semyaza

Every word of the Bible, we are often told, is inspired by God
himself. "All scripture", Pastor Timothy claims, "is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness" (II Tim 3:16).

If this is the case, then a cursory glance over the Bible will reveal
that some things were apparently worth stating twice - in precisely
the same words. The Almighty’s choice of which passages to duplicate,
however, remains a little inscrutable.

Read Psalm 14. It is a very useful passage for would-be evangelists
who run into the impenetrable logic of reason. Simply label your
opponent a "fool", and run for cover. These folk would no doubt be
pleased to learn that God, in his wisdom, wrote this Psalm down twice.
It appears once again in Psalm 53. There is, in fact, just one word
that differs between the two passages. Was this really worth stating
twice?

The book (actually, books) of Isaiah contain much tedious fulminating
about the heathen nations, whom God will no doubt destroy any moment
now. Interspersed amongst these manic diatribes are sections of actual
history. Isaiah 36 through 39 contains an account of the (attempted)
invasion of Judah by Sennacherib. So impressive was this event, that
God made sure it was not missed. II Kings 18 through 20 contain the
same story - in precisely the same words, down to, as it were, the
last jot and tittle. One suspects that his Omniscience could have
saved much paper and ink by simply inserting a footnote.

The little book of Micah is often quoted by wild-eye Preachers as the
confirmation of Jesus' Messiaship. "See," they say, "it says that the
Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Take that, you nasty evil
atheists." In fact, most believers would be hard pressed to quote any
other passage from Micah, nor even have a clue as to what it was
about. They would be even more puzzled upon reading the first three
verses of Micah chapter 4. The more astute among them would notice
that these words sound familiar. Indeed they do. They are lifted
verbatim from Isaiah 2:2-4. Word to the Almighty: there is nothing
wrong, of course, with using someone else's work as a source, but a
little attribution would be nice, hmm?

The New Testament is also not without its share of textual
"borrowing".

The tiny book of Jude, barely one chapter long, seems to have left a
great impression upon the anonymous author of II Peter. For some
reason known only to himself, he chose the book of Jude as the basis
of much of his work. Compare the second and third chapters of II Peter
closely with Jude. A startling resemblance, no?

The most egregious example of "borrowing" in the New Testament
remains, of course, the Synoptic gospels, that is Mark, Matthew and
Luke. Anyone who takes the trouble to compare the gospels side by side
will soon notice that virtually all of the little book of Mark can be
found in the pages of Matthew and Luke, sometimes in the very same
words. Compare, for example, Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Aside
from miscellaneous insertions and alterations by Matthew and Luke,
these three passages are virtually identical, all the way down to
Jesus’ unfortunate pronouncement that "this generation shall not pass,
till all these things be done" (Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:33, Luke
21:32).

It falls to the skeptic to ask why it was necessary for the Almighty
Creator of Heaven and Earth to include the book of Mark if he was just
going to repeat it in Matthew and Luke, anyway?

A further question to ask would be why God felt it necessary to repeat
himself at all? Surely, textual borrowing, is a human trait? Why does
it occur in a supposedly divinely-inspired book?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Vicar Philip

Very good points, semyaza.

I have recently wondered about some of those same things. When I brought them up to my theist wife, she made the typical Christian statement that those words were written by men, inspired by god, and are therefore not perfect. If this is the case, why believe anything in the book?

Or better yet, let's ignore the "bad parts" and focus on the "good parts." What a Christian thing to do.

Vinnie

Marcan priority is just one problem I see with verbal plenary inspiration/inerrancy advocates. The redundancy can be countered by saying that 4 different images of Jesus are being presented and also Christians who accept verbal plenary inspiration will say that there was a human factor involved yet at the same time God chose the very words. That has always seemed fuzzy and self contradictory but I digress.

Looking at the Gospels, John being radically different from the synoptics presents a primary problem for verbal plenary inspiration adovactes. For instance, even if it is argued convincingly that it is just a minor element in Mark, there is a clear "messianic secret" present. Contrast that with the Gospel of John. "Either the historical Jesus openly proclaimed his divine identiy and saving purpose (John), or he did not (Mark). To put the issue most directly, Jesus could not consistently proclaim his identity and at the same time not do so." (Borg p. 5 Jesus A New Vision). I'm sure there will be an excuse for this but the critical consensus has long recognized this.

All this above makes a valid argument against verbal plenary inspiration and it hits inspiration in regards to only faith and doctrinal issues as well but it does not cover qualitative inspiration (e.g. the view of the late Raymond Brown).

If a person does accept inspiration of the Christian canon I think they should come to grips with the fact that God gave them a four-fold Gospel, not Tatian's Diatessaron.

Vinnie

B. H. Manners

Apparently Jehovah is one professor who does not care if his pupils plagerize each other's work. Does that make Heaven a "degree mill"?

Amos

The four gospels compliment each other in that they are four different perspectives about the journey of life from rebirth through puragatory to heaven. Yes they are personified to provide detail and religious direction.

Matthew describes this as seen from Judaism, Mark from the pagan, Luke omniscient and John adds the Catholic inspiration.

Bobzammel

It's possible that John is writing from a Gnostic perspective. There's some traces of Gnosticism in Paul's letters as well, some more than others. It seems that the early Church was radically divided into three factions:

-Jewish Christians-Those who still followed the Law. Perhaps led by James.
-Paul's sect-Those who thought the law was superseded by faith. More welcoming of gentiles than the Jewish sect.
-Gnostics-Those who believed the physical world was entirely under the control of Satan. This group seems grounded more in popular philosophy.

Even when Christianity was first starting out, it had denominations...

Amos

Well yes, inspired with a heavy Catholic slant to it. Take the wedding in Cana that took place in the mind of Jesus. While this was taking place Matthew reports the temptations in the desert to which Jesus said "no," obviously, because of the new life he was enjoying away from the yoke of religion. The pagan perspective of Mark just reports that Jesus did not go to church for a while because Mark was not the effectice cause of anything here.