Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?

by James K. Hoffmeier (Editor), Dennis R. Magary, Craig L. Blomberg (Contributor)

This timely collection of scholarly essays equips Christians to defend the key doctrine of inerrancy against the skeptical attitudes of culture and the academy toward the Bible’s historical claims.

Genres: Biblical Studies, History, Theology, Old Testament, Christianity, Scripture

544 pages, Paperback

First published February 29, 2012

Reviews

[Craig Hurst · Rating 5 out of 5]

Do historical matters matter to faith? This is an intriguing question. Though the answer may seem obvious to many it is not so to others. To many evangelical Christians, Scripture, among many things, is an historical book that gives us a window into a time gone by in world history. There are events, places and people it gives an account of that only it gives us an account of. To those would answer no to the beginning question these historical discrepancies leave them questioning the historical accuracy of the text and sometimes abandoning it all together. To those who would answer yes, they either have to say Scripture is plain wrong or, as a historically reliable witness to these things, it is the only record we have of them and can be trusted as much as any other historical text as a single witness to the past. What are Bible believing Christians to make of this?

For decades, this discussion has been raging but it seems to have picked up more steam more recently with the work, among others, of Kenton Sparks and his book God’s Word in Human Words. In short, Sparks calls into question the inerrancy of Scripture in regards to its historical reliability. To Sparks, Scripture is no less authoritative in its theological assertions and worldview even if the historical references it makes are tied to those theological assertions. To many evangelical Christians who hold to the traditional understanding of Scriptures authority and inerrancy this is problematic.

In an effort to respond to Sparks work, and that of others, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary have edited a new book titled Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture. This is an academic work that addresses the issues the authors see in the works of Kenton Sparks, Peter Enns, Donald McKim and others in regards to their view of inerrancy and subsequently their interwoven view of the historicity of Scripture.

To the contributors of this book their basic assessment is this:

"Spark’s proposal and similar proposals have been frequently weighed and found wanting in the history of the Christian churches. Not only does his viewpoint depart from a traditional Christian understanding of Scripture’s truthfulness, but it likewise does not accord with Scripture’s self-attestation about its truthfulness or trustworthiness." (p. 17)

This is no small accusation but their desire to respond to and interact with Sparks and others shows the seriousness of the issue at hand when questioning the Bible’s accuracy when it comes to historical matters.

The book is broken into four major sections: Part One deals with biblical, systematic and historical considerations, Part Two deals with the Old Testament and historicity, Part Three deals with the New Testament and historicity and Part Four deals with the Old Testament and archeology.

Part One lays the foundation for ones understanding of the relationship between history and Scriptures account of it within the narrative. In the first chapter Thomas Mccall deals with the issue of knowledge as it relates to history. How can we know what happened in the past, how sure can we be that we are right in our knowledge of it and how does this effect or reliance of Scriptures attestation of the past? To be sure, these are important questions. Also related to the discussion is the place of critical biblical scholarship (CBS). CBS has traditionally seen itself and its method as authoritative and binding on all historians and historiography. Following C. Stephen Evans, McCall essentially concludes that while CBS provides some helpful guidelines for accurate historical method, they are just that – helpful guidelines that are not authoritatively binding on the method (p. 45-46).

In the second chapter Graham Cole addresses the issue we are faced if we have a “historyless systematic theology.” “Sensitivity to the historical dimension of Scripture is not an option. It is inescapable if justice is to be done to the Bible’s own content” (p. 57). If Christians are to rightly regard Scripture as an interpretation of history than surely, its accuracy on historical events matters to faith and its subsequent theology. Cole later argues that the actual happenings of history matter for systematic theology for three reasons: it is of valuable source for ancient cultural expressions such as weights and measurements, it is of value as a witness to God’s deeds in the past such as the Exodus and it is of greatest value is God’s breathed out Word as stated in 2 Tim. 3:14-17 (p. 66).

Perhaps the most accessible and helpful chapters in the Part One, and the book, are Mark Thompson’s chapter on the theological account of biblical inerrancy and James Hoffmeier’s chapter on the historicity of the Exodus as essential for theology. These two chapters alone are worth the book. Thompson gives five theological pillars of the doctrine of inerrancy which I have spelled out in an earlier post. As I have also discussed more fully in an earlier post, Hoffmeier uses the Exodus as a test case to show why it is necessary for theology and Christianity that the historical events recorded in Scripture actually took place.

Parts two and three address a number of historical accounts in Scripture in both testaments in order to show both why their historicity is a necessary part of the theological foundation for the text and that in fact the events, people and places recorded in the text can be assuredly trusted to have actually existed in the past. Many of these chapters take up the issues presented in various forms of critical reflections of the Biblical text such as form and literary criticism.

Part four deals with archeology and the Old Testament. The authors here show the relationship with and the role that archeology has in supporting the historicity of the Bible. John Monson’s chapter on the conquest of Canaan is a breath of fresh air as he removes the dirt and fog that CBS has tried to put on our Biblical reading glasses. Monson rightly contends, as do a number of the other contributors, that it is wrong to conclude that the absence of archeological evidence is evidence against something. There is more to providing reliable support for an event than archeological evidence. “Cumulative evidence that yields strong possibilities in favor of the biblical text is far more convincing than nonevidence (p. 456).

Do Historical Matter Matter to Faith? is evidence that the traditional view of the authority, reliability and inerrancy of Scripture is not without merit, evidence or a strong scholarly case. This is a scholarly and academic work that proves its case well. I recommend this book to every biblical student, pastor and teacher. The only drawback to the book is its lack of accessibility to the lay audience. Chapters like eight which deals with Word Distribution as an Indicator of Authorial Intention: A Study of Genesis 1:1-2:3 will be lost by even many Bible students and pastors unless they have a very good grasp of Hebrew and textual analysis.

Do historical matters matter to faith? The answer to this question is a water shed issue with very divergent conclusions. The contributors of the book believe they do for a number of reasons not the least of which is the trustworthiness of Scripture and God Himself who has spoken through it to us. The character of God, our relationship to Him and our theology depend, in part, on the historical accuracy and reliability of Scripture.

NOTE: I received this book for free from Crossway and was under no obligation to provide a favorable review. The words and opinions expressed in this review are my own.

[Justin Wheaton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love this book and I would recommend that everyone read it. I gave it 4 stars only because the enjoyment of some chapters really depends on if one is interested in that subject. The information is still good though.

[Zack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many advances have been made in the last few decades by critical scholars of the Bible, especially in the area of the Old Testament. With the rise of postmodernism and the slow move away from modernism, we live in an age when even the critical scholars themselves are split between following the traditional critical methods of modernism, or the more literary analysis of postmodernism. Either way, these two critical school of thought have slowly crept their way into the Evangelical world, to the extent that some are even considered to be "critically Evangelical."

In response to this growing criticism creeping into Evangelicalism, and specifically in response to two recent books - Peter Enns', Inspiration and Incarnation and Kenton Spark's, God's Word in Human Words - the Department of Old Testament and Semitic Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School held a panel discussion among its faculty members in February 2009 to address these issues. At the request by many for these talks to be produced in published form, James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary have compiled those talks, along with articles requested by some of the leading scholars in the Evangelical field, into this present book. In the preface of the book, the purpose of this work is summarized well:

"We offer this book to help address some of the questions raised about the historicity, accuracy, and inerrancy of the Bible by colleagues within our faith community, as well as those outside it" (23).

This book is an invaluable resource for anyone entering into or currently in biblical studies, especially with the age of criticism that we find ourselves in today. I am very thankful for Crossway in publishing this book, as well as the numerous scholars who contributed both their time and their wisdom to helping those of us who will encounter this type of criticism to be able to give an adequate, intelligent response for the positions we hold. In particular, I was very impressed with Richard Schultz's article on the issues of Isaianic authorship. I hope to post a review of that specific chapter in the days to come. I am certain this will be a resource I will return to over and over again throughout the rest of my seminary career.

I would like to thank Crossway for giving me a review copy in exchange for a fair and honest review

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://ldrshlshllmd.wordpress.com/201...

[Brian Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well over a century ago scholars like C. H. Toy, scholars who began their careers in conservative schools, began to doubt the scientific and historical accuracy of Scripture. They took Genesis to be an accommodation to prescientific man. They adopted critical methods for understanding the composition of Old Testament books, casting doubt on the historical veracity of the Old Testament materials. And they argued that the New Testament authors adopted rabbinic methods of interpretation that caused them to misinterpret Old Testament texts as they applied them to Jesus as Messiah. Men like Toy professed personal piety, and they insisted on their belief in the basic message of Scripture. Nonetheless, they argued that Christian scholarship must adapt itself to the intellectual realities of their time. Their deviations form orthodoxy set off the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy.

Today, a certain segment of ostensibly evangelical authors are adopting an increasingly harsh tone toward those who resist the conclusions of modernist scholars. Kenton Sparks claims that conservative evangelicals maintain their position for the following reasons: "theological immaturity, an overly pastoral focus, a 'desire to sell books to conservative readers,' a self-protective impulse (i.e., seeking to retain their teaching posts at conservative institutions), and poor training and a general lack of knowledge regarding contemporary critical scholarship," (260, n. 80, summarizing Sparks, God's Word in Human Words, 167-68). Evidently Sparks finds it impossible to believe that any well-educated scholar would continue to believe Scripture's self-testimony and historically orthodox doctrine when it conflicts with whatever happens to be the current critical (and typically unbelieving) scholarly consensus. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is a response to the claims of Sparks and others who share his perspective.

The book divides into four sections. The first lays theological foundations. The middle two examine the challenges to the "history, authenticity, and authority" of the Old and New Testaments. The final section examines archaeology as it relates to the Old Testament.

A number of the essays are outstanding. In the opening essay Thomas McCall surveys recent approaches to epistemic justification and then applies the findings to critical biblical scholarship (CBS). He finds that critical biblical scholarship presumes an epistemology that is now considered deficient among philosophers. He therefore doubts the right of CBS to command assent: it is possible to dismiss the findings of CBS and remain epistemically justified in doing so. Indeed, one may reject CBS and stand on much firmer epistemic ground than CBS itself. This is one of the most incisive essays in the book, and it undercuts at the outset Sparks's insistence that one must accept critical conclusions to avoid being naive or dishonest.

In the Old Testament section Richard Shultz's essay on the state of scholarship in Isaiah is the standout contribution. He directly responds to Sparks's arguments that "a sober and serious reading of Isaiah" can only lead to a rejection of the traditional view and an embrace of the critical consensus. There are three planks to Sparks's argument: First, Isaiah is named 16x in chapters 1-39 whereas he is not named at all in the latter half of the book. In addition, he argues that Jeremiah's silence regarding Isaiah's prophecies demonstrates the latter half of the book had not been written by Jeremiah's time. Finally, Sparks also argues that differences in emphases and styles point to multiple authors. Schultz finds the argument from the distribution of Isaiah's name a weak argument considering that many of the occurrences of Isaiah's name in chapters 1-39 occur in the narrative section in which he is a character. In addition, there are large stretches of text in the first part of the book in which his name does not occur. The argument that Jeremiah does not reference the latter chapters of Isaiah is doubly weak. In the first place it is an argument from silence—a silence that might be expected given that scholars still discuss the silence of the eighth century prophets regarding their contemporaries not to mention Jeremiah's own (often commented upon) silence regarding Josiah. But in addition to the fact that a silence might be expected, Schultz notes that a number of scholars claim they see a dependence of Deutero-Isaiah upon Jeremiah. If the presumption of order is challenged, then there may indeed be evidence for Jeremiah's recognition of the latter part of Isaiah. Regarding differences in emphasizes and styles, Schultz demonstrates from the work of Christopher Seitz and others that many of these arguments are now doubted. It seems that Sparks himself recognizes this to be among his weaker arguments.

Robert Yarbrough opens the New Testament section with an ironic essay. In the spirit of accepting Sparks's challenge to embrace critical scholarship, Yarbrough evaluates Sparks's own book from a form-critical standpoint. Yarbrough proposes that Sparks's book falls into the "shift story" form. That is, it tells the story of one who has shifted form one religious position to another. In examining this form Yarbrough documents shift stories of those who moved from critical positions to positions of belief: Heinz Cassirer (1903-1979), Eta Linnemann (d. 2009), and the stories of Victorian skeptics who became Christians documented by Timothy Larsen in Crisis of Doubt. These shift stories that move in the opposite direction from Sparks expose a weakness in his account. In his telling, evangelicals hold to their position "because of unthinking traditionalism or partisan loyalty" (333, Yarbrough's description of Sparks's evaluation). But what of those whose research moved them toward evangelical beliefs about Scripture? Yarbrough next turns to the Sitz im Leben of Sparks's book. Sparks wrote in a context in which a number of scholars' embrace of critical methodologies and rejection of biblical historical accuracy led to their abandonment of Christianity. Given this Sitz im Leben, Yarbrough notes, "The academic enterprise in its frequent post- if not anti-confessional dress may represent a greater threat to historic Christian faith than Sparks's book indicates" (336). Thus it should not "be thought innovative, progressive, or attractively risqué that an 'evangelical' Bible teacher turns on forebears, peers, and elders in the guild and takes a sizeable step toward the embrace of a contrasting set of authority figures at the point of one of Christianity's foundational teachings: the doctrine of Scripture" (337). Yarbrough finally turns to the community out of which shift stories such as Sparks's come, and he notes that the history of criticism is full of men who have grown up in devout homes, often pastor's homes, and lost their faith by embracing criticism. Sparks does not wish to travel that road to its destination, but Yarbrough urges caution since the criticism Sparks advocates "has little to no record of fostering or aiding Christian belief" (342).

Since the archaeological essays were more detailed and less programmatic none stood out in quite the same fashion as the essays noted above. But they, like many of the other essays in the book, did a good job of defending the historicity and accuracy of Scripture against recent attacks.

This book is highly commended. A few cautions are in order, however. The late date for the Exodus seems assumed in the several essays that touched on that topic. Also, some essays seemed a bit too concerned to maintain a "neutral" or "balanced" approach, though they did defend the biblically conservative position. Finally, the essays on the Psalm titles and on cultural memory lacked the necessary argumentation to demonstrate that the proposed solutions were both historically necessary and theologically acceptable. Both of these essays needed further interaction with the theological foundations section that began the book. Overall, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is a welcome and timely response to recent challenges to biblically faithful scholarship.

[Luke Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly, this book just isn’t for me. Very academic and scholarly which just isn’t my cup of tea; I prefer Christian writing that is more pastoral. Just depends on preference I think. Made some good points but most of it was over my head.

[Rachel Schoenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely my top nonfiction read so far this year. Such good information!

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays responding to Kenton Sparks's book God's Word in Human Words. The essays in Part deal with Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Theology. Part 2 is The Old Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority. Part 3 is The New Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority. Part 4 is The Old testament and Archaeology. The authors are all scholars with earned doctorates in their field who teach (mostly) at prominent evangelical institutions. Taken together, they present a solid case, against Sparks, for a view of the Bible that holds to its inerrancy and continued infallibility in the modern world. I intend to devote some blog posts to a more thorough treatment of several of the essays. The book has been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere, and is highly recommended (rightly, in my view).

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book for me was a real mixed bag. Some of the chapters were interesting and authors engaging, while authors barely kept my interest. One thing that began to bother me is that it felt that many authors spent more time arguing why others (especially Kenton Sparks) are wrong rather than trying to prove their own point. That got a bit old. Also, some of the chapters were very academic, which was great, but at times I felt I needed a Ph.D. just to understand what was going on.

If this topic is of interest to you, and you have some academic background, then I'd recommend the book. Otherwise, I might suggest just reading some chapters or skipping it altogether.

[Paul Ernst · Rating 5 out of 5]

At a time when a high view of Scripture is under attack, even from within evangelicalism, a better response is needed.
This book provides a balanced perspective that acknowledges the problems and gives credible answers that deal with the issues. It goes beyond the stock response of "That's just anti-supernatural bias" by taking into account historical setting and literary genre.

Paul Ernst
author, You Bet Your Life

[K B · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the essays were very good, others were not interesting to me. Every one might find something that piques their interest.

[Benedict Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the introduction claims, there is a wide range of articles by different Christian academics, covering many aspects of the debate around the Bible's reliability. I found some dry, but that could be because I did not have a basic knowledge of the subject matter.

This book is also written in response to Kenton Spark's 'God's Word in Human Words.' Its purpose is to defend a traditional evangelical understanding of the Bible, and I think they do it fairly well. The tone of most of the essays are pretty academic, and it is nice to see that the evangelical doctrine of Scripture's authority can be defended robustly.