You say Jeremiah, I say Zechariah, let's call the whole thing off

Some aspects of Bible apologetics really impress me in a way. Just when I think I have found the killer, no possible response passage, they come up with some plausible explanation. Of course, it's just a matter of showing that something isn't *necessarily* a contradiction, rather than showing it's definitely *not* a contradiction. Not convincing to me personally, but I must tip my hat to their inventiveness. Of course some apologetics is so bad that it seems to require an apology itself. I recently came across this gem from the grand master himself, Augustine. The passage below refers to an apparent error in Matthew that *seems* to be attributing a passage to the wrong book of the Old Testament:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/judas.html#otmistake

St. Augustine in his work De Consensu Evang (III 7) said that Matthew knew very well that the sentence came from Zechariah, but he also knew that he was writing at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and he dared not take the liberty of correcting it. And why did the Holy Spirit dictate an inaccuracy? To show that all the prophets were equally inspired and that it did not matter whether what was said by one was ascribed to another!!

I think the nuttiness of this sort of thinking doesn't require comment, but one thing about this does sort of encourage me. No serious apologist would present this sort of argument these days. So that's some progress...

[atheism]