Biblical/Jesus errors

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>MCGILL

>In _Beyond Fundamendalism_ by James

>Barr, Barr cites two

>such cases which would be sufficient to completely undermine the

>fundamentalist claim for both the infallibility of the scriptures as well as

>the infallibility of Jesus himself. Both cases involve Jesus making errors

>when referring to what are now considered OT scriptures. The first is found

>in Mark 2:25-26 when Jesus relates a story from 1 Sam. 21:1-6. The story

>involves the high priest Ahimelech. But Jesus incorrectly calls the high

>priest Abiathar (who happens to have been Ahimelech's son).


Michael,

JAMES
Yes, the Bible claims to be inspired of God. (2 Ti 3:16), but it
nowhere says that COPIES of that Bible were also inspired of God. The
original writings were all inspired of God and thus would have been
flawless. But we don't have those original documents today. We have
copies of copies, etc. Thus some small amount of error has apparently
crept into the Bible in some places, either willfully, or by human
imperfection. 

But most all of those 'scribal errors' do not have anything to do with
the doctrinal integrity of the Bible, but rather are spelling and
grammar differences, etc, so Christians can still be confident that
the Bible is "beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting
things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." (2 Ti 3:16)

Concerning your first account, this Bible encyclopedia (quoted below)
says that some early documents do not contain the statement about
Abiathar at Mark 2:26, and that the parallel accounts at Matthew 12:4
and Luke 6:4 also omit it. Thus it is possible that this is a scribal
error. But also the way the grammatical construction of the phrase is,
allows for a translation that retains the historicity of the account.
Notice the details from this Bible encyclopedia:

"At Mark 2:26 most translations have Jesus saying that David went into
the house of God and ate the showbread "when Abiathar was high
priest." Since Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when
that event took place, such translation would result in a historical
error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the
above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at
Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However, a similar Greek structure occurs
at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the
phrase "in the passage about." (RS; AT; JB) So, it appears that Mark
2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World
Translation, which reads: "How he entered into the house of God, in
the account about Abiathar the chief priest." Since the account of the
first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of
David's entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since
Abiathar did later become Israel's high priest in David's reign, this
translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record." Insight
on the Scriptures, Vol 1, p. 19.


> The second case

>can be found in Matt. 23:35 where Jesus is talking about the death of

>Zacharias as related in 2 Chron. 24:20-21. The only problem with Jesus'

>recounting of this story is that he mistakenly refers to Zacharias as the

>son the Barachias when he is really the son of Jehoida. Personally, I find

>these two easily verified biblical errors especially powerful arguments

>against not only literalism but also the infallibility of both the

>scriptures and Jesus himself.

>Michael


Mt 23:35 reads: "that there may come upon YOU all the righteous blood
spilled on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zech·a·ri'ah son of Bar·a·chi'ah, whom YOU murdered between the
sanctuary and the altar." (NWT)

Thus this translation shows the name to be "Zechariah" (not
Zacharias), who was the son of "Barachiah". But there is still a
problem here. The Bible says that Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada.
Here is a possible explanation:

"As to the words "son of Barachiah," they are not found in Luke's
account, and they are omitted from Matthew's account in the Codex
Sinaiticus (original scribe). It has been suggested that Jehoiada, the
father of a Zechariah who was murdered, may have had two names, as is
the case with other persons in the Bible.-Compare Mt 9:9 and Mr 2:14;
Mt 10:2, 3." (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 254)

Now lets see if any important doctrines have been shaken, if both
those accounts are really scribal errors. 

In account one David ate some bread when Ahimelech or Abiathar was
high priest. 

In account two, either Zechariah was a son of Barachiah or Jehoiada. 

I don't see where this is going to water down the powerful doctrinal
content and wisdom found in the Scriptures. Jesus' statement to "love
your neighbor as yourself" (Mt 19:19) and many other such wise and
beneficial statements remain intact. 

True Christians acknowledge that the imperfections of humans continues
to exist, but God has seen to it that the Bible (even with the few
scribal errors within it) has been the most widely published book on
the planet. As the 1999 World Book Encyclopedia says: 

"The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history. It has also
been translated more times, and into more languages, than any other
book."

Yes, millions of people consider the Bible to be the most important
book ever written, and the most beneficial book one can read and
follow.

                                   Sincerely,

                                          James


***********************************
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

• Previous message: This subject AGAIN...
• Next message: Biblical/Jesus errors
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]