_awakening

A Priori.

Scott Bailey over at Scotteriology had this to add to the "inerrancy discussion" as of late:

There is one giant problem I see with many discussions on inerrancy. On one level this problem is so insurmountable it is a discussion I don’t even bother having anymore with those of differing views because at the end of the conversation the beginning assumptions are so different that any “common ground” is almost impossible.

In a nutshell, one side of the discussion, conservative inerrantists, prefers a deductive synchronic approach to the text and the other, biblical scholarship, prefers an inductive diachronic approach to the text. These interpretive assumptions and methods are so different as to leave the opposing camps with essentially different Bibles, hence, the arguments.

I think he has hit upon something. When we enter a discussion with an a priori assumption, or pre-arrived understanding, we hinder ourselves from having our assumptions and understandings refined. In the case of the scriptures, it is all too easy to come at the text with a preconceived understanding of the nature of the text based upon a theological position, rather than one derived form the text itself.

Inerrancy is an implicit theological position in regards to the text, but is it explicitly demonstrated in the text?

A Name to Remember.

For those of you into baseball, Tyler Matzek is a name you might want to remember. Tyler has been considered by many to the #1 high school prospect in the country, as well as projected to be in the top 10 selected in the upcoming amateur draft. Josh and I have seen Tyler throw a few times this season and his stuff is indeed pretty amazing. With a fastball that ranges between 91-94 mph and an excellent slider and curveball, he is someone you'll want to remember.

OC Varsity did the following piece on Matzek:

Inherently Inerrant?

In light of some recent conversations [here, here, and here], I've been doing some extra thinking about the issue of inerrancy. [And yes, this might be a controversial post for some...]

I grew up in a tradition that highly valued the scriptures and highly valued inerrancy. The reasoning went something like this: If the Bible contains errors and contradictions, then how can we trust God? In other words, if the Bible was not "truthful" in everything, then God, as author, could not be trusted as "truthful." Closely behind was the following: If the Bible does indeed contain errors, then God is either not all-powerful [as he cannot somehow keep these errors from occurring], or he is not all-good [as he does not care enough about the witness of the text].

Both of these arguments are admittedly tenuous at best, but that is not the issue here. What I have been pondering lately is the doctrine itself, especially in what the term "inerrant" is meant to convey about the text.

When we speak about the idea of inerrancy, what quality are we trying to bring to the text? Are we saying that the text is "perfect" and without "error"? If this is the case, what are we to do with apparent discrepancies in the text? Do we attempt elaborate harmonizations in order to rectify seemingly contradictory accounts or data?

For some, discrepancies concerning geneologies, names, numbers, and locations are to be accepted, but not when it comes to matters of theology and ideology, which raises the question of whether such separations can even be so cleanly divided in the text. How can we accept some discrepancies one place, but not another? By definition, it seems that the text needs to be either completely inerrant or not.

I think this leads us back to the larger question - What do we mean by characterizing the text as "inerrant"? What are we trying to communicate concerning the nature of the text? Should the discussion and nomenclature we use be nuanced better than it is currently? [Is it anachronistic to use a modern ideological category upon a text and a people who do not carry the same concern with "historicity"?]

It seems to me that this issue has some very profound ramifications attached to it.

I have my own suspicions, but would love to hear other's journey with this. Feel free to jump in, just be civil and play nice...

Dangerous.

Apparently James McGrath has caused an issue with one of his more conservative commenters on his blog. This person has taken issue with some of the things McGrath has blogged about and taken it upon themselves to contact his pastor to let him know of McGrath's thoughts...

For those of you who have followed our journey, you will undoubtedly see a eerily common thread here, as it was my blog which caused a firestorm at a church I was on staff at. I saw and experienced some of the most vicious and hateful things said to me and about me in public during that time - things I would not wish on anybody. It was truly unbelievable, and truly heart-rending. [Obviously, I resigned].

In any event, I think McGrath hits the nail on the head when he finishes his post with this:

A conservative blog recently described me as "dangerous", and I realized that I should take that as a compliment. Acknowledging the possibility of being a Christian while at the same time engaging in open discussion of ideas, tolerating uncertainty, and anticipating that you might have something to learn from those with whom you disagree, is dangerous to fundamentalism - but not to Christian faith per se. What is dangerous to Christian faith is viewing it as though it were something static, as though the understanding of it one has as a child should remain static throughout life, or that Christianity itself could or should remain static throughout history. But perhaps more dangerous still is the conviction that our own understanding is God's very truth - that cannot but lead to a spiritual pride and arrogance that is incompatible with the Christian faith in general, and with the fallibility of the greatest heroes of the faith as depicted in the Bible in particular.

Amen.

Reviews and More Reviews.

A sampling of the latest from Review of Biblical Literature. Enjoy.

H. Ausloos, F. García Martínez, M. Vervenne, J. Cook, and B. Lemmelijn, eds.
Translating a Translation: The LXX and Its Modern Translations in the Context of Early Judaism
Reviewed by Tuukka Kauhanen

Craig A. Evans and Emanuel Tov, eds.
Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective
Reviewed by Everett Ferguson

Weston W. Fields
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Short History
Reviewed by Eric F. Mason

Harry Alan Hahne
The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8.19-22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature
Reviewed by Ron Fay

Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck, eds.
Encyclopedia of Religious and Philosophical Writings in Late Antiquity: Pagan, Judaic, Christian
Reviewed by Mark D. Nanos

Karel van der Toorn
Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
Reviewed by Frank Polak

Cats vs. Mustangs.

Today the Cats are playing a double header against the Placentia Mustangs. It should be a great set of games. The Mustangs are 10-0 in CCYB play. We are 9-0-2. It should be a show down. It will be good challenge to see where we stand as a team. We will need to have mental focus and execute in order to win. Should be some great baseball today...

Panic Switch.

One of the bands that has fascinated me for awhile has been the Silversun Pickups. I was hooked ever since I heard the Pikul EP. Once their first full length disc, Carnavas, came out, again I was blown away. This week saw the release of their second full length disc, Swoon. It shows a bit more maturity and depth than Carnavas, while still holding to their trademark sound. It's fantastic and well worth picking up...

This video for Panic Switch was directed by James Frost, who was the mind behind Radiohead's video for House of Cards. Enjoy.

A New Beginning.

As we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and its meaning for this world...

For them [first century Jews], the idea of "resurrection" had, up to that point been quite simple. It was, they would have said, what would happen to everyone at the end - when everyone got through the tunnel to the other side, if you like, or when the day finally dawned and the Old Time was abolished for ever. Only gradually, and particularly when they met Jesus, with his body fully alive, indeed, more alive than it had ever been, because it had been through death and out the other side - only gradually did the realize what had happened. In his death, Jesus had taken all the sin and death and shame and sorrow of the world upon himself, so that by letting it do its worst to him he had destroyed its power, which means that now there is nothing to stop the new creation coming into being. Jesus' resurrection body is the first bit of the new creation, the sign of the new world that is to come. In terms of Good Friday as the sixth day, and Holy Saturday as the seventh day, the day when God rested after creation, the day when Jesus rested after redemption, Easter Day is the eighth day, the first day of the new week. This isn't the end; it's the beginning.

[Tom Wright, Christians at the Cross: Finding Hope in the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 76-77]