Published by Personal Background and Disclaimer
As a college student who has not taken any theology, my musings may be subject to criticism. This is not to say that I am without sound knowledge. I was raised in a Christian church, somewhat Southern Baptist, and can at least sufficiently argue my point from a Protestant perspective, but I invite all readers to partake in what I have to say.
It may apply to other walks of faith, though any harsh criticism or questions will be directed to Christianity. It does not look at any widespread theological studies of the Bible nor use any special terms, but rather it is largely personal insight of how the Bible may be fallible and what that means to me as a Christian.
“The Bible is Infallible”
Surely, the majority of Christians entertain the notion that the Bible is infallible. Have you ever heard any of these phrases?
“You can’t contradict the Word of God”
“God only lets the things He wants you to know be put in the Bible”
The Church will stand by the Holy Bible and teach out of it whole-heartedly. It is not a crime to believe this or teach this. In fact, the basis of Christianity depends on the Bible being true. At the same time, people do not look at how human error, or even human bias, could seep in.
History
The Holy Bible we read today is a conglomeration of texts that were believed to be Scripture – the Old Testament – and accounts and letters of Christ’s followers – the New Testament. A council convened in order to determine what makes it into the New Testament long after the writings were collected. Out of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of letters and accounts in the days of Christ were sifted through and evaluated for accuracy and veracity.
Here lies the problem: how can anyone be certain that all the council included was true? The council could not question the authors. The authors had all died, many of which had been martyred. There is no way a first-hand account could have been verified. If you look in some Bibles, an introduction to a book or epistle may have pertinent historical information, summaries, and authorship. Much of the time, the author is only what most scholars agree upon as the true author. In other words, they do not really know, but attempt to determine who the author is based on what they do know.
Aside from what made it into the Bible and may err in authorship, what was left out? Several letters and books of the Bible never made it because the council suspected dubious authorship. They may be forgeries of apostolic epistles. Some may have simply left out accounts they felt unnecessary to the whole of the Bible. If you look around, various texts not in the typical Protestant Bible exist in Catholicism or the various Orthodoxies.
Still further are disparities in how the Bible is finalized. The Protestant Church wanted to unify under what was essentially the same Bible across the various denominations. That means Baptists, the Church of the Nazarene, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so forth all convened to determine what goes into the Bible. Representatives had to agree on a general version of “truth” that could appease every denomination. A result of that is some verses have whole phrases missing from the original text. Some Bibles will include alternate versions or extensions in the footnote.
In all, how much did God lead the selection of what goes into the Bible we know today? Varying editions already show that not all of Christianity agrees upon what is and is not the Word of God.
Divine Inspiration in the Hands of Men
Another common idea is that God inspired the authors of the Bible. It is a nice thing to believe and is not necessarily inaccurate. However, in the hands of men, things are bound to change. For instance, the pastor for my church once mentioned that one of the men who did notable work in spreading the Good News was actually a woman. The authors had changed the gender when they committed it to the New Testament. I will say that I forget who it was and if it was the author of the epistle who changed it or if it was the Protestant council or still another. The fact remains that somewhere along the line, a historical fact, a whole person, changed at the hands of men. Of course, this particular example deals with patriarchal society.
Other parts may be difficult to swallow as purely divine inspiration. The first five books of the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy – are all attributed to Moses. It seems strange, though, how vast a number of works there are, and stranger still, the detail of the accounts at least a thousand years before his birth.
Major events are surely known about, but the creation of Earth? The age of Methuselah? And while I can not say that it is not divinely inspired, it is nevertheless a peculiarity that God would put such long, detailed accounts into his head leading up to Exodus. Written records before then probably did not exist: Egypt was among the first in the world to have a written language, and as a prince, Moses most likely had literate scribes instead of learning it himself. Oral histories do not tend to count the years of a person’s life so it is not as if he supplemented those into Genesis.
For other books, they should be taken with a grain of salt, considering at least the author’s personal feelings in the writing compared with objectivity or God’s own words. How much did the disciples hate Judas after his betrayal? Or how much did they continue to regard him as a friend?
Varying Accounts: Judas
In the Bible, sometimes things just do not seem to add up. I am looking at one instance specifically, though others exist, such as the Gospel of John compared to the other Gospels. Two very different accounts of Judas’ death are known to me.
One story is told in Matthew. Judas, after betraying Jesus, felt bad for betraying an innocent man and attempted to return his thirty pieces of silver. However, his return was not accepted. Judas flung the silver at the chief priests. Judas hung himself afterward. Then a field was purchased by the chief priests as a burial ground for foreigners and became known as the Field of Blood.
In Acts, it is very different. The story is recounted by Peter. In it, Judas bought a field and fell headlong, and it is thereafter known as the Field of Blood.
Matthew’s story, at least in my eyes, seems like a more factual and objective account. It is detailed in its telling of Judas’ death. Then it should be asked just how does he know such intricate details? He is not likely to have heard it from the chief priests and elders and Judas does not seem to ever encounter the disciples again. Peter’s story sounds like a second-hand summary and a little biased.
After telling the story, he cites passages from Psalms that describe what the ramifications are as foretold by David for the traitor of Christ. Perhaps it is only my broad interpretation, but in context with the passage, Peter is saying “Judas gets what he deserves: an eternity away from God.” My friends have interpreted the same passage as Peter attempting to calm the internal quarrels and talk around Judas, which I believe may also be true.
The differences in the two tales are Judas appearing before the chief priests to return the silver, how Judas dies, and who the buyer of the field is. Two people have heard or seen different versions of the same story. When else might this occur? Several books of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, take place at or around the same time. Subtle changes can wholly influence the reading.
While it is not particularly important to know how Judas died, this kind of application in the rest of the Bible is important. It still is interesting to note what relationship Judas may have had to Matthew and Peter as well. In comparison, at least, Matthew is more protective by mentioning Judas trying to return the silver while Peter seems more condemning by mentioning Psalms.
Translation
Perhaps this should be placed earlier, but something is always lost in translation. As an American who has never learned Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, or any other original written language of the writers (except perhaps some Latin, but it is not sufficient to read most texts or make an in-depth interpretation), I can not interpret the Bible on my own. The Bible has been interpreted for me by whoever translated the New International Version (NIV) or the King James Version (KJV).
It would be unfair to say that I would be better off reading the originals on my own because I would not have enough historical knowledge of the period to understand it. Likewise, some phrases are surely better understood by a native speaker. Then again, that is also the point. Some words in Greek or Hebrew do not have an English equivalent. They may be a word that encompasses the same idea that English would string along in long phrases or sentences. They may be phrases that are filled with meaning to a Jewish person but mean nothing to the American. The changes that are made to find near equivalents or edits made to fit European or American cultures may drastically alter the original Word of God.
Conclusion: How Does That Effect Faith?
It should simply be food for thought and an informative account. I do not want to say that the Bible is wrong. It is filled with valid and good information. I also do not mean to say that it is only a good, moral book. As a Christian, I believe Jesus Christ lived and died for my sins. I mean mostly for people to raise questions in their faith and expand their views. Christianity should not be quite as narrow-minded as it is today. It is our own fault for being unquestioning and more often the Church’s for rejecting these questions.
For myself, I still take the Bible to be true. I consider myself better informed for introducing a little skepticism from time to time. I am also sure that many of my arguments may be unfounded and poorly researched (not at all researched, really). However, to understand anything, I think it is best to try to understand all things. So, I try to understand Paul when he writes to the Corinthians or Luke when he writes Acts. They are revered as disciples, apostles, and even saints, but they are also all human.
As for other religions, some of these same arguments apply. How much is human and how much is divinity? How do politics of religion come into play?
And here, of course, I open myself up to criticism. “Did this guy just say the Bible is wrong?” The answer again is no. I just think there is more to it than blindly trusting it, by which I am not criticizing faith but on what that faith is founded. Is it based on man or on God?
“For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:20 (NIV)
Following up
My sister and I had a conversation about some of these topics. If anyone wishes to learn more about how to understand the Bible after passing through human hands, she has recommended the theologian Karl Barth to me. I have not read anything of his, but she tells me that our beliefs (hers and mine) resemble his.
