The High View of Scripture: Reading the Synoptics and Paul
- Johannesburg, South Africa South African Theological Seminary 2011
- 137p PDF A4 Summary. Table of contents. Works cited.
This research shows that critical studies of the Synoptic Problem and the new perspective on Paul support the reliability of the biblical texts. These studies not only fail to assault the veracity of Scripture, but actually lend support to their authenticity and historicity. It will be demonstrated that these discussions themselves support the trustworthiness of the text as historical accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as well as accurate depictions of theological developments in the first generation church as revealed through the Pauline corpus. How the biblical text is read by critics has evolved rapidly over the last two centuries, leading to a modernist literary structuralism. The danger is that the Reader determines truth and meaning, rather than deriving such from the text. That threatens a high view of Scripture and reasonable exegesis. Such is the motivation for this paper (Chapter 1). Different solutions to the Synoptic Problem each lend support to the extant Synoptics (Chapter 2). No matter which conclusions are reached on the various explanations, the texts themselves as we have them in the canon are substantiated. Hence, corroboration for the Gospels emerges from the critical literature proposing various explanations to the Synoptic Problem (3.1). Anti-miracle bias streams like a screaming silence through most of the critical biblical literature. When literary units are broken down into forms, miracle stories can be easily isolated by naturalistic materialists as redactions with no historical foundation. The assumption is these biblical miracle accounts could not possibly be true. Why? - because they are supernatural miracles which any naturalistic materialist assumes could never happen. This bias is addressed (3.2-3.7) by showing that miracle accounts in the Synoptic Gospels are found in diverse material from varied sources (as deemed by the critical scholars, many who are anti-supernatural materialists). Critical literature is fraught with appeals to the so-called chasm between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John as a challenge to their authenticity. Obviously, the Synoptic Problem has generated excellent material comparing the evangelists’ treatments of specific material / incidents. This contributes an unspoken result rarely celebrated - a tacit appeal to the authority of Scripture. When John and the Synoptics are seen with a fresh view in light of discussions about the Synoptic Problem, the chasm is diminished, thus supporting the reliability of both John and the Synoptic Gospels (Chapter 4). To demonstrate further that a high view of Scripture can be deemed from critical literature, another example is given via the new perspective on Paul, which has generated a great deal of excellent dialogue (Chapter 5). Three observations are seen from these discussions: (1) how they make an assumed appeal to the reliability of the biblical text, thus providing tacit support for them; (2) there is no significant difference on weighty eternal matters regarding the perspective on Paul before and after the new perspective; and (3) there is a demonstrated unity in essentials among those engaged in this conversation. The conclusion of this research is a corroboration that “all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, New International Version (1984) - Unless otherwise noted, the New International Version of the Bible is used for biblical text references).