On Biblical Inerrancy (10 Biblical Errors/Contradictions)
As I was contemplating what next to write about, the topic of scriptural inerrancy came to mind. I chose this because it represents one of the defining elements of Christianity in the modern age — as compared to Christianity within the first several hundred years of its existence. I also write about it, because in my view it tends to be one of the lower hanging fruits in terms of modern protestant biblical doctrines ripe for deconstruction. I think the conversation around biblical inerrancy is one of a few pieces of this historical tradition that allows for some left-brained and straight-forward thought, at least on the surface. Are there errors in the text, irreconcilable contradictions between different books of the Bible, or not? In general, because of the 2,000+ years that have passed, there are many gaps in knowledge about the person of Jesus, the disciples, etc., and as a result, many of the essentials of the faith are basically non-falsifiable, leading to personal interpretation of the little evidence available. As such, much of orthodox Christianity could be simplified as ‘choosing to believe’ in the requisite doctrines, whether or not you think you may have reasonable data to do so. So, when it comes to the Christian scriptures, any opportunity for some clear, data-driven discussion is a welcome relief from some of the more grey areas of scholarship, although, as we will see, there still exists plenty of room for argument between the conservative religious and critical scholars. This is a very large topic, and much could be said; however, I’m going to keep the history and development relatively brief so as to allow time to review ten common instances of possible contradictions or mistakes within the biblical text.
Biblical inerrancy was not always considered an essential “doctrine” of the Christian faith. Early church fathers such as Origin or Gregory of Nyssa tended to be unconcerned with disagreement with the scriptural texts about things outside of key matters of faith, and often employed allegorical meanings that created deeper spiritual meaning within the text. They believed that the Bible was inspired by God and served as a guide for Christian faith and practice. However, their understanding of inspiration was diverse, and did not always align with modern notions of inerrancy. For many church fathers, the primary focus of scripture was on matters of faith and salvation rather than historical or scientific precision. Despite their allegorical interpretations, they generally affirmed the divine inspiration and authority of scripture.
During the protestant reformation, new seeds were sown toward the development of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy that we have today, particularly among reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin. They emphasized the authority of scripture over church tradition and stressed the idea of Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) as the basis for Christian doctrine. While they affirmed the divine inspiration of the Bible, they didn’t always use the term “inerrancy” in the modern sense, and often tended to have nuanced views, recognized the complexities involved in interpreting the text and the limitations of human understanding.
Over the next few centuries, the belief in biblical inerrancy continued to develop among protestant theologians, especially in reaction to challenges posed by newer scientific discoveries (heliocentrism, age of the earth, evolutionary theory), and the rise of biblical criticism. As a result, a renewed emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Bible became fundamental, especially in conservative Protestant circles. The “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978) was a notable attempt by evangelical scholars to articulate a precise definition of inerrancy and its implications for interpreting scripture. In the statement, the authors sought to reaffirm the belief that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms, including matters of history, science, and theology.
But why do conservative theologians believe in the doctrine of biblical inerrancy today? Norman Geisler and William Nix say that scriptural inerrancy is established by a number of observations and processes, which include:
- The historical accuracy of the Bible
- The Bible’s claims of its own inerrancy
- Church history and tradition
- One’s individual experience with God
I want to spend a little time discussing the Bible’s claims of inerrancy, since reviewing some of the problems with the historical accuracy of the Bible and the whole of church history and tradition in relation to this concept could probably be a multiple semesters long course in seminary, and one’s personal experience with God isn’t broadly applicable. Ultimately, my study of the Bible’s historical accuracy from experts in he fields of archeology, linguistics, or textual criticism has led to more questions and doubt than easy answers in something like strict biblical inerrancy.
Two biblical passages are typically used for the assertion of biblical inerrancy.
2 Timothy 3:16–17: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
2 Peter 1:20–21: “Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
These two passages have several problems in the way that many conservative scholars interpret them (not to mention the circular reasoning of having a book seem to endorse itself as inerrant). 2 Timothy was almost certainly later pseudepigrapha of Paul per modern scholarship with the other pastoral epistles, and 2nd Peter is not thought to have been written by Peter and was also written very late, meaning that both of these books would/should not have carried the weight of true apostolic authorship. Both of these books had been left out of many of the early church father’s collections of authoritative books. Secondly, the Scripture that these two passages are referring to is almost certainly the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), rather than the yet to be formed New Testament. Thirdly, for 2 Timothy, the Greek word theopneustos translated “God-breathed” is a compound word essentially created by the author of the text, as it is found nowhere else in contemporary Greek literature. Academic biblical scholar Daniel McClellan argues that it was intended to mean something akin to “life-giving”, as the Jewish understanding of God breathing life into Adam, the first man, rather than a literalistic reading of God literally directing the author’s pen, so to speak.
Another argument for the internal commendation of biblical inerrancy is the fact that Jesus and Paul both used the Hebrew Bible in a way that assumes it is inerrant and/or authoritative. For example, in Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus is to have said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Jesus’ use of Scripture to combat temptation, teach moral principles, and predict His own death and resurrection indicates He saw it as fully trustworthy and without error in its divine message. Paul often interpreted the Hebrew Bible in the light of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, particularly in its role in conveying God’s truth and guiding moral and spiritual conduct.
Inerrancy vs Infallibility
There are some that hold to a more infallible rendering of Scripture, meaning that it may not be accurate in certain scientific or historic facets, because it was not written for that purpose. Rather, it remains completely inerrant in matters of faith and Christian practice. For some examples, The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church teaches that, “The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”. Whereas The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy from an American evangelical perspective states “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” Ultimately, with the rise of the non-denominational American evangelical church, it seems we see a wide variety of eloquent ways for each specific congregation or denomination to essentially state that they fall somewhere on the spectrum between infallible and inerrant in regard to this issue.
Here are some further quotes from the Chicago Statement that I wasn’t planning to include, but the paradoxes and ‘question begging’ from a presuppositionalist viewpoint was just so strong I couldn’t resist. This statement was signed by notable Evangelical leaders such as D. A. Carson, Norman Geisler, Wayne Grudem, Josh McDowell, John F. MacArthur, J. P. Moreland, Harold Ockenga, J. I. Packer, Luis Palau, Frank Schaeffer, and R. C. Sproul. With the viewpoint described below, it seems that since an inerrant view of Scripture can’t be wrong since any evidence to the contrary must be dismissed regardless of merit, the Bible must then be true.
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.
We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital…We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences both to the individual and to the Church.
Literalism vs Metaphor
Literalistic interpretation of the Bible involves understanding the text in its most straightforward and explicit meaning whereas metaphoric interpretation employs symbolic language, allegories, and other literary devices to convey deeper spiritual truths, moral lessons, or theological principles. Some Christians will allow for a deeper spiritual meaning for texts outside of a plain reading, while stricter inerrantists will say that “picking and choosing” which texts can be read as literal vs. allegorical introduces a dangerous amount of human interpretation into the prescriptive and proscriptive words of God.
Genres of Religious Literature
The Bible for most denominations consists of 66 books. In these books were different authors or schools of authors writing at different times in different places for different purposes. They wrote in many different types of genres including: historical narrative, law, wisdom literature, poetry, prophecy, gospel, letters, apocalyptic literature, parables, genealogies, songs/hymns, sermons, etc. Expecting wisdom literature, or poetry, or even historical ancient near-east (ANE) narrative to conform to our modern scientific literalistic reading is not only anachronistic, but it also reduces the beauty of the diversity in the ancient text to something that it was never meant to be.
Biblical Errors and Contradictions
Now we’re on to the really interesting stuff! Below is a small selection of some the alleged errors and contradictions in the Bible. How you view these will no doubt be primarily influenced by the view of the Bible you held when you started reading this article. If you think that the Bible can’t be wrong, these items will probably not give you pause; however, if you are open to fallible man’s influence of the writing of the Scriptures, as I grew to be, these tend to be pretty eye-opening. I was (and am) pretty surprised that it took me 30+ years of being in the faith to learn about these problematic passages. Hopefully in the future these items can be more widely distributed to the average Christian so as to cultivate a more broad and tested faith, if one chooses to continue on that path.
1 The synoptic gospels state that the Last Supper was the Passover meal, and that Jesus was crucified after the Passover meal. But in John, the order is reversed: it’s the “Last Supper” on the day of preparation, then the crucifixion before the Passover. Modern scholarship notes that by the time the Gospel of John was written, Jesus had come to be associated with Lamb of God imagery, (which was absent in the earlier written synoptics). Therefore, the author(s) of John had Jesus crucified during when the Passover lamb was traditionally slain given the obvious theological significance, which was before the Passover meal on the day of preparation (the day before Passover based on Jewish lunar calendar).
2 The genealogies of Matthew and Luke contradict each other (chart from 2think.org). Note the contrary genealogies starting at David. It has been argued that Luke records Mary’s line, and Matthew Joseph’s, but both genealogies end at Joseph. Also, there is no precedent to record Jewish genealogies through the female lineage at this point in history — it had always been through the male.
Matthew Luke Old Testament
Adam Adam
Seth Seth
Enos Enos
Cainan Cainan
Maleleel Mahalaleel
Jared Jared
Enoch Enoch
Mathusala Methuselah
Lamech Lamech
Noe Noah
Sem Shem
Arphaxad Arphaxad
Cainan
Sala Salah
Heber Eber
Phalec Peleg
Ragau Reu
Saruch Serug
Nachor Nahor
Thara Tera
Abraham Abraham Abram
Isaac Isaac Isaac
Jacob Jacob Israel (Jacob)
Judas Juda Judah
Phares Phares Pharez
Esrom Esrom Hezrom
Aram Aram Ram
Aminadab Aminadab Amminadab
Naasson Naassoon Nahshon
Salmon Salmon Salma
Booz Booz Boaz
Obed Obed Obed
Jesse Jesse Jesse
David David David
Solomon Nathan
Roboam Mattatha
Abia Menan
Asa Melea
Josaphat Eliakim
Joram Jonan
Ozias Joseph
Joatham Juda
Achaz Simeon
Ezekias Levi
Manasses Matthat
Amon Jorim
Josias Eliezer
Jechonias Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel Salathiel Shealtiel
Zorobabel Zorobabel Zerubbabel
Abiud Rhesa
Eliakim Joanna
Azor Juda
Sadoc Joseph
Achim Semei
Eliud Mattathias
Eleazer Maath
Matthan Nagge
Jacob Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph Joseph
Jesus Jesus3 In Mark 5:23, we see that Jairus says to Jesus, literally, ‘my little daughter is at the end.’ In the NIV translation, “my little daughter is dying”. In Matthew 9:18, at the same point in the narrative, we see that Jairus says to Jesus ‘my daughter just now died.’ It’s possible that Matthew changed the previous story from Mark for literary reasons to recast this as a foreshadowing of Jesus’ future resurrection.
4 In Mark the disciples are being sent out by Jesus and are instructed to take a staff, and in Matthew and Luke they are instructed not to take a staff. It’s a minor contradiction practically, but tough to reconcile if you believe that there cannot possible be any contradictions or errors in the biblical text.
Mark 6:8–9 These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff — no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.
Matthew 10:10 Take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep.
Luke 9:3 He told them: “Take nothing for the journey — no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.
5 Matthew 2:23 reads, regarding Jesus: “And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene”. The mistake? Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible (or ancillary literature) is this prophecy recorded that “he will be called a Nazarene”.
6 This next one I find the most fascinating. Matthew 1:23 reads, “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”). Isaiah 7:14 reads “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel.”
It seems to follow, but actually the passage that Matthew referred to (Isaiah 7:14) does not contain the word ‘virgin’. It uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply denotes a young female, and does not connote sexual purity. They did actually have a Hebrew word specific for ‘virgin’ at that time, bethulah, which is used by Isaiah in 62:5, but not in this case. The authors of the Greek Septuagint in the 3rd century BCE then mistranslated almah into the Greek word parthenos, meaning ‘virgin’. Matthew then, writing in the late first century CE, probably only had access to the Greek Septuagint, and from Isaiah 7:14, saw virgin birth, and proceeded to use this as what is now the pre-eminent prophecy of the divine conception. Would he have done this if he had access to the original Hebrew inscription of the passage? Additionally, this prophecy had immediate application in its own ANE context. Isaiah used the sign of a young, pregnant woman, maybe from the court, whom both he and King Ahaz knew. Isaiah goes on to prophesy that before the child reaches the age of accountability (7:16) Israel would be conquered. There is no sign within the text that this prophecy would have a future fulfillment, and it doesn’t appear that Jesus was called ‘Immanuel’ by his parents or anyone else. This along with other instances raises suspicions that Matthew may have been searching for Hebrew Bible texts to re-interpret in the new light of Jesus’ life and resurrection.
7 The likely earliest written Gospel, Mark’s gospel, does not include a birth narrative. Matthew and Luke’s version of the birth story differs considerably, with a several elements of downright contradiction.
According to Matthew 2, Jesus was born within a couple years before Herod the Great’s death. In the text, Herod tried to have Jesus killed after he was born by targeting children 2 years old and under, based on when the wise men from the East said he was born. Herod died in 4 BCE. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born during the Census of Quirinius. Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6 CE with instruction to perform a census of the new Roman province Judea for taxation purposes. However, no Roman census required that people travel from their own homes to those of their ancestors, and even if it did, Joseph from Nazareth would not have been affected being in Galilee under a different ruler. This unprecedented census is known to us today because it caused a Jewish zealot revolt at the time. So, the question is: was Jesus born in 4 — 6 BCE around the time of Herod the Great? or was he born 10 or more years later, after 6 CE, during the Census of Quirinius?
Another question: did the newborn Jesus flee from Bethlehem → Egypt → new home/settlement in Nazareth as per Matthew 2, or go from Bethlehem → Temple in Jerusalem → back home to Nazareth as in Luke 2's account? It is interesting that Matthew appears to be attempting to fulfill Hebrew Bible prophecies in 2:15 and 2:17–18 regarding Jesus’ family’s trip to Egypt (Hosea) and Herod’s Bethlehem infant massacre (Jeremiah) respectively. (Again, we see more of the writer of Matthew’s attempts to pull Hebrew Bible prophecies into his narrative for an apparent Jewish audience.)
8 Matthew writes about Judas’ blood money in Matthew 27:9–10 “Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field as the Lord commanded me”
However, this prophecy is found in Zechariah, not Jeremiah as the author of Matthew writes.
Zechariah 11:12–13 “I told them, ‘If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.’ So they paid me thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’ — the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord.”
9 In Matthew 23:35, Jesus is speaking woe to the scribes and pharisees: “And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”
The episode that Matthew’s Jesus is referring to is recorded in II Chronicles.
II Chronicles 24:20–21 “Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you. But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple.”
However, the Hebrew Bible records that this specific Zechariah was the son of Jehoidah, not Berechiah. Berechiah was actually the father of the prophet Zechariah, who lived some years after the death of Zechariah son of Jehoidah.
Zechariah 1:1 “In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berekiah…”
In Luke, Jesus does not give the name of the father of Zechariah.
Luke 11:51 “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.”
10 A lot of these alleged mistakes that I’ve listed have been found in Matthew, which was written after Mark. Here is one from the earliest gospel in which Jesus was responding to some Pharisees about Sabbath practices. Mark 2:25–26 “He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
1 Samuel 21:1,6 “David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, ‘Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?’…So the priest gave him the consecrated bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence…”
Ahimelech was Abiathar’s father per 1 Sam 22:20. Could Mark’s account of this story have Jesus mentioning the wrong high priest? It is notable that both Matthew and Luke’s authors edited out the reference to Abiathar in their corresponding passages. This also brings up the question, if the Bible is inerrant, why did the authors of Matthew and Luke, appearing to pull passages directly from Mark’s narrative, make decisions to change many different elements of the story? It seems as though they didn’t think they were writing inerrant Scripture. Instead, it appears they were either writing for a literary theological purpose, or thought Mark had not been factual at certain points — either way it makes one question the literal inerrancy of the narrative.
Ultimately, I think that if you are wont to argue for the biblical inerrancy position, you can certainly try to harmonize many contradictions, and find ways to allow for a slightly possible, but not plausible solutions to many errors. I’ve heard it implied, or even flat out stated by inerrantists: “In order to maintain the Bible’s integrity, we need to find only one possible solution to each apparent contradiction”. Only one possible solution — no matter how implausible! Combining this with each of the many other implausible solutions creates a scenario in which the inerrancy of scripture is now unbelievably unlikely yet can still theoretically be believed by those who need it to be true for theological reasons. It does seem to take the literary freedom away from the text when we force it to remain inerrant in our “modern literalistic sense”. We harmonize away all positive literalistic errors while failing to use a possibly deeper literary or theological hermeneutic that may convey much more truth about what the author is actually trying to impart. I understand why the dividing line was drawn in pieces like the Chicago Statement, but when you do that, it creates cognitive dissonance for those using a modern lens of interpretation and generates significant momentum toward exiting the protestant faith with the feeling of being “duped”. It almost seems like many pastors who use and propagate a so-called “plain reading” of the Bible think they are doing their parishioners right by God. However, they are actually creating an environment ripe for using that same literalistic, plain-reading hermeneutic to create an easy deconstruction of scriptural authority.
For me, it was the shear breadth of the problematic data along with the principle of parsimony that that forced me to renegotiate my viewpoint on Biblical inerrancy. I needed to find a way to recast my faith in light of a Bible that to me, looked a lot more like humans reaching up toward the divine, rather than the divine transmitting words down to us from on high. As I’ve continued wrestling with this (it seems to be a never-ending pursuit), I’ve had a growing appreciation for the human fingerprints on these texts that remind us of our collective humanity and search for meaning and truth. For anyone reading, each of the above alleged biblical errors and contradictions have been debated ad nauseum, so I would encourage you to review the non-sectarian scholar’s consensus take, and then the Christian apologist defense for some/all of these and ultimately, to continue seeking truth.
“And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” -John 8:32
