Bart Ehrman and his family were devout mainstream believers who faithfully attended weekly services and acknowledged Jesus as Lord and savior. Yet, as a teenager Bart felt a void. Through a Youth for Christ club, he accepted Jesus into his heart. He subsequently enrolled in the Moody Bible Institute which holds to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
It was not long for seeds of doubt to take root. When Bart discovered that we don’t have the original writings, he pondered: “How can we know if our Bibles are reliable. If God went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving it? Why did he allow scribes to change it?” He had other questions: “Why does a loving God condemn people to hell, even those who never heard about Jesus.” Nevertheless, he clung to his faith and entered the Princeton Theological Seminary. His desire was to study under the tutelage of Bruce Metzger, a strong Christian, and a world-renowned expert in textual analysis.
Then comes a crisis. One of his teachers, Professor Cullen asked him to write a paper justifying the name Abiathar in Mark 2:26. The American Standard translation writes:
He [David] entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, . . . (ASV)
According to 1 Samuel 21, Ahimelech was the high priest to which Mark referred, not Abiathar (Ahimelech’s son). Bart wrote his paper with an explanation that he now calls fancy exegetical footwork. The professor replied with a short comment: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” That was a turning point. According to Bart, “the flood gates opened” and he began noticing many more discrepancies. He eventually concluded that the Bible is full of errors. He now considers himself to be an agnostic atheist.
As Christians, what do we make of this? First, most modern translations do not translate the 1 Samuel verse as shown above. They write: “He [David] entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, . . .” This reduces the issue to one of translation. During the lifetime of Abiathar, David entered the house of God, Abiathar’s father gave him showbread to eat, and Saul killed him for this. Abiathar then became high priest. No fancy exegetical footwork needed.
Second, if one wants to find discrepancies in scripture, there are others that are not as simple to resolve. So, in fairness, let’s consider one of these. The following two verses illustrate a problem.
Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,”
Zechariah 11:12-13 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter.
The Zechariah passage is the only place in scripture that contains the phrase, thirty pieces of silver . It looks like Matthew quoted Jeremiah when he should have quoted Zechariah.
Like many biblical inconsistencies, this one is not new. St. Augustine dealt with it many centuries past. He wrote:
Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken by the prophet.
Even today, the Syriac bibles do not record Matthew referring to Jeremiah in the passage. It is important though, that as Christians we don’t knee-jerk to a solution because we want one to exist. Though Augustine’s explanation is possible, it is not likely. It is far more plausible that a scribe would remove an embarrassingly incongruent citation than to add such a reference. Translators agree. Almost all English versions leave the verse as is, with Matthew referencing Jeremiah. It is of note though, that a few (like the Passion Bible) take it upon themselves to intentionally alter the text to say Zechariah.
Many other solutions to this issue are proposed. For example, Matthew is using the word spoken, not written. There is a difference. Jeremiah spoke the words and Zechariah later wrote them down. At first glance, this looks viable. Unfortunately, the phrase spoken by the prophet appears ten other times in the book of Matthew. In all other cases he alludes to written prophecies easily found in scripture. It is a stretch to rely on this defense only in the one case where the wrong prophet is cited. The following list itemizes other alternate proposals to resolve Matthew’s text.
Matthew was using Zechariah’s second name (e.g., Simon Peter). Do we know that he even had a second name?
A scribal error occurred because scribes often used abbreviated names. A single letter change explains the discrepancy.
Matthew is quoting from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah. No such work alluding to thirty pieces of silver is known or mentioned in history.
The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah. This of course is pure speculation.
The prophetic books begin with Jeremiah in the Jewish canon. Matthew was referring to the Jeremiah scroll, containing the writings of all the minor prophets. This solution would be workable if it was consistent throughout Matthew’s gospel. It is not.
This passage refers to both sections of Jeremiah and Zechariah, and only Jeremiah is mentioned. For example, Jeremiah 18 discusses a visit to a potter’s house.
I find none of these hypotheses compelling. What if Matthew made a mistake? Is this a reason to abandon the Bible and cause us to have our faith shaken?
Greg Boyd, one of Bart Ehrman’s classmates writes:
What seemed to erode Ehrman’s faith in Seminary, so far as I could tell, was the challenge textual variations posed to a belief in “inerrancy” (the belief that every word of the Bible has to be without error). How can anyone hold that it’s important that every word of the Bible is “without error” when we don’t even know what many of the original words even were?”
Ehrman’s got a strong point here. If we think it’s important to believe that the Bible is without error, we set ourselves up for the very problem Ehrman ran into. The word “inerrant” only has meaning if we have “inerrant” copies of the Bible to measure “error” up against — and that is precisely what . . . we don’t have. (Though this is nothing new really. Textual critics have been saying this for centuries). For me, it’s enough to hold that the Bible is “inspired” and generally historically “trustworthy.”
Of course, one could object. Doesn’t the Bible claim itself to be inerrant and infallible? For example:
2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work.
One could argue over the single verse just quoted. What did the words breathed out by God mean to Timothy when he received the letter? Is it the words on the page that are breathed out or is it the Holy Spirit breathing life into those words when we are properly listening? Didn’t Jesus promise that the helper (Holy Spirit) will lead us into all truth (John 14:26; John 15:26)?
The qualification that the Bible is inerrant in its original publication leads to other problems. If God cared for every word, and every minutia of the originals, then why did he allow scribal errors to find their way into the texts we have? Why does he seem to be okay with myriads of translation differences and textual variants?
How about the much-loved woman caught in adultery passage (John 8:3-11)? This account is not found in any of the early biblical manuscripts (Bodmer Papyri, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus). The earliest Bible containing the passage comes in Codex Bezae (early 5th century CE). The scholarly consensus is that the text was not in the original gospel of John. This does not mean that the event was not authentic. The third century document Ecclesiastical History alludes to it as does Eusebius quoting Papias (60–130 CE). It seems likely, that at some point, scribes thought it sufficiently important to add it to the biblical Canon.
The women caught in adultery is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. If not in the original text, should it be discarded? What about much of the Old Testament which took centuries to stabilize? The gospel writers quoted from the Greek Septuagint, not the Masoretic Text which is now used in modern translations. Which one is infallible? The original publication criterion simply does not work.
The whole inerrant issue came about in the mid-20th century reacting to denominations that were dismissing entire sections of the Bible. I’ve done a lot of work with linguistics. Word meanings change over time. Inerrant in the 1st century is not now. There would be discrepancies and debates even if we did have the originals.
There is more to consider. If we grant that the Bible text is inerrant, interpretation is not. This is obvious. Why else would there be thousands of denominations who confidently shout the phrase, The Bible clearly says ? The whole concept backs Christians into a corner. A skeptic need only find one contradiction anywhere to dismiss the entire Bible. For these reasons, I find the traditional doctrines related to inerrancy and infallibility to be unfortunate. I would rather stick to what the Bible directly states and not construct an artificial protective fence around it. I take all of scripture very seriously and consider it to be authoritative. We inerrantly have exactly the text we are supposed to have. With the help of the Holy Spirit, it will infallibly accomplish its purposes. So, no. An error or contradiction here or there need not be a reason to abandon or question one’s faith.
References
Augustine, Augustine, De Consens. Evang. book 3, chapter 7, paragraph 29
Greg Boyd, “How do you respond to Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus?”
Bart Ehrman, “My Encounter with the Enlightenment”
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16
Got Questions, “Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah when it is from Zechariah?”
Tommy Wasserman, “Does the Woman Caught in Adultery Belong in the Bible”
P. J. Williams, “Review of Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus”
Thanks for listening,https://secondlooknow.com/
While I hold to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inspiration, it does seem this issue is very complex. If the Biblical records had no discrepancies, the skeptic would decry collusion among the Scribes. Inspiration is a dynamic process. That we have ancient writings which, when examined, are largely intact and where no verses present variants which effect major doctrines, it seems like much ado about nothing.
Thank you Dr Harvey for this great piece of work, am indeed blessed and it has strengthened my Christian faith.
Blessings Dictor.
Thank you so much for your kind words.