Those who believe in biblical inerrancy (i.e., the Bible does not contain any errors, historic, scientific, or otherwise) normally start with a theological conviction which is arrived at deductively. They believe, like I do, that God is perfect and without error. They also believe, like me, that the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible is perfect and without error. Once this theological presupposition has been adopted, the Scriptures can be understood and interpreted in light of this belief.

The problem often arises that one creates a new hermeneutic (i.e., method of interpretation) that can manipulate the text to make it conform to this doctrine of inerrancy. Any inductive claim to error is rejected outright and interpreted in light of some sort of “inerrant hermeneutic.”

Others, however, do not approach the Scripture with such a theological presupposition. They take an inductive approach: if they believe in inerrancy, they do so because they don’t find any errors in the Scripture. This type of inerrancy is rare. Why? Because there do appear to be some issues that seem, in the minds of many, to be beyond resolution. Many of these do not believe in inerrancy simply because they have found what they believe to be errors.

As a necessary aside, I find myself compelled to say that many of those who do not believe in inerrancy do believe in the inspiration of Scripture. In fact, I know dozens of very fine and godly evangelical scholars who are completely committed to the proclamation of the Gospel and the defense of the Christian faith who are not advocates of inerrancy. In other words, a denial of inerrancy does not in any way necessitate a denial of the faith.

I believe in inerrancy. I do not believe that when the Scriptures are rightly understood there are any errors, historic or scientific. Inductively, however, I do often find myself scratching my head concerning certain passages. My theological conviction does play a part in my hermeneutic, but it is not determinative. It cannot be. I am either searching for truth or seeking to confirm my doctrine and conform a text to my presuppositions. I pray each day that it is the former.

With this in mind, I was asked the other day by a student as to what is the most difficult problem that you have found in the Bible that challenges your view of inerrancy. Without a doubt, it is the problem of Abiathar in Mark 2.26.

Here is the skinny:

When Christ was confronted by the Pharisees for allowing his disciples to eat on the Sabbath, he responded to them with this:

22 And He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry;
26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?”
27 Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
28 “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

The problem is that Abiathar was not the high priest at the time of this incident according to the Old Testament. According to the account in 1 Sam 21.1-7 Ahimelech was the high priest. Abiathar was his son, who would later become high priest.

To further complicate the problem, Matthew and Luke do not include the phrase epi Abiathar archiereos, “at the time Abiathar was high priest.” For those who hold to Markan priority (i.e., they believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and used as a source by the others—which is the majority view among Evangelicals), they might respond by saying that the reason for Luke’s and Matthew’s omission was that they were correcting the error of Mark.

Dan Wallace mentions five possible reasons for the problem (source):

1. Text-critical: the text is wrong and needs to be emended
2. Hermeneutical: our interpretation is wrong and needs to altered
3. Dominical: Jesus is wrong and this needs to be adjusted to
4. Source-critical: Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong
5. Mark is wrong

I would add one possible option to this list:

6. The Old Testament is wrong, Christ corrects it

Without going into the arguments for each or my position (and I do have my opinion), what are your thoughts here? Do you think the Bible has erred? If not, how do you explain this without sacrificing your hermeneutical integrity to an inerrant presupposition?

Why bring this up on an Evangelical theology blog? Because these are the type of issues that we need to discuss.

C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    203 replies to "A Possible Error in the Bible?"

    • todd M. vetter

      Scripture is perfect. The bible is not. The old covenant which is perfect was written on stone. The New covenant is written by the spirit on the heart… not on paper.

      You must fulfill the old Covenant by the example of Christ to receive the New Covenant.

      The resurrection of the son of man is re-birth by repentance.

      The sign of jonah is that Christ rested in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights. The resurrection from death occured 3 years earlier.

      See the link to my site for evidence of this.

      God Bless

    • Lisa Robinson

      Eric, yes I am aware of that the DTS doctrinal statement ascribes inerrancy to the autographs. My comment by implication was in refutation of Fish’s assertion that the Bibles we have cannot be inerrant since they are not the originals. I probably could have worded it better. My bad, since I since I have to sign off on both statements (ETS and DTS) 😉

    • #John1453

      Re post 97 by oldman

      Oldman’s observation only tells us about his culture and time, not about that of Hebrew speakers when the text was composed and then written. Consequently his observation is linguistically irrelevant, culturally ignorant, and anachronistic.

      Languages are very different from each other, and the systems of thought and organization that they encode are equally different from each other. Hence his statement proves nothing excep that the organization / categorization doesn’t make sense to him (or me either, but then again I’m not a 4,000 year old Hebrew speaker).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.