THE VIRGIN BIRTH: The Messianic Prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 Defended

A response to Zvi Zaks' argument against Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy.

(NOTE: I have quoted the relevant parts below,  precisely as he quoted them to me in a public Facebook conversation in the group "The Biblical Worldview Defended." And my response below is the one that I shared with him in the group.):


//Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Christians say this verse predicts the virgin birth of Jesus, who they maintain is the deity come down to earth to be with us. However, this citation has been poorly translated, taken out of context, and is not messianic in any event. (Note, by the way, how the book of Matthew in the Christian Bible misquotes this verse).//

//Poor Translation: The Hebrew word for virgin is "betula". The root of the word is so specific that the Hebrew scriptures mention it with reference to stained bedsheets. However, the word used in Is 7:14 is "alma" which most dictionaries translate as "young woman." The word "alma" is found only seven times in scripture. In some places, it could mean either "virgin" or "young woman" but two verses suggest that an "alma" need not be virginal (Proverbs 30:19 -- "the way of a man with an alma", which is usually sexual -- and Song of Songs 6:8 -- "queens, concubines, and almas", the first two clearly not virginal, which suggests the third also is not.) To think the prophet would have used "alma" rather than the unequivocal "betula" strains credulity.//

First, there is no reason to think that "young woman" would be a better translation of almah in Proverbs 30:18-19. The writer is speaking of things that are extremely amazing (v.18). And what is more amazing than the first time that a man and a woman make love together? To translate almah as "virgin" would be quite natural here.  Certainly, there is nothing here to indicate that "young woman" is preferable to "virgin."

The same is true of Song of Songs 6:8-9: "Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins beyond number; but my dove, my perfect one, is unique, the only daughter of her mother, the favorite of the one who bore her." Here the contrast seems to be between his lover and all the other possible love interests, but his lover is the one who has his attention. It is certainly much more likely that almah would be translated as "virgin" here, since a Jewish writer of Scripture would not be seen as looking out on the whole field of women (including married women) for a wife. At any rate, there is absolutely nothing to favor a rendering of "young woman" over "virgin."

On the other hand, it is quite certain that when Isaac uses almah in Genesis 24:43 that he is looking for a virgin for his wife and not a young married woman. And that virgin is Rebekah. And in Exodus 2:8 there is every indication that Moses' sister is a virgin. And in Song of Songs 1:3 it is safe to assume that in the context of ancient Jewish Scripture it is virgins who are attracted to the subject of this play.

Furthermore, Isaiah 7:14 says that this will be a sign. When the LORD gives a sign, it is a miraculous sign. (See Numbers 14:22; 16:38; Deuteronomy 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:3; 13:1-2; etc.)

See Isaiah 38:7-8 for Isaiah's use of the word "sign" in a similar context: "‘This is the LORD’s sign to you that the LORD will do what he has promised: I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’ So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down."

A "young woman" becoming pregnant and giving birth to a son would not be much of a sign, but a "virgin" conceiving and giving birth to a son is most certainly a sign.

But most importantly, the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 into Greek when making the Septuagint (centuries before the Gospel of Matthew) chose the Greek word parthenos, which explicitly means "virgin." Do you really think that nearly 3000 years later you have a better understanding of the word almah than the elite Jewish scholars who lived in that ancient culture and who lived in much closer proximity to the time of Isaiah?

So your attempt to show that "virgin" is a "poor translation" completely fails on all accounts.

***************

//Also, "will conceive" is unlikely. The Hebrew "hara" is most likely present tense and is better read "is pregnant."//

First, your "unlikely" and "most likely" are a matter of your own bias and not fact, and therefore of no substance. But more importantly, it really makes no difference, as Old Testament prophecy is often spoken in the present tense (as the prophets/"seers" were often seeing things in visions and speaking about them as they were happening in their visions).

***************

//Context: This verse concerns a specific political problem of that era, and has no messianic significance at all. Isaiah writes in a highly flowery style, which makes it difficult to follow his point. However, if you read verses 1-15 slowly and carefully, you will see that Isaiah is telling his king, Ahaz, not to worry about two neighbors, Rezin and Pekah, who threaten the kingdom, because these two "firebrands" will be vanquished. How long will that take? A few years -- i.e. in the amount of time it takes a young woman to bear a child, and raise him to know the difference between good and evil.//

I agree that it is important that when reading the words of the prophets that you read them "slowly and carefully." Doing that, you will notice that God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refuses. God's response is to rebuke Ahaz and then announces a sign that is for "the house of David" (not Ahaz). The definitive proof that it is not Ahaz that the sign is given to is found in Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you [plural] a sign...." The Hebrew word for "you" is plural (and also in the Greek Septuagint). So the sign of a virgin is a sign for the house of David, the line of the Messiah (and not for Ahaz--because Ahaz has refused to ask for a sign when the Lord tells him to do so).

***************

//As for the name of the child, Emanuel, though Christians render it as "God with us," it should be rendered as "God is with us," a statement to King Ahaz that he will defeat his two neighbors because he, Ahaz, has a divine ally. The name is a comment about God, not a description of the person so named. (See also comments on Isaiah 9:6).//

First, either rendering of Emmanuel is acceptable, and both renderings bear the same meaning. Second, if this is meant to be a sign of God being with Ahaz in order to comfort and assure him, then why is it followed (7:17-25) with the prophecy that the Assyrians will leave his kingdom desolate? Third, who is this woman who bears a son as a sign to Ahaz and why is Emmanuel (which you say is a great sign to Ahaz) never mentioned in 2 Kings or 1 & 2 Chronicles? One would think that this son must surely be a member of Ahaz's own family, but the name never appears in any records of his lineage (the lineage of the kings being a focus of the writers of Kings and Chronicles). Since Isaiah is apparently written first, one would think that the writers of Kings and Chronicles would be especially interested in noting who this Emmanuel is. Fourth, throughout the Old Testament, the meanings of names usually bear significance for the child that is named (e.g., Genesis 3:20; 25:25-26; 35:10; 35:18).

The same things apply to the son spoken of in Isaiah 9:6-7. The son named in Isaiah 9:6-7 is clearly a king for whom "the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." And yet, the writers of Kings and Chronicles never name him. And of course, none of the kings of Israel/Judah written about in Kings and Chronicles reign "forever" (except God).

**************

//What the text says is simple. To paraphrase -- look, the young woman is pregnant and will give birth to a boy and she will call him "God is with us" he will be eating butter and honey before he knows to choose good from ill. Before he knows how to choose good from ill the lands of those people you fear will be forsaken.//

Perhaps there is a deeper meaning. Possibly even a double meaning. Perhaps what the text is actually saying is that these kings and their kingdoms will fade away. They won't even exist when the Messiah comes. Look for the coming of Messiah.

At first blush, the meaning that you have given seems more natural. But when one looks more closely, it becomes clear that there must be a very different meaning, as I believe I have shown conclusively above. Certainly, Matthew, a Hebrew scholar and First Century Jew, saw that deeper meaning and applied it to Jesus--whose miracles and prophecies, sinless life, transcendent teaching, fulfillment of many Old Testament Messianic prophecies, death and resurrection he witnessed and wrote about.

**************

//Parenthetically, Jesus was never called "Emanuel".//

Well, actually he was. See Matthew 1:23....and billions of Christians since then! :)

**************

MY SUMMARY RESPONSE:

(1) Your arguments against the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 given in Matthew 1:23 fail. You fail to give any substantive argument against it. And you have failed to consider the considerable evidence for it.

(2) It remains true that the young woman spoken of in Isaiah 7:14 is an unmarried virgin. This is shown to be true by the use of the word almah in the Old Testament and by the fact that the ancient translators of the Old Testament chose to use the Greek word parthenos to translate it. Furthermore, it is shown to be so by the fact that this is given as the Yahweh's sign that he will fulfill his promise to the house of David (the messianic line): a  young woman conceiving and giving birth to a son is not a sign, but a virgin conceiving and giving birth to a son is most certainly a miraculous sign from the Lord.

Additionally, you find yourself caught in an "Catch-22" situation: If Matthew is simply making up stories about Jesus (as I assume you believe), then why would he make up a story about Jesus being born of a virgin and try to sell it as the fulfillment of a messianic prophecy to the Jews to whom he is writing--unless this was the well known meaning of Isaiah 7:14 among the Jews of the First Century? That would be a ridiculous thing to do. And it is hard to see how such ridiculous claims could become accepted unless there was evidence that they were true. And if the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin was simply to satisfy a prevalent contemporary interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, why does Luke never mention Isaiah 7:14 in his narrative of the virgin birth? If however, Jesus was truly born of a virgin, then this messianic prophecy and miraculous sign from Yahweh were truly fulfilled in him; and he is your Messiah.

*MORE RESOURCES FOR STUDYING MESSIANIC PROPHECY

Gustave Dore (1832-83), Wood Engraving

THE SMALLEST SEED IN MARK 4:31 ~ Examining a Difficult Bible Verse

In Mark 4:30-32, Jesus says: "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade" (NIV). Or did he say that? Did Jesus really claim that the mustard seed "is the smallest of all seeds on earth"? This is how the NIV (New International Version) translates these verses. But could they have been translated better?

This seems to be one of those perennial questions. It often stumps believers who come upon it. And of course, skeptics relish the opportunity to say Jesus made a mistake or the Bible has errors. Recently, this issue has come up a couple of times in a Facebook group that I am a part of. The second such discussion was introduced using a blog article by John Tors at "Truth In My Days." The article is titled: "DID JESUS ERR ABOUT THE SIZE OF MUSTARD SEEDS? A Case Study in How to Do Serious Evangelical Apologetics." 

(1) A BRIEF CRITICISM OF TORS' ARTICLE
The author does a good job of surveying the popular internet solutions to the problem (even if he does not seem to fully understand them). And I truly appreciate his passion and sympathize with his concerns. But the arrogant and caustic tone of the article bothers me as he castigates prominent scholars and then declares that he alone has the answer to this problem. If he had studied more carefully, he would have seen that all of  the suggestions he surveys have merit and contribute to our understanding of this passage. And the one he begins with is indeed the best scholarly solution (and not the "gambit" that he declares it to be).

Tors is correct in noting that the word that the NIV translates as "earth" (ges = γῆς) can be used to mean simply agricultural land or soil. Even in English, the word "earth" can be used to mean our planet OR a handful of soil. But after castigating Daniel Wallace for limiting the meaning of "seed" (sperma) to "sown seed", Tors determines that "earth" should be "that limited area of ground for agricultural use"--by which he means to say that the word refers to a specific piece of property or a certain field. But that is not what Bauer is indicating in his Greek lexicon. It is a valid interpretation of the word in context but it is not the straightforward meaning given by Bauer. So my point here is NOT that Tors is in error by doing this (context can narrow the meaning of a word), but rather that he is doing exactly the thing that he castigates Wallace for doing (or at least what he thinks Wallace is doing, which we shall see is not really the case).


(2) A WORD ABOUT USING REFERENCE WORKS
Tors whole argument hinges on his determination that any interpretation must rely on a straightforward reading of a Greek dictionary, and in this case, Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. But dictionaries are produced by humans. Bauer's (BAGD) is the standard Greek lexicon, but it is not perfect. Bauer was a great Greek scholar and no one has surpassed his work as a number one go-to reference for the meaning of Greek words. One reason is because it is so exhaustive in scope. But it still has weaknesses. Bauer was a human being and not on some ethereal plane far above Wallace and the rest of us. (Interestingly, Tors is simply pitting Bauer's Greek reference work against Wallace's Greek reference work.) In this case, Bauer did not see the need to differentiate between "seeds used for agricultural purposes" and "seeds of plants in general." The other weakness is that Bauer does not give any etymologies (studies of word origins). I realized early on in my study of Greek that it is immensely helpful to consult more than one reference work when trying to sort out a difficulty with the meaning of a Greek word. This is why I have several Greek reference works on my shelves (one has 3 volumes and another has 10 volumes, while Bauer is a single volume); and I have ready access to at least three more on my computer. If Tors had consulted a few more reference works (he only consults Bauer and Wallace--whom he rejects), he would have seen that Wallace is right on the money, and the problem would have instantly dissolved.


(3) A LOOK AT THE MEANING OF THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED
So let's look at this verse in Mark 4:31: "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth" (NIV):

(A) A PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION
The NIV (New International Version) does a terrible job of translating this verse. Going to the Blue Letter Bible, we can quickly see that all of the other versions do a much better job and include the phrase that modifies mustard seed: "WHICH WHEN PLANTED ON THE SOIL." This is in fact, in the original Greek and an important part of the context, but the NIV does not translate it at all. The NASB does the best job of all here (though it is not always the best, contrary to NASB fans): "It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil,...." 

For the sake of convenient reference, let me repeat their translation with the key Greek words inserted: "It is like a mustard seed (κόκκῳ = kokko = Masculine Singular Dative of kokkos), which, when sown (σπαρῇ = spare = 3rd Person Singular Aorist Passive Subjunctive of speiro) upon the soil (γῆς = Feminine Singular Genitive of ges), though it is smaller than all the seeds (σπερμάτων = spermaton = Neuter Plural Genitive of sperma) that are upon the soil (γῆς = Feminine Singular Genitive of ges),...."

(B) THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
 As Tors rightly notes, the context here is agriculture. And context is THE most important issue in interpretation of language. We can see that this parable is about agriculture in the immediate context (in the phrase that the NIV totally leaves out): "sown (speiro) upon the soil." We can also see this context in the very next verse: "Yet when planted (speiro, same word as in 4:31), it grows and becomes THE LARGEST OF ALL *GARDEN PLANTS* (λαχάνων = lachanon), with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade" (NIV). Fortunately, the NIV gets this verse right. If we look beyond this parable, we see that it is also part of the larger context of Mark 4, as Jesus tells two other explicitly agricultural parables immediately prior to this one.

(C) THE MEANING OF "SEED"
But what about that word "seed" (sperma) which Wallace maintained should be translated as "sown seed" (but which Tors said was incorrect). Consulting other references besides Bauer (BAGD), I immediately found distinctions that Bauer failed to make.  

(i.) Kittel (the 10-volume work, which is really the number one place to go when investigating the range of meanings for a Greek word) groups words into cognate groups. So immediately we see that "seed" (sperma) is from the group of Greek words that include "sown" (speiro, which is used in verse 31 and again in 32), "sowing" (spora), "sowing, seed" (sporos) and "sown" (sporimos). These are all of the cognates of "seed" (sperma) and they all have an agricultural meaning. (Checking Verbrugge gives the same results but adds nothing further.) So it is easy to see that this group of words are all words used in agriculture and so THE PRIMARY MEANING (not just a possible meaning) of "seed" (sperma) is "SEED USED IN AGRICULTURE" (or as Wallace put it: "sown seed"). 

(ii.) If we consult Brown's 3-volume Dictionary of New Testament Theology, we see the same cognate group. And the very first sentence of the article begins: "In secular Gk. the sperma group is commonly used in the literal sense of sowing plant seeds...." 

(iii.) Consulting Liddell & Scott's lexicon, the very first definition given for this word "seed" (sperma) and therefore the most common sense of the word is: "that which is sown." So we immediately see that three of the best Greek reference works available agree that this word refers to seed used in agriculture.

(iv.) For those of you who do not have access to all of these reference works, you can go to Blue Letter Bible (or other online Bibles) and use the tools there and discover the same thing. Blue Letter Bible provides the meanings from Thayer's lexicon and Strong's concordance. Thayer's is not as clear here, but if you look closely you will find the phrase ("of the grains or kernels sown"). If you use the etymological tool (which relies on Strong's), you will see that this word "seed" (sperma) is derived from the "root word" speiro (which means to "sow" or "scatter seed": again, the word "sown" that is used in the parable of the mustard seed in Mark 4:31, 32). Furthermore, the Blue Letter Bible gives you all the New Testament occurrences of the word (scroll down), so you can quickly read through and see for yourself how the word is used in the New Testament. If you do that, you will see that the New Testament writers only use this word in an explicitly agricultural context, except when it is used in its figurative sense referring to human descendants. But when referring to plants, it is always seed that is "sown" and usually makes explicit mention of a farmer.

(v.) It is also important to note that these are the kinds of categories that people in the ancient world put things. They used practical categories. They did not use the same kinds of scientific means for categorizing living things that we do. This way of classifying things has only been developed in the last 500 years. So, bats are put in the same category as birds because they fly. And whales in the same category as fish, because they swim in the water. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It is just a different way of sorting.

(vi.) Now that you have a better understanding of what the Greek word for "seed" (sperma) means, let me point out one more thing: The first word that Jesus uses for "seed" is kokkos. He then shifts to sperma when noting the realm in which the mustard seed is the smallest.


(D) SUMMARY OF THE DATA
So let's summarize the data that we have gathered:
(i.) Jesus says that the mustard is the smallest of "seeds" (sperma). Sperma is part of a group of words that are all have a meaning related to sowing seed for agricultural purposes. This is conclusive evidence that the word sperma originally referred only to seed that was to be sown for the purpose of agriculture. It is possible for the meaning of words to change over time and occasionally take on a completely different meaning, particularly among certain groups of people. This is why Greek references (such as Kittel) that explore the range of meaning for a word not only offer etymologies but also give brief studies of how the word was used in particular eras and by certain groups (e.g., classical Greek, the Septuagint, the New Testament). But I could find no indication that sperma took on any different meaning (except when used figuratively of human descendants, which does not affect our discussion here). Certainly, in the New Testament, whenever sperma is used in reference to the seeds of plants, it refers to seed that is being sown for agriculture.

(ii.) This is all confirmed in the broader context (Jesus' previous parables and rural setting) and the immediate context of Mark 4:31-32, which is filled with agricultural terms: "When the mustard seed (kokkos) is sown (speiro) upon the soil (ges), it is the smallest of agricultural seeds (sperma) sown (probably an assumed verb here based on sentence structure) on the soil (ges) but grows and becomes the largest of agricultural plants (lachanon)."

(iii.) So what word would be used if the ancients wanted to refer to just any seed (whether wild or domesticated)? As we already noted, there is the word kokkos. So Jesus' shift from kokkos to sperma only reinforces the fact that it is the smallest of agricultural seeds sperma and that it is NOT being compared to all seeds, including wild seeds (kokkos).


CONCLUSION
Therefore the clear meaning of Jesus' words in Mark 4:31-32 is as follows: "It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the other agricultural seeds that are sown upon the soil, grows and becomes the largest of all the agricultural plants." This is the most natural meaning of Jesus' words here. 
Furthermore, in the context, Jesus is not trying to make a botanical or horticultural point here. When interpreting what someone is saying, you also need to consider the genre being used, the recipients, and the intention. Here Jesus is speaking to a crowd of Jews and speaking a parable about the kingdom of God. So that context narrows the meaning even further. He is not saying it is the smallest agricultural seed that has ever been sown or ever will be sown. He is simply talking to them about what they are familiar with and using that as an analogy to how the kingdom of God grows. Therefore, Jesus' words in context might very well be translated as: "It is like a mustard seed, which when you (you Jews listening to me) sow upon the soil is the smallest seed you sow upon the soil, grows and becomes the largest of the plants in your fields and gardens."

So, no. Jesus did NOT claim that the mustard seed was the smallest seed of any plant in the history of the world past, present or future....or on other planets or in other universes! He simply was using an analogy that the people that he was talking to would understand: "Of all the seeds you sow in your fields and gardens, the mustard seed is the smallest, but then it grows and becomes the largest."

**************************************
*Contradictions in the Bible?
*MASTER LIST OF APOLOGETIC RESOURCES
*1000s of FREE BOOKS FOR APOLOGETICS & BIBLE STUDY
*GUIDE TO THE CONTENTS OF MY BLOG

Image Source

THE SO-CALLED SYNOPTIC PROBLEM: Resources for Study

Image from Wikiversity/Creative Commons

The synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark and Luke. And the word synoptic is a Greek word that means "seen together" and refers to the way in which the similarities between these Gospels allow them to be "seen" (-optic) together (syn-), because they tell so many of the same things about Jesus and often in very similar ways. The Gospel of John shares some things in common with these three but also a significant amount of additional material not found in the synoptics.

When we talk about the "Synoptic Problem," it is important to note that it is not really a problem or a difficulty in the sense that it makes it difficult to believe the Bible. The word problem is being used more in the same way that you would talk about a math problem. It is a puzzle to be solved. It brings up interesting questions that we would like to have answers for: Which Gospel came first? Did Matthew use Mark or did Mark use Matthew? Etc.... Below are some of the best resources available for understanding and exploring the issue:

WEBSITES:
*The Synoptic Problem Website by Stephen Carlson
*The Case Against Q by Mark Goodacre
*Jerusalem Perspective: "A Groundbreaking Attempt to Reconstruct the Conjectured Hebrew Life of Yeshua.....Under the direction of David Bivin, Jerusalem Perspective has launched an attempt to reconstruct the account of Jesus’ life which, according to church tradition, was written in Hebrew by Jesus’ disciple Matthew. Although this ancient eyewitness account is no longer extant, we believe that significant portions of this source have been preserved in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. If this theory is correct, then the first three canonical Gospels are the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of that conjectured Hebrew biography, which we refer to as the Hebrew Life of Yeshua. An attempt also has been made to reconstruct the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, a more immediate ancestor of Matthew, Mark and Luke."

VIDEO
*"What Are the Synoptic Gospels and Where Do They Come From?" (9 minutes)

*"Everybody Says Mark Was the First Gospel, But Was It?" with David Alan Black (41 minutes)

*"The Synoptic Phenomenon (not The Synoptic Problem according to Dr. Weston Fields)" from Lanier Theological Library (49 minutes)

AUDIO
*Lecture #6: "Form and Source Criticism" of Michael Kruger's FREE! Gospels course. You can also access it at Reformed Theological Seminary's iTune page or by using their Android app available at Google Play.
*The first 3 lectures of Robert Stein's FREE! online course "New Testament Survey -- Gospels" (35-40 minutes each)

ARTICLES

*"On Dispensing With Q" by John Kloppenborg. A response to Mark Goodacre's book The Case Against Q.

*"Why Four Gospels?" by David Alan Black
*"The Synoptic Problem and Q" at Blue Letter Bible

*Last Seminary hosts five articles on "Q & the Synoptic Problem" that can be download for FREE--with brief abstracts for each.

BOOKS
*Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem by John Wenham
*Is There a Synoptic Problem?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels by Eta Linnemann. (Linneman was a leading liberal critic who told her readers to throw away all of her books when she got saved!)
*Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels edited by Robert L. Thomas (contributors: Grant R. Osborne, Matthew C. Williams, John H. Niemela, and F. David Farnell)
*The Synoptic Problem: Four Views edited by Stanley Porter and Bryan Dyer (conributors: Craig Evans, Mark Goodacre, David Peabody, Rainer Riesner)
*The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze by Mark Goodacre. Website for the book. Download the book for FREE!
*The Synoptic Problem and Statistics by Andris Abakuks
*Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (1909) by John C. Hawkins is FREE!
*The Case Against Q by Mark Goodacre
*Rethinking the Synoptic Problem by David Alan Black
*Why Four Gospels: The Historical Origins of the Gospels by David Alan Black


STILL LOOKING?....
An excellent Annotated Bibliography can be found at Stephen Carlson's website....
Also check out the lists of Bibliographia, Websites, Books and Articles, Q Web Materials, and Reviews at The New Testament Gateway: Part of a large directory of academic internet resources, though sadly lacking in some of the best evangelical scholarship.

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE?: Resources for Study

Many people believe that there are so many contradictions in the Bible that it simply cannot be trusted. Having examined these for myself over the past 35 years, I have found that most of these are quite easily answered and the others have solid answers if you are willing to look for them. Here are my recommendations for resources for finding the answers to those seeming contradictions in the Bible.....

Click on the title links to find the great resources listed below 
(and then check out my growing MASTER LIST OF APOLOGETIC RESOURCES)....

INTRODUCTORY
Videos
*Wretched. "No, the Bible Doesn't Have Mistakes." (4 minutes)
*The One Minute Apologist. "How Should We Handle Apparent Bible Contradictions?" (3 1/2 minutes)
*Inspiring Philosophy. "Alleged Bible Errors Refuted" (A series of 4 videos: 3-6 minutes each)
*Inspiring Philosophy. "Bible Contradictions Refuted" (A series of 10 more videos: 2-6 minutes each)

INTERMEDIATE
Videos
*"Answering Bible Contradictions" (66 minutes) by Lenny Esposito

Books
*Watson, Richard. An Apology for The Bible. (1880) FREE! at title link. "An Apology for the Bible is Bishop Watson’s answer to Thomas Paine’s book The Age of Reason, Part II, which is a sort of catalogue of standard gripes about both the Old and the New Testaments. Watson's Apology is surprisingly timely, as many of these objections are still circulating today on the internet. In a series of ten letters, Watson answers Paine’s criticisms virtually point by point. His answers are generally quite successful; he has little difficulty demonstrating that many of these criticisms arise from ignorance or demonstrably unfair interpretations of the text of Scripture." - Dr. Timothy McGrew
*Haley, John W. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. (1875) FREE! at title link. "Haley has done a great deal of research and presents some valuable references and information from earlier works. The organization of the book is simply awful, but good indices allow the reader to find material by chapter and verse or by topic." - Dr. Timothy McGrew
*Torrey, R.A. (1856-1928). Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions. FREE! here.
*Whately, Richard. Essays on Some of the Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul and Other Parts of the New Testament. (1865) FREE! here. And here (second series).
*Winnington-Ingram, Arthur Foley. New Testament Difficulties. (1903) FREE! here.
*Spalding, Thomas. Scripture Difficulties Explained by Scripture References. (1877) FREE! here.
*Kaiser, Walter and others. Hard Sayings of the Bible. 
*Archer, Gleason. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. 
*Geisler, Norm. The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.
*McDowell, Josh and Sean McDowell. The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses.

*Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. A summarized version of this book: A Chronology of the Hebrew Kings.

ONLINE RESOURCES
*Apologetics Press has an extensive list of articles organized by book of the Bible.
*"Bible Difficulties and Suggested Solutions" is a Facebook discussion group with nearly 1400 members (including some expert apologists). The group also hosts documents with answers to dozens of questions about Bible difficulties.


STILL LOOKING?....
there is AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY here and ANOTHER ONE here.



INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE
One of the main sources of seeming contradictions is simply faulty interpretation (taking things out of context, etc.). Here are some solid resources for getting better at interpretation.

Books
*Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid by William D. Barrick (an 11 page ebook) FREE!
*Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas Stuart. How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth.
*Schultz, Richard. Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible. Currently only 99 cents on Kindle.
*Sire, James W. Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible.
*Carson, D.A. Exegetical Fallacies.
*Virkler, Henry A. and Karelynne Ayayo. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation.
*Unlocking the Scriptures by Hans Finzel. Currently only 99 cents on Kindle.
*The Bible In Its Context: How to Improve Your Study of the Scriptures by Dr. Craig Keener. An 82-page Word document that is FREE!


Online Courses
*Stein, Robert. "Biblical Hermeneutics." (18 hours) FREE!
*Understanding and Choosing Bible Translations: A FREE course covering how we got our English Bible, what the major translations are, two different approaches to Bible translation, why literal translations aren’t always more accurate, how we can be certain the Bible we possess is really God’s Word, four guidelines for choosing Bible translation.


STILL LOOKING?....
Check out this extensive bibliography by William Harness.