A supposed factual error can be found in Matthew 27:9 where a quote from Zechariah is cited as being from Jeremiah. Another occurs in Mark 1:2, where quotes from both Malachi and Isaiah are cited collectively as being from Isaiah. Skeptics of the Bible point to these verses and claim that the Bible cannot possibly be the words of God. In so doing, they show themselves ignorant of the practice of conflated citation.
I’m going to share the New Testament along with the Old Testament passages from which they quote.
- Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.” Matthew 27:9,10, NKJV
- The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. And the veessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make. Jeremiah 18:1-4, NKJV
- Thus says the LORD: “Go and get a potter’s earthen flask, and take some of the elders of the people and some of the elders of the priests. And go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the Potsherd Gate; and proclaim there the words that I will tell you, and say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: “Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe on this place, that whoever hears of it, his ears will tingle.”‘” Jeremiah 19:1-3, NKJV
- Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighted out for my wages thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”–that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD for the potter. Zechariah 11:12,13, NKJV
- As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, ‘Make ready the way of the LORD, Make His paths straight.'” Mark 1:2,3, NASB
- The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God.” Isaiah 40:3, NKJV
- “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts. Malachi 3:1, NKJV
In reference to the Matthew passage, we can see that it only possibly alludes to portions of Jeremiah:”(Matthew 27:9 note, The Scofield Study Bible.)”:, while it is definitely a quote of the prophet Zechariah. With reference to the Mark passage, we see that the quote draws upon both Malachi and Isaiah to form the quote.
So the questions are:
- Why would Matthew cite as Jeremiah that which was Zechariah?
- Why would Mark cite as Isaiah that which was both Isaiah and Malachi?
Hebrew manuscripts, before the days of publishing the Bible as we know it today, were originally maintained as scrolls, and according to Talmudic tradition, the prophetic writings were placed within the canon in the order of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc.:”(Ibid.)”: The “error” of Matthew citing Zechariah as Jeremiah is nothing more than his citing the “title of the volume” (first name on the scroll) rather than the actual prophet which spoke the words.
Jeremiah, in that case, becomes a collective name. To use an example, imagine a group of men authoriting a book, each of them writing a separate chapter, and the book was published under a group name rather than their individual names. One might quote this book stating that “the group said this,” when in fact it was the individual author of the chapter in question. This is what Matthew does by citing the foremost name upon the collection of prophets.
Next, we have Mark citing two different prophets as Isaiah. In this case, if you have a Bible such as the KJV or the NKJV, no such error exists. In those translations (and perhaps others), the reading is chosen “by the prophets,” allowing for both Isaiah and Malachi to be referenced collectively. But are we then to assume that works such as the NASB and the NIV are in error for citing two prophets as only one?
The answer can be found in the practice of conflated citations, which were common in that day.:”(White, James R., The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995, p. 168.)”: A conflated citation is merely one which combines two or more citations into one, and in the case of Mark 1:2,3, the sources of Isaiah and Malachi are conflated and cited as the more major of the two prophets: Isaiah.
With respect. That you have an explanation for the error does not mean it isn’t an error.
To my mind, your post is a strong argument against the Bible being the word of God.
“The “errorâ€? of Matthew citing Zechariah as Jeremiah is nothing more than his citing the “title of the volumeâ€? (first name on the scroll) rather than the actual prophet which spoke the words.”
Seems like God would know which prophet and wouldn’t need to cite the volume.
“The answer can be found in the practice of conflated citations, which were common in that day.[3] A conflated citation is merely one which combines two or more citations into one, and in the case of Mark 1:2,3, the sources of Isaiah and Malachi are conflated and cited as the more major of the two prophets: Isaiah.”
People are lazily conflating citations commonly, so God says “I’ll do it too.”???????
No, but it does mean that it isn’t possible to definitively conclude this is a contradiction or error in the text.
Simply because two or more statements seem to be contradictory on the surface does not mean that they must be. If explanations exist, then it means that a superficial knowledge of the text was not adequate, nor does God ever imply that a superficial knowledge of the Scriptures would cut it.
As God inspired the Scriptures, He guided men to pen His words. But He did not dictate to them as would be understood today. Each writer’s own characteristics, their personalities, their styles of writing were used as part of Scripture.
Idioms used at the time the writers lived were used, personal greetings and farewells were used, and so on.
In light of this, it is not a stretch to believe that God chose to reference Old Testament writings according to the custom of the Jews. After all, it was to the Jews that the Old Testament was committed, and it was through them it was preserved. In Matthew, a predominately Jewish audience was in view, so referencing the quote in a manner Jews would recognize makes perfect sense.
Same as above. God always took His audience into account. It would have been understood just fine.
And in light of such things, it is very difficult for me to see these as errors.
” God always took His audience into account. It would have been understood just fine.”
So his only audience was the Jews??
“And in light of such things, it is very difficult for me to see these as errors.”
And that’s fine. But it is a choice you make. One can go either way.
The “supposed” factual error is still there. You normally claim the Bible is literally true, but when it isn’t…..
:)
The Old Testament, the Gospel of Matthew, and much else from the New Testament was written first and foremost to a Jewish audience. They were His chosen people, to whom the oracles of God were committed. Their culture and society was wholly different, and a message given to them would be markedly different than revelation given to non-Jews. Note the difference in style and content between, the epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews, for example. Both are discourses on Christian theology, but Hebrews approaches Christ and salvation from a distinctly Jewish perspective, as would be expected when writing to the Jews.
But to say that because the primary audience at one time is the Jews means that the Bible was not written for us is absurd. The epistles were written to specific people groups–some to individuals–and so their audience was narrowly defined, but that does not limit the extent of their message.
Simply because something was not written to me does not mean that it was not written for my learning and growth, as Paul says about the Old Testament on at least one occasion concerning the Law, calling it a schoolmaster which points to Christ.
But if one stops on the surface and simply decides that an apparent contradiction must in fact be a contradiction without giving any creedance to context, style, audience, etc., is not one being wholly unfair to the text itself? Such careful consideration of words is given to Shakespearean plays (there are whole classes about it… ), the works of Tolkien, movies, and scientific writings; to refuse the Bible of fair textual analysis is both biased and unscholarly.
Contextual analysis and understanding is critical. If Romeo can beckon his Juliet as he did during the balcony scene and yet have it be understood based upon context, why are God and the holy men who penned His words not granted the same freedom of expression?
If writers whose minds border or cross over into brilliance may use all manner of literary device (including idiom and metaphor), then why is the God who gave life to such minds denied the same?
Literature is NOT the “Word of God”. It is subject to endless analysis precisely because its meaning is subject to debate (and the fads of a given time). In fact, much of the scholarly work you reference describes the differing views of a given work of literature through the years.
So you allow that the Bible is subject to this? That its meaning can change with the fads of time?
And I’m sure you would claim that the analysis you have provided is appropriate because of the apparent contradiction. But who decides what is an apparent contradiction and what isn’t??
I believe you mentioned that the Bible was using a device that was commonly used at that time by the Jews.
Fanciful creation stories were common devices among “primitive” peoples, so I guess it can be argued that God used that device in Genesis. Therefore, Genesis isn’t literal. Just a fanciful story with a point.
My point is that your Bible is what it is by your doing, not Gods. You make the choices that render it inerrent. You create your God (as most of us do), not the other way around.
“Literature is NOT the ‘Word of God’.” — That much is obvious, but the Word of God is literature and fits more than one of the given definitions of it. The Bible is religious literature and is the collected literature of God’s people down through the ages as inspired by God.
“It is subject to endless analysis precisely because its meaning is subject to debate (and the fads of a given time).” — This is true of just about any work. The Victorian Era will likely be described differently by a feminist than it was described a hundred years ago. The fads of the time affect much more than religious literature. However, the Bible, like most works, ought to be understood within its historical context. The fads of the time should not color our interpretation of it, lest it’s true meaning become lost to time.
“In fact, much of the scholarly work you reference describes the differing views of a given work of literature through the years.” — I’ve no doubt that our views of various things change over the years. Were I to read a work on the Civil War written while witnesses of it still lived, the work would certainly be appreciated in different ways. Likewise, the Bible was far more accessible to the ancient Jews to whom the bulk of it was originally given. I can find parallels in modern day situations, but to truly understand the Bible means figuring out what it was saying to the ancients it was given to, whether they be Jew or Roman or Corinthian or a man named Timothy.
“So you allow that the Bible is subject to this? That its meaning can change with the fads of time?” — It can be interpreted with the fads of the time as anything else can. Being able to do such a thing is not justification of doing the thing.
“And I’m sure you would claim that the analysis you have provided is appropriate because of the apparent contradiction. But who decides what is an apparent contradiction and what isn’t??” — Apparent contradictions are usually passed down from skeptic to skeptic as if they are proof of the Bible being errant. Who sits around looking for such apparent contradictions, I can’t say, but though lists of hundreds can be made, resolving them is probably far easier than finding them.
“I believe you mentioned that the Bible was using a device that was commonly used at that time by the Jews. Fanciful creation stories were common devices among ‘primitive’ peoples, so I guess it can be argued that God used that device in Genesis.” — So you would have us to believe that God would first give us a fable, repeatedly affirm the fable as truth, and then have Paul give a warning against fables? What sense would that make?
“Therefore, Genesis isn’t literal. Just a fanciful story with a point.”
Presupposing that God tells fairy tales doesn’t exactly lead to such a firm assertation as that.
“My point is that your Bible is what it is by your doing, not Gods.” — My Bible is what it is simply because that is what it is. There are those out there who do make it out to be what they want–Catholics twist it to support Purgatory or the sacraments, Jehovah’s Witnesses twist it to support the idea that only 144,000 will go to Heaven, clergymen twist it to take advantage of women or (God forbid) children, slave owners twist it to support the mistreatment of slaves, racists twist it, bigots twist it, abusive men twist it, and on and on.
But such misuse of the Bible is not only shameful, it is sinful. When I read the Bible, it is never my intent to make it fit what I already believe–such is vain folly. When I read the Bible, it is to allow it to renew my mind, further conforming me to the Son of God. It is the the unyielding rule to which I must align myself, not vice versa.
“You make the choices that render it inerrent.” — It could also be said that you make the choices which render it errant.
“You create your God (as most of us do), not the other way around.” — Any god I could dream up would not be worthy of anyone’s worship, let alone mine.