A brief comment about the Old Testament predicting the virgin birth. The Hebrew word ('almah) clearly referred to a virgin in Genesis 24:43. This is the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, which Matthew 1:23 cites. The Greek word (meaning virgin) that Matthew used was parthenos (which Luke also used to describe Mary). The Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament, which was apparently more than 200 years old in Matthew?s day, used the same word in the translation of Isaiah 7:14. It is clear that there was a long standing Jewish understanding of Isaiah 7:14 supporting the sign of a virgin conceiving and bearing a child, as Matthew and Luke described. It is not true to say that the verse Matthew cites says nothing about a virgin birth. The Septuagint used the same word. Rejection of that interpretation came after the claim of fulfillment, not before.

essay wrote: I accept both Testaments as 'inerrant' in the sense that their study will always lead us to God rather than away from him. I have never heard anyone say that s/he became an atheist by studying the Bible. I began reading the Bible about as soon as I was able to read at that level, more than a half century ago. I began noticing the many factual errors, contradictions and inconsistancies almost from the start. That did not hinder my appreciation of the Bible at all. Of course I do not consider it literally true in matters of science, and as history its accuracy varies. The Jews, of course, realized this by separating out 'the Writings' from the Law and the Prophets.

I'm sorry, essay, but words have meaning, and the word "inerrant" means. 1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors. (The American Heritage Dictionary) It is not helpful to effective communication to make up our own meanings for words. What you accept, as described, is not inerrancy ("Freedom from error or untruths; infallibility") at all. It is your privilege to view the Bible however you choose to, but what you say you believe is not in any sense what is normally meant by an "inerrant" view of scripture. Nor do the categories of Law, Writings, and Prophets have anything to do with recognizing degrees of accuracy, as you imply, or levels of authority. We recognize a distinction in the New Testament between the writings called gospels and those called letters (or epistles). That distinction has nothing to do with accuracy or reliability, and neither do the three categories of Old Testament writings recognized by the Hebrews. Jesus certainly recognized no such distinction when he spoke of the whole of the Hebrew Bible (as in Luke 24:44). What was written in the Psalms (Writings) had to be fulfilled just as surely as what was written in the Law and the Prophets.

essay wrote: 2. I don't accept your premise that for thousands of years both Jewish and Christian readers accepted both creation accounts as fact, and complimentary. The editors obviously considered them irreconcilable, or they would have combined them into a single narrative. The fact that they did not speaks for itself. I've never read an attempt to reconcile them that was not so ridiculous as to be almost laughable, and quite unnecessary.

That's quite an assumption, that "the editors... would have combined them into a single narrative." Why on earth would anyone make such an assumption? Why assume that "editors" were in the habit of rewriting the text to suit themselves? There is no evidence for such a process, but there is good evidence to the contrary in the preservation and transmission of an accurate text. Why assume that having two perspectives preserved means there were irreconcilable differences, rather than two perspectives, both true and harmonious? The accounts may be different without being incompatible or in conflict, and you assume far too much about the handling of truth and history by the ancient Hebrews. There are bountiful examples of the Bible having the same story or lesson from different perspectives. We have parallel stories in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, but different in emphasis. Parallel stories with different emphasis in the gospels. Historical references in Paul's letters that complement and round out, and do not merely repeat (or contradict) the stories of his travels in Acts. Someone has said "God repeats for emphasis" and I think that is true. The Bible affirms a principle repeatedly, "by the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established." A dual creation account, from two different and complementary (not contradictory) perspectives is quite consistent with the structure of the Bible as a whole.

Furthermore, Jesus clearly considered the Genesis 1-2 account as a single story, compatible and true, as was noted in previous comments regarding the creation on this board. Jesus quotes from both chapters in his reply about marriage in Matthew 19:4-5, flowing seamlessly from one to the other. It is plain in those verses that Jesus understood the passages to be harmonious and consistent, he used them as such, and that such usage was not a matter of dispute. An earlier testimony to the fact that the two chapters were understood to be complimentary is found way back in Genesis 5. We start a new section in 5:1b, where we have a close paraphrase of Genesis 1:27 which flows right into a reference to Adam fathering Seth, which concluded the Genesis 2-4 section.

It is evident that other ancient writers considered the accounts harmonious, and not in conflict. I will offer a bit of Justin Martyr, from the second century as an example:
But these persons seem to be ignorant of the whole work of God, both of the genesis and formation of man at the first, and why the things in the world were made. For does not the word say, "Let Us make man in our image, and after our likeness?" What kind of man? Manifestly He means fleshly man, For the word says, "And God took dust of the earth, and made man." (Justin Martyr, "On The Resurrection," chapter 8). His quotations (and this one is not unique) demonstrate that Justin considered the first two chapters of Genesis to be a consistent and harmonious account of the creation. I?m not aware of significant interpreters, Christian or Jewish, prior to the 19th century who had problems with the harmony of the text of Genesis 1-2. It is also evident that Josephus, the first century Jewish historian considered the two chapters harmonious, but having different emphasis (see Antiquities of The Jews, 1:1:32-35). Tell me, what is the source material that takes issue with the premise that for thousands of years Jews and Christians understood these chapters to be in harmony, so that I can consider the ancient sources?

essay wrote: 4. The Anchor Bible was certainly 'good enough for the scholars involved' at the time it was published. I am delighted to hear that some updates are planned, and I don't think, in a project of this magnitude, that 20 years is an unreasonable interval; I would even be comfortable with 25 or 30. In any case, I shall look forward to reading the revisions, and I would guess that, in the case of Genesis, they will be rather minor (but interesting all the same), and will by no means reject the so-called documentary hypothesis. No one is claiming, of course, that the AB commentary is the work of God rather than of man.

You previously indicated that the Anchor Bible was a scholarly standard sufficient for you, and that you would settle for its interpretation of scripture. It is not any such authority as that, and each volume when all is said and done represents the interpretation of one or two men, and nearly all of the interpreters from essentially one school of thought, and a school of thought based on speculative imaginings about the text, moreso than evidence. Not nearly a high enough standard to suit me, sorry. But meanwhile, a little detail, I thought the Anchor Bible Genesis was published in 1964, and that the author died in 1965 (unless I got the date wrong on that)? Somewhat more than twenty years ago, or even thirty, and things have certainly moved along in that school of interpretation, as well as in available evidence. Many of that particular scholarly community grow ever more skeptical even while new evidence continues to support the historicity of the Bible. Oh, well. The Anchor Bible is not, after all, "the work of God."

essay wrote: 5. By referring in passing to 'the Hebrew Canon' you skirt the issue of the changes in the canon over the centuries. The Hebrew canon was not determined until long after Christ's time on earth. During His lifetime, the LXX was the state-of-the-art, and as you know, nearly all NT allusions to the OT refer to the LXX. This includes dozens, or is it scores - I haven't actually counted - of references to the books that were later dropped. These were certainly counted as canonical by the NT writers, and while these books were ultimately determined to be too recent to be included in the Hebrew canon, they remained in the Christian OT until separated out by Jerome in the 4th cent. AD - but then you knew that. So my unanswered question remains: Were these books originally the Word of God and then later merely the word of man? Not very logical.

Many of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament do follow the Septuagint version. However, I don't know what you mean regarding "references to the books that were later dropped." Do you mean that the New Testament quotes the apocryphal books, the non-Biblical books that were canonized by the Catholic church in the 16th century in reaction against protestantism? The New Testament quotes many Old Testament verses, but I don't know of any clear examples of New Testament quotations of apocryphal books. It is generally affirmed that there are none. There is no suggestion in the New Testament that the Old Testament canon was any different than we have now. Furthermore, the Dead Sea scrolls bear witness to the Old Testament canon, both in terms of representing all of the books except Esther in whole or in part, and in terms of statistical frequency of those books that were clearly deemed important among Jews of the second and first centuries B.C. and the first century A.D. By the count of Josephus at the end of the first century, there were 22 books in the Hebrew canon, which he said had been closed since the days of Artaxerxes (Ezra-Nehemiah/Malachi), though other non-authoritative works had been written. He mentions the five books of the law, 13 books of the prophets, and four of hymns to God (Against Apion, 1:38). He thought the canon was long since established, and while his 22 might be an exact match, or not quite exact with the 24 in the Hebrew canon (it is probably the same, but somewhat different groupings of the small books in the writings) there certainly is no room for the various Greek apocryphal works. None of the Greek apocryphal works were ever part of the Hebrew canon, and they were not recognized as scripture in any of the ancient lists, nor cited as scripture in the New Testament. In the early centuries of the Christian era a clear and definite distinction is made by most writers between the Old Testament and "the other books" which they appended to their Greek versions, and they were generally an appendix, not mixed into the Old Testament order. There is no doubt many people liked the apocruphal books over the centuries, and some people taught from them and quoted them, but there is no testimony at all for them ever being included in the Hebrew canon.

essay wrote: 6. Regarding the Pauline letters, you are certainly correct that all are Pauline in their outlook. When you say that their authorship is not in dispute - according to whom? Here is my best concensus of contemporary NT scholarship, Protestant and Catholic (once again, caf, this is not my opinion, but that of dedicated scholars whom I respect):

Paul almost certainly wrote Romans, I & II Corinthians, and Galatians.

He probalby wrote I Thessalonians and Philemon.

He may have written fragments of Philippians.

He probably did not write Colossians.

He almost certainly did not write Ephesians.

He could not possibly have written 2 Thess, I & II Timothy, or Titus, unless he wrote them from the grave, because these can all be reliably dated to the last half of the 2nd century AD, and in fact, 2 Thess is a forgery, written in conscious (but unconvincing) imitation of I Thess, and probably should not even be in the canon.

On what are the opinions of the "scholars" based? And a very limited group of "scholars" at that. They are opinions, and I prefer evidence. The opinions against Pauline authorship on the examples mentioned are not based on historical evidence. Not on archaeological evidence. Only on imaginative interpretation, since the mid-nineteenth century. The overwhelming weight of testimony in the first four centuries (and afterward until the 19th century) is that Paul wrote both Thessalonian letters, and both letters to Timothy, and the letter to Titus. I?m always amazed at modern interpreters who with a whim of fanciful linguistic artifice can sweep away hundreds of years of evidence and ignore all evidence that conflicts with their interpretation. I?m even more amazed that people who otherwise demonstrate intelligence will swallow the tale thus produced over the evidence and the ancient testimony. Among the ancient writers we have Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp, all of whom wrote between 95-118 A.D. They testify by quotation and reference to Matthew, Mark, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and 1 John. That doesn't leave any doubt about the rest of the New Testament, these just happen to be the writings referred to by these authors. How is it that 2 Thessalonians and the letters to the evangelists were not written until the last half of the 2nd century (some would say), when they were known to writers of the late first and early second century?

2 Thessalonians is a fine example. The universal testimony of the "apostolic fathers" and "ante-nicene" fathers is that Paul wrote the epistle. It was not questioned as Pauline until those 19th century theologians came along, and the arguments raised have not generally been accepted (and with good reason). The two primary lines of argument (only since the 19th century) have run that 2 Thessalonians was so different, indeed inconsistent with 1 Thessalonians, especially in its eschatology, that they could not possibly both be from Paul; or else that 2 Thessalonians was so similar, so nearly like the first in its language and frame of thought, that it would be impossible for both to have come from the same man, and the second letter must be a forgery. So the scholars who raise the question (completely without historical support, solely from their imaginations) would have it that the two Thessalonian letters cannot both be from Paul, either because they are too different or else because they are too much alike. And the debate continues. But the ancient writers who lived close to the time of the composition are still universal in their attestation (along with all manuscript evidence) to both the scriptural authority and Pauline authorship of both 1 and 2 Thessalonians (and the others mentioned).

essay wrote: There is nothing unusual in anonymous authors writing in the name of the famous writers of the past. It was quite common in Biblical times, OT and NT, thus we have at least 3 authors writing as Isaiah, several more as Ezra/Nehemiah, and even today one can go into any bookstore and buy a Webster's dictionary, Roget's thesaurus, and books on etiquette by Emily Post and on economics by Adam Smith, none of which have any connection whatever with the named but long-dead authors. It's no big mystery or affront to one's faith - certainly not to mine.

You know, I've heard the pseudonym assertion many times, but I've never seen good supporting evidence for it; not that it was common; not that it was acceptable or honorable; and certainly not that it had anything to do with the Bible. Fraud is fraud, and it always has been. Those ancient believers, they knew that Paul was a real guy with real authority from God. They were concerned, very concerned, about counterfeits and misrepresentations, as the Jews before them had been. It was of the utmost importance to them. You mention Isaiah as an example. The basic reason the modern theologians hypothesized (guessed) that there were two or three authors of Isaiah wasn't, again, any historical or documentary evidence, but because they began with the premise that it was impossible for Isaiah to make specific predictions about Babylon and Cyrus 100-170 years before they happened. They began with the premise that the Bible could not be supernatural, that Isaiah in the 8th century couldn't have written accurate prophecies about what would happen in the 7th and 6th centuries, and therefore Isaiah 40-66 especially had to come from a later source, when history was dishonestly recorded as though it had been prophecy. Having begun with the conclusion, the "scholars" then began to work on rationalizing reasons for the foregone conclusions. But the denial of prophetic inspiration was the foundation for the rethinking of Isaiah and the denial of sole authorship that had been accepted for (yes) thousands of years.

essay wrote:Caf, you seem to be saying - and this is my inference, I am not trying to put words in your mouth - 'I believe what I believe is true because I want it to be true', and this is OK as far as it goes; we all have to right to believe what we wish. But you seem to go a step further and say, in effect 'Everyone should, or must, believe that what I believe is true, because I want it to be true'. - and that, in my opinion is a step too far. Faith is fine, faith in that which is factually untrue is faith misplaced.

Considering your own objection to what you perceived as "blaming the messenger" I find the comment a bit strange, kind of sad, but a bit funny I suppose. You're welcome to think of me whatever you will. It doesn?t matter much. On the other hand, sorting out what is really true matters a great deal. You should not think that I have not carefully considered the ideas that you embrace and espouse. I have looked at them, carefully and repeatedly, looking for what is real, and what is not, long before you posted them here. I am persuaded, and it is persuasion, not wishful thinking, that God has spoken to us accurately and factually, in historical propositional truths in the Bible (all of it), and that the only way to know him truly is through that revelational truth, not through word games and mental exercises. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but what's at issue really isn't the state of my mind, rather the question of whether the Bible is true and reliable. Having looked at both, I?ll take the Bible over the Anchor Bible, or the old German theologians, or any of their modern offspring.