i believe i can succinctly summarize the different approaches lydia mcgrew and i take to viewing
gospel differences with most new testament scholars i think the gospels are biographies
that employ compositional devices believed by classicists to be practically universal in
ancient historical literature these devices are so simple and common that many of us often use
them even today in our ordinary communications without giving them second thought how many
times have you had a conversation with someone having a different world view then slightly
altered and improved some of the details when relaying your account to a friend one hour later
because conversations can often be messy you alter your description of it to make your recollection
clearer you may improve some of the details in your arguments and those of your interlocutor in
order to make the points clearer stronger and in a manner that's more interesting
yet we don't think of this as falsifying deceiving or fictionalizing given the existence
of a literary relationship between the synoptic gospels whereby matthew and luke supplement their
primary source mark with content they believe to be true a practice they share with other
well-known historical writers of that era it's often fairly easy to observe them editing mark
and to identify the techniques they employ in that process techniques very similar to those
that have been posited by classicists and new testament scholars for a long time mcgrew rejects
the existence of compositional devices contending that the higher standards of reporting held by the
better historians of that era would have issued such devices since they involve changing the facts
for her any solution that harmonizes the differences is to be preferred to the author's use
of a compositional device as long as it does not push the details too far even propaganda and error
whether innocent or deliberate should be preferred to an author's use of a compositional device
and even if a particular author took the liberty to alter a few peripheral details on occasion
that would not mean it was a practice that was approved by that society in short the claim of
classicists and many new testament scholars that ancient authors of historical literature used
compositional devices is very difficult if not impossible to prove therefore according to mcgrew
the claim should be rejected so which approach is correct throughout this series you've seen that
lydia's book the mirror or the mask is riddled with problems it's saturated with loaded terms
and language that's both charged and exaggerated these muddy the waters and often create false
impressions for her readers her arguments are often founded on black and white thinking
which leaves her color blinded to the way in which ancient historical literature in general and the
gospels in particular were written this applies to her concept of what's acceptable in truthful
reporting a concept that's even out of touch with today's ordinary communication practices we also
observed an either or and all or nothing outlook that often lacks literary sensitivity to nuance
mcgrew reads her own views into the words of others often leading her to
misconstrue their intended meaning while insisting on questionable interpretations
her harmonizations are sometimes entirely ad hoc and inconsistent with how she argues elsewhere we
also observe that fallacious reasoning lies at the very core of her approach to gospel differences as
seen in her flow chart these problems lead magrude to adopt and promote a misguided position that's
also contrary to what's held by the majority of classicists and much of new testament scholarship
still some evangelicals have found mcgrew convincing expressing alarm over the proposal
that the evangelist used compositional devices to alter some minor details philosopher j.p morland
says such an approach undermines new testament historicity and is wanting and dangerous while
apologist john mark montgomery calls it an approach that destroys both mind and soul
why are these evangelicals loathed to accept the use of compositional devices
even using such strong terms to denounce them from a group it's her black and white concept of
truthful reporting combined with faulty reasoning however for moreland montgomery and some others
the refusal to acknowledge the existence of compositional devices
often emanates from a view of scripture that's not in harmony with the nature of scripture
those who reject the gospel author's use of compositional devices should consider an even
greater liberty the evangelists take their use of the old testament for example matthew
reports that an angel warned joseph in a dream to take his family and flee to egypt in order to
escape herod's attempt to kill the messiah they would later return to judea after herod's death
matthew reports that this fulfilled the prophecy out of egypt i called my son matthew is citing
hosea 11 1 when israel was a child i loved him and out of egypt i called my son
hosea is unambiguously referring to god's bringing israel out of its bondage in egypt and there
are no jewish uses before or after the first century that link hosea 11 1 with the messiah
now there are numerous ways of understanding what matthew is doing here
craig blomberg and rt france may be correct when suggesting
that the relationship matthew is drawing between jesus and israel and hosea is one of typology
regardless of whether that's correct one thing is clear matthew is engaged in a creative hermeneutic
whereby he takes an old testament text and assigns it a meaning entirely foreign to its original one
let's look at another example after narrating judas throwing the 30 pieces of silver in the
temple sanctuary matthew states then was fulfilled what was spoken by jeremiah the prophet saying
and they took the thirty pieces of silver the price of him on whom my price had been set by the
sons of israel and they gave them for the potter's field just as the lord instructed me the careful
reader will search in vain to find this text in jeremiah that's because it's in zechariah however
matthew borrowed a single word from jeremiah field inserted it in the text from zechariah
loosely paraphrased the text attributed it to jeremiah interpreted it to say something quite
different from the original meaning of either text than claimed scripture had been fulfilled
such free artistic use of texts was not unique to the new testament authors in a recent volume
titled composite citations in antiquity jewish greco-roman and early christian uses edited
by sean adams and seth ehren we learned that composite citation was a common literary practice
and sometimes in the free sense we observed matthew doing here yet we would scold a pastor
for doing something similar in his sermons so why is the evangelist practice acceptable to mcgrew
moreland and montgomery by their standards how is this not the abandonment of truthful reporting
and by their standards was not matthew guilty of falsifying the text and deceiving his readers
by attributing the text to jeremiah assigning a meaning to it that's foreign to what it originally
meant then claiming that scripture was fulfilled by their standards isn't this practiced by matthew
one that undermines new testament historicity is wanting and dangerous and one that destroys both
mind and soul mcgrew moreland and montgomery do not object to this practice because however much
they may not like it they understand that this is what divinely inspired scripture looks like
however this leaves them in a pickle how can they approve of the new testament authors taking such
great liberties with old testament scriptures while forbidding the same new testament authors
from using much milder compositional devices mcgrew moorland and montgomery are inconsistent
they strain at editorial nets while swallowing hermeneutical camels that said no one should
question the love mcgrew morland and montgomery have for the lord and for scripture in fact it's
their reverence for scripture that motivates them to defend it so strongly however their view of
what's allowable in divinely inspired scripture needs refining the way we think about what it
means to say scripture is god breathed should be informed by the claims of scripture about itself
and by the nature of scripture too often the nature of scripture is only partially considered
while scripture's claims about itself are loaded with one's preconceived ideas
of what divinely inspired scripture should look like the resulting view of scripture then fails
to line up with what we observe in scripture notwithstanding that view of scripture ends
up being freeze-dried pre-packaged and sold for consumption consumers are then told this
is what you will eat it's good for you but it's missing important ingredients that were overlooked
we are not obligated to purchase a view of scripture that lacks literary sensitivity
ff bruce was no theological liberal j.i packer worked with norman geisler and r.c sproul to craft
the chicago statement on biblical inerrancy one of the most conservative definitions of the doctrine
packer wrote of bruce no man ever did more to demonstrate how evangelical faith
and total academic integrity may walk hand in hand bruce's comments on divine inspiration are
worth pondering he wrote i should not find the career of a bible teacher so satisfying as i do
if i were not persuaded that the bible was god's word written the fact that i am so persuaded
means that i must not come to the bible with my own preconceptions of what the bible as god's
word written can or cannot say inspiration is not a concept of which i have a clear understanding
before i come to the study of the text so that i know in advance what limits are placed
on the meaning of the text by the requirements of inspiration on the contrary it is by the patient's
study of the text that i come to understand better not only what the text itself means
but also what is involved in biblical inspiration ben witherington similarly writes inspiration
looks like what we have in these documents not what we would like to have we have documents that
conform to ancient standards of truth-telling historical reporting and biographical writing
if the literary conventions of ancient biography permitted biographers to employ compositional
devices that altered some details while preserving an essentially faithful representation of what
occurred and if the gospel authors also used compositional devices to this effect
then this is what truth-telling and divinely inspired scripture looks like
so why is this important well moreland and montgomery assert that the use of compositional
devices is dangerous and destroys both mind and soul i'm finding that precisely the opposite is
occurring ricardo mora is a high school teacher in california last year he sent me an email telling
me he had lost his faith while attending usc but got it back later he then attended talbot school
of theology where he earned a master's degree in order to learn how to answer difficult questions
gospel differences especially troubled him he read books on bible difficulties by gleason archer
norman geisler and thomas howe but he found many of their solutions to be more troubling
than the gospel differences they were attempting to resolve last september mr mora was listening to
william lane craig's podcast and heard him recommend my book on gospel differences he
bought it read it and sent me an email providing the background i just mentioned and saying how
my book had helped him profoundly having his permission i'll share how he ended his email
i am so thankful for what you have done here mr lacona i am crying right now as i write
these words and i'm a guy i don't usually cry it's been 22 years of searching for an answer
praying for some form of insight hoping that my mind would one day be at peace it is finally at
peace now the very differences that caused me so much worry and doubt are turning into markers of
authenticity i can finally trust these accounts again your work is crucial for young adults to
know as they enter college what happened to me can be avoided please don't stop doing what you do
ricardo's email is one of many i've received that communicate a similar message
in contrast the view of some harmonizers pertaining to what constitutes truthful reporting
promotes a rigid concept of reliability that often serves as fertile ground for breeding doubt
now i'm not at all suggesting that harmonization efforts are always mistaken however if the
assessments in my book on gospel differences are correct reading the gospels through a lens
prescribed to recognize the literary conventions of the period in which they were written
will more often than not bring us closer than harmonization efforts to understanding the
gospels as their authors intended this will open the door to a more harmonious union of our view of
scripture and what we observe in scripture i want to conclude with what may be a helpful exercise
not only for the matter at hand but also for some other matters of theological dispute
imagine that jesus has just returned and you're having a conversation with the apostle matthew
at one point you bring up the difference between his account and luke's pertaining to jesus healing
the centurion servant you asked matthew whether the centurion had gone to jesus to make his
request in person as he had reported in his gospel or as luke reported that the centurion had relayed
his request through emissaries and did not see jesus that day matthew looks at you as if somewhat
surprised by your question and says the centurion sent emissaries i just simplified the account
you're surprised by his response because you had previously approached gospel differences
by harmonizing them so you raise another matter that had troubled you brother matthew
mark narrated jesus temple cleansing to have occurred on the day following palm sunday whereas
you seem to place it on palm sunday furthermore mark narrated jesus cursing the fig tree on monday
then has the disciples notice on tuesday that it had withered and died
however you appear to have narrated the event as though jesus cursed the fig tree on monday
and that it withered and died before their very eyes did you mean to do that matthew says my
secretary did he liked to abbreviate on occasion and would alter some minor details as long as his
final version of the story preserved the essential details and i was fine with that what do you think
thoughts race through your mind at this point you're in heaven you've actually just spoken with
matthew and he told you things that are forcing you to rethink some matters now here's something
for you to ponder if matthew were to tell you these things would you be upset with him would you
complain to god that matthew had not been truthful or would you adjust how you think about the matter
and what would your opinion now be of those heated debates on social media in which you had engaged
would you be ashamed of the harsh and divisive comments you had typed then pressed enter comments
that had strained and even destroyed some of your relationships and even worse had caused division
in the body of christ or would you be glad that you had been more reserved while recognizing
that intelligent and sincere people who love god in scripture and who are your brothers
and sisters in christ have arrived at different conclusions pertaining to a non-essential matter
and you were content to disagree while putting a premium on unity in the body of christ
i would rather be wrong on the matter of compositional devices
than to be right while being an agent of division in the body of christ i confess that although i've
been deliberate in not responding to lydia's criticisms for the past few years i'm not
blameless in the way i responded at times and for that i'm truly sorry and apologize to lydia
going forward let's all keep the matter in perspective
and if the lord returns in our lifetime let's approach matthew to gather with our questions
arm and arm as brothers and sisters in christ this concludes my response to lydia mcgrew's book
i've provided this response at your request but as i stated in my first video i do not intend to
participate in further discussions on the matter due to other priorities that require my attention
in the near future i will make available a semi-polished transcript of all eight videos
on my website risenjesus.com thanks so much for joining me
you