Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#11 – Contradictions in the Story of Jacob and Esau:
Method of Deception The story of Jacob and Esau, as told in Genesis 27 and beyond, is a rich narrative full of theological and literary significance. However, as noted in Gabel’s Bible as Literature, it also exhibits several biblical contradictions and narrative inconsistencies, likely due to the blending of multiple sources. One notable inconsistency lies in the methods Jacob uses to deceive his father, Isaac. The narrative presents two separate strategies: Jacob wears Esau’s clothes, “which smell of the open country” and covers his arms with goatskins to mimic Esau’s hairy skin. While both methods are effective, the dual explanation seems redundant and suggests the merging of two versions of the story. Each may have originally featured a single method of deception, but they were later combined into the unified account we have today.
How Does Ehrman Err?
Bart Ehrman and others often raise concerns about apparent contradictions or redundancies in biblical narratives, such as the story of Jacob deceiving Isaac in Genesis 27. Let’s address this specific example by applying a careful, historical-grammatical approach to Scripture, as recommended by sound hermeneutics (see “What Is Hermeneutics?” by Jared Jeter: context, context, context).
Understanding the Context and Language
1. What Does the Text Actually Say?
Genesis 27:15–16 (ESV) describes the methods Rebekah and Jacob used:
“Then Rebekah took the best garments of Esau her older son, which were with her in the house, and put them on Jacob her younger son. And the skins of the young goats she put on his hands and on the smooth part of his neck.”
Later, Isaac expresses his confusion:
“So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, ‘The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.'” (Genesis 27:22, ESV)
And when Isaac smells Jacob:
“And his father Isaac said to him, ‘Come near and kiss me, my son.’ So he came near and kissed him. And Isaac smelled the smell of his garments and blessed him…” (Genesis 27:26–27, ESV)
2. Are These Methods Contradictory or Redundant?
The narrative presents two complementary—not contradictory—methods:
- Goat skins: To mimic Esau’s hairy skin, since Esau was described as a “hairy man” (Genesis 27:11).
- Esau’s clothes: To provide Esau’s distinctive scent, which Isaac recognizes (Genesis 27:27).
These methods address different senses of Isaac, who is elderly and nearly blind (Genesis 27:1). Isaac relies on touch, smell, and hearing to discern his son’s identity. Each method targets a different sense:
- Touch: Goat skins for hairiness.
- Smell: Esau’s clothes for scent.
- Voice: Jacob’s voice, which Isaac notes as odd, but the other evidence convinces him.
3. Why Include Both Methods?
The inclusion of both methods is not redundant but realistic. Rebekah and Jacob are thorough in their deception, anticipating Isaac’s possible doubts. The narrative’s detail enhances the drama and shows the lengths to which Jacob and Rebekah went.
4. Is This Evidence of Multiple Sources?
While some literary critics suggest the story is a composite of sources, the text itself does not require this explanation. The historical-grammatical method encourages us to read the passage as a unified narrative, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The details serve the story’s purpose: to show the complexity of the deception and the fulfillment of God’s sovereign plan, despite human scheming (see Genesis 25:23).
5. Theological Significance
The story’s complexity also highlights the consequences of deceit and the sovereignty of God. Jacob’s actions lead to long-term family conflict (Genesis 27:41–45), yet God’s purposes prevail (Romans 9:10–13).
Summary
- The use of both goat skins and Esau’s clothes is not a contradiction but a thorough, multi-sensory deception.
- The narrative is consistent and realistic, given Isaac’s blindness and reliance on other senses.
- The details serve to heighten the drama and theological depth of the story.
Scripture affirms:
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16, ESV).
“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.” (Psalm 119:160, ESV)
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” (John 17:17, ESV)
In conclusion:
The so-called “contradiction” is best understood as a narrative richness, not a flaw. The account stands as a unified, coherent story when read in its historical and literary context.