Among the many pressures that shape biblical interpretation, few provoke as much discomfort as contradiction. Tension between accounts, inconsistencies in detail, competing theological emphases — these are rarely left alone. They are explained away, harmonised, subordinated, or reclassified.
The instinct is clear: scripture must not contradict itself.
This instinct is not naïve. It is structural.
Contradiction as a Relational Fact
Biblical texts do not speak with a single voice:
-
creation is narrated more than once, and differently,
-
law is repeated with variation,
-
histories diverge,
-
theological claims pull in opposing directions,
-
ethical imperatives collide.
These are not marginal anomalies. They are woven into the fabric of the canon.
Contradiction arises not because scripture fails, but because multiple relations have been preserved rather than collapsed.
Why Contradiction Is Intolerable
Contradiction threatens the very stabilisations interpretation depends upon:
-
coherence,
-
authority,
-
teachability,
-
doctrinal consistency.
The intolerance of contradiction is therefore not an exegetical quirk. It is a defensive response to the threat of interpretive instability.
Harmonisation as Interpretive Cut
The standard response to contradiction is harmonisation:
-
apparent tensions are reinterpreted as complementary,
-
divergent accounts are combined into a single narrative,
-
conflicts are relocated to different contexts or purposes.
Harmonisation performs essential work. It preserves unity and protects authority.
But it is a cut.
What it produces is not the elimination of contradiction, but its containment.
The Suppressed Remainder
What harmonisation suppresses is not error, but plurality:
-
multiple historical memories,
-
competing theological visions,
-
unresolved ethical tensions,
-
divergent communal concerns.
These relations are not accidents. They are the residue of scripture’s formation across time, community, and struggle.
When suppressed, they return as:
-
interpretive unease,
-
scholarly debate,
-
alternative canons of emphasis,
-
quiet discomfort among readers.
Contradiction and Truth
Contradiction is often treated as incompatible with truth. This assumes that truth must be singular, consistent, and non-relational.
But if meaning is relational, then contradiction does not negate truth. It signals the coexistence of multiple stabilisations within a shared field.
Reading Contradiction Relationally
A relational reading does not celebrate contradiction for its own sake. Nor does it rush to resolve it.
It asks instead:
-
What relations are being preserved here?
-
What pressures does this tension reveal?
-
What would be lost if one side were eliminated?
Contradiction becomes informative rather than threatening.
Intolerance as Boundary Marker
The intolerance of contradiction marks the boundary beyond which interpretive closure becomes fragile.
It tells us:
-
where coherence has been prioritised,
-
where plurality has been suppressed,
-
where authority depends on denial rather than engagement.
Contradiction is not a flaw to be corrected. It is a pressure point where the field of constrained meaning exceeds its stabilisation.
Looking Ahead
In the next post, we will turn to The Intolerance of Ethics — where moral discomfort presses hardest against interpretive cuts, and where scripture’s capacity to wound, disturb, or resist moral closure becomes unavoidable.
For now, it is enough to recognise this:
No comments:
Post a Comment