Re: NT inerrancy??

wallyshoes wrote:

> Hello all!
>
> Thanks to all of the response to my last post -- but I wish that some
> on this list could focus on Jesus Christ (MOST OF THE TIME) ------
> and not the same old OT themes.
>
> Please email personally if you so desire!
>
>
>
> There are (NT) problems also.
>
> For some reason this list seems to focus on the OT for questions of
> interpretation of infallibility. It has always bothered me that this
> list never seems to discuss the NT.
>
> Are we all Bible worshipers or Christ followers?
>
> In modern (and KJV) versions of the NT, I note several conflicts. One
> may easily start with Matthew and Luke regarding the early history of
> Mary, Joseph and Jesus.
>
>
> 1. ) Where did they go soon after Jesus was born (say within 60
> days) --- Egypt or Nazareth?
>
> 2.) Was Nazareth the original home town of Mary and Joseph -- or was
> it not?
>
> Given the discrepancies -- how do we address the "infallibility" of
> the Bible?
>
> I am sure that I could get these answers from the internet -- but how
> this group handle such questions?

        I agree completely - this probably won't surprise you - that our attention ought
1st of all to be given to Christ, beginning with the NT. The OT should be interpreted
in light of the new - which does not mean that we just ignore all the issues of
development of the OT from various sources, the different literary genres that occur
there, the existence of non-historical elements &c.

        & similar things have to be recognized for the NT. We have 4 gospels & they
tell the story in different ways. Some of the differences are due simply to different
selections of material, but others come from the differing theological approaches of the
evangelists. & just as with the OT, some parts of the gospels are not accounts of
events that actually happened but are accounts of events and sayings developed for
theological purposes - which is NOT to say that there is no historical data there.

        Just to take 1 aspect of the infancy narratives: Mt's interest in the
fulfillment of OT prophecy, which is especially obvious in Ch.2, and his desire to
portray Jesus as the new & greater Moses, ought to make us wonder if the account of the
flight into Egypt is a literary device to portray Jesus as the leader of a new Exodus.
(Hosea 11:1, in context, refers to Israel as God's son & the original exodus.)

        But there is another point that is often missed. Liberal interpreters have
often argued that the idea of Jesus' virginal conception, which we find only in Mt & Lk,
is a theological statement about Jesus' relationship with God, perhaps inspired by OT
stories like those of Sarah or Hannah, & not an accurate historical account of Mary's
pregnancy. That possibility has to be reckoned with. But the fact that virginal
conception is presented in quite different ways by Mt & Lk suggests that there were (at
least) 2 independent traditions about Jesus' conception in the early Christian
community. This does not prove historicity but it means that the claim that Jesus
really was conceived of a virgin should get more respect than it sometimes receives.

        Briefly responding to Walt's question 1: The MT account makes it seem that
the Holy Family was in Bethlehem for about a year before leaving for Egypt.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George
                                
 

George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Tue Dec 30 08:43:29 2003