wallyshoes wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> I really have difficulty believing that The authors of the NT would use a literary device
> and insert it as though these were factual events. Most people would call that "a lie" and
> would tend to agree. It is much easier for me to believe that it was believed to be
> factually true by the author.
Well, this is the same issue that's been debated with respect to Genesis 1 & 2
&c. If those aren't accurate historical reports of things that happened a few thousand
years ago, are they "lies"? You are trying to make the biblical writers conform to
modern standards for historical & theological writing, but their purpose needs to be
assessed in terms of the standards of their own culture. There's a little German
jingle:
Wer den Dichter will verstehen,
Muss in Dichters Lande gehen.
"Whoever wants to understand the poet must go into the poet's country." & if you want
to understand a 1st century Christian, you must to some extent be willing to get into
the frame of mind of a 1st centuryt Christian.
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but that disagrees with Luke's account. How do we deal with that?
>
> Also Matthew says:
>
> "So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when
> he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to
> go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went
> and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets:
> "He will be called a Nazarene." "
>
> While Luke says:
>
> "When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they
> returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth."
>
> Either Luke or Matthew are wrong about Nazareth as their home town it seems.
>
> How does infallibility fit in here?
>
> In fact why are we Christians so adamant about infallibility when the Bible never comes
> right out and makes such a claim?
First, what is meant by "infallibility"? Is its primary meaning that the texts
in question describe historical events infallibly, or that they witness infallibly to
the person & work of Christ?
In saying that I am not trying to "save" the word infallibility: I can live
without it. But what does it mean? & if we're going to use it, recognizing the kinds
of historical questions you raise, what should it mean?
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Wed Dec 31 09:01:10 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 09:01:11 EST