Should we read the historical books of the Bible as having a one-to-one corresponance between "event" and "account of event"? To ask this another way, should we read the historical books "literally"?
Peter Enns argues that we should not. Reading the Bible this way places a weight on it that it cannot bear. Do you agree?
Enns uses an example from the OT to demonstrate his point, but how about the NT? Taking the gospels as "historical books" (in some sense of the term), what are we to make of the differences in the accounts? For example, Mark says that Jesus was anointed with oil a few days after riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. John records this incident as happening before Jesus's triumphal entry into the holy city. Of course you could argue that Jesus must have been anointed twice, but that would just be silly.
What, then, are we to make of this? To some, this proves that the Bible is a sham. To others, this is to be ignored so that a "literal" reading can be maintained.
The theological implications are profound: what do these historical discrepancies do to the doctrine of inerrancy? What do they do to our understanding of Scripture in general?
Discuss!
Peter Enns argues that we should not. Reading the Bible this way places a weight on it that it cannot bear. Do you agree?
Enns uses an example from the OT to demonstrate his point, but how about the NT? Taking the gospels as "historical books" (in some sense of the term), what are we to make of the differences in the accounts? For example, Mark says that Jesus was anointed with oil a few days after riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. John records this incident as happening before Jesus's triumphal entry into the holy city. Of course you could argue that Jesus must have been anointed twice, but that would just be silly.
What, then, are we to make of this? To some, this proves that the Bible is a sham. To others, this is to be ignored so that a "literal" reading can be maintained.
The theological implications are profound: what do these historical discrepancies do to the doctrine of inerrancy? What do they do to our understanding of Scripture in general?
Discuss!
No comments:
Post a Comment