do you?

Ayup, I do:

1) He openly contradicts Kings, a known work, one that his readers would know.
2) He follows the exact processes used by known Hellenistic historians.

Which is good enuff for me. :smile:

Now in fairness, explain to me how you think the difference occurred. If it isn't more parsimonious than what I offer, and if it isn't rooted in known literary/historical practice of the time, you'll need something that can trump those considerations.

[johnransom]

02-25-2003 @ 05:41 PM
Joseph Alward:

The 2 Kings author uses a word for "killed" (muwth) that everywhere in the Old Testament means "slay, or kill," and never does it mean "mortally wound." There are many words for "wound" that could have been used--and are used often elsewhere. If the author had meant for his readers to understand that Josiah was only mortally wounded, he easily could have used one of the many words used elsewhere in Scripture which mean "wound." The fact that he used a word (muwth) that EVERYWHERE else in the Old Testament means "kill, or slay, " rather than choose one of the words for "wound," is very strong evidence that the 2 Kings author believed that Josiah was killed dead on the field of battle at Megiddo.


Nive try, but wrong. "Muwth" (Strong's # 4191) is a very general word for death, and has no necessary sense of immediacy. Try 2 Kings 20:1 where the word is rendered "mortally" (NASB) when describing Hezekiah's illness. You are forcing the sense to fit your contradiction theory, and it won't fly. Get off your skeptical literalist kick; language is much more interesting than that.

Consider that in English it is also not necessary to add any words denoting woundedness. Otherwise one could not speak of a "dead man walking" or say "He has killed me". The pending status of the death is understood.

02-26-2003 @ 12:21 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
That's a very interesting theory, JP. But, in order for it to work, the writer would have to have left a textual clue which signalled his readers not to take his account literally. I see no such clue, do you?

You would if you took your blinders off. The obvious textual clue would be the contradiction itself, wouldn't it?:doh: The arrogance of the modern literalist skeptical mindset is to assume that all other persons at all other times think as narrowly as you do. The author and readers of Chronicles would have approached this text, as JP noted, with the assumption of a didactic purpose (it is, after all, in the Bible - a throughly didactic document) and would have been expecting exactly this sort of treatment.

[johnransom]

02-26-2003 @ 08:35 AM
jpholding:



Ayup, I do:

1) He openly contradicts Kings, a known work, one that his readers would know.
2) He follows the exact processes used by known Hellenistic historians.

You beat me to it this time!:thumb:

[jpholding]

Argh!

Well, I bet I'm online more than you are! :lol:

Seriously bud, if you didn't see it before my thanks for the assist in the Tyre debate, and here. :smile:

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
JP, it seems to me that you are begging the question by claiming that the alleged contradiction was intentional, and therefore not a biblical error, by saying that the evidence of the intended didactic was the existence of the contradiction. By this reasoning, any biblical difficulty could be removed by claiming that it was intentional.

Another problem I have is that it hasn't been explained exactly what "polemical and didactic point against Jehu" was intended, and how that was accomplished by contradicting 2 Kings. How did reversing the place of Josiah's death represent a polemic against Jehu?

Another problem I have with this argument is that there is no other place in the Bible where such a didactic method is employed--if indeed it is being used here. One would think one would look first to the Bible for evidence that such a method was common among writers of that time. Unless it can be shown clearly that such a didactic was used elsewhere in the Bible, it will be hard to accept that is was being used by the 2 Kings author in the Josiah story. Is there another obvious didactic of this type you can point to?

I do agree that it would be fair of me to offer my opinion about the alleged contradiction, so here is what I believe: I believe that the writers of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles must have been basing their accounts on two or more traditions or sources. One only has to look at the large number of differences between the census numbers to see evidence of different sources: there are a great many difference in the numbers. One doesn't argue that the 2 Kings author was advancing a polemic against anyone with the contradicting census numbers, so why should we imagine that the difference between the Josiah stories was a polemic?

Differences in accounts of biblical events abound in the Bible, beginning with the two stories of creation, and the two stories of the flood, continuing through the stories in Kings and Chronicles, and the gospels. All of these differences are due to the writers relying on different traditions from different times and different places, in my opinion. The Bible editors probably never expected that readers would try to harmonize the various stories. So, in the case of the Josiah stories, I believe the oral-traditional source used by the 2 Chronicles author had Josiah being killed dead at Megiddo, and taken dead by chariot to Jerusalem, where he was buried. However, the oral traditional source which guided the 2 Kings writer held that Josiah died after arriving by chariot in Jerusalem. Thus, either the 2 Chronicles author had the facts straight, and by the time the story reached the 2 Kings author, it had changed somewhat, or vice-versa. Thats what I believe is the simpler explanation for the difference in the two stories. The intentional contradiction theory is not only more complex, it also opens the Bible up for accusations of contradiction on practically every page. If we accept the hidden polemic in 2 Kings, then who is to say that every page of the Bible does not contain a hidden polemic against unknown persons or theology? Perhaps several of the accounts of the resurrection are deliberate contradictions?

[johnransom]

02-26-2003 @ 12:34 PM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
JP, it seems to me that you are begging the question by claiming that the alleged contradiction was intentional, and therefore not a biblical error, by saying that the evidence of the intended didactic was the existence of the contradiction. By this reasoning, any biblical difficulty could be removed by claiming that it was intentional.

To be precise, JP was reporting someone else's theory, not promiting his own.

In any event, your conclusion is in error. You are thinking counterdirectionally. The presence of didactic points derives from the genre of Chronicles, as stated in JP's original article, which is as a widely cast polemic. See this site (http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/chron.html) for a skeptical analysis agreeing with this - although the author immediately screws up by defining inerrancy as absolute accuracy in all details regardless of objective and concluding that the Bible is errant. Thus, because the culturally aware reader recognizes the polemic nature of the text, he expects didactic points and is therefore on the lookout for indicators such as this. Conversely, you are assuming that a didactic point is to be deduced because a factual inaccuracy exists. The proper understanding of the logic also precludes your suggestion that any alleged contradiction can be explained in this manner - not so, because not all Biblical texts are written with similar objectives.

Another problem I have is that it hasn't been explained exactly what "polemical and didactic point against Jehu" was intended, and how that was accomplished by contradicting 2 Kings. How did reversing the place of Josiah's death represent a polemic against Jehu?

By contradicting the former report, obviously.

Another problem I have with this argument is that there is no other place in the Bible where such a didactic method is employed--if indeed it is being used here. One would think one would look first to the Bible for evidence that such a method was common among writers of that time. Unless it can be shown clearly that such a didactic was used elsewhere in the Bible, it will be hard to accept that is was being used by the 2 Kings author in the Josiah story. Is there another obvious didactic of this type you can point to?

Again, all of Chronicles is intended thus.

I do agree that it would be fair of me to offer my opinion about the alleged contradiction, so here is what I believe: I believe that the writers of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles must have been basing their accounts on two or more traditions or sources. One only has to look at the large number of differences between the census numbers to see evidence of different sources: there are a great many difference in the numbers. One doesn't argue that the 2 Kings author was advancing a polemic against anyone with the contradicting census numbers, so why should we imagine that the difference between the Josiah stories was a polemic?

Again, it depends on the context of the numerical differences. However, the obvious cause of copyist error is generally blamed for such matters, and since they are trivial, they have no bearing on inerrancy.

Differences in accounts of biblical events abound in the Bible, beginning with the two stories of creation, and the two stories of the flood, continuing through the stories in Kings and Chronicles, and the gospels. All of these differences are due to the writers relying on different traditions from different times and different places, in my opinion. The Bible editors probably never expected that readers would try to harmonize the various stories. So, in the case of the Josiah stories, I believe the oral-traditional source used by the 2 Chronicles author had Josiah being killed dead at Megiddo, and taken dead by chariot to Jerusalem, where he was buried. However, the oral traditional source which guided the 2 Kings writer held that Josiah died after arriving by chariot in Jerusalem. Thus, either the 2 Chronicles author had the facts straight, and by the time the story reached the 2 Kings author, it had changed somewhat, or vice-versa. Thats what I believe is the simpler explanation for the difference in the two stories. The intentional contradiction theory is not only more complex, it also opens the Bible up for accusations of contradiction on practically every page. If we accept the hidden polemic in 2 Kings, then who is to say that every page of the Bible does not contain a hidden polemic against unknown persons or theology? Perhaps several of the accounts of the resurrection are deliberate contradictions?

The final point is already answered, but the remainder of your argument also fails, on the dual grounds of multiple attestation and dissimilarity. That is, multiple sources increase the probability of veracity, and differences of detail verify their independence and so further add to their credibility. This last was an issue I tried to get tIll to answer to about five times, but he-who-never-ignores-anything apparently ignored me.

[The Laughing Man]

02-26-2003 @ 12:34 PM
Joseph Alward:Differences in accounts of biblical events abound in the Bible, beginning with the two stories of creation

:doh: Well, that about settles it. This statement proves to me that you are nothing more than a two-bit hack skeptic-wannabe. I bet you believe that "the Bible says pi equals 3," too.

[Joseph Alward]

JOHN RANSOM
"differences of detail verify their independence and so further add to their credibility"

JOE ALWARD
With all due respect, John, I cannot accept the logic of this statement. If differences in detail added to credibility, as you say, then the greater the number of differences between the accounts from two different sources, the greater would be the sources' reliability.

[jpholding]

Hey Doc A,

JP, it seems to me that you are begging the question by claiming that the alleged contradiction was intentional, and therefore not a biblical error, by saying that the evidence of the intended didactic was the existence of the contradiction. By this reasoning, any biblical difficulty could be removed by claiming that it was intentional.

I really can't see why it isn't -- until you can explain to me why and how such an error would come into play. It's so blatant and so hard to figure to be an accident that the suggestion of intentional contradiction really MUST come to mind. Josiah obviously only died in one place. Now how could a story mutate so that he died in a different place, and why? Unless you give me some reasonable idea, I have to stick with that -- added on to the fact of the genre of Hellenistic history that did such things. (You do give me one below, so we'll see how that goes.)

Keep in mind here, Doc -- not to be pompous or anything -- this is lit from a different society where open contradiction is a known rhetorical ploy. Greco-Roman rhetoriticians used a tactic called the "open proclamation of pure error" as a way of instilling irony. In the OT you can see it as well, notably in Jer. 7:22 (if you've followed my debate with FTill on that). I have a contextual background that explains all of this and within which my theory nestles comfortably. Yours? We'll see shortly.

Another problem I have is that it hasn't been explained exactly what "polemical and didactic point against Jehu" was intended, and how that was accomplished by contradicting 2 Kings. How did reversing the place of Josiah's death represent a polemic against Jehu?

A polemic against Josiah, actually. Think in terms of MacDonald's mimesis and how he said Mark made Jesus look like Odysseus. This is the same sort of thing. Chronicles made Josiah's death more like that of the previous king in order to associate them.

Another problem I have with this argument is that there is no other place in the Bible where such a didactic method is employed--if indeed it is being used here.

If you believe MacDonald to any extent, you do indeed know of other places. :smile: Plus as I said and as ransom re-iterated, all of Chronicles has this stuff (though the article he links to goes way overboard in thinking things like the number of stalls is some kind of polemic!).

One would think one would look first to the Bible for evidence that such a method was common among writers of that time.
? -- why first to the Bible? Not to writers of the time first? :confused:

Is there another obvious didactic of this type you can point to?

Jer. 7:22 is a minor example. If you want more I'll need to get the book I got this from, but I can't do that for about a week and a half. It's at a library miles from here. I do have some from Paul handy.

I believe that the writers of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles must have been basing their accounts on two or more traditions or sources.

Well, OK -- but that's not really explaining the cause of the difference. You're adding a step, but not explaining the "how". Put it this way: Obviously Josiah died in one place or the other, or in neither. One or the other is wring, or both are. No other options. Let's assume for argument's sake that he died in Jerusalem. OK -- so how did it get changed to say he died in Megiddo? How did the tradition mutate? I can think of only three ideas offhand, but it is kind of late for me:

1) Somehow "Jerusalem" got turned into "Megiddo" in written or oral transmission. I.e., a copyist error (which of course inerrancy can live with) or a verbal one. You seem to hint at the latter. But the two names look and sound nothing alike in Hebrew which makes this entirely unlikely.

2) He was hit mortally in one city and taken for dead, and then died in the other, thus causing two traditions to grow. This is like the usual answer to this one. But the problem there is that it's agreed that Ezra (if you think he wrote Chronicles) had Kings and that this was his source.

3) Ezra found out that Kings was wrong and the Josiah actually did die in the other city. And then you still have the problem of how the info got switched, and we still have the same issue and possible answer as 2 above -- adding in that in the ancient world death was not a process where they could say when someone necessarily crossed the line from life to death until there were definite signs (rigor mortis, etc).

One only has to look at the large number of differences between the census numbers to see evidence of different sources: there are a great many difference in the numbers. One doesn't argue that the 2 Kings author was advancing a polemic against anyone with the contradicting census numbers, so why should we imagine that the difference between the Josiah stories was a polemic?

If you'll remember though I did give you some reasons why a census record could and did change over time. :smile: Not polemic but other reasons.

All of these differences are due to the writers relying on different traditions from different times and different places, in my opinion.

It seems too cut and dried to me, Doc. The same root cause over thousands of years and over hundreds of persons and eyewitnesses and records? I do see "different perspectives" as a cause of i.e. Gospel issues but for all of it from Genesis on? Too simplified. And there are too many other known factors (like the genre issue, like the use of rhetorical irony) for me to take that so simply.

The intentional contradiction theory is not only more complex, it also opens the Bible up for accusations of contradiction on practically every page.

Sorry, Doc. :smile: Pressing the panic button doesn't move me much. You'd probably get Jerry Falwell really upset, but I've done too much digging in the social and literary world of the Bible to be bothered that way.

johnransom, thank you for helping out. :smile: I'm going to bed now. Have fun.

Jinx: I have to let you know that Doc does deal with the pi issue on his site, and he actually grants that precision is not necessary and that that need not be reckoned an error. Doc is no Sam Gibson. :smile:

[The Laughing Man]

Jinx: I have to let you know that Doc does deal with the pi issue on his site, and he actually grants that precision is not necessary and that that need not be reckoned an error. Doc is no Sam Gibson.

Okay. I'll retract my comment about pi, but still... "two creation accounts, etc." :hmm: It's difficult to think of someone who asserts those things as any different than our friend Sam.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
I'll just make one comment for now, JP. In my previous post I suggested that if one is to imagine that the 2 Kings author was employing what you claim was a common practice of his time--deliberately presenting a false history in order to launch a subtle polemic against someone, or some theology, then the first place one should look for evidence of this practice is in the very same medium in which the alleged polemic occurs: the Old Testament.

Unless I see clear evidence of this type of writing in Scripture, I would be strongly inclined to believe that all that happened with the 2 Kings writer is that he misunderstood the oral tradition he had access to, or else the oral tradition was different from the one in the 2 Chronicles world. It doesn't take many mistakes in oral transmission--perhaps over decades--to go from "killed at Megiddo and buried in Jerusalem," to "almost killed at Megiddo, and died and buried in Jerusalem."

Isn't it much simpler to imagine that a small mutation during oral transmission led to the discrepancy, rather than believing that the author deliberately fabricated a false history, and believed his readers were clever enough to recognize it? Occam's Razor cuts far better on the side of error in oral transmission, in my opinion.

Can you provide a clear-cut, undisputed example of what you think is a deliberately created contradiction in Scripture that is not better explained as error in oral transmission? If not, then I will continue to believe that the better explanation, by far, for the discrepancy is simple human error in perhaps an uncountable number of tellings and retellings of the Josiah story over many years.

[ItalianGold]

"At the time Chronicles was written, Greek historiography (exemplified by Herodotus) was not always strictly concerned with reportage, but was also didactic in nature. As such, reports were often purposely given with alterations to actual history -- in order to make a point."

This is an extraordinary admission. If parts of the Bible are written without regard to what really happened, in order to make a point, how can we be left with inerrency - unless you steal the meaning of "error" by claiming it wasn't....it was "on purpose"...it was written to make a point not to record history!

What happened to the "inspired Word of God" theory?

[Socrates]

Jinx:
Okay. I'll retract my comment about pi, but still... "two creation accounts, etc." It's difficult to think of someone who asserts those things as any different than our friend Sam.I agree, Jinx. Just look at all the Sam clones Alward links to, e.g. Barker, Skeptical Annotated Bible, McKinsey, Merritt, etc., who do raise this pi=3, and bat=bird, "who killed Saul?" crap :dufus:. Even the pi entry on his site is under "Number errors". And Alward seems to be a Christ-Myther as well :dunce:

[johnransom]

02-26-2003 @ 04:06 PM
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
With all due respect, John, I cannot accept the logic of this statement. If differences in detail added to credibility, as you say, then the greater the number of differences between the accounts from two different sources, the greater would be the sources' reliability.

Well, congratulations - you have just debunked a major part not only of textual criticism but also of criminology.

Dissimilarity is a well-established criterion for assessment of textual veracity, which states that if a particular text runs counter what is expected, then it is the more likely to be true. It is most commonly used in assessing sayings of Jesus. As noted, it is also used in criminology for judging conflicting testimony.

Your objection is of course silly, and you know it. Obviously, there is a point beyond which two divergent accounts cannot be reconciled.

nll__ll_:whip: Your horse is dead, Joe; quit beating it. There are three possible answers to your alleged contradiction:

1. There is no difference.
2. The difference is intentional.
3. The diffference is trivial.

Surely that's got to be enough for even the most intransigent skeptic (he said, frankly expecting the answer "No").

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 12:10 AM
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD
I'll just make one comment for now, JP. In my previous post I suggested that if one is to imagine that the 2 Kings author was employing what you claim was a common practice of his time--deliberately presenting a false history in order to launch a subtle polemic against someone, or some theology, then the first place one should look for evidence of this practice is in the very same medium in which the alleged polemic occurs: the Old Testament.

Why? This is a garbage objection. It assumes that the OT is a unitary "medium". It patently is not. That would be like saying the entire OT should be in verse because Psalms is written that way. The various books of the OT (and of the NT) have vastly different purposes. It is hardly surprising that there is one segment that has a particular focus not present elsewhere in the collection.

Unless I see clear evidence of this type of writing in Scripture, I would be strongly inclined to believe that all that happened with the 2 Kings writer is that he misunderstood the oral tradition he had access to, or else the oral tradition was different from the one in the 2 Chronicles world. It doesn't take many mistakes in oral transmission--perhaps over decades--to go from "killed at Megiddo and buried in Jerusalem," to "almost killed at Megiddo, and died and buried in Jerusalem."

Isn't it much simpler to imagine that a small mutation during oral transmission led to the discrepancy, rather than believing that the author deliberately fabricated a false history, and believed his readers were clever enough to recognize it? Occam's Razor cuts far better on the side of error in oral transmission, in my opinion.

On the contrary, the deliberate error is the more parsimonious solution. Your evolutionary theory requires an undefined number of changes, not just one as with the deliberate error. It also underestimates the quality of oral transmission in an essentially pre-literate society. It further fails to take into account that this is an event that was probably immune to oral transmission failure anyway - the death of a highly esteemed king would find its way into the permanent record very quickly, if not immediately.

Can you provide a clear-cut, undisputed example of what you think is a deliberately created contradiction in Scripture that is not better explained as error in oral transmission? If not, then I will continue to believe that the better explanation, by far, for the discrepancy is simple human error in perhaps an uncountable number of tellings and retellings of the Josiah story over many years.

Er...this one.:teeth: And the others in Chronicles.

What's that squishy thumping? Oh, it's Joe's dead horse getting beat again.

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 01:16 AM
ItalianGold:

"At the time Chronicles was written, Greek historiography (exemplified by Herodotus) was not always strictly concerned with reportage, but was also didactic in nature. As such, reports were often purposely given with alterations to actual history -- in order to make a point."

This is an extraordinary admission. If parts of the Bible are written without regard to what really happened, in order to make a point, how can we be left with inerrency - unless you steal the meaning of "error" by claiming it wasn't....it was "on purpose"...it was written to make a point not to record history!

What happened to the "inspired Word of God" theory?

:duh: This is the same ludicrous conclusion arrived at by the site I linked to. How can fatual error possibly be an issue for inerrancy in a text which is deliberately false? Answer: only by so defining inerrancy as to make it impossible to achieve. The only meaningful way one could claim such a text is "errant" or "uninspired" is if it fails to make its point.

:argh: Gaah!! Literalist skeptics!

[jpholding]

Hey Doc,

the first place one should look for evidence of this practice is in the very same medium in which the alleged polemic occurs: the Old Testament.

Sorry, Doc, can't agree. The first place to look is in the cultural/social context and the world these people lived in. This would be like denying Paul used Greco-Roman rhetoric techniques, even if we have clear evidence by matching his work to that of Quintillian, Aristotle, etc., because we can't find the same techniques in, say, the books of James or Peter.

It doesn't take many mistakes in oral transmission--perhaps over decades--to go from "killed at Megiddo and buried in Jerusalem," to "almost killed at Megiddo, and died and buried in Jerusalem."

A very faith-based position. :smile: You prefer decades of possible oral corruption -- actually very unlikely in this era when oral transmission was so reliable, and when differences occurred in accessory details, not main subjects, and when hearers also tended to correct any such miscues -- to a very simple and known contextual solution. You also have Ezra preferring the oral tradition, perhaps, to the written record in Kings, and no later attempt to update or correct Kings, even though by your view someone did make a correction in Chronicles, even as Chronicles made use of Kings as a source. Suit thyself.

Isn't it much simpler to imagine that a small mutation during oral transmission led to the discrepancy, rather than believing that the author deliberately fabricated a false history, and believed his readers were clever enough to recognize it? Occam's Razor cuts far better on the side of error in oral transmission, in my opinion.

Sorry Doc, but the Razor in this case is giving you a close shave, because I have the contextual data showing that such was a normal practice of the day.

Can you provide a clear-cut, undisputed example of what you think is a deliberately created contradiction in Scripture that is not better explained as error in oral transmission?

I gave ya Jeremiah 7:22. FTill and I have had plenty of discussion over this, if you care to take up the issue.

PS to johnransom. Dang. Ya beat me to it again on some of this. I actually copied and pasted the material to a word program earlier, and while I was out and making my response, you stepped in. I guess they can call us "old One-Two" :smile:

PS to IGold:

What happened to the "inspired Word of God" theory?

In addition to the above: Try the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. The average churchgoer thinks of inerrancy in terms of Western precision-literalism, not how the ancients would understand it.

[psychopath]

Note: This post is not meant to undermine the explanations given by others, but just as another means of answering the original question.

Joe, the link I originally gave (2nd post on the thread) gives a couple good reasons why this isn't necessarily a contradiction to begin with. I don't think you've sufficiently dealt with these explanations, so let me post them here for you:

"If 2 Kings 23 were the only account we had of Josiah’s death, then one might very well assume that he took his last breath at Megiddo. But, since 2 Chronicles 35 indicates that he was alert enough after he was shot to command his servants to take him away, we know that he did not die immediately. However, he still may have died in Megiddo after he uttered this command. Or, he could have died on the way to Jerusalem. The accounts can be reconciled even if he had died in Jerusalem. Just because 2 Kings 23:29 says that Pharaoh Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo does not have to mean that he actually died there. It easily could mean that he was mortally wounded at Megiddo and then died sometime later. If someone today is shot in a back alley late at night, he may be rushed to the hospital in hopes that his life might be saved. However, if he dies, whether it is on the way to the hospital or in the hospital, those who rehearse the details of the shooting likely will not say that he died in the hospital but that he was killed in the back alley."

"Furthermore, just because the writer of 2 Chronicles wrote the phrase, “so he died,” after he mentions that Josiah was brought to Jerusalem, does not mean that he did not die beforehand. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: “The statement and he died...is just a common form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard for their chronological order” (1954, pp. 278-279, emp. in orig.). The acknowledgment of the chronicler that Josiah died is just that—an acknowledgment. It says nothing about when he died."

In conclusion:

"The facts of the story are as follows: (1) Josiah was wounded fatally at Megiddo; (2) his body was rushed away to Jerusalem after he commanded his servants to take him away; and (3) he died sometime after he gave that command. The text is not clear as to the exact location of death."

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
Isn't it much simpler to imagine that a small mutation during oral transmission led to the discrepancy, rather than believing that the author deliberately fabricated a false history, and believed his readers were clever enough to recognize it? Occam's Razor cuts far better on the side of error in oral transmission, in my opinion.

JP HOLDING
Sorry Doc, but the Razor in this case is giving you a close shave, because I have the contextual data showing that such was a normal practice of the day.

JOE ALWARD
Can you provide a clear-cut, undisputed example of what you think is a deliberately created contradiction in Scripture that is not better explained as error in oral transmission?

JP HOLDING
I gave ya Jeremiah 7:22.

JOE ALWARD
JP, will you present your argument and the contextual data which supports your view that deliberate fabrication for the purpose of a polemic was "normal"? I would think that to argue that it was normal, you would have to show that this was done all the time in the Old Testament. If you cannot show many examples of this in the Old Testament, then we couldn't say that this practice was normal for Old Testament writers, could we? Also, if you would, please, provide your argument showing that Jeremiah 7:22 is clearly an example of a writer deliberately falsifying the history in order to make a point?

Note added:
Italian Gold echoed a point I tried to make in an earlier post. I think it is very much worth repeating here:

This is an extraordinary admission. If parts of the Bible are written without regard to what really happened, in order to make a point, how can we be left with inerrancy - unless you steal the meaning of "error" by claiming it wasn't....it was "on purpose"...it was written to make a point not to record history!

What happened to the "inspired Word of God" theory?

I couldn't agree more. Recall the words in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God-breathed."

[johnransom]

02-27-2003 @ 05:31 PM
Joseph Alward:
Italian Gold echoed a point I tried to make in an earlier post. I think it is very much worth repeating here:

This is an extraordinary admission. If parts of the Bible are written without regard to what really happened, in order to make a point, how can we be left with inerrancy - unless you steal the meaning of "error" by claiming it wasn't....it was "on purpose"...it was written to make a point not to record history!

What happened to the "inspired Word of God" theory?


I couldn't agree more. Recall the words in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God-breathed."

:argh: And I'll answr you the same way I answered IG - the objection is ludiocrous. It defines inerrancy in a manner impossible to achieve and, in this case, contrary to the intent of the text. Why couldn't God inspire Ezra (or whoever wrote Chronicles) to write a polemic in an idiom clearly understood by his contemporaries? Sheesh!!

[Joseph Alward]

PSYCHOPATH

"Furthermore, just because the writer of 2 Chronicles wrote the phrase, “so he died,” after he mentions that Josiah was brought to Jerusalem, does not mean that he did not die beforehand. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: “The statement and he died...is just a common form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard for their chronological order” (1954, pp. 278-279, emp. in orig.). The acknowledgment of the chronicler that Josiah died is just that—an acknowledgment. It says nothing about when he died."

JOE ALWARD
I apologize for being slow to respond to your comments, Psychopath.

As I understand your argument, we need not believe that Josiah died in Jerusalem because the events listed should not be assumed to be in chronological order. I believe that there are two problems with this argument. First, lists of occurrences such as these would always be put in chronological order if the author knew the order. If the author didn't know which event occurred first, he would have had the good sense to explain that to the readers, else thousands of years of readers would be led to believe that Josiah definitely died after arriving in Jerusalem.

The second problem is that there is no other place in Scripture in which a list of events in a single verse were not obviously intended by the writer to be taken to be chronological, no matter what E. M. Zerr says. If you can show a single verse in which three related events are listed one after the other, and the events are clearly not intended to be in chronological order, then you will have found the evidence you need to rebut my claim that the 2 Kings authors wanted his audience to believe that Josiah died after arriving in Jerusalem. Can you find such a verse in Scripture?

Another problem--if you and Zerr are right--is that you both have the the 2 Kings author allowing his readers to wonder whether he was using what you think is a listing of events which has an ambiguous chronology. If the author knew that such ambiguity was a common practice in those days, he would have gone to the trouble of making sure his readers knew that the events were not necessarily in sequence. The fact that he didn't give his readers warning about this is strong evidence that he was unaware of the practice E. M. Zerr thinks was commonplace, and thus really did believe that Josiah died after arriving in Jerusalem.

[jpholding]

Yo Doc,

JP, will you present your argument and the contextual data which supports your view that deliberate fabrication for the purpose of a polemic was "normal"? I would think that to argue that it was normal, you would have to show that this was done all the time in the Old Testament.

I already noted that it was common practice of Hellenistic historians of the period when Chronicles was written. as such we don't expect it "all the time in the OT" but in such times as the influences in question (Hellenistic historiography) were in place.

If you cannot show many examples of this in the Old Testament, then we couldn't say that this practice was normal for Old Testament writers, could we?

If by "normal" you mean "done every page" then the answer is no, but such would be an absurdly rigorous demand and I doubt if it would be demanded as evidence for the Hellenistic historians.

Also, if you would, please, provide your argument showing that Jeremiah 7:22 is clearly an example of a writer deliberately falsifying the history in order to make a point?

I can provide a link, but to do more would require a new thread"
http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_JER722.html

I couldn't agree more. Recall the words in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is God-breathed."

"God breathed" does not mean "written in accord with 21st century Western literalist standards," however. :smile:

[psychopath]

You said:

"As I understand your argument, we need not believe that Josiah died in Jerusalem because the events listed should not be assumed to be in chronological order."

Well, that is but one possibility. The supposed contradiction can be reconciled even if one assumes that Josiah did die in Jerusalem, in accordance with what I quoted from the link in my previous post:

"Just because 2 Kings 23:29 says that Pharaoh Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo does not have to mean that he actually died there. It easily could mean that he was mortally wounded at Megiddo and then died sometime later. If someone today is shot in a back alley late at night, he may be rushed to the hospital in hopes that his life might be saved. However, if he dies, whether it is on the way to the hospital or in the hospital, those who rehearse the details of the shooting likely will not say that he died in the hospital but that he was killed in the back alley."

You said:

"First, lists of occurrences such as these would always be put in chronological order if the author knew the order. If the author didn't know which event occurred first, he would have had the good sense to explain that to the readers, else thousands of years of readers would be led to believe that Josiah definitely died after arriving in Jerusalem."

I do not think your first statement is necessarily true. There are many cases in which a writer may purposefully give events non-chronologically. I'm sure you have read at least one such book. The fact that readers may be confused into thinking that Josiah died in Jerusalem, assuming that he died in Megiddo, does not make the passage contradictory (maybe difficult to understand), and it certainly doesn't detract from the main point of the story.

You said:

"If you can show a single verse in which three related events are listed one after the other, and the events are clearly not intended to be in chronological order, then you will have found the evidence you need to rebut my claim that the 2 Kings authors wanted his audience to believe that Josiah died after arriving in Jerusalem. Can you find such a verse in Scripture?"

Ironically enough, the first example that I thought of was Genesis chapter 2. If one reads the chapter without considering chapter 1 or the context and focus of chapter 2, he may come to the erroneous (IMO) conclusion that God created the animals before man. However, this is not the case.

Furthermore, the events of the life of Christ are not always given chronologically in the Gospels, though by contextual and comparative reading it is generally easy to discern the order in which they occured.

If I come up with other examples I will add them, though unfortunately I do not have access to Zerr's book, and therefore cannot consult the examples he gave to back up his claim.

You said:

"If the author knew that such ambiguity [i.e., chronological] was a common practice in those days, he would have gone to the trouble of making sure his readers knew that the events were not necessarily in sequence."

But if such ambiguity was a common practice, why would he need to go to this trouble? His readers would have been ready for and aware of the possibility of the event being given non-chronologically, because such occured often within written works.

"The fact that he didn't give his readers warning about this is strong evidence that he was unaware of the practice E. M. Zerr thinks was commonplace, and thus really did believe that Josiah died after arriving in Jerusalem."

See previous point.

It seems to me as though you are just speculating as to how the Biblical authors would have or should have written the account, if there is to be no contradiction. But such speculation, which IMO is faulty anyway, does not provide grounds for showing a Biblical contradiction. The burden of proof is solely on you to prove the affirmative (that the accounts are contradictory), not on me to show that they are not. Insofar as another explanation that rebuts the contradiction is somewhat plausible, inerrancy is not falsified.