Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 1

For some reason the issue of the continued perfect preservation (or lack thereof) of the Bible has been popping up quite often in my life. Of course, this issue is tied directly to KJV (that stands for King James-I-persecuted-Protestants-but-still-somehow-was-elevated-to-Pope-status-among-crazy-American-21st-century-Evangelicals Version) primacy. The following is a recent discussion I had with some friends of mine regarding the larger issue of biblical preservation seen through the lens of the KJV issue. I rarely get into theological debates and rue the thought of arguing for the fun of it (something I did often in college :) - but sometimes there is a chance to influence, a chance to persuade - in this instance I saw a chance and I went for it. Enjoy.

Friend #1 

I have yet to find an error in the king James Version. The same cannot be said of any other version I know of.. The KJV has many presumed errors & problematic texts... But these all can be explained with some deep study...... 

I disagree that the original Hebrew is the only text without error.. Simply because there are no originals there are only copies of the originals.

So be careful with that ESV.. It isn't translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV. 

Friend #2 Response 

Some would call this tragic. Others wouldn't. I personally use KJV, but will, on occasion, refer to ESV or NIV for something that's easier to understand. I think the only real "version" without error is the original one... and that's not the KJV, its the original Hebrew and Greek text. While I do think the seemingly endless reproduction of different versions of the Bible that are required to have changed "X" number of words is a little bit of a bastardization of the text, a money plot by publishers, and just might sometimes get a little close to straying away from the original Hebrew message, I do think some people may need to refer, as I do, to a commentated source in order to understand something every once in a while. Judaism has done this without making 54 different translations... its the Talmud, and contains a commentary on the original and a commentary on the commentary., for applications sake.
that being said, I'm only comfortable saying the absolute FIRST text, in the original old Hebrew and Greek, is the divinely inspired, error free, word of God, to the horn of the yod. 

Friend #1 Response 

The KJV says God preserved his words through the generations, the inspired inerrant scripture CAN'T be just the words on the paper of the original autographs... I can show you some shocking verses if you want...  

My Interjection

If you don't mind - could I interject?  First of all the OT in all modern English translations as well as the KJV is translated from the Masoretic Text (10th cent. AD document). Second the KJV was translated in 1611 when only a few Greek NT texts were available. Since 1611 - something like 2700 Greek manuscripts have been found and deciphered - many of them much older and more complete manuscripts than what the translators of the KJV possessed. 

So what does that mean? Modern English translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV are far and away closer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts than the KJV, because they have the added benefit of 400 years of archaeological discovery and textual critical work. Not to mention that they take into account the evolution of the English language. For example - which one of these texts makes more sense to a 21st cent. reader “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort” or “But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace” (example indebted to one of my favorite teachers) They both are from Acts 17:5 - but the second translation (NIV) is clearly easier to understand for people that live under the US government and not under the monarchy of King James. 

Furthermore - there is absolutely no reason to believe that in 1611 - God decided to pass down the perfect, uncorrupted text. This is the key issue. To state that the KJV is the uncorrupted text is without textual basis and frankly a little prideful - what about the previous 1600 years when English was not the main universal tongue? Did they not have a perfect translation? Was God waiting to reveal the perfect English translation to us Anglo-Saxons?  

to be continued... 

Guest Blogging

In case you missed it you can check out my blog entries at BiblePlaces blog at the following links.

Beth Haccherem Identification Intro

Jericho's Earliest skyscraper

Titus Tobler

Some Thoughts on Anson Rainey the Teacher

Guest Blogger: BiblePlaces Blog

For the next month I will be contributing to Todd Bolen's BiblePlaces blog.  BiblePlaces is one of the most read archaeological blogs on the internet.  Today's post provides the following bio introduction for your faithful servant:

Chris McKinny is finishing up his M.A. thesis at the Jerusalem University College.  Last semester he taught full-time at the Israel Bible Extension campus of The Master’s College.  Chris has a particular passion for archaeology, and he has spent summers excavating at Tell es-Safi (Gath) and Tel Burna (Libnah?) in the Shephelah of Judah.  Chris lives in Jerusalem with his wife Mindy (whose photographic work has been featured on this blog in the past).  He blogs occasionally at Seeking a Homeland.

Tel Burna Featured in BAR

The recent addition of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) chronicles the different active archaeological sites in Israel.  Tel Burna, the dig that Mindy and I are involved with is one of the featured sites - see some information regarding Biblical Libnah (?) and it's beautiful cover girl/photographer here.

When Did the First Advent Occur?

Read "How December 25 Became Christmas" an excellent article in the recent addition of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) by Andrew McGowan.

The sum of the article is that the Christian tradition for a December 25 date predates the "pagan sun festival" that it is almost unanimously associated with the Christmas event. Here are a few excerpts.

The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Despite its popularity today, this theory of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the solstice and Jesus’ birth: The church father Ambrose (c. 339–397), for example, described Christ as the true sun, who outshone the fallen gods of the old order. But early Christian writers never hint at any recent calendrical engineering; they clearly don’t think the date was chosen by the church. Rather they see the coincidence as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.

It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea. They claimed that because the early Christians didn’t know when Jesus was born, they simply assimilated the pagan solstice festival for their own purposes, claiming it as the time of the Messiah’s birth and celebrating it accordingly.

The "No Vacancy Inn" - A Fanciful Interpretation

Allow this clip from the well-beloved, very flawed "Nativity Story"refresh your memory regarding one of the world's best known narratives. (See especially from 6:13-8:15)


But did it really go down like that?

Originally published 3/16/10.

No where in Luke 2 does it imply that Mary, the mother of the Messiah, went into labor on the way to Bethlehem - in fact the passage suggests quite the opposite. 

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
(Luke 2:4–7 ESV)

We often assume that because "there was no place for them in the inn" then the labor must have been hurried - it's like we are trying to make a Lifetime special out of the first Advent.  Even if the line "no place for them in the inn" is a correct translation, which is highly suspect, there is no reason to believe that Mary was about to "bring forth" as she reached the hometown of King David.  The line "And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth" makes it abundantly clear that there was a sequence of events at work here.  The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, an unknown length of time in which Mary and Joseph settled in before the birth of the King, and finally the birth of the Firstfruits of God. 
Moreover, the Greek phrase underlying "no place for them in the inn" should be read "no place for them in the guest room." The word kataluma is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both cases it is referring to the same event - Jesus telling his disciples to go and secure the room for the Last Supper.

“And tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ (Luke 22:11 ESV see also Mark 14:14).

The translation "guest room" eliminates any need for a hurried delivery on Mary's part or any amount of desperate consternation upon Joseph the soon-to-be father.  Beyond that, this translation is much more fitting with the cultural context of the story - Mary and Joseph, Judeans of Davidic origin, would have had family members living in Bethlehem who would have been more than happy to host the expecting parents (remember how Mary stayed with her cousin Elizabeth 6 months earlier - somewhere around Jerusalem only 5 miles from Bethlehem).  However, due to the overcrowding caused by the census guest rooms were full so they had to move their extended family to other rooms in the home - the next candidate would be the stable (which were almost exclusively built into the homes since the livestock of the family was an integral part of its livelihood, as well as acting as a free furnace during cold months).

This reconstruction then means that Mary came to Bethlehem towards the end of her pregnancy, but not to the point where she would give birth as soon as she got there. (Seriously why would Mary and Joseph do this?  It's not like they did not know when the census was supposed to be - Rome worked on a rigorous schedule, it's no coincidence that the modern calendar has it's foundations in the Roman one.  Mary and Joseph would have had to have been extremely irresponsible or just plain naive to wait until the last minute.)  When they arrived in the ancestral home of their fathers they stayed with family (most likely extended as their immediate family was in Nazareth) whose guest room had already been filled by other extended family - thus they were put in the next likeliest location - the stable where the God/Man was born and placed in a stone manger.

Let us cast aside the traditional fanciful interpretation of the advent of our Lord - the actual story of his condescending and taking flesh is humble enough - let us not go beyond the Bible in our attempts to steep lowliness upon the shoulders of the Lord.  Let us add the myth of the "no-vacancy inn" to the myth that the "three kings" were present at the manger - perhaps they can stay in this mythical inn during their alleged visit to the manger.

Two New Christmas Carols

This week my History of Ancient Israel students were faced with a difficult task - learning all of the names of the kings of Israel and Judah in chronological order (and their relationship to each other) for the final exam.  They all did swimmingly - here is how some of my best and brightest accomplished this difficult feat.

Dare I say that no teacher has ever been more proud...

Kings of Israel to Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer (Zedekiah = Zechariah - they got it right on the test so we will let it slide :)

Kings of Judah to Joy to the World