RE: NT inerrancy??

Here's an interesting article about the "he shall be called a Nazarene"
controversy, thoughts anyone?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr43.html

Upon closer examination, however, it becomes evident that the passage
does not say what the skeptic wants us to think it says. The "quote"
actually was only the latter half of the verse. In the context (which
begins earlier in verse 22), here is what the passage actually says:

But when he [Joseph-BT] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in
the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being
warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and
came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken through the prophets, for he should be called a
Nazarene.

An examination of the actual facts that come to bear on this passage
reveals the following information. It is true, as various Bible
commentators have noted, that nowhere in the Old Testament did any of
the prophets say: "He shall be called a Nazarene" (see Lenski, 1943, p.
87). However, while at first glance the verse might be construed to
suggest that some "prophets" (the plural in the Greek text is
significant; see comments below) suggested that Christ "should be called
a Nazarene," further study shows that this is not the actual intent of
the passage at all. In discussing the grammatical construction of the
passage in the original Greek, R.C.W. Lenski (a highly respected Greek
scholar in his own right) stated:

But the plural "through the prophets" is important. It cannot refer to
one prophet speaking for all. This plural evidently refers either to the
prophetic books in general or to the entire Old Testament. It also shows
that no quotation is to follow which will introduce some word that was
uttered by several prophets (p. 87, emp. in orig.).

With great care, Lenski then went on to show that the structure of the
Greek involved in the passage under consideration "is not...like our
quotation marks, pointing to a direct quotation." Then, after remarking
on the original words, the form in which they occur, and their careful
use by Matthew within the passage under consideration, Lenski noted that
such construction in the Greek "shuts out not only a direct quotation
but also an indirect prophetic utterance" (p. 87).

What, then, is Matthew's meaning? The text is saying simply this: Jesus
lived in Nazareth not because the prophets had said that He would live
in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific
things that the prophets had said about Him. Lenski has done an
excellent job of explaining this point:

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]

>>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 12:19 PM

>>To: wallyshoes

>>Cc: ASA

>>Subject: 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 12:46:59 2003