We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

And:

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

Hildeman apparently never graduated - even now - beyond a simple-minded form of inerrancy rooted in modern, Western cultural values of reportage. Note as well that our answers are not about "vantage points" or "perceptions" (as Hildeman puts it, as though someone blocked the view of the disciples of one of the demoniacs) but of intentional, artificial literary and narrative devices. Thus as well, Hildeman's "Doug 'Brick Wall' Krueger"-style reply, that such things only "explain" the error even as they admit an error [10] unsurprisingly misses the point.

Oates: Lincoln "stood inside the doorway and shot a wild turkey as it approached."

Donald: Lincoln "spied a flock of wild turkeys outside the new log cabin. He seized a rifle and, taking advantage of one of the chinks (in the wall), 'shot through a crack, and killed one of them.' "

So does Oates "very strongly imply" that there was only one turkey? No, he doesn't - he merely highlights the single bird, for whatever reason. Please note the "original" source for this account in both:

A few days before the completion of his eighth year, in the absence of his father, a flock of wild turkeys approached the new log-cabin, and A. with a rifle gun, standing inside, shot through a crack, and killed one of them. He has never since pulled the trigger on any larger game.

The original source quote quite clearly indicates the presence of a full flock. So by Hildeman's logic, Oates (a professional historian and publisher writer) has "very strongly implied" that there was only one turkey and has committed an "error".

Hop on Pops

For Hildeman, the second most egregious problem in Scripture - this should tell us how little he gets out of the house! - is the differing genealogies of Matthew and Luke for Jesus. Once again, we provide our answering material - a compiliation of material from ourselves and the Christian Think-Tank - and then we look at what Hildeman has to say.

1. Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.
2. It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)
3. Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".
4. So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage? Probably through the law of levirate marriage.

   The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.

   One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:

   "Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"

   ---

   Within the ancient world kinship and family were a person's primary source for status. The reputation of one's ancestral house was an important factor in how one viewed one's self, and how others viewed you. Kinship was a root of self-identity and understanding. The Jews had a special focus on this, as for example those descended from Levi and Aaron were determined to be the ones suitable for Temple ministry. The book of Esdras notes that those among returnees from Babylon who could not prove Levite lineage were not permitted to perform Temple service.

   In this context the genealogies of Jesus were called upon to serve certain purposes. Let's note some relevant points:

5. A skeptic states that we need to "explain why the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as Matthew's in the same time period." Miller rightly answers that this is an example of a "simple pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew (common in his day)". In more detail, in a predominantly an oral culture, things had to be memorized, and memory was made easiest by making things as short as possible while still retaining their purpose. Matthew's intentional breaking of Jesus' lineage into 3 blocks of 14 is indeed a memory device. Such fluidity in genealogical records is not exclusive of the Bible. "By virtue of its form a linear genealogy can have only one function: it can be used to link the person or group using the genealogy with an earlier ancestor or group. The actual number of names in the genealogy and the order of those names play no role in this function, and for this reason names are frequently lost from linear genealogies, and the order of the names will sometimes change." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] The removal of names and the telescoping of lists is known in other oral cultures -- and it is also known that certain numerical patterns were preferred.
6. We offered the observation that, "In any given society, genealogies may function in more than one of the three spheres...it would be possible for a society to have a number of apparently conflicting genealogies, each of which could be considered accurate in terms of its function." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] So why are Jesus' genealogies different?

   Luke's goes all the way back to Adam and has 56 generations. His interest is in establishing a tone of universality in the Gospel message and mission, as he does in Acts with the admission of Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. This is all there is to his purpose, and so the genealogy is linear rather than segmented.

   Matthew's goes back to Abraham and has 3 groups of 14 generations. Here he certainly telescopes, as noted above (and Luke probably does, too). But Matthew is trying to prove certain points with his genealogy that Luke is not. He is, first, trying to establish Jesus as a legitimate heir to David's throne, and thus he uses the lineage through known names in 1 and 2 Kings. Second, Matthew has split into blocks of 14 so as to match the Hebrew sum for the numerical equivalent to the name David (14), and to match the breaks with significant events in Jewish history, the "pedagogical device" Miller refers to. Finally, Matthew wants to include some women of a questionable character, because they serve as an "in your face" to the expected charge that Jesus' own birth was in some way scandalous or abnormal.

Our answer then is much the same in principle as that for the demoniac issue - with the genealogies, we are working within established principles of normalcy for the ancient world.

Hildeman's awareness of such answers seems minimal. He rousts about with answers that make "son" into "son in law" in Luke (this is really not necessary; but even so, Hildeman does not even touch such issues as Luke's heavy interest in women, or levirate marriage, or inheritance rules), and he appeals to what is known as the "Jeconiah problem," to which, our sister site has answered:

I personally am not convinced this 'Jeconiah' problem EVEN EXISTS, and here's why:

I don't think the prophecy in Jeremiah is referring to Jeconiah's descendants FOR ALL TIME. The context of the passage seems to limit the scope to just his immediate descendants:

1. The phrase 'in his lifetime' (lit. "in his days"-yom) focuses the passage on the immediate future;
2. the "for" word connects the 'no man of his descendants' with the 'in his lifetime'--the strong casual relationship between not-prospering-now and his descendants is strong evidence for an immediate future context;
3. the 'again' word ('od) is not the "big" FOREVER word: ad-olam or le-olam.
4. Immediately after this passage, Jeremiah relays a promise by Yahweh to raise up 'a righteous branch to David' --a promise of the continuing line of David! Could Jeremiah have been so blind as to not notice such a contradiction (if the preceding passage referred to the 'end of the Davidic line'?!) It looks much more likely that this is a deposing of Jeconiah, and a promise of a better king from the stock of David (maybe even from non-immediate descendants of Jeconiah?).

In addition, Hildeman claims error even in Matthew 1:8, "And Jehoram begat Uzziah," inasmuch as Jehoram was Uzziah's great-grandfather. But this reflects ignorance, yet again, of ancient geneaological composition; as we have noted:

Genealogies did have gaps, and the reason for this is stated above: This was predominantly an oral culture. In an oral culture, things had to be memorized. Memory was made easiest by making things as short as possible while still retaining their purpose. A Biblical example of this is Matthew's intentional breaking of Jesus' lineage into 3 blocks of 14. But let's make something clear, lest the skeptics pitch a fit: Such fluidity in genealogical records is not exclusive of the Bible. "By virtue of its form a linear genealogy can have only one function: it can be used to link the person or group using the genealogy with an earlier ancestor or group. The actual number of names in the genealogy and the order of those names play no role in this function, and for this reason names are frequently lost from linear geneaologies, and the order of the names will sometimes change." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] The removal of names and the telescoping of lists is known in other oral cultures -- and it is also known that certain numerical patterns were preferred. R. R. Wilson [ibid., 196n] notes the example of the Luapula people of Rhodesia, who kept a royal genealogy of nine generations; but the genealogies of common people for the same space were telescoped to between four and seven generations. Elsewhere [Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, 33n] he cites the examples of the Bemba, Tallensi, Tiv, Yoruba, and Cyrenician Bedouin. All of these cultures used telescoped genealogies. And in an oral culture, why not? If Uncle Joe wasn't much to behold, and just sat around in his La-Z-Boy eating chips and burping, why keep him once his kid was secure in the line? Why make us remember more? An oral culture had to make such listings as easy as possible to remember. The royal line required more detail; the common lines less.

Another example: West Semitic tribes show a "penchant for a ten-generation pattern" in their genealogies. We can see this expressed Biblically in the genealogy of Perez up to David. Ten generations would not cover the gap from Perez to David, no -- and it isn't supposed to. The number is at ten because that was a pattern preferred for memorial purposes. One suspects that it had a lot to do with having ten fingers -- but that's beside the point. Complaints about ten names not making the stretch are utterly irrelevant.

So within the cultural context, there is no reason not to suppose, and every reason to argue, that Matthew 1:8 reflects a common practice of geneaological telescoping. To refer to this and other such leaps over ancestors as "errors" as Hildeman does several times, betrays a woeful cognizance of relevant contextualizing data. But Hildeman is so out of touch with the scholarship that he even includes the canard about Luke's inclusion of Cainan (3:35-36), which is not listed in Genesis. Several authors have answered this point; here are critical points:

Realizing that the New Testament originally was written in Greek without punctuation or spaces between words, the insertion of the name Cainan easily could have crept into Luke's genealogy. Notice what the original text (in agreement with Genesis 10:24, 11:12, and 1 Chronicles 1:18,24) might have said:

touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousala

toukainamtouarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech

toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan

touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou

If a scribe happened to glance at the end of the third line at toukainan, he easily could have written it on the first line as well as the third. Hence, instead of reading of only one Cainan, what we read today is two Cainans:

touserouchtouragautoufalektouebertousalatoukainan

toukainamtouarfaxadtouseemtounooetoulamech

toumathousalatouhenoochtouiarettoumaleleeeltoukainan

touenoostouseethtouadamtoutheou

As you can see, it would not be difficult for a weary scribe to copy "Cainan" inadvertently from Luke 3:37 as he was copying 3:36 (see Sarfati, 1998, pp. 39-40; Morris, 1976, p. 282).

Although some apologists reject the idea that the insertion of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is a copyist's error, the following facts seem to add much credence to this proposed solution.

• As stated earlier, this part of Luke's genealogy also is recorded in Genesis 10:24, 11:12, and in 1 Chronicles 1:18,24. All of these Old Testament passages, however, omit the Cainan of Luke 3:36. In fact, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, is not found in any Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament.
• Cainan is omitted from all of the following ancient versions of the Old Testament: the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, the Targum (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament), and the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible completed sometime between A.D. 382 and 405) [see Hasel, 1980, pp. 23-37].
• Cainan's name is absent from Flavius Josephus' patriarchal listing in his historical work, Antiquities of the Jews (see Book 6, Chapter 1, Sections 4-5).
• The third-century Christian historian, Julius Africanus, also omitted Cainan's name from his chronology of the patriarchs, and yet he had copies of both the gospels of Luke and Matthew (see his Epistle to Aristides, chapter 3, in Ante-Nicene Fathers).
• The earliest known copy of Luke (a papyrus codex of the Bodmer Collection dated between A.D. 175 and 225) does not contain this Cainan (see Sarfati).

Many are quick to point out that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) mentions the name Cainan, and thus verifies that he was the son of Arphaxad, just as Luke 3:36 indicates. The problem with this line of defense is that the oldest Septuagint manuscripts do not include this reference to Cainan (Sarfati, 1998, p. 40). Patrick Fairbairn indicated in his Bible encyclopedia that this Cainan does "not appear to have been in the copies of the Septuagint used by Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, by Africanus in the third, or by Eusebius in the fourth" (1957, p. 351). He goes on to state that it also was left out of the Vatican copy of the Septuagint (p. 351). That "Cainan" was a later addition to the Septuagint (and not a part of it originally) also is evident from the fact that neither Josephus nor Africanus mentioned him, and yet all indications are that they both used the Septuagint in their writings. [They repeat too many of the same numbers of the Septuagint not to have used it.] Thus, as Larry Pierce concluded, "It appears that at the time of Josephus, the extra generation of Cainan was not in the LXX [Septuagint-EL] text or the document that Josephus used, otherwise Josephus would have included it!" (1999, p. 76). As Henry Morris concluded in his commentary on Genesis: "[I] t is altogether possible that later copiers of the Septuagint (who were not as meticulous as those who copied the Hebrew text) inserted Cainan into their manuscripts on the basis of certain copies of Luke's Gospel to which they then had access" (Morris, 1976, p. 282).

Tellingly enough, Hildeman admits that this answer exists (he gives a two-sentence summary of it!) but tries to mash the panic button by saying this is "a dangerous point to be made by literalists" [19] because, he says, "who's to say [editing] hasn't been done in some other area of the Bible as well? The existence of such revisions to scripture is proof positive that God's divine hand was not truly protecting all of the Bible from the editor's pen - and that should be a sobering revelation."

Sobering to whom, we wonder! Once again, Hildeman could stand to have a look at the Chicago Statement, which doesn't shiver one bit to say:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

I do not know on what asteroid Hildeman did his studies, but here on earth, this "sobering revelation" has been a mainstay of evangelical thought for quite some time now. No one on this planet who has had an education worth its while maintains that God did, or needed to, preserve the transmission of the Bible's text. Indeed, if Hildeman has any disrespect for those he might call "bibliolaters" he has just answered his own objection as to why this would not be done. Here's a hint: RELICS.

That leaves Hildeman's paranoid rave, "how do we know there aren't more?" - and the answer is, if there are indeed more, it is his burden as a critic - not ours - to show one. In textual criticism - whether applied to the Bible or to a secular document - evidence, not suspicion, is what makes for "who's to say" if editing has been done. Moreover, let us not use the name "editing" to describe what is, in this particular, an accident, which is how the overwhelming number of such errors came about.

Eric Hildeman Can Moo! Can You?

Third up on Hildeman's list of panic-button institutions: "Two Creation Stories." Ah ha. Well, once again, our answer first:

A key operational question for this subject may come as a surprise: Are G1 and G2 actually creation accounts? G1 is undoubtedly so, but the classification of G2 is a bit more subtle, and affects somewhat our overall presentation.

The book of Genesis contains several sections that begin with the phrase which we sometimes render, "These are the generations of..." The word "generations" is the Hebrew toledot and has the connotation of a family history or succession. Toledot are given for Adam's line (5:1-6:8), Noah (6:9-9:29), Noah's sons (10:1-11:9), Shem (11:10-26), Terah and Abram (11:27-25:11), and so on -- there are nearly a dozen recurrences of the toledot introduction and method, and one of these, interestingly enough, is Genesis 2:4-4:6. What does this mean? It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation [Mat.Gen126, 12ff]. It is therefore a point to begin our argument by noting that anyone who reads G2 as a rehash of the creation accounted in G1 is missing the boat from the start. It is quite unlikely, given the parallel toledot structure, that the author of Genesis is repeating himself (although we do have examples of dual creation accounts -- the former told generally, the latter told more specifically -- in Sumerian and Babylonian literature). Rather, the indication would be that G2 is of an entirely different genre and approach than G1, and that any supposed contradiction between them needs to be understood in that light.

So G2 is not exactly a "creation account" to begin with; and this leads to the next question, of whether a single author is responsible for both. In that regard, the evidence indicates a very close unity between G1 and G2, one that indicates either a single redactor or, more likely, a single author. G1 and G2 are indeed linked by a detectable and obvious pattern:

• 1:1-2 Introduction
• 2:4-6 Introduction
• 1:3-5 Light/Darkness
• 2:7 Man/Dust
• 1:6-8 Firmament in Heaven
• 2:8 Garden on Earth
• 1:9-13 water and land, plants
• 2:9-15 plants, water and land
• 1:14-19 luminaries separated
• 2:16-17 two trees separated
• 1:20-3 first creation of animal life
• 2:18 first concern for man's companionship
• 1:24-31 creation continues
• 2:19-22 concern continues
• 2:1-3, 2:23-4 internal patterns
  • end of process
  • divine involvement
  • separation of Sabbath/separation of couples from parents
  • blessing of Sabbath/unity of couple

Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional -- serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose -- and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy. However, we find it more likely that no contradiction does exist between G1 and G2, and we shall see how this is so in our next section.

Typically, critics find two major points of disagreement between G1 and G2. The first of these is rather easy to dispose of:

Gen. 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen. 2:4-5 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The allegation is that whereas G1 has plants made before man, G2 has man made before plants. But it is really rather simple to see that G2 indicates no such thing as is claimed, for the latter specifies that what did not exist yet were plants and herbs "of the field" -- what field? The Hebrew word here is sadeh, and where it is used of known geographic locations, refers to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture, as opposed to the word used in 1:11, "earth", which is 'erets -- a word which has much broader geographic connotations. (See for example Gen. 23:12-13: "And he spake unto Ephron in the audience of the people of the land ['erets], saying, But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee money for the field [sadeh]; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there." ; Ex. 9:22 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch forth thine hand toward heaven, that there may be hail in all the land ['erets] of Egypt, upon man, and upon beast, and upon every herb of the field [sadeh], throughout the land ['erets] of Egypt."; Lev. 25:2-3, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land ['erets] which I give you, then shall the land ['erets] keep a sabbath unto the LORD. Six years thou shalt sow thy field [sadeh], and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof...") A key to understanding what is being described here is that verse 2:5 goes on to explain WHY there were no "plants of the field" -- because a) there was no rain upon the earth, and b) there was no man to work the earth -- the two key elements for agriculture according to the ancient mindset. Thus, what this passage indicates is that there was as yet no organized agriculture, and that makes sense of the verses following, where God specifically plants the garden of Eden and places man to tend to it. G2 is not indicating that there were no plants created yet at all, but that a special place was set aside for the foundation of agriculture and for plants "of the field" to be developed. (This idea of Eden as a special place set aside shall come into play as we progress.)

But now to the second alleged contradiction, and it is a little tougher to deal with:

Gen. 1:24-5 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Problem? G1 says that animals were created before man; G2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time...or does it? For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to do what the NIV (but no other version that I know of) has done, and that is to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect, so:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.

Thus, it is asserted by various proponents, for example, from Leupold's Exposition of Genesis:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had "molded" them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: 'He had molded.' The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.

Likewise, others have noted that the very context of the passages indicate that the pluperfect should be used, and this was the simple solution which I offered in an initial analysis of this verse, in reply to claims of contradiction by Jim Merritt.

However, in stepped at this point a member of the Skeptic X school, who, having apparently found a copy in the street (it is hard to imagine any of them going to a library to look this sort of thing up) consulted the revered Gensenius' Hebrew Grammar and asserted that "such a reading is NOT POSSIBLE in the Hebrew since (starting after Gen. 2:4) the form of the narrative consists of a number of temporally consecutive clauses, linked by a special marker known as "WAW CONSECUTIVE". And what is this item? Citing "section 49a, note 1, page 133" of that grammar, they said:

"This name best expresses the prevailing syntactical relation, for by WAW CONSECUTIVE an action is always represented as the direct, or at least temporal CONSEQUENCE of a preceding action."

Thus, they said, "the Genesis 2 narrative literally takes the form of a series of clauses WHICH OCCUR IN A TEMPORALLY ORDERED SEQUENCE" and because the "Hebrew syntax tells us that the actions performed in such a clause are '...the direct, or at least temporal consequence of a preceding action', the only preceding action for which the creation of the beasts and birds can reasonably be considered 'a direct consequence' is God's declaration that He will make a helper for 'the man'. " And that is that -- or is it?

In fact, our Skeptic has simply done no more than show us that while complete ignorance is rather dangerous, a little knowledge is even more so. They have certainly reported the text of the grammar correctly, but the "waw consecutive" is rather a more complicated beast than this person supposes, for it does not ALWAYS indicate temporal sequence, as indeed the grammar indicates. There are examples in the OT, NT, and in Egyptian and Assyrian literature of "dischronologized" narratives where items are arranged topically rather than chronologically, and this would justify our own use of the pluperfect for the sake of context; indeed, even commentators that prefer to keep the simple past tense suppose not that these is a contradiction, but that G2 is reporting the order out of sequence purposely in order to stress man's dominion over the created animals. An older commentary by Keil and Delitsch made this point nicely:

The consecutive arrangement (in Gen. 2:19) may be explained on the supposition that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the beast, went back to the creation, in the simple method of the early Semitic historian, and placed this first instead of making it subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same would be "God brought to Adam the beast which He had formed."

A striking example of this style of narrative is in 1 Kings 7:13. The building and completion of the temple we noticed several times in chapter 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month, chapter 6:9,14,37,38. After that, the fact is stated that the royal palace was 13 years in building; and then it is related that Solomon fetched Hiram from Tyre, to make 2 pillars. If we are to understand the (WAW/VAV) consecutive here, Solomon would be made to send for the artist 13 years after the temple was finished. It only expresses the thought, "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre. -Also note Judges 2:6.

More than this, there are also various "exceptions" which crop up in Hebrew grammar where the waw consecutive is used. Greenberg, citing the grammar of Jouon, notes [Gree.UE, 37, 168n] that the waw consecutive "sometimes occurs when there is no idea of succession" and that there are places where a pluperfect can be rendered in accordance with a summarizing or recapitulating use of the waw consecutive. Collins [Coll.WAP] points out that there are cases of unmarked pluperfects in the OT, and that the specific verb in question in this verse itself often warrants a pluperfect translation. Furthermore, another contributor to this debate observed:

Gen. 2:19 begins with VaYYiTSeR; the verb "YaTSaR" in the imperfect with a WAW consecutive. Waltke and O'Connor ("Introduction to the Syntax of Biblical Hebrew", pp. 544-546) say that "It (imperfect with a WAW consecutive) shows in Hebrew meanings equivalent to those of the suffix (perfect) conjugation." Earlier, on p. 490, they had already shown that the suffix conjugation can have a pluperfect meaning; later, on p. 552, they show that the imperfect with a WAW consecutive can also have a pluperfect meaning, giving as examples "The Lord *had said* (Hebrew: VaYeDaBBeR) to Moses" (Num. 1:47-49) and "The Lord *had said* (Hebrew: VaYYoMeR) to Moses" (Ex. 4:18-19).

I have not been able to check the accuracy of this cite, but assuming it is true, we have now as many as four indications that the use of the waw consecutive in no way diminishes the argument for the use of the pluperfect. It remains untouched by the critic's argument.

So the pluperfect is a more than acceptable reading; but since we are facing the sorts who believe that merely quoting versions is a way to prove that one is correct, and since most versions do use the simple past tense (although as we have noted, even commentators who use it do not necessarily agree that it constitutes actual contradiction!), we had better have another line of defense for them to gnaw on -- and indeed, there is another, one that relates back to our indication of the garden as a special sort of "domestic creation" for man to do his service in.

The naming of the animals was not simply a pre-Linnean classification exercise; it was a demonstration of Adam's dominion over the entirety of nature. The giving of names, in ancient oriental thought, was an exercise of sovereignty and command. One may compare here the idea of bringing subjects before a sovereign, and this will come into play as we develop our argument that assumes reading "formed" as a simple past tense.

Now for recollection and rhetorical purposes, let's once again quote the key passage:

Gen. 2:18-20 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Does anyone notice something? God "formed" beasts and fowl here -- but he brings before Adam beasts, fowl, and cattle -- the domestic creatures! Where did they come from? The answer, under this proposition, is that they were already in Eden (a place of domestic specialty set aside!), and that the "forming" of the beasts and fowl is an act of special creation, giving Adam "samples" of these beasts and fowls from outside Eden for the sake of presenting them to the earth's appointed sovereign. (For after all, why should a king have to wait for his subjects to wander in when he can have them brought to him at once?) In this passage the author clearly shows awareness of the cattle having already been created in G1, for he does not indicate their creation here, but rather assumes that they don't need to be created. Even without the pluperfect rendering, G1 and G2 demonstrate a perfect consistency. (This explanation is also supported by the chiastic structure of the report of the animals: They are cited in the order, "beasts...fowl...cattle...fowl...beasts" -- suggesting that the report is done by design, not because the writer was a knucklehead who couldn't see contradiction so plainly in front of him.)

This fairly disposes of all of Hildeman's objections and retorts on this point. (His appeal to the Documentary Hypothesis shows that he hasn't been paying attention to the scholarship, such as the devastating critique in Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch; but as he only notes it briefly, we will not comment further.) The answers he deals with, from some guy named "Jim," and another from Kent Hovind (!), (not from scholarly sources, of course) are not our own. (If Hildeman wants answers for his Appendix A list of contradictions, we'll have these below. Now we'll see how many years he takes to answer.)

Hildeman Hatches the Contradictions

Fourth on Hildeman's list of urgent things to whinge about: Did Jesus deal with Bartimeaus before or after Jericho? Hildeman is aware of the answer (he calls it "rationalization", thus signifying his frustration) that there was an Old and a New Jericho, which is one of two answers we offer; however, for my part I find the explanation of Rene Latourelle in The Miracles of Jesus [155] most coherent: Luke phrases matters as he does because he wants to follow with the episode of Zaccheus in Jericho. The difference in geographical location may be explained either by archaeology as above, or by compositional requirements per Latourelle.

Hildeman does not know the latter answer, but for the former, kicks against the pricks in vain by objecting:

• If the were an Old and a New Jericho, "the Gospel writers would have specified" which one was in view. This answer is complained in vain, for unless Hildeman SHOWS that such distinction was made between the two towns in literature of the period, he is merely contriving a requirement for the Gospels to adhere to, and then complaining without basis that they do not adhere to it.
• He then objects that there is no reference anywhere to an old or new Jericho. This is utterly beside the point. Archaeology HAS shown that there were two cities; that is all the evidence that is needed for a coherent explanation.
• Finally, Hildeman offers the "brick wall" approach of saying that this explains how the error got in the text, not why it is not an error, and that is patently false. Once again, if this is an artificiality (of the sort LaTourelle offers) then all fundamentalist-mentality bets are off. The text is not Hildeman's personal toy.

Fifth on his list, the death of Judas. Our answer again:

The standard explanation given by harmonists is that Judas hung himself, and then his body fell and broke open. This has some promise: Judas hanged himself on Passover and before a Sabbath, and no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse (touching a dead body caused defilement; it would have been work to take it down on the Sabbath; added to that, death by hanging was especially a disgrace; and hoisting a dead body isn't an attractive vocation if it isn't on your property), so it is safe to assume that Judas hung himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke.

I have previously stated that this solution is also supported by, of all people, the fringe scholar Hyam Maccoby (also noted by Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n]. In his book Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil [180], he notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing. Taken together I still consider the "hanging body/rope broke" solution possible -- but now find something else even more likely.

I would now opt for the idea that this is an example of Matthew's creative use of an OT "type". This would combine the idea that Matthew is not actually describing Judas' death, with Matthew's use of the OT texts as typologies. Audrey Conrad, in "The Fate of Judas" (Toronto Journal of Theology [7] 1992), notes that Matthew's unique words "departed" and "hanged himself" are found in combination in another place in the LXX:

2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father.

Conrad notes that rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.") thought that Ahithophel was the traitor David was describing -- and of course this same verse was applied by Jesus to Judas (John 13:18). Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hung himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened.

"Yeah, well, try this one on for size: Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it, huh?"

There are a few factors at here -- one linguistic, the others sociological. The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word: Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one. Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context. How does this mean anything with regard to Judas? First note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will:

"Yeah, right! A real coincidence, that! How is it that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas blew up in??"

Not very hard to figure, really. Once Judas blew his spare tire in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery.

"Waitaminnit, Holding! If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore! It belonged to the priests! What kind of racket are you trying to pull?!?"

This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:

Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent...

The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means. Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.

"You haven't answered the last problem! Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came because it was bought with blood money. Luke says it was because Judas split his guts all over. So which is it?"

This objection assumes that what was "known unto all the dwellers" was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it would seem that the phrase modifies all that precedes it: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property! There would not be blood everywhere! The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel.

You'd win a lot of money if you bet that Hildeman knew nothing about Conrad's thesis. He knows the other (from Muncaster) and after insulting Muncaster's book for being "teeny-tiny" (compared to what has been written by Craig Keener or N. T. Wright, that describes Hildeman's single 214-page effort quite well) most of his answer has to do with Muncaster's explanation of what the traditional area looks like - which isn't essential to our arguments in either case; though Hildeman's desperate counsel that the landscape of the area could have been different is rather amusing (maybe the Jews moved the rocks around, and there were no trees there in the first century).

Sixth on his list of Urgent Things To Do Before Using the Restroom, Acts 9:22-25 vs. 2 Cor. 11:32-35. Our answer:

This presents an interesting debate, for those who steadfastly insist that Paul's letters are to be given preference over Acts are stuck here with a case where what Paul reports is often regarded as less probable than what Luke does! …Who was really after Paul? Both parties would have their motives; the Jews for obvious reasons, Aretas because of his suspicion of Jewish preachers, helped along by his stormy relationship with the Herods [With.AA, 324]. Cooperation, intentional or otherwise, would not be impossible, and Luke's omission of Aretas may be related to Paul's lack of success in the Arabian mission - for to mention Aretas might require Luke to explain WHY Aretas was after Paul! What exactly did Aretas do, and how did he do it? The answer depends on who was in control of Damascus at the time, and even then there are many possibilities. Did he watch from outside the city himself, or send his minions? Was he watching from the outside because the Romans were in charge of the city, and he couldn't get inside -- and therefore did he recruit the Jews hostile to Paul to help him on the inside? If Aretas was in charge of the city, how much power did he have as a client-king? How many men did he have helping him? Although a valiant attempt has been made by Jewett [Jew.CPL] to determine the answer to these sorts of questions, there is simply too much left open for us to make any determination.

Hildeman disputes that both the Jews and Aretas could have been after Paul because Aretas would have been an Arab, whatever that is supposed to answer. Apparently Hildeman cannot conceive of Paul being pursued by two different parties - Jews on one hand, and Arabs on the other. If he wonders why, he needs only figure out what sort of reaction Christian missionary efforts would have gotten from each.

Seventh on his to-do list, the Triumphal Entry. But hang on a sec. Hildeman here oddly seems to think the issue is that Jesus was on but one donkey, and the contradiction claim is whether the one donkey is male or female. That's not even correct in terms of what the claimed problem is, so this one we can simply ignore until Hildeman gets his act together.

Numero Ocho - the cursed fig tree. Our answer, once again dropped in bulk on Hildeman's head:

"How can Jesus be sinless when he got irritated and angry at the fig tree?" This is a non-objection. There is no hint of irritation or annoyance in Jesus' attitude; how can this be read into the text? Even if there was, though, I have yet to see the commandment, "Thou shalt not be irritated!" And if this was a sin, what do critics do about the weeds in their yards? Do they zap them with weed killer? Does they get irritated and pull them out, and are they therefore sinning by being unkind to them?

"What's wrong with this picture? There wouldn't be figs on the trees in April. Jesus was asking for the impossible! Heck, even Mark admits it wasn't the season for figs. So what's Jesus' problem here?" In a previous version of this essay I noted the common explanation that the fig tree in question had not produced the "pre-figs" (somewhat edible, very young figs) that it should have borne along with the leaves. Hence, it was barren and useless - and thus became a prophetic symbol and an object lesson: That which does not produce fruit will be cut down - just like a weed.

I can now expand on this explanation, which is correct, but incomplete. Throughout the OT, and in the NT, the fig tree as a symbol is tied in with expectation -- and withering is tied in with judgment:

Jeremiah 8:13 I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.

Hosea 9:10, 16 I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baalpeor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved...Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.

Nahum 3:12 All thy strong holds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater.

Luke 13:6-9 He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.

Note as well that in the messianic age, fruitfulness was a sign of blessing:

Revelation 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Witherington (commentary on Mark, 312) adds that the fig tree was a special sign of fruitfulness for Israel. It was often the tree used to bring firstfruits to the Temple. The fig tree was an "emblem of peace and prosperity" and in the messianic age was thought to bear fruit (313).

These points serve to answer the question of why Jesus expected figs -- at a time of year (April; the normal season was much later) when there wouldn't be any normally. As he approached Jerusalem, his acceptance as Messiah would have ushered in the Messianic age. Checking the fig tree for fruit out of season was a signal: Had he found fruit (which normally came in after the leaves), it would have been a sign of the coming Messianic Kingdom. Since he did not find fruit, the tree became a symbol for fruitless Israel, and of his rejection, and was withered -- in line with the OT judgments prescribed above. The withering of the fig tree is an enacted parable (that recorded in Luke) and a prophetic demonstration. To ask why Jesus was "irritated" or "peevish" is to miss the significance of this episode....and Mark is actually offering a double meaning when he says it was "not the season for figs." The "season" in question is not the normal fig season, but the "season" or time of the Messiah! (The Greek word Mark uses is also used in a highly symbolic way: Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel; Mark 12:2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.) Mark's offhand comment has more depth than the critics realize.

As a side note, some complain that there is chronological contradiction between recountings of "whether Jesus overthrew the tables of the money-changers (Matt. 21:12) and subsequently cursed the fig tree (Matt. 21:19), or cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:14) and then threw out the money-changers (Mark 11:15)." The solution is one which recognizes the ancient historiographical practice of arranging material topically for didactic purposes, rather than following a strict chronology.

As we have pointed out elsewhere, the Gospels are ancient biographies. Ancient biographies, because they were not strictly history, arranged material either chronologically or topically, depending on the author's purpose. Hence the scattering and re-organizing of the Gospel material is recognizable as a normal process. Matthew, Mark and Luke had the "right" within their genre to order material as they pleased. The ancient rhetoritician Quintilian wrote:

It has sometimes proved the more effective course to trace a man's life and deeds in due chronological order, praising his natural gifts as a child, then his progress at school, and finally the whole course of his life, including words as well as deeds. At times on the other hand it is well to divide out praises, dealing separately with the various virtues, fortitude, justice, self-control and the rest of them and to assign to each virtue the deeds performed under its influence.

And Samuel Byrskog, in Story as History [212], notes a secular example:

As for speeches, we have the rare opportunity of comparing Tacitus' version of Claudius' oration in favour of the admission of Gallic nobles to the Senate with the rather extensive, though discontinuous, fragments of the same speech preserved on a bronze tablet at Lugdunum...While Tacitus strongly rearranges and condenses the speech in order to sharpen the arguments, it is evident that he had some kind of raw material at his disposal....Cicero himself describes Caesar's commentarii as material from which would-be writers of history could select. Although he subsequently makes clear that historians might prefer the brevity to the "curling irons", he implies that this kind of information could then be subject to rhetorical elaboration....

This principle can be easily seen to have an extension in Matthew in particular, who has clustered teachings of Jesus but not always chronologically, versus Luke, who has followed the chronological model more closely, and how both have on various occasions tailored a work for a particular audience to make the message intelligible. The bottom line is that difference in arrangement is not always difference in chronology and above all is not to be automatically construed as error.

Keener [Matthew commentary, 16ff] further notes that ancient writers of biographies gave themselves considerable latitude in composition which match those we find among the Gospels. A biographer could start in adulthood (as did Mark; hence, no complaint is valid about a lack of mention of the virgin birth); they "also had the freedom to rearrange their material topically rather than in chronological sequence" and "could expand or abridge accounts freely". Ancient historians could also tell the same event differently, even the same author, in different works, to stress an angle they wished to emphasize.

A good example of this paradigm at work would be Luke's "version" of Jesus' first sermon in Luke 4:16-30. This is obviously not the same story as found in Mark and Matthew in their chronology, yet it is obviously intended to take the place of the same story. Luke places this story here for thematic, rather than chronological reasons; and the ancient reader would know this and would not raise a fuss when they saw Matt and Mark report differently. Luke even shows that he knows this was not Jesus' first public appearance (for he alludes to work done at Capernaum, which Luke does not report -- 4:23) but he has placed it in his Gospel as a sort of "keynote speech" laying out themes Luke will pursue. The speech here summarizes the nature of Jesus' synagogal preaching (mentioned elsewhere in Luke, but not reported elsewhere in detail). It also serves as an inclusio for the entire Luke-Acts complex, as Luke 4:16-30 shows rejection of the message of salvation by Jews and anticipates its acceptance by Gentiles, while Acts 28:17-28 the anticipation fulfilled. …Finally, the clincher on this is that Mark's narrative is clearly and unquestionably fit into an intercalation pattern used throughout his Gospel, so that at once any questions of chronology become academic when this pattern comes to the fore.

On this one, Hildeman is so tired that he doesn't even try to look at answers.

Last on the initial laundry list, Hildeman hauls out Barker's "Easter Challenge". On this one I have a ton of literature which I won't assume to put here, but will instead link to it and invite the reader to suppose what hundreds of pages will do to Hildeman's "teeny-tiny" single page on the subject (hee hee). When it comes to these issues, Hildeman hasn't even started to do his homework; he'll do better if he trades in some of that positive arrogance for serious study.

With that done, some odds and ends from Hildeman's first chapter, relevant to our mission:

There are four lines of evidence/argument that supports the view that Paul is quoting mistaken opponents here:

1. We do know that I Corinthians has this literary device in it. In I Cor 6, for example, Paul quotes his 'opponents' in verses 12 and 13, immediately followed by a qualification or refutation. (There are no quote marks in Greek, by the way.) He does this in many places in the epistles, actually.
2. In exegesis, one must pay attention to ALL the details in the text--and this text affords an excellent example of why this is important.

   There is a tiny little particle in the Greek text--not even translated in the NIV and NAS!--that provides some interesting evidence in favor of this view.

   Immediately after verse 35, the first word in verse 36 is a single letter particle that is translated "What?!" in the KJV and ASV. This word in most contexts is translated as 'or' or 'rather', but these are always in series, like "either...or" or "this or that or that...".

   But in this case, it is (1) in the front of the sentence; (2) introduces a completely different subject; and (3) has a complete change of tone--to that of irony and rebuke. Where else does this type of construction occur in Paul?

   Rom 2.3-4: So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? Notice that in verse 3, Paul has stated a view (pernicious and/or erroneous). He uses the particle "What?!" (perhaps best translated at "NOT!" in the slang of today!) and issues a harsh rebuke of the position's content and tone.

   Rom 9.20-21: But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, `Why did you make me like this?'" 21 (particle is here, but untranslated in the NIV) Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? Notice that in verse 20, Paul has stated a view (pernicious and erroneous). He uses the particle "WHAT?!" (remember, "NOT!") and issues a harsh response to the arrogance of the position.

   I Cor 6.8-9: Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers. 9 (particle is here, but untranslated in the NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Notice that in verse 8, Paul has stated an erroneous practice. He uses the particle "WHAT?!" and issues a strong response to the assumptions of the position.

   What this amounts to is that the tiny particle (in this type of construction and flow) indicates VIOLENT DISAGREEMENT with the preceding verses. (See similar usage in Rom 6.3; 7.1; 11.2; I Cor 6.9, 16, 19; I Cor 10.22; 2 Cor 13.5.) The older commentator Findlay, in the Expositor's Greek Testament, used the phrase "indignant protest" to describe Paul's intent with the particle.

3. Finally, Paul consistently uses irony (e.g. I Cor 4.8) and statement/refutation (e.g. I Cor 6.12-13; 10.23) in this epistle to correct mistaken notions. Notice the semantic clues that this is occurring in the text: Paul uses a gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in 14.26-33, with VERY 'universal speaking' words--"everyone has a hymn, teaching, revelation, tongue, interpretation" (26), "if anyone speaks..." (vs. 27), "for you can ALL prophesy in turn..." (vs. 31). He switches to a legalistic, rabbinical-style, "disgrace"-oriented passage in 14.34-35, with 'universal silence' and 'universal restriction' words. He then switches to a rebuking, ironic tone to demolish SOME false teaching in the immediate context! (vss. 36-38). [Notice that the only "teaching" that COULD BE the target of the rebuke in the near context is in verses 14.34-35. This is an important clue.] He then switches BACK to the gentle, instructional, nurturing tone in verse 14.39-40. This flow of argument ALONE would indicate that Paul was rebuking the position in 34-35….
4. Finally, the actual nature of the rebuke in vs. 36-38 indicates that the position is that of some Corinthians, and not that of Paul. This can be seen from the textual flow in the passage: Vss 26-32: Paul's solutions for orderly worship, with 'universal speaking' allowed. Vs 33: Concluding argument: God seeks order, and seeks it THIS way in ALL the churches (accepting the NAS rendering of the final clause). Vss 34-35: Someone ELSE's "solution" for orderly worship, with 'shut the women up' enjoined. Vss 36-38: Paul's argument: Why do you think you are SO MUCH MORE 'spiritual' than the other churches, to the extent that you can set up a DIFFERENT solution to the problem of orderly worship. This contrast between 'what the OTHER churches do' and 'what the Corintian church wants to do' is made in the context of orderly worship and universal speaking. In other words, the rebuke makes the most sense IF the text in 34-35 is THEIRS 'alone'--in distinction from the other churches' position.

Thus Hildeman's idea of a "chauvinistic editor" is unnecessary - and his admonition just thereafter for "determining what it meant at the time it was written" is incredibly ironic in light of this (and his repeated) failures to follow this very advice.

Hildeman Hears a What?

We don't find anything germane to our mission again until Chapter 3 of Hildeman's book - and this time, it's "argument by outrage" time. Hildeman invites us to consider a scenario in which we are an "unmarried woman" of 13 or 14; just out doing our chores peacefully, when "a large band of marauders comes over the hills to the south, attacks your people, and begins slaughtering everything in sight. They kill your mother and father right in front of you. They take you prisoner, herd you away, and give you over as a forced concubine to some horrible man" and you become a soldier's "sex-toy". [67]

Sad indeed. The question is, when will Hildeman accurately report a scenario that reflects what is found in the Bible?

The above is Hildeman's version of what happened in Numbers 31 when Israel met Midian. Unfortunately, he seemed to have not read a few of the prior details when he painted this picture of innocent Midianite provincials minding their own business. To sum it up against the main points above:

No doubt this will throw literalist readers like Hildeman for a loop, so we refer to the detailed essay (too large to put here) at this locale. And is that Hildeman's only bungle in this area? No, he has all the usual suspects. The Canaanites (see here). David's infant son. The firstborn of Egypt. Abraham and Isaac. The Flood. Cain's sacrifice (sorry, but if it were JUST a matter of it being vegetables, then all Cain had to do was say, "Whoops, sorry, I'll try again." That he did not do so shows that the problem was the content of his heart, not the content of his sacrifice). And so on. But not once does Hildeman actually ARGUE that there was any injustice; he merely lists casualties, like a modern newspaper that thinks that pointing out that people have been killed is an argument against a war. Hildeman has obviously not learned what an arguer truly needs to do to make their "argument by outrage" more than just an emotional spin-doctoring. The Skeptical critic tends to assume that people who lived in this day and age were "just like us" and would have reacted with the same immediate moral outrage as they did. That is simply not the case. Mere statement of data on a broad level argues for nothing; a moral hierarchy must be examined and established. Take these two statements:

We are rightly filled with moral outrage at the first one. But why? The obvious reason is that we know about Hitler and we know about his Master race schemes; we know about his attempt to seize power; we know from the data that he was morally wrong. The core of "argument by outrage" is to take something like the second item, however, and shake out the "least common denominator" so that the moral equivalency is made to seem to be the same. However, what if we start defining out the second one so that:

Now that we have the context, whence is the "argument by outrage"? I have chosen a clearly extreme illustration, but between these extremes of black and white lie shades of gray which are a combination of black and white. We would suppose that Hildeman would agree that the Harlanians have a right to defend themselves. If the Refrons refuse to give up -- are willing to fight to the last to achieve their goal -- is it a moral outrage that the Harlanians exterminated 6 million of them? How indeed if the total population of Refrons was somewhere around 70 billion and executing 6 million was the only way to get the Refrons to decide that the cost of conquest was too high? Lest Hildeman think this a fanciful idea, consider the key parallels to the arguments over whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb on Japan. It is not merely an answer that says, "God can do what He likes" as Hildeman thinks it is [72] but of showing that what was done was (or was not) right.

But don't expect such details from Hildeman. His goal here is to commit the fallacious step of saying, "God can't be this horrible. Thus the Bible can't be true here, and thus it could be wrong about creationism."

That's really all that Ch. 3 is about, with a few more additions.

And from here, all we have in this book that is within our scope - until the appendix - are some notes:

The listing of Terah's sons is not in order of birth, nor does it imply that they were all born when Terah was 70 as they would then have been triplets, no instance of which is recorded anywhere else in Scripture. Sons are not always listed in order of birth but rather in order of importance, such as Noah's sons in Genesis 5:32. Then it is possible that Abraham was the youngest being born when Terah was 130. Haran did die first making it then likely that he was the eldest and Isaac married Rebecca, the grand-daughter of Nahor by the youngest son of 8 (Gen. 22:22).

And that ends our comments on the main text. We now proceed to Hildeman's appendix on Biblical contradictions. He says make copies and pass it out. We say, make copies of our answers here and pass it back. Then you can ditch the red herring and force Hildrebran and his friends to get back on track.