Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  [...] to jump to the idea that this common literary form tells us something about the content of biblical revelation is liberal. |
Thanks for the thoughts Matthew, they were helpful. I've pondered a little on this whole issue. It seems to me that there are two extremes to avoid:
[1] Scripture can only be understood, when we place it properly in its historical context. This is a mantra many of the NPPers have uttered perennially to me.
[2] The historical background has nothing to teach us about what we find in Scripture.
It seems to me that Scripture testifies to itself that it is sufficient to equip us for
every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). However, this shouldn't stop us from historical enquiry if we believe that Scripture is not just a divine book but also (at the same time) a fully human book. However, surely historical enquiry will only
nuance parts of Scripture, and is
not needed to be equipped for every good work. The liberal position denies this.
I think Christian scholars need to keep up with archeology and historical inquiry to make sure the non-Christian / liberal scholars don't pull wool over people's eyes: wtiness the
Da Vinci code nonsense, and the great work NT scholars (like Darryl Bock and Richard Bauckham) have done on the gnostic gospels.
However, with Matthew I think
some of the inscriptional, archaeological, and historical work currently being done is a long shot; it must be frankly acknowledged how little we know of the ANE as well as the 1st century. Just think how difficult it is in a court trial to establish exactly what happened, when people who are alive are witnesses, let alone go back thousands of years without any witnesses alive whatsoever.
Every blessing.