Summary
Highlights
Speculation arises about why God might allow scribal errors. One idea suggested is that without challenges in the text, people might worship the text itself. Ultimately, God chose to have scriptures composed and preserved by humans, allowing for the possibility of errors, and He deemed this process good.
Scholars discuss acknowledged minor differences in biblical accounts, such as who killed Goliath (1 Samuel vs. 2 Samuel) and discrepancies in numbers found in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. There are also differences in the New Testament, like the census of Augustus and the location of the feeding of the 5,000. The infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke also present differing sequences of events, which can be interpreted as either Luke omitting details or Joseph having multiple homes.
The speakers stress that these differences are minor details and do not impact core theological issues like the existence of God or Jesus' resurrection. Skeptics often focus on these minor discrepancies because major theological points are widely agreed upon.
The conversation moves to compositional devices using the example of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. Luke's account describes the Centurion sending emissaries, while Matthew's simplifies it to the Centurion directly approaching Jesus. Traditional harmonization attempts to reconcile these by suggesting multiple visits or metonymy (one representing another). Mike Licona proposes that Matthew uses a compositional device called 'transferral', where the words of an emissary are attributed directly to the main figure, a common practice in ancient biographies, as seen in Plutarch's writings about Pompey.
Two principles are introduced: first, the view of scripture should be consistent with observations within it (e.g., authors tell the same events differently and paraphrase sayings). Second, a truly high view of scripture accepts it as God gave it, rather than forcing it into preconceived molds. The example of Jesus' teachings being paraphrased and rephrased by gospel writers is given, highlighting John's distinct style compared to the Synoptic Gospels.
Mike Licona defines inerrancy as: "The Bible is true, trustworthy, and without error in all that it teaches." This definition applies to both original manuscripts and present-day Bibles, allowing pastors to confidently state their Bibles are the inerrant Word of God, unlike those adhering strictly to the Chicago statement which applies inerrancy only to the original autographs.
Licona shares testimonies of individuals whose faith was strengthened by his book, which explained compositional techniques. These individuals, previously troubled by biblical discrepancies, found renewed confidence in the gospels. The discussion also addresses the fear that acknowledging minor errors might lead to doubting major doctrines like the resurrection. Licona asserts that these minor details do not undermine the historical case for Jesus' resurrection, which is widely supported even by skeptical scholars.
Frank Turek cites Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar and skeptic, who agrees with Bruce Metzger (a conservative scholar) on the essential reliability of the New Testament text. Ehrman states that even with textual variants, major Christian beliefs are unaffected. The speakers argue that Ehrman's more popular books, like 'Misquoting Jesus,' can miscommunicate his actual academic consensus, leading readers to wrongly believe the New Testament is untrustworthy.