Most inerrantists are blind to the obvious meaning of 2nd Timothy 3:16

Roger Pearse recently gave some insightful comments about the history of the KJV here.

His last comment made me think of my own basic rebuttal to biblical inerrancy.  He said:

This claim is not what Christians believe about the scripture.  It is merely a strawman, designed to require something that does not exist and never did exist.  Jesus himself talked about the rolls of the law as inspired; but these were written by men.  However divine inspiration works, it can certainly cope with spelling mistakes, human error, and all the business of living in an imperfect world.

This reminded me of my infallible argument refuting the "inerrant only in the originals" belief of modern-day inerrantists, and I posted the following in reply to Pearse.  The comments did not show up after I clicked "reply" to we'll have to wait and see whether this was because he already blocked me, or if he elects to approve of comments before allowing them to post.  Here's what I wrote:

Your last comment implicates a powerful rebuttal to the modern inerrantist movement represented in Geisler/Archer and the Chicago Statement on Bible Inerrancy. 

Most modern inerrantists sidestep the obvious errors in the bible by imposing a standard that is not reasonably checkable:  the bible is inerrant "only in the originals".  This amounts to little more than mooting the significance of the obvious copyist errors by fiat.

But in the bible, whenever the authors speak about the divine inspiration of some writing, they never express or imply that they mean "only in the originals".

Therefore, their unqualified statements about scriptural inspiration are most likely talking about the nature of the thing that their contemporaries can actually read and touch...the copies...even if they are also talking about the "originals".  That is, the most natural reading of passages like 2nd Timothy 3:16 is that the copies are inspired too.  In context Paul is talking about the scriptures Timothy knew in childhood or in the 1st century (v. 15).  Obviously, Timothy did not know "the originals".  No scholar thinks the pieces of parchment and papyrus that Moses and Isaiah actually set their pens to, survived into the 1st century.  The only "scripture" he knew were the copies.  Those copies are what Paul is according "inspiration" to, even if he "also" means the originals. 

The point is that the sense of copy-inspiration (i.e., the sense that would put the final nail in the coffin of modern-day inerrancy theory found in the CSBI statement) cannot be reasonably excluded from Paul's wording.

If then inerrantists continue standing by their other premise that "inspiration = inerrancy", then because the biblical authors taught that the copies were "inspired", the biblical authors thus also necessarily taught that the copies were "inerrant".  The very fact that the inerrantists themselves clearly deny inerrancy to the copies ensures that whatever change they make to avoid the implications of this argument, that change will imply that they have been missing the forest for the trees for decades. 

Since they cannot deny the reasonableness of the interpretation, what are they going to do?

Say Paul got it wrong?
Admit the CSBI was framed more out of a desire to avoid the obvious than by concern to be "biblical"?
Admit that the biblical "truth" they've been dogmatic about for decades, was the "wrong interpretation"?

The issue is not whether modern inerrantists can be reasonable to believe they way they do.  Maybe they can.  The issue is rather whether the bible skeptic's above-cited argument against biblical inerrancy is "reasonable".  If not, why not?  How does the "the-first-century-copies-were-inspired-too" interpretation violate anything in the grammar or context of 2nd Timothy 3:16?

But if the skeptical interpretation of Paul here is reasonable, it would appear today's inerrantists are (in light of their own commitment to "truth") under a moral compulsion to stop characterizing the skeptical affirmation of error in the bible as "absurd" or "false", to stop pretending biblical inerrancy is "obviously true" or stop being so obsessed about defending it...and to allow that the skeptical view, supra, is at least no less reasonable than their own position on the subject.

If skeptics can be reasonable to argue Paul did not mean "only in the originals", then they are reasonable to say he accorded inspiration to the copies too, in this case 1st century copies. And since no scholar thinks the 1st century copies of the scriptures were inerrant, we are reasonable to turn away from modern-day inerrantists until they interpret Paul correctly.

One homosexual inerrantist once trifled that the "only in the originals" caveat need not be "biblical", but he is obviously stupid:  the Christian's view of inerrancy needs to at least correctly reflect what Paul meant in 2nd Timothy 3:16, and they aren't doing this when they exclude copy-inspiration from Paul's comments.

Therefore, the modern-day inerrantist's "only in the originals" caveat is not merely some viewpoint of possibly arguable merit that falls within acceptable hermeneutical practice.  The "only in the originals" caveat is positively contrary to Paul's beliefs because it is neither expressed nor implied in his wording, therefore, to insert the caveat into his wording anyway is nothing less than changing what he really meant to avoid falling into the same pit that Paul himself dug.  Good luck giving an interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16 that seriously insists the specific "only in the originals" nuance is what Paul meant.

Some trifling inerrantist will insist that this present rebuttal doesn't hurt them because they don't adopt the version of inerrancy espoused by Geisler/Archer and CSBI they adopt a more modern form that avoids the pitfalls of the traditionalist notion.

But whether we skeptics are reasonable to view as false the "new inerrancy" , is another subject appropriate to a future blog post.  There certainly are a lot of stupid inerrantists out there who adopt the traditional CSBI form of inerrancy, so the atheist goal of "refuting the Christian view" has obviously been achieved in large part by refuting what millions of Christains and their capable scholars have believed for centuries.

I've made obviously significant headway by bulldozing a major Christian position to the side of the road.  You're next.

Argument # 1 against the apostles being "mightily" transformed by the resurrected Jesus: Their rejection of the Great Commission

Assuming the gospels are historically accurate, the resurrected Jesus specified that the apostles themselves were to preach the gospel to the Gentiles:

 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matt. 28:18-20 NAU)

Jesus reminded them later of this same Commission:

 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." (Acts 1:8 NAU)

But there is evidence in the NT that these original apostles were never told any such thing.

In Acts 10:24 ff, Peter has table fellowship with Gentile believer Cornelius.

In Acts 11, the "apostles and brethren" who were circumcized (i.e., the Jewish ones) are agitated with Peter for having done this:

 1 Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him,
 3 saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them." (Acts 11:1-3 NAU)

After Peter explains his infamously bizarre vision of a sheet let down from heaven by four corners, full of wild beasts (11:4-17), these apostles and brethren then "quiet down" (so their agitation with Peter's Gentile-association was inflamed to a high degree) and they then speak about Gentile salvation as if it was some unexpected shocking theological development that, without special divine revelation, they would never have guessed was part of the gospel:

 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." (Acts 11:18 NAU)

This anti-Gentile sentiment among the apostles was so strong that even after this point, Acts goes on to say that while a few "men of Cyprus and Cyrene" began to preach to Gentiles, most of the apostles and brethren chose to speak the Word to nobody except Jews:

 19 So then those who were scattered because of the persecution that occurred in connection with Stephen made their way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews alone.
 20 But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who came to Antioch and began speaking to the Greeks also, preaching the Lord Jesus.
 (Acts 11:19-20 NAU)

Worse, some years later, Paul specifies that Peter James and John chose to limit their ministry to Jews alone, and allocate the entire Gentile mission-field to Paul alone:

  9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Gal. 2:9 NAU)  

How can you agree with popular apologists like McDowell, Geisler, Habermas, Craig, Licona, etc, that the original apostles were "mightily transformed" by their experience of the resurrected Christ, when the book of Acts makes plain that they carried on as if they never had a clue, before Peter's bizarre vision, that Gentiles could get saved?

As far as I can tell, either Jesus preached an exclusively Jewish gospel and never intended Gentile salvation to be any significant mission-field, and he only looks Gentile-friendly in the gospels because of textual corruptions motivated by those who agreed with Paul...

or, 

Jesus really did intend the original apostles to preach to Gentiles, and therefore, their disobedient attitude in shoving off this personal commission completely onto Paul's shoulders (Galatians 2:9), justifies suspicion toward the apologetics claim that they experienced a resurrected Jesus.

If you think "they just didn't get it" is supposed to resolve all these problems, remember that the slower they were to "get" the things Jesus taught, the less credibility they have as resurrection witnesses.

Matthew as resurrection witness: Can skepticism of canonical Greek Matthew be justified?

The early patristic statements on Matthew’s authorship all claim not just that he authored a gospel, but that he wrote it in Hebrew letters.  At the end of the following list, notice that Jerome said Matthew was translated into Greek in his (Jerome’s) day, but by an unknown hand: 

Papias (120 a.d.)

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”  (Eusebius, Church History, 3:39)

Hippolytus [a.d. 170–236.]

7. And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. (On The Twelve Apostles, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.)

Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202]

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,… (Against Heresies, 3:1:1, Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Origen [a.d. 185–254]

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism.  (Commentary on Matthew, Book 1),

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Eusebius (a.d. 320) quoting Irenaeus

 “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome.  (Church History, Book 5, ch. 8)

Pantaenus.

Pantaenus was one of these, and is said to have gone to India. It is reported that among persons there who knew of Christ, he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them, and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language, which they had preserved till that time. (Church History, Book 5, ch. 10).  Guthrie says “The veracity of this story must be doubted…” New Testament Introduction, Matthew, Authorship, op. cit.).

Epiphanius (a.d. 367):

Matthew himself wrote and issued the Gospel in the Hebrew alphabet, and did not begin at the beginning, but traced Christ’s pedigree from Abraham.  (“Against Quartodecimans.1 Number 30, but 50 of the series “ in  “Panarion, Book 2”, from “The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis

Books II and III. De Fide, Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies”, Vol. 79,  transl. Frank Williams, Brill © 2013.

Epiphanius

3.7 They too accept the Gospel according to Matthew. Like the Cerinthians and Merinthians, they too use it alone. They call it, "According to the Hebrews," and it is true to say that only Matthew expounded and preached the Gospel in the Hebrew language and alphabet 16 in the New

Testament.” (Panarion, Book 1, “Against Ebionites, Number ten, but thirty of the series”, Brill, Id.

Epiphanius

9.4 They have the Gospel according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. " For it is clear that they still preserve this as it was originally written, in the Hebrew alphabet. But I do not know whether they have also excised the genealogies from Abraham till Christ. ((Panarion, Book 1, “Against Nazoraeans.  Number nine, but twenty-nine of the series”, Section II, Brill, Id).

Jerome (a.d. 492):

Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew31 for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain.

------Footnote 31:  Gospel …in Hebrew. Jerome seems to regard the Gospel according to the Hebrews mentioned by him above as the original Hebrew Text of Matthew. cf. Lightfoot, Ignatius v. 2. p. 295.--endfootnote.--------

The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library. at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes32 of Beroea,33 a city of Syria,who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist “Out of Egypt have I called my son,” and “for he shall be called a Nazarene.”

(Lives of Illustrious Men, ch. 3, Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. III. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historial Writings, etc. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

 So the patristic witness of the first 4 centuries is

a)      Matthew authored a gospel in Hebrew letters/language.

b)      The Greek version of Matthew is never mentioned until Jerome asserts in the 4^th century that it is a translation made in his day by an unknown person.

Conservative Christian textual scholar Daniel Wallace makes his own translation of Papias’s words, and inserts therein a positive denial that Matthew had written in Greek:

2. External Evidence

The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”

---Footnote # 3:  “Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).”

Another problem is that Jerome says Hebrew Matthew was “translated” into Greek.  However, most scholars agree that canonical Greek Matthew does not look to them like it translation Greek.   

Says Wallace:

(1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of διαλέκτος

In summary, Matthew's writing a gospel for Jews in Judea would appear to corroborate the other universal testimony that he wrote it in Hebrew.  Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that most of the early fathers are willing to assert the language Matthew wrote his gospel in, while not asserting he ever wrote anything in Greek, rationally supports the notion that there was no Greek gospel authored by Matthew that these fathers ever heard of.  Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that nobody mentions a Greek Matthew gospel until Jerome does in the 4th century, supports the above-cited premise that a Greek version of Matthew did not appear in history until the 4th century, which would thus exclude Matthew, who died in the first century, from having anything to do with it's production or composition. Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

The fact that Jerome says the Greek version of Matthew was "translated" from the Hebrew version requires skeptics to decide whether he is correct, or most modern scholars are correct to say that canonical Greek Matthew doesn't look like translation-Greek. Getting Matthew to author a Greek version doesn't work here.

Apologists will say at least this settles the fact that Matthew did author a gospel, even if other details remain obscure.  But not even this can be granted:  Since the earliest mention is that Matthew wrote the logia in Hebrew (see Papias, supra), it could very well be that all the later fathers who testify similarly, are standing on the authority of Papias, in which case their statements are not independent corroborations, all they are doing is repeating prior tradition (exactly what  in which case Papias in the solitary witness, making it far less certain that Matthew wrote a gospel.  Furthermore, Christian conservative textual scholar Wallace says Papias wasn’t asserting that Matthewwrote a gospel:

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence.

Furthermore, in light of the patristic testimony, establishing the Matthew wrote a gospel, without more, would not suffice for apologetics purposes, because the question is who is the source for the resurrection testimony in Matthew 28?  Are skeptics being a bit too skeptical when they say the source or sources for chapter 28 are too obscure to nail down with any confidence?

Skepticism of the apostolicity of canonical Greek Matthew is therefore rationally warranted.  Therefore, canonical Greek Matthew's resurrection testimony can be dismissed from the list of resurrection eyewitnesses.

Matthew as resurrection witness: Can Irenaeus' general credibility be impeached due to his acceptance of non-canonical stories?

 2nd century church father Irenaeus accepts, unquestioningly, a bizarre non-canonical story, allegedly from Papias, where Jesus is teaching that one day, grapes will talk to human beings:

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say:  The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.”   In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.  4. And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, “Now these things are credible to believers.” And he says that, “when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, ‘How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord?’ the Lord declared, ‘They who shall come to these [times] shall see.’”  

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33  Schaff, P. (2000). 

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

That was book 5, but earlier in book 3, Irenaeus admits accepting the 4 completed canonical gospels:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, ch. 1

 Given that Irenaeus had already admitted acceptance of the 4 completed canonical gospels, and assuming as you do that the text of those gospels told Ireaneus nothing more or less than what the English of those gospels tells you today, to what degree was his general credibility impeached, if at all, by his willingness to accept stories about Jesus that not only are absent from the canonical NT, but stories that no Christian scholars today think Jesus really taught?

Matthew as resurrection witness: did Irenaeus quote, or corroborate, Papias?

Generally, the less independent corroboration, the weaker the case for traditional authorship of Matthew, but the more independent corroboration, the stronger such a case would be (barring discussion of the credibility of the sources for the independent corroboration).

2nd century church Father Irenaeus asserts that Matthew authored a gospel. 
 

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies,Book 3, ch. 1

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

Irenaeus elsewhere admits that he also got things not just from Papias, but specifically from the same Papias-authored 5-volume “Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord” that Eusebius depended on for crediting Papias with the earliest post-apostolic statement of Matthew’s authorship.  See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, ch. 33.

Therefore, it remains a possibility that Irenaeus’ statement about Matthew authoring a gospel constitutes nothing more than him simply repeating what Papias said.   If that is the case, Irenaeus wouldn't qualify as an independent corroboration, for the same reason that witness B is not independently corroborating the testimony of witness A, if all witness B is doing is depending on witness A's statement and giving it her own interpretation.

For obvious reasons, the more conservative or fundamentalist the Christian, the more they will view the evidence in the light most favorable to Matthew's authorship, since they are already low on resurrection eyewitness testimony, they cannot afford for any of their alleged witnesses to call in sick the day of trial.

Scholar Donald Guthrie, whose "NT Introduction" is "widely acclaimed" and "a benchmark evangelical work", says Irenaeus here was depending on Papias to assert Matthew authored a gospel:

This testimony is clearly identical with Papias’ statement only if λογία is interpreted as the gospel. Since Irenaeus was acquainted with Papias’ work it may reasonably be assumed that he is here giving his own interpretation of Papias’ statement…

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). “Matthew, Authorship”, New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.).

[The master reference collection]. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

The question to be answered in this blog is;  Is Irenaeus corroborating, or merely repeating, what Papias said?

If he was merely repeating, then he does not qualify as independent corroboration of Papias' statement, and as such, the case for Matthew's authorship is a bit weaker than it might have been.

Luke 2:52, either Jesus isn't God, or God can increase in wisdom

Luke 2:52 makes a controversial statement about Jesus, which I say logically forbids the possibility that he could have been both human and God at the same time.

46 Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

 47 And all who heard Him were amazed at His understanding and His answers.

 48 When they saw Him, they were astonished; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have been anxiously looking for You."

 49 And He said to them, "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in My Father's house?"

 50 But they did not understand the statement which He had made to them.

 51 And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and He continued in subjection to them; and His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

 52 And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (Lk. 2:46-52 NAU)

How could Jesus, who IS God (supposedly), "increase" in wisdom?


Apologists will say v. 52 is only referring to Jesus' human nature, not his divine nature.

But "nature" is what a thing really is, it's essential properties, as opposed to what it merely appears to be.  From the Oxford dictionary:

The basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something.

So if Jesus had two natures, BOTH of them would have to be implicated in anything the bible asserts him to have been, said or done.  There is no logical possibility for a person to act in a way that doesn't implicate their nature.

So the only way to rescue Luke from denying Jesus' divinity here is to insist, contrary to all reason, that Luke ascribed to the erroneous belief that Jesus could do things contrary to one of his natures (like acting in his earlier years in a way that involved less wisdom than he'd have acted with in his later years, when his nature as God during his early years would require that he always spoke/acted during said early years with the fullest amount of wisdom logically possible for God.)

Yes, the bible elsewhere teaches that Jesus is God, but using a teaching in one part of the bible to dictate what interpretative options are and aren't available for some other bible verse, presupposes the truth of the doctrine of full biblical inerrancy.  But since bible inerrancy has nowhere near the universal acclaim that other interpretation-tools such as "grammar" and "context" have (inerrancy is denied by most Christian scholars too, not just skeptics), I have reasonable justification to refuse to exalt inerrancy in my mind to the status of "interpretation-tool".

Since I have reasonable justification to reject inerrancy as a governing heremeneutic, I have reasonable justification to not be worried about my interpretation of Luke 2:52 causing it to contradict something else in the bible.  Something more than this must be shown before I will be morally or intellectually obligated to renounce my interpretation.  If such is not shown, then the fact that my interpretation contradicts something else in the bible, will only be interesting to inerrantist-Christians, thus showing the subjective nature of such a rebuttal.

For all these reasons, Luke's statement that Jesus increased in wisdom can only mean either a) Jesus wasn't God since God cannot increase in wisdom, or b) the divine nature of Jesus increased in wisdom. 

However, Christians who interpret Genesis 6:6-7 literally (i.e, God really does sometimes regret one of his own decisions), can safely assert that Jesus, as God, can increase in wisdom.  Their interpretation of Genesis 6 is probably correct, there is no grammatical or contextual justification for the "anthropomorphic" interpretation, only a worry that it needs to be rendered non-literal so it won't contradict other bible verses asserting God being all-knowing.  Take a look at Exodus 32:9-14  for another example of God being imperfect and needing the wisdom of humans.

Matthew as Resurrection Witness: Can skepticism of Papias' testimony be justified?

The question for you is at the end of this post :)

Among the bits of external evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel now attributed to him, are the comment of 2nd century Bishop Papias, that Matthew authored a gospel.  Papias made that comment in a work entitled "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord", now lost to us except as bits of it are quoted in surviving works by later church fathers.  One father who quoted Papias was Eusebius of Caesarea, 4th century author of the monumental "Church History", that is required reading in all seminaries and bible colleges.


The following quote from Papias draws from "Church History" and the immediate context is included:

15 “This also the presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.

16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.  

Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, chapter 39

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series

Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

Inerrantist Christian scholar Craig Blomberg admits in the inerrantist-driven "New American Commentary" that most scholars dismiss Papias' remarks:

Largely because canonical Matthew does not betray very much evidence of having been translated literally from a Semitic tongue, most modern scholarship is inclined to discount the value of Papias’s testimony however it is interpreted.

“Matthew, Sources”, Blomberg, C. (2001, c1992). Vol. 22: Matthew (electronic ed.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 40).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

So while the majority opinion of scholars doesn't automatically make said opinion true, the fact that a majority of scholars hold the opinion makes it very difficult to accuse those who hold said opinion of being irrational or unreasonable.

The "Word Biblical Commentary" admits the tantalizingly brief nature of the Papias-quotation has caused scholars no end of disagreement about what exactly Papias meant:

The tantalizing statement of Papias from the first quarter of the second century (Körtner and Schoedel accept a date of 110; Yarbrough even earlier) is at once the earliest, most important, and most bewildering piece of early information we have concerning the origin of material associated with the name of the Apostle Matthew.

Hagner, D. A. (2002). “The Papias Tradition concerning Matthew”,

Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page xliii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated

"The text of Papias is open to many questions."

"Matthew", Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1968];

Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). 

The Jerome Biblical commentary (electronic ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Finally, Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton, says

...Papias's testimony is undeniably one of the most important.  It is also one of the most problematic and tantalizing.  if not exasperating.  As we shall see. Eusebius' quotations from Papias are obscure extracts, almost every aspect of which is enveloped in an interpretive controversy that may ultimately prove beyond the capacity of scholars to resolve.  In the period from 1960 to 1981 alone, some three thousand five hundred monographs and two hundred scholarly articles were devoted, partially and sometimes wholly, to Papias, and the torrent of research shows no signs of abating.  For all of that, as noted by a respected patristic scholar who has contributed to this research, "the fragments of Papias still continue to be looked at for more than they can possibly give."

C.C Black,  “Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter”, page 82

Although scholars debate everything about this Papias-quote, the purpose of this blog post is limited to getting your reply to the simple question:  Do you believe Eusebius' quotation of Papias on Matthew's authorship, combined with the immediate context Eusebius surrounds the quote with, provide enough information there to enable us to determine, to any degree of reasonable certainty, what exactly Papias meant with his comments about Matthew?

I say no, and therefore, the theory that the author of Matthew was an eyewitness of Jesus' resurrection, takes a direct hit.

 Conservative Christian textual scholar Daniel Wallace agrees that gaining conclusive certainty on what Papias meant is impossible, and further holds that, regardless, Papias likely wasn't referring to a gospel:

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence.

If you conservative Christians who are spiritually alive cannot even agree on what Papias meant, nor even whether it is possible to confidently determine what he meant, aren't you being a just a bit unreasonable in expecting spiritually dead people (who have even less ability to discern truth) to figure out which Christian view on Papias is correct?

I therefore conclude that atheists have plenty of rational warrant to dismiss Papias' comments about Matthew as creating more questions than answers.  Nothing about Papias' input can be pushed so far as to morally or intellectually obligate the non-Christian to think Papias constitutes reliable evidence.

Under what circumstances did you first conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?

There are two basic types of Christians in the world today:

a) the former atheist who didn't stop mocking Christians with intellectual arguments until they reluctantly had to admit the resurrection hypothesis better explained the data than any skeptical theory, and so by this were finally brought kicking and screaming over the line into faith, or

b) they went to church, heard the pastor rail against sin and how they were in serious trouble with god, accepted Jesus as their savior during an "altar call" sometime thereafter, and have been reading apologetics books on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection through those rose-colored glasses ever since.

Which one are you?

If you try to sound like "a", you sound reasonable and rational to modern audiences who prioritize evidence above all else, but you open yourself up to the possible attack that the basis for your faith was more secular than biblical.

If you try to sound like "b", then the way you came into faith certainly sounds "biblical", but then you open yourself up to the possible attack that says it was something other than evidence upon which you decided to believe the gospel, and therefore, your promotion of historical arguments for Jesus' resurrection is hiding the actual subjective basis that is the real reason you ever came to faith.