Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I've done a composite rendering of the resurrection narrative myself, pulling all of the elements together into a reasonable flow of events. Mine is different from yours, but the point is that each Gospel writer has told the elements of the story pertinent to his particular thesis.

There are several cultural pieces to the Gospel pie that help us understand the variations.

The ancients didn't regard historiography the way we do. For example, we often attach the label "historiography: to literature that we expect will help us determine what "really happened." As 21st century scholars, we are interested in historical reconstruction. It would be an anachronistic mistake, however, to presume that ancient narrators automatically have that same goal. T. M. Bolin says, "Much of the present confusion about [ancient] historiography is due to the fact that the term 'historiography' is understood not as a genre classification, but rather as a sort of truth claim founded upon the assumption of equivocation between historical fact and truth." In other words, when we define historiography in modern terms, we have already distorted the ancient literature. We write history in such a way as to present a particular reality associated with an event, to present a true picture of what really happened from a certain perspective, since no one can tell all of what happened, and since there is always a perspective to an event. Different authors have different perceptions of an event. Nowadays we just have to read the news to read a wide-ranging difference of perspective on the exact same event by our President, or by a shooter in Las Vegas (should we interpret this event politically? religiously? racially? supremacist-ly?). So it's not enough to say historiography is a written representation of an event, because that doesn't say much. The concern of the Gospel writers was not journalistic (reveal your sources), historiographical ("Just the facts, Ma'am"), or biographical (recording every event and word). Their interest was to tell the story of Jesus from a collection of facts portraying Jesus in a particular light. Of course they intend to tell the truth, but not in the same way we think of historiography.

Suppose you took a picture of a person, and then Van Gogh painted a portrait of that person. Which one is more realistic? It depends what you mean by realistic, I guess.

Harmonizing the texts is a drive of ours, but probably a detrimental one (though I have done it many times myself). The Diatessaron (around AD 160) was an attempt on Tatian's part to coalesce the Gospel accounts. The problem with doing that is that in our quest for harmony we lose all the flavor of the separate accounts, and therefore we ruin them. It's as misguided as the "Reader's Digest Condensed Bible." The points of the authors are theological, not chronological.

The Gospel writers would have approached historiography not just as an assemblage and presentation of the facts, but as an avenue to express their beliefs about the person of Jesus. As such, some of their "history" is more like a Van Gogh painting than a photograph, more like a theography than a "Just the facts. Ma'am." Even in the book of Acts when Luke tells the story of Paul's conversion three times (acts 9, 22,26), all three are different from each other. Now, either the guy was a pure idiot or the "what actually happened" was not their view of historiography. And yet that's the kind of mold in which we try to force their writings.

Good! We seem to have found purchase. The Gospels cannot conflict because they are all making historical claims, and God does not accommodate erroneous illucutions or meanings. I'm familiar with your solution: the Composite Gospel. None of the Gospels contain any error, now narrowly defined as incorrect fact (the sin of omission doesn't matter!), but it is their composite testimonies that make up the complete picture. So we can mash them all together and get the Composite Gospel - the complete and total picture. This summarized the bulk of your remedies for the seemingly obvious contradictions.

I'll get back to them specifically as the conversation progresses. But first, I tried it. Here is my best attempt at a composite rendering of Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12 and John 20:1-9. Please read it carefully and reference your own Bible to make sure I have rendered this properly (I was working from the NIV). It was very challenging in some parts, but I tried really hard to make them all flow together:

After the Sabbath on the first day of the week, at dawn, just at sunrise in the very early morning while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, the other Mary, Joanna, Salome, and the others took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body. As they were walking, they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” Meanwhile, there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightening, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. When the women arrived and looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away and removed from the entrance.

The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Then they entered the tomb and saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side of the entrance, and they were alarmed. Looking further back into the tomb, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside then. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground. The young man at the entrance said, “Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’” The two men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.” Then they remembered his words.

At first, the women were trembling and bewildered and went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

But eventually, Mary Magdalene and other others came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved. On the way, Mary mother of James and Mary Magdalene came suddenly and met Jesus who said “Greetings.” They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, they will see me.”

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. So Mary told Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Standing up straight, Peter went away, wondering to himself what had happened. But the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

If I've gotten the total picture wrong, please let me know - it is of paramount importance that we put this narrative together as accurately as possible. I had a really hard time with John saying it was still dark outside, but the others saying it was sunrise (in case you've never lived outside the city and woke up at dawn, it gets light before sunrise). I also had a really hard time with what went on in the tomb and after the women ran back. I mean, Mark just ended it, "they said nothing because they were afraid (16:8). If that wasn't the whole picture, then Mark was just downright misleading. I also don't really understand why Mary Magadline would tell Peter she didn't know what had been done with the body right after two angels had just told her. Is this a parable about how forgetful we are right after leaving a holy place? But Mary Magdalene met Jesus as she was fleeing the tomb! So I really don't understand why she would leave that part out in her report to the disciples.

John resumes the narrative with Mary (presumably mother of James) crying after Peter left the cave, and two more angels appear to her followed by Jesus. I really don't get this one either, because if we treat these as one story, Mary mother of James was with Mary Magdaline running back to tell the other disciples as she bumped into Jesus. And she defintely heard it three times that Jesus was resurrected.

I'm curious if you can truly help me harmonize these texts into a meaningful whole, but what I am most confused about the Composite Gospel theory is why we have this problem at all. According to tradition, Mark was writing based on accounts from Peter, and Matthew and John were disciples themselves. Why would Peter leave out the part about him running to the tomb, which John and Luke mention? It's not like the theological works of Paul, which can arguably require divine inspiration to synthesize information, this is remembered first and second hand information. And not just anyone's memory - divinely inspired apostolic memory. What gives?

And, by the way, nicely done on the Judas story. That explanation is probably the most sound that I've heard. I don't mean explanation for the discrepancy, that doesn't matter to me, but explanation of the meaning of those stories. There are still discrepancy errors like who bought the field, so you still have an unresolved problem, from an inerrancy standpoint, but I appreciate your analysis.

The discrepancies in the Gospels are mostly easily dealt with. They don't provide that barrier that you seem to think they do.

- I know about the Synoptic/John problem with the Passover. There are several theories about it, the most prominent ones being that there was no standardized calendar of the day, and the Synoptics were working off a Jewish calendar and John off a Roman one. Another possibility is that John uses the term *pascha* and it creates confusion. This term can mean the Passover meal itself (Mt. 27.17; Mk. 14.12, 14; Lk. 22.11, 15), but it can also mean the feast which occurs over a number of days (2 Chr. 30.22, and the 8 other uses of the term in John's Gospel. But I know this hasn't been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
- The death of Judas. Matthew is correct: Judas hung himself. The book of Acts is not describing how Judas died, but is using a literary motif that was common in ancient literature to show how abhorrent his betrayal had been.
When an ancient writer wanted to express the horror of a person’s wickedness and sin, they would say that when he died, his body burst open and his intestines spilled out.

sub-point ONE: Papias (early 2nd century AD) describes Judas’s death as follows: “His genitals of indecency were more disgusting and yet too small to be seen. There oozed out from his whole bursting body both pus and worms, and to his shame these things alone were forced [out]. After much suffering and agony, it is said that he died in his own place.” Whether or not the quote is accurate, we see an example of the motif of attributing bursting open to a despicable man.

sub-point TWO: 2 Maccabees 9.5-7, 9-10, 28 describes the death of Antiochus Epiphanes as follows: “But the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him with an incurable and invincible blow. As soon as he stopped speaking he was seized with a pain in his bowels, for which there was no relief, and with sharp internal tortures—and that very justly, for he had tortured the bowels of others with many strange inflictions. Yet he did not in any way stop his insolence, but was filled even more with arrogance, breathing fire in his rage against the Jews, and giving orders to drive even faster. And so it came about that he fell out of his chariot as it was rushing along, and the fall was so hard as to torture every limb of his body…and so the ungodly man’s body swarmed with worms, and while he was still living in anguish and pain, his flesh rotted away, and because of the stench the whole army felt revulsion at his decay.... so the murderer and blasphemer, having endured the more intense suffering, such as he had inflicted on others, came to the end of his life by a most pitiable fate, among the mountains in a strange land.”

sub-point THREE: King Joram (2 Chr. 21.18-19): “And after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease. In the course of time, at the end of two years, his bowels came out because of the disease, and he died in great agony.”

sub-point FOUR: When a friend of hated Tiberius Graccus died, it is said that his “dead body burst open and a great quantity of corrupt humours gushed forth, so that the flame of the funeral pyre was extinguished” (Plutarch, The Life of Tiberius Graccus, section 13).

Matthew’s account is telling us that Judas suicided by hanging himself; Luke in Acts is telling us that Judas died the death of a wicked person.

- The Genealogy of Jesus. Yep. Many theories, no solution, but we know that the Church Fathers didn't have a problem with what is recorded. They knew something we don't.
- Mark 9:1. It depends what we claim Jesus means by "they see the kingdom of God come with power." He could have the Transfiguration, Pentecost, or the destruction of the Temple. In any case, there's no particular discrepancy here.
- Mark 5; Matthew 9. There is no problem here. She is dead when Jesus arrives. In Mark Jairus was notified of such; Matthew just doesn't mention that detail.
- when Christ became God. Their starting points are not at all a comment on "When Christ Became God" (there's no hint of that point anywhere), but only where they choose to begin their story. This isn't a discrepancy.
- After Jesus' birth. You've got this all confused. Luke has Jesus born in Bethlehem (Lk. 2.4-6), just as Matthew does (Mt. 2.1). Jesus was presented in the Temple on the 8th day in Luke (2.21; Lev. 12.3), and we don't know how long they stayed in Bethlehem (the 32 days of purification? Possibly). We have no idea when the vision came to Joseph to leave Bethlehem, and how old the child was. The magi probably visit when Jesus was about a year old. Joseph's flight to Egypt was likely after that. Luke doesn't mention Egypt, but he obviously is telescoping some details. In Lk. 2.39-40, Luke skips 12 years. This is not a discrepancy.
- World-wide tax. That's not what the text says. The text talks of a census (2.1) and a registration (2.3). It's not likely that everyone in the empire was returning to the homeland of their ancestors (and every 14 years at that!). One can understand from v. 4 why readers outside the Roman Empire unfamiliar with its practices could imagine his claiming that every Jew anywhere in the empire would trace his lineage back to David had to go to Bethlehem, but Luke does not actually say that. "One’s own town" is elsewhere language for the city of one's birth or one's present or past residence. Only a small minority of Jews in the first century lived somewhere other than the city in which they were born, so only they would need to travel for the census. Most tried to return to Israel for at least some of the annual festivals, so that would be a natural time for them to be registered as well. It's probable that Joseph and Mary originally intended to settle in Bethlehem, but that was disrupted by Herod. And even when Joseph & fam returned from Egypt, they settled in Galilee for fear of the new Herod. This is not a problem text.
- Women at the tomb. Yes, many women there. Just because John only mentions one (the one of his concern) doesn't mean only one was there. After a party, if I tell my friends, "Hey, Bill was there!" I'm not implying Bill was the ONLY one there. This is not a problem.
- Stone rolled away? Matthew is not giving us a chronology. The precise time of the earthquake isn't given. Verses 2-4 could be a parenthesis describing an event that happened before sunrise on resurrection day. This is not a problem.
- Whom did they see? There were multiple sightings. The man of Mark was an angel (cf. Gn. 32.24), as were the men of Luke (Lk. 24.4). This is not a problem.
- Was Jesus talkative or "silent"? No Gospel writer records all the words of Jesus. Mark is the largest condenser. Most of Mark's Gospel is speeding through the parts of the story others pause at an explicate. Mark runs through his story. This is not a problem.

I don't know where you got this list, but whoever originated it didn't do their homework very well.

> Not really. I used Scripture to explain what Scripture means by certain words.

You used a trope found in Jewish tradition to define the canon that is in your hands. On what basis to you close the canon to new Scripture? On what basis do you you trust the books in canon as true?

> Again, I thought I covered this.

Yes, you've said it very well. But I'm still trying to determine whether you find historical claims such as time of death and means of death as accurate. This is really important because Gospel accounts are full of contradictions:

- the Synoptics claim that Jesus was crucified after Passover while John moves the crucifixion to Passover.
- Acts says that Judas tripped and fell, Matthew said that Judas hanged himself.
- Luke says that Jesus's grandpa was Heli, Matthew says Jesus's grandpa was Matthan.
- Mark 9:1 made the claim that the coming of God's new kingdom would be in the lifetime of those standing before him, Matthew and Luke fuzz it up a little bit.
- Mark 5 has the daughter of Ja'irus's sick and dead due to Christ's delay, while Matthew 9 has Jesus get there on time but Jairus's daughter having just died.
- Mark doesn't seem to care about Jesus's birth, but starts the story at the baptism, Matthew and Luke pull Jesus's beginnings back to birth, while John pulls it back further to the pre-existing Word of God present at creation, each seeming to have different understandings of when Christ became God.
- Luke has Joseph and Mary coming from Bethlehem to Nazareth and stay there until Jesus's birth and stay there for the rites of purification, which took 32 days according to Leviticus 12, and then return to Nazareth. On the other hand, Matthew has Jesus born in Bethlehem and stalked by Herod, which has Joseph flee for Egypt. Thirty-two days isn't really enough time for the new family to leave Bethlehem for Egypt, stay in Egypt for even a day to check off the prophecy, and start back for Nazareth in order to line with with the Lucan account.
- Luke says Joseph is in Bethlehem because of a world-wide tax that required citizens to go to their ancestral home - for Joseph, it was David - 1000 years prior! Did all of Rome return to their ancestral home having to recall 1000 years of history? (and we have no other attestation of this event outside of Luke).
- Who goes to the tomb? One woman (John 20:1), two (Matthew 28:1-10) or three (Mark 16:1-10) women?
- Was the stone already rolled away (Mark, Luke) or not (Matthew)?
- Did they see a man there (Mark), two men (Luke) there or an angel (Matthew) there?
- Did the disciples go to Galilee (Matthew 28:16) or told not to leave Jerusalem until Pentecost (Luke 24:49), something only Luke could claim since he also wrote Acts?
- Mark has Jesus go to his death silently, while everyone mocks him (including the two hanging beside him), and he expires with a word of incredulity. Luke has Jesus stopping for prayer, forgiving those around him, saving one of the two criminals on the cross, and dying magnanimously by pardoning those around him.

The reason I kept emphasizing time of death and means of death was not because I wanted to hear your answer for parts of the Bible that claim the sky is solid three times, but because these historical claims are substantively different than the "inaccuracies" you were defending, and there are very real problems with texts, in terms of illocution, which are intended to be accounts of Jesus both what he said and what he did, and in terms of perlocution, which would have us believe on account of the accuracy of these testimonies. These accounts, by most Evangelicals' reckoning, make for one of the most "well-attested" events (Jesus's life, death and resurrection) in recorded history. They are presented as historical, and they make claims claims that have no change in meaning from the time they were made to the present (such as the consistency of the sky). This is to say, we as readers share the same locutionary framework, thus the historical claims of who/what/where/when/how should require no special interpretation to derive meaning. If, as Sandy and Walton say, "[God] does not accommodate erroneous illocution or meaning," then we have a very real problem.

> Well said, yet you've arbitrarily defined them.

Not really. I used Scripture to explain what Scripture means by certain words. Any professor would do the same thing: "Here's what *I* mean by..."

> 1 Cor. 7.12

We cannot conclude on the basis of this statement this part was not inspired by God. He had just finished a casual quote of words of Jesus (v. 11), and so he wants us to know his quote is over and he is moving on. Paul has no word about marriage from Jesus beyond the problem of divorce that is pertinent to what he is saying. This is no disclaimer of inspiration. He simply means that here he is not quoting a command of Jesus.

> If a Gospel writer makes an historical claim such as the date of crucifixion or means of death or whatnot, should we take these claims as factually true, that is to say that they happened historically as attested?

Again, I thought I covered this. The authority of the text is in the illocutions, not the locutions. We don't necessarily believe everything the authors wrote (they actually did believe the sky was solid, and very possibly they believed some historical event different from what it actually was). Since his locutionary framework is grounded in his language and culture, it is important to differentiate between what the communicator can be inferred to believe and his illocutionary focus (the blessing, the curse, the promise, the instruction, etc.). OK, so Israel believed in a solid sky, or they believed one's thoughts came from his intestines, and God accommodated that locution in his communication. This may also be the case with some historical details. Often we may judge such things as irrelevant to the illocution, and therefore unrelated to the authority of the text. God's message (the illocution) had nothing to do with astronomy or anatomy. These things are merely the framework of the author. To set aside such misunderstandings doesn't jeopardize the authority of the text (the illocution). The authority of Scripture is vested in the **meaning** intended by the author. What we *can't* do is change the illocution (the meaning) based on that "fact".

In other words, there may be some historical inaccuracies the text. Generally, this is not the case. The Bible is incredibly accurate historically. We should, in general, take these claims as factually true, to say they happened historically as attested, because of the Bible's knack for truth, fact, and reliability. But if we find that one here or there is off the mark, it doesn't diminish the Bible's authority, which resides in the illocutions.

This is the 3rd time I thought I answered your question. Are we getting any closer?

> This would apply to any writing regarded as Scripture, whether or not it specifies this warning. Such warnings also applied to covenants (Deut. 29.19-20, 27).

Well said, yet you've arbitrarily defined them. Furthermore, within those arbitrary definitions are scant claims that parts are not inspired by God (1 Corinthians 7:12), which makes that application all the more dubious. You've taken a trope and simply applied it to the book you have in your hands. This seems to me more like a theology of convenience than of critical scholarship.

> So I thought I had addressed that question before you even asked it. Ha! But let's keep talking. This is good.

Let me rephrase my question. If a Gospel writer makes an historical claim such as the date of crucifixion or means of death or whatnot, should we take these claims as factually true, that is to say that they happened historically as attested?

> So instead of extrapolating 2 Timothy's claim in 3:16 beyond its scope, to me it looks like you do this for Revelation 22:18-19. Tempting, since it comes at the end of the Bible, and gives a nice spatial effect, but how can you not see this as anything but a reference to the work of Revelation itself?

It would only apply to Revelation if we are just looking at the words themselves. It was a common cultural understanding that the words of holy books or the words of deity were not to be altered (Deut. 4.2; 12.32; Prov. 30.5-6). This would apply to any writing regarded as Scripture, whether or not it specifies this warning. Such warnings also applied to covenants (Deut. 29.19-20, 27). With those understandings, you can see why I extrapolate Rev. 22.18-19 to the whole canon, recognized as Scripture, given to us as the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

> This verse aside, let me go ahead and assume that if the Bible makes an historical claim (like Jesus was crucified shortly after sharing Passover with his disciples), then we can take it as inerrant. Am I correct in this assumption?

As I mentioned, "inerrant" is a word that's going to lead our discussion into trouble. As I mentioned, "When Paul felt the authority and integrity of Scripture was under attack, he didn't claim its historicity." And also, "[T]he authority of the text is in the illocutions (the blessing, the curse, the promise, the prophecy, etc.), and "We need not be concerned that culturally limited locutions will diminish the Bible’s authority, but we dare not dismiss the illocutions and focused meaning as accommodating error," etc.

So I thought I had addressed that question before you even asked it. But let's keep talking. This is good.

> Not a safe or fair assumption.

Fair enough.

> Actually, I would disagree (that 2 Timothy is pseudoepigraphical).

Well argued, but I'm not really interested in debating pseudepigrapha. I defer to Bart Ehrman and Raymond Brown, my representatives from each camp and giants in the field, who both claim that stylistically it just doesn't line up. In the future, I'll be more careful about making statements that are tangentially related to my goals.

> As far as Marcion, yeah, I agree with your further comment. We'll just stay away from that one.

Just for the record, you can substitute Marcion with "undefined gnostic-y group", and my analysis still works.

> My case for the close of the canon is the statement of Rev. 22.18-19, extrapolated to include the entire canon, both OT & NT.

So instead of extrapolating 2 Timothy's claim in 3:16 beyond its scope, to me it looks like you do this for Revelation 22:18-19. Tempting, since it comes at the end of the Bible, and gives a nice spatial effect, but how can you not see this as anything but a reference to the work of Revelation itself?

Also, you missed a question of mine: This verse aside, let me go ahead and assume that if the Bible makes an historical claim (like Jesus was crucified shortly after sharing Passover with his disciples), then we can take it as inerrant. Am I correct in this assumption?

> And I choose the word inerrancy not to delimit scriptural authority to such a single aspect, but to problematize the aspect of "Word of God" that I contest most.

I agree with you that "inerrancy" is a problematic term and doesn't carry us through the conversation the way either of us would choose. So I contest the term as well.

> you are still advocating, along with Walton and Sandy that there is no error among illocution and meaning, so we are still dealing with some sense of "no mistakes".

Yes, but we must be clear on what sense of "no mistakes." It's the blessing (prophecy, warning, etc.) that carries the authority of the God-breathed word.

> While you didn't say directly that this refers to the Bible as Protestants have it (not the Catholics, Coptics or Eastern Orthodoxists, all of whom have different canons), I will make the leap and assume that you believe that it does.

Not a safe or fair assumption. By "Scripture" Paul most like was referring to what we call the Old Testament, as you said ("But what this can only really claim is that the Old Testament was inspired by God.") Although it is true that Paul seemed to be aware that the letters he was writing were Scripture (1 This. 2.13; 1 Cor. 14.37-38). The author of 2 Peter claims that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Pet. 3.15-16).

> 2 Timothy is pseudoepigraphical

Actually, I would disagree. I did quite a bit of study in 2 Tim about a year ago. If 2 Timothy were not written by Paul, then the author "out-Pauled" Paul. It has so many Paulisms in it, and so many nuances, references, word plays, and themes so typical of Paul, this person must have spent more time studying the mannerisms and secrets of Paul's writings than he did writing the book! Now, I'm not stupid. I know there's a hug debate about 2 Timothy, but after my study, I'm sticking with Paul.

- The book has statements about the gospel (1.8-11) as well as hymns (2.11-13) so typical of Paul.
- It contains midrash (2.19-21, typical of Paul.
- It was written in Paul's name, advancing a cause that was a cause of Paul's, presenting Paul as a positive example (as was typical, and even his self-deprecation), and contains elements of Paul's teaching and language.
- It can easily be fitted into his imprisonment in Rome in Acts 28.30-31, in about AD 62ish.
- The vocabulary of 2 Timothy is close to that of the undisputed Pauline letters (1 Thes., 1 & 2 Cor., Gal., Romans, Philippians and Philemon.
- We see correlation between random notes about Timothy (like in Phil. 2.19-23) in the authentic letters from Paul and the portrayal of Timothy in both 1 & 2 Tim.
- The references to Paul's life and Timothy's are accurate and appropriate (like that of an old man entrusting tasks to a younger apprentice).
- The practical wisdom dependent on solid doctrine is Pauline. The doctrinal background is essentially Pauline.
- He asserts his own commission, bursts out in doxologies, depends on the affections of others, trusts others with great tasks, and sensitive to failure in others—all typical Pauline. He spends the letter combating false teachers who question his authority—so Pauline!
- There are so many Pauline themes.
- Irenaeus (2nd half of 2nd c.) says Paul wrote them

I would have to trace back through, verse by verse, to find all the little Pauline secrets, but they're there. Let me find one, just to give you the idea. (time looking...go get some coffee.) For instance, in 2 Timothy 1.2, he calls Timothy "my dear son" (ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ). In 1 Tim. 1.2, he calls Timothy his "true child" (γνησίῳ τέκνῳ). But that is not copied here by a pseudonymic author. Instead, we see "my dear son," just as we read in 1 Cor. 4.17. A tiny little indication the author is authentically Paul.

As I said, if the author of 2 Tim is not Paul, they out-Pauled Paul. I reject the pseudoepigraphical conclusion for 2 Tim on what I consider to be inferring the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence: Paul is most likely the author.

As far as Marcion, yeah, I agree with your further comment. We'll just stay away from that one.

But then in 2 Tim. 3.16, Paul uses "Scripture" without an article, casting the term in a more general sense than the specific one of 2 Tim. 3.15.

My case for the close of the canon is the statement of Rev. 22.18-19, extrapolated to include the entire canon, both OT & NT.

I can certainly appreciate that you view the issue with due complexity. I would like to add as a caveat that I think most Evangelical theologians and clergy would articulate an equally nuanced statement on the matter, though their doctrinal statements would most likely still include the word "inerrant" preceding "Word of God". And I choose the word inerrancy not to delimit scriptural authority to such a single aspect, but to problematize the aspect of "Word of God" that I contest most. Additionally, you are still advocating, along with Walton and Sandy that there is no error among illocution and meaning, so we are still dealing with some sense of "no mistakes".

You conveniently (for me) used a verse like an Evangelical would to bolster your case for inspiration, namely 2 Timothy 3:16. While you didn't say directly that this refers to the Bible as Protestants have it (not the Catholics, Coptics or Eastern Orthodoxists, all of whom have different canons), I will make the leap and assume that you believe that it does.

But what this can only really claim is that the Old Testament was inspired by God. In fact, with research showing that 2 Timothy is most likely pseudepigraphical and most likely written between 90 and 120 this lines up nicely with the Marcion controversy, which completely rejected the God of the Old Testament as false and incompatible with God, the father of Jesus. 2 Timothy's assertion that the Old Testament is useful for preparing the heart for salvation through Christ makes contextual sense in this instance as it refutes Marcion's claim (it also is a theme that 2 Timothy is rebutting other Marcion-esque claims such as the resurrection already having occurred - a spiritual not a physical resurrection - 2:18, and spending time in 2:8 emphasizing a physical death). We can also consider Marcion's life mission to assemble a Christian text similar to the Jewish one he rejected. You may view him as a heretic, but we can't so easily write off his sincerity. A lover of Christ and a student of Paul, he sought to collect various works into a single text, and we know these texts through Tertullian's rebuttals of Marcionite doctrine. What was conspicuously missing was the majority of the 27 books we now call canon, including any of the Gospels. And if 2 Timothy was authored right around the time of Marcion, we can safely conclude that the author had no knowledge of what you now are claiming is inspired by God, especially since that text wasn't finished until the fourth century, with Hebrews and 2 Peter coming in at the very end.

So at best, taken at face value in the context of locution and illocution and meaning, the Old Testament, and maybe a few of Paul's letters (as the author clearly esteemed Paul to invoke the authority of his name) are inspired.

Maybe we could extend this to say that, well, God never stopped inspiring and we can easily extend it to what we now have, though you don't have any real criteria as an Evangelical who broke from the authority of church tradition, and you certainly have no clear case for why the canon should be closed.

This verse aside, let me go ahead and assume that if the Bible makes an historical claim (like Jesus was crucified shortly after sharing Passover with his disciples), then we can take it as inerrant. Am I correct in this assumption?