What do you think?
Rate this book
Above the battle?: The Bible and its critics
Front cover and back cover show slight wear near edges.Front page has book seller stamp and small dog ear (top right). No writings, markings, stains inside the book. Overall book in great condition.
109 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 27, 2015
A thoughtful work by a conservative author with the courage to challenge the status quo.
September 7, 2024
A MISSIONARY ARGUES THAT THE "FAMILY OF FAITH" SHOULD NOT BE DIVIDED
At the time this book was published in 1977, Harry R. Boer "has been a missionary teacher and theologian in Nigeria for more than 25 years." He also wrote 'A Short History of the Early Church,' 'Pentecost and Missions,' 'An Ember Still Glowing: Humankind As the Image of God,' etc.
He wrote in the introductory section of the book, "It is a matter of urgency that the Christian community come to a common mind on the meaning of the word infallibility as a quality of Scripture. So long as many Christians insist on using this word in the same sense in which the secular community uses it, so long will brothers and sisters in the one family of faith remain divided into 'Bible-believing, evangelical, conservative, born-again Christians' on the one hand, and 'liberal, non-evangelical church members' on the other. The touchstone for our relationship to God is definitely not a certain philosophy of Scripture, however devoutly held, but an embracing in faith of Jesus Christ ... [as] Savior of the Church and Lord of All. This booklet endeavors by reflection on two ... lower criticism and higher criticism to make a contribution in the contemporary situation to the understanding and appreciation of Holy Scripture as Word of God." (Pg. 8-9)
He says, "Sometimes the apologetes for the less than perfect text of the New Testament go to great lengths to minimize the textual problems in it. It is true that scholars have approximated very close to the actual words of the original documents, but this may never close our eyes to the difficulties that remain. Further we must note that the vernacular editions do not always faithfully use the data that the scholars have established." (Pg. 35)
He points out, "Approximately ninety percent of Mark is substantially found in Matthew; and about fifty percent of Mark is found in Luke. In both cases this often word-for-word or nearly so. A similar relationship exists between Matthew and Luke, in which Mark is not involved at all. As a result the first three gospels are called the Synoptics... Even John may leave at least the superficial impression that it is looking together with them. This would, however, be a very inadequate way of describing John... Natural though such a blending of the four gospels may seem to be, it is neither good nor excusable that this be done. God has given us four gospels, not one. We should not magnify existing similarities between them into an elimination of distinctive differences." (Pg. 54-55)
Comparing Mt 28:6-8/Mk 16:6-8/Lk 24:6-9, he says, "When one reads these three passages uncritically he is almost bound to overlook a far-reaching difference between them. Matthew and Mark have virtually identical accounts. Luke, however, skillfully puts the word 'Galilee' into a context which has a wholly different reference. In Matthew and Mark 'Galilee' has a future reference, and it has to do with a meeting with Jesus. In Luke 'Galilee' has a past reference to a prophecy which Jesus had made about his suffering. By his reference to Galilee he keeps a verbal resemblance to Matthew and Mark at the precise point at which they use the words in their accounts. Yet he makes it the occasion for a completely different reference. And with good reason. Matthew, and Mark by clear inference, ascribe post-resurrection appearances in Galilee to Jesus. In Luke the disciples not only do not leave Jerusalem but are commanded by the risen Lord not to leave the city until the coming of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49b)." (Pg. 62)
Comparing Mt 19:16-22/Mk 10:17-22/Lk 18:18-23, he observes, "What is striking here is Matthew's rewording of Jesus' answer ['Why do you ask me about what is good?'] to the man as reported by Mark. Luke, on the other hand, takes Mark over almost verbatim. 'Rewording' is not too strong a description for what Matthew does at this point. And more particularly, his rewording is not innocent. He does not report the same thought in different words. Jesus' answer to the young man's question as reported by Matthew is SUBSTANTIVELY different from Jesus' answer in Mark and Luke." (Pg. 67)
He concludes, "Wherever the divine and the human meet, there is mystery... It would not seem that the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture is any more definable than is the relationship of the divine and the human in Christ... Because of these two dimensions of its being the Bible may be studied, examined, analyzed, tested, compared internally and externally with all the careful boldness and restrained thoroughness that are fitting in pondering the deep things of God... [This] lays on us a burden of reverence as we seek to approach closer and closer to the heart of God and to the final meaning of his mighty works." (Pg. 109)
This is an almost unknown book (though published by Eerdmans), but it weaves an enlightening path that can be followed by a wide grouping of the "family of faith."
At the time this book was published in 1977, Harry R. Boer "has been a missionary teacher and theologian in Nigeria for more than 25 years." He also wrote 'A Short History of the Early Church,' 'Pentecost and Missions,' 'An Ember Still Glowing: Humankind As the Image of God,' etc.
He wrote in the introductory section of the book, "It is a matter of urgency that the Christian community come to a common mind on the meaning of the word infallibility as a quality of Scripture. So long as many Christians insist on using this word in the same sense in which the secular community uses it, so long will brothers and sisters in the one family of faith remain divided into 'Bible-believing, evangelical, conservative, born-again Christians' on the one hand, and 'liberal, non-evangelical church members' on the other. The touchstone for our relationship to God is definitely not a certain philosophy of Scripture, however devoutly held, but an embracing in faith of Jesus Christ ... [as] Savior of the Church and Lord of All. This booklet endeavors by reflection on two ... lower criticism and higher criticism to make a contribution in the contemporary situation to the understanding and appreciation of Holy Scripture as Word of God." (Pg. 8-9)
He says, "Sometimes the apologetes for the less than perfect text of the New Testament go to great lengths to minimize the textual problems in it. It is true that scholars have approximated very close to the actual words of the original documents, but this may never close our eyes to the difficulties that remain. Further we must note that the vernacular editions do not always faithfully use the data that the scholars have established." (Pg. 35)
He points out, "Approximately ninety percent of Mark is substantially found in Matthew; and about fifty percent of Mark is found in Luke. In both cases this often word-for-word or nearly so. A similar relationship exists between Matthew and Luke, in which Mark is not involved at all. As a result the first three gospels are called the Synoptics... Even John may leave at least the superficial impression that it is looking together with them. This would, however, be a very inadequate way of describing John... Natural though such a blending of the four gospels may seem to be, it is neither good nor excusable that this be done. God has given us four gospels, not one. We should not magnify existing similarities between them into an elimination of distinctive differences." (Pg. 54-55)
Comparing Mt 28:6-8/Mk 16:6-8/Lk 24:6-9, he says, "When one reads these three passages uncritically he is almost bound to overlook a far-reaching difference between them. Matthew and Mark have virtually identical accounts. Luke, however, skillfully puts the word 'Galilee' into a context which has a wholly different reference. In Matthew and Mark 'Galilee' has a future reference, and it has to do with a meeting with Jesus. In Luke 'Galilee' has a past reference to a prophecy which Jesus had made about his suffering. By his reference to Galilee he keeps a verbal resemblance to Matthew and Mark at the precise point at which they use the words in their accounts. Yet he makes it the occasion for a completely different reference. And with good reason. Matthew, and Mark by clear inference, ascribe post-resurrection appearances in Galilee to Jesus. In Luke the disciples not only do not leave Jerusalem but are commanded by the risen Lord not to leave the city until the coming of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49b)." (Pg. 62)
Comparing Mt 19:16-22/Mk 10:17-22/Lk 18:18-23, he observes, "What is striking here is Matthew's rewording of Jesus' answer ['Why do you ask me about what is good?'] to the man as reported by Mark. Luke, on the other hand, takes Mark over almost verbatim. 'Rewording' is not too strong a description for what Matthew does at this point. And more particularly, his rewording is not innocent. He does not report the same thought in different words. Jesus' answer to the young man's question as reported by Matthew is SUBSTANTIVELY different from Jesus' answer in Mark and Luke." (Pg. 67)
He concludes, "Wherever the divine and the human meet, there is mystery... It would not seem that the Holy Spirit's inspiration of Scripture is any more definable than is the relationship of the divine and the human in Christ... Because of these two dimensions of its being the Bible may be studied, examined, analyzed, tested, compared internally and externally with all the careful boldness and restrained thoroughness that are fitting in pondering the deep things of God... [This] lays on us a burden of reverence as we seek to approach closer and closer to the heart of God and to the final meaning of his mighty works." (Pg. 109)
This is an almost unknown book (though published by Eerdmans), but it weaves an enlightening path that can be followed by a wide grouping of the "family of faith."
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews