An Examination of the Reliability of Biblical Scripture: Part Three
SCRIPTURAL RELIABILITY:
Many, if not most, Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. Inerrant means “free from error.” Infallible means “incapable of error” (Taken from Britannica 2001, Standard edition). The belief that Biblical scripture is inerrant and infallible is based on several considerations. Many believe what Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Timothy 3;16) about scripture being “inspired” or “God breathed” is evidence that Biblical scripture came to be as a result of God directly managing the thoughts of scriptural authors. Therefore what they wrote is without error since God is incapable of error.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (KJV).
All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (NIV).
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness (ASV).
The underlined words in these three translations are taken from the Greek word Theopneustos. Theopneustos is a compound word consisting of Theos which means God and pneuma which is the Greek word translated as spirit, breathe and wind in the NT.
Since translation involves determination of how a word in one language can best be understood in another language, translators often rely on how the word is used in the context of other literature of the time and/or how it is used in other parts of the literature being translated. In the case of Theopneustos, it appears only this once in the NT and is not found in other Greek literature of the first century. Therefore it has been difficult to determine exactly what Theopneustos means.
There has been considerable scholarly discussion as to the grammatical construction of Theopneustos and the entire Greek phrase, pasa graphe theopneustos which the NIV along with other versions translate as “All scripture is God-breathed.” The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek Theopneustos into the Latin divinitus inspirita (divinely inspired). It is this interpretation of Theopneustos that was apparently used by translators of the KJV and other translations. Other translators feel “God breathed” is a more accurate interpretation/translation of Theopneustos and have avoided the Latin interpretation.
While most scholars conclude pasa graphe theopneustos denotes how scripture came to be, others see in the grammatical construction, not how scripture is given, but how it is received by those who hear it. This approach is supported by no less an authority than Prof. Hermann Cremer, author of “Biblico-theological Lexicon.” Prof. Cremer has concluded that theopneustos, does not relate to the origin of scripture but to how it affects and is received by the reader.
Some feel this view is more harmonious with the context of this section of Paul’s letter to Timothy. In verse 14 and 15, Paul admonishes Timothy to continue in those things he has learned (taken in) and how from his youth he has known the scriptures. In verse 16 he tells Timothy the scriptures he has received from his youth are profitable. In this whole passage of Paul’s letter, he appears to be dealing with the receiving of scripture and not how it came to be written. Bullinger, in the ”Companion Bible” footnotes “inspired,” pointing out that this English word means to breath in and not breath out as readers often assume.
The meaning of pasa, as in pasa graphe theopneustos, is also in question. Some translations have it as “All scripture is God breathed.” Other translations have it, “Every scripture is God breathed” There are grammatical arguments offered for both approaches. Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest, in his “Word Studies In The Greek New Testament” writes that pasa, when used with a singular substantive without the article, which is the way it is used in 2 Timothy 3:16, means, “Every” and not “All.” This has led some to conclude that Paul is not saying ALL graphe (writings) are profitable but only God breathed writings are profitable. There also is question as to whether Paul is referring to OT scripture only or was there some NT writing that was already considered Holy Scripture.
Since there is uncertainty as to the meaning of pasa graphe theopneustos, I feel it inappropriate to use this passage to provide a definitive explanation as to how Biblical scripture came to be. It must be pointed out, however, that whatever scripture Paul was referring to, he viewed it as holy and able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Holiness would imply Divine involvement of some kind. Our task is to determine what that involvement was.
In 2 Pet 1:21, Peter says, “prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (NIV). This would indicate that prophecy came as a direct result of the leading of God’s Spirit. This does not preclude the writers of prophecy from putting their own spin on what they were led to write. Being led or carried along by the by the Holy Spirit and having the Holy Spirit orchestrate your every thought is quite different. Many religious leaders to this very day believe they are led by the Holy Spirit in speaking and writing. This doesn't mean that their every thought is controlled by the Holy Spirit and therefore inerrant. This should be evident from a simple examination of the inconsistencies found in the speaking and writings of religious leaders.
It must also be pointed out that much of scripture is not prophecy. Peter is dealing specifically with prophecy (the Greek implies predictive utterances) in this passage. We can’t apply this statement by Peter to all scripture.
In John 17:17, Christ said, God’s word is truth. Most assume Christ is speaking about the written word and conclude it is the Biblical scripture being referred to as truth. This statement of Christ was part of a prayer he was offering to God shortly before His crucifixion. Nothing in the context of Christ’s prayer indicates He is referring to written documents. If Christ is referring to the OT documents as truth, this would not necessarily apply to the NT documents which had not yet been written and wouldn’t be collected into a canon for hundreds of years.
DETERMINING SCRIPTURAL RELIABILITY:
In determining scriptural reliability, we will need to deal with the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility and determine how the scriptures came to be. You can see from the above discussion regarding inspiration, prophecy and truth that the matter of how we got the scriptures is not clearly defined in those passages. Earlier in this series of essays we briefly looked at how Luke went about the business of informing his friend Theophilus of the events surrounding Jesus Christ. Let’s take a more indebt look at what he said.
Luke 1:1-4: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Wherefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Luke says that many had undertaken to draw up an account of the Christ event. We have only four accounts that became part of the Bible. We call them the “Gospels.” The implication by Luke is there were many accounts that he drew from. Luke says information about the Christ event was handed down by those who were eyewitnesses and had spent time with Christ. Luke shows he carefully investigated everything from the beginning and than proceeded to write a report to his friend Theophilus. There is nothing here to suggest what Luke wrote was supernaturally poured into his head. There is no indication given that God was managing the research Luke did or directly influencing what he choose to write. All indications are that Luke simply gathered information, examined it for validity and wrote it down as a report to his friend Theophilus.
The approach of Luke in writing an account of the Christ event for his friend Theophilus is very instructive in providing us with insight as to how the Biblical scriptures came to be. What Luke did is precisely how a historian works. A historian gathers information by talking to eyewitness if available, talking to others familiar with the subject at hand, studies the works of others who have written about the same events and proceeds to write his own account. There is nothing here that should lead us to believe God orchestrated in some word for word fashion what Luke wrote. Luke simply took information available to him and wrote his own history. The writer of the book of Joshua did the same thing
Joshua 10:13: “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”
The book of Jashar is not part of the OT canon. Yet it was a resource used by the author of this document to record certain events in Israel’s history. Christ, Himself, quoted from writings He called scripture that are not found in the Biblical canon. In John 7:38, Christ is quoted as saying: “Whoever believes in me, as the scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” From what scripture is Christ quoting? There is no such scripture in the Old Testament canon.
The canon of scripture simply means a group of writings determined by some body to be authentic and definitive. In the case of the OT, this was not completely accomplished until early in the second century BC. In the case of the NT, the canon wasn’t established until the fourth century A.D. We will discuss the canonization process later.
Prior to the establishment of the NT canon, there were a variety of resources used in the determination of how Christians were to conduct their lives as followers of Jesus Christ. There were letters and other materials written by leaders within the Christian community that did not make it into the canon but were yet used by early Christians in defining their perspective as Christians. Luke alludes to the existence of many accounts of the Christ event. It’s apparent that most of these writings did not become Biblical scripture but were no doubt read by early Christians and used in the formulation of their belief system.
The English word “scripture” is from the Greek word graphe and simply means writings or a thing written. The Greek word gramma, is also translated into the English “scripture” which in the Greek means, “that which has been written”. It includes letters or any kind of document (See Thayer’s Greek Lexicon). Biblical scripture is simply a collection of writings that became identified as worthy of reverence and instructive of the things of God. Paul refers to them as Holy Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15 and Romans 1:2. The English “holy” is from the Greek hieros, in 2 Timothy and hagios in Romans. Both these words have the general meaning of something dedicated or consecrated to God and worthy of reverence (See Thayer’s and Arndt, Gingrich, Bauer’s Greek lexicons). In reading the NT scriptures it is apparent that the writers looked upon the OT scriptures, from which they often quoted, as worthy of reverence and as writings dedicated to God. Did they look upon these scriptures as inerrant? Does “Holy Scripture” equal inerrant scripture? Must scripture be inerrant and infallible in order to be holy? Can scripture or any other writing be reliable without being inerrant?
When writers of scripture wrote their letters, gospels, prophecies and historical accounts, there is nothing to indicate that these writers foresaw that someday their writings were going to be collected, canonized and considered inerrant, infallible documents. When Peter referred to some letters of Paul as scripture, did Peter believe what Paul wrote was inerrant, infallible divinely orchestrated statements?
2 Peter 3:15-16: “Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, (Greek: graphe) to their own destruction.”
Did Peter believe God directly implanted in Paul’s mind what to write in these letters and therefore they were of divine origin and authority? He says Paul wrote things hard to understand. Was God manipulating the thoughts of Paul to write things hard to understand? There is nothing in the context of this passage to show that Peter is treating Paul’s letters as divinely actuated. Instead, we see Peter saying that Paul wrote “with the wisdom that God gave Him.” Writing with wisdom will result in reliable writing. We can therefore feel confident Paul was writing truth, not fiction. This does not mean Paul was infallible and inerrant as to every detail of what he wrote.
There are many authors who have written a history of the civil war. If you read their works, all the facts presented won’t be totally accurate. That doesn’t negate the overall validity of what was written. The basic facts of the war will be relatively the same in all these histories. All these histories will report that the war did indeed take place, that it was fought between the North and the South, that Generals Lee and Grant were important participants and that Abraham Lincoln was President in the North and Jefferson Davis was President in the South. All these histories will vary on such specific details as number of battles, number of casualties and causes of the war.
You will find this same phenomenon present in the scriptures. Christian apologists have spent countless hours trying to make sense out of scriptural inconsistencies because of assuming the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Is the Biblical scripture inerrant and infallible? Let’s examine a sampling of scriptures that show the difficulty in trying to maintain this paradigm.
THE CENTURION’S SERVANT:
Matthew 8:5-10 &13: “When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, asking for help. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.’ Jesus said to him, ‘I will go and heal him.’ The centurion replied, ‘Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one Come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following Him, I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. Then Jesus said to the centurion, ‘Go! It will be done as you believed it would. And his servant was healed at that very hour.”
A review of the parallel account of this event in the gospel of Luke reveals a perspective quite different from what Matthew had regarding the manner in which this event unfolded.
Luke 7:1-10: “When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to Him, asking Him to come and heal his servant. When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with Him, ‘This man deserves to have you do this, because he loves our nation and has built us a synagogue.’ So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the Centurion sent friends to say to him: ‘Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, Go, and he goes; and that one come, and he comes. I say to my servant, Do this, and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, said, ‘I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.’ Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.”
Matthew has the centurion coming directly to Christ, speaking to Him, and Christ responding directly back to the centurion. Luke has the centurion first sending elders of the Jews to Christ and then sending friends. Luke also shows, by the centurion’s dialog, that he did not personally appear before Christ. Thus we have Matthew and Luke giving very different accounts of just who it was that came and spoke to Christ about the centurion’s servant. Some commentators, realizing the discrepancy here, offer the solution that Matthew and Luke are describing two separate events. This appears very unlikely. The activities of Christ, just prior to the episode with the centurion, are largely the same in both Matthew and Luke. Others argue that Matthew wrote as though the centurion was present through his representatives. The grammatical structure of the narrative, however, does not allow for this interpretation and it is obvious that Matthew sees Christ directly addressing the centurion in His response to him.
We have all heard of the situation where two people witness an accident and differ in reporting what they saw. If we look at what Matthew and Luke reported from this perspective, it could simply be a matter of each of them interpreting this event from different perceptions of what happened. That would be an acceptable conclusion, knowing how we humans can misinterpret what we see and hear. Matthew, being one of the twelve, may have been present when this event took place and is writing from an eyewitness perspective. Luke wrote from gathered information that may have placed a different spin on the details of this event.
This narrative becomes a problem only if we insist on attributing what Matthew and Luke wrote to God directly leading them, thought for thought, in writing and recording this event. It’s an undeniable observation that Matthew and Luke differ in their reporting of this event. They cannot both be right in their details. Does their differing on the details of this event make their reporting of this event unreliable? Differing on details in describing an event does not translate into the event not happening or not having basic validity. Just the opposite is true. By having independent authors write about the same event gives greater confirmation to the event having occurred. Both authors report that Christ healed the centurion’s servant. Both authors reflect on how Christ was impressed with the centurion’s faith. There should be no reason to doubt the occurrence of this event or its primary focus even though the details are reported differently by the two authors. Reliability does not demand inerrancy or infallibility.
WHAT DID ISAIAH WRITE?
In Mark 1:2-3, we read: “It is written in Isaiah the Prophet: ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way.” Verse three: “A voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight paths for him.” While verse three is a quote from Isaiah 40:3, verse two appears to be a quote from Malachi 3:1 and is not found in the writings of Isaiah or is there any indication Malachi is quoting Isaiah. It appears Mark was working on memory and incorrectly attributed both sayings to Isaiah. This is a minor point and a problem only if we insist on Biblical inerrancy.
WHOSE SON IS HE?
In Matthew 23:35, Christ is quoted as saying: “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berakiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” The reference to Zechariah appears to be from 2 Chronicles 24:20 -21 where it is recorded that Zechariah, the son of Jehoida the priest, was stoned to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. There is no history of this happening to the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berakiah.
Here we have a record of Christ apparently referring to the wrong father of the Zechariah he was thinking about in his speaking to the Pharisees. An easy mistake to make? Of course. We all make these kinds of mistakes. But then can we rightly ascribe inerrancy to the scriptures? In this account it may very well be that Christ referred to Jehoida but when Matthew recorded what Christ said, he mistakenly recorded the wrong father. Whether it was Christ or Matthew that made the mistake, it takes nothing away from the point that Christ was making to the Pharisees. But it also shows scriptural errancy.
HOW MANY ANIMALS DID CHRIST RIDE?
Let us consider the accounts of Christ riding into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. Three different authors report on this event.
Matthew 21:1-7: “Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.’ This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: ‘Say to the Daughter of Zion, See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. The disciples went and did what Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.”
Here we find Matthew writing that Christ requested a donkey and a colt. He writes that the disciples brought both the donkey and the colt to Christ and the disciples placed their cloaks on these two animals and Jesus sat on them. The appearance is that Christ sat on two animals. The parallel accounts of this event as recorded in Mark 11 and Luke 19 show Christ telling His disciples to bring one animal and also show Christ riding one animal.
Mark 11:1-7: “As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, `Why are you doing this?' tell him, `The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.”
Luke 19: 29- 31: “As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, `Why are you untying it?' tell him, `The Lord needs it.' Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, ‘Why are you untying the colt?’ They replied, ‘The Lord needs it.’ They brought it to Jesus, threw their cloaks on the colt and put Jesus on it.”
Matthew’s quote is taken from Zechariah 9:9. Scholars who have studied this text, and others like it, have identified a Hebrew poetic technique were each key word is reinforced by a synonym or parallel word. The Hebrew Masoretic version of Zechariah 9:9 reads “Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem, Behold, your king is coming to you; he is just and triumphant, humble and riding on an ass, upon the foal of an ass.” In this passage, each key word is reinforced by a synonym or a parallel word or phrase. For example, we have rejoice/shout, Zion/Jerusalem, riding on an ass/riding on the foal of an ass.
The translators of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) apparently missed the parallelism between ass and foal of an ass and instead pictured two animals, an ass and a foal. This misunderstanding on the part of the Septuagint translators becomes significant because Zechariah 9:9 is used by Matthew as a proof text relative to Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem. It’s apparent that Matthew quotes from the Septuagint and has Jesus riding on two animals, as that is what the Septuagint translation suggests. This textual misunderstanding even carried over into Christian art where some scenes of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem show Him straddling two animals.
This whole matter has serious repercussions relative to the concept of scriptural inerrancy and traditional understandings of Divine inspiration. If indeed Matthew is quoting from a misunderstanding/mistranslation of the Hebrew, his reporting of what Zechariah said is incorrect. The greater question is; from where did Matthew obtain his information about this incident? If he was an eyewitness, did he actually see Christ riding on two animals? If he is relying on the observation of others, did others see Christ riding on two animals? If Christ was indeed riding on two animals, it would negate Matthew’s use of Zechariah as a proof text since it’s apparent that Zechariah wasn’t speaking of two separate animals. If Christ was riding on one animal, which would be the logical conclusion, and also what Mark and Luke indicate, then Matthew’s use of Zechariah from the Septuagint translation is without merit. As is true with much of Matthew’s writing, we again find him using OT prophecies to give credence to events in the life of Christ. We could even conclude from Matthew’s account that he added a second animal to force a “fulfillment” of what he mistakenly thought Zechariah said.
An examination of the context of Zechariah 9 shows a lot of discussion about judgement being brought against the nations surrounding Israel with the usual OT prophetic hyperbole. The passage discussing a king coming with salvation and riding on a donkey is found midway through this prophecy. It is difficult to determine what overall time frame Zechariah is discussing. The first part of the prophecy appears to relate to OT times. The latter part of the prophecy appears to relate to Christ and His appearance in the first century to bring salvation to Israel. Only Matthew, of the three writers that report this event, ties it to what Zechariah wrote.
In applying this OT prophecy to Christ, Matthew isn’t applying it correctly if we can believe the scholar’s conclusions about Hebrew poetic technique. If the scholars are correct about Hebrew parallelism and Matthew is quoting the Hebrew text, it is apparent he failed to properly interpret the text. If he is quoting from the Septuagint, he is passing along their failure to properly understand Hebrew parallelism. If, on the other hand, the scholar’s are wrong and Matthew is correct in his application of the Hebrew or Septuagint Greek, then we have Christ asking for and riding two animals, which would contradict the account of Mark and Luke who plainly show Christ asking for and riding one animal.
All of this doesn’t take away the fact that Christ asked for an animal (s) to be brought to Him so He could make His way into Jerusalem riding such animal (s) in apparent fulfillment of an OT prophecy. Three separate writers confirm this event in the life of Christ. Once again there should be no question about the occurrence of this event. The details, however, are inconsistent There exists a virtual contradiction between Matthew’s account and the account provided by Mark and Luke. Both camps can’t be completely correct. This is a weighty difficulty for the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
If one is to insist that God led Matthew, Mark and Luke to write what they wrote thought for thought, we would have to conclude God is giving two different descriptions of the same event. I would rather conclude these authors were led to report this event but expressed different perspectives based on their individual understanding of the dynamics involved.
THE NUMBERS GAME:
There are many discrepancies relative to numbers in the scriptures. A classic example is the following: In Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronomy 10:22, it’s recorded that 70 people of the household of Jacob went down into Egypt. Yet in Acts 7:14-15, Stephen is recorded as saying, “After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all. Then Jacob went down to Egypt, where he and our fathers died.” Bible commentators have tried many ways to reconcile this discrepancy without success. The facts are that the Hebrew Masoretic text reads 70. Stephen is apparently quoting from the Septuagint, which reads 75.
If God is to be viewed as directly orchestrating the writing of scripture, then God moved the writer of the Pentateuch to use the number 70 and the writer of Acts in quoting Stephen to use 75. However, it’s apparent that Stephen was simply recalling the Septuagint rendering during his speech and so what we have is not an “inspired” statement at all, but the quoting of what may be a mistranslation of the Hebrew in the Septuagint. What makes this all the more interesting is that a fragment of Exodus, chapter one, written in Hebrew and much older than the Masoretic text, was found with the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and renders the passage in question as 75 souls. So now we have one Hebrew rendering saying 70, an older Hebrew rendering saying 75 and the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures saying 75. It may be that the authors of the Septuagint used as their source this older version of the Hebrew Scriptures. So what is it, 70 or 75? Which number is actually the correct one? We just don’t know. Is it important to the validity of the general account given by the author of Exodus chapter one and by Stephen in Acts chapter seven? No it is not. Whether it’s 70 or 75, we have no reason to believe the general events described in these chapters didn’t happen.
In reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is interesting to note that the scrolls containing the Hebrew Scriptures that make up our present day canon are largely the same rendering as we see in our canon. It should also be noted that in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Scriptures, there are additional passages in the text that are not found in our modern translations of these same Hebrew Scriptures because such passages are not present in the Masoretic and other Hebrew manuscripts from which our modern translations are taken. Does this mean we have missing portions of writings that God intended for us to have but were somehow deleted by copyists in later renditions of the Hebrew Text?
In reviewing the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Scriptures, scholars have determined that some closely resemble the Masoretic version while others resemble more closely the Septuagint and even the Samaritan Pentateuch which is a version of the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures believed to have originated among Samaritans in second century B.C. Palestine. These various versions were found in multiple copies suggesting that there was no “authorized version” of the Hebrew Scriptures in the first century, at least not in the Qumran community where the scrolls originated. This may suggest a wider range of what can be considered acceptable writings as to the things of God. We will deal with issues such as these later in this series.
THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST:
In Matthew the first chapter is a genealogy of Jesus. It begins with Abraham and ends in the birth of Christ. Matthew concludes this genealogy by saying the following: “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ” (Matt. 1:17). In verse 8 of the genealogy, we find the following: “Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah”. There’s a problem with the genealogy at this point. Matthew leaves out three names between Jehoram and Uzziah. After Jehoram we have Aaziah, Joash and Amaziah (see 2 Kings 8:24, 1 Chronicles 3:11, 2 Chronicles 22:1, 11, 24:27, 25:26 and 26:1). Amaziah is the father of Uzziah (aka Azariah). Jehoran is the great-great grandfather. This also adds to the number of generations involved here and makes it more than fourteen generations from David to the exile to Babylon. A review of commentaries provides no logical solution to this problem. Is this a big issue? Only if you insist that the scriptural record is inerrant and infallible.
In part four of this series we will continue our examination of scriptural reliability by looking at some of the prophetic scripture.
PART FOUR