Why the Bible is not Inerrant

Facing the music that relentless inquiry set in motion.

Introduction

How can this be? And how could I never have seen this before? After spending three weeks comparing the chronology of the Gospels, analysing the words of Jesus, and constructing a detailed spreadsheet comparison of the Passion narratives, I was faced with a troubling realisation: the Gospels are different—sometimes in a very troubling way.

By this time I had already spent much time in the ‘Old Testament’ and came to the conclusion that they were not reporting accurate history. Honestly, I had always been too afraid to embark on that same journey through the New Testament, terrified of what I might discover—and now, here I was, forced to face the music.

What I found in the New Testament compelled me to reexamine one of the most foundational tenets of my faith: the inerrancy of the Bible.

Reliability vs. Inerrancy

It is essential to distinguish between reliability and inerrancy. Reliability exists on a continuum—something can be 60%, 80%, or even 95% reliable. Inerrancy, on the other hand, asserts that the text is 100% free from error. What I came to realise is that while the Gospels may be reliable in many respects, they are not inerrant. This distinction is crucial for understanding the nature of biblical texts.

Simple Differences

Many differences among the Gospels may appear trivial. These include discrepancies in numbers, order of events, and variations in dialogue. Scholars estimate that there are hundreds of such differences. A well-known example is the healing of the blind near Jericho:

• Mark 10:46-52 describes one blind man, Bartimaeus, healed as Jesus leaves Jericho.

• Matthew 20:29-34 mentions two unnamed blind men healed in a similar context.

• Luke 18:35-43 has one unnamed blind man, but the event occurs as Jesus approaches Jericho.

Most scholars agree that Matthew used Mark as a source. So why the discrepancy? A common harmonisation assumes there were two blind men and that each writer chose to focus on different details. However, this requires multiple assumptions: that Mark and Luke omitted one man, that Matthew and Luke omitted Bartimaeus's name and possibly that the account happened twice, seeing that Luke’s account happens at a different time. Each added assumption decreases the likelihood that the harmonisation reflects historical reality.

The need to uphold inerrancy often forces readers into imaginative reconstructions that synthesise these differences into a hypothetical account not found in any Gospel. While such efforts may produce a plausible narrative, they often move further away from what the texts actually say. A much simpler explanation of the data seems to suggest that the authors recalled different versions of these accounts - versions that might contradict each other.

Troubling disagreements

While minor inconsistencies can be explained away, more troubling disagreements pose greater challenges:

• The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are difficult to reconcile.

• Jesus’ genealogies differ significantly between Matthew and Luke.

• Accounts of Judas’ death vary between Matthew and Acts.

• Resurrection and ascension stories conflict in detail and timeline.

Attempts to harmonise these often lead to implausible theories and hypothetical accounts we cannot find any evidence for.

A Closer Look: Mark vs. John

As an example, I would like to focus on a very unlikely candidate. One that took me completely by surprise and drove me to countless hours of investigation. Comparing the life and ministry of Jesus in Mark to that in John. Comparing Mark (c. 70 CE) and John (c. 95 CE) highlights deep theological and historical differences:

• Ministry Length
  Mark: ~1 year
  John: ~3 years

• Jerusalem Visits
  Mark: One
  John: Three

• Temple Cleansing
  Mark: In the final week
  John: Early in Jesus’ ministry

• Jesus’ Teaching Method
  Mark: Parables as secrets
  John: Public theological discourses. No parables

• Core Message
  Mark: The coming Kingdom of God
  John: Jesus’s own identity

• Jesus Identity
  Mark: Implicit and secretive
  John: Explicit, public "I am" statements

• Disciples' Understanding
  Mark: Confused
  John: Recognising and declaration of Jesus’ divinity

• Miracles
  Mark: Miracles and frequent exorcisms
  Jesus: Seven signs, public and declarative without any exorcisms

• Eschatology
  Mark: Imminent approaching end of the age - The Kingdom is at hand
  John: Realised eschatology - No mentioned of the Kingdom at hand.

• The Last Supper
  Mark: Passover meal with Eucharist
  John: No Eucharist, foot washing

• In Gethsemane
  Mark: Agonised prayer
  John: Authoritative composure - The soldiers fall backward when Jesus speaks

• Jesus’ Trial
  Mark: Brief responses: “ I am” and “You say so”. He is mostly silent.
  John: Lengthy philosophical discourses.

• Last words on the cross
  Mark: "Why have you forsaken me?"
  John: "It is finished."

• Resurrection and ascension
  Mark: No resurrection appearances or ascension in the earliest manuscripts.
  John: Unique, detailed appearances and multiple mentions of a future ascension by Jesus

These accounts paint different portraits of Jesus, his life, his message and his teaching methods. Was he secretive about his identity or openly declaring it? Did he teach in parables or through theological speeches? It seems unlikely that the first Gospel (Mark) would leave out even hints at the “I am” statements from his account if Jesus really said them publicly. Especially in the light of the writer's main intention declared in the opening sentence - ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’- Mark 1:1. What better evidence for Jesus’ identity than these statements found in John?

It is unlikely that both accounts are entirely historically accurate. It seems more likely that Mark represents an earlier memory of Jesus’ life and that John represents a later, more theologically developed memory of Jesus.

And so it goes with multiple troubling discrepancies in the New Testament—ones that, in my view, are irreconcilable within the bounds of honest inquiry.

Theological Implications

So what does it mean if the Bible is not inerrant? First, and possibly most importantly, it challenges how pastors and teachers construct doctrines, teachings and sermons—especially those built from harmonised texts, cherry-picking, or hyper analysis of Bible verses. ( I was good at this :( )

Second, it demands a more thoughtful, nuanced engagement with Scripture and its context. Rather than reading with rigid literalism, we must apply wisdom, historical awareness, and humility.

Can a fallible book still be considered inspired by an infallible God? I believe so, though the mechanics of that remain a mystery. I keep an open mind here.

Final Thoughts

Does the Bible contain historically reliable material? Yes. Is it 100% historically accurate in every detail? No. And that’s okay. Recognising the Bible’s human fingerprints invites us to engage with it more honestly, more deeply, and more faithfully.

This realisation should not lead to despair, but to freedom. Freedom to ask hard questions. Freedom to read critically. And freedom to let the Bible speak on its own terms, not just the ones we impose on it.

Note: This article is a personal reflection and aims to contribute to thoughtful dialogue about biblical interpretation. Readers are encouraged to explore diverse scholarly perspectives before drawing conclusions.