The Bible in a Disenchanted Age: The Enduring Possibility of Christian Faith

by R.W.L. Moberly

In our increasingly disenchanted age, can we still regard the Bible as God's Word? Why should we consider it trustworthy and dare to believe what it says? Top Old Testament theologian R. W. L. Moberly explains why the Bible is unlike any other book by exploring the differences between it and other ancient writings. He explains why it makes sense to turn to the Bible with the expectation of finding ultimate truth in it, offering a robust apology for faith in the God of the Bible that's fully engaged with critical scholarship and reasonable in the twenty-first century.

Genres: Biblical Studies, Theology, Nonfiction

234 pages, Paperback

Published January 21, 2020

About the author

Walter Moberly (PhD, University of Cambridge) is an English theologian and professor of theology and biblical interpretation at Durham University.

He was awarded an M.A. at Oxford and both an M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge, UK. He is also an ordained priest in the Church of England.

Also known as Walter Moberly.

Reviews

[Norman Falk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really compelling book. Moberly engages from a Christian perspective the questions of what the Bible is and what to do with it, and he does so creatively in conversation with historical-critical approaches.

Most helpful for me was his discussion on “plausibility structures” — whatever one’s primary approach to the Bible might be, it is influenced by much more than rationality.

[Daniel Supimpa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Moberly is a powerful example of a biblical scholar who creates bridges with other disciplines (philosophy, linguistic theories, and especially Christian theology and spirituality), always bringing the best of his expertise in biblical exegesis, but also asking the overarching questions involving his field. This is a lucid and well-argued work, aiming to deal with the plausibility of biblical interpretation in a cultural period of disenchantment (following the nomenclature used by Max Webber among others), one where "faith and God seem ever less comprehensible or meaningful to an increasing proportion of the [Western] population" (p.1).

Starting with the preoccupation of producing an "alternative to an 'evidentialist' approach to belief in relation to God and to the Bible" (p.7), Moberly steps away from the long-standing tradition of questions of historical accuracy and reliability. His method, thus, will be to take "a journey of biblical exploration in the company of people both past and present whom one has good reason to trust" (p.7). In other words, the author understands that the modern discussions of the actual value of Scripture and faith can be tackled from a different standpoint than proving the distance between “the world within the text” and “the world behind the text”.

Following this introduction, the author poses the main issue he is going to deal with: how can Christians articulate the classic understanding that the Bible is the "word of God in human words, which can give incomparably valuable wisdom and guidance for life in this world" (p.10), particularly in a post-Christian North-Atlantic context. For Moberly, the question runs back to Benjamin Jowett's 1860 words that the Bible should be read "just like any other book"—a symbol of modern western approach to the Bible. Yet the issue is not to abandon this paradigm of historical criticism, which had its own positive fruits, but to move forward to understand how the Bible can still be read in a 'privileged status' today. How to argue plausibly that the Bible can be read "unlike any other book", not only as an artifact of ancient religious history? Or, furthermore, how can one argue that the Jewish-Christian God is "unlike any other God"?

To answer this question, and other surrounding questions, Moberly will propose a threefold movement: exploring the validity of looking at the Bible as an ancient historical religious text, as a classic, and finally, as Christian Scripture. In each chapter, there is a study case comparing proposed approaches in Virgil's Aeneid and in Daniel 7. The particular helpful and deeper effort concerns the third movement, to which Moberly utilizes half of the book. He builds mainly on Peter Berger's theory of 'plausibility structures', which Moberly identifies as the authentic obedient lives of Christians—the Church.

His overarching argument for the proper approach to the Bible could be summed as an existential and submissive engagement with it—through the paradigmatic example of Jesus Christ as he argues in dialogue with John 7 and Matthew 28. Moberly calls this kind of personal responsiveness as "participatory" (p. 138). In this manner, the Bible turns into more than words about God, and becomes words from God to the reader. As Moberly notices in his comparison of the Aeneid 1 and Daniel 7, this is exemplified in the inclusion of Daniel in the Christian canon, which generates a horizon in which one can see the obedient figure of Jesus—who receives universal authority as depicted in Matt 28—who not only fulfills, but clarifies Daniel 7. Nothing of the like happens with the Aeneid. It remains a historical and classic text.

Finally, Moberly closes his argument with a chapter on the importance of literacy for proper engagement with the Bible as Scripture. Rather than a mere guideline on biblical genres it is an instigation on the necessity to hear the Bible in its own terms—including respecting the distance of its ancient genres. Moreover, Moberly retakes the issue of historicity in Scripture, and suggest a movement from the terminology of "truth" or "inerrant" to "trustworthy" (p.186).

Overall, Moberly tackles great and important questions with skill and patience. Several times, I had to stop and really reflect on why I never thought about those issues that underlie so much of my personal interpretation of the Bible (e.g. the modern separation of 'either' human 'or' divine as a critical factor to the problem of interpreting the Bible both as a human and a divine address, p. 160-161). His takes on Daniel 7 in dialogue with John 7 and Matthew 28 on the topic of authority and submission to God also exhales brilliant theological interpretation. Finally, his reshaping of the question of epistemology and historical inquiry from "is the Bible true, and is Jesus really God incarnate in rationalist evidentialist terms?" to "if the Bible is trustworthy, and Jesus is Lord, what can I say from everything else?" was amazing. It's worth to cite the full paragraph:

"In short, the purpose of privileging the Bible for faith in God is not to say, 'Here is truth and elsewhere is error.' Rather, it is a matter of being willing to learn, in light of the sovereignty of the crucified and risen Christ, ways of recognizing and responding appropriately to what is and is not of true value in God's world, wherever one may encounter it." (p.166)

However, I would consider a few problems with this book. Moberly is way better in asking sharp questions than giving outstanding answers. Some of his argumentations seemed to me to be confusing (e.g. how is the Aeneid different from Daniel in his definition of 'Scripture' as an existentially significant text inside a canon for a specific group? Had we a significant number of Jupiter worshippers, would his argument for the scriptural status of the Bible fall to the ground? Could we not use the same argument to say that the Qur'an is equally trustworthy and autoritative as the Christian Bible, since there is a significant number of muslins in the world?) In general, the argument and structure seemed incoherent, more like a collection of good chapters and takes rather than a harmonious whole. His last chapter threw stones at too many different issues Moberly wasn't dealing with so far, so they looked like the beginning of a new argumentation series—which, unfortunately didn't happen.

Apart from that, we're looking at a strong component in recovering faithful approaches to Scripture as completely valid and plausible.

[Cover Lover Book Review · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Bible in a Disenchanted Age is a very cerebral book (in my opinion.) It explores many theological questions and approaches to Scripture.

In the introduction, Moberly states that he hopes his Christian and scholarly approach will make sense to a wide range of Christians of differing traditions. But, to me, the broad scope felt a bit disjointed, and I found it difficult (at times) to absorb the message.

There are many points I appreciate and understand, chiefly that the world is distrustful, dissatisfied, skeptical, and unconnected, and that Scripture is sacred. I also agree with his message of taking the messages of the Bible earnestly. But overall, most of this book felt ‘over my head’ and I found myself reading in circles.

First Line (Introduction): In this book I offer a fresh (I hope) account of the nature of the Bible and of appropriate towards it and ways of reading it.
Genre: Christian Bible Study
Author: R.W.L. Moberly
Page Count: 234

#CoverLoverBookReview received a complimentary copy of this book. Opinions are 100% mine.
#TheBibleInADisenchantedAge

[Kyle Tabet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Moberly has some good points. It can be a bit drawn out at times and his arguments could be made more succinctly but altogether it is a good read for anyone who is interested in how we need to adjust how we read the Bible in a post Christian world.

[Justin Dewell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Moberly asks an important question, but the answer gets lost along the way.

[Isaac Soon · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is a work of apologetics, although it’s author is confused about who he is arguing with, whether it’s new Atheism, Enlightenment skepticism, the guild of biblical studies scholarship or disenchanted Christians. I found this book to be an incredibly frustrating read: paragraphs of unanswered questions, vague gestures towards previous arguments, and theories of knowledge that were circular or involved sleigh of hand arguments.

The premise of the book is that rather than taking the bible as a work of history or a literary classic it can be read as Scripture. So far so good. Reasons for why the Bible should be read as Scripture are because of the enduring worldview and longevity of Christian tradition and the church. Fair enough. But then we get to statements like: “Jesus is the one who supremely ‘makes sense,’ both in himself and in relation to the puzzling world in which we live. This ‘making sense’ is not a matter of ‘explaining’ things like evil, hatred, cruelty, and suffering, which remain mysterious even as Jesus himself enters into and undergoes them in the fulfilment of his vocation...Rather, this ‘making sense’ has to do with setting everything within the context of trust in God and in His good purposes for both time and eternity, which can enable people to face whatever life brings with faith and hope and love.” (91-92) This is oddly vague and circular. Of course if one assumes the story of Jesus in the Bible is a context of trust in God that Jesus will make sense of everything. I’m really not sure what this means?

The argument seems to be, re-enchant yourself with the worldview and wisdom of the Bible and it will be Scripture to you as an interpreter and will be able to give you tremendous explanatory (though not empirical) power.

Some merits worth mentioning: the exegesis and theological explanations of the Aeneid, Daniel 7 and John 7 and Matt 28 as well as the history of scholarship in various areas.

[The Doctor Of Digital, Mick Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reliability of an historical text is often the touchstone for the belief in its contents and this is a popular approach to the Bible. This approach is certainly apropos in light of the historicity claimed by the NT; however, the author has another path in mind which is his thesis that the Bible is unlike any other book by exploring the differences between it and other ancient writings. Our disenchanted age has come a long way since 1860 but there are valuable lessons to be learned from Benjamin Jowett's essay "On the Interpretation of Scripture" wherein he criticized reading the Bible in two popular ways during his age, that is, either in a reactionary manner as the Bible was under educated attack or in a popular, fanciful, and undisciplined way. Instead, he proposed to "Interpret the Scripture as any other book" (p. 13). Jowett faced bitter opposition but his proposal is soundly based in a collection of documents that itself offers two accounts of Creation, two of the Decalogue, and four Gospels.The contemporary scene has dramatically changed from Jowett's day and it must be noted that the Bible no longer enjoys the privileged position it once held in Western society.

As a result, the author is pressed to pose the problem. Subsequent to Jewett, a key factor is the modern diminution of the Bible's scope and reliability. In modern life God has been marginalized and the Bible is seen as a human production. So why should the modern disenchanted consider God and the Bible?

The author posits a case study: the Aeneid versus the Book of Daniel. In the Aeneid the Roman Empire under Augustus should be understood as the sovereign deity's long-term gift to the world. Daniel is resistance literature, written for second-century Jews could understand their struggles and face suffering with confidence in their ultimate vindication by their God. The two works are similar thus why should the vision in Daniel be treated differently than the Aeneid?

Regardless, there are compelling reasons why the Bible should still be seriously approached: the Bible is ancient history and the Bible is a cultural classic. Within these confines the author proposes comparing and contrasting Daniel and the Aeneid.

As an excursus, the author pauses to show how the Western world, exemplified by Darwin, lost its faith with the implausibility of a biblical world view. The traditional Christian world view of a loving, just, and kind God came under increasing scrutiny and ultimately implausibility during the Victorian era. As Darwin himself lost a treasured child, death was a common intruder for centuries which could be combated by medical advances and the Scientific Revolution. In early Christian times the female life expectancy at birth was 20-25 years, life expectancy at age 10 was 34.5-37.5 years. Before the 20th Century still the chances of a newborn baby surviving to its fifth birthday were normally less than 75% or even lower. Some 25-30% of Victorian English babies would have died. In the case of a plausibility structure the Augustine aphorism: "Ego vero evangelio non crederem nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas" (I would not believe the gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me, p. 98) lost its hold on Western thought. In a disenchanted age a modern plausibility structure would have to break through the modern inundation of social media, alternative lifestyles, and a plethora of non-Christian alternatives.

One path for the disenchanted world is to examine a biblical passage that demonstrates the Christian goal of faith seeking understanding. In John 7:16-17 the import of the passage is that an individual has to be open to the idea that the Bible is reliable coupled with a subsequent existential and personal engagement of faith.

With the pairing of the Aeneid and Daniel the author makes the point that God is at work outside of revelation; the secular world also aspires to goodness, justice, and wisdom. Value can be found in God's world anywhere it can be found (p. 165-6).

Darwin and many modern thinkers mistake the design argument as enunciated by Pierre Simon de Laplace as irrevocably connected to Christian doctrine but it is not. The author notes that typical of modern thinkers is Dawkins but he points out that "argument from design is a corrupt mutation of Christian belief in creation" (p. 169). The author points out an analogy. The creation of a person analogy is not a magician's trick but a biological process; birth also entails origin and destiny. As we understand individuals seriously in this combination of biology along with our origin and destiny so too can the Bible be understood as important for our origin and destiny.

A crucial point is the limitation of many moderns and their lack of biblical literacy. People who read the Aeneid or King Lear as rubbish, mistaken, or boring are revealing a great dal about themselves but nothing about the text. On the other hand, many moderns make "sweeping negative judgments" when reading the Bible and think nothing of it (p. 174). They are displaying biblical illiteracy.

The disenchanted do not read the Bible seriously. The author posits that the Bible is trustworthy but not inerrant as commonly understood. Biblical seriousness is to take the text as an important work that addresses the quality of individual life. The Bible can be read like anyone other book; but similar to any non-ordinary book it should be read in a serious manner and better understood. If the Bible is read seriously then the modern mindset possesses "the existential openness that is necessary for finding God, or being found by God" (p. 186). Unless understanding how the Bible addresses existential questions of life the disenchanted will not understand how there is an enduring possibility of Christian faith.

[Jack Hayne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such an odd book. A good book, but odd. Moberly walks through each chapter outlining three different modes of approaching the Bible: history, as a classic and Scripture. In the end, of course, he argues for a privileged place for Scripture. Meanwhile, challenging a propositional or ‘is it true?’ epistemological reading that lacks a search also for existential meaning. We must search both Scripture’s history and sacred myth. Throughout the book he comparatively reads Aeneid 1 and Daniel 7, to attempt to illustrate his point.

Where the book falters is it feels like a grab bag and kind of paint splash against the wall. The structure is at times baffling and the excursus are interesting but tangential. A flawed but interesting read.

88% I Need more Imagination

[Nathan Albright · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book tries very hard to find a middle space between the disenchantment of faith due to corrosive social trends and a desire to take the Bible seriously if not always faithfully.  The author, though, like many others of his kind [1], thinks himself to be a fare more noble character than he is with regards to the Bible.  It does appear as if many people like attempting to square the circle by seeking both to defend their bona fides as "conservative" textual critics while simultaneously trying to appeal to the faddish philosophies of the contemporary world and its steadfast refusal to see the Bible as an authority in their lives.  This book, unfortunately, does not succeed at its task, mainly because it spends a great deal of time hamstrung by its terrible analysis of Daniel and its adoption of certain critical ideas about the composition and date of Daniel that simply do not line up with the text or its textual history but which are convenient for many who would consider the book as an example of pseudographia.

The book begins with a series and individual preface and an introduction before the author poses the problem of the lack of respect that the Bible receives as an authoritative text in much of contemporary society (1).  In an excursus afterward the author asks why we should privilege the Bible as a text.  After this the author discusses the way that a scholar such as himself approaches the biblical texts with a heavy amount of context in the writings of the ancient world like the poetry of Virgil (2).  Another excursus shows the author trying to avoid using BC and AD in his naming conventions before the author looks at privileged perspectives in general (3).  After this the author points towards what is considered as trust in the Bible and the truth of the Bible by arguing for a standard of emotional/spiritual truth that avoids a commitment to believe in the factual and historical truth of the Bible's narratives (4).  The book then closes with an excursus about Dawkins' flawed philosophical view of scripture based on logical argumentation of design theorists like Paley and an epilogue on the thorny and controversial subject of biblical literacy and what it entails.

This book is, unfortunately, a reminder to other writers and scholars that when one is dealing with the texts of the Bible that one essentially has two choices.  Either one can show oneself as a secular-minded scholar that may appreciate the poetry of the Bible or the general desirability of its more obvious ethical principles but does not see the Bible in a privileged position as an authority in one's life or one can accept that the Bible is an authority in life and behavior and work out the consequences of that commitment, however difficult and unpleasant that may be in an age which is not inclined to view the Bible's moral restraint as authoritative.  By trying to split the difference with his thinking and by praising the cultural conservatism of Dawkins, this author fails at gaining his bona fides as a legitimately biblicist interpreter.  It is possible that the author thinks that he goes as far as one can in order to appeal to those who view the Bible as authoritative while retaining credibility as a hipster textual critic, but he does not go nearly far enough to show respect and regard for the Biblical scripture.  As a result, this book can only be viewed as a failure.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2016...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2017...

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Bible is an ancient book. While it is foundational to two different religions, though Judaism only affirms the first of two testaments, we live in a disenchanted age that raises questions about its authority and reliability. While millions continue to regard highly, how should we read it? Should we read it like another book? If so, what kind of a book is it?

These are some of the questions raised by R.W. L. Moberly, a British biblical scholar. I wasn't sure what to make of it at first, but I found this to be a compelling read, one that addresses questions that I have raised. I am part of a tradition that was born of the Enlightenment on the American frontier. Alexander Campbell believed that we should read the Bible as we read any book. In the years since he made that pronouncement, scholars have tested the Bible using the historical critical method. We have privileged the world behind the text, seeking to find the historical kernels upon which to judge the book. The question is, should we read the Bible as history, recognizing that the history is not always self-evidently reliable? Should we read it as a classic, like we would Virgil's Aeneid or Homer's Iliad? Or should we read it as Scripture, as an authoritative religious text, focusing as much on the world in the text as the world behind it?

Moberly raises the question of why we seem to privilege the Bible. Why do we give it the authority we do? He asks us to consider what it would it mean to consider the Bible a book of history. How does it fare in that context? What if we read it as a classic, like the Aeneid? He asks us to consider the question: "If the Bible is to be interpereted like any other book, why should the biblical deity not be understood like any other deity? (p. 29). Why Yahweh instead of Jupiter? Throughout this book, Moberly compares and contrasts Aeneid 1 with Daniel 7, raising these kinds of questions. He notes that over time the Aeneid continued to receive respect for its imperial vision, long after Jupiter left the scene. But the Bible is different in the way we read it.

IN part this has to do with plausibility structure. We have created a context, the church, to read it and authenticate it. It has stood the test of time. Now that doesn't prove its divine foundation, but it does give some credibility.

Now, there continue to be challenges, such as those posed by Richard Dawkins, who would like to throw the Bible on the scrapheap of history, but Moberly examines Dawkins view of God and finds it deficient. It doesn't fit how Christians understand God. In other words, trying test God scientifically doesn't work very well. The problem is that Dawkins is stuck in the 18th century!

Moberly has no problem with the historical-critical method. It has its place. But it comes to us not as history or classic, but as Scripture. In its words, the people of God hear God's voice anew, in our day, as we attend not only to the world behind the text, but the world within he text, the narrative that tells us about God.

This is a winsome book that deserves a close read, so that we might read it well, attending to both worlds of the text, as well as the world in front of the text, our world. The question we raise has to do with reliability and trustworthiness. We cannot know this, he suggests, "without a readiness, alongside other believers past and present, to respond, to enter with faith into the content of that witness, and to live and die accordingly." (p. 196). That, I believe is a word to take to heart.

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary: Explores how one can privilege the Bible over other texts, ultimately as a way of encountering and believing God in Christ.

R. W. L. Moberly asks a basic question in this book: why may we trust the Bible and privilege it over other books in disclosing what it means to believe and know God? He sets himself a challenging task, turning aside from the apologetic approaches that appeal to evidence for the trustworthiness of scripture. He sees this as a modernist project in a post-modern age where the question of why particularly study the Bible over other books is a live issue. He takes as a point of departure Benjamin Jowett’s advice that we read the Bible as we would other books.

He contends that there are three ways to read the Bible: as history, as a classic, and as scripture, looking for it to disclose God to us. He models an exercise in such reading in a comparison of the Aeneid and Daniel 7. The real question then is what warrants the move from the second to the third type of reading. He explores why few of us read the Aeneid as scripture leading us to faith in Jupiter.

He draws on the work of Peter Berger, Leslie Newbigin, and others to observe the importance of plausibility structures and that the ones we heed and are shaped by will determine whether or not we privilege scripture. In reading scripture with the church, we read within an interpretive tradition, we approach a canon of scripture, of books whose authority has been recognized by the church. This implies an openness to what we will find and a willingness to act wholeheartedly to the truth.

What is attractive in what Moberly says is that I think he describes how many people come to faith. It is not through evidentialist proofs but a personal journey of reading, often with other Christ-followers, and finding the “ring of truth” in what they read that brings them to a moment of decision, a step of trusting not only what they are reading but that these are God’s words for them. There is a kind of “faith seeking understanding” that one exercises.

While a persuasive case may be made vis a vis the Aeneid, the harder test case is the Qur’an. There is equally an interpretive community and plausibility structures that may guide one “open” to affirm belief in Islam. One could equally follow the process of reading the Qur’an as history, as a classic, and as scripture leading to belief. I don’t think Moberly has answered the question for me of why privilege one religious text over the other where there are active plausibility structures supporting each? What he does do is explain why such structures have so much influence on the belief of individuals embedded in those structures.

This aside, Moberly concludes the work with a well-stated plea for biblical literacy, citing the lapses scholars and commentators who ought to know better have made. The approach Moberly advocates certainly encourages that literacy. He offers an alternative to evidentialist approaches that fail to resonate that may appeal to some. But I think Moberly needs more to truly contend for the privileging of the Bible over other extant religious texts.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher via Speakeasy.

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I was in seminary, one of my favorite professors argued that we should read the Bible like any other work of ancient literature and "let the chips fall where they may." This is the standard historical-critical approach. While I became enamored with approach the Bible from this perspective, it left me somewhat cold. Now, I am a recovering historical-critical bible interpreter who happens to be married to a minister! Therefore, I was excited to see a book that attempts to engage this "read the Bible like any other literature" approach. Why exactly should the Bible or the Bible's depiction of God receive privilege?

Essentially Moberly lays out a typology for three different ways of interpreting the Bible: (1) as history, (2) as classic, and (3) as Scripture. Moberly elaborates on each of these approaches and does a case study of Aeneid 1 and Daniel 7 to demonstrate these various ways of interpreting. In step 1 of his argument, he shows that the Bible is very similar to other ancient literature but not "merely" like other ancient literature. In step 2, he elaborates on reading the Bible as a classic of Western literature. In step 3, he argues that our preconceived beliefs cause us to "privilege" what we read. Quoting Benjamin Sommer, he says, "The most crucial differences between biblical critics and many theological interpreters of scripture occur not in the ways they read but in decisions they make before they begin reading at all."

There are some good thoughts here, but the book just seems unorganized and could use a bit more editing. Throughout the text, Moberly opts to use a smaller font size for minor excursuses. While this was aesthetically displeasing to me, I didn't originally understand their purpose (as I initially skipped the introduction). I would have preferred that these be put in the form of footnotes. Then, on top of these minor excursuses are three larger excursuses: the first confronting David Clines's (former president of SBL) low view of scripture; the second explaining the problems with BC/AD and BCE/CE and recommending a bizarre up arrow/down arrow solution; and a third attacking Richard Dawkins's historical framework. These larger excursuses interrupt the flow of the book and seem a bit random. I think these would work better as appendices.

As a middle school English teacher, I advise my students not to introduce new material in their conclusions. Now, that principal doesn't necessarily need to be true in more mature writing, but it helps them to realize that a conclusion wraps everything up rather than continue the argument. In Moberly's epilogue, he introduces new material. He demonstrates how intelligent people in the 21st century are often biblically illiterate (something I often point out to my wife while watching Jeopardy!). This seemed like an odd choice to end this book. It seemed rather off-topic.

[Toby · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Bible in a Disenchanted Age in one respect covers fairly well-travelled territory. It picks up, along with so many other book of the last ten years, from Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, and looks at how Scripture can be appreciated within this age - an age of disenchantment. As he acknowledges, his answers were in many ways anticipated by Leslie Newbiggin's prophetic work of a generation or more ago, especially his The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. According to this thesis, the Bible can only really be read within a coherent plausibility structure, and a coherent plausibility structure can only really exist if you are already, to some extent, within the story. In other words the Bible makes sense to those within the church and living by faith, less so to those outside. All this makes admirable sense, but as (in the West at least) the space for this plausibility seems to be shrinking rapidly, it offers small comfort.

Where Moberly really is original is the way that he chooses to test his thesis about reading Scripture (ancient history, cultural classic, a work of faith) through the intriguing lens of Virgil's Aeneid Book 1 and Daniel 7. This is proves to be a very good way of assessing how reading the Bible "like any other book" actually holds up.

His conclusion looks at Biblical illiteracy amongst modern writers, taking particular issue with one of Andrew Brown's blogs on the history of camels (which I remember reading at the time). The choice feels a little bit like a straw man, but the point is made. His conclusion that the Bible is better treated as trustworthy rather than inerrant is one that has been made by many people before. I would have liked to have seen how "trustworthy" works in the case of the New Testament pseudepigrapha but we are not taken down that road.

[Andrew Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book! Took me longer to finish it than it should have.

I confess, there is a part of me that cringes at books like this because the burden of proof/legitimacy is not on God or Scripture as far as I’m concerned. Nevertheless, I recognize that for theological (and for me, pastoral) purposes, it is important to have answers/explanations for the trustworthiness of the Bible.

One (recurring) insight of Moberly’s that stands out is on the significance of plausibility structures/significant others: one of the enduring witnesses to Scripture’s trustworthiness is the life of those who live under its “authority.” This is as biblical an insight as it is perceptive, and implicitly makes a radical call to congregations to be transformed by Scripture, not just informed by it.

Moberly concludes the book with some helpful hermeneutical tips, and speaks some about why “inerrant” isn’t a helpful criteria for trustworthiness (which I agree with).

Some parts of the book can be skimmed, but where it’s good, it’s really good!

[Philip Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

For the perceptive questions alone this was a good book for me to read. His summary paragraph, “Ultimately, however, in line with John 7:16-17, the truth and trustworthiness of the biblical witness, and of it’s possible origin in God, cannot be known without a readiness, alongside other believers past and present, to respond, to enter with faith into the content of that witness, and to live and die accordingly.”

One of his introductory paragraphs, “I have no concern to try to offer apparently irresistible arguments for ‘believing the Bible.’ There are indeed good reasons for having faith in God and for trusting the Bible … but the skeptic who wants to remain skeptical will also not lack good arguments.”

Along the way he says things like “In the wider culture, the Bible over time went from being the lens for seeing the world (and oneself) to being only an interesting object within it.”

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Considers how the Bible may/should be read; as history, as a classic or as Scripture and observes that “a major difference between them is the goal for which understanding is sought.”

“The most crucial differences between biblical critics and many theological interpreters of Scripture occur not in the ways they read but in decisions they make before they begin reading at all. The recognition and reception of documents as constitutive of scripture and not just as ancient history or cultural classics, makes a difference not only to how one reads but also to how the reading affects life” (173).

[Graham Hoppstock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really helpful and balanced discussion. Particularly helpful in chastening some over-eager ecclesio-centric visions of scripture and it’s role.

[Bee · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Bible in a Disenchanted Age, Walter Moberly writes in a clear and logical way, not tolerating weak and glib arguments.

The book explores “How might one articulate an approach that combines taking the Bible seriously with the dimension of faith?” Moberly makes some great points and quotes including “If you believe, the evidence is all around you. If you don’t believe, no evidence can be enough.” And the Bible “belongs also in the life of Christians as a fundamental resource for understanding the realities of God and of life.”

The author’s wisdom and sharp mind make for an enjoyable read, and Moberly does not flinch from facing the difficult questions. I found he answered questions I hadn’t realised I was asking. One thought I particularly enjoyed was Moberly’s suggestion that believers view the Bible as “trustworthy” instead of becoming entangled in arguments about infallibility.

[Conrade Yap · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is based on a series of Earle lectures on Biblical Literature at the Nazarene Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Missouri, held on November 16-17, 2015. It is a theological exploration by the scholars and researchers on current issues and Christian thought, shared to the larger Church for their edification. Society is becoming more secularized. Bible is perceived as less relevant than before. Faith is increasingly under attack by atheists and non-believers. As a result, some Christians are backpedaling on their fundamentals just to appease the modern hostile climate. Unfortunately, for the ardent skeptic, no arguments are sufficient if they do not wish to believe in the first place. Author Moberly tries to defend the Bible not by way of historical evidence or persuasive rhetoric, but by walking with the company of trustworthy people both past and present. He argues that there it is not clear that historical evidence should lead to faith. Moreover, the words "history" and "historical reliability" could mean so many different things to different people.


The problem is this: Is Christian faith losing touch with intellectual progress? Can the Bible be studied just like any other book without having to privilege it? In a culture of disenchantment, the Bible is no longer given the special place it used to have. Instead of simply accepting it by faith, the focus is now on "Why?" and "Why should I?" In other words, the conventional way of taking the Bible by faith and to be accepted as authoritative is no longer enough. It needs to be argued for as well. This is the purpose of this book. The primary reason why there is a need to make a case for the Bible as authoritative is because not only the culture is changing from hope to disenchantment, people's expectations are also changing from faith to doubt; and from doubt to skepticism. Moberly does not simply gives in to the cultural mood without asking for something in return. He says that if we were to read the Bible like any other book, does it also mean that the biblical deity is to be understood like any other deity? This should put the question back to the questioner that because worldviews are already different, one must level the playing field. They have to meet believers halfway. Just like they do not like religious people to force religious views on them, they too cannot force non-religious views on others. Even secular society must have a form of respect for all. Scholarship is limited by evidence and research. They are also limited by varying levels of bias. One can study something with a neutral mindset, but honestly speaking, there is no neutral position. Every scholar, researcher, theologian, and interpreter has a biased worldview already.

How does Moberly deal with this problem? He proposes reading the Bible in three primary ways: "As history; as classic; and as Scripture." As history, we approach the Bible using the "historical-critical approach" which is a study of the texts based on historical facts, circumstances, authors, dates, time, other factors so as to construct as close as possible to what actually happened in the past. Yet, just like the "Quest for the Historical Jesus" project, it could be done by non-believers as well. As a cultural classic, people can still read the Bible and understand cultural wisdom during those times and wisdom that are timeless. This approach is also applicable for those who want to understand cultural heritage and a worldview of the human condition. The author argues by comparing narratives, one non-biblical and the other a biblical source. The moment the texts are laid side by side, the differences are noticeably stark. There is no book like the Bible.

He engages Richard Dawkins's atheistic views and shows us that even though Dawkins does not believe in God, he still believes that it is good to know the Bible. Moberly also compares the early century work, Aeneid with the Old Testament book of Daniel, comparing and contrasting Roman deities with the Bible. He shows us the path forward back to putting the Bible in a privileged mode, not because of our perspectives but because of simply recognizing there is no other book in the world like the Bible. He believes that the way we privilege the Bible is not any different from the way people privilege their respective texts or perspectives. Special attention is given to the four "plausibility structures" in which the contexts and social consensus resist the common problems of individualism and rationalism. In other words, the way to faith is not to overcome skepticism and doubts per se, but to see faith being practiced and accepted by the community we are in.

My Thoughts
First, this is a bold attempt by the author to tackle head on the cultural challenges being put to Bible believers. Skeptics are no longer doubters but challengers to the way Christians view Scripture. Instead of accepting sacred texts as they are, they are questioning them and casting shadows of doubts on them. In keeping non-believers and skeptics engaged, Moberly proposes a brilliant three ways to read the Bible. The historical way would appeal to the scientific and evidential mindset. The cultural way would appeal to the larger sense of humanism and the awareness of the human condition. The Scriptural way is a point of reference that would appeal to those who are open. After all, not everyone is a skeptic. As an apologetic, Moberly takes a unique approach that is refreshingly real. He does not stray away from the key cultural challenges but to describe them and engage them thoughtfully and constructively. He opens many doors and is ready to meet anyone who chooses to come and chat.

Second, one needs to be open-minded in order to see the arguments Moberly has set before us. Closed-minded individuals will never be convinced anyhow. Not everyone is ready to be convinced. They might simply be throwing spanners into the religious works. Hi plausibility structures are key to building a bridge between faith and doubt; individuality and community; nominal to sacred. The song, "Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so" may be seen as privileged lines of the song, but to people of faith, it means a lot. Perhaps, people who are doubtful about religious beliefs simply needed someone to patiently show them the way. For that matter, not everyone is as open and honest about their curiosity of faith. Some may simply be mischievous and show no honest inquiry at all. For such people, a book like this would be easily be dismissed. For those who are open, Moberly gives them multiple doors of entry into seeing the Bible as privileged texts.

Third, we are creatures of bias. We all privilege something. Thus, it is not unusual for Christians to privilege the Bible as sacred texts. This practice can be argued not only from the traditional biblical view of taking the Word of God as authoritative, it can also be argued from the perspective of human bias. We are all people of a certain worldview. There are no neutral positions. In fact, insisting on a "neutrality" is already a form of bias in itself. Far better than privilege is the place of truth. Jesus has said that the truth shall be known and the truth shall set us free. Is it then possible that persistent skeptics are not people who don't know the truth, but people who refuse to accept the truth? Os Guinness reminds us:
"Followers of Christ are not simply fair-weather believers. They are realistic believers committed to truth, people who “think in believing and believe in thinking,” as Augustine expressed it. They are therefore like experienced pilots who can fly in bad weather as easily as in good, by night as well as by day, and upside down as well as right side up. Faith’s rainy days will come and go and dark nights of the soul may threaten to overwhelm, but safe flying is possible for those who have at least two things: a solid grasp of the instruments (God’s truth and promises) and a canny realism about the storm and stress of doubt."
The way to deal with skeptics and doubters must go beyond challenging them through debates or pressure tactics. The way forward is to build bridges, that even when we disagree, we can still be friends. In a disenchanted age, perhaps, that is the real need for all of us. Friends who are willing to listen, to learn, and to link together under the same umbrella of humanity. This book shows us the way to do just that.

R. W. L. Moberly (PhD, University of Cambridge) is professor of theology and biblical interpretation at Durham University, where he has taught for more than thirty years. He is the author of eight books, including Old Testament Theology, The Theology of the Book of Genesis, and Prophecy and Discernment. He is also an ordained priest in the Church of England.

Rating: 4.5 stars of 5.

conrade
This book has been provided courtesy of Baker Academic and NetGalley without requiring a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.