Re: NT inerrancy??

wallyshoes wrote:
>
> George Murphy wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> I chose the NT because it is a lot closer than Moses' time.
>
> But let's just step around the theology and talk about the "real world" of today. By your
> accounts, one cannot expect Matthew to be telling us factual events. Instead he is saying things
> that never happened for the sake of making a theological point. As such, a theologian like you can
> read and understand it. People like me cannot. ---- so I have put the Gospel by matthew on the
> shelf as something I cannot trust. What about Luke. Do you think the same of him?
>
> I also raise the point about the difference of opinion by Matthew and Luke as to the home town of
> Joseph and mary. Do you think that Matthew is making a theological point? If so, what could it be?

        1st, I never said that Mt (or other evangelists) never give us information about
real historical events.
        2d, the idea that we can't trust Mt because they don't give us the kind of
information that we want is kind of odd. Walt Whitman's poem "O captain, my captain" is
about the death of Lincoln. It speaks of him "lying cold and dead" on the deck of a
ship, while of course Lincoln actually died in a bed across the street from Ford's
Theater. Does this mean we can't trust Whitman?
        3d, Mt really doesn't say anything about where Mary & Joseph were from
originally, only that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mt & Lk agree that Jesus grew up in
Nazareth & that seems pretty firm historical data. Mt gives a theological
interpretation to that by referring to a prophecy that "he shall be called a Nazarene."
But there is no such prophecy. Perhaps the reference is to Judges 13:5 but I think it's
more likely that he's making a pun with the Hebrew /nazir/, "branch", which is used in a
messianic sense in some places in the OT.
        (Can the Bible have inspired _puns_? Apparently so. See, e.g., Jeremiah
1:11-12or Amos 8:1-3. Of course these won't show up in an English translation unless
there are notes to explain them.)

>
> > 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?
>
> I always choose the dictionary definition. My dictionary says:
>
> "Incapable of error"
> "Not liable to mislead, deceive or misrepresent"
>
> With those definitions, and your notion of Matthew, that text is not infallible --- at least not
> to modern man..

        But infallible _for what_? Is Whitman's poem faulty because it doesn't give
historical details?
        Again, I'm not fighting for the term "infallibility," But it's worth thinking
about ways in which it might be used appropriately. in a parallel post you say:

> I joined a church that says:
>
> "We believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters
> pertaining to Christian faith and practice."
>
> That's it. "faith and practice" -- not as a science textbook -- or not
> even necessarily historical facts. If one can try to live up to that
> statement, one is well advised to be content and not add
> "infallibility" (IMHO)

        Maybe we should say that the Bible is an "infallible" guide to Christian faith
and practice.

                                                Shalom,
                                                George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Wed Dec 31 12:22:08 2003