What do you think?
Rate this book
Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions
Challenges to the reliability of Scripture are perennial and have frequently been addressed. However, some of these challenges are noticeably more common today, and the topic is currently of particular interest among evangelicals.
In this volume, highly regarded biblical scholar Craig Blomberg offers an accessible and nuanced argument for the Bible's reliability in response to the extreme views about Scripture and its authority articulated by both sides of the debate. He believes that a careful analysis of the relevant evidence shows we have reason to be more confident in the Bible than ever before. As he traces his own academic and spiritual journey, Blomberg sketches out the case for confidence in the Bible in spite of various challenges to the trustworthiness of Scripture, offering a positive, informed, and defensible approach.
304 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2014
61 people are currently reading
672 people want to read
About the author
Craig L. Blomberg
83 books97 followersDr. Craig Blomberg joined the faculty of Denver Seminary in 1986. He is currently a distinguished professor of New Testament.
Dr. Blomberg completed his Ph.D. in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a BA from Augustana College. Before joining the faculty of Denver Seminary, he taught at Palm Beach Atlantic College and was a research fellow in Cambridge, England with Tyndale House.
In addition to writing numerous articles in professional journals, multi-author works and dictionaries or encyclopedias, he has authored or edited 20 books, including The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Interpreting the Parables, commentaries on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, Christians in an Age of Wealth: A Biblical Theology of Stewardship, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions, Preaching the Parables, Contagious Holiness: Jesus' Meals with Sinners, and Handbook of New Testament Exegesis.
Dr. Blomberg completed his Ph.D. in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a BA from Augustana College. Before joining the faculty of Denver Seminary, he taught at Palm Beach Atlantic College and was a research fellow in Cambridge, England with Tyndale House.
In addition to writing numerous articles in professional journals, multi-author works and dictionaries or encyclopedias, he has authored or edited 20 books, including The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, Interpreting the Parables, commentaries on Matthew, 1 Corinthians and James, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation, Christians in an Age of Wealth: A Biblical Theology of Stewardship, Neither Poverty nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions, Making Sense of the New Testament: Three Crucial Questions, Preaching the Parables, Contagious Holiness: Jesus' Meals with Sinners, and Handbook of New Testament Exegesis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
March 17, 2015
There is a cottage industry that has developed around “debunking” the Bible. It goes something like this:
*The Bible we have is hopelessly corrupted, having been copied and re-copied and this is evident in the numerous discrepancies in the extant manuscripts.
*The Bible we have was the result of a political power move that suppressed other books that proclaimed a different, more “gnostic” Christianity. Finally these books are getting the attention they deserve.
*With so many translations of the Bible, how can we trust any of them?
*Given all these issues and various apparent discrepancies, can we possibly believe in an inerrant Bible?
*Some of the passages of scripture that purport to be narrative history are either unhistorical or plain fiction.
*Then there are all those miracles, similar to those in other mythical books. Isn’t the Bible simply another mythical work?
Clothed in the authority of “biblical scholarship” these contentions insinuate doubt in the minds of many believing people who base their beliefs and the way they live on what they find in these scriptures.
Craig Blomberg, an accomplished Biblical scholar answers each of these contentions, arguing that such contentions distort the evidence of biblical scholarship, concluding with a resounding “yes” to the question in this book’s title.
For example, he argues that the manuscript evidence actually argues for the high probability that the text of the scripture we have is very close to what was written. Discrepancies between manuscripts don’t affect any fundamental teaching of Christian faith and most are simply minor copying errors.
Those supposedly “suppressed” books? They were known but never enjoyed the significant level of support from various church communities as did most of the canonical books. Also, the books that are being argued for typically were written a century or more later (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas) than the canonical works.
All those translations? Actually, the standard versions all reflect the careful work of translation committees and actually read remarkably similarly. Except for those originating in sectarian groups, any of these can be profitably read. The main difference in translations tends to be around differing approaches that either focus more on word for word translation of more for accuracy of meaning in the language of the translation.
Most interesting are the next two chapters discussing whether it is possible to hold to a position of inerrancy and whether some “narratives” are unhistorical and what this means for our ideas of inerrancy. And here, Blomberg becomes more explicit about the reality that he is not simply arguing for a believable Bible against the debunkers, but also that it is possible to affirm inerrancy without dismissing serious scholarly claims and questions–for example about the possibility that Job may not be historical (Blomberg does not contend this but allows that those who hold this are not denying inerrancy). Blomberg thinks these rigid positions (far more rigid than the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy which Blomberg uses as a benchmark) are in fact harmful to evangelicalism in creating the kind of “all or nothing” stance that leads those who can’t affirm all to go to the other extreme of affirming nothing (as he thinks has happened to scholars like Bart Ehrmann).
His last chapter focuses on miracles. He sees the biblical accounts differing from others in not being sensational but rather confirming the power of God over “the gods” and confirming the messianic character of Christ and his people and encouraging belief. Of course the paramount miracle central to all is the resurrection.
It was something of a surprise that Blomberg would defend the language of inerrancy. He is one of the few scholars of late who tries to argue inerrancy while engaging critical scholarship. This is tougher to do because it begs the question of apparent errors that other approaches around the terms infallible or trustworthy have to deal with only by implication. I actually found this, particularly as Blomberg framed it, refreshing.
This book is most useful for the student or thoughtful Christian who encounters these debunking efforts, and for apologists in providing the basic outlines of a response based in good, if evangelically based, scholarship. For those who wish to go further, the notes provide extensive additional scholarly sources.
I suspect that Blomberg will be dismissed by more liberal scholarship and attacked by conservatives. I admire his willingness to let the chips fall where they may in this effort to provide a thoughtful work for those facing the debunkers’ challenges. He models an approach that embraces both orthodoxy and engaged biblical scholarship.
*The Bible we have is hopelessly corrupted, having been copied and re-copied and this is evident in the numerous discrepancies in the extant manuscripts.
*The Bible we have was the result of a political power move that suppressed other books that proclaimed a different, more “gnostic” Christianity. Finally these books are getting the attention they deserve.
*With so many translations of the Bible, how can we trust any of them?
*Given all these issues and various apparent discrepancies, can we possibly believe in an inerrant Bible?
*Some of the passages of scripture that purport to be narrative history are either unhistorical or plain fiction.
*Then there are all those miracles, similar to those in other mythical books. Isn’t the Bible simply another mythical work?
Clothed in the authority of “biblical scholarship” these contentions insinuate doubt in the minds of many believing people who base their beliefs and the way they live on what they find in these scriptures.
Craig Blomberg, an accomplished Biblical scholar answers each of these contentions, arguing that such contentions distort the evidence of biblical scholarship, concluding with a resounding “yes” to the question in this book’s title.
For example, he argues that the manuscript evidence actually argues for the high probability that the text of the scripture we have is very close to what was written. Discrepancies between manuscripts don’t affect any fundamental teaching of Christian faith and most are simply minor copying errors.
Those supposedly “suppressed” books? They were known but never enjoyed the significant level of support from various church communities as did most of the canonical books. Also, the books that are being argued for typically were written a century or more later (with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas) than the canonical works.
All those translations? Actually, the standard versions all reflect the careful work of translation committees and actually read remarkably similarly. Except for those originating in sectarian groups, any of these can be profitably read. The main difference in translations tends to be around differing approaches that either focus more on word for word translation of more for accuracy of meaning in the language of the translation.
Most interesting are the next two chapters discussing whether it is possible to hold to a position of inerrancy and whether some “narratives” are unhistorical and what this means for our ideas of inerrancy. And here, Blomberg becomes more explicit about the reality that he is not simply arguing for a believable Bible against the debunkers, but also that it is possible to affirm inerrancy without dismissing serious scholarly claims and questions–for example about the possibility that Job may not be historical (Blomberg does not contend this but allows that those who hold this are not denying inerrancy). Blomberg thinks these rigid positions (far more rigid than the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy which Blomberg uses as a benchmark) are in fact harmful to evangelicalism in creating the kind of “all or nothing” stance that leads those who can’t affirm all to go to the other extreme of affirming nothing (as he thinks has happened to scholars like Bart Ehrmann).
His last chapter focuses on miracles. He sees the biblical accounts differing from others in not being sensational but rather confirming the power of God over “the gods” and confirming the messianic character of Christ and his people and encouraging belief. Of course the paramount miracle central to all is the resurrection.
It was something of a surprise that Blomberg would defend the language of inerrancy. He is one of the few scholars of late who tries to argue inerrancy while engaging critical scholarship. This is tougher to do because it begs the question of apparent errors that other approaches around the terms infallible or trustworthy have to deal with only by implication. I actually found this, particularly as Blomberg framed it, refreshing.
This book is most useful for the student or thoughtful Christian who encounters these debunking efforts, and for apologists in providing the basic outlines of a response based in good, if evangelically based, scholarship. For those who wish to go further, the notes provide extensive additional scholarly sources.
I suspect that Blomberg will be dismissed by more liberal scholarship and attacked by conservatives. I admire his willingness to let the chips fall where they may in this effort to provide a thoughtful work for those facing the debunkers’ challenges. He models an approach that embraces both orthodoxy and engaged biblical scholarship.
October 1, 2014
As a well organized bit of rhetoric, Blomberg did a fine job building a case for belief in and the accuracy of the English translations of the Bible and addressing several questions that might arise in the minds of lay Christians and skeptics alike. As a homeschooling mother interested in bringing resources to my children to nurture in them a Biblical worldview, I appreciated his clear writing style and use of repetition to hammer home his main defenses of the reliability of Scripture.
However, in a weird twist, he spends lots of time condemning "hyperconservatives" (presumably anyone more conservative than HE is) for their deeply held religious convictions and their scholarship, often accusing them of damaging the reputation of the church in secular culture; meanwhile, he calls these people names (using ultraconservative and its synonyms as epithets), names people he considers "bad guys," condemns their serious apologetic and scholarly works and institutions, often going on tangents in order to impugn them and peppers the book with a spirit of ugliness and anger that I just could not get around. However worthy of criticism the man might be, Blomberg clearly HATES Norm Geisler and uses his book to let fly at him. It appears also that he detests Wayne Grudem and has no patience for Al Mohler. . .this vitriol displayed in a book meant for lay people and the general public. He ends his last substantive chapter with what amounts to an italicized THREAT to cessationists after accusing them of being "on the threshold of committing what Jesus labeled the unforgivable sin." Incendiary much? In his conclusion he defends this harshness by saying Jesus was harshest with the Pharisees. The Pharisees were "doing the deeds of their father, the devil," and were unbelievers. Is Blomberg really wanting to shout "brood of vipers" at large swaths of Christians and implying that they too are wicked deceivers doing the will of Satan and damned?!
I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is measured, grace-filled rhetoric aimed at building up his brothers and sisters in Christ. How are his book and searing condemnations not doing the very thing he finds so disturbing in those "far right" Christians who disagree with him?
I will not let my teenage children read this book because it is just too angry; however, I have used one passage with them to demonstrate to them what a straw-man fallacy is.
However, in a weird twist, he spends lots of time condemning "hyperconservatives" (presumably anyone more conservative than HE is) for their deeply held religious convictions and their scholarship, often accusing them of damaging the reputation of the church in secular culture; meanwhile, he calls these people names (using ultraconservative and its synonyms as epithets), names people he considers "bad guys," condemns their serious apologetic and scholarly works and institutions, often going on tangents in order to impugn them and peppers the book with a spirit of ugliness and anger that I just could not get around. However worthy of criticism the man might be, Blomberg clearly HATES Norm Geisler and uses his book to let fly at him. It appears also that he detests Wayne Grudem and has no patience for Al Mohler. . .this vitriol displayed in a book meant for lay people and the general public. He ends his last substantive chapter with what amounts to an italicized THREAT to cessationists after accusing them of being "on the threshold of committing what Jesus labeled the unforgivable sin." Incendiary much? In his conclusion he defends this harshness by saying Jesus was harshest with the Pharisees. The Pharisees were "doing the deeds of their father, the devil," and were unbelievers. Is Blomberg really wanting to shout "brood of vipers" at large swaths of Christians and implying that they too are wicked deceivers doing the will of Satan and damned?!
I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is measured, grace-filled rhetoric aimed at building up his brothers and sisters in Christ. How are his book and searing condemnations not doing the very thing he finds so disturbing in those "far right" Christians who disagree with him?
I will not let my teenage children read this book because it is just too angry; however, I have used one passage with them to demonstrate to them what a straw-man fallacy is.
May 28, 2018
Overall helpful answers to six common questions about the Bible, from an evangelical professor of New Testament. Even though the author is a scholar, the book is accessible. The conclusions at the end of each chapter are helpful. Each chapter talks about avoiding either extreme on the issue being discussed.
I've never heard of Blomberg, but he seems to be a moderate conservative. He questions the historicity of some events the Bible presents as history, but he maintains inerrancy because he doesn't believe those events are meant to be read as historical. He often (but not always) presents multiple views without revealing which he holds.
Blomberg says, "By nature, I am skeptical of any proposals that seem to have eluded all readers until the last couple of centuries. When I learn that there were ancient debates over certain issues, I am more open to considering alternative interpretations."
Blomberg makes many negative remarks about both liberals and conservatives. He often gets "political" about his personal disagreements with other Christians, whom he names. There's no reason for that in this book.
Questions answered
1. Aren't the Copies of the Bible Hopelessly Corrupt?
2. Wasn't the Selection of Books for the Canon Just Political?
3. Can We Trust Any of Our Translations of the Bible?
4. Don't These Issues Rule Out Biblical Inerrancy?
5. Aren't Several Narrative Genres of the Bible Unhistorical?
6. Don't All the Miracles Make the Bible Mythical?
Summary
1. "We have an extraordinarily high probability of being able to reconstruct the original texts of the biblical books, much higher than for any other documents of antiquity."
2. "Especially with respect to the New Testament books, where there is no disagreement among the major branches of the Christian church as to what the canon should contain, claims about the accuracy and value of apocryphal or noncanonical counterparts are dramatically exaggerated."
3. "Modern-language translations, including in English, are demonstrably very reliable."
Notes
Aren't the Copies of the Bible Hopelessly Corrupt?
The only disputed passages involving more than 2 verses in length are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11.
Most likely, Mark intended to end at v 8, with fear and failure of the women, because one of his themes was fear and failure of Jesus' followers.
There are about 24 shorter variants (of 1-2 verses) in NT, and the rest (200-300 variants) affect less than 1 verse, usually just a few words.
Doxology at end of Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:13 ("for thine is the kingdom …") is probably not original.
Variants are spread across 25,000 manuscripts, and large percentage cluster around the same verses or passages. Less than 3% are significant enough to be presented in 1 of 2 standard critical editions of Greek NT. Only 0.1% are interesting enough to appear in footnotes of most English translations. No orthodox doctrine or practice depends solely on disputed wording; there are always undisputed passages that teach same truths.
NT textual criticism usually take all evidence into account before deciding on a reading. OT criticism almost always begins with Masoretic Text (MT) and turns to other versions if there are problems with MT.
Manuscripts were used for 150-500 years before being discarded, so 2nd and 3rd century NT manuscripts could be copies of autographs, or at most copies of copies of them.
Even when Dead Sea copies deviate noticeably from MT, the rarely introduce a new reading that can't be explained by accidental copy error or intentional change in diverging from an earlier manuscript.
Most gnostic and apocryphal NT texts exist in only 1 copy. Sometimes 2 copies exist but they have radical differences.
We don't claim inerrant transmission, but inerrant originals.
"Textual criticism is not a democracy. One does not count manuscripts; one weighs them."
Reason so many Byzantine texts exist is Byzantium was center of Eastern Orthodox world for centuries.
Modern translations don't remove words included in King James Version (KJV); they translate from thousands of pre-14th century Greek texts, none of which contain those words.
Wasn't the Selection of Books for the Canon Just Political?
No references to unorthodox Hebrew writings from OT times (rather than intertestamental period) exist anywhere.
Law (Pentateuch) were earliest books to be canonized. Prophets were likely added in 4th century BC. The Writings were probably canonized late 1st century AD.
Pseudepigrapha (books attributed to an ancient OT patriarch but written much later) were never canonized by anyone, with 1-2 exceptions.
Books of Apocrypha were never accepted as inspired or authoritative by any branch of Judaism, nor put forward as candidates for canonization.
Apocrypha was widely used, even in churches, but not declared canonical by any ecumenical council until Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, in response to Reformation.
Portions of every book of Hebrew canon were among Dead Sea scrolls (except Esther), but only 3 books of Apocrypha were present.
NT quotes from many OT books, but never from Apocrypha. Jude quotes once from pseudepigraphic 1 Enoch, but that doesn't mean he considered it canon. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophers without implying that they were Scripture.
No apocryphal books claim to be God's Word. Many have historical inaccuracies or theological inconsistencies.
Reformers rejected Apocrypha as canon because Jews did, regardless of what early church fathers believed.
In early centuries AD rabbis debated canonicity of Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
Adding Apocrypha to OT disrupts its chronological and theological unity.
There was very little debate about 1-2 Timothy and Titus, and more debate about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude Revelation, but no dispute about other NT books.
Heb was questioned because author is unknown. James was questioned because of its apparent contradiction in Jam 2:18-26 (which isn't a contradiction). 2 Pet was questioned because of its different style than 1 Pet. 2-3 John and Jude were questioned about their timelessness because they're so short. Rev was questioned because of its puzzling content.
Apocrypha and gnostic NT documents don't claim canonicity. They also don't tie in with OT nearly as explicitly as NT canon. There's no indication that gnostics or others wanted to canonize the extra books.
Criteria of NT Canonization
• Apolisticity. Written during apostolic age (1st century AD), before death of last of 12 apostles (probably John). Author no more than 1 person removed from an apostle or eyewitness of Jesus.
• Catholicity. Recognized as valuable and used by early Christian world, not just by 1 sect or location.
• Orthodoxy. Faithful to teachings of Jesus and apostles and in agreement with OT.
• Fulfilling Hebrew Scriptures. Fulfilling prophecies of Messiah, new covenant, pouring out Spirit, believers from every nation.
• Inspiration and self-attestation. God's Spirit testifying to communities, not just individuals, which books are inspired. Authors consciously adding to Scripture without contradicting it.
1 Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul's letters are Scripture.
Early patristic authors viewed books of Protestant NT as Scripture.
Muratorian Canon (late 2nd century) listed 20 undisputed books and Heb. Irenaeus considered those and 2 John canon, and took for granted that all Christians considered 4 gospels canonical. Tertullian mentions 23 books, including Jam and Rev but not 2 John. Origen listed books that aren't part of Protestant NT as disputed, as did Eusebius.
Athanasius listed 27 NT books that make up Protestant NT as canon. Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397) ratified that.
Gospel of Thomas is only gnostic text ever found on any ancient canonical list, and only once. But it's not canonical because it's not narrative like other gospels and contains unorthodox content. Was likely later than and dependent on Synoptics.
Can We Trust Any of Our Translations of the Bible?
NASB, ESV, NRSV are formal equivalence (essentially literal). HCSB and BIV are optimal equivalence (balancing accuracy and clarity).
Formal equivalence is best for careful study by those who can't or won't study original languages or read commentaries or other sources that used original languages. Dynamic equivalence is good for young people. Optimal equivalence is best for pulpit ministry (but if almost all in congregation are college graduates and experience Bible readers, formal equivalence is best).
Gender-inclusive translations replace masculine terms with gender-neutral terms when context doesn't refer exclusively to males but to humans in general.
"All the major, nonsectarian Bible translations are more than adequate for teaching God’s people everything God wants them to know that really matters. The KJV, despite its slightly faulty textual base, is a highly reliable, formally equivalent translation, made intelligible to modern people by the NKJV. The NASB is outstanding even if often somewhat woodenly literal." ESV is an "excellent revision" of RSV. "HCSB is an excellent optimal equivalent translation that deserves more attention … The updated NIV may have attained the best combination of accuracy and clarity of all the translations."
Don't These Issues Rule Out Biblical Inerrancy?
Definition of inerrancy: "Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." (from Paul Feinberg's essay on Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
Doctrine of inerrancy wasn't designed to judge a writer's linguistic skills; there's no divinely mandated way to turn oral speech into letters, or words into sentences.
Ancient writers used less precision when reporting speech (e.g., Gen 18:12-13).
Like any itinerant teacher, Jesus respeated Himself, which is why Gospels record His short sayings in different contexts.
Scriptural narratives group material together topically or thematically.
Aren't Several Narrative Genres of the Bible Unhistorical?
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 13:
"There is good well-argued scholarship for the historical reliability of most of the narrative portions of Scripture (i.e., those that are written in a form that suggests they intend to narrate history.) … Not all writings of a narrative genre intend to record history; we need to treat each on a case-by-case basis."
I've never heard of Blomberg, but he seems to be a moderate conservative. He questions the historicity of some events the Bible presents as history, but he maintains inerrancy because he doesn't believe those events are meant to be read as historical. He often (but not always) presents multiple views without revealing which he holds.
Blomberg says, "By nature, I am skeptical of any proposals that seem to have eluded all readers until the last couple of centuries. When I learn that there were ancient debates over certain issues, I am more open to considering alternative interpretations."
Blomberg makes many negative remarks about both liberals and conservatives. He often gets "political" about his personal disagreements with other Christians, whom he names. There's no reason for that in this book.
Questions answered
1. Aren't the Copies of the Bible Hopelessly Corrupt?
2. Wasn't the Selection of Books for the Canon Just Political?
3. Can We Trust Any of Our Translations of the Bible?
4. Don't These Issues Rule Out Biblical Inerrancy?
5. Aren't Several Narrative Genres of the Bible Unhistorical?
6. Don't All the Miracles Make the Bible Mythical?
Summary
1. "We have an extraordinarily high probability of being able to reconstruct the original texts of the biblical books, much higher than for any other documents of antiquity."
2. "Especially with respect to the New Testament books, where there is no disagreement among the major branches of the Christian church as to what the canon should contain, claims about the accuracy and value of apocryphal or noncanonical counterparts are dramatically exaggerated."
3. "Modern-language translations, including in English, are demonstrably very reliable."
Notes
Aren't the Copies of the Bible Hopelessly Corrupt?
The only disputed passages involving more than 2 verses in length are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11.
Most likely, Mark intended to end at v 8, with fear and failure of the women, because one of his themes was fear and failure of Jesus' followers.
There are about 24 shorter variants (of 1-2 verses) in NT, and the rest (200-300 variants) affect less than 1 verse, usually just a few words.
Doxology at end of Lord's Prayer in Matt 6:13 ("for thine is the kingdom …") is probably not original.
Variants are spread across 25,000 manuscripts, and large percentage cluster around the same verses or passages. Less than 3% are significant enough to be presented in 1 of 2 standard critical editions of Greek NT. Only 0.1% are interesting enough to appear in footnotes of most English translations. No orthodox doctrine or practice depends solely on disputed wording; there are always undisputed passages that teach same truths.
NT textual criticism usually take all evidence into account before deciding on a reading. OT criticism almost always begins with Masoretic Text (MT) and turns to other versions if there are problems with MT.
Manuscripts were used for 150-500 years before being discarded, so 2nd and 3rd century NT manuscripts could be copies of autographs, or at most copies of copies of them.
Even when Dead Sea copies deviate noticeably from MT, the rarely introduce a new reading that can't be explained by accidental copy error or intentional change in diverging from an earlier manuscript.
Most gnostic and apocryphal NT texts exist in only 1 copy. Sometimes 2 copies exist but they have radical differences.
We don't claim inerrant transmission, but inerrant originals.
"Textual criticism is not a democracy. One does not count manuscripts; one weighs them."
Reason so many Byzantine texts exist is Byzantium was center of Eastern Orthodox world for centuries.
Modern translations don't remove words included in King James Version (KJV); they translate from thousands of pre-14th century Greek texts, none of which contain those words.
Wasn't the Selection of Books for the Canon Just Political?
No references to unorthodox Hebrew writings from OT times (rather than intertestamental period) exist anywhere.
Law (Pentateuch) were earliest books to be canonized. Prophets were likely added in 4th century BC. The Writings were probably canonized late 1st century AD.
Pseudepigrapha (books attributed to an ancient OT patriarch but written much later) were never canonized by anyone, with 1-2 exceptions.
Books of Apocrypha were never accepted as inspired or authoritative by any branch of Judaism, nor put forward as candidates for canonization.
Apocrypha was widely used, even in churches, but not declared canonical by any ecumenical council until Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546, in response to Reformation.
Portions of every book of Hebrew canon were among Dead Sea scrolls (except Esther), but only 3 books of Apocrypha were present.
NT quotes from many OT books, but never from Apocrypha. Jude quotes once from pseudepigraphic 1 Enoch, but that doesn't mean he considered it canon. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophers without implying that they were Scripture.
No apocryphal books claim to be God's Word. Many have historical inaccuracies or theological inconsistencies.
Reformers rejected Apocrypha as canon because Jews did, regardless of what early church fathers believed.
In early centuries AD rabbis debated canonicity of Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther.
Adding Apocrypha to OT disrupts its chronological and theological unity.
There was very little debate about 1-2 Timothy and Titus, and more debate about Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude Revelation, but no dispute about other NT books.
Heb was questioned because author is unknown. James was questioned because of its apparent contradiction in Jam 2:18-26 (which isn't a contradiction). 2 Pet was questioned because of its different style than 1 Pet. 2-3 John and Jude were questioned about their timelessness because they're so short. Rev was questioned because of its puzzling content.
Apocrypha and gnostic NT documents don't claim canonicity. They also don't tie in with OT nearly as explicitly as NT canon. There's no indication that gnostics or others wanted to canonize the extra books.
Criteria of NT Canonization
• Apolisticity. Written during apostolic age (1st century AD), before death of last of 12 apostles (probably John). Author no more than 1 person removed from an apostle or eyewitness of Jesus.
• Catholicity. Recognized as valuable and used by early Christian world, not just by 1 sect or location.
• Orthodoxy. Faithful to teachings of Jesus and apostles and in agreement with OT.
• Fulfilling Hebrew Scriptures. Fulfilling prophecies of Messiah, new covenant, pouring out Spirit, believers from every nation.
• Inspiration and self-attestation. God's Spirit testifying to communities, not just individuals, which books are inspired. Authors consciously adding to Scripture without contradicting it.
1 Tim 5:18 quotes Luke 10:7 as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says Paul's letters are Scripture.
Early patristic authors viewed books of Protestant NT as Scripture.
Muratorian Canon (late 2nd century) listed 20 undisputed books and Heb. Irenaeus considered those and 2 John canon, and took for granted that all Christians considered 4 gospels canonical. Tertullian mentions 23 books, including Jam and Rev but not 2 John. Origen listed books that aren't part of Protestant NT as disputed, as did Eusebius.
Athanasius listed 27 NT books that make up Protestant NT as canon. Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397) ratified that.
Gospel of Thomas is only gnostic text ever found on any ancient canonical list, and only once. But it's not canonical because it's not narrative like other gospels and contains unorthodox content. Was likely later than and dependent on Synoptics.
Can We Trust Any of Our Translations of the Bible?
NASB, ESV, NRSV are formal equivalence (essentially literal). HCSB and BIV are optimal equivalence (balancing accuracy and clarity).
Formal equivalence is best for careful study by those who can't or won't study original languages or read commentaries or other sources that used original languages. Dynamic equivalence is good for young people. Optimal equivalence is best for pulpit ministry (but if almost all in congregation are college graduates and experience Bible readers, formal equivalence is best).
Gender-inclusive translations replace masculine terms with gender-neutral terms when context doesn't refer exclusively to males but to humans in general.
"All the major, nonsectarian Bible translations are more than adequate for teaching God’s people everything God wants them to know that really matters. The KJV, despite its slightly faulty textual base, is a highly reliable, formally equivalent translation, made intelligible to modern people by the NKJV. The NASB is outstanding even if often somewhat woodenly literal." ESV is an "excellent revision" of RSV. "HCSB is an excellent optimal equivalent translation that deserves more attention … The updated NIV may have attained the best combination of accuracy and clarity of all the translations."
Don't These Issues Rule Out Biblical Inerrancy?
Definition of inerrancy: "Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." (from Paul Feinberg's essay on Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
Doctrine of inerrancy wasn't designed to judge a writer's linguistic skills; there's no divinely mandated way to turn oral speech into letters, or words into sentences.
Ancient writers used less precision when reporting speech (e.g., Gen 18:12-13).
Like any itinerant teacher, Jesus respeated Himself, which is why Gospels record His short sayings in different contexts.
Scriptural narratives group material together topically or thematically.
Aren't Several Narrative Genres of the Bible Unhistorical?
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Article 13:
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.Biblical language for fathering/"begetting" is loose enough to refer merely to an ancestral, not necessarily parental, relationship. Gaps in genealogies can be seen by comparing parallel genealogies (e.g., Matt 1:1-7 to Luke 3:28-38).
"There is good well-argued scholarship for the historical reliability of most of the narrative portions of Scripture (i.e., those that are written in a form that suggests they intend to narrate history.) … Not all writings of a narrative genre intend to record history; we need to treat each on a case-by-case basis."
Read
March 19, 2025Wirklich solides Buch, dass tief geht, sich aber nicht unnötig in details verliert und immer wieder auch von einer superkonservativen schwarz-weiß-Meinung abgrenzt. Die Fußnoten sind eine Fundgrube für alle möglichen bibel-Themen
October 4, 2025
...Ok, I'll be honest. I did not have high expectations for this book. Some books you read because you want to read them, and other books you read because someone with the power of professorship hands them to you and says, "read this for a grade" and you do it.
I'll let you guess which category this book fell into.
Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised. While I learned very little new information, I appreciated the depths of study put into each chapter, and the chapters that touched on subjects I was more intimately familiar with (like the translation chapter) were so accurate that my trust grew for Bloomberg's overall arguments. I also appreciated the way he structured his information so that each topic flowed together into a coherent narrative about why the Bible is still trustworthy in the modern era. This is a solid read if you want something academic but approachable on the Bible's reliability as a source of ultimate truth.
That being said, in many ways this is a book written to Christians and so may not be quite as accessible to someone who isn't already part of the faith trying to sort through what to believe about the Bible. Bloomberg regularly addresses not just the people who question or discredit the Bible's reliability but also other Christians who have tried to counter those skeptical or hostile arguments by taking the pendulum swinging all the way the other direction. I found his arguments interesting and helpful, but I'm also aware of the issues and have already spent time thinking through various positions to find out where I stand. If you're just starting out for the first time, those critiques may not be helpful and may be actively confusing. There were also a few times where Bloomberg seemed to be addressing people who had personally attacked him in the past, and sometimes he was better about being charitable than others.
All that to say, it's a well-researched book that presents the arguments clearly and helpfully, but it might not be quite the best place to start learning about the Bible if you're just looking into it for the first time and aren't aware of some of the philosophical and theological subdivisions within Christianity.
I'll let you guess which category this book fell into.
Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised. While I learned very little new information, I appreciated the depths of study put into each chapter, and the chapters that touched on subjects I was more intimately familiar with (like the translation chapter) were so accurate that my trust grew for Bloomberg's overall arguments. I also appreciated the way he structured his information so that each topic flowed together into a coherent narrative about why the Bible is still trustworthy in the modern era. This is a solid read if you want something academic but approachable on the Bible's reliability as a source of ultimate truth.
That being said, in many ways this is a book written to Christians and so may not be quite as accessible to someone who isn't already part of the faith trying to sort through what to believe about the Bible. Bloomberg regularly addresses not just the people who question or discredit the Bible's reliability but also other Christians who have tried to counter those skeptical or hostile arguments by taking the pendulum swinging all the way the other direction. I found his arguments interesting and helpful, but I'm also aware of the issues and have already spent time thinking through various positions to find out where I stand. If you're just starting out for the first time, those critiques may not be helpful and may be actively confusing. There were also a few times where Bloomberg seemed to be addressing people who had personally attacked him in the past, and sometimes he was better about being charitable than others.
All that to say, it's a well-researched book that presents the arguments clearly and helpfully, but it might not be quite the best place to start learning about the Bible if you're just looking into it for the first time and aren't aware of some of the philosophical and theological subdivisions within Christianity.
January 19, 2024
2024:
3,5 Stars
There were some very helpful things in here. Worth reading just for those. On the other hand particularly the first part of the book comes off less a defence of the Bible and more a ridicule and attack of various denominations.
3,5 Stars
There were some very helpful things in here. Worth reading just for those. On the other hand particularly the first part of the book comes off less a defence of the Bible and more a ridicule and attack of various denominations.
May 21, 2018
This is an interesting but also disturbing book.
It is interesting because it addresses almost every possible objection you can think of concerning believing the Bible.
It is deeply disturbing because in the process, Blomberg tries to redefined what it means to believe the Bible.
He brings up all the right questions, but the proceeds to give so many wrong answers.
He does not seem to believe that the Scriptures are truly without error, and yet still claims they are reliable.
He suggests that to understand the Bible, you have to interpret Scripture in line with the cultural limitations of the writers (whoever they might be!)
He constantly attacks "inerrantists" and "cessationists" and "conservatives."
I am afraid this book will confuse people who read it instead of helping them trust the Word of God more.
It is interesting because it addresses almost every possible objection you can think of concerning believing the Bible.
It is deeply disturbing because in the process, Blomberg tries to redefined what it means to believe the Bible.
He brings up all the right questions, but the proceeds to give so many wrong answers.
He does not seem to believe that the Scriptures are truly without error, and yet still claims they are reliable.
He suggests that to understand the Bible, you have to interpret Scripture in line with the cultural limitations of the writers (whoever they might be!)
He constantly attacks "inerrantists" and "cessationists" and "conservatives."
I am afraid this book will confuse people who read it instead of helping them trust the Word of God more.
October 8, 2015
MUCH good and much poor Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric against the Catholic/Orthodox Canons and bitterness over Christian Smith's recent conversion to Catholicism (in criticizing "biblicism" as common among Evangelicals), Barnes and Noble reviewer "artsippo" does an OK job of clarifying, also Daniel B. Wallace on his blog does a good Protestant review (following is 'artsippo's' review);
I was reading Dr. Blomberg's book "Can We Still Believe the Bible?" and I was very disappointed in the section on the Old Testament canon. I have enjoyed his books in the past and I was very sad to see him reiterate several falsehoods that have been used by Protestants to deny the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. These falsehoods have been refuted over the last 40 years as scholarship has advanced and it is inexcusable that a man with Dr. Blomberg's reputation should try to perpetuate them.
I will note few of these errors:
1) The Apocrypha was "not even put forward for canonization within Judaism." (p. 47)
This is false. In the opening pages of the Babylonian Talmud, there is a description of the process of discernment for determining which books should be included in the Jewish Bible. Both Sirach and Wisdom were considered for inclusion though ultimately rejects because of their late date. Nevertheless, the Talmud quotes from Sirach as Scripture and the copy of Hebrew Sirach found in the Cairo Genizah was written using all of the conventions that the Jews reserved only for biblical books. We now know that there were several different Biblical Canons extant among the Jews in the Diaspora and many of them included the Deuterocanonical bookss, especially those of Greek speaking Jews who used the Septuagint (LXX) as their primary Bible.
2)"Despite their widespread usage...no ecumenical (i.e., empire wide) council officially declared them canonical until the Council of Trent in 1546." (p. 48)
This is false. In the late 4th and early 5th Centuries there were 16 Councils held in North Africa to deal with the Pelagian and Donatist problems. The Council of HIPPO in 393 AD gave a list of the Canon of Scripture which was IDENTICAL to the list reaffirmed at Trent. It referred its canon on this to the "Transmarine Church" (i.e. Rome) for confirmation which was indeed granted. (NB: No distinction was made to an Old or New Testament. The Canon of Scripture was promulgated as a single list.) Two Popes in the next 25 years reaffirmed the Biblical Canon from Hippo upon request from other bishops for clarification on the Biblical Canon. The policy of the 16 Councils was to reaffirm the list of canons from previous councils in the series before adding new ones. A large list of canons were produced which were considered the definitive response to the errors of the Pelagians and Donatists. In 418 AD, the Pope declared all the canons from the 16 Councils to represent official Church teaching and they were treated as such from that point forward. The 7th Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) reaffirmed a list of 85 previous sources, treatises, and canons of local councils as representing official teaching. The canons from the North African Councils were on that list.
It should also be noted that the Latin Vulgate which became the official Bible of the Latin Church from the date of its publication contained the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture despite St Jerome's misgivings. Furthermore EVERY major Church Father (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and EVEN St. Jerome himself!) unambiguously quoted from the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
Also the Glossa Ordinaria which were quoted in the margins of the Vulgate Bible as the standard instructional notes on the Biblical text during the Medieval Period included the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1473 AD, Pope Eugenius wrote an extended letter which included among other things the reiteration of the Traditional Long Canon from Hippo. This letter is considered part of the official output from that Council.
As a result it was not an "irate" Catholic Church (Dr. Blomberg's words) that reaffirmed the Deuterocanonical books at Trent but a well informed and historical educated one. In fact this is exactly what the Council of Trent said about it in the opening section of the Fourth Session:
"...(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: (THE LIST FOLLOWS)
"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."
As you can see the Council did not make up a new canonical list but merely reaffirmed the one that it had received from Tradition. The Canon of Scripture had been settled as far as the Catholic Church was concerned over 1000 years earlier.
3) "The New Testament never quotes from the Apocrypha."
This is false. There are several places where extensive use is made of the Deuterocanonical books. St. Paul uses large portions of the Book of Wisdom (esp. Chapter 13) in the early chapters of Romans. The letter to the Hebrews refers to the Story of the Maccabean Martyrs. And there is extensive correspondence between the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain and Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit. The same is true for the Epistle of St. James. In fact, the recent translation of Tobit in the NRSV makes it plain that there are several parallels between that book and the NT.
4) "The Protestants asserted not that the Church Fathers did not use the Apocrypha but only that no Jews did."
This is false as I have shown above, but it is endemic of the ignorant, Anti-Catholic and unhistorical attitude that Protestants take towards the Early Church. WHO CARES WHAT THE JEWS THOUGHT? They rejected Christ so why are we holding them up as experts on revelation for Christians? Besides, the consensus of scholarship at this time (e.g., Frank Moore Cross, James VanderKam, John Barton, Lee Martin MacDonald, James A. Sanders, and A. C. Sundberg to name a few) is that the Jewish canon of the Bible was not closed until after the time of Christ. There was no clear consensus of Rabbinical schools on this matter until the late 4th Century. By the time the Jews tried to discern their canon, the Holy Spirit had descended on the Church at Pentecost and the Jews no longer had any authority to speak definitively on this matter. Why do Protestants insist on giving more authority to non-Christian Rabbis than they do to Catholic Ministers about whom Jesus said "He who hears you hears me"(Luke 10:16)?
In short, everything he used to claim that the Deuterocanonical material is not Scripture were lies. The real reason that Protestants rejected them is that the Deuterocanonical books CONTRADICTED the innovative religious systems invented by the Protestant heresiarchs. The emphasis on wisdom literature in the Deuteros contradicted the anti-nomian assertions of the early Protestants. The Deuteros agreed with St. James about the meaning of the Aqedah and Abraham's righteousness before God which undermines the Protestant theory of imputation. The Deuteros reaffirmed the perennial teachings about prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints which the Church had inherited from Judaism but which the man-made Protestant systems of the 16th Century could not accommodate. The strong ethical message of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount/Plain have always been difficult for Protestants to assimilate since it contradicts their views on "justification by faith alone." Jesus reiterated much of what was taught in Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom. There has always been a strong affinity between Jesus' Sermon, the Deuteros, and the Epistle of St. James which was another reason (other than James 2:24) that Luther wanted to throw St. James' Epistle out of the canon.
I had high expectations that Dr. Blomberg would deal honestly with the debate over the Canon. Instead he has perpetuated much of the misinformation that Protestants have come up with on the subject. Meanwhile he has not dealt honestly with the reception of the Patristic Church of the Deueros as Scripture but instead chose to exclude evidence contrary to his prejudices with the deliberate intention of deceiving his readers.
What Dr. Blomberg has done is morally reprehensible and he needs to repent of his misrepresentations.
I was reading Dr. Blomberg's book "Can We Still Believe the Bible?" and I was very disappointed in the section on the Old Testament canon. I have enjoyed his books in the past and I was very sad to see him reiterate several falsehoods that have been used by Protestants to deny the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books. These falsehoods have been refuted over the last 40 years as scholarship has advanced and it is inexcusable that a man with Dr. Blomberg's reputation should try to perpetuate them.
I will note few of these errors:
1) The Apocrypha was "not even put forward for canonization within Judaism." (p. 47)
This is false. In the opening pages of the Babylonian Talmud, there is a description of the process of discernment for determining which books should be included in the Jewish Bible. Both Sirach and Wisdom were considered for inclusion though ultimately rejects because of their late date. Nevertheless, the Talmud quotes from Sirach as Scripture and the copy of Hebrew Sirach found in the Cairo Genizah was written using all of the conventions that the Jews reserved only for biblical books. We now know that there were several different Biblical Canons extant among the Jews in the Diaspora and many of them included the Deuterocanonical bookss, especially those of Greek speaking Jews who used the Septuagint (LXX) as their primary Bible.
2)"Despite their widespread usage...no ecumenical (i.e., empire wide) council officially declared them canonical until the Council of Trent in 1546." (p. 48)
This is false. In the late 4th and early 5th Centuries there were 16 Councils held in North Africa to deal with the Pelagian and Donatist problems. The Council of HIPPO in 393 AD gave a list of the Canon of Scripture which was IDENTICAL to the list reaffirmed at Trent. It referred its canon on this to the "Transmarine Church" (i.e. Rome) for confirmation which was indeed granted. (NB: No distinction was made to an Old or New Testament. The Canon of Scripture was promulgated as a single list.) Two Popes in the next 25 years reaffirmed the Biblical Canon from Hippo upon request from other bishops for clarification on the Biblical Canon. The policy of the 16 Councils was to reaffirm the list of canons from previous councils in the series before adding new ones. A large list of canons were produced which were considered the definitive response to the errors of the Pelagians and Donatists. In 418 AD, the Pope declared all the canons from the 16 Councils to represent official Church teaching and they were treated as such from that point forward. The 7th Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) reaffirmed a list of 85 previous sources, treatises, and canons of local councils as representing official teaching. The canons from the North African Councils were on that list.
It should also be noted that the Latin Vulgate which became the official Bible of the Latin Church from the date of its publication contained the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture despite St Jerome's misgivings. Furthermore EVERY major Church Father (St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and EVEN St. Jerome himself!) unambiguously quoted from the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
Also the Glossa Ordinaria which were quoted in the margins of the Vulgate Bible as the standard instructional notes on the Biblical text during the Medieval Period included the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture.
At the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1473 AD, Pope Eugenius wrote an extended letter which included among other things the reiteration of the Traditional Long Canon from Hippo. This letter is considered part of the official output from that Council.
As a result it was not an "irate" Catholic Church (Dr. Blomberg's words) that reaffirmed the Deuterocanonical books at Trent but a well informed and historical educated one. In fact this is exactly what the Council of Trent said about it in the opening section of the Fourth Session:
"...(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: (THE LIST FOLLOWS)
"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema."
As you can see the Council did not make up a new canonical list but merely reaffirmed the one that it had received from Tradition. The Canon of Scripture had been settled as far as the Catholic Church was concerned over 1000 years earlier.
3) "The New Testament never quotes from the Apocrypha."
This is false. There are several places where extensive use is made of the Deuterocanonical books. St. Paul uses large portions of the Book of Wisdom (esp. Chapter 13) in the early chapters of Romans. The letter to the Hebrews refers to the Story of the Maccabean Martyrs. And there is extensive correspondence between the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount/Plain and Wisdom, Sirach, and Tobit. The same is true for the Epistle of St. James. In fact, the recent translation of Tobit in the NRSV makes it plain that there are several parallels between that book and the NT.
4) "The Protestants asserted not that the Church Fathers did not use the Apocrypha but only that no Jews did."
This is false as I have shown above, but it is endemic of the ignorant, Anti-Catholic and unhistorical attitude that Protestants take towards the Early Church. WHO CARES WHAT THE JEWS THOUGHT? They rejected Christ so why are we holding them up as experts on revelation for Christians? Besides, the consensus of scholarship at this time (e.g., Frank Moore Cross, James VanderKam, John Barton, Lee Martin MacDonald, James A. Sanders, and A. C. Sundberg to name a few) is that the Jewish canon of the Bible was not closed until after the time of Christ. There was no clear consensus of Rabbinical schools on this matter until the late 4th Century. By the time the Jews tried to discern their canon, the Holy Spirit had descended on the Church at Pentecost and the Jews no longer had any authority to speak definitively on this matter. Why do Protestants insist on giving more authority to non-Christian Rabbis than they do to Catholic Ministers about whom Jesus said "He who hears you hears me"(Luke 10:16)?
In short, everything he used to claim that the Deuterocanonical material is not Scripture were lies. The real reason that Protestants rejected them is that the Deuterocanonical books CONTRADICTED the innovative religious systems invented by the Protestant heresiarchs. The emphasis on wisdom literature in the Deuteros contradicted the anti-nomian assertions of the early Protestants. The Deuteros agreed with St. James about the meaning of the Aqedah and Abraham's righteousness before God which undermines the Protestant theory of imputation. The Deuteros reaffirmed the perennial teachings about prayers for the dead and the intercession of the saints which the Church had inherited from Judaism but which the man-made Protestant systems of the 16th Century could not accommodate. The strong ethical message of Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount/Plain have always been difficult for Protestants to assimilate since it contradicts their views on "justification by faith alone." Jesus reiterated much of what was taught in Tobit, Sirach, and Wisdom. There has always been a strong affinity between Jesus' Sermon, the Deuteros, and the Epistle of St. James which was another reason (other than James 2:24) that Luther wanted to throw St. James' Epistle out of the canon.
I had high expectations that Dr. Blomberg would deal honestly with the debate over the Canon. Instead he has perpetuated much of the misinformation that Protestants have come up with on the subject. Meanwhile he has not dealt honestly with the reception of the Patristic Church of the Deueros as Scripture but instead chose to exclude evidence contrary to his prejudices with the deliberate intention of deceiving his readers.
What Dr. Blomberg has done is morally reprehensible and he needs to repent of his misrepresentations.
January 22, 2019
Well researched, with an extensive bibliography that can serve as a jumping off point for further study and other viewpoints. Written from a (relatively) conservative evangelical viewpoint but definitely comes from a scholarly rather than pastoral perspective. Excellent chapters on textual variations in Bible manuscripts and the selection of the canon. The chapters on Bible versions and statements of inerrancy veer into “inside baseball” in my opinion, more geared toward Bible scholars and translators familiar with those topics than the general audience. The chapter on miracles has some good points, but I’d also like to mention “Where the conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga for a more philosophical discussion of whether a belief in miracles can coexist with a scientific worldview.
May 28, 2024
THE FAMED NEW TESTAMENT SCHOLAR LOOKS AT SIX AREAS OF INTERPRETATION
Craig L. Blomberg is Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado; he wrote in the Preface to this 2014 book, “I wrote this book sooner than I had planned… The reliability of Scripture is the topic that first catapulted me into biblical scholarship… It is the topic on which I am most often invited to speak, and the need is decidedly urgent… Readers… need help in weaving their way through the maze of competing claims…Few academic disciplines yield a greater diversity of perspectives than biblical studies… This book does not pretend to have discovered some new breakthrough that will make the media swarm to examine its novel claims…. But it also refuses to try to turn back the clock and retreat to the mythical ‘good old days’ by disregarding genuine advances in biblical studies and censuring those who accept them.”
In the Introduction, he outlines, “There are some areas … of scholarship where new findings… have actually strengthened the case for the reliability or trustworthiness of the Scriptures… Six in particular have captured my attention… They involve textual criticism, the canon of Scripture, the proliferation of English (and other) translations of the Bible, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the diversity of literary genres among books… that appear to many as historical narrative, and the manifestations and meanings of the miraculous…. Sadly, there has also been a backlash in each of these six areas. A handful of very conservative Christian leaders who have not understood the issues adequately have reacted by unnecessarily rejecting the new developments… they have hindered genuine scholarship among evangelicals and needlessly scared unbelievers away from Christian faith.” (Pg. 7-8)
He criticizes Bart Ehrman’s 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,' for suggesting that there may be as many as 400,000 variations in New Testament manuscripts: “those 400,000 variants if there are that many, are spread across more than 25,000 manuscripts in Greek or other ancient languages. Suddenly the picture begins to look quite different. This is an average of only 16 variants per manuscript… Nor are the variants spread evenly across a given text; instead, they tend to cluster in places where some kind of ambiguity has stimulated them.” (Pg. 16-17)
Of Mark 16:9-20, he states, “not only ‘some ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel’ do not contain these verses but also that the verses are missing from ‘numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers … do not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time…’ … Quite frankly, we should be delighted to learn this, because … There is a tragic history of very fundamentalist Christian snake-handling churches in Appalachia… that treated this verse as if it were inspired Scripture, and yet they had numerous fatalities… Where did these verses come from?… Scribes undoubtedly thought that Mark could not have intended to end his Gospel … without an actual resurrection appearance, and so they composed a more ‘proper’ ending… All this makes it overwhelmingly likely that Mark did not originally contain these verses.” (Pg. 18-19) Later, he adds, “‘If various passages are not likely original, why do translations continue to print them?’ The answer is that some people take serious offense at anything being left out of a given Bible translation… and Bible translators and publishers want to avoid unnecessarily hostility against them!” (Pg. 23)
He points out, “there is really only one post-New Testament gnostic or apocryphal text that is worth any serious consideration: the Coptic Gospel of Thomas… At one time, a number of scholars were duped by Morton Smith’s claims to have photographed an ancient manuscript quoting excerpts of a ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’ at the Mar Saba monastery in the Judean Desert, but two independent studies in recent years have decisively proved the text to be a modern forgery, probably done by Smith himself.” (Pg. 70)
He suggests about the New Living Translation’s of James 2:1, “James was writing to Jewish Christians in a variety of congregations… which clearly included men and women. In his culture, addressing a mixed audience of both genders with the word [‘brothers’], when the people were not biological siblings, was a way of acknowledging that they were … spiritual kin. Today, a speaker addressing a mixed audience with the opening word ‘Brothers’ would elicit confusion. Is the speaker talking just to the men or to everyone?... So the NLT appropriately uses ‘brothers and sisters.’ Indeed, if a Bible is targeting an audience that has a significant number of people likely to misunderstand gender-exclusive language as referring only to men, then NOT to use gender-inclusive language would distort the meaning.” (Pg. 98-99)
He asserts, “With so much misinformation and faulty logic about Bible translations being disseminated, is it any wonder that unbelievers, and even some Christians, are convinced that one simply can’t trust Bibles written in modern languages? Should it cause surprise when individuals who once claimed to be evangelical Christians adopt another version of Christianity or abandon their professions of faith altogether and give as a primary reason for doing so the translation wars among Christians? Those who … [are] maligning certain major versions of the Bible as unreliable in order to support their own theological and political agendas, would do well to ponder such outcomes.” (Pg. 117)
About the issue of “inerrancy,” he notes, “it cannot be stressed strongly enough that the [Robert] Thomases and [Norman] Geislers of the world do not speak for the vast majority of evangelicals and inerrantists around the globe… Geisler was livid when the [Evangelical Theological Society] failed to produce the required two-thirds vote to force open theist Clark Pinnock and John Sanders to resign from the Society in 2003. (In Pinnock’s case there was not even a one-third vote)… So Geisler finally resigned from the ETS… The mass exodus he hoped to lead in protest against the ETS utterly failed to materialize… Geisler accuses countless evangelicals or helping to erode inerrancy, and he feels a responsibility to ‘expose’ us…” (Pg. 143) Later, he adds, “Geisler spearheaded a movement to have [Robert] Gundry ousted from the [ETS], believing his views to be incompatible with the doctrine [of inerrancy]… Geisler turned the event into a political campaign, circulating advertisements, calling friends who would not otherwise have come to the ETS meetings… where the issue was to be brought to a vote… and the membership present voted by just over the necessary two-thirds majority to expel Gundry from the society.” (Pg. 166-167)
He points out, “It is striking that the name ‘Isaiah’ appears sixteen times in chapters 1-39 in conjunction with the events and prophecies narrative and never again in the rest of the book. There is no claim within the text of Isaiah 40-66 for Isaianic authorship of these chapters. The New Testament evidence is suggestive in the direction of the unity of the book but not conclusive. Ultimately, what one decides about its composition or formation need not have anything to do with biblical inerrancy at all.” (Pg. 162-163)
He recounts, “Matthew’s… reference to resurrected saints seems … to have been motivated by the desire to maintain that Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead guarantees the coming bodily resurrection of ALL God’s people … But does that mean that Matthew 27:52b-53 must reflect simple history? Or could the text, too, narrate symbolically what Paul phrases more prosaically? In a magisterial defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, Michael Licona [in 'The Resurrection of Jesus'] ever so briefly raises this question… For this, opponents successfully mounted a campaign against Licona and were partly responsible for Licona’s departure from Southern Evangelical Seminary and from the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention… All of this would be just plain silly if it were not so tragic and if people’s careers and livelihoods didn’t hang in the balance.” (Pg. 174-175)
He acknowledges, “Because readers seem invariably curious, I will happily disclose where I come down at the moment… I would support an old-earth creationism and opt for a combination of progressive creation and a literary-framework approach to Genesis 1… I still find the arguments for the unity of Isaiah under a single primary author… more persuasive (or at least less problematic) than most do. I remain pretty much baffled by Daniel 11… My inherent conservatism inclines me in the direction of taking it as genuine predictive prophecy, but I listen respectfully to those who argue for other interpretations… I have net to be persuaded by Licona’s initial view of Matthew 27:52-53… I think good cases can still be mounted for the traditional ascriptions of authorship of the New Testament Epistles, allowing for perhaps some posthumous edition of 2 Peter.” (Pg. 177)
He admits, “Some will perhaps read this book and charge ME with being too harsh on fellow evangelicals (and perhaps not harsh enough on non-Christian critics and skeptics)…” (Pg. 217) He says of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (1979), “I do not think one has to settle for anything short of full-fledged inerrantist Christianity so long as we ensure that we employ all parts of a detailed exposition of inerrancy… and not just those sections that are most amenable to our personal philosophies or theologies. This also means that we interpret the Chicago Statement, like the Bible, in terms of what is actually written, and not merely what one of its authors might have wanted to write or might have wanted it to mean.” (Pg. 222)
This book is, by turns, scholarly, fascinating, controversial, and (perhaps) even a bit bad-tempered. But it will be of great interest to those studying contemporary issues on evangelical theology.
Craig L. Blomberg is Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary in Colorado; he wrote in the Preface to this 2014 book, “I wrote this book sooner than I had planned… The reliability of Scripture is the topic that first catapulted me into biblical scholarship… It is the topic on which I am most often invited to speak, and the need is decidedly urgent… Readers… need help in weaving their way through the maze of competing claims…Few academic disciplines yield a greater diversity of perspectives than biblical studies… This book does not pretend to have discovered some new breakthrough that will make the media swarm to examine its novel claims…. But it also refuses to try to turn back the clock and retreat to the mythical ‘good old days’ by disregarding genuine advances in biblical studies and censuring those who accept them.”
In the Introduction, he outlines, “There are some areas … of scholarship where new findings… have actually strengthened the case for the reliability or trustworthiness of the Scriptures… Six in particular have captured my attention… They involve textual criticism, the canon of Scripture, the proliferation of English (and other) translations of the Bible, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the diversity of literary genres among books… that appear to many as historical narrative, and the manifestations and meanings of the miraculous…. Sadly, there has also been a backlash in each of these six areas. A handful of very conservative Christian leaders who have not understood the issues adequately have reacted by unnecessarily rejecting the new developments… they have hindered genuine scholarship among evangelicals and needlessly scared unbelievers away from Christian faith.” (Pg. 7-8)
He criticizes Bart Ehrman’s 'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,' for suggesting that there may be as many as 400,000 variations in New Testament manuscripts: “those 400,000 variants if there are that many, are spread across more than 25,000 manuscripts in Greek or other ancient languages. Suddenly the picture begins to look quite different. This is an average of only 16 variants per manuscript… Nor are the variants spread evenly across a given text; instead, they tend to cluster in places where some kind of ambiguity has stimulated them.” (Pg. 16-17)
Of Mark 16:9-20, he states, “not only ‘some ancient manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel’ do not contain these verses but also that the verses are missing from ‘numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers … do not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time…’ … Quite frankly, we should be delighted to learn this, because … There is a tragic history of very fundamentalist Christian snake-handling churches in Appalachia… that treated this verse as if it were inspired Scripture, and yet they had numerous fatalities… Where did these verses come from?… Scribes undoubtedly thought that Mark could not have intended to end his Gospel … without an actual resurrection appearance, and so they composed a more ‘proper’ ending… All this makes it overwhelmingly likely that Mark did not originally contain these verses.” (Pg. 18-19) Later, he adds, “‘If various passages are not likely original, why do translations continue to print them?’ The answer is that some people take serious offense at anything being left out of a given Bible translation… and Bible translators and publishers want to avoid unnecessarily hostility against them!” (Pg. 23)
He points out, “there is really only one post-New Testament gnostic or apocryphal text that is worth any serious consideration: the Coptic Gospel of Thomas… At one time, a number of scholars were duped by Morton Smith’s claims to have photographed an ancient manuscript quoting excerpts of a ‘Secret Gospel of Mark’ at the Mar Saba monastery in the Judean Desert, but two independent studies in recent years have decisively proved the text to be a modern forgery, probably done by Smith himself.” (Pg. 70)
He suggests about the New Living Translation’s of James 2:1, “James was writing to Jewish Christians in a variety of congregations… which clearly included men and women. In his culture, addressing a mixed audience of both genders with the word [‘brothers’], when the people were not biological siblings, was a way of acknowledging that they were … spiritual kin. Today, a speaker addressing a mixed audience with the opening word ‘Brothers’ would elicit confusion. Is the speaker talking just to the men or to everyone?... So the NLT appropriately uses ‘brothers and sisters.’ Indeed, if a Bible is targeting an audience that has a significant number of people likely to misunderstand gender-exclusive language as referring only to men, then NOT to use gender-inclusive language would distort the meaning.” (Pg. 98-99)
He asserts, “With so much misinformation and faulty logic about Bible translations being disseminated, is it any wonder that unbelievers, and even some Christians, are convinced that one simply can’t trust Bibles written in modern languages? Should it cause surprise when individuals who once claimed to be evangelical Christians adopt another version of Christianity or abandon their professions of faith altogether and give as a primary reason for doing so the translation wars among Christians? Those who … [are] maligning certain major versions of the Bible as unreliable in order to support their own theological and political agendas, would do well to ponder such outcomes.” (Pg. 117)
About the issue of “inerrancy,” he notes, “it cannot be stressed strongly enough that the [Robert] Thomases and [Norman] Geislers of the world do not speak for the vast majority of evangelicals and inerrantists around the globe… Geisler was livid when the [Evangelical Theological Society] failed to produce the required two-thirds vote to force open theist Clark Pinnock and John Sanders to resign from the Society in 2003. (In Pinnock’s case there was not even a one-third vote)… So Geisler finally resigned from the ETS… The mass exodus he hoped to lead in protest against the ETS utterly failed to materialize… Geisler accuses countless evangelicals or helping to erode inerrancy, and he feels a responsibility to ‘expose’ us…” (Pg. 143) Later, he adds, “Geisler spearheaded a movement to have [Robert] Gundry ousted from the [ETS], believing his views to be incompatible with the doctrine [of inerrancy]… Geisler turned the event into a political campaign, circulating advertisements, calling friends who would not otherwise have come to the ETS meetings… where the issue was to be brought to a vote… and the membership present voted by just over the necessary two-thirds majority to expel Gundry from the society.” (Pg. 166-167)
He points out, “It is striking that the name ‘Isaiah’ appears sixteen times in chapters 1-39 in conjunction with the events and prophecies narrative and never again in the rest of the book. There is no claim within the text of Isaiah 40-66 for Isaianic authorship of these chapters. The New Testament evidence is suggestive in the direction of the unity of the book but not conclusive. Ultimately, what one decides about its composition or formation need not have anything to do with biblical inerrancy at all.” (Pg. 162-163)
He recounts, “Matthew’s… reference to resurrected saints seems … to have been motivated by the desire to maintain that Jesus’s bodily resurrection from the dead guarantees the coming bodily resurrection of ALL God’s people … But does that mean that Matthew 27:52b-53 must reflect simple history? Or could the text, too, narrate symbolically what Paul phrases more prosaically? In a magisterial defense of the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, Michael Licona [in 'The Resurrection of Jesus'] ever so briefly raises this question… For this, opponents successfully mounted a campaign against Licona and were partly responsible for Licona’s departure from Southern Evangelical Seminary and from the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention… All of this would be just plain silly if it were not so tragic and if people’s careers and livelihoods didn’t hang in the balance.” (Pg. 174-175)
He acknowledges, “Because readers seem invariably curious, I will happily disclose where I come down at the moment… I would support an old-earth creationism and opt for a combination of progressive creation and a literary-framework approach to Genesis 1… I still find the arguments for the unity of Isaiah under a single primary author… more persuasive (or at least less problematic) than most do. I remain pretty much baffled by Daniel 11… My inherent conservatism inclines me in the direction of taking it as genuine predictive prophecy, but I listen respectfully to those who argue for other interpretations… I have net to be persuaded by Licona’s initial view of Matthew 27:52-53… I think good cases can still be mounted for the traditional ascriptions of authorship of the New Testament Epistles, allowing for perhaps some posthumous edition of 2 Peter.” (Pg. 177)
He admits, “Some will perhaps read this book and charge ME with being too harsh on fellow evangelicals (and perhaps not harsh enough on non-Christian critics and skeptics)…” (Pg. 217) He says of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (1979), “I do not think one has to settle for anything short of full-fledged inerrantist Christianity so long as we ensure that we employ all parts of a detailed exposition of inerrancy… and not just those sections that are most amenable to our personal philosophies or theologies. This also means that we interpret the Chicago Statement, like the Bible, in terms of what is actually written, and not merely what one of its authors might have wanted to write or might have wanted it to mean.” (Pg. 222)
This book is, by turns, scholarly, fascinating, controversial, and (perhaps) even a bit bad-tempered. But it will be of great interest to those studying contemporary issues on evangelical theology.
February 9, 2025
“…a curious phenomenon has occurred over the past generation. I am thinking of areas of scholarship where new findings, or at least much more intense study of slightly older discoveries, have actually strengthened the case for the reliability or trustworthiness of the Scriptures, even while the most publicized opinions in each area have claimed that there are now reasons for greater skepticism."
—Craig Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible?
Intro: Blomberg stresses the need for empathy when encountering the ancient texts, a practice widely regarded in other fields as normative. This was an interesting parallel with a work I just finished by Roger Scruton, the late English philosopher (An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy). Scruton's last chapter of that work - 'History' - noted empathy's critical function within the historical discipline, without which, we can never achieve true understanding of those free subjects and their intentions - acting centuries ago without any of our modern references.
--Chapter 1 - Textual Criticism: Much of Blomberg's work, especially early on, is written as a direct rebuttal of claims made in a 2005 work by Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why). Blomberg notes that rather than having 400,000 unique variants amongst ancient texts, we are actually dealing with about 8-16 variants per manuscript - of which there are more than 25,000 for the New Testament alone (more than 5,700 from before the printing press). These are staggering totals. Modern historians are elated when they have "triple digits" of original ancient manuscripts - and that itself is rare. Finally, most of these variants A. tend to be clustered, with 6% of the Old Testament and 10% of the New Testament containing the vast majority and B. these variants do not impact one instance of doctrinal or theological integrity.
--Chapter 2 - Canonicity: "In this chapter we have argued that the books in the Protestant canon of Scripture are far more than the product of the winning factions in in Christian history." Overall, Blomberg lays a solid groundwork for a complicated topic - how the 66 book of the canon became the canon - and why.
--Chapter 3 - The proliferation of English translations: Blomberg notes the three major philosophies of translation work - which range from formal equivalence (prioritize accuracy), dynamic equivalence (fluency, clarity, and intelligibility emphasized), and optimal equivalence (optimize both by seeking as much as can be accomplished simultaneously) - and concludes that all of the major translations available today are "more than adequate for teaching God's people everything God wants them to know that really matters."
--Chapter 4 - Doctrine of biblical inerrancy: Blomberg leans on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1974) for his working definition of the term - but the heart of this chapter is Blomberg's focus on "the debate over what constitutes an error." His full quote is relevant to the historical field of research and so much more: "Imagine being told one day that your job performance was going to be assessed based on standards that wouldn't be invented until the forty-second century, or shortly before. You'd be outraged. But often without realizing it, we impose on ancient documents twenty-first-century standards that are equally inappropriate." (emphasis mine).
--Chapter 5 - The diversity of literary genres: "The truth claims of the Bible, appropriately cherished by inerrantists, can never be determined, apart from our best assessment, from the literary genres and forms involved." If anything, Blomberg's chapter here serves as a (disheartening) reminder of how much infighting there has been among the major councils and movements surrounding hermeneutical and literary interpretations.
--Chapter 6 - Miracles: "The closest parallels to the New Testament accounts consistently prove to be post-Christian in origin; very few pre-Christian pagan miracles are at all similar."
An engaging, worthwhile read, that successfully introduces and addresses a wide-breadth of Scriptural criticisms and positions, yet does so without minimizing the complexity of the components surrounding those criticisms. On a side note, Blomberg's endnotes are loaded with resources, expositional details, and personal defenses of his views from other writers.
—Craig Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible?
Intro: Blomberg stresses the need for empathy when encountering the ancient texts, a practice widely regarded in other fields as normative. This was an interesting parallel with a work I just finished by Roger Scruton, the late English philosopher (An Intelligent Person's Guide to Philosophy). Scruton's last chapter of that work - 'History' - noted empathy's critical function within the historical discipline, without which, we can never achieve true understanding of those free subjects and their intentions - acting centuries ago without any of our modern references.
--Chapter 1 - Textual Criticism: Much of Blomberg's work, especially early on, is written as a direct rebuttal of claims made in a 2005 work by Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why). Blomberg notes that rather than having 400,000 unique variants amongst ancient texts, we are actually dealing with about 8-16 variants per manuscript - of which there are more than 25,000 for the New Testament alone (more than 5,700 from before the printing press). These are staggering totals. Modern historians are elated when they have "triple digits" of original ancient manuscripts - and that itself is rare. Finally, most of these variants A. tend to be clustered, with 6% of the Old Testament and 10% of the New Testament containing the vast majority and B. these variants do not impact one instance of doctrinal or theological integrity.
--Chapter 2 - Canonicity: "In this chapter we have argued that the books in the Protestant canon of Scripture are far more than the product of the winning factions in in Christian history." Overall, Blomberg lays a solid groundwork for a complicated topic - how the 66 book of the canon became the canon - and why.
--Chapter 3 - The proliferation of English translations: Blomberg notes the three major philosophies of translation work - which range from formal equivalence (prioritize accuracy), dynamic equivalence (fluency, clarity, and intelligibility emphasized), and optimal equivalence (optimize both by seeking as much as can be accomplished simultaneously) - and concludes that all of the major translations available today are "more than adequate for teaching God's people everything God wants them to know that really matters."
--Chapter 4 - Doctrine of biblical inerrancy: Blomberg leans on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1974) for his working definition of the term - but the heart of this chapter is Blomberg's focus on "the debate over what constitutes an error." His full quote is relevant to the historical field of research and so much more: "Imagine being told one day that your job performance was going to be assessed based on standards that wouldn't be invented until the forty-second century, or shortly before. You'd be outraged. But often without realizing it, we impose on ancient documents twenty-first-century standards that are equally inappropriate." (emphasis mine).
--Chapter 5 - The diversity of literary genres: "The truth claims of the Bible, appropriately cherished by inerrantists, can never be determined, apart from our best assessment, from the literary genres and forms involved." If anything, Blomberg's chapter here serves as a (disheartening) reminder of how much infighting there has been among the major councils and movements surrounding hermeneutical and literary interpretations.
--Chapter 6 - Miracles: "The closest parallels to the New Testament accounts consistently prove to be post-Christian in origin; very few pre-Christian pagan miracles are at all similar."
An engaging, worthwhile read, that successfully introduces and addresses a wide-breadth of Scriptural criticisms and positions, yet does so without minimizing the complexity of the components surrounding those criticisms. On a side note, Blomberg's endnotes are loaded with resources, expositional details, and personal defenses of his views from other writers.
February 4, 2016
Давам оценка 4 звезди, но книгата е чудесна. Написана е ерудирано, чете се леко и съдържа много здрав разум. Библиографичните препратки са обстойни и качествени. Единствената ми резерва е свързана със спора относно непогрешимостта (innerancy). Струва ми се, че той прекалено леко подминава проблемът със старозаветните автографи (особено в светлината на Свитъците от Мъртво море, които показват, че в Израел е циркулирала повече от една приета версия на еврейския текст) и защитавайки хармонизацията сам достига до някои карикатури, докато обвинява другата страна в същото. Допълнително, той отказва да се ангажира по-сериозно с въпросът за "Божието приспособяване" като необходим начин за комуникация с хората и просто мимоходом споменава, че това е възможно, но би довело до нео-ортодоксално разбиране за Библията (последното ми се вижда най-малкото спорно). Въпреки това дори и тук авторът е повече от трезвомислещ. Първо, той добре разбира и признава, че определението е до голяма степен свързано със САЩ и християнството повлияно от него. Второ, ясно посочва, че огромната част от християните през историята не са се подписвали под нищо подобно на Чикагската декларация и въпреки това са имали високо виждане за Библията. Трето, дефинира доста прецизно понятието (макар и далеч не толкова педантично като напр. К. Ванхузер). Четвърто, признава без всякакви уговорки, че съществуват и други опции, които могат да бъдат държани от посветени, искрени, спасени и богоугодни християни - вкл. много високи виждания за Библията, които обаче са различни от чикагската формулировка. Пето, той включва една цяла глава посветена на жанровете в Библията, в която показва как различните виждания за началните глави на Битие, единичното или множественото авторство на Исая, виждането за книгата Йов и Йона като притчи и т.н. могат да се съгласуват с неговото виждане за непогрешимостта. Това не означава, че всички или дори някое от тези твърдения са верни - просто, че тези въпроси са отворени за дискусия без това по никакъв начин да означава либерализъм или компромис с приемането на Библията като Божие откровение. В много отношения това за мен е най-интересната глава. Накрая, вероятно най-острата му критика е запазена за хора, които първо дефинират дадено понятие много по-тясно отколкото вярата или благочестието изискват и след това използват своето влияние, за да дискредитират всеки, който не е съгласен с тях.
Въпреки, че на практика научих сравнително малко нови неща прочетох книгата с голямо удоволствие и я препоръчвам. Бломбърг все повече се превръща в много харесван от мен автор. Това е третата книга, която чета от него и до този момент не ме е разочаровал.
Въпреки, че на практика научих сравнително малко нови неща прочетох книгата с голямо удоволствие и я препоръчвам. Бломбърг все повече се превръща в много харесван от мен автор. Това е третата книга, която чета от него и до този момент не ме е разочаровал.
March 25, 2021
I took a few days to think about my rating and review of this book before posting. I wish I could give this book maybe a 3.5 because I feel like that's closer to where it should be.
So much of the scholarship and reasoning in this book is sound. Blomberg gives a good, brief overview of the textual issues surrounding the Biblical manuscripts (and provides helpful references). His overview of the selection of the books that are included in the Bible and of the current modern translations is also thoughtful and helpful. The translation wars that seem to happen between some Christians in particular are confusing and harmful for a lot of people. It was refreshing to find such a balanced overview. His final chapter on miracles does an excellent job of showing how the miracles in both the Old and New Testaments aren't simply put in for dramatic effect. They are structured and purposeful. God enacted miracles at specific times, for specific purposes. Moreover, saying that miracles aren't possible and don't happen today ignores a lot of research showing that they do, in fact, still take place today.
So, if I enjoyed and would recommend so much of the book, why a 3.5-4 rating instead of a 5?
Well, it's because of the chapters on inerrancy and narrative genres.
First off, I want to say that I agree with Blomberg in affirming the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and on the statement professor Paul Feinberg made in his commentary on the CSBI: "Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to be with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences" (pg 102, digital edition).
What I have a problem with is how much of these two chapters devolves into him responding to what seems to be some sort of ongoing argument with Norman Geisler. He could have addressed the position held by Geisler much quicker and with less feeling of a personal attack. It was clear that these two men have a long history and don't particularly like or respect one another.
Blomberg realizes that people will say as much because in his conclusion he notes, "Some will perhaps read this book and charge me with being too harsh on fellow evangelicals" (pg 171, digital edition). He then goes on to defend his attacks by saying that Jesus and the apostles only got really mad at "the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospels and Acts and with the Judaizers in the Epistles and Revelation" (pg 171, digital edition). He goes on to say, "In other words, receiving most censure are fellow members of the same religious community who occupy positions of Christian leadership and have created overly restrictive doctrinal boundaries and should know better (pg 171, digital edition).
Yes and no. I think he might be pulling from that a defense of his behavior that isn't warranted. The Pharisees and Jadaizers weren't creating "overly restrictive doctrinal boundaries." What Jesus and the apostles take issue with them about is that they're adding man-made rules on top of the Biblical doctrine. That's similar, but it's not the same thing. In other words, if Geisler were telling people that only a single translation was valid for understanding God's word, then Blomberg's charge would hold. Geisler isn't. As I understand the background argument going on, he's trying to make sure that God's word isn't placed underneath other considerations. Put another way, Geisler seems to be trying to stand on the ground that God's word is the final authority and that if something seems to contradict God's word (when understood as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), then that other source must be wrong. So Geisler argues against some stances that seem to suggest error in the Bible or that call into question the Biblical record because of the current scientific beliefs.
Furthermore, Jesus also railed against the Sadducees, who Blomberg lumps in with the Pharisees. I'm surprised a New Testament scholar would do that because the Sadducees were the liberal theologians of the day, arguing against some traditional beliefs and distorting Scripture. In other words, they were almost the opposite of the Pharisees and they certainly didn't (from the accounts recorded and what we know of them) place too strict doctrinal boundaries on people.
What I'm saying is that both extremes are to be avoided, so while I might not agree entirely with either man, I think Blomberg's attack on Geisler, at the very least, didn't deserve so much space in this book.
And, in fact, some of the theories that Blomberg either wants to allow or leans toward in the chapter on narrative genres (especially as to Adam and Eve possibly being the most highly evolved of their species and changed into God's image as a consequence) seem to suggest that Geisler's concerns aren't without foundation. I also found some of the ideas in that chapter concerning because they did seem to give priority to science (which, historically has made mistakes, has required updates, and is, fundamentally, data interpreted by fallible human beings with an agenda) over the Bible (which evangelical Christians believe is the inerrant word of God). When we start to bend to culture, we're heading into dangerous territory. I don't think the salvation of people who hold those views is necessarily in question (since salvation depends on different criteria), but I do believe it can result in moral laxity and, eventually, not knowing whether any of the Bible can be trusted.
I still think this book is a good resource, but I would say to approach at least the chapter on narrative genres with caution and to understand that a lot of pages are devoted in two of the chapters to an ongoing battle between Blomberg and Geisler and their differing viewpoints.
So much of the scholarship and reasoning in this book is sound. Blomberg gives a good, brief overview of the textual issues surrounding the Biblical manuscripts (and provides helpful references). His overview of the selection of the books that are included in the Bible and of the current modern translations is also thoughtful and helpful. The translation wars that seem to happen between some Christians in particular are confusing and harmful for a lot of people. It was refreshing to find such a balanced overview. His final chapter on miracles does an excellent job of showing how the miracles in both the Old and New Testaments aren't simply put in for dramatic effect. They are structured and purposeful. God enacted miracles at specific times, for specific purposes. Moreover, saying that miracles aren't possible and don't happen today ignores a lot of research showing that they do, in fact, still take place today.
So, if I enjoyed and would recommend so much of the book, why a 3.5-4 rating instead of a 5?
Well, it's because of the chapters on inerrancy and narrative genres.
First off, I want to say that I agree with Blomberg in affirming the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and on the statement professor Paul Feinberg made in his commentary on the CSBI: "Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to be with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences" (pg 102, digital edition).
What I have a problem with is how much of these two chapters devolves into him responding to what seems to be some sort of ongoing argument with Norman Geisler. He could have addressed the position held by Geisler much quicker and with less feeling of a personal attack. It was clear that these two men have a long history and don't particularly like or respect one another.
Blomberg realizes that people will say as much because in his conclusion he notes, "Some will perhaps read this book and charge me with being too harsh on fellow evangelicals" (pg 171, digital edition). He then goes on to defend his attacks by saying that Jesus and the apostles only got really mad at "the Pharisees and Sadducees in the Gospels and Acts and with the Judaizers in the Epistles and Revelation" (pg 171, digital edition). He goes on to say, "In other words, receiving most censure are fellow members of the same religious community who occupy positions of Christian leadership and have created overly restrictive doctrinal boundaries and should know better (pg 171, digital edition).
Yes and no. I think he might be pulling from that a defense of his behavior that isn't warranted. The Pharisees and Jadaizers weren't creating "overly restrictive doctrinal boundaries." What Jesus and the apostles take issue with them about is that they're adding man-made rules on top of the Biblical doctrine. That's similar, but it's not the same thing. In other words, if Geisler were telling people that only a single translation was valid for understanding God's word, then Blomberg's charge would hold. Geisler isn't. As I understand the background argument going on, he's trying to make sure that God's word isn't placed underneath other considerations. Put another way, Geisler seems to be trying to stand on the ground that God's word is the final authority and that if something seems to contradict God's word (when understood as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy), then that other source must be wrong. So Geisler argues against some stances that seem to suggest error in the Bible or that call into question the Biblical record because of the current scientific beliefs.
Furthermore, Jesus also railed against the Sadducees, who Blomberg lumps in with the Pharisees. I'm surprised a New Testament scholar would do that because the Sadducees were the liberal theologians of the day, arguing against some traditional beliefs and distorting Scripture. In other words, they were almost the opposite of the Pharisees and they certainly didn't (from the accounts recorded and what we know of them) place too strict doctrinal boundaries on people.
What I'm saying is that both extremes are to be avoided, so while I might not agree entirely with either man, I think Blomberg's attack on Geisler, at the very least, didn't deserve so much space in this book.
And, in fact, some of the theories that Blomberg either wants to allow or leans toward in the chapter on narrative genres (especially as to Adam and Eve possibly being the most highly evolved of their species and changed into God's image as a consequence) seem to suggest that Geisler's concerns aren't without foundation. I also found some of the ideas in that chapter concerning because they did seem to give priority to science (which, historically has made mistakes, has required updates, and is, fundamentally, data interpreted by fallible human beings with an agenda) over the Bible (which evangelical Christians believe is the inerrant word of God). When we start to bend to culture, we're heading into dangerous territory. I don't think the salvation of people who hold those views is necessarily in question (since salvation depends on different criteria), but I do believe it can result in moral laxity and, eventually, not knowing whether any of the Bible can be trusted.
I still think this book is a good resource, but I would say to approach at least the chapter on narrative genres with caution and to understand that a lot of pages are devoted in two of the chapters to an ongoing battle between Blomberg and Geisler and their differing viewpoints.
April 26, 2014
This is an excellent book which defends the trustworthiness of the Bible. Blomberg engages with modern scholarship as well as critiques from aggressive atheists on one extreme and ultra-conservative fundamentalists on the other. While mostly settling on traditional, conservative positions, he is generous to alternative approaches in this balanced affirming book. Fantastic work!
July 3, 2017
Ummmh? Mostly good. Then he gets weirdly liberal and charismatic and secular.
March 14, 2025
Craig did a great job with this one. Written in a very accessible style while maintaining a very high level of academic rigor, what Blomberg does best is speak clearly and honestly to real difficulties in the life of faith. These questions are ones that people are asking and are seeking answers to. More importantly, these are questions which attract plenty of poor responses, making this book all the more important.
The strength of the book, aside from the accessibility and rigor, is (strangely) the rhetorical ability featured in every chapter. In other words, I found Craig’s ability to engage with strong arguments in a persuasive way, well, very persuasive! A poor man’s way of stating things might be to say I left with an impression of scholars like Bart Ehrman that made me pity him more than feeling threatened by his own popular rhetoric, almost like Oz behind the curtain.
I also think Bloomberg engages “both sides of the spectrum” (liberal and conservative) very well. That being said, I know one of the main drawbacks on this one will be the more deeply conservative folks taking offense to some of Bloomberg’s jabs and barbs. He does name some names and call out some organizations, and honestly, I’m glad he did. There were a few moments where I did feel there was more heat than light (which is the main reason this book isn’t five stars). Blomberg absolutely seems to have a horse in this race (don’t we all?). But much of the time, in keeping with his pattern of speaking to both sides of the spectrum, I found Blomberg’s critiques not only fair but necessary to be stated clearly and firmly.
I also found his chapter on inerrancy to be a breath of fresh air, as Craig engaged deeply with the Chicago Statement - happily affirming it - but within its own stated boundaries (rather than those enforced by the more, say, politically expedient!). There were a few liberties taken at the very end that I’m not entirely sure I can get behind, reflecting more of a broadly evangelical perspective on essentially all kinds of theological issues aside from Christ crucified and the resurrection. Blomberg’s is an instinct I admire, though, and certainly a model in rigorous evangelical scholarship that I hope to see more of in the coming generation.
He does state at the end, to make things very plain, the explicit purpose of this book: to aid those would-be Christians who are wrestling with truly difficult questions. In other words, this book seems to me to be a reflection of Jude’s charge to “contend for the faith” and “have mercy on those who doubt.”
I have no doubt this one will be edifying, if challenging at times, for many.
The strength of the book, aside from the accessibility and rigor, is (strangely) the rhetorical ability featured in every chapter. In other words, I found Craig’s ability to engage with strong arguments in a persuasive way, well, very persuasive! A poor man’s way of stating things might be to say I left with an impression of scholars like Bart Ehrman that made me pity him more than feeling threatened by his own popular rhetoric, almost like Oz behind the curtain.
I also think Bloomberg engages “both sides of the spectrum” (liberal and conservative) very well. That being said, I know one of the main drawbacks on this one will be the more deeply conservative folks taking offense to some of Bloomberg’s jabs and barbs. He does name some names and call out some organizations, and honestly, I’m glad he did. There were a few moments where I did feel there was more heat than light (which is the main reason this book isn’t five stars). Blomberg absolutely seems to have a horse in this race (don’t we all?). But much of the time, in keeping with his pattern of speaking to both sides of the spectrum, I found Blomberg’s critiques not only fair but necessary to be stated clearly and firmly.
I also found his chapter on inerrancy to be a breath of fresh air, as Craig engaged deeply with the Chicago Statement - happily affirming it - but within its own stated boundaries (rather than those enforced by the more, say, politically expedient!). There were a few liberties taken at the very end that I’m not entirely sure I can get behind, reflecting more of a broadly evangelical perspective on essentially all kinds of theological issues aside from Christ crucified and the resurrection. Blomberg’s is an instinct I admire, though, and certainly a model in rigorous evangelical scholarship that I hope to see more of in the coming generation.
He does state at the end, to make things very plain, the explicit purpose of this book: to aid those would-be Christians who are wrestling with truly difficult questions. In other words, this book seems to me to be a reflection of Jude’s charge to “contend for the faith” and “have mercy on those who doubt.”
I have no doubt this one will be edifying, if challenging at times, for many.
March 6, 2018
Can We Still Believe the Bible? addresses some of the reasons people give for not believing the New Testament: it's contents are corrupted, politically biased, and based on myths. Blomberg shows this is not the case. While we do not have any of the original autographs, studies of the ancient manuscripts and their variations show the New Testament texts to be very reliable. The selection of books for the New Testament focused on books and letters written by eyewitnesses or those closely connected to them. Orthodoxy played a role in the selection of books and letters, but the orthodoxy was the established orthodoxy of the Old Testament and not something newly created or politically biased. Finally, the accounts of miracles differ from pagan myths in that the miracles are clearly purposeful in how they point to God and his power.
Blomberg also addresses the reliability of English translations (good except for a few sectarian exceptions), the doctrine of inerrancy (valuable but often misused to support specific interpretations), and the variety of narrative genres in the Bible. The only negative is the places where Blomberg dwells too long on the intolerance shown by others. Unfortunately instances such as those he shares have happened, and the situation does need addressed. Don't let that dissuade you, though. I found this book helpful, easy to read, and clearly understandable.
Blomberg also addresses the reliability of English translations (good except for a few sectarian exceptions), the doctrine of inerrancy (valuable but often misused to support specific interpretations), and the variety of narrative genres in the Bible. The only negative is the places where Blomberg dwells too long on the intolerance shown by others. Unfortunately instances such as those he shares have happened, and the situation does need addressed. Don't let that dissuade you, though. I found this book helpful, easy to read, and clearly understandable.
April 20, 2025
It had some good parts, especially the first couple of chapters were good. It's also very well sourced - a huge amount of wider work is referred to in the footnotes, and Blomberg is clearly very well read in these areas. But:
a) There's a really weird amount of hashing out individual, quite personal fights with other Christians. He and Norman Geisler seem to have a long running, pretty unpleasant spat which is partly fought through these pages. It's not necessary and it makes the book much worse.
b) Blomberg is a moderate conservative, and he's keen to critique those more conservative as him as well as those more liberal. That's fine, but it sometimes (not always) gets away from the core question - can we trust the Bible? For example, in the chapter on miracles, after arguing in favour of the possibility of miracles (contra liberals), he argues against cessationism (contra conservatives). Cessationism might be totally wrong but that dispute just doesn't have anything to do with whether we can trust the Bible!
3) Some of the choice of content seems dubious to me. There's a chapter on the different translations and whether we can trust the Bible in the light of those differences. Is this a worry anyone has about the Bible? (I personally learned quite a bit from that chapter but it didn't seem especially relevant to the central issue). I'd rather have had much more on going through OT reliability in more detail, for example
a) There's a really weird amount of hashing out individual, quite personal fights with other Christians. He and Norman Geisler seem to have a long running, pretty unpleasant spat which is partly fought through these pages. It's not necessary and it makes the book much worse.
b) Blomberg is a moderate conservative, and he's keen to critique those more conservative as him as well as those more liberal. That's fine, but it sometimes (not always) gets away from the core question - can we trust the Bible? For example, in the chapter on miracles, after arguing in favour of the possibility of miracles (contra liberals), he argues against cessationism (contra conservatives). Cessationism might be totally wrong but that dispute just doesn't have anything to do with whether we can trust the Bible!
3) Some of the choice of content seems dubious to me. There's a chapter on the different translations and whether we can trust the Bible in the light of those differences. Is this a worry anyone has about the Bible? (I personally learned quite a bit from that chapter but it didn't seem especially relevant to the central issue). I'd rather have had much more on going through OT reliability in more detail, for example
September 6, 2025
Blomberg is what I would call a broad-thinking inerrantist. In this small but important tome, he engages with critical scholarship on all the big questions: the manuscript evidence of the NT and the Hebrew Bible, the nature of historical reporting in the Scriptures, multiple and late authorship of texts and many other issues. He is strongly critical of both ends of the various debates - reproaching both critical scholar Bert Ehrman for his numerous sins of omission through selective use of evidence, and inerrantists like Norman Geisler for his ungenerous and narrow views on what constitutes inerrancy. Blomberg thinks much bigger and more honestly than either extreme. His tent is wide, but his foundations are stable. For example, though he personally lands on single authorship for the Book of Isaiah, he is honest and generous enough to demonstrate how a multiple authorship view can be held honestly and faithfully, without violating an inerrant and infallible view of Scripture. I wish I had had this book thirty years ago, as I struggled with these issues in my secular university education. I highly recommend this book for those grappling with the charges of critical scholarship or who feel straitjacketed in a view of scripture that belies honest intellectual inquiry into the nature of the biblical texts.
September 1, 2019
This book is a bit of a slog. It’s hard to get going and is pretty slow throughout. Definitely drier and more academic that I suspect most people would be interested in.
Blomberg does a great job of explaining, at a high level, why the Bible is trustworthy and it is perfectly reasonable to believe what it says and to ground our lives on the Gospel of Jesus. Blomberg is definitely more liberal than my sensibilities prefer, but it is clear that he nonetheless trusts in scripture, and in Jesus.
Toward the end of the book he has a fair bit of negative things to say about the more conservative and fundamentalist-leaning believers and that is, at its most generous, unhelpful. While I appreciate his intent and do believe that he has accomplished his primary task, I still do believe he is wrong to be willing to be so “loose” with his theology.
Matt 7:14 says that “the way to eternal life is narrow and straight and few will find it.” Throughout my time in pastoral ministry and my own personal study, I am increasingly inclined to believe that the way is narrower than most of us like to believe and fewer will find it than the liberal-leaning folks want to hope.
Blomberg does a great job of explaining, at a high level, why the Bible is trustworthy and it is perfectly reasonable to believe what it says and to ground our lives on the Gospel of Jesus. Blomberg is definitely more liberal than my sensibilities prefer, but it is clear that he nonetheless trusts in scripture, and in Jesus.
Toward the end of the book he has a fair bit of negative things to say about the more conservative and fundamentalist-leaning believers and that is, at its most generous, unhelpful. While I appreciate his intent and do believe that he has accomplished his primary task, I still do believe he is wrong to be willing to be so “loose” with his theology.
Matt 7:14 says that “the way to eternal life is narrow and straight and few will find it.” Throughout my time in pastoral ministry and my own personal study, I am increasingly inclined to believe that the way is narrower than most of us like to believe and fewer will find it than the liberal-leaning folks want to hope.
April 13, 2019
Good introduction to several issues such as textual criticism, canonization and inerrancy of Scripture, and biblical genres. I appreciate that Blomberg tries to strike a balance between "liberalism" and what he calls "abusive ultra-conservatism." I don't coincide, however, with his labeling of "ultra conservatives." Many parts of the book feel like Blomberg is just picking up rocks at random and hurling them around hoping to strike something, or someone. For example, chapter 4 on inerrancy, which is probably the central chapter in the entire work and which would have been a fine chapter otherwise, ends up feeling more like a set up to slap Norman Geisler. Most of his squabbles with other evangelical leaders mentioned in the book add nothing to his overall argument. And by the way, after the Conclusion, I'm just not sure what the argument really is.
June 22, 2021
Perhaps a 3.5 would be more accurate. Blomberg offers good reasons to believe that the Bible is textually reliable; the right books are in there; the english translations we have are good; and that miracle accounts don't take away from the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. His discussion of inerrancy was so nuanced and generous that I think I could agree on a good day. I especially appreciated the way he addressed both skeptics and agnostics to his left as well as witch-hunt igniting ultra conservative inerrantists to his right. His discussion of Bible translations was also refreshing, as were his comments on how these "in-house" debates impact those on the margins and outside of faith. I wish he would have included more about the apochyrpha and I had a few minor quibbles here and there, but overall this is recommended!
January 10, 2018
Well written and informative work on the challenges to Scriptural authority. Blomberg covers six areas: Are the copies hopelessly corrupt?/ was the selection of the Canon just political?/ Can we trust modern translations?/ Don't these problems rule out inerrancy?/ Are several narrative genres unhistorical?/ and don't miracles make the Bible mythical? He answers each challenge with depth and careful thought. Critiquing the nonsense of Bart Ehrman and kin as well as avoiding the excesses of KJV Only types and those who overreach on the inerrancy issue from the conservative side.
This is a mid-level apologetics work and should be in the library of any apologist or serious student of the Bible.
This is a mid-level apologetics work and should be in the library of any apologist or serious student of the Bible.
July 15, 2017
One of those books that tore down my beliefs only to build them up more strongly. Very well defended - not backing away from any major critics. Somewhat dry and tangential at times, but those sections are often useful for reference later. His views are often very accepting (for instance that most, modern, English translations are equally useful and that neither complimentarianism or egalitarianism can be defended as the authoritative "Biblical" stance); however, it's refreshing to hear an objective stance that holds the Bible as the highest authority.
A book I've recommended many times.
A book I've recommended many times.
April 19, 2019
I received this book from a goodreads giveaway.
As a non-believer, this topic wasn't necessarily at the top of my list, but i found this book to be very well-written, excellently sourced and extremely fair-minded. It gave me a lot to think about. I do enjoy history/archaeology from Biblical times so this book touched on some related topics there.
As a non-believer, this topic wasn't necessarily at the top of my list, but i found this book to be very well-written, excellently sourced and extremely fair-minded. It gave me a lot to think about. I do enjoy history/archaeology from Biblical times so this book touched on some related topics there.
May 11, 2023
Remarkably balanced, and even pastoral. Treats different standpoints with reverence and charity. Qualified his conclusions appropriately with specific caution against going to the other extreme.
Occasionally raises questions that he doesn’t answer (specifically Mat 27:51-53, and a couple other biblical passages out of the left field).
Compelling and ultimately sincere.
Occasionally raises questions that he doesn’t answer (specifically Mat 27:51-53, and a couple other biblical passages out of the left field).
Compelling and ultimately sincere.
December 15, 2017
Some good stuff, but feels awkwardly burdened by what seems like the author settling some scores by those more to the left or right of him. You can find the good stuff elsewhere; the personal is distracting.
October 3, 2018
Excellent Resource. Gets preachy and plays insider ball for some parts. But in general: good read.
December 8, 2018
Generally good, but some issues with his views on inerrancy.
April 12, 2019
The author clearly (and sadly) has an axe to grind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews