Patheos
3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about
Biblical Scholarship
January 10, 2013 By _peteenns_
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/author/peteenns/)
(http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/#
comments)
On occasion I come across some sweeping public claims made by Evangelical
leaders about the state of biblical scholarship. These claims may be
genuinely felt, but they are still false, though they persist in the
Evangelical
subculture.
1. Historical Criticism is either dying or at least losing momentum in
academia. Rather than assuming that the Bible is revelatory (revealed by God,
inspired) and therefore historically accurate, historical criticism seeks
outside verification through _various means of historical and textual
analysis_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664257844/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inspirandinca-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0
664257844) . Historical Criticism has its roots in Europe and has governed
the academic study of the Bible for about 300 years.
I’m not saying anyone has to like it or agree with it. I’m only saying
historical criticism isn’t dead or dying. Ask anyone who has taken Bible
classes or earned a degree in Bible from a university.
True, many universities also engage in postmodern approaches that are
critical of historical criticism (e.g., Feminist studies), but you’d still be
hard pressed to find academic programs in Bible that don’t take as their
axiomatic starting point a historical critical approach to the Bible. Look at
course descriptions on the internet of departments of Religion, Judaism,
Near Eastern Studies, Christian Origins, Hebrew Bible, etc. _“The
Historical-Critical Method”_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0567400123/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inspirandinca-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&;
creativeASIN=0567400123) is what defines these programs.
Claiming that historical criticism is passé may suggest to some that
conservative biblical scholarship has won the “battle” against historical
criticism and is now finally vindicated. This may sound appealing in popular
circles, but it is not true in academia.
2. Source Criticism of the Pentateuch is in a state of chaos. Rather than
accepting the traditional view that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (first five
books of the Old Testament) in the middle of the second millennium BC,
source criticism claims that scribes living after the Babylonian exile (after
539 BC) created the Pentateuch out of various pre-existent “sources.”
Source criticism has been a major thorn in the side of conservative
Christians since the 19th century. But again, like it or hate it, source
criticism is not dead. What is dead is how the earliest source critics
theorized
about these sources, most notably _Julius Wellhausen_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0559130643/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inspirandinca-20&li
nkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0559130643) in the late
19th century. His theories have been criticized from almost the beginning,
but a you’d have a hard time finding a research institution where the basic
outlines of source criticism that Wellhausen popularized aren’t a given.
In my experience, the motivation behind this claim is apologetic. Casting
doubt on the reigning theory of the Pentateuch supposedly elevates by
default the traditional view. But this does not address the serious problems
with
the traditional view that gave rise to alternate explanations in the first
place.
3. Biblical archaeology basically supports the historical veracity of the
Bible. Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world
of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the
Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital
issue, Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of
Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan
by the Israelites.
The _strong consensus_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802844162/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inspirandinca-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creativ
e=9325&creativeASIN=0802844162) is that there is at best sparse indirect
evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is
considerable evidence against it.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t more work to be done and people don’t need
to keep an open mind. Who knows that the future will bring? But, my only
point is this: at present to say that archaeology is a friend to the
historical accuracy of the Bible may be true for some things, but not for the
foundational _story of Israel’s origins_
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062067737/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=inspirandinca-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1
789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062067737) –slavery, exodus, and conquest.
This has been and continues to be a big problem, and claiming otherwise
just makes the matter worse.
Anyway, I know that across the Evangelical spectrum–especially with
Evangelical biblical scholars–you will find various nuances and differences of
opinion on these three issues, especially off the record. I’m only talking
here about uninformed public claims made by Evangelical leaders. They may be
rhetorically effective, but they are false and only lead to more cognitive
dissonance.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
