Re: Inerrancy and writing style
Bill and Ginger Dickson (caregrp@ballistic.com)
Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:26:04 +0400
>At 1:01 PM -0600 2/18/97, Randy Leedy wrote:
>>Carl Conrad wrote [you knew I'd respond, didn't you, Carl?]:
>>
>>>>>Let me confess that one reason I am not an inerrantist is that I
>>believe that God speaks to us THROUGH these imperfect writings of
>>imperfect human beings, WITHOUT annulling or overriding the humanity
>>of the composers. >
>>
>>Of course I don't expect everyone to agree, as much as I wish
>>otherwise. And I trust that those who will allow Carl the liberty to
>>disparage the Scripture (by contradicting its claims) while
>>unnecessarily dragging the issue of inerrancy into a discussion of
>>writing style will also allow me the liberty to defend the Scripture
>>in the process of trying to pull the two issues apart again.
>
>No, honestly I was stupid enough not to imagine that my expression of an
>opinion on the stylistic levels of different NT texts from the perspective
>of my own faith-stance--an opinion that I certainly knew was at odds with
>that of many another--would evoke anything like an accusation of
>"disparaging Scripture (by contradicting its claims)." I deeply regret my
>reckless and intemperate reference to the doctrine of inerrancy; I
>certainly ought not to be referring to a notion which I obviously do not
>understand, despite an endeavor to do so. The last thing I ever had in mind
>was "disparaging Scripture by disputing its claims," and that is not what I
>understood myself to be doing. My sincerest apologies to all whom I have
>offended insofar as it must seem to them that I was attacking their
>faith-stance.
>
>Finally, as Randy says, the style of writing is the real issue. I've said
>that I think the clear narrative of the gospels of Matthew and Luke -- not
>so much their writing styles as their lucidity of communication ranks above
>that of Ephesians. I have no quarrel with those who feel that the style of
>Ephesians 1 is sublime, but my personal preference is for clean syntactic
>structures and relative pronouns with ready antecedents. Quite frankly, I
>DO think there are sublime passages in Ephesians, but I personally don't
>feel that chapter 1 is one of them. That's no more than a personal opinion,
>which it might be wise for me not to keep stating over and over. I'm
>sincerely sorry for any offense I've given anyone.
>
>
>
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University
>One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
>(314) 935-4018
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Carl,
Concerning the style question, I am certainly not offended in the least by
your opinion, I simply disagree with it. A friendly disagreement over the
merits of the style of Ephesians I, that's all. :)
Bill+