Subject: Christians before Jesus came |
Bible Note: I think the problem is here: "It is the claim that Matthew is using pesher contemporization of the OT, particularly in ‘fulfillment’ citations, that provides the most serious challenge to those holding to verbal, plenary inspiration." You don't like it because it goes against your a priori approach of Verbal, plenary inspiration. Therfore, you must explain this away so that your view of inspiration does not get damaged. The fact remains that Mathew was relying on the LXX for his prophesy, and recorded the event accordingly, which is contradictory to Mark's record. I realize this falls in the realm of acceptable Jewish literature, and I believe that Matthew was inspired of God to write his gospel. It is just different, that's all. If it sounds better, I will say midrashic. Whatever it is that Matthew does, it is a 1st century Jewish method which lifts an OT passage out of context and applies it to a contemprary situation. chesed |