A lurker sent me the following extended quote from Professor Pete Enns at Westminster Philly. It has to do with the dead horse, and the bold sections are from the lurker.

Vewy Vewy Vewy intewesting….

1. How does apostolic hermeneutics affect inerrancy? There is no question that “inerrancy,” at least in its earlier formulations, is not a term that is designed to encompass apostolic hermeneutics understood in its Second Temple context. This is also true for the issues mentioned briefly at the outset of this article, historicity and extrabiblical data. The evidence with which all biblical scholars work daily was either unknown when evangelicalism was working out this doctrine, or the implications of this evidence had not yet been fully appreciated by a critical mass of theologians. The field of ANE studies (literature, archaeology) was in its infancy in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which inspired renewed reflection on Second Temple literature in general, were first discovered in 1947. In view of this evidence, the church must cultivate a culture of vibrant, creative, expectant, and trusting discussion of what the Bible is and, flowing from that, how it is to function in the life of the church. The purpose of speaking of an inerrant Scripture is not to generate an abstract comment about the church’s sacred book, but it is to reflect on our doctrine of God, that is, that God does not err.[36] But such a confession does not determine the manner in which the notion of an inerrant Scripture is articulated. It may very well be that the very way in which God “does not err” is by participating in the cultural conventions of the time, in this case, first-century Palestine. The Bible is not inerrant because it conforms to some notion of how we think something worthy of the name “Scripture” should behave. Rather, our doctrine of Scripture flows from, if I may say it, Scripture—or better, Scripture understood in its historical context and not as an a-historical treatise. And the scriptural data include not just texts such as 2 Tim 3:14-17, taken in isolation, that consciously reflect on the nature of the OT. It is just as important to observe how NT authors behave toward the OT. In other words, 2 Tim 3:14-17 is a declarative statement by Paul on his very high view of the OT—it is “God-breathed.” But just as interesting to me is to see how Paul puts a principle such as this into practice, to observe how his “doctrine of Scripture,” outlined in no uncertain terms in 2 Tim 3:14-17, plays out in such places as 1 Cor 10:4, 2 Cor 6:2, Gal 3:16, 19, etc., etc. Paul, being a Second Temple Jew, saw no tension between his high view of Scripture and the hermeneutical practices of his time. If I may speak this way, for God himself, the Second Temple setting of the Apostles is not a problem for modern interpreters to overcome but to understand. The manner in which Paul demonstrates his high view of Scripture is by participating fully in the hermeneutical expectations of his time while also reflecting the inauguration of the eschaton. These factors must be active in any Christian formulation of a doctrine of Scripture.[37] I am aware that this opens us up to the charge of circularity and subjectivity, but it is no more circular and subjective than adopting any doctrine of Scripture. Any notion of what Scripture is must in the end be in intimate, Spirit-led conversation with what Scripture does. And this is a matter of continual reflection and dialogue among Christians who are so inclined. It is not a matter that is fully worked out by any council or creed, but has always a “work-in-progress” dimension. This is not to imply that nothing is settled, but that the church, fully in dialogue with its own past and present, is continually in the process of getting to know better and better the Scripture that God has given us. The issue, therefore, is not whether Scripture is “inerrant” nor certainly whether the God who speaks therein is “inerrant,” but the nature of the Scripture that the inerrant God has given us. And this is something the church proclaims to itself and the world by faith. Scripture is not “inerrant” because it can be shown that there really is no “synoptic problem” or that the Apostles are doing faithful grammatical-historical exegesis. Ultimately there is no “because” other than “Scripture is inerrant because it comes from God.” And the ability to confess this is a gift from God. When the church studies its Scripture it is not to try to bring the phenomenon of Scripture into conformity with any ready-made doctrine, but to see how an understanding of Scripture in context should define and challenge those doctrines. Then the church can go about the task of seeing what aspects of these theories are worth keeping near us and what should be moved to the side.