I don’t know what sort of opposition you face from skeptics on a daily basis; probably not much. Such opposition is certainly real though. You’ll hear about the numerous “contradictions” in the Bible. Among these alleged discrepancies are what believers tend to chalk up as “scribal errors” because they can’t seem to explain them any other way. The trouble is, if you believe the Bible can stand up to scrutiny (as I believe), and if you believe the Bible does not contradict itself (as I believe), then there are certain passages that just can’t be explained other than as “scribal errors”. They simply must be the result of an honest error committed by an overworked, honest, dedicated scribe who gave his life to copying scripture. Right?
The inerrancy of the Bible is something that not only should we accept on faith, but we can accept on faith that has adequate evidence in early manuscripts.
Surely you must have wondered about these “scribal errors”. Isn’t that just a cop-out by mind-numbed believers who can’t explain a true contradiction any other way?
In a word — no.
Scribal errors were a real eventuality of the early centuries of scripture. So why is this not a simple, easy way out for dedicated believers desperately wanting a logical explanation for what is truly a real contradiction?
The reality of scribal errors
First, let me state that I will not give a complete explanation here of scribal errors. That’s not a cop out; that’s a choice I made in order to keep blog posts to a reasonable size. I will though, direct you to an excellent reference by Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press. Eric has a 2-volume compendium of alleged Bible discrepancies titled “Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies“. This 2-volume set is a great addition to the library of those who believe the Bible to be 100% inspired and 100% without error, yet who may have difficulty resolving the meaning of certain passages that appear to be contradictory. (Scribal, or “copyists”, errors are among the topics Eric deals with in Volume 1.)
In Eric’s books, as well as in his articles, he does a masterful job of not only acknowledging the difficulty of certain passages, but also of explaining how things such as scribal errors occurred, given all the safeguards that were in place to prevent such errors.
A double standard?
Consider this (from Lyons, Vol 1, pg. 142):
Over 5,300 New Testament manuscripts are extant today, with the most complete dated at roughly A.D. 350, the earliest dating roughly A.D. 120, and writers quoting New Testament documents as early as A.D. 90.
There are only 643 copies of Homer’s Iliad manuscripts, undeniably the most famous book of ancient Greece.
No one doubts the authenticity of Julius Caesars Gallic Wars, but we have only 10 copies of it, the latest copy dating 1,000 years after the original was written.
So why does the world accept secular documents with very little assurance of no scribal error, but it makes excuses why the multiplicity of earlier documents is unreliable? Certainly the sheer number of manuscripts alone doesn’t prove anything, does it? No, but the fact that the 5,300 New Testament manuscripts are in remarkable (though not 100%) agreement with each other is certainly a point in the Bible’s favor.
Faith
Let’s be honest — if everything we believe could be proven by the scientific method, it wouldn’t be called “faith”. The inerrancy of the Bible though, is something that not only should we accept on faith, but we can accept on faith that has adequate evidence in early manuscripts.
Remember, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).
What do you think?
Are “scribal errors” things that believers invent in order to explain away a flimsy substance-weak faith? Or are they a reality of an early, pre-press culture that did the best it humanly could?
