Posted on 01/12/2019 1:22:02 PM PST by pcottraux
Can the Word of God Contain Errors?
By Philip Cottraux
When I read Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus, one quote in particular stood out to me. This was during his interview with Daniel Wallace, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary:
STROBEL: “It was almost as if (Bart) Ehrman were saying ‘Find me one error and I’ll throw out the whole Bible.’ That’s something you hear at some ultraconservative Christian schools.”
WALLACE: “Good grief, that’s such a shockingly naïve approach to take! You’ve basically turned the Bible into the fourth person of the Trinity, as if it should be worshiped. I’ve actually had Christians tell me Jesus is called the Word, the Bible is called the Word, and so I worship the Bible. That’s scary.”
At first I didn’t understand this statement. After all, I made a similar argument for Bible inerrancy in a previous blog, The Bible IS Jesus. I’ve always understood that John 1 calls Jesus the Word, and therefore if the Bible is also the Word, it is Jesus. The idea that Christians could turn the Bible into an idol sounds contradictory.
The logic of inerrancy seems tight. If God is perfect and the Bible is His Word, wouldn’t it too be perfect? Operating under this assumption, skeptics and fundamentalist both assure us that if anything is slightly imperfect in the Bible, then the entire book collapses. Unfortunately, atheists have caused plenty of Christians to abandon their faith by pointing out errors and contradictions they claim it’s riddled with.
Bart Ehrman, head of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was originally an evangelical Christian who studied at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. However, while working on a degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, he came to a turning point when writing a paper on an apparent discrepancy in Mark 2. Realizing that it contained an irrefutable mistake, he questioned whether or not the Bible contained more mistakes, which would prove it to be man-made. Ehrman is now a controversial leading voice in the skeptic community and author of the best-selling book Misquoting Jesus.
Let me be clear before I continue; as a Christian, I do believe that the Bible is the infallible, authoritative Word of God. However, I think Ehrman serves as a cautionary tale of where too-strict inerrancy can lead you. This is a difficult subject, but I think tackling it will be very helpful for Christian readers. Because like it or not, atheists will confront us with this.
Let’s start with the hard evidence. At date, there are somewhere between 25-30,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament in languages ranging from Greek to Latin to Coptic, including 117 papyri from the first, second and third centuries. These include the Chester Beatty collection, the Oxyrynchus papyri, and the Bodmer collection (click here for a lecture I gave on this if you want to learn more). The earliest is p52, a piece of John 1 that dates anywhere from 90-110 AD. While most of them are fragments, scholars can piece them together enough to reconstruct with 99% certainty what the original New Testament said.
The New Testament was written originally in Koine (common) Greek, which was the secondary language of ancient Rome. Most citizens spoke two languages, their native tongue and Koine Greek to make communication across cultural boundaries easier. Since each New Testament book was written to a different church in different regions, they were all inscribed in this universal language to be accessible to as many as possible.
While Ehrman’s scholarly credentials are without question, his approach is deceitful, to say the least. He tends to manipulate his students and readers into anti-Christian conclusions with partial truths. One example is his rather sensationalist claim that there are between 200-400,000 “textual variants” in the New Testament, which proves it was tampered with by the early church and is so full of mistakes as to be untrustworthy.
Koine Greek is very different from modern English, as most ancient languages are. In an English sentence, the subject comes before the verb and predicate, and changing these would alter the meaning. For example, I pet the dog means something completely different from The dog pet I. But this is not the case in Koine Greek, making word order changes inevitable during translation.
These inconsequential differences account for 70-80% of Ehrman’s “textual variants.” When scrutinized, most of the rest are either spelling errors or equally meaningless mistranslations. For example, in Romans 5:1, does Paul say “We have peace” or “Let us have peace”? Or does 1 John 1:4 say “that our joy may be complete” or “that your joy may be complete”? Does it really matter?
But once we’ve discounted most variants, we’re still left with a handful of major differences between the modern New Testament and the original Greek fragments. For example, the story of the woman caught in adultery, which includes the infamous phrase “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” in John 7 doesn’t seem to appear in the earliest copies. Scholars are uncertain where this story first emerged and how it was incorporated in scripture, but the writing style of the passage is more consistent with Luke than John. Some have speculated that Luke may have found out about the story after publishing his gospel and attached it in later revisions as an appendage; a later early Christian scribe, unsure of where the story went, clumsily incorporated it into John.
When you factor in that there are literally tens of thousands of ancient manuscripts from the following centuries, every single “variance” is reproduced across the spectrum, artificially inflating the number of “variants” to seem higher than it actually is.
The real question Christians should ask is whether or not this affects doctrine. So far, not a single variance has changed any Christian theology. Contrary to common atheist claims, there is no evidence that the New Testament was altered by a sinister council of bishops. This nonsense falls into an anti-historical narrative that early Christianity was a religion of power-hungry madmen involved in shady conspiracies rather than a persecuted minority trying desperately to preserve their sacred writings.
What, then, of Ehrman’s original beef with Mark 2? The exact scripture is verse 26: How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Jesus is teaching about the importance of the Sabbath and cites a story where David entered the tabernacle uninvited and ate the sacred showbread. According to Mark, Abiathar was the high priest. However, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 states that it was Ahimelech.
For me, this passage helps bring the historicity of the New Testament to life. While some apostles like Paul or Luke were well-educated, Peter was a fisherman most of his life and was probably not very literate. John Mark became his protégé at a young age, revealing the imperfection to be a small fingerprint of the real men who authored the New Testament.
This is why inerrancy is wrong. If a minor mistake is found in the Bible, the whole book does not fall apart. “What else could be wrong?” isn’t the next logical question. I’ve spent years investigating the archaeological evidence for the Bible stories. Most of them stand the test of real historical events. I’m firmly convinced that there was a real Exodus, a real conquest of Canaan and a real King David. Yet this is paltry when it comes to the evidence for Christ. Numerous historians of the time including Josephus, Thallus, and Tacitus reference him. We can reconstruct the basic outline of His biography from extra-biblical evidence that matches the gospels. Archaeological discoveries of coins and inscriptions verify historical details of Luke’s writings. The New Testament story is clearly based on true events. A mistake in Mark 2:26 doesn’t change that.
This is also true for the alleged contradictions within the gospels. Atheists often attack the scriptures on these grounds without realizing that contradictions are the hallmarks of accurate eyewitness accounts. Whenever two people see the same event, what they describe almost always differs, because they see through the filter of their own biases.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all differ in their accounts of the resurrection. This is a tell that they’re describing an actual event rather than a fabrication. We could be suspicious that foul play was involved concocting the narrative if all the details matched perfectly.
For the record, everything I’ve just said is also true of the Old Testament. The Dead Sea scrolls match the Masoretic texts (which most Bibles take their Old Testament from) about 80%. The twenty percent difference is mostly negligible discrepancies that do not affect Jewish theology.
But this still leaves us the original question of why a perfect God would allow imperfections in His Word. The answer requires us to clear up some fundamental presumptions of how He works and what the Bible being His Word actually means.
The first question is what exactly you mean by “the Bible.” People tend to narrowly define the term to just include modern English translations. But the Bible is so much more than that. It also includes the original ancient scrolls and manuscripts like the Septuagint and Greek codexes.
The Bible isn’t so much a physical book as an idea. It is therefore not limited by the imperfections of human language, which is beautifully revealing. It isn’t a perfect golden tablet that descended from the heavens. The Holy Spirit whispered what to write into the ears of prophets. Some of them had to work with poor vocabularies. But God never forcefully brought His Word into existence.
I would liken the Bible to a human being. As much as we would like to be defined by our physical traits, the mystery of human consciousness is more complicated than that; you can dissect a human brain, but you can never find a person’s mind. As you age, you get wiser. You wrinkle and your hair turns gray. But you’re still you. You have the same consciousness. The same soul. Jesus Himself was subject to the limits of a physical body. Despite being God made flesh, He wasn’t a glowing baby that never aged. He could be thirsty or hungry. He had to sleep. And He was suffered a horrible death on the cross.
The Bible has gone through translations and revisions. Each Hebrew or Greek word translated to modern English is a wrinkle it’s formed over the years. Or a hair turned gray. But it’s still the Bible. It has the same mind. Its revelations can never be corrupted no matter what form they take.
That message is the embodiment of Christ Himself. And unlike ink on pages, it will never die.
Well there are numerous verses describing "the scripture" or "the words of the prophets" or whatever as the Word of God. But as far as "the Bible," I hearken back to a point I made toward the end...it depends on what you mean by "Bible." And what it actually means to be the Word of God.
May write a follow-up blog on that, thanks.
I agree that lack of understanding is the main reason people think the Bible is riddled with errors.
I agree.
I wouldn't call it a "big" difference...
I've only seen copyrights on modern translations like the NIV. It's missing from the KJV or earlier versions like the Tyndale Bible. And obviously there aren't any on the ancient scrolls or papyri. :)
However, pcottraux does not excerpt his stuff to make clickbait of it.
Thank you for having my back, but defending myself to humblegunner is a lost cause. I just embrace his criticism with good humor (he isn’t hitting me as hard as he thinks he is) and roll with it.
How about:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalm 19:7-11)
"IT IS WRITTEN..."
Answer with the Word of God.
Say, "It is written, 'Your word is truth', John 17:17, and 'No lie is of the truth' 1 John 2:21."
Seems a bit naive. I don't know anyone in the many Bible studies I've been in who would define the Bible to just English translations. In fact, there are many great on-line tools that allows you to explore the original text, tenses and phrases in both Greek and Hebrew.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all differ on their accounts of the resurrection simply because they 1) had different audiences or 2) had different purposes for their writings. When one harmonizes their writings their is no problems. Same way with most of the Old Testament.
I find people who don't believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of scriptures 1) don't really believe the scriptures and are simply playing church, or 2) aren't believers to begin with and feel the need to attack Christianity. Over the fifty years that I've been a Christian, I've found a majority of those "controversial" or "error ridden" verses cleared up with study. But those who lack faith will never understand this.
I agree that Scripture is infinitely valuable. But the term “The Word of God” — that refers just to one person, Jesus. The term “The Word of God” isn’t used in reference to a collection of writings.
I think all alleged discrepancies can be satisfactory explained, and i overall reject the premise that the earlier extant manuscripts (mss) are better, for the later ones can be copies of even earlier ones which wore out. But one sentence of yours seems to need correcting, that "we’re still left with a handful of major differences between the modern New Testament and the original Greek fragments." For it is my understanding that we simply do not have any original Greek fragments apart from a minute scrap.
As for an
apparent discrepancy in Mark 2. Realizing that it contained an irrefutable mistake, he questioned whether or not the Bible contained more mistakes, which would prove it to be man-made. Ehrman is now a controversial leading voice in the skeptic community and author of the best-selling book Misquoting Jesus.
I do not find this to be a "irrefutable mistake" and neither should Ehrman have. The Greek word which is translated "in the days of" is translated "before" 18 times in the KJV accordin to my KJV concordance software: : Mat_10:18, Mar_13:9, Luk_21:12, Act_10:17, Act_23:30, Act_24:19-20 (2), Act_25:9, Act_25:26 (2), Act_26:2, 1Co_6:1 (2), 1Co_6:6, 2Co_7:14, 1Ti_5:19, 1Ti_6:13, Rev_10:11 Robertson's offers that "It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Sa_22:20; 2Sa_8:17; 1Ch_18:16), Abiathar mentioned though both involved."
And Poole comments,
A Besides that those words, epi ’ Abiayar, do not necessarily signify in the days of Abiathar, as we translate it, no more than epi metoicesiav signifies in the carrying into captivity, but about the time, or near the time; which it was, for Ahimelech was presently after it (possibly within a few days) cut off, as we read, 1Sa_22:17,18; and Abiathar was a more noted man than his father Ahimelech, enjoying the priesthood more than forty years, and being the person who was made famous by carrying the ephod to David.
Barnes states,
son of “Ahimelech.” Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of “Abiathar” is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterward known.
“Abiathar,” moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David’s reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate “his” name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of “Abiathar,” who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that “General” Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of “General” did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the notes at Luk_2:2.
Gill adds,
t might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest";...let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give, "the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי כהן גדול אמור, "lo! he is called an high priest".''
And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki_1:25.
And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.
All these are classic evangelical commenters (available for free thru the E-sword module ) whom Bart ("Barf?") Ehrman would have known of, and for him to find this to be an "irrefutable mistake" indicates more of a desire to find something to justify his departure from Biblical faith than reasonable research and conclusion.
And you should not have allowed Ehrman's skepticism here to go unchallenged.
I wouldn't call it a "big" difference...
Well, one difference, I think, is that Jesus as the Word is one of the co-equal members of the Trinity. But I agree - to call that a "big" difference is I suppose just my subjective opinion.
In John 1:1, Jesus is called the Word ("logos" in the Greek). In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
In Revelation 19:13, Jesus is called "The Word of God". He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is The Word of God.
In I John 1:1,2, Jesus is called "the Word of Life". That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.
In I John 5:7, Jesus is again called "the Word". For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
That Greek word "logos" is actually used over 300 times in the Bible. Its definition: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech. Its usage: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy. (see https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3056.htm). When Scripture says the "word of God", it isn't only speaking of Jesus. In many cases it IS referring to the Holy Scriptures:
2 Corinthians 2:17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. ... At least we don't go around selling an impure word of God like many others. The opposite is true. ...
1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually ...
Colossians 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- ...
1 Timothy 4:5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. ... For we know it is made acceptable by the word of God and prayer. ...
2 Corinthians 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. ... We do not use trickery or pervert God's word. ...
Ephesians 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. ...
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel...
So, I will have to respectfully disagree with your contention that "the term 'The Word of God' isn’t used in reference to a collection of writings". It clearly is in the written word, the Bible.
So, now the question becomes, why does it say "the days of Abiathar the high priest" when clearly Ahimelech was the priest at that time (1 Sam. 21:1)?
So, now that we see there were multiple priests during that time, the question then becomes, "Why does Mark refer to Abiathar as the high priest? Wouldn't Ahimelech have been the high priest at that time?" Not necessarily. Notice in Leviticus 21:10 how the high priest is defined as the one who has the annointing oil poured on his head and "is consecrated to put on the garments." Now look carefully at the wording of 1 Sam 22:18:
"And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod."
If that isn't enough evidence, notice how there are multiple high priests even at the time of Jesus Christ in Luke 3:2:
"Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests..."
After carefully studying the account in 1 Samuel, we see that Mark is perfectly correct in saying that David went to the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest." This is not a contradiction.
YES!
And you'll find them coming from the mouths of the UNBELIEVERS found in the bible.
Amen.
King James Only-ists...and ironically, I always quote the KJV as it's my personal favorite...tend to do this. And Young Earth Creationists, to a lesser extent.
Specifically I'm referring to two examples, the story of the woman caught in adultery and the last 12 verses of Mark (to my knowledge, these are the most dramatic instances). While missing from the earliest papyri (as well as the Codex Sinaiticus), there are a whole host of theories of how they ended up in scripture. You could be right that they were from copies of earlier manuscripts than we currently have found, so they can't be discounted outright. Either way, neither affects any central doctrine or our salvation in Christ.
And you should not have allowed Ehrman's skepticism here to go unchallenged.
I will concede that I should have addressed Mark 2:26 more, but that was merely for time and space (this blog was already running way over my typical length, so I sort of glossed over Ehrman's reasoning and my own answer).
You and Iscool both provide very solid answers to a scripture that Ehrman alleges destroyed his faith. Ehrman himself is an unethical character for a professor and supposed New Testament scholar...he tends to insinuate things without saying them outright (the title of his book is Misquoting Jesus....but he never cites an example of where Jesus was actually misquoted...).
Ehrman's version of the story always struck me as shady. Like he's not telling the whole truth. According to him, he researched Mark 2:26 and thoroughly wrote a long paper trying to explain the discrepancy, but couldn't do it. He even claims when seeking help on the project, his professor just shrugged and said "I guess Mark made a mistake."
All these are classic evangelical commenters (available for free thru the E-sword module ) whom Bart ("Barf?") Ehrman would have known of, and for him to find this to be an "irrefutable mistake" indicates more of a desire to find something to justify his departure from Biblical faith than reasonable research and conclusion
I don't like to speak for anyone or assign motives, but this seems to be likely if people like us can sit around, crack open a few commentaries and find a satisfactory answer. Ehrman was studying at Princeton Theological Seminary at the time, which is a more liberal school than he would have been used to. Was he negatively influenced there? We may never know.
He's still a step above Richard Carrier, though.
Personally, I prefer the New American Standard or the English Standard Version.
I always wondered why those who claim themselves to be believers would say the Bible is error ridden? After all, if there is one significant error in the text, how can one trust any of it? It isn’t blind faith that we accept the scriptures. The scriptures are such that when King Josiah had the lost text of Moses read to him, he understood the word of God and wept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.