Comments on: Ten Guidelines for Interpreting the Gospels

By: Bill Bryant

Bill Bryant — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:30:03 +0000

You mentioned Everett Ferguson and his study of baptism. Check out Rees Bryant’s book “Baptism: Why Wait?” He’s another sober voice (my father’s) nudging the evangelical world back toward a sinner’s prayer that gets you wet.

http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Why-Wait-Response-Conversion/dp/0899008585

By: Glenn Peoples

Glenn Peoples — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:50:52 +0000

Jason just linked to my article inspired by this post, so I thought I’d add my two cents – I really liked this piece, Michael. It’s a great expression of a viewpoint that is not inerrantist and yet is thoroughly conservative, showing that the two are not necessarily wedded to each other.

By: Jason S. Kong

Jason S. Kong — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:20:48 +0000

Hi iMonk,

I thought I’d mention this person’s take on your article, since I didn’t see it on trackback or anything.

http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/no-i-am-not-an-inerrantist/

By: Matt Dabbs

Matt Dabbs — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:01:55 +0000

Aranion,

One of the things that leads to “contradictions” of time and details just boils down to two different story tellers emphasizing different things. Theologically, John is emphasizing different themes than Mark and places the money changers in a position that is both theologically significant and significant to the flow of his narrative to emphasize points that Mark isn’t trying to make. So to say it is an error because two authors place it at different points in time misses the point entirely. They aren’t giving us a scientific and chronologically specific rundown of events. They are emphasizing themes that bring out different memories and events at different points that are placed together in a way significant to the author and intended for his audience. So when you get two different authors writing for two different audiences from a non-21st century point of view, there is no wonder that at times things are ordered different. It is only a discrepancy if both authors are making a point that they are telling us precisely when the events happened rather than just what happened. If they both say it happened at this time and they give us different times, then we have a discrepancy. But as it stands in the text that is not the point either Mark or John are trying to make.

By: Kozak

Kozak — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 19:57:58 +0000

I would recommend Mark D. Roberts’s series on “Are the NT Gospels Reliable?” for thoughts on oral transmission of traditions. It contains good stuff to rebut arguments about authorship and therefore reliability.

By: Aranion

Aranion — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:43:13 +0000

“If the contradictions were significant, it would be a significant problem, but when did Jesus turn over the tables of the money changers in John vs Mark or how many angels were at the tomb or was John at the cross don’t qualify as significant to me.”

I, for one, would love to read more of your thoughts along these lines. You’re echoing where my own faith and understanding has developed, but I have trouble articulating it.

I feel like I know what the Bible *isn’t* – it’s not a magic book or a scientific treatise or an impersonal, objective record of purely historical events – but I have trouble saying what it *is*, and how it differs from other religious texts.

By: Mich

Mich — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 21:19:12 +0000

N.T. Wright is AWESOME.
I keep hearing more and more good things about Yoder Neufeld–have you read his Commentary on Ephesians?

By: JohnB5200

JohnB5200 — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:48:03 +0000

Excellent post. Probably the best essay I have seen on principles for teaching the Gospels.
I have been teaching Luke in Adult Bible Class for the past 8 months and can concur, from my experience, with all your points.

By: Jugulum

Jugulum — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:45:23 +0000

P.S. Er… I should reword something. I should have said, “in what they actually did affirm”, instead of “in what they were specifically affirming”.

The latter makes it sound like I was talking about details that were the focus of a verse or passage, as opposed to incidental details. That not what I meant.

I was talking about a detail like, “About three hours later, Jesus said…”–where the passage definitely communicates something particular about the timeline, regardless of whether it was an important detail.

By: Jugulum

Jugulum — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:04:46 +0000

Are you saying, “The two authors really did flat-out contradict each other in what they were specifically affirming, but it doesn’t matter because it’s a small detail”?

Another option being, “The accounts differ, but the authors were not intending to affirm, ‘There was one and only one angel’ versus ‘There were two and precisely two angels’.”

I think someone like Michael Patton–whom you know well, and who also doesn’t prefer the word “inerrancy”–would go with the latter. He would say, “Inspiration requires that the Bible is true in what it affirms, in as much detail or specificity as it affirms.”

If you’re going with the first, then you’re saying, “Inspired Scripture can get the details wrong, as long as they’re minor details.”