"For instance, 2 Tim 3:16-17 describes the Bible has “God-breathed,” and therefore as useful for instruction and rebuke. This would be a key argument for the classical inerrantist’s view of scripture. The problem is, however, that Tim’s author does not provide any indication of what he means by “God-breathed.” For instance, could it be that God breathed out the worlds of scripture? Or is it that God breathes into the text of scripture, in the sense that the Spirit of God brings life into the dead letters. Either is plausible but, as Stark argues, “the latter seems to be much more consistent with the hermeneutics of the period, and with Paul’s use of scripture… On the other hand, even if 2 Tim 3:16 does mean that scripture is breathed out by God, in the sense that it is divinely uttered, that does not necessarily entail that it is without error” (5). To say that scripture is “God-breathed” could very well mean that God breathes new life and new meaning into even obscure texts that are outdated, irrelevant, and perhaps even wrong."James' argument seems to be that the phrase is textually ambiguous, but even that it's more plausible to believe that the author meant that God breathed into Scripture. BB Warfield and Daniel Wallace, however, differ. Wallace did his entire Master's work on a point of Greek grammar that factors into translating this text, and comes away with this translation: As applied to 2 Tim 3:16, this principle indicates that a predicate θεόπνευστος is certainly a valid—and perhaps the only—option. Hence, we translate the passage, “All/every scripture isinspired and profitable. . .”37 In the least, our study suggests that the REB’s rendering “Every inspired scripture has its use” should probably be relegated (in our present state of knowledge) to the margin.
the text says that every scripture is God-breathed. The Greek is as follows: πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν πρὸςἐλεγμόν πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ
The adjectives θεόπνευστος ὠφέλιμος are both modifying "Scripture", as they are both in the nominative case. See Wallace's article for more, which I'll link at the bottom. The text is saying that each Scripture is God-breathed. Bishop's explanation that "even if it means it's breathed out by God" doesn't necessitate non-error doesn't work; he says "it very well could mean that God breathes new life into the text." But note what has just happened. To explain why God breathing out Scripture doesn't necessitate non-error, he has switched out the out with an into. In other words, he's made it look like God breathing out Scripture is the same as God breathing into Scripture. I don't think that's true. The breath of God is that which proceeds from Him, and that which proceeds from Him is truth. This is confirmed, contrary to Stark, by the exegetical context. Paul says that it's profitable for instruction and correction. That couldn't be the case if the Scripture itself needed correcting.
As for the case of Jesus' robe, authors have pointed out that different Greek words could cover an overlapping series of colors. (See: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=300) The words for "scarlet" and "purple" are different, but depending on the community it could cover the same domain of colors. Additionally, perhaps John was emphasizing a theological theme of kingly majesty, and that was his authorial intent. Both seem plausible to me.
His treatment of Matthew 5:17-18 strikes me as wildly implausible. For example, he says that "the inerrantist's reasoning is circular because it assumes the reliability of the text and then uses it". Well, no it doesn't. There are good reasons to think that Matthew's source material derives from Matthew's logia, or an aramiac source Matthew left behind. Namely, Papias' testimony to the authorship of the Gospels leads us there: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews." (Fragments of Papias, ad. 140)
I think Papias was in closer proximity to the events than we are, and would have been in contact with people who had sat under the teaching of the eyewitnesses. Given Richard Bauckham's argument, there's a Petrine inclusio in the text as well. Matthew 5-7 is also written in a style of easy to memorize parables and short, mneumonic phrases. These are key characteristics of rabbinic teaching preserved by disciples of that rabbi--see Kenneth Bailey's work: http://nagasawafamily.org/article-Kenneth-Bailey-Oral-Tradition-&-Synoptic-Gospels.pdf
So contrary to Bishop, the reasoning here isn't circular. There are good reasons to think these teachings are historically preserved snippets from disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. Bishop's other objection is that the theological motivation of Matthew is different than the theological motivation of Luke. Matthew aims to say that the laws of Moses are all valid. This seems to me a confused reading of the text. If Matthew's intent really was to preserve the laws of Moses as valid for all times, why would he say stuff like this:
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32 ESV) "“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."
(Matthew 5:33-37 ESV) "He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:8-9 ESV)
Our Lord is clearly abrogating some of the laws of Moses. Matthew's intent, then, wasn't to say that the Mosiac law was binding for all time everywhere. Rather, it was fulfilled in Jesus. As Doug Moo points out, "fulfillment" language is Matthew is often purpose language. Jesus consummates the purposes for which the law was given. Matthew 5:17 offers a corrective, however. Just because the purpose of the Mosiac law has been fulfilled doesn't mean Jesus as come to abolish it. The Greek verb for abolish expresses opposition. The idea is that Jesus didn't come to oppose its authority. Interestingly, in verse 18, Jesus uses tautos rather than ekeinos; these (near) commandments rather than those. He's making the point that because He didn't oppose God's authority to command our lives then, God still has the authority to command our lives now--now expressed in Jesus. In other words, since Jesus consummates the purpose of the law, it's application changes. The "passing away" essentially means "becomes invalid"--it's another way of saying what Jesus just said about "abolishing" it. He hasn't come to oppose it. Yet since He fulfills it rather than opposing it, He's not opposing God's authority to command our lives (as that was what the Jews believed the Torah expressed). Therefore, we must obey this same authority as it's expressed in Jesus.
Thomas Schriener and Douglas Moo argue similarly in these articles:
http://www.balboa-software.com/nt2/Moo_Law%26Gospel_319-376.pdf
http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/ETS-Law.pdf
Essentially, they argue that since the law is fulfilled in Christ, Jesus is teaching that it ought to be obeyed as expressed in His Person. The law has been fulfilled, and still must be obeyed in the least of its commands in light of its fulfillment by Christ. I personally think it's more plausible to say that the passage is about opposing the authority of God; namely, since Jesus has fulfilled the law, don't anyone think this makes the law invalid or God's authority expressed as the Torah invalid. In any case, it amounts to roughly the same thing: we are to obey God's authority as given to us in Jesus.
Now briefly, I will respond to Bishop's comments about Nineveh. When Jesus says "the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah and will rise up to condemn this generation", do we really think that Jesus meant "an imaginary people repented at the preaching of an imaginary preacher and this imaginary people will rise up to condemn this historical generation?" It'd be like saying "hey America! The men of Gondor will rise up to condemn this generation." And if we say "Jesus was just accommodating", I have several issues. For one, Jesus was never hesitant to call out false cultural views (Pharisees anyone?). Two, why even use the example and claim that a generation who repented at Jonah's preaching will rise on the final day to condemn the Pharisees...when that would be literally impossible? That seems fantastically improbable.
I will lay out the historical evidence for Jesus' view on the Scriptures in the next couple of days. This is just preliminary stuff.
