Books by Ian Rogers
Books by Ian Rogers
If data for a science experiment meets 95% confidence limits, that experiment is rated conclusive. I wish people would apply the same reasoning to the Bible. Most of the history in it is accurate; maybe not the exact total of Israelis and opponents who fell in a particular battle (who counted them?) but the broad themes and the big sweep of events.
The kings mentioned in the Bible are confirmed by archaeology, the various victories and defeats are confirmed elsewhere. The personal stories that cannot be checked are plausible and include incest, rape, murder and lying; this is not (on the whole) a book of spin.
Where there is editorial bias it stands out, as in the books of Chronicles compared to the books of Kings – but the history still agrees. One author was a priest, one was probably a scribe. Different points of view.
Similarly the four New Testament gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) differ in style, order of content and what each author chose to include – but the apparent contradictions are piddling. One says James and John asked to sit beside Jesus in his coming kingdom; another says their mother asked on their behalf. The key points, that are not lost in either version, are about the greed of the disciples and that God alone, not Jesus, makes such choices.
So what about authenticity?
Thousands of old fragments have been found relating to both Old and New Testaments and the content is incredibly consistent; a few spelling errors and words or lines repeated. By comparisons these can be eliminated, giving a very reliable modern text. Where translators disagree, there is often a footnote in a Bible saying ‘alternative rendering’.
None of these alternatives change the meaning much.
One of the most significant variations is in Luke’s gospel Did the angels that appeared to the shepherds to announce the birth of Jesus sing “Peace and goodwill from God to all men [mankind]” or did they sing “Peace from God to all men [people] of goodwill…”?
It does make a difference, but who is going to argue over semantics if they already swallow the angelic appearances and the birth of the saviour of mankind?
If there were no angels, what does the supposed translation matter and if there were angels, isn’t the arrival of God on earth the main point?
<< Next Archive Previous >>