The Narrow Path Ministries

It is often affirmed, especially among evangelicals and fundamentalists, that the Bible is inerrant in its original autographs. Of course, this position is impossible to disprove since none of the original autographs exist. However, we do have some manuscripts from as early and the mid-second century.

I have been wondering how inerrancy views can be upheld in view of the fact that Matthew, in quoting a passage from Zechariah, mistakenly ascribed it to Jeremiah.

Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.” Matthew 27:9,10 ESV

The closest OT passage to these words are:

Then the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”––the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD, to the potter. Zechariah 11:13 ESV

The Septuagint is no close to Matthew's quote. Indeed it doesn't mention a potter:

And the Lord said to me, Drop them into the furnace, and I will see if it is good metal, as I was proved for their sakes. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the furnace in the house of the Lord (An English translation of the LXX)

I admit that the Zechariah passage is not all that close to Matthew's quote. In any case, how do Biblical inerrantests (if that's a word) get around this, other than speculating that the quote was once found in Jeremiah, but somehow got removed.

I have been wondering how inerrancy views can be upheld in view of the fact that Matthew, in quoting a passage from Zechariah, mistakenly ascribed it to Jeremiah.






Could have been combining Jeremiah 19.1-13 with Zechariah and only referenced Jeremiah the major prophet. The most important aspect was not whether Jeremiah or Zechariah mouthed it but that it was inspired.

Steve7150's answer above is one that may well explain the problem—that is, Matthew is combining ideas from two different Old Testament passages, one in Jeremiah and one in Zechariah, but is only mentioning the more-important prophet in his attribution. A similar phenomenon is seen (in the Alexandrian Text only) at Mark 1:1ff, where Mark quotes two passages (one from Malachi and another from Isaiah) and only makes reference in his attribution to the greater of the two prophets.

Another common solution is to suggest that the Old Testament was stored in separate scrolls, each of which contained more than one book, but each of which was labeled only by the name of the first book in the scroll (just as some anthologies of essays take their name from the first essay in the volume—e.g., like all of Tozer's volumes of collected editorials). On this suggestion, Matthew was citing Zechariah, but this book was contained in the "Jeremiah" scroll. While this suggestion is commonly given, it does not seem to suit the wording of Matthew, who said the prophecy was "spoken by" Jeremiah (not that it was found in the "book" or "scroll" of Jeremiah).

Yet another possibility, just as incapable of demonstration as the previous two, is that there is an error in the text, but that it was not Matthew who made it. On this view, the text was corrupted by the faulty memory of a copyist. Such things are known to have happened numerous times. Whether this is a case of such or not can not be known from the manuscript evidence presently available.

A fourth possibility is that Matthew remembered incorrectly and made an entirely inconsequential mistake. This, of course, would require that some evangelicals revisit the question of inerrant inspiration of Matthew—but such a revisiting may be called for. After all, Matthew never claimed to be writing inerrantly, nor under inspiration. On what basis do we make a claim for his writings that he himself does not make?

A fourth possibility is that Matthew remembered incorrectly and made an entirely inconsequential mistake. This, of course, would require that some evangelicals revisit the question of inerrant inspiration of Matthew—but such a revisiting may be called for. After all, Matthew never claimed to be writing inerrantly, nor under inspiration. On what basis do we make a claim for his writings that he himself does not make?
steve





"Knowing this first of all that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man , but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1.20-21

Peter would know about Matthews gospel by the time he wrote this and i think his claim is that scripture is inspired yet even if it is, fallible man can still make a mistake from his human memory. In another words Matthew could have been inspired that the prophecy was fulfilled but not exactly where it was because ultimately it came from God.

As steve7150 noted, Peter speaks of "no prophecy of scripture...". My first question is: Does this mean that only the prophetic portions of the old testament are inspired, and other portions are not?



Peter speaks of Paul's writing as scripture, thus my second question is: should the inspired portion of the bible be regarded as including the old testament prophecies, and paul's writings - but excluding all other new testament writings (e.g. Matthew).




Thanks,
Peter

Paidion wrote: I have been wondering how inerrancy views can be upheld in view of the fact that Matthew, in quoting a passage from Zechariah, mistakenly ascribed it to Jeremiah.

Jerome claimed that he was shown an apocryphal Hebrew book of Jeremiah which included the verse. And we know that Qumran has yielded a Jeremiah apocryphon. Perhaps it was in that? After all, Jude appears to have quoted the book of Enoch as being Enoch's own words.

This is a subject that I've recently taken interest in.

So is it fair to say that the bible you hold in your hand contains the word of God?

Is it also fair to say that the pastor that I sat under for many years was either, 1. Was not very educated when it came to this subject. Or 2. He lied when he said that the bible you hold in your hand is the inerrant, infallible word of God.

So is it fair to say that the bible you hold in your hand contains the word of God?








Peter said men spoke from God as they were carried by the Holy Spirit so i think he claimed inspiration but that does'nt necessarily equal inerrancy.

Both Paul and Peter claimed that the Old Testament scriptures were inspired (2 Timothy 3:16/2 Peter 1:20-21).

John also claimed that Revelation is an inspired prophecy (1:3).

Because all of these claims were made by apostles, I would not feel myself either qualified or at liberty to dispute them.

Paul claimed inspiration for a few of his statements (2 Cor.6:17-18 / 1 Tim.4:1ff), but disclaimed inspiration for others (1 Cor.7:25, 40).

None of the Gospels claimed to be inspired in their writing, though the life and teachings of Jesus were definitely viewed as a revelation of God's Word in the flesh (John 1:14).

Luke did not claim inspiration in its writing of either Luke or Acts, and we are probably safe in assuming that Acts was written by roughly the same means as was Luke's Gospel. From the opening verses of Luke, we find that Luke claimed as his authority, not divine inspiration, but a thorough knowledge of his subject, based upon his hearing from eyewitnesses and his reading what previous writers had produced on the subject. It is clear that he is giving this information in order to assert the reliability of his record. If he had believed himself to be an inspired writer, it seems that that would be an even better claim to make, if he wished to assure us of his accuracy.

Some think that Paul referred to Luke as "scripture" (compare 1 Tim.5:18 with Luke 10:7), but there are other valid ways to understand his statement. It would be strange if Paul thought that Luke wrote under inspiration, but Luke himself was oblivious to it. The citation that is thought to be from Luke in this passage might as easily have been Paul citing a saying of Jesus that had been in circulation entirely independently of its inclusion in Luke. That Luke and Paul would both quote a known statement of Jesus seems not improbable. Thus, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul might be quoting only one verse from "scripture" (i.e., Deut.25:4), and confirming it with a saying from the teachings of Jesus, without consciously alluding to the written record of Luke. It seems very unlikely to me that, in the lifetime of Paul, Luke's Gospel would have already achieved widespread circulation and already be regarded as "scripture" by the churches (the New Testament canon was not discussed, as far as we know, as early as Paul's lifetime).

As anyone knows who listens to my program or reads what I often have written on this subject, I believe that the Old Testament is inspired and prophetic (an "inspired" writer is, by definition, a prophet).

I also believe that the New Testament is not prophetic (that is, not necessarily produced by direct inspiration), but that it is apostolic, which makes it just as authoritative as if it had been prophetically inspired. Its writers do not claim to be either "prophets" or "inspired"—but most of them claim to be apostles (an office even more authoritative than that of a prophet—1 Corinthians 12:28).

I can't see why any of these considerations would reduce our duty to believe and follow the scriptures one iota. They simply give us the most "scriptural" way of viewing the scriptures.

Peter speaks of Paul's writing as scripture, thus my second question is: should the inspired portion of the bible be regarded as including the old testament prophecies, and paul's writings - but excluding all other new testament writings (e.g. Matthew).







Since the gospels particularly Matthew often claim the fulfilment of prophecy , that fulfilment itself is part of the prophecy so IMO Peter's statement about the inspiration of prophecy would include the gospels and the OT and Paul so virtually the whole bible.