Mistakes in the Gospels?

Recently, a Jerusalem Institute alumni wrote the following question, and I asked permission to share it with you all:

"...I have to admit that I was taken by surprise at what the Rabbi shared with me. He showed me that there were a number of mistakes in the Gospels, especially when the gospel writer used the Hebrew Scriptures prophetically. He outlined several:

1. Mt. 2:15 says that Jesus came out of Egypt with his parents, "as the prophet promised, Out of Egypt I have called my son". He took us to the passage and showed us that Hosea 11 was NOT about Messiah, but about Israel coming out of the land of Egypt.

2. Mt. 2:17-18 says that Jeremiah was prophesying about the deaths of the babies that Herod killed, but the passae the Gospel writer is quoting (Jer. 31:15) is actually about the Babylonian Captivity of the Jews.

3. Mt. 2:23 say that Jesus came from Nazareth so the prophets could be upheld, "He shall be called a Nazarene." Yet, he showed conclusively that no such prophecy exists in the NT!

...I want to believe the Gospels, but these are a real problem, aren't they? How can I trust the story of Jesus if it is told with such mistakes?"

My reply:

"Shalom and thanks for your honest questions about the Gospels. I am sorry that you took so long to write, and agonized over the answers to the questions you have raised. The truth is, you were taken advantage of. The rabbi that spoke to you is well known for doing what he did. He has gained an audience, but he already knows the answer to the questions that you raised, he offers the confusion deliberately. The answer is not difficult from a Hebrew cultural perspective, and he knows that all to well. Let me share with you a basic answer that will make sense, and will secure you in the veracity of the record about Jesus in the Gospel accounts.

First, you must take into account three basic ways that the rabbis of the first century used the prophecy sections of the Hebrew Scriptures (because most of the Gospel writers got their education in the synagogue and thought the same way). When you know the three common uses, you can confidently assert the Gospel writer is NOT misusing the prophecies at all.

1. Some prophecy passages were literally given ABOUT the same subject they were fulfilled in. In other words, some were literal singular promises that were fulfilled exactly as written. An example of this was the Mt. 2:5-6 "But you Bethlehem, Ephrata...out of you shall come a ruler..." This quote was lifted from the scroll of Micah 5:2. The prophecy was a literal promise that Messiah would come from Bethlehem. The fulfillment was a literal baby born in an actual place by that name. Herod's advisers thought it was a literal promise, and the Gospel writer presented it in the same way.

2. Another use of prophecy was what we normally term "literal to typical" fulfillment. In this case the fulfillment is just like another story or another event. Talmudic rabbis use prophecy like this all the time (and the rabbi that was speaking to you knows that is true!) An example of that was the example you gave of Mt. 2:15. Yes, Hosea was speaking of Israel coming out of Egypt as his primary idea. He was illustrating the faithfulness of God in taking Israel from Egypt hundreds of years before he delivered a message to Israel. In Matthew, he is not saying this was a promise that Jesus was fulfilling. He is showing that Israel out of Egypt was a statement of God's faithfulness to His covenant, and so was the coming of Messiah. It does not conform to the way prophecy is "fulfilled" in the sense we use that term today, but it DID conform to the way prophecy worked in the time Matthew was written, based on contemporary Jewish writings. Even the Dead Sea scrolls, written 200 years before Matthew use much prophetic literature in exactly that way.

3. A third use of prophecy is what is termed "literal to application" use. This use can be spotted in places where the event that is considered a "fulfillment" is only vaguely reminiscent of the prophecy. Mt. 2:17-18's quote of Jeremiah 31 falls into this category. It is true that the Babylonian captivity of Israel was the focus of the prophecy. Rachel (figuratively) wept for her captive children. Yet, centuries later there was another event that left the women of Israel similarly weeping - Herod's killing of babies. The writer was aware that the event was only vaguely "like" the promise, but he was using the "fulfillment" by way of illustration.

The final allusion to "He shall be called a Nazarene" is what I term a "collective" use of prophecy. In this case (used hundreds of times in the Mishnah and Talmud), the "fulfillment" is not referenced to a specific Scripture passage, but something understood as more general. To make this clear, you must understand that some of the problem is in the translation of the Bible. The term "Nazarene" is a translation of the Hebrew "netzer", translated "branch" in Isa 11:1 concerning Messiah. The rabbi knew full well that many rabbis through the ages interpreted the Branch as a title of Messiah, and the village of Nazareth got its name from the word, as well as the term in modern Hebrew for "Christians" ("notzrim"). The Gospel writer was identifying this title with Jesus. Rather than make me doubt the veracity of the text, this claim was an overt way of showing that Jesus was considered by the writer the Messiah.

If you need more help with this, let me know. You are being tricked and you need not worry. Remember this, because you don't know the answer to the question, does not mean that the question has no answer. The attempts to undercut the Word have been answered in our history many times. These objections, and their corresponding answers are not new. Peter said best, "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty". (2 Peter).

Hope that helps,

Dr. Randall Smith