dakwegmo.com

A very common mistake that nearly all Christians fall into is that they believe that the gospels were actually written by the Apostles for which they are named. Not so. In most cases they were compiled from stories about the apostles many years after they had died. For more reading on exactly this subject you should really read “Misquoting Jesus”. I have a review of the book on my blog. He goes into great detail to show how many errors there are and how they got there. Most of the book explains the process of textual criticism and how they try to interpolate what the original intent of the authors may have been. I really enjoyed the book and I will never look at scripture the same.

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why at Amazon

The example you pointed out, what does the sign on Christ’s cross say, is a relatively minor example of the serious variations there are in the scriptures. In “Misquoting Jesus” the author points to much more serious doctrinal discrepancies that have been added, changed or deleted as the original texts have been translated or recopied. One specific area that he touches on is the importance of works v grace.

I know there are a lot of discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible, but I chose this one as an example just because it is so minor. It’s relatively innocuously doctrinally speaking, but it illustrates the potential for human interpretation and error.

You’ll probably enjoy this site:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

An interesting video covering the same topic:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=397006836098752165&hl=en

Intersting stuff, Marcus. I agree with you, and I am impressed by your research about this topic.

Some apparent contradictions hold up better than others. I think this one probably just shows that our modern standards of precision for direct quotation weren’t around when the gospels were written. Others have more bite.

There’s no doubt that other biblical contradictions are more significant. I use this as an example because it
shows the Bible simply cannot be without error. Whether due to lack of precision, flawed memories, or deliberate attempts to change the text, all of these statements cannot be correct. If one is incorrect, then the Bible has at least one error, and therefore is not “inerrant”. That’s really all I was getting at. It’s an example most people are familiar with, and innocuous enough that it opens people up to the idea that maybe the Bible isn’t intended to be the literal, inerrant, “The Bible say it, I believe it”, Word of God.

It certainly raises an interesting question: If the standards of precision for reported speech were lower when the gospels were written (i.e. if you weren’t expected to quote the exact words, just to get the gist right), then does that mean that this isn’t an error? Or should we apply our modern standard?

So what you’re suggesting is that the gist of the Bible is inerrant? I can support that position, but it seems to really weaken the fundamentalist position that the Bible is the literal word of god.

I suppose what I’m suggesting is that if both the original authors and their readers would have understood that the wording was loose (due to the literary conventions of the time), then the Bible doesn’t actually make a claim about the precise wording, just about the gist. In that case, because all four verses agree on the gist, they wouldn’t contradict each other.

For arguments sake I’ll accept the proposition that the literary conventions of the time allowed for a less than literal transcription of events. Using the modern term ‘inerrant’ to describe the Bible is incorrect. As used in modern language, the word inerrant implies a level of precision that is not found in the Bible. While my previous comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the idea is still valid, because your qualifying the definition based on ancient standards. If you say “The Bible is inerrant,” then you’re implying that you mean this based on commonly accepted modern definitions. Otherwise what you’re saying is “the Bible is inerrant if you accept ancient (i.e. loose) standards for literary precision”, or more succinctly, “the gist of the Bible is inerrant.”

Even if we accept that the gist of the Bible is correct, a looser standard of precision means more human interpretation, and humans are prone to errors.

First up, I’m no inerrantist. Just wanted to make that clear.

We’re heading into complex issues, but here’s the gist of an argument:

The truth-condition for an assertion depends on its meaning, and meaning is determined by more than just the words used (this is why “the door’s over there” can be an instruction to leave rather than just information about the location of the exit).

Among the other factors that affect meaning are context and convention (to borrow an example from N.T. Wright, this is why “I’m mad about my flat” can express frustration about a blown tire or enthusiasm about an apartment).

You therefore can’t always tell what would have to be the case for a statement to be true just by looking at the words it contains.

Literary conventions about precision in direct quotation have varied over time. Although now we’d say that “Friends, Romans, countrymen, listen up!” is a misquotation, by other (e.g. biblical) standards it would be fine because it accurately captures the meaning.

Now suppose that the inscription over Jesus read “This is Jesus of Nazareth the king of the Jews”.

It isn’t clear to me that this would make “And set up over his head his accusation written, ‘This is Jesus the king of the Jews’” false. If this verse doesn’t claim to give the precise wording (and because of the conventions concerning quotation when it was written, it doesn’t), then its truth-condition isn’t that the sign said “This is Jesus the king of the Jews” but merely that the sign said that the person below was Jesus the king of the Jews. The sign described above would satisfy that condition.

Neither is it clear to me that the sign would make “And the superscription of his accusation was written over, ‘The king of the Jews’” false. All that’s needed for that to be true is that the sign said that the person below was king of the Jews, and the sign described above does that.

(… and so on for the other verses)

This is what I was getting at in my previous comments. For the Bible to be inerrant, everything it claims has to be true. If we read the Bible bearing in mind the literary conventions of its time, then I don’t think that it makes any claims about the precise wording of the sign over Jesus, just about its meaning, so the minor differences in wording aren’t a problem for inerrancy.

I hope that makes some sense. I’m not 100% sure what I make of this, but that’s the argument I’d use if I were an inerrantist, and I think there’s at least something to it.

I apologize if I offended. I feel less awkward writing ‘you’ when I should more properly be using the term ‘one’.

I agree that this discussion is getting into some complex issues. Most of these are far beyond the audience intended by my original post.

One thing stands out to me about the inerrantist argument. It uses as a premise that the verses in question do not make specific claims regarding the precise wording of the sign. Because they don’t, then greater latitude should be allowed based on each of the author’s accepted level of precision. I can accept that, but doesn’t that severely weaken any argument that says the Bible is inerrant in the first place? The Bible makes no specific claims that it is inerrant, so what should we make of claims that it is?

> I apologize if I offended.

No offence caused at all; no problem.

> … getting into some complex issues… far beyond the audience intended by my original post.

Point taken; we’ve probably gone far enough into this.

Thanks for the exchange.

Thanks for stopping and by and commenting. Perhaps we can continue the discussion at http://www.errancy.com.

I’ve just posted this claimed error to Errancy.com; you’re very welcome to comment there, and I’ll try to respond as appropriate.