A Possible Error in the Bible?

Hank Hanegraaff answers this in one of his Bible answer books. I believe his answer was something like this: Note the text does not say that Abiathar WAS the high priest. It simply says, “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.” Meaning Christ was using the soon to be priest to give a time reference. Christ was not saying Abiathar WAS priest at that time, only that he was alive at that time.

Apparently, Abiathar was a better known name at the time, so Christ used it instead of Ahimelech.

http://www.equip.org/articles/did-jesus-make-a-crucial-historical-blunder-in-the-gospel-of-mark-

Most decent commentaries provide more than adequate explanations. This from A. Barnes on Mark’s gospel says it as well as any:

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.

Sam,

So you’re saying that Mark erred in saying Abiathar was the high priest because of his association with David?

What I want to know is: what did Judas do with the money and who bought the field?

It could be a text issue, but if it is, one wonders why there are no manuscripts with the correct name, or some phrase that would clarify the issue (such as “father of” Abiathar). This is also interesting because this is precisely the kind of thing that you would think that an overzealous scribe would “correct,” at some point, thinking it to be a mistake. The controversial phrase is omitted in a small minority of manuscripts, but where the name of a high priest occurs, it is always Abiathar. Thus the invocation of any transmission error is pure speculation.

The ambiguous phrase, “epi Abiathar,” allows a wide range of interpretation. If he meant “in the days of Abiathar, why did Mark use this phrase instead of the usual… “en tais hemerais…”? One suggestion that I found in Robert Stein’s commentary on Mark is that this means, “In the section of Scripture that speaks about Abiathar.” This initially seems compelling since Jewish practice was often to label books or sections of books by the first words contained in them or the main character about which they were concerned (more so in the Pentateuch than anywhere else though, e.g. “Noach, Yithro, Korach, etc.). The problem is that Abiathar doesn’t turn up in the text until 22:20, so it is very unlikely that this section of scripture would have carried his name.

In the end, isn’t the simplest explanation that Mark made a mistake? He had a lapse of memory, and accidentally wrote Abiathar when he meant to write Ahimelech. One does not know how rigorous Mark’s editing process was, but seeing as this detail was hardly central to his argument, one can see how it could have been overlooked (one might envision Mark being corrected by one of his fellow apostles after his work had been “published” and remarking, embarrassed, “Oops. Well, you know what I meant.”)

When it comes to the gospels, aren’t most evangelicals pretty forgiving anyway? We have largely given up on harmonization. The gospels do not agree with one another in all of their details, and that’s okay. They are portraits of Jesus, not high resolution photographs. Even fairly conservative inerrantists (at least in the circles I frequent) admit this regularly and are okay with it. There are many cases where you have parallel gospel pericopes that contradict in some detail or another in such a way that they cannot both be true. In these cases, I honestly find it best to speak more of reliability than of inerrancy. Do you trust that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all being good historians, making good use of sources oral and written to give us, his readers, a well-researched, factual account? If we were to travel back in time and watch the events described first hand, would they play out exactly like the Jesus film? Probably not. But would we recognize most of what was happening such that it confirmed that the Gospel writers were telling the truth and not just making stuff up? I believe so.

Mike,

“This is also interesting because this is precisely the kind of thing that you would think that an overzealous scribe would “correct,” at some point, thinking it to be a mistake.”

Good comment. This really does help us in the area of integrity of text criticism. It should give people comfort to know that we do not hide these difficulties so that our faith can be manipulated in the eyes of others. This is true whatever position you take.

I think one option is to leave it unresolved. That is, to say that we have an inconsistency in the data for which we believe (by way of theological assumption) that there is a resolution, but we don’t know what that resolution is.

I don’t think that’s a cop out. There are lots of things that seem to have no resolution and until someone uncovers new evidence that resolves it. I think it is fully responsible and humble to distinguish between “I don’t know how to resolve this inconsistency” and “this inconsistency cannot be resolved.” Coupling the former with experience and well justified theological pre-commitments leads to the fully defensible belief that there is a resolution.

Mike, no i don’t think Mark erred. he simply used expressions that everbody understood. and by the way, A. Barnes said it not me. there is no error in what Mark says.

Well, that is interesting. Couple of things.

Jesus didn’t say that Abiathar actually was High Priest at the time that David came to Ahimelech. He says only that the event took place in the time of Abiathar. And that would make sense since Abiathar was standing right there at the time.

It would be kind of similar if someone was remeniscing about David’s encounter with Goliath and said, “So there was our glorious King David, standing in front of Goliath with his knees knocking, yet trusting God…”

He wasn’t King at the time, but he is refering to King David.

Abiathar WAS a High Priest, so refering to him as “Abiathar the High Priest” is legitimate. Abiathar was present at the time, so refering to “the time of Abiathar” is legitimate.

It’s the time-dodge that makes it look contradictory. We still refer to Jimmy Carter (grundgingly) as “President Carter” even though he is not THE President right now.

… and stuff like that… (Which is what I always say when I don’t know how to end a conversation gracefully and just want to bring it to a close… 😉

kirby (h’at) wallaceinfo [daht) com

Very interesting questions/comments. I have a question related to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I have been taught that the “scriptures” (grafee in Greek if my elementary skills are accurate) are the writings of the authors. Stated differently, what Mark wrote was inspired rather than Mark was an inspired author (who we acknowledge was carried along by the Holy Spirit).

If so – how could our scriptures be in error – unless there was a scribal or translation error introduced at some point in history.

Is what I’ve been taught correct? If so, what bearing would it have on this topic?

Thank you for the insightful posts – I pray for your ministry.

I’m working on an ordination paper, and inerrancy is one of the points I must support and defend in the paper. Yet I struggle with inerrancy, or to be more accurate, verbal plenary inspiration. (I don’t focus on inerrancy. My current thoughts are that even if there are “errors”, they are inconsequential to the intent and trustworthiness of scripture) I explained this to my denominational mentor and he feels it comes down to this: Is there anything in the Bible that God is unhappy with? (Maybe not his exact words) My answer is no. The passage CMP quotes is still accurate, because Jesus is speaking about the Sabbath. His point is valid regardless of possible problems with the time reference.

I don’t even have a problem if it were determined Jesus was wrong. An honest mistake is not sin.

I agree with Emil Brunner and his illustration of the RCA dog – in spite of any pops or crackles in the recording, we still hear and recognise our Master’s voice.

Some of the earlier comments provide solutions I find satisfactory, but I can appreciate those who would disagree.

Personally, I find many “contradictions” to be instances of the reader assuming the words say more than they do.

Regarding those who feel wary to endorse everything inerrancy can be taken to mean, I feel you. I don’t have problems with how the Bible puts it, but sometimes I am reluctant to heartily agree to the way some people conclude the Bible puts it.

God did not give us a book written on tablets of gold, such as believed by Mormons or Muslims. God has used human authors to write his text.

Michael wrote, “…God is perfect and without error…the Bible is God’s word. Conclusion? The Bible is perfect and without error.”

While this sounds like a tidy syllogism, it actually is logically invalid. Just because God is perfect, this does not necessitate that his tools of communication exhibit the same characteristics of perfection. For example, look at the following:

P1 God is perfect and without error.
P2 Human beings are made in the image of God.
C Therefore, human beings are perfect and without error.

As tidy as this sounds, it is invalid. Even postlapsarian (after the Fall), humans are still in the image of God (Gen 9:6, et al), but yet we are of course terribly imperfect.

When God set foot on the earth, what did he do? He became flesh. God condescends himself to humanity, and takes on human norms, in order to accommodate and communicate with us.

In the same way, many theologians and evangelical scholars (as Michael hinted at above) are suggesting that we should have this “incarnational” model for the scriptures. They are fully divine, but they are also fully human. And when we overemphasize the “divine” nature of the text, we perhaps are committing the same mistake that the Gnostics did about Jesus, insisting that he never truly had flesh–that he was never human.

Many conservative Christians deny the “flesh” and humanity of the scriptures, similar to the Gnostics with Jesus. We don’t like to find passages where maybe an author was “too human.”

For an introduction to God accommodating himself to us in order to communicate, see this post, “The Gospel According to Ancient Near Eastern Culture.”

“God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Cor 1). Even to atheists, it only makes sense that of course if a god were to write a book, it would certainly be inerrant. But our God uses what is foolish to shame the wise. Maybe all of the “errors” found in the Bible, such as Abiathar, are actually what they appear to be–very simple, very very miniscule “errors” that do not interfere whatsoever with God’s bigger-picture of redemption. And maybe that’s okay.

I am an inerrantist. I am aware of this difficulty though have not thought about it a lot. If I were to I would construct a genealogy of the high priests around that period. There seems to be more than one Ahimelech and family names are not a new phenomenon.

But my first response is that one does not need to read identity into chronology. So I would suggest a resolution along the lines of several commenters above: Abiathar became high priest and therefore it is a legitimate identification.

If you were discussing Mary, and someone said which Mary (I mean, there are so many of them), and you responded the Virgin Mary; would that be incorrect even though Protestants don’t think she is still a virgin?

I think there are much harder difficulties in the Bible. Which Zechariah was Jesus referring to? And I can’t resolve the 3 Peter denials yet.

I would add this comment though. I used to notice a lot of problems with “contradictory” passages, and have read material resolving them. But several passages have seemed difficult over the years. Many of them have been resolved, but often in ways that have taught me significantly. My ideas have been modified and I have seen that Scripture at times is more specific than first appearance, or that a concept I thought was singular was actually several concepts that I had conflated (possibly by virtue of the English language), or that the Hebrew or Greek was not fully parallel with the English.

So resolving problems has expanded my understanding of Scripture significantly. Further, the frequency for which legitimate resolutions were forthcoming means that I am no longer concerned if I come across a difficulty, it will likely be resolved in time.

There isn’t always a precise moment in time that someone hands over his office to his successor.

For example, Queen Elizabeth II technically became queen the moment her father George VI died in 1952, but she was not officially crowned as queen until 1953.

According to Josephus, Caiphas was appointed high priest about A.D. 18 and removed from that office in A.D. 36. During this period Annas, father-in-law of Caiphas, who had been high-priest from A.D. 6 to 15, continued to exercise a controlling influence over Jewish affairs. This explains the puzzling expression in Luke 3:2 (“under the high-priest Annas and Caiphas”; cf. Acts 4:6). Caiphas was certainly the only official high priest at the time, but Annas still had his former title and much of his former authority. The role assigned him in the trial of Christ (John 18) points to the same continued influence.

Jotham was the acting king of Judah during the time his father Uzziah had leprosy, even though he did not officially become king until his father died. So there wasn’t a clear-cut changeover in the kingship but rather a period of ambivalent overlap when both men could have been described as king of Judah, though in different senses. See 2 Chronicles 26:21.

Alternatively perhaps the Lord Jesus was referring to the general period of history in which Abiathar’s high-priesthood formed a prominent part but which also included a generation or two before and after. From the perspective of Jesus and his hearers hundreds of years later, the high-priesthood’s of Ahimelech and Abiathar constituted a single era of history, and Jesus used Abiathar’s high-priesthood as a synecdoche for the whole period. In the same way a historian might speak about “the times of King Henry VIII” to refer to the period of English history covering several decades before & after his actual reign.

Is the “kathôs gegraptai” (“just as it is/has-been written”) of Romans 9:33 an “error”? I.e., the apostle Paul borrows from two Scriptures (Isaiah 28:16 and 8:14) to create his own amalgamation which doesn’t either in whole or in part precisely match the wording of either of them – and declares what he has written to be “what is written” when in fact what he writes is not “just as it is/has-been written.”

Or do we say that kathôs gegraptai is an idiomatic phrase that doesn’t necessarily mean what it says; rather, it means the speaker/writer/Jewish sage is going to quote some Scripture or combination of Scripture or adaptation of Scripture or modification of Scripture which may not be exactly “what is written”?

I think it is useful to see how similar the views of those who believe inerrancy are to those who don’t.

CMP started off by saying: “Those who believe in biblical inerrancy… 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.”

Here is the other evangelical view: Those who don’t believe in biblical inerrancy normally 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. However, they believe that the perfect God used imperfect men as the tool for the transmission of his word, and while God inspired, he did not, except for a few recorded places, dictate. Conclusion? The Bible is not perfect and not without error.

Looking at these two views then, the question becomes, which view best fits the scripture as we know it without having to do mental gymnastics. Reading the above comments make me think that there are a lot of mental gymnastics required to arrive at option A for this passage as well as others. As a result I tend to be more comfortable with option B.

Option B simply says then: “God inspired Mark to write, God did not dictate. Mark is human, and likely made a human mistake. The overall intent or message is still the same, so let’s move on.”

Note: Not saying that we should move on from this topic, only that the noninerrantist doesn’t see errors as an issue.

Michael Bell-

“which view best fits the scripture as we know it without having to do mental gymnastics”

I understand what you are saying, but two thoughts come to mind.
1st- do we not have to sometimes go through mental gymnastics regularly in our own normal lives to explain certain truthful situations? Do we then hold Scripture to some different standard?

2nd- If you hold to errors in Scripture, do you not then have to go through mental gymnastics to explain how you still hold it as authoritative?

I don’t have a problem with the authority and truthfulness of Scripture whether it contains error or not. As CMP stated, it is a matter of correctly understanding the Scriptures, including the intent of writers, the message God is communicating, and how the early church understood that authority.

Kirby Wallace & Phil McCheddar get it!

rick: “If you hold to errors in Scripture, do you not then have to go through mental gymnastics to explain how you still hold it as authoritative?”

This is an a priori mistaken assumption on our part. We *assume* that of course, if a deity were to have a book, it should be perfect and inerrant. And if it is not perfect, we then say that a person is performing “mental gymnastics” to “prove” that it is still a divine book.

But actually, this is the opposite of the truth. If we think about it, it only makes sense that God would accommodate himself to us. John Calvin put it well when he said that God condescends to us and speaks “baby babble,” in order that we may understand him even a fraction. (See my comment #13 above, with a link therein).

“Kirby Wallace & Phil McCheddar get it!”

I’d say Bethyada gets it too.

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the response.

Not sure I completely understand your first point, you might have to give an example for me.

As for the second point, here is the American Heritage Dictionaries definition of Authoritative:

1. Having or arising from authority; official: an authoritative decree; authoritative sources.

2. Of acknowledged accuracy or excellence; highly reliable: an authoritative account of the revolution.

3. Wielding authority; commanding: the captain’s authoritative manner.

With this definition I don’t have a problem with the Bible being authoritative.

I am reminded of a joke I heard from an engineer. “Does an engineer believe that a glass is half-full or half-empty?” Answer: Neither, an engineer believes a glass is .49876321 full.

I am like the non-engineer, for most of us it is sufficient to say that the glass is half-full or half-empty. I don’t think that a higher level of precision was intended in scripture, so I don’t expect it. So while I believe that the Bible is accurate and reliable, I am not expecting scientific precision. Note how it talks about a captain being authoritative. I also see my Father as being authoritative. I do not believe either are perfect, yet they can still be authoritative.

Maybe someone has already said this. If you were referring to the year 1770 you might say, “In the days of President George Washington…” The fact is, he wasn’t president for another 19 years but he was alive in 1770 and we know him as a President. You are not talking about the exact years of his presidency (1789-1797). You are using him as a reference point that he was alive at the time. That would be a fine point of reference to include “President” even though he wasn’t president in 1770.

That could be what is going on in this text. Jesus is referring to a time when Abiathar was alive and because he is known to them as a high priest from the past it makes sense to call him “Abiathar the high priest” even though he wouldn’t be that for some time. Because Abiathar was probably alive at the time it is perfectly legit to refer to him as high priest even though he wasn’t yet. Jesus doesn’t say, “In the time Abiathar served as high priest.” He says “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”. Hope that makes sense.

Kirby #9 beat me to it…sorry about that.

If the Bible contains errors regarding details that some might not consider essential, how can we be sure it doesn’t contain error in its essential teachings? Do we just assume that? If I start to see too many errors in a medical report—even those that aren’t specifically medical—it will probably call into question the veracity of the report’s major findings.

Is the Bible the Word of God to its original recipients (and now to us), or does it simply contain the Word of God? If it only contains the Word of God, who determines what is and is not error-free communication from God and on what basis? If it actually is the Word of God, how can we have a fallible, error-containing Word of God? Is this not profoundly incongruous?

And since, as others have mentioned, other seeming contradictions or errors in Scripture have been clarified through additional historical data, justifying the reading of the text, why should we assume error rather than simply the need for more information? Since similarly troublesome readings have proven to be accurate in the past, shouldn’t we give the Bible the benefit of the doubt (without forcing the passage into a procrustean solution)?

Michael Bell-

Sorry I was not clear with my 1st point. I was just trying to say we often have to use “mental gymnastics” to further explain to others confusing events we regularly experience (accidents, conversations, etc…). Those listening may be initially confused until we further explain the situation. Then looking back, the way we had first explained the situation makes sense to those listening.
Therefore, using mental gymnastics as something that limits an interpretation of Scripture puts a different standard on Scripture than it does in everyday life.

Likewise, claiming Scripture is authoritative (“highly reliable”), yet contains errors, also causes one to have explain in way that could be seen as mental gymnastics to those listening. Again, the mental gymnastics bar may not be a very useful standard.

That being said, I don’t think you and I are too far off in our position. I like how N.T. Wright speaks of the authority of Scripture as shorthand for God’s authority.

I agree with Dave Z on this one:

“My current thoughts are that even if there are “errors”, they are inconsequential to the intent and trustworthiness of scripture”

Isn’t this the reason that we have 4 records of the gospel? To teach us that there can be multiple perspectives, and that there are some details that matter more than others?

If the “inerrancy” of the Bible doesn’t mean “inerrant” – i.e., without error – without requiring qualification, explanation, caveats, etc., then I don’t think the word “inerrant” should be applied to the Scriptures. When you have to redefine and nuance and explain a term like “Biblical inerrancy” so that “square peg” discordant instances can still fit into what is now no longer the simple round hole that “inerrant” normally denotes, then I think you have a problem justifying the use of the word “inerrant” in the first place.

As someone has said, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Perhaps that’s why the Evangelical Theological Society, whose Doctrinal Basis/Statement is:

Doctrinal Basis
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.”

has not been successful (though it’s not for lack of trying) in getting all its members to agree to adopt the Chicago Statement as the definition/meaning of “inerrancy.” At most they have agreed to “refer” members to it:

Bylaws
…
12. For the purpose of advising members regarding the intent and meaning of the reference to biblical inerrancy in the ETS Doctrinal Basis, the Society refers members to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The case for biblical inerrancy rests on the absolute trustworthiness of God and Scripture’s testimony to itself. A proper understanding of inerrancy takes into account the language, genres, and intent of Scripture. We reject approaches to Scripture that deny that biblical truth claims are grounded in reality.

“My current thoughts are that even if there are “errors”, they are inconsequential to the intent and trustworthiness of scripture”

I’m not sure how errors can be inconsequential to the intent and trustworthiness of Scripture. If a document contains too many errors, I question its trustworthiness. It doesn’t mean it has nothing of value, but the more errors found within it, the more the rest needs to be verified. If a certain writing is claimed to be somehow of divine origin, the standard of accuracy is going to be a fairly rigid one (IMO).

Since the level of authority we are according Scripture is a much greater one than other authorities, shouldn’t the validity of that authority be certain? In what sense, and to what extent, are the Scriptures authoritative?

Another quick comment:

I don’t think that anyone really arrives at inerrancy “inductively.” Those who search the scripture and find it error-free to their satisfaction are still operating with the presupposition that if they find something that looks like an error, an explanation that exonerates that scripture from error is preferable to an explanation that does not. Thus their ability to call the Scripture inerrant still rests on their ability to explain away apparent contradictions and errors.

To tell the truth, this is no simple matter, even if you do not believe in inerrancy. There are many liberal scholars who are historical minimalists and, for lack of a better term, “error maximalists.” They take the exact opposite approach to the above. To them, if it looks like an error or contradiction on first glance, then it probably is. These kinds of people could learn a lot from conservative scholars who try very hard to find explanations for the problems they find in the Bible.

At the same time, though, many times the explanations that evangelicals come up with to uphold inerrancy stretch credulity to its limits, and often ignore simple, workable and elegant explanations in service of a doctrine that they themselves imposed upon the texts. The gospels all implicitly or explicitly (as in the case of Luke) claim to be truthful, but none of them claim to be free from error. Yet we have presupposed what the authors themselves never supposed for no other reason than for our own theological convenience (and I would argue that as issues like this passage we are discussing evidence, it actually makes it anything but convenient).

In the end, you cannot prove that any historical document is free from error. You can only demonstrate its plausibility and decide whether you have sufficient reason to believe what it is telling you.

Well, since most Evangelical Protestants use the Hebrew OT text, whereas most NT authors seemed to use the Greek translation (LXX) for their OT Scriptures, which possibly included the Apocryphal books (or some of them) and which differs in text and meaning in some very important verses (and in the case of, e.g., Jeremiah in length/content) from the Hebrew OT text, the very definition of “Bible” that most Protestant Evangelicals use when saying that the Bible is “inerrant” or “authoritative” is possibly at variance with what the early Christians and the NT authors used. So when we talk about the “inerrancy” and “authority” of the Bible/Scriptures, we first have to declare and justify what we mean by “the Bible,” and how/why.

And that’s another (though related) can of worms.

Because of the many textual variants, almost all inerrantists limit inerrancy to the autographs. Concerning the textual variants, inerrantists usually say that God providentially protected the manuscripts so that no significant errors crept in, and so that the essential things in the Bible were all reliably preserved. Well, why can’t we say the same for the autographs? Why can’t we say that God’s inspiration of the writers was as far as was necessary to reliably communicate God’s message?

Even if Mark made a mistake and wrote Abiathar when he meant Ahimelech, it doesn’t affect the point of what Jesus was saying. The spiritual lessons for us today are the same whoever the high priest actually was.

Curt writes:

“I’m not sure how errors can be inconsequential to the intent and trustworthiness of Scripture.”

Jesus makes his point about the Sabbath regardless of the possible error regarding the exact chronology. The intent comes across and is trustworthy.

I think it comes down to the nuance between inerrant and infallible. Actually, I think the term infallible places greater emphasis on the power of God to communicate through scripture. Inerrancy places the emphasis on the power of the words themselves. And we must remember the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding us into truth.

This leads to what I think is a point almost of disrespect to God in most evangelical statements of faith – typically the first point in the statement is “We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, inerrant in the autographs…” Second point – “Oh yeah, we believe in God too.” We have placed the product above the source. I understand the reasoning, but it still seems backwards. My own denomination changed that last year.

This emphasis on the words themselves leads us to treat each word of scripture as if God himself spoke it. Then we give lip service to the human role in writing scripture. “It’s not dictation” then we treat it as if it is. As I see it, verbal plenary IS dictation. I don’t see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I also can’t help but notice that NONE of the ancient statements of faith, or creeds, felt a need to include a statement about scripture. Inerrancy is the new kid on the block, an overswing of the pendulum in response to 19th century liberalism, and that alone means we should examine it closely to make sure we’re keeping the baby only and not the bathwater.

BTW, Curt, how do you do those italics?

This leads to what I think is a point almost of disrespect to God in most evangelical statements of faith – typically the first point in the statement is “We believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, inerrant in the autographs…” Second point – “Oh yeah, we believe in God too.” We have placed the product above the source. I understand the reasoning, but it still seems backwards. My own denomination changed that last year.

When we were studying the Orthodox Church, this was a point the priest made. I.e., whereas most Evangelical Protestant statements of faith begin with “What We Believe About: 1. The Bible…,” the Orthodox Church Statement of Faith (i.e., the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the ΣΥΜΒΟΛΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΠΙΣΤΕΩΣ) begins:

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

“And in One Lord Jesus Christ….

“And in the Holy Spirit, the Lordly One (as Pelikan translates To Kurion),….”

Kudos to your denomination’s enlightenment. 😀

Italics on is

less-than sign (above comma ,)
letter i
greater-than sign (above period .)

Italics off is

less-than sign
/ (below question mark ?)
letter i
greater-than sign

Underline on is (this does not work here, but it does at some blogs)

less-than sign
letter u
greater-than sign

Underline off is

less-than sign
/
letter u
greater-than sign

Bold on is

less-than sign
letter b
greater-than sign

Bold off is

less-than sign
/
letter b
greater-than sign

Blockquote

on is:

less-than sign
blockquote
greater-than sign

Blockquote off is

less-than sign
/
blockquote
greater-than sign

For ease of reference, I quote below the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, which as CMP noted omit the reference to Abiathar:

Mark 2:26 “how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” (ESV)

Matthew 12:4 “how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?” (ESV)

Luke 6:4 “how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?” (ESV)

There may also be some confusion in the texts of the Old Testament as well: 1 Samuel 22:20, 2 Samuel 8:17, 1 Chronicles 18:6, 1 Chron. 14:3, 6, 31. A composite picture of the lineage might be Achitub, who fathers Ahimelech, who fathers Abiathar, who fathers Ahimelech.

In the five potential solutions listed by CMP, I suggest that it is not accurate in #3 to simply say that Jesus is “wrong”. There are far more issues at play here and more nuance is therefore required. Jesus was human: He suffered, felt pain, stumbled, and learned to walk as a child. Could not he have been forgetful just as we are? Or, less problematic, we know that in His pre-resurrection incarnation He did not possess ominscience: He did not know the “time” planned by His Father for the end. It would not, therefore, demean Jesus deity to have Him accurately report what he had heard or read (Abiathar as High Priest), though on the other hand the Biblical reporting of his great knowledge of the Bible (note his impression on the scribes, etc. when His parents took him to Jerusalem) would imply that Jesus likely did know the Old Testament text well.

Another way to approach Jesus human nature in relation to the story is that Jesus was “going with the flow” of a tradition that held Abiathar in high regard and used him as a reference point.

My main point, however, is that any explanation of what is going on in Mark 2:26 should also account for the humaness of Jesus.

Regards,
#John

I’ll give you Inerrancy, heck ill even give you inerrancy in the “King James Only” sense.

Just explain to me how we can “rightly understand and correctly interpret” it Michael. =)

EricW, thank you. Saved for future reference.

Phil McCheddar:

Comparing textual variants with Scriptural error: We have thousands of manuscripts to use to determine where error has crept into the texts. Do we have anything comparable for determining actual error in the original autographs? Science? Study of history? What about the multiple times that the Bible has proven to be correct when the almost-current scholarship was not? Or do we simply rely on a Magisterium?

Dave Z:

Good point on statements of faith. We’ve been talking about that in our church as well. The logic of the common approach is that Scripture is our primary source for knowledge of God, etc. But it does seem as if we’re putting the emphasis on the Bible rather than God or specifically Christ.

I don’t have a problem with nuance, but when “infallible” is one of the definitions of inerrant, I don’t really see the distinction. In my experience, inerrancy became such a loaded term that many people were just more comfortable speaking of the Bible as infallible. But how can a text containing error be infallible? I have a hard time describing an inaccuracy as God-breathed.

I can appreciate some of your trouble with the concept of verbal plenary inspiration, because I think it’s often been overemphasized to the point where it is almost indistinguishable from dictation. However, I would see room for nuance between the two. Dictation would be similar to the OT “Thus saith the Lord: . . .” Verbal plenary inspiration includes the words of Scripture, but is inspiration through the thoughtflow and language usage of Paul, Mark, etc. So we can compare what Paul means by justification with what James means without sacrificing the truth that the Spirit inspired both. He used their unique ways of expressing themselves. But this is a long way from saying that God allowed them to communicate error.

I think there’s a “lesser to greater” problem here. Jesus told Nicodemus that if he didn’t understand earthly things, how was he supposed to understand heavenly ones. In a similar way, back in my skeptic days I would have asked, “If Jesus was supposed to be God and he couldn’t even keep the historical details straight regarding his own chosen people, why should I trust him to tell me what is real regarding spiritual truth?”

(Thanks to EricW for sharing the HTML tips.)

First of all, I believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures. It’s GOD’s written words and everything has been written according to his will.

1. Text-critical: the text is wrong and needs to be emended
– If we can check back the oldest source of the Book of Mark then possibly we can prove or disprove this fact
2. Hermeneutical: our interpretation is wrong and needs to altered
– I think this is the most probable reason
3. Dominical: Jesus is wrong and this needs to be adjusted to
– Jesus can’t be wrong. PERIOD!
4. Source-critical: Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong
– Possibly but who can prove?
5. Mark is wrong
– Possibly but who can prove?
6. The Old Testament is wrong, Christ corrects it
– It can’t be wrong.

The Book of Revelations says no one should add or remove even a letter from these scriptures (OLD or NEW). Doing so will bring condemnation. Jesus or GOD can’t be wrong because HE’S GOD!

It can’t be with an error because if it has even one, it makes everything wrong or unreliable.

Let me ask this a different way:

So whenever specific details are necessary to communicate spiritual principles, then God kept the text free from error through divine inspiration. But when the details don’t directly relate to a specific principle, then God didn’t bother to preserve the integrity of the original text?

Isn’t that a little hard to swallow?

If God preserved some Scripture from error, why not all of it?

And if we were to find incontestable error in what is supposed to be God-breathed Scripture, doesn’t that call into question its inspiration? Or at least the infallible nature of any of it?

Curt,

Good points, but I think infallible goes to purpose, whereas inerrant goes beyond that. The Bible will do what God wants it to do, not because the words are perfect, but because it is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not the words speaking, but the Spirit.

I know the arguments, but to me VP inspiration is still dictation. Maybe I’ll understand the difference someday, but it’s not happening today.

I always wonder, if the Bible is both divine and human, where the human parts are. I see a verse like this:
2Ti 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
(trying out the italics thing)
as Paul’s contribution. There is no need for inspiration in that personal comment. Why force in in there?

I also wonder exactly what “God-breathed” means? After all, Paul seems to have coined the term, and to my (very limited) knowledge, we don’t have a bunch of other greek usage to help determine meaning. If Paul was going to coin a term, why not coin “God-spoken” which would clear things up a bit?

To Mike,

Why can’t Jesus be wrong? He is without sin, but honest error is not sin. Scripture and theology do not require he be perfect in everything, only sinless.

Do you think that when Joseph taught him to use a chisel or plane Jesus did not make carpentry mistakes? That Joseph did not have to instruct him, he already knew it all? Was Jesus perfect at mathmatics? He knew pi to the final decimal? What are you requiring of this man who had “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness”

Luke (2:52) says: And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men.
In order to grow in wisdom, one (even Jesus) must be lacking in wisdom

The proper translation of the word archiereus is ‘chief priest’ not ‘high priest’. The plural form is translated ‘chief priests’ in the Gospels regularly and includes the top members of the priestly circle. In other words, the word is not restricted to simply one man, the head honcho.

If Jesus had used the the High Priest in question, instead of the one most often associated with David, we would now be discussing the cost of this ‘Sabbath made for man’.
For helping David the high priest lost his life, this would add another nuance to the augmentation of what was being said.
It is for this reason I feel no later scribe amended the text in Mark.

Any thoughts?

Here is one I am interested to see how people work out.

Jethro is Moses father in law (Exo 3:1). But just a few verses prior he is called Reuel (Exo 2:18, see also Num 10:29). Here is where it gets confusing. In Judges 4:11 Moses’ father in law is referred to as Hobab. Numbers 10:29 says Hobab was Jethro’s son. So is Judges 4:11 wrong where the writer accidentally misread the Numbers text and put in Hobab rather than Jethro/Ruel?

W.F. Albright suggests it may be the difference between personal names and clan names and that in translation we are not quite understaning the distinctions they would have recognized. Additionally Ruel means “friend of God” but still seems like a personal name. The NIV translates חתן as “brother in law” with “father in law” in the footnotes. That is based on another suggestion by Albright that it might be a “misvocalization in the Hebrew text that could lead to “son in law” or “brother in law” – See Hughes in IVP Dictionary of the OT – Pentateuch, 468-469.

So we have a lot of assumptions here that are hard to distinguish between. It may have to do with language, culture, etc and fined tuned definitions that we are just not clear on today linguistically. Are there questions about the text and its accuracy? Yes. But not in places that really make a hill of beans of difference. And they can usually be explained in a way that makes a lot of sense. So I am very slow to assume error first before looking at the possibilities.

Even if we can’t work it out, I am not afraid to say that maybe I just don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle in front of me.

The Book of Revelations says no one should add or remove even a letter from these scriptures (OLD or NEW). Doing so will bring condemnation. Jesus or GOD can’t be wrong because HE’S GOD!

It can’t be with an error because if it has even one, it makes everything wrong or unreliable.

:rolleyes:

Dave Z,

I hear you, and I appreciate your perspective. I’ve wrestled with some of this before. I’ve just come down in a slightly different place than you have.

I see the divine and humane nature of Scripture in much the same way I do that of Christ. Was the moment when Christ hit his thumb with a hammer a human moment or a divine one? I don’t know that we’re supposed to distinguish the two, either for Christ or the Bible.

Thanks for the exchange!

Curt, it could be argued that God did not preserve the text, especially of the NT, but it has been (mostly) recovered by guys like Dan Wallace, through textual criticism. As I understand it, there are real and significant differences between existing manuscripts. Bart Ehrman has abandoned the faith over that. But it doesn’t really bother me. The Spirit still speaks.

Read some of Dan Wallace’s writings for a scholar’s perspective. My knowledge is, as I said, very limited.