The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

ARE THERE ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?

We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. -2 Cor. 4:7

The "earthen vessels" in this context is in reference to the apostles, for they were, except for Paul, men of low estate and limited education. Had they been men of letters and of renown they might have diluted the glory that belongs only to God, for it is He who "commanded light to shine out of darkness who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).

In antiquity, if not still, treasures were deposited in earthen ware for safe keeping. But it was the gold or silver or diamonds that was the treasure, not the rude vessels that contained them. The vessels might be marred or cracked, but still they served as suitable receptacles for their precious contents.

Paul stressed the fact that God had chosen base and despised things so as to put down the proud assumptions of man - "that no flesh should glory in His presence" (1 Cor. 1:28-29). In that context he also says: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty."

And so God chose the humblest of people, the nomadic Hebrews, to be "the apple of my eye," and not the Egyptians or the Greeks. He chose the lowly hill country of Judea for their home, and not the magnificent plateaus of Europe. He chose a peasant girl to give birth to Christ, and not a Roman princess. Jesus was born in a stable among brute beasts, and not in a palace among royalty. The Christian message was eventually deposited in Koine Greek, the simple language of the masses, and not in the language of Plato or Euripides. God was always choosing humble things so as to expose the folly of proud things. He did not even want the gospel proclaimed in the wisdom of words "lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect" (1 Cor. 1:17)

It is understandable, therefore, that Paul would see even himself, as well as all the apostles, as lowly earthen vessels, and so he could write the likes of: "I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling" (1 Cor. 2:3). He went so far as to say: "We have been made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things until now" (1 Cor. 4:13).

It appears inappropriate to ask if these apostles as earthen vessels in the hand of God were "without error" in what they said and did. As they proclaimed the good news would their grammar be exact and their syntax flawless? Would the facts of their testimony be correct in every detail and would they never contradict each other in what they reported, not even in the minutest items? Would every event referred to, every Scripture quoted, every date given, every name named be exactly right? Would such perfection be necessary for the purpose for which God called them?

On the very face of it we are compelled to concede that their ministry must have been as imperfect as they were as human beings. It is human to err, and every human endeavor, yea, everything that is touched by human hands is less than perfect. Even when we believe the apostles to be inspired or moved by the Holy Spirit, which the Bible teaches, we do not necessarily have to see them as flawless and inerrant. Inspiration may only mean that God "breathed" upon the apostles in such a way that they were led to say what he wanted said, at least in terms of the message that God wanted the world to hear, but in a way that allowed for each apostle's individual differences, peculiarities, and prejudices.

To claim inerrancy for the apostles and for the documents they eventually produced is an odd claim, one that they never made for themselves or for the Scriptures, whether the Old Testament, which was the Bible they knew, or for their own writings. The Bible makes no claim for either infallibility or inerrancy. It rather claims to be a "Thus saith the Lord" in sundry ways and diverse manners, and that through earthen vessels.

One can believe that a prophet like Jeremiah was moved by the Spirit and that his overall message is the word of God and yet believe that he was wrong in his thinking when he accused God of deceiving him (or lying), as he does in Jer. 4:10. And one can believe that Matthew was an inspired apostle and yet err in quoting from the Old Testament, as he did when he attributed to Jeremiah what was actually in Zechariah (Mt. 27:9). Matthew was quoting from memory, and, being the earthen vessel that he was, he attributed to one prophet what was said by another. An error like that does not matter unless one claims for the Bible what it does not claim for itself, absolutely no errors.

A more serious question about Matthew is the way he uses the Old Testament. In the lines that he took from Zech. 11:10-14 (and attributed to Jeremiah) the prophet is telling how he flung an unworthy reward he had received to the potter. Since the reward was thirty pieces of silver, Matthew feels free to apply this to the betrayal of Judas, though there is nothing in Zechariah to suggest that it is prophetic in any way. But Matthew often did this kind of thing, such as applying "Out of Egypt I called My Son" (Mt. 1:15), which he took from Hos. 11:1, which clearly refers backward to the time that God delivered the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage and not forward to the instance of the child Jesus being brought back from Egypt at the death of Herod, as Matthew uses it.

It was important to Matthew, writing as he was to Jews, to find prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures that were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is easy to conclude that he overdid it, but he was an apostle, an eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ, and the fact that he chose to use this method made it right for him. But the rule should be: don't use the Old Testament like that unless you are an apostle! Perhaps no one but Matthew would have thought of applying Jer. 31:15, "A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children," to the slaughter of the innocent children in Bethlehem in the time of Christ, as he does in Mt. 2:18. Matthew takes a passage of hope and finds its fulfillment in a tragic scene of doom. In Jeremiah, God is telling the prophet that Rachel, the ancestress of all Israel, is weeping from her grave, which by tradition was in Ramah, and she weeps because her children have been taken away into captivity. But God tells her to stop weeping, for her children will be brought back from their captivity. There is hope!, God says to the weeping Rachel in her grave.

Matthew picks up on the weeping Rachel and says it is fulfilled in the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, and he makes no use of the hope in the passage. But Jeremiah says it applies to the return of God's people from Babylon, and so Rachel need not weep. This need not be thought of as an "error," but we should see that such things are a problem to those who seek to interpret the Scriptures responsibly. But again, Matthew was an apostle, and if he was led by the Spirit to make such figurative or poetic use of Scripture, he had that right. But you or I should not use Scripture in such a disjointed way.

It is risky to speak of the Bible as having errors, for this is taken to mean that it must therefore be unreliable and untrustworthy. And it rallies the troops against you, for there are those who will rise in "defense of the word of God," and you will be called bad names like liberal or modernist and accused of not believing the Bible. And there is the inevitable question, "If there are errors in the Bible how can you distinguish between what is error and what is truth?" And so one who really loves the Bible and believes in its integrity, and yet wants to be honest in his study of it, is looked upon as an enemy of the Bible if he does not subscribe to a modern theory of inerrant, plenary, and verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. I call it modern because it is nowhere implied in Scripture, was not believed by the early church, and is found in none of the ancient creeds of the church. It was born of modern Fundamentalism.

Alexander Campbell himself, who lived before most of the findings of modern Biblical criticism, wrote as follows when he was reviewing an article that insisted upon plenary and verbal inspiration:

There is one assertion in the following remarks from which we must dissent - "that the scriptures claim for every jot and tittle of themselves the same plenary and verbal inspiration." This we regard as ultraism. Mr. Cone can, in our judgment, adduce no proof of any such claim; and could it be substantiated, would greatly impair the reasonings of the most able defenders of the inspiration of the Bible. It would be a great reproach upon the four Evangelists to represent them as believing every jot and tittle of the words of the Messiah and of themselves to have been inspired, when not any two of them narrate the same parable, conversation, sermon, or aphorism in the same words. The ideas and leading terms that represent them may be so regarded, but not every jot and tittle. - Mill Harb., 1837, p.397

Since Campbell held that the ideas were inspired but not necessarily every word, one might ask him how he would differentiate between what is verbally inspired and what is not. He would probably say that common sense determines it. Take, for example, the words that Pilate had inscribed on the Cross, concerning which he said when asked to change the wording, "What I have written I have written." But what did he write? All four evangelists reported what he wrote, as follows:

This Is Jesus The King Of The Jews. (Mt. 27:37)
The King Of The Jews. (Mk. 15:27)
This Is The King Of The Jews. (Lk. 23:38)
Jesus Of Nazareth, King Of The Jews. (Jn. 17:19)

If one holds that inspiration means a plenary (full), verbal (word for word) communication from the Holy Spirit, he has some explaining to do in instances like this, and there are many of them. Common sense tells us that Pilate did not write all four of these statements on the Cross. So, if the Fundamentalists are right, three of these statements are erroneous. Here we have three "errors" in the Bible, for surely the Holy Spirit did not dictate what Pilate wrote in a different way to each of the four evangelists.

Not being one who holds the verbal-plenary-inerrant theory, I have no problem at all with such discrepancies, and yet I believe that "All scripture is inspired of God," as 2 Tim. 3:16 says. It does not say that all Scripture is revealed by God, for clearly much of the Bible is drawn from personal knowledge and other documents, as Lk. 1:1A indicates. The Spirit inspired Luke, we can believe, but it did not reveal to him what he finally put in writing.

So, in the case of what was written on the Cross, I can see each writer relying on his memory, or drawing from a source before him, and so what they wrote was the gist of what Pilate wrote, and so they differ in precision. So, there is no error unless we try to make the Bible into a book of magic, untouched by man's fallibility.

Or take the case of the centurion who wanted Jesus to come to his home and heal his paralyzed servant boy:

Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, pleading with Him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented. And Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." (Mt. 8:5-7)

A certain centurion's servant, who was dear to him, was sick and ready to die. So when he heard about Jesus, he sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal the servant. (Lk. 7:2-3)

Only two of the evangelists tell of this incident, and while they generally agree on the story, they differ as to who it was that made the request to Jesus. Matthew says it was the centurion himself who came to Jesus, while Luke says he sent elders to make the request. Which is right? Is this an error? It is obviously no big deal, for it does not really matter which way it was. But if the Bible has to be exactly right "every word inspired" - then in cases like this one has a problem that could disturb his faith, but only because he feels obligated to defend a mechanical view of inspiration. I would guess, based on what we know about the ancient world, that Luke has it right, for it would be more likely that the centurion would have sent elders to Jesus with such a request than to go himself. This is supported by further conversation that Luke records as having transpired between the elders and Jesus, the elders saying things about the centurion that he would not have said about himself. If so, Matthew is wrong - on an unimportant detail!

Now you try one. Which of these do you think is right?

Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? (Mk. 6:3)

Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? (Mt. 13:55)

This is all we know about Jesus being a carpenter, or was he? One says he was a carpenter, the other a carpenter's son. He could of course have been both and probably was, but what did the people in Nazareth really say about Jesus? Did they call him a carpenter or a carpenter's son?

If you conclude that Mark is right, I would agree, for it is likely, as most scholars agree, that Mark wrote first and that Matthew was drawing upon Mark for his information, along with an unknown document named Q. As we have noted, Matthew was writing to Jews and wanted to put Jesus in the best light possible. Since a carpenter was a nobody in the ancient world, Matthew softens the description with "son of a carpenter."

Whatever we make "moved by the Holy Spirit" mean in terms of inspiration, we must allow for differences like this one. Why did they not both say that Jesus was a carpenter? It appears that Matthew did not want his readers to know that Jesus was a carpenter. Mark was bolder with the truth.

Matthew frequently softens Mark's language. While Mark says that Jesus "could do no mighty work" in Nazareth (Mk. 6:5), Matthew says he "did not do many mighty works" (Mt. 13:58). He is more protective of the apostles than Mark, who represents them as having closed minds, and even "They had not understood about the loaves, because their heart was hardened" (Mk. 6:52). While Matthew relates the same incident, he leaves that out. And while Mark names two of the apostles, James and John, as requesting to sit next to Jesus in the kingdom, which caused friction among the apostles, Matthew softens the blow by saying it was their mother that made the request (Mk. 10:35, Mt. 20:20).

Luke also sometimes tempers Mark's language. When Mark tells of the woman who was healed when she touched the hem of Jesus' garment, he says, "She had suffered many things from many physicians. She had spent all that she had and was no better, but rather grew worse" (Mk. 5:26). Luke tells the same story, but he omits the negative remarks about doctors. Was it because he was himself a doctor? At least he saw that he could tell that wonderful story of healing without excoriating doctors and without sacrificing any truth.

Some variations appear to be more problematic. When Jesus sent out the twelve, "He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff," according to Mk. 6:8, but in both Mt. 10:10 and Lk. 9:3, which describes the same event, a staff is forbidden. In John (2:13) Jesus cleanses the temple at the beginning of his ministry, while in Matthew, Mark, and Luke it comes near the end of his ministry. In 1 Cor. 14:22 Paul says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers while prophesying is for believers, but the context strongly suggests that he meant the opposite, that tongues are for believers and prophesying for unbelievers. You will note that J. B. Phillips makes this change in his translation, and explains in a footnote: "This is the sole instance of the translator's departing from the accepted text. He felt bound to conclude, from the sense of the next three verses, that we have here either a slip of the pen on the part of Paul, or, more probably, a copyist's error.

It is of course possible to offer some explanation for these conflicts. Phillips is right that some of them may be a copyist's error, but it is irrelevant to argue for error-free autographs (the original apostolic writings) since they no longer exist. Some try to explain the variant chronology of the cleansing of the temple by insisting that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, at both the beginning and the end of his ministry, which would have him doing and saying the same thing each time. Moreover, Matthew-Mark-Luke treat the event as so momentous, even as a prelude to the crucifixion, that it is highly unlikely that Jesus had done the same thing before without any of the three recording it.

My view of the inspiration of Scripture is such that I see no need to use all kinds of gymnastics to explain the jars and conflicts. What inspiration means is that in the Bible we have the story and the message that God wants us to have, in earthen vessels. Since it is the work of men, however inspired, and not angels from heaven, we can expect some static in the transmission. But that enhances rather than degrades the message that comes through, for it shows there was no conspiracy to deceive us. If they were out to do "a job" on us and sell us a bill of goods, they would have made it tight and neat and flawless - like the Fundamentalists suppose it is anyhow!

As for the cleansing of the temple, why not simply say that John was more interested in truth than he was in chronology. He wanted to tell the great story of Jesus making a whip and asserting his authority as the Messiah, which is why he wrote, and so he told it early on, more concerned that it happened than when it happened. As for the "staff"-"no-staff" conflict, what is lost by conceding that there is an error along the way somewhere, but that it doesn't matter, for the point of Jesus' instruction remains the same, his envoys must be detached from the world.

Those who are pushy about the verbal-plenary-inerrancy theory do the church a disservice in that they lead sincere students of the Bible to believe that if there are any errors in the documents the whole thing goes down the tube. They are made to believe that their faith rests upon an inerrant Bible, even when the Bible makes no claim to be inerrant. And so, if they are honest with the Bible, they are soon in trouble, for there are textual problems. Such theorists overlook the fact that there were faithful Christians for hundreds of years before there was a Bible such as we have, errant or inerrant. Their faith was anchored in a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, and not in a Book, however great that Book eventually came to be.

Suppose we allow these theorists to have their way and assume that we can't believe if there are errors in the testimony. Take the resurrection of our Lord, which is the very heart of the Christian faith. Are there flaws in the testimony? Consider these facts from the record: (1) Mk. 16:2 says the women came to the tomb "very early in the morning when the sun had risen," while Jn. 20:1 says "while it was still dark." (2) Who spoke to these women at or in the tomb? Mt. 28:5 says "the angel," Mk. 16:5 says "a young man," Lk. 24:4 says "two men," and Jn. 20:12 says "two angels in white." (3) What did these women say when they left the tomb? Mk. 16:8 says "they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid"; Mt. 28:9 says "they went to tell his disciples;" Lk. 24:9 says "they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest."

If I have to harmonize this array of conflicting testimony before I can believe, I am in real trouble. What is precious about this testimony is that all four evangelists bear witness to the empty tomb. In spite of the jars and clashes in detail, they agree on what really matters. He is risen! I don't have to reconcile the differences in detail so long as there is agreement on the glorious fact that changed the history of the world. In a court of law witnesses do not have to agree on all the details in order for their testimony to yield an unquestionable verdict.

So, you have my answer to the question "Are there errors in the Bible?," and it is both yes and no. If by error one means that the Bible lies to us and cannot be trusted, then the answer is no, for the Bible does not have errors of that magnitude. If by error one means jars, conflicts, and contradictions then the answer is yes. But they are errors of no particular moment. In terms of the Bible's message to lost humanity, they do not matter.

What matters is that we be honest with ourselves and with the Bible, and not close our eyes to what is obvious. We are not to see only what we want to see. And it matters that we not make the Bible into an infallible paper pope, created by some kind of mechanical inspiration, and impose upon its claims that it does not make for itself and that it cannot measure up to. It is, after all, an earthen vessel, with the usual characteristics of things earthy.

It is the treasure in the vessel that matters, the basis of which is the Person it points to and exalts. The treasure in inerrant, not the vessel. In terms of revealing to us that treasured Person the Bible is safe, sure, dependable, authentic, and trustworthy. The occasional static only exalts ''the Master's voice'' all the more. It assures us that the mystery of the divine mingled with the human is real, and it embraces us in its mystery. — the Editor