The Discrepancies in the Bible and the Divinity of Jesus

[Gloria]

THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BIBLE AND THE DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH - DOUBLE BOOK REVIEW - EHRMAN VS. OVERMAN

The Bible and some other historical documents support the idea that Paul the Apostle was a very important person in the Roman Empire and a very educated man for that matter and so, it makes much sense to say that the “letters of Paul to the Corinthians” for example, was written by the Apostle Paul himself. Can we say the same about Simon Peter who was an ordinary fisherman? Can we say the same about James and his brother John the sons of Zebedee? Many historical facts support the idea that the Bible was not written by the disciples of Jesus themselves. If so then can we say the Bible is error-free as Overman claims? And if the Bible is full of errors as Ehrman claims then can we trust the Bible?
The book “Jesus Interrupted” by Bart D. Ehrman reveals some of the “hidden contradictions in the Bible” and why we know very little or nothing at all about them and why those who know ignore these errors. According to Ehrman, the Bible was written by men many decades after the death of Christ and hence the Bible cannot be error-free. The Bible according to Ehrman was written by Human beings and since Human beings are not perfect, the Bible is not 100% error-free (pg. 17). In other words, the Bible is full of discrepancies some of which can easily be reconciled. Others are so apparent that we cannot just ignore them or attempt to reconcile because they are “irreconcilable”.

According to Ehrman, most people do not see these errors because they approach the Bible from a “Devotional” point of view. However, in order to see these hidden contradictions, one has to approach the study of the Bible from the “Historical-Critical” point of view, which focuses mostly on the words in the Bible, the various circumstances behind those words and why the authors chose to use those words instead of others(pg. 4). Also, Ehrman suggests that in order to see these errors, we must read the Bible not just “vertically” from the alpha of every page to the omega but also, we must read the Bible “horizontally” by reading and comparing similar stories from different books in the Bible(pg. 21).
According to Ehrman, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are the only Gospels that show Jesus’ Genealogy or family line. However, almost every event and encounter mentioned in Matthew’s gospel is absent in Luke’s gospel, and almost everything said in Luke’s story is absent in Matthews story about the birth of Jesus(pg.33). For example, Joseph the husband of Mary had several dreams in Matthew’s story, but Joseph had no dream in Luke’s story, or maybe Luke forgot to include Joseph’s dreams one of which is a very important dream without which King Herod would have killed the “baby Jesus”. One key discrepancy in the sayings of Jesus can be found in Mark 9 and Matthew 12. In Mark 9:40, Jesus makes is very clear that “whoever is not against us is for us” . Matthew wanted to make the same statement but ended up with something quite different. In Mathew, instead of “whoever is not against us is for us”, Jesus declares “whoever is not with me is against me” (pg. 41). According to Ehrman, there are discrepancies in the Bible and some of these discrepancies are irreconcilable hence “it is important to let each author speak for himself and not pretend he is saying the same thing as another” (pg.60)

According to Ehrman, “we do not have the originals of any of the books in the New Testament” (pg.183). In other words, the copies of the New Testament we have now were made many centuries later. Concerning the Divinity of Jesus, Ehrman points out that the gospel of Mark which is believed to be the oldest of the synoptic gospels never referred to Jesus as “God” instead the book of Mark refers to Jesus as the “son of God” which does not necessarily imply God because to the ancient Jews, “being the Son of God normally meant being the human intermediary for God on earth” and that Jesus was not the only “son of God”. In fact, King David was considered a son of God. The nation Israel was also considered a son of God (pg.247). Ehrman points out that “Christ” is not Jesus’ surname. Christianity according to Ehrman has gone through great deal of changes throughout the centuries creating, modifying and accepting orthodox views such as the Trinity and rejecting heretic views such as those of Arius of Alexandria concerning the divinity of Christ (pg.259). Ehrman points out that the ancient “apocalyptic” views on life after death, the reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked have gone through great transformation and that the idea of heaven and hell is not found in “the teachings of Jesus or Paul, but one invented in later times…”(pg.261)
Ehrman concludes that, despite the various discrepancies in the Bible, the Bible is not useless but a great book full of moral teachings and values which can help transform our lives for the better.
According to Overman, there is no doubt Jesus Christ of Nazareth was crucified and that “Jesus’ crucifixion is attested by non-Christian sources”(pg.3) but the question remains, did Jesus resurrect from the dead or remained inside grave? And if Jesus rose from the dead, was He (Jesus) considered divine by the earliest Christians and Jews in the first century Palestine or the Divinity of Jesus evolved with time. If Jesus rose from the dead as the Scripture says then is Jesus the “Promised Messiah” to come? Is being a “Messiah” the same as God? The book “A case for the Divinity of Jesus” by Dean L. Overman examines some of the earliest evidence concerning the “Historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Faith” and what makes Jesus Christ of Nazareth divine and one with God (the Hebrew YAHWEH).

According to Overman, there are many evidence and proofs supporting the fact that Jesus Christ was recognized as divine just at the beginning of the Christian movement. In other words, the divinity of Jesus did not evolve with time but has been ever since and that the divinity of Christ was recognized just at the beginning of Christianity. Overman points out that Jesus’ divinity makes Him quite distinct from great thinkers and enlightened men like Buddha in Buddhism, Confucius in Confucianism, and Mohammed the founder of Islam. According to Overman, “Liturgical formulae” and earlier church practices, the hymns and creeds of the “primitive” church, and even poetry of the earliest Christians all support the idea that Jesus Christ was recognized not just as the Messiah but as divine and “Lord” (Kyrios Iesous Christos) just at the beginning (pg.28). Overman makes it clear that “the very earliest Liturgical formulae indicate that His disciples saw Him as a resurrected divine ruler and as one whom they could continue to experience in a dimension transcending the human and temporal”. According to Overman, what makes the earliest Christians belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ of Nazareth so “astounding” is the fact that this whole idea of Jesus being “Divine Ruler” and Lord sprang out of an already cemented belief within ancient Jewish communities at the time of Jesus that the God of Abraham (the father of the Jews) is “One” and nothing can be compared let alone be “equal” to Him “YAHWEH” (pg. 20)

According to Overman, ancient Christian documents such as the earliest “Didache” reveals that Jesus was proclaimed “kyrios” or “Lord”. Lord here according to Overman was another name for the one and only Hebrew God “YAHWEH” as we can see in 1Peter 3:15. In the letters of Paul to the Romans, Paul quoting the words of the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 1:9) for example replaces “YAHWEH Saboath” with the “Lord(kyrios)” and so, for early Christians to refer to Jesus as “Lord”(kyrios) is just like referring to Jesus as “YAHWEH” or as equal to the Hebrew “YAHWEH”.
Also Overman points out that the ancient Jewish prayer “Mar anatha” which means “Our Lord Come” confirms Jesus as “Lord” and equal to “YAHWEH” (pg.45). Concerning the divinity of Jesus, Overman stresses that “One cannot regard Jesus merely as the messiah in the fulfillment of old testament prophecy” because even though the term or name “Messiah” was a sacred term in first century Palestine, the term Messiah did not necessarily imply divine. Overman stresses that “Messiah and Lord are different and distinct concepts” if applied to other people and other beings but the terms “Messiah” and “Lord” meant the same if applied to Jesus (pg.65). In other words, Jesus is Lord because He (Jesus) is “kyrios” and one with “YAHWEH” and that Jesus is “Messiah” because He came to save mankind. Concerning the death and the resurrection, Overman posits that the “probability that Jesus did not die but revived in the tomb is quite low”. Also, it is very unlikely that the disciples of Jesus stole the body from the tomb (pg.167). According to Overman, “the claims that the earliest Christian faith was a chaos of diverse beliefs…” is not true because all these claims rely on “extracanonical sources”, all of which are from the second century and not the first century. (pg. 209)

Both Overman and Ehrman seem to agree on the idea that neither Jesus nor his disciples wrote the Bible and that the bible was written many decades after the death of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Unlike Ehrman however, Overman seems to support the idea that the Oral traditions in those days was good enough to be trusted and that we can trust the Oral traditions handed down to us (now the bible). Ehrman on the other hand posits that, even though the Bible is a great book full of moral teachings, the Bible is still full of discrepancies. Concerning the divinity of Jesus, Erhman makes it very clear in his book that “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name and that the gospel of Mark which is believed to be the first gospel never refers to Jesus as “God” but a “son of God” which does not necessarily mean divine.
Overman however posits that, even though some of the Gospels do not refer to Jesus directly as God, Jesus made it very clear that He(Jesus) is divine and God by referring to himself by the name of YAHWEH “I AM” especially in John 8:58 (pg. 57). Overman seems to agree with Ehrman on fact that there are some errors in the Bible. However, unlike Ehrman, Overman holds that even though there may be errors in the Bible, these are “very minor differences in their texts” and that “we can be quite certain that we have the core of the earliest versions” (pg.74)

I agree with both authors on the fact that neither Jesus nor His disciples wrote the Bible. On the other hand, I would accept the fact that the Bible is full of errors and discrepancies if the Bible was written by some enlightened men without God’s inspiration. However, the Bible was written by man but the Bible was written under God’s inspiration. We are limited and our limited minds cannot understand everything about God. What seems like an error to us may not be an error. Maybe we do not understand what the Bible is trying to say. Concerning the divinity of Jesus, I would not have believed in Jesus if Jesus Christ of Nazareth rose from the dead and ascended into heaven without anyone seeing him. However, Jesus Christ rose from the dead and many people saw him and some even died for their faith in Jesus. I don’t think the Apostle Peter would have died for his faith if he (Peter) did not see Jesus after resurrection. Also, Jesus fulfills all the promises concerning the “coming messiah” which to me is enough proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is “Lord”.
C. D

[Bafana]

I read "Jesus interrupted" in School (in South Africa) and it is such a powerful book. It opens your eyes to see the hidden contradictions which the church doesn't want us to know. My father banned me from using that book after he read the introduction and some of the first few pages. He said that book is for atheists and that if you are a Christian and you read those books you will loose your faith. I think faith is important but it is good to know the hidden contradictions and discrepancies in the Bible.

Don't take the whole Bible literally all the time. The Bible is full of symbolism and metaphors. The bible is full of proverbs and riddles some of which need interpretation. Take Mark 9:42-48, which tells Christians if their hand or foot "offends" them, they should "cut it off," and if their eye "offends" them, they should "pluck it out." If you take this literally, you would engage in self-mutilation. So sometimes you need interpretation. don't take the whole Bible literally.