Inspired. Inerrant. In Question?

“Please help! How should I respond?”

Emily scanned Karlie’s text message and silently wished that her friend would stop spending so much time watching videos produced by skeptics.

Rolling her eyes, she tapped the “No Christian Can Answer This!” link her friend had sent. A video immediately opened featuring a young woman holding an open Bible. She made a few rapid-fire introductory comments, challenging biblical inerrancy and belittling the intelligence of Christians who believe in it. Then the woman issued the following challenge:

How can anyone believe the Bible doesn’t contain errors? Let’s look at one of literally hundreds of examples. In Luke 4:17–19, Jesus supposedly stood up to read from a book, but they used scrolls—not books. That’s not even the biggest problem here. He is clearly quoting from Isaiah 61:1–2, and he reads about the “recovering of sight to the blind.” But when you read those verses in Isaiah 61, you’ll notice that it doesn’t say anything about blind people recovering their sight. This is a blatant contradiction. Which book gives us the correct quote—Luke or Isaiah? Or maybe Jesus was just—

Emily stopped the video and opened her Bible app to see if the woman was telling the truth about these passages. A few quick taps confirmed her suspicion that the Greek word translated as “book” in some Bibles is also translated as “scroll” in others.

So, biblion usually refers to a roll of papyrus, she thought. The fact that Jesus rolled it up in verse 20 confirms that it could also be translated as “scroll”. No problem there.

A few more taps of the screen. She frowned as she realized Isaiah 61:1 did not include the phrase about blind people recovering their sight, wording she definitely found in Luke 4:18.

Having been raised to wholeheartedly believe that every word of the Bible was true, Emily felt her stomach tighten as she struggled to make sense of this apparent contradiction. Maybe it’s only a problem in this translation, she thought.

She checked three other Bible versions, the NIV, KJV, and ESV, and sure enough, they had the same issue. Not one of them included a study note addressing this point. How could Luke add an entire phrase to Isaiah’s quote?

Since Jesus is God, maybe he just added it at that point, Emily reasoned, looking back at the text. But it doesn’t seem like he added anything here since Luke plainly states that those words were written down.

Can I really trust the Bible?

Unsure of how to reply to Karlie, Emily stared at her phone and asked herself, Can I really trust the Bible?

A Little Nuance Goes a Long Way

This fictional story hits close to home for many heartbroken parents who have raised their children to love God and trust his Word. Many of these well-intentioned young people have set out to defend the Bible in their high school or college only to find their faith shaken or, worse, shattered when confronted with apparent contradictions. In response, some may choose to ignore the discrepancy and continue in their faith, often with less fervor and confidence. Others choose to deconstruct Christianity, shaping it to be consistent with their new beliefs. Still others might walk away altogether. But young people can avoid these wrong responses if we teach them to properly define the doctrine of inerrancy.

Since the Bible is inspired by God, it follows that it would be written without error (2 Timothy 3:16–17; Hebrews 6:18). Simply put, the doctrine of inerrancy states that the 66 books of the Bible are without error in their original autographs. Theologians have often added qualifying or clarifying phrases to this statement. The late theologian and professor of systemic theology Charles Ryrie stated it well when he wrote, “The inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as those do not contradict.”1

This doctrine also applies to copies and translations only when they accurately represent the original writings. The Bible boasts a robust history of transmission (the copying of biblical texts) and translation, including an overabundance of early copies, when compared to other ancient writings. However, this does not mean that we should assume that the Bibles we read today are entirely free from problems. In fact, I am not aware of a modern Bible without the Isaiah 61:1–2/Luke 4:17–19 difficulty mentioned earlier.

How Can We Answer These Objections?

Most of the challenges posed by skeptics are quite easy to refute, but some problems, such as the one Emily faced, require deeper investigation. This challenge provides a great example because it appears in all our English translations. When refuting skeptics’ claims, we can put multiple steps into practice.

Check Scripture

Emily’s first instinct was good. She checked to make sure the skeptic accurately cited Scripture. This is a crucial step since many of the alleged contradictions arise from misquotations of the Bible or from verses being yanked out of context. However, like many believers who seek to defend the faith, Emily was overconfident and unprepared.

Apologists can be particularly susceptible to prideful temptations. We spend large amounts of time studying to find answers to attacks on the Bible and our faith. While gaining knowledge is commendable, it can also inflate our egos, leading us to neglect the careful study of Scripture because we think we already know what it says. We must always approach Scripture in humility and recognize that no matter how much we study God’s Word, there will always be so much more to learn.

Compare Translations

Emily also made a wise move by comparing various translations to see if they would clear up the problem. Biblical translations can vary due to philosophy. Is a given version meant to be close to a word-for-word translation (known as formal equivalence) or more thought-for-thought (dynamic equivalence) or perhaps a blending of both approaches (optimal equivalence)?

Versions can also differ due to their source material. Nearly every English Bible uses the Masoretic Text (MT) as its primary text for Old Testament translation. For the New Testament, the KJV and NKJV are based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, while most other translations rely upon a more recent eclectic text, such as the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament that incorporates centuries of research and data gleaned from thousands of manuscripts and fragments.

Watch for Summaries

Emily’s notion that Jesus might have added the line is important to consider. It is not uncommon for a biblical character to paraphrase or summarize Scripture. Similarly, many of the long speeches recorded in books like Matthew, Luke, and Acts are simply summaries of the original messages. It is possible that Luke paraphrased or summarized what Jesus said in Luke 4:18. However, this potential solution seems unlikely in this case since the text indicates that Jesus read these words from the scroll. A better solution is available in this situation.

Check Other Scholars/Resources

Emily could have consulted various commentaries on Luke and Isaiah as well as other resources that address skeptical questions. Rather than becoming discouraged that her own quick study did not yield the result she wanted, she could have tried to find out whether another believer had already solved the problem. These skeptical attacks have taken place for millennia, and the Lord has raised up godly individuals throughout history to deal with them.

Use a Study Bible

Emily could have also checked the notes in a study Bible. In addition to providing cross-references, these Bibles usually have a thin middle column on every page, which features abbreviated explanations of variants—differences between manuscripts (see sidebar for a helpful guide to understanding these notes). The NET Bible is especially helpful since its notes largely focus on explaining differences. Yet these useful tools would not have solved Emily’s problem because I could not find one that addressed the Luke 4 dilemma.

Dig Deeper

Emily needed to dig deeper to find a good solution rather than allowing doubts to damage her faith. Of course, digging deeper requires focusing on more difficult concepts, but it’s worth the diligence.

The Masoretic Text of Isaiah 61:1 does not mention “recovery of sight to the blind,” which is why most of our English Bibles also do not include the phrase. The Greek equivalent of those words is found in the Septuagint (LXX). While it’s possible that Jesus read from the LXX, it is unlikely that Greek texts were widely used in Jewish religious practices in Israel at that time.

Jesus may have read from a Hebrew text that pre-dated the MT and aligned with the Septuagint’s wording in this verse. In fact, many of the verbal differences that exist between New Testament quotations of the Old Testament text can be accounted for this way. For example, Hebrews 1:6 quotes the LXX version of Deuteronomy 32:43 (“Let all the angels of God worship Him”), but this wording is not found anywhere in the MT.

Emily’s particular problem goes beyond an appeal to the LXX because the copies of Isaiah 61 found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) more closely align with the MT manuscript tradition than with the LXX. Thankfully, these ancient Hebrew texts give us the clue we need to solve the dilemma.

Whereas the MT speaks of “the opening of the prison to those who are bound,” the DSS include wording that can be translated as “release from darkness for the prisoners” or the “opening of the eyes of the prisoners.” This wording is nearly identical to Isaiah 42:7, which speaks of the Lord’s servant being sent “to open the eyes that are blind” and parallels “to bring out the prisoners from the prison.”

Apparently, early Jewish interpreters understood these as parallel concepts, meaning that bringing prisoners from prison was another way of saying that the blind would receive sight. This solution can explain why the LXX and the scroll Jesus read from in Nazareth’s synagogue had wording about the “recovery of sight to the blind.”

Why Can’t It Be Easier?

The best way to solve these problems would involve comparing the copies with the original autographs to certify that they are accurate. However, the originals no longer exist, as far as we know, so we cannot prove with absolute certainty what the original writing stated in these difficult passages. This might disappoint some believers who think that we must have 100% certainty regarding every word in our modern Bible or else Christianity is suspect. However, this idea is not derived from the Bible. Christianity is true because the Son of God became one of us, lived a perfect life, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead on the third day.

Though we no longer possess the originals to prove what they say, that means the skeptic also can never prove that errors existed in the originals. Are we at an impasse then? Not at all! The vast number of early copies and fragments allow textual scholars to discover the original wording in nearly every case. Even the leading skeptical textual critic, Bart Ehrman, acknowledged that “essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”2

The Complicated Reality

In practice, some Christians tend to act as though God wrote the Bible and handed it down to godly men, who then repeatedly made perfect copies and translations throughout history. Reality is more complicated than this. The Lord chose to use flawed human beings to write his inspired Word. He did not dictate it to them, but the Holy Spirit guided the process so that the original autographs did not have any errors.

Isaiah states that “the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8), and Jesus said that “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), so we should expect God to preserve his Word. However, just as the inspiration of Scripture is more complicated than many imagine, its transmission and preservation are not as clean as we might want them to be, as evidenced by the differences between ancient manuscripts.

Far too many Christians think these difficulties can be resolved by simply choosing one manuscript tradition over another. However, this is inadequate since each of the traditions contains discrepancies, including the one described in this article’s introduction. Therefore, each of the variants must be studied on a case-by-case basis.

Familiar with the Flaws

Countless people have redefined or rejected the Christian faith because their flawed understanding of biblical inerrancy was undercut by what they found in their own Bibles. We must teach believers, especially young people, a proper understanding of this important doctrine so that they do not grow discouraged, as Emily did, when skeptics point out inconsistencies in our modern translations. We should also familiarize ourselves with these discrepancies so that we can be ready to give an answer to those who challenge why we believe the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs. While we can have complete confidence in God’s inspired and inerrant Word, we need to realize and teach that the preservation of Scripture has been more complex than we commonly believe.