Tag: Christianity

Having been exposed and apart of many Christian circles throughout my lifetime, one primary tenet of the Christian faith is that the New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. Just review any church’s website under their “What We Believe” or “Statement of Faith” tab and you will inevitably find words like “inerrant” or “infallible” Word of God, which entails the 66 books of the combined “Old” and “New” Testaments. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “inerrant” is defined as being “free from error.” Likewise, the Oxford dictionary defines it as “incapable of being wrong.”

Furthermore, Christianity often sites the famous verses found in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as evidence Scripture, being presumed to be both the “Old” and “New” Testament, is inerrant. After all, if these writings thought to be inspired by God are not absolute truth, then one’s faith is fallacy.

One interesting oversight, however, when making such conclusions from 2 Timothy 3:16-17, is that most Christians overlook the previous verse 15, which clearly reminds the recipient, Timothy, as well as modern day readers, that Timothy had the Holy Scriptures since childhood, referring to the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Law and Prophets, or Tanakh, or what has since been labeled the “Old” Testament by Christianity. These letters penned by Paul (see 2 Timothy 1:1) and others were not regarded as “the Holy Scriptures,” but are merely commentary or one’s opinion about the Holy Scriptures, being the Tanakh. For those unaware, let me briefly define the “Tanakh” as it is more or less an acronym of TNK pronounced in Hebrew as “Tanakh.” The T is for Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the N is for Nevi’im, the prophetic manuscripts (i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.), and the K is for Kethuvim, which are the Psalms, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Lamentations, Ezra, etc. Sometimes Tanakh is spelled Tenach, Tanach, Tenakh, or Tenak, but it all is referring to the Hebrew Bible.

Furthermore, throughout the “New” Testament, which I put in quotes to highlight how terms such as “New” and “Old” propagate the many errors of replacement theology, indeed has known errors and thus, cannot be the “inerrant Word of God” as many have been led to believe. Below are some examples of the “inerrancy” (pun intended) found in the “New” and implied-improved Testament.

The purpose of the following examples is not to attack Christianity or diminish the sincerity of Christian faith. Rather, they illustrate why many Jewish scholars and students of the Hebrew Scriptures do not view the New Testament as possessing the same level of divine authority as the Tanakh. These examples invite readers to examine the texts carefully and consider whether the New Testament should be understood as inspired commentary, theological reflection, historical testimony, or the direct and error-free Word of God.

1. The Genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke

One of the most frequently discussed textual difficulties in the New Testament concerns the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38. Both authors seek to connect Jesus to the royal line of King David, an important consideration because the Hebrew Scriptures describe the future Davidic king as arising from David’s lineage (see 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Ezekiel 37:24–25).

When these genealogies are compared side by side, however, significant differences emerge. Matthew traces Jesus’ ancestry through a line descending from David’s son Solomon, while Luke traces it through David’s son Nathan. Beyond David, many of the names differ substantially. Most notably, Matthew identifies Joseph’s father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), whereas Luke identifies him as Heli (Luke 3:23).

Over the centuries, Christian commentators have proposed various explanations for these differences. One common suggestion is that Matthew presents Joseph’s genealogy while Luke presents Mary’s. While this explanation is popular, it encounters a difficulty: both texts explicitly frame the genealogy in relation to Joseph rather than Mary.

From a Jewish perspective, these differing genealogies raise important questions. If the genealogies are intended to establish Jesus’ Davidic ancestry, which genealogy should be regarded as authoritative? Furthermore, if Jesus was born through a miraculous conception apart from a biological human father, how does a genealogy through Joseph establish a biological connection to the House of David?

These questions become particularly relevant because biblical tribal affiliation and lineage are ordinarily traced through the father. For example, throughout the census records in Numbers and other genealogical passages, ancestry is reckoned according to paternal descent. Consequently, Jewish interpreters have long questioned how the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus’ lineage satisfies traditional Jewish expectations regarding Davidic descent.

Whether one ultimately accepts Christian explanations or not, the genealogies illustrate that the New Testament contains interpretive and historical questions that have been debated for centuries. At the very least, they demonstrate that the text is more complex than a simple claim of unquestionable inerrancy may suggest.

2. Does the Hebrew Bible Predict a Suffering and Resurrected Messiah?

Another passage frequently discussed in Jewish-Christian dialogue appears in Luke 24:44–47. According to this account, Jesus tells his followers that everything written about him in “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” must be fulfilled. He then states that “it is written” that the Messiah would suffer, rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The question from a Jewish perspective is straightforward: Where exactly is this written?

When one examines the Hebrew Scriptures—the Torah, Prophets, and Writings—there is no passage that explicitly states that the Messiah will die, be buried, and rise again on the third day. Likewise, there is no text that teaches that forgiveness of sins depends upon faith in the Messiah or that repentance for forgiveness will be preached in the Messiah’s name to all nations beginning in Jerusalem.

To be sure, Christian interpreters often point to various passages that they believe foreshadow these ideas. However, these are generally understood as theological interpretations rather than direct predictions. The challenge remains that Luke 24 presents these concepts as things that were already “written” in Scripture, yet no passage can be identified that clearly states all of the elements described.

This issue becomes particularly significant because the Hebrew Bible presents a different portrait of the Messianic age. The future Davidic king is depicted as restoring Israel, gathering the exiles, establishing justice, bringing peace among the nations, and leading humanity toward knowledge of God (Isaiah 2:1–4; Isaiah 11:1–10; Jeremiah 23:5–6; Ezekiel 37:21–28). While these passages describe the accomplishments of the Messiah and the Messianic era, they do not describe a Messiah who dies for the sins of humanity and rises three days later.

Some Christians point to Isaiah 53 as evidence for a suffering Messiah. Jewish interpretation, however, has traditionally understood Isaiah 53 within the broader context of Isaiah’s servant passages, where the servant is repeatedly identified as Israel (Isaiah 41:8–9; 44:1–2; 49:3). As a result, Jewish and Christian readers often arrive at very different conclusions regarding the meaning of the chapter.

The purpose of raising this issue is not to dismiss Christian belief, but to highlight a significant interpretive question. If Luke 24 is presenting specific teachings as written in the Hebrew Scriptures, readers should be able to locate those teachings within the text itself. Many Jewish scholars conclude that the passage reflects a later theological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible rather than a direct quotation of its plain meaning. “He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ … Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'” (Luke 24:44–47)

3. The Resurrection Narratives and Questions of Reliability

The resurrection of Jesus stands at the center of Christian theology. Because it is such a foundational claim, it is worth carefully comparing the resurrection accounts found in the four Gospels and related New Testament writings.

Many Christians view the differences among these accounts as complementary perspectives describing the same event. Others, however, have noted that when the narratives are compared closely, a number of details appear difficult to reconcile. Questions arise concerning who arrived at the tomb, when they arrived, whom they encountered, what messages were delivered, and the sequence of events that followed.

For example, the Gospel accounts differ regarding the number of women present, the number of heavenly messengers seen, and what instructions were given to the disciples. Some readers view these variations as natural differences in eyewitness testimony, while others see them as evidence that multiple traditions about the resurrection developed within the early Christian community.

From a Jewish perspective, these differences are significant because the resurrection serves as the primary evidence offered for Jesus’ Messianic identity. If the accounts describing this event contain substantial variations, it is reasonable to ask how these differences should affect one’s confidence in the narratives.

Furthermore, modern biblical scholarship generally recognizes that the Gospels were written anonymously and were composed decades after the events they describe. The traditional names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were attached to these writings by later Christian tradition. While this does not automatically invalidate their contents, it does mean that the reader is relying upon documents whose authorship and historical development remain subjects of scholarly discussion.

Another noteworthy consideration is that the earliest Christian writings preserved in the New Testament are not the Gospels but the letters of Paul. These epistles were circulating before the Gospel accounts were written and already contained developed theological claims regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection. As a result, some scholars have suggested that the Gospel narratives may reflect theological interpretations that had already become established within the early Christian movement.

The purpose of raising these questions is not to dismiss Christianity or to deny that early believers sincerely believed Jesus had been raised from the dead. Rather, it is to recognize that the historical evidence is more complex than is often presented. Readers who examine the resurrection accounts side by side may conclude that the New Testament preserves multiple perspectives on the event rather than a single, uniform testimony.

For many Jewish readers, these textual and historical questions make it difficult to regard the resurrection narratives as conclusive proof that Jesus fulfilled the role of Messiah described in the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, the discussion invites careful study of both the New Testament accounts and the Messianic expectations set forth in the Tanakh.

4. Matthew’s Citation of Jeremiah and Zechariah

Another frequently discussed issue concerns Matthew 27:9–10, where the author attributes a prophecy concerning thirty pieces of silver to the prophet Jeremiah. The difficulty is that the most recognizable source for the thirty pieces of silver imagery appears in Zechariah 11:12–13 rather than in the Book of Jeremiah.

Matthew writes:

“Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the LORD directed me.'” (Matthew 27:9–10)

When readers search the Book of Jeremiah for this quotation, however, they do not find these exact words. Instead, the reference to thirty pieces of silver is found in Zechariah 11:12–13. This has led scholars, theologians, and students of Scripture to ask why Matthew attributes the passage to Jeremiah.

Various explanations have been proposed. Some Christian commentators suggest that Matthew was combining themes from both Jeremiah and Zechariah into a single citation. Others propose that he was referring to a broader prophetic tradition rather than quoting a single verse. While these explanations may be possible, the passage nevertheless raises questions about how New Testament authors handled and interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures.

From a Jewish perspective, an additional issue concerns context. In Zechariah 11, the prophet is addressing circumstances within his own prophetic message, and the thirty pieces of silver are part of a symbolic narrative involving Israel and its leaders. Jewish interpreters generally do not understand the passage as a prediction concerning a future Messiah. Consequently, Matthew’s application of the text is often viewed as an example of theological interpretation rather than the fulfillment of a direct Messianic prophecy.

The broader question is not simply whether Matthew intended to quote Jeremiah or Zechariah, but whether the New Testament’s use of Hebrew Scripture consistently reflects the plain meaning and context of the original passages. For many Jewish readers, Matthew 27:9–10 illustrates a pattern in which texts from the Tanakh are reinterpreted in ways that differ significantly from their original setting and traditional Jewish understanding.

Whether one accepts Matthew’s explanation or not, this passage demonstrates that the relationship between the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible is often more complex than is commonly assumed. It invites readers to examine both texts carefully and to consider how biblical interpretation shapes theological conclusions.

 5. Textual Variants and Interpolations in the New Testament

Another challenge to the doctrine of New Testament inerrancy concerns the subject of textual variants and interpolations. An interpolation is a phrase, sentence, or passage that many scholars believe was added to a text after its original composition. Because the original manuscripts of the New Testament no longer exist, scholars must compare thousands of surviving Greek manuscripts and ancient translations in an effort to determine the earliest attainable wording of the text.

It is important to note that the vast majority of textual variations are minor and do not affect major theological beliefs. However, some passages are significant because many biblical scholars conclude they were not part of the earliest manuscripts and were added by later scribes or editors.

One of the most well-known examples is Mark 16:9–20, often called the “Long Ending of Mark.” Many of the oldest and most respected Greek manuscripts conclude the Gospel at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing the empty tomb in fear. The familiar resurrection appearances, instructions about handling snakes, drinking poison, and Jesus’ ascension found in verses 9–20 appear absent from these earliest manuscripts. As a result, many modern Bibles include a footnote explaining that the passage may not have been part of the original Gospel of Mark.

Another notable example is John 7:53–8:11, the story of the woman caught in adultery. This beloved account contains the famous statement, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” While many readers appreciate the spiritual lesson contained in the story, scholars have observed that it is missing from many early manuscripts and appears in different locations in various manuscript traditions. Consequently, many modern translations indicate that the passage was likely not part of the original text of John’s Gospel.

A third example is 1 John 5:7–8, known as the Comma Johanneum. In the King James Version, the passage contains an explicit Trinitarian formula:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

Most scholars agree that these words were absent from the earliest Greek manuscripts and were added later. As a result, modern Bible translations either omit the phrase or place it in a footnote. This example is especially noteworthy because it appears to support a central Christian doctrine, yet is generally regarded as a later addition to the text.

Other passages frequently discussed by textual critics include Acts 8:37, which contains a confession of faith before baptism, and Luke 22:43–44, describing an angel strengthening Jesus and his sweat becoming like drops of blood. Both passages are absent from some early manuscript traditions and continue to be debated among scholars.

The existence of such interpolations does not necessarily mean that the New Testament lacks spiritual value or historical significance. However, it does raise an important question regarding inerrancy. If portions of the text were added, altered, or expanded by later scribes, how should readers understand claims that every word of the New Testament has been perfectly preserved?

From a Jewish perspective, this issue underscores the distinction between the Hebrew Scriptures and later Christian writings. While textual variants also exist within the manuscript history of the Tanakh, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated the remarkable care with which the Hebrew text was transmitted over many centuries. By contrast, the New Testament manuscript tradition reveals a process of copying, editing, harmonization, and theological development that many scholars believe continued long after the original documents were written.

For this reason, many Jewish readers view the New Testament not as a single, flawless revelation, but as a collection of religious writings whose textual history reflects the beliefs and concerns of the early Christian communities that preserved them.

6. Stephen’s Speech and the Burial of the Patriarchs

Another passage frequently discussed by biblical scholars appears in Acts 7:15–16, during Stephen’s speech before the Sanhedrin. In recounting Israel’s history, Stephen states:

“So Jacob went down to Egypt and died, he and our fathers. And they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem.” (Acts 7:15–16)

When this statement is compared with the Hebrew Scriptures, several questions arise.

According to Genesis 23:17–20, Abraham purchased the Cave of Machpelah near Mamre (Hebron) as a burial place for Sarah. Genesis later records that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah were associated with this burial site, and Jacob himself was buried there according to Genesis 50:13.

On the other hand, Joshua 24:32 states that Joseph’s bones were buried at Shechem in a parcel of land connected to Jacob’s purchase from the sons of Hamor.

The difficulty is that Acts 7:16 appears to combine these separate traditions. Abraham is said to have purchased land from the sons of Hamor at Shechem, whereas Genesis attributes that purchase to Jacob (Genesis 33:18–19). Likewise, the burial location of the patriarchs is associated with Shechem, even though Genesis places several of the patriarchs and matriarchs in the Cave of Machpelah near Hebron.

Various explanations have been proposed by Christian commentators. Some suggest Stephen was summarizing Israel’s history and combining well-known events. Others argue that details may have been abbreviated for rhetorical purposes. Nevertheless, the passage presents a challenge because the description in Acts does not align neatly with the details preserved in the Hebrew Bible.

From a Jewish perspective, this example is significant because it illustrates how New Testament authors occasionally recount events from the Tanakh in ways that differ from the plain reading of the original text. The question is not whether Stephen’s speech contains valuable religious lessons, but whether it reflects the historical details as recorded in Scripture.

For readers who hold that every statement in the New Testament is completely free from error, passages such as Acts 7:16 invite careful examination. At the very least, they demonstrate that reconciling the New Testament with the Hebrew Scriptures is not always as straightforward as is sometimes assumed.

7. Paul’s Conversion Experience in the Book of Acts

Another frequently discussed textual difficulty appears in the Book of Acts when Paul’s conversion experience is described. The event is recounted multiple times in Acts, including Acts 9 and Acts 22. When these accounts are compared, readers encounter details that appear challenging to reconcile.

In Acts 9:3–7, Luke records that Paul’s companions heard a voice but saw no one:

“And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.” (Acts 9:7)

Later, when Paul recounts the same experience before a crowd in Jerusalem, he states:

“And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.” (Acts 22:9)

At first glance, these descriptions appear to differ. In one account, the men hear a voice but see no one. In the other, they see the light but do not hear the voice. Christian commentators have proposed several explanations, including the possibility that Paul’s companions heard a sound but did not understand the words being spoken. Others point to nuances in the Greek language that may distinguish between hearing a noise and comprehending a message.

While such explanations may offer possible resolutions, the passages nevertheless illustrate the kinds of textual questions that arise when comparing parallel accounts within the New Testament itself. Readers are left to consider whether the accounts describe the same event with different emphases or whether the details reflect differing traditions preserved within the text.

From a Jewish perspective, this issue is noteworthy because Paul’s conversion experience serves as a foundational event for much of early Christian theology. The account is not a minor detail but the pivotal moment that transformed Paul from a persecutor of the early Jesus movement into its most influential missionary.

The broader question is not simply whether these verses can be harmonized, but how claims of complete inerrancy should be understood when parallel accounts contain details that appear difficult to reconcile. Similar questions arise elsewhere in the New Testament when multiple authors recount the same event from different perspectives.

This observation does not necessarily invalidate Paul’s experience or the sincerity of his convictions. Rather, it highlights the reality that the New Testament, like other ancient writings, contains passages that require interpretation and explanation. For many Jewish readers, such passages suggest that the New Testament should be approached as a collection of historical and theological documents rather than as a text whose every detail is beyond question or discussion.

8. The Book of Hebrews and the Reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures

Perhaps nowhere is the difference between Jewish and Christian interpretation more evident than in the Book of Hebrews. The anonymous author of Hebrews frequently cites passages from the Hebrew Scriptures in support of the belief that Jesus established a new covenant, replaced the sacrificial system, and fulfilled the purpose of the Torah. From a Jewish perspective, however, many of these interpretations raise important questions about whether the original meaning of the Hebrew text has been preserved.

Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah’s New Covenant

One notable example appears in Hebrews 8:8–13, where the author quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34, the famous prophecy concerning a “new covenant.”

Hebrews 8:9 states:

“…because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.”

By contrast, Jeremiah 31:32 reads:

“…My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.”

The author of Hebrews is quoting the Greek Septuagint rather than the traditional Hebrew text. The result is a significant difference in emphasis. Jeremiah portrays God as remaining faithful to Israel despite the nation’s failures, describing Himself as a husband to His people. Hebrews, however, presents language that can be understood as God turning away from them.

From a Jewish perspective, Jeremiah’s prophecy does not describe God abandoning Israel or replacing the Jewish people with another community. In fact, the surrounding context strongly emphasizes the opposite. Just a few verses later, Jeremiah declares that Israel will remain a nation before God forever (Jeremiah 31:35–37). The prophet’s message is one of renewal and restoration, not replacement.

For this reason, many Jewish readers understand Jeremiah’s “new covenant” as a renewed relationship between God and Israel in which His Torah is written upon the hearts of His people. The covenant partners remain the same: God and the House of Israel and House of Judah.

Hebrews 10 and Psalm 40

A second example appears in Hebrews 10:5–7, where the author applies Psalm 40 to Jesus.

Psalm 40:6–8 states:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your Torah is within my heart.'”

Hebrews 10:5–7, however, cites the passage as:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me…”

Again, the author follows the Septuagint’s wording rather than the Hebrew text. The Hebrew phrase “my ears You have opened” becomes “a body You have prepared for Me.”

This difference is crucial because Hebrews uses the passage to support its argument that Jesus’ physical body was offered as the final sacrifice for sin. Yet in its original context, Psalm 40 is not discussing a future Messianic sacrifice. Rather, the psalm emphasizes obedience to God over mere ritual observance. The psalmist’s central point is that God desires willing hearts and faithful obedience, expressed in the declaration:

“Your Torah is within my heart.”

From a Jewish perspective, the message of Psalm 40 is entirely consistent with many other passages in the Tanakh that teach that repentance, humility, and obedience are more important than ritual alone (1 Samuel 15:22; Psalm 51; Isaiah 1:11–17; Micah 6:6–8).

The Future of Sacrifices and Torah

The author of Hebrews argues that Jesus’ sacrifice rendered the sacrificial system obsolete and inaugurated a new era. Jewish interpreters, however, point to numerous prophetic passages that describe Temple worship and sacrifices during the future Messianic age.

Ezekiel 40–48 contains detailed descriptions of a future Temple and its sacrificial service. Likewise, Isaiah 56:6–8 speaks of offerings being accepted upon God’s altar, and Zechariah 14 describes the nations coming to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel in the age to come.

While Jewish scholars debate the precise role of sacrifices in the future Messianic era, these passages demonstrate that the Hebrew Scriptures do not present the sacrificial system as permanently abolished.

A Jewish Perspective on Hebrews

The question, therefore, is not whether the author of Hebrews was sincere, but whether his interpretations reflect the plain meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. Throughout the book, passages from the Tanakh are read through the lens of belief in Jesus’ Messiahship and sacrificial role.

For Christians, these interpretations may appear compelling and spiritually meaningful. For many Jewish readers, however, Hebrews represents a theological commentary upon the Hebrew Bible rather than a straightforward explanation of its original context.

This distinction is significant. If the Hebrew Scriptures are the foundation upon which theological claims are built, then those claims must ultimately be evaluated according to the meaning of the original text. Consequently, many Jewish scholars view Hebrews not as a continuation of the message of the Tanakh, but as a reinterpretation of it—one that reaches conclusions very different from those traditionally understood within Judaism.

Conclusion

All of this compelling evidence is not to say some spiritual concepts or truths cannot be gleaned from Jesus or the “New” Testament, just as they can be from any person or writings, but clearly, the writings are not without error and therefore, not the “inerrant word of God.” Rather, they ought to be compared to the Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures designed for instructions of righteousness making a person complete (2 Timothy 3:15-17). That much I can agree with Paul.

Choose this day whom you will serve.

~Carrie R. Turner, revised 6/16/2026