Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture
544
Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?: A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture
544eBook
Related collections and offers
Overview
Is historical accuracy an indispensable part of the Bible's storyline, or is Scripture only concerned with theological truths? As progressive evangelicals threaten to reduce the Bible's jurisdiction by undermining its historical claims, every Christian who cares about the integrity of Scripture must be prepared to answer this question.
Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? offers a firm defense of Scripture's legitimacy and the theological implications of modern and postmodern approaches that teach otherwise. In this timely and timeless collection of essays, scholars from diverse areas of expertise lend strong arguments in support of the doctrine of inerrancy. Contributors explore how the specific challenges of history, authenticity, and authority are answered in the text of the Old and New Testaments as well as how the Bible is corroborated by philosophy and archaeology.
With contributions from respected scholars—including Allan Millard, Craig Blomberg, Graham Cole, Michael Haykin, Robert Yarbrough, and Darrell Bock—Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? arms Christians with fresh insight, arguments, and language with which to defend Scripture's historical accuracy against a culture and academy skeptical of those claims.
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781433525742 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Crossway |
| Publication date: | 02/29/2012 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 544 |
| File size: | 5 MB |
About the Author
James K. Hoffmeier (PhD, University of Toronto), taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels for more than thirty years. He most recently served as professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern archaeology at Trinity International University. Born and raised in Egypt, he has been a refugee from war and an alien in two different countries, making him sensitive to immigration issues.
DENNIS R. MAGARY, (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is chair of the department and associate professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Darrell L. Bock (PhD, University of Aberdeen) is executive director for cultural engagement at the Hendricks Center, senior research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, and senior Bible teacher for Back to the Bible radio. He is the author of over forty books. Darrell lives in Dallas, Texas, with his wife, Sally. They have three children and four grandchildren.
Willem A. VanGemeren is director of the Doctor of Philosophy in Theological Studies program and professor of Old Testament and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois.
Bob Yarbrough (PhD, University of Aberdeen, Scotland) is professor of New Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He was previously professor of New Testament and department chair at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is the author or coauthor of several books and is active in pastoral training in Africa.
Graham A. Cole (ThD, Australian College of Theology) is emeritus dean and emeritus professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. An ordained Anglican minister, he has served in two parishes and was formerly the principal of Ridley College. Graham lives in Australia with his wife, Jules.
Michael G. Hasel (PhD, University of Arizona) is Director of the Institute of Archaeology and Professor of Near Eastern Studies and Archaeology at the School of Religion, Southern Adventist University in Collegedale, Tennessee. He has authored numerous articles and books in biblical studies, archaeology, and Egyptology.
Michael A. G. Haykin (ThD, University of Toronto) is professor of church history and biblical spirituality at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and director of the Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies. He has authored or edited more than twenty-five books, including Rediscovering the Church Fathers: Who They Were and How They Shaped the Church.
Thomas H. McCall (PhD, Calvin Theological Seminary) is professor of theology and scholar-in-residence Asbury University. He previously taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is the director of the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding. He is also professorial fellow in analytic and exegetical theology at the University of St. Andrews. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including many on the Trinity.
Mark D. Thompson (DPhil, University of Oxford) is the principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, where he has been teaching Christian doctrine for thirty years. He is the chair of the Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission and a member of the GAFCON Theological Resource Group. He is the author of A Clear and Present Word. Mark is married to Kathryn, and they have four daughters.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
RELIGIOUS EPISTEMOLOGY, THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, AND CRITICAL BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP
A Theologian's Reflections
THOMAS H. MCCALL
Introduction
"Do you want us to listen to you?" Peter van Inwagen puts this question to contemporary mainstream New Testament scholarship. He makes clear just who he means by "you": those who engage in historical-critical study of the New Testament, those who presuppose either a denial of "or neutrality about its authority, to investigate such matters as the authorship, dates, histories of composition, historical reliability and mutual dependency of the various books of the New Testament," those who study the Bible by such methods as "source criticism, form criticism, and redaction criticism." He also specifies just who he means by "us": believing Christians who are not trained New Testament scholars but who regard the New Testament as historically reliable; "we" are "ordinary churchgoers" and "pastors who minister to the ordinary churchgoers," as well as "theologians who regard the New Testament as an authoritative divine revelation."
Do you want us to listen to you? Van Inwagen asks this as a serious question, and he follows it with an equally serious argument for some surprising conclusions.
First, "ordinary" Christians (Christians not trained in New Testament scholarship) have grounds for believing that the gospel stories are (essentially) historical — grounds independent of the claims of historical scholarship. Secondly, New Testament scholars have established nothing that tells against the thesis that ordinary Christians have grounds independent of historical studies for believing in the essential historicity of the gospel stories. Thirdly, ordinary Christians may therefore ignore any skeptical historical claims made by New Testament scholars with a clear intellectual conscience.
What van Inwagen says about New Testament studies may just as easily be extended to critical biblical scholarship (hereafter CBS) more generally. Many proponents of CBS may be surprised and puzzled by van Inwagen's question, and may reply, "Of course we want you to listen to us. We expect you to listen to us, and any honest seeker of truth naturally will look to the experts in the field for information. If you want to know the sober truth of the important issues at stake, then of course you will listen to us. Indeed, failure to listen to us is evidence of noetic laziness (at best) or intellectual dishonesty (at worst)."
But what would prompt a question such as that of van Inwagen? What is it that drives arguments such as his? A well-respected analytic philosopher, van Inwagen is not known for intellectual laziness, and to dismiss his claims out of hand as "dishonest" would itself be both lazy and judgmental. Furthermore, he speaks for many honest Christians; his concerns are more representative of many Christians who think long and hard about these matters than they are idiosyncratic.
In this essay, I first offer a sketch of some important recent work in religious epistemology, work that has direct bearing upon the efforts of CBS — but work that is often not given sufficient consideration by the proponents of CBS. I then relate that work in religious epistemology to some relevant issues in CBS, and I briefly engage with the work of some representative proponents of it. I conclude, not with any kind of slam-dunk argument, but with some serious epistemological and theological reflections.
Important Work in Religious Epistemology: A Brief Overview of Some Recent Contributions
The last few decades have been particularly fruitful in discussions of religious epistemology. While the vast majority of what has taken place is beyond the scope of this discussion, several particularly important elements deserve mention. So while I make no pretense that what follows is anything more than the barest sketch of some of these developments, even such a brief overview will serve to highlight some of the most important of these aspects.
Justification in Religious Epistemology
The position often known as "classical foundationalism" (or, alternatively, "strong foundationalism") has been prominent in many quarters. Often pictured as a pyramid of knowledge, this view (or family of views) holds that claims to knowledge that could count as truly justified are of two classes: either those that are properly foundational (or "basic") or those that are appropriately structured upon the properly foundational beliefs. Beliefs that could count as genuinely foundational or properly basic are only those that are either self-evident (e.g., laws of logic and mathematics) or evident to the senses. So if a belief is really justified, it is so by virtue of being either self-evident or evident to the senses (if foundational), or appropriately built upon such beliefs. Any justified belief would meet one of these two conditions: it will either satisfy
(CF1) being either self-evident or evident to the senses;
or
(CF2) being appropriately structured upon such (CF1) beliefs.
Classical foundationalism has attracted much criticism, and, while it is not without contemporary defenders, it is safe to say that it is on the defensive. One of the main areas of criticism is that classical foundationalism's criteria for justified belief simply cannot account for a great deal of what we (safely) take to be true. Is the world more than five minutes old? Are there other minds? Critics of classical foundationalism (Alvin Plantinga being among the most important and distinguished of these critics) argue that it is notoriously hard to account for such important — one might even wish to say basic — beliefs as these: surely the world is more than five minutes old, and surely solipsism is false, but it is hard to rule out such obviously erroneous beliefs on classical foundationalism. Classical foundationalism is also commonly charged with being self-referentially incoherent. Is classical foundationalism itself properly basic? If it is, then it must either be self-evident or evident to the senses. So is it self-evident? Not at all. Is it evident to the senses? Not at all. Well, then, is it appropriately built up from something that is self-evident or evident to the senses? Not obviously. But if it cannot satisfy its own stated conditions for justified belief, then it is self-referentially incoherent. Being self-referentially incoherent is not a virtue, and the continuing defenders of classical foundationalism generally recognize that they have work before them. Nicholas Wolterstorff goes so far as to conclude that "on all fronts foundationalism is in bad shape. It seems to me that there is nothing to do but give it up for mortally ill and learn to live in its absence."
If the future of classical foundationalism is less than bright, what other options are there? One of the main alternatives is coherentism. Coherentism eschews the picture of the pyramid of knowledge, and instead conceives of knowledge as more akin to a web or a raft. There are various versions of coherentism, but what they share in common is the notion that a belief B is justified if and only if it coheres with the other beliefs in the system or web of beliefs. Some of the beliefs in the web will be more central than others and vital to the strength or integrity of the raft or web, while others will be on the periphery and of less importance. These beliefs can be adjusted "on the move"; just as one might be able to replace a piece of a raft while floating on it (as long as it is not too large or central), so also beliefs may be added or dropped as their coherence with the rest of the system is tested. Is a belief B justified for someone? Well, there is a way to check: is it consistent with the other beliefs in the epistemic web? If the belief in question is not consistent, then it is not justified. If it is consistent, then it can count as a justified belief (and, of course, if it is a justified true belief, then it counts as genuine knowledge).
Coherentism has also, however, come in for its share of powerful criticism. There are some common and powerful philosophical objections to coherentist theories of justification: as Plantinga argues (via his example of the "Epistemically Inflexible Climber"), coherence is not sufficient for justification. As engagement with any real "true believer" in a conspiracy theory shows, it is possible to have a very coherent set of beliefs while many of those beliefs are completely out of touch with reality. Nor is it clear that coherence is necessary for justification. Many people will admit that there are times in their lives when it is hard to make everything "add up," yet we seem to have good reason to hold to all of these beliefs. While tight coherence might be desirable, to conclude that it is necessary for justification would threaten to rule out many beliefs that really belong. At any rate, coherentism makes it tough to choose between competing "webs" or traditions. As William P. Alston puts it, "Coherentism continues to be faced with the stubborn fact that, however the notion of coherence is spelled out, it seems clear that there is an indefinitely large multiplicity of equally coherent systems of belief, with no way provided by coherence theory for choosing between them."
So if classical foundationalism and coherentism are both in trouble, what other options are there? Some of the most interesting proposals on the contemporary scene are those of the modest foundationalists, the most interesting and influential of which is Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology." Plantinga is among the most insightful and powerful critics of both classical foundationalism and coherentism, but he thinks that the basic foundationalist structure is not itself problematical. The problems with classical foundationalism come from a foundation that simply is too narrow; the problems come when too little is allowed as properly basic. Taking suggestions from "reliabilism," Plantinga proposes that "a belief is warranted if it is produced by our properly functioning cognitive faculties working in accord with their design plan." Belief in God, he argues, itself is (or can be) properly basic. In other words, if it is produced by our cognitive faculties working according to their "design plan" (the sensus divinitatis, before the fall, or the "internal instigation of the Holy Spirit," in the postlapsarian state), belief in God need not be built upon beliefs that are more basic. So although the traditional arguments for the existence of God may have a useful place, they are not necessary for genuine or warranted belief. Moreover, the full panoply of Christian belief — the "great things of the gospel": Trinity, incarnation, resurrection, atonement, salvation, eternal life, etc. — is also (or can be) "properly basic" for believers (on the "Extended Aquinas/Calvin Model"). So whatever value there might be in the arguments of evidentialist apologetics for, say, the historicity of something reported in the Bible, such arguments themselves are not necessary for robust and warranted Christian belief.
Acceptance of the "Extended A/C" proposal does not mean that there is no place at all for apologetics, for Christian belief is not insulated from challenges and potential "defeaters" (some of which are recognized to come from CBS). It means only that apologetics will be focused (at least primarily) on "negative apologetics" (the task of responding to such challenges). Plantinga's proposal continues to engender much debate, and we shall return to some relevant aspects of that controversy shortly. But even from this sketch it should become obvious that the proposal of "Reformed Epistemology" — as well as the state of play within religious epistemology more generally — has important implications for Christian engagement with CBS.
Internalism, Externalism, and Epistemic Virtues
The debates between internalists and externalists in epistemology are also interesting and important for our discussion. W. Jay Wood locates the "crux of the debate between internalists and externalists" in "the nature and extent of the personal access, or oversight, each of us must have to the factors contributing to our justified beliefs." Internalists, whose ranks are composed of both foundationalists and coherentists, insist that the grounds of any truly justified beliefs must be something to which we have access (or could get such access in fairly short order if we were to turn our attention there). The grounds for our beliefs are internal to us, and we can get at them (if we know how and where to look). Stouter versions of internalism will insist upon quicker and more immediate access, and correspondingly will maintain that we exercise a sizable degree of control over our beliefs; weaker or more modest versions will insist only that we be able to gain the prerequisite access. But what they have in common is this conviction: for our beliefs to be truly justified, we must have access to — and corresponding responsibility for and control over — the grounds for those beliefs.
Externalists, not surprisingly, deny that the grounds for our justified beliefs must be internal to us or within our cognitive reach. Tending to emphasize "reliabilism" more than "responsibilism," they
deny, however, that individual cognitive agents must have personal access to all the elements contributing to a belief's being justified. The agent is not responsible for personally overseeing that the right sort of connection between belief and the world obtains; either it does or it does not, but this is not a fact of which the agent need be aware in order for her beliefs to be justified.
We do not earn epistemic justification by our efforts; "justification is something that happens to us." Where many classical foundationalists and coherentists alike are internalists, many modest foundationalists incline toward or endorse externalism. Thus Plantinga prefers "warrant" to "justification"; since we do not earn or merit epistemic justification, we should get rid of deontological notions and instead talk about "warranted" belief in terms of "proper function."
Many epistemologists are convinced that the choice between internalism and externalism is not best conceived in terms of polar opposites and all-or-nothing categories. Rather than think of only the extremes of internalism and externalism, they say, we should think of these matters in terms of a continuum. Perhaps we do not exercise complete or direct access to or control over our beliefs, but maybe we do have some access and control (even if that access is limited and the control is indirect). It is at this point that "virtue epistemology" often makes an entrance into the conversations between internalists and externalists. Virtue epistemologists are concerned to recover the place of such characteristics as wisdom, prudence, discernment, honesty in the pursuit of truth, perseverance, and willingness to suffer for the truth. They are equally concerned to avoid the opposing vices of "folly, obtuseness, gullibility, dishonesty, naivete, and vicious curiosity." These virtue theorists work hard to remind us that intellectual and moral concerns cannot be neatly separated, and without the prerequisite moral virtues we will not likely be the kind of people who know what we can and should know. Epistemic equipment involves much more than mere IQ levels and adequate neurological health; it also involves commitment to the truth — and to being the kind of persons who can gain access to it.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?"
by .
Copyright © 2012 James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Foreword by John D. Woodbridge,
Preface,
Abbreviations,
Part 1: Biblical, Systematic, and Historical Theology,
1 Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship: A Theologian's Reflections Thomas H. Mccall,
2 The Peril of a "Historyless" Systematic Theology Graham A. Cole,
3 The Divine Investment in Truth: Toward a Theological Account of Biblical Inerrancy Mark D. Thompson,
4 "These Things Happened": Why a Historical Exodus Is Essential for Theology James K. Hoffmeier,
5 Fundamentum et Columnam Fidei Nostrae: Irenaeus on the Perfect and Saving Nature of the Scriptures Michael A. G. Haykin,
Part 2: The Old Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority,
6 Pentateuchal Criticism and the Priestly Torah Richard E. Averbeck,
7 Old Testament Source Criticism: Some Methodological Miscues Robert B. Chisholm Jr.,
8 Word Distribution as an Indicator of Authorial Intention: A Study of Genesis 1:1–2:3 Robert D. Bergen,
9 The Culture of Prophecy and Writing in the Ancient Near East John W. Hilber,
10 Isaiah, Isaiahs, and Current Scholarship Richard L. Schultz,
11 Daniel in Babylon: An Accurate Record? Alan R. Millard,
12 A Critical-Realistic Reading of the Psalm Titles: Authenticity, Inspiration, and Evangelicals Willem A. Vangemeren and Jason Stanghelle,
13 The Old Testament as Cultural Memory Jens Bruun Kofoed,
Part 3: The New Testament and Issues of History, Authenticity, and Authority,
14 God's Word in Human Words: Form-Critical Reflections Robert W. Yarbrough,
15 A Constructive Traditional Response to New Testament Criticism Craig L. Blomberg,
16 Precision and Accuracy: Making Distinctions in the Cultural Context That Give Us Pause in Pitting the Gospels against Each Other Darrell L. Bock,
17 Paul, Timothy, and Titus: The Assumption of a Pseudonymous Author and of Pseudonymous Recipients in the Light of Literary, Theological, and Historical Evidence Eckhard J. Schnabel,
18 Saint Paul on Cyprus: The Transformation of an Apostle Thomas W. Davis,
Part 4: The Old Testament and Archaeology,
19 Enter Joshua: The "Mother of Current Debates" in Biblical Archaeology John M. Monson,
20 Yahweh's "Wife" and Belief in One God in the Old Testament Richard S. Hess,
21 New Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa and the Early History of Judah Michael G. Hasel,
22 The Archaeology of David and Solomon: Method or Madness? Steven M. Ortiz,
Contributors,
What People are Saying About This
“Standing athwart the tide of strident voices currently demanding that we abandon confidence in the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible, the chapters in this volume constitute a defense of historic Christian confessionalism on the nature of Scripture. Mercifully, however, they are not mere regurgitations of past positions. Rather, they are informed, competent, and sometimes creative contributions that urgently deserve the widest circulation. In months and years to come, I shall repeatedly refer students and pastors to this collection.”—D. A. Carson, Theologian-at-Large, The Gospel Coalition
“Few Christian convictions are of as pervasive importance as the absolute perfection of Scripture—and few convictions fall under more perennial criticism. Hence the need for this volume, which seeks to defend the evangelical doctrine of biblical inerrancy against scholars who argue that in accommodating his truth to human understanding, God has made his Word susceptible to error. Here James Hoffmeier, Dennis Magary, and a broad range of learned colleagues take seriously the self-witness of Scripture and respond to some of the latest, hardest objections to inerrancy by providing clear, comprehensive, persuasive, and charitable answers. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is an invaluable resource for any student of Scripture who doubts the doctrine of inerrancy or has serious questions about the historical reliability of the Bible.”—Philip Graham Ryken, President, Wheaton College
“To scholars unconvinced of the classical Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture, Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? offers a challenge both substantive in its argumentation and respectful in its tone. To scholars convinced of this doctrine, this volume models how to advance the argument on a multidisciplinary, evidentialist basis. We owe the editors and authors a debt of gratitude.”—Ray Ortlund, President, Renewal Ministries
“The debate over biblical inerrancy is a crucial issue for evangelicals. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is an important response to this challenge, and its essays, written by leading evangelical scholars, present a robust defense of the reliability of the historical narratives of the Bible. The book makes a compelling case that holding to inerrancy does not mean one must avoid examining the issues raised by critical scholarship, but rather the accuracy of Scripture can itself be the conclusion of a reasoned and critical examination of the evidence.”—Michelle Lee-Barnewall, Associate Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies, Biola University; author, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ
“This is a book that has been sorely needed. The Bible has long been under attack from those outside evangelical faith, and now more recently from those supposedly inside. Here in one volume the questions are addressed in a comprehensive way, including theological, historical-critical, and archaeological issues. Written with an irenic tone—and yet confronting the questions directly—this book will surely take a prominent place on the shelves of all those who love the Bible and look for solid answers to give to its detractors. The editors are to be commended for bringing the book to fruition and for their breadth of vision in organizing it.”—John Oswalt, author, Called to Be Holy and The NIV Application Commentary: Isaiah
“James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary have assembled a first-rate team of evangelical writers to join them in exploring the historical issues related to the interpretation of Holy Scripture and the formation of Christian theology. Each chapter makes a significant contribution to this comprehensive and focused volume—which both affirms and defends the complete truthfulness and full authority of the Bible while fully engaging the questions and challenges raised by modern and postmodern approaches to biblical interpretation. Informative and winsome, this impressive work will be immensely helpful for a generation of students, pastors, and scholars alike.”—David S. Dockery, President and Distinguished Professor of Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; President, International Alliance for Christian Education
“How evangelicals view the Bible has been, and continues to be, under attack. This volume effectively defends the Bible’s historicity and adeptly explains why it matters. Any pastor or person teaching and defending the Bible will be greatly helped by this book.”—Alistair Begg, Senior Pastor, Parkside Church, Chagrin Falls, Ohio
“Today, some so-called evangelicals have questioned and outright denied the full extent of the inerrancy, authority, and trustworthiness of God’s Word, claiming it may apply to faith and practice but not to history and science. As disturbing as these claims are against the Scriptures, I give thanks to God that they have prompted an excellent response, so that we now have a much stronger foundation for affirming the inerrancy of God’s Word, including matters of history. Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? is one of the best and most thorough treatments in defense of the Bible as completely true and trustworthy in the realm of history. It is a much-needed antidote to some so-called evangelicals’ unhealthy (and inaccurate) view of inerrancy. In matters relating to the doctrine of the Scriptures, this will be the book I recommend to pastors and leaders. It will serve them and the church well, and deserves the highest of commendations!”—Gregory C. Strand, Executive Director of Theology and Credentialing, Evangelical Free Church of America; Adjunct Professor of Pastoral Theology, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
“Here is a collection of first-rate essays written by an international team of scholars, each affirming what must be called the historic Christian view of Holy Scripture—that the Bible, God’s Word written, is trustworthy and totally true in all that it affirms. Rather than simply rehearsing platitudes of the past, this volume advances the argument in the light of current debate and recent challenges. A magisterial undertaking to be reckoned with.”—Timothy George, Distinguished Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
“In recent decades evangelicals have felt increasing pressure to abandon their high views of Scripture—a pressure that comes not only from scholars outside their circles, but also from some inside. This volume represents a welcome response to both, but especially to the latter. The contributors represent evangelical scholarship at its best as they address critical challenges with clarity and conviction, even while keeping their tone civil and charitable. This book will serve as a handy reference tool for students, pastors, and scholars who need a fair and responsible treatment of the evidence and clear declaration of their conclusions.”—Daniel I. Block, Gunther H. Knoedler Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Wheaton College; author, The Triumph of Grace and For the Glory of God
“Twenty-first-century hubris insists on immediate answers from a Book of great antiquity that is fundamentally about God’s intervention in human history. Yet even with advances in scientific archaeological method and modern scholarship, there is still much to learn about the Bible’s ancient setting, language, history, and sociopolitical context. This book engages honestly with a number of thorny issues concerning the history and evidence for key biblical narratives. Its propositions are robustly defended in a clear yet scholarly fashion, making it accessible to informed lay and academic readers alike. I commend it to anyone seeking an orthodox evangelical perspective on the flash points in current debates about the historicity of the Scriptures.”—Karin Sowada, CEO, Anglican Deaconess Ministries Ltd.; Hon. Research Associate, Macquarie University
“Singapore Bible College was founded in 1952 to uphold the authority of God’s Word at the time when the Scriptures were under severe attack from the liberals of that era. Today, we are a living testimony to the effectiveness and authority of God’s Word as we expound a Bible-based theological education. The mocking of the Word of God did not liberate people from what the liberals claimed to be superstition or outdated scholarship. But it did destroy the faith of many poorly grounded believers, confused the church concerning her mission and purpose, created tension in the mission field, and set the church backward on many fronts in Asia and elsewhere. James Hoffmeier and Dennis Magary have assembled an able team of evangelical scholars to address and defend the issues of the authority of God’s Word from the theological, biblical, and archaeological perspectives. They are not afraid to face the issues head-on in a comprehensive and thorough manner, yet with the right spirit. I hope this book will help many students of the Scriptures to have a deeper conviction of the authoritative and inerrant Word of God.”—Albert Ting, Principal, Singapore Bible College
“This volume well documents the analysis and evidence integral to understanding the role of historical data in biblical understanding. The authors are to be congratulated for writing a book that would withstand rigorous cross-examination!”—Mark Lanier, President, Christian Trial Lawyers Association; author of numerous legal books and articles; owner, Lanier Theological Library
“To the credit of its editors and authors, this book is not so much a reaction to the recent statements of Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks on biblical inerrancy, which called it forth, but an apologetic response to their works. To that effect, it is not a monument to the doctrine, but rather an advancement of its method and intent.”—C. Hassell Bullock, Pastor, Warren Park Presbyterian Church, Cicero, Illinois; Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus, Wheaton College
“This is a timely work, both in the sense that it addresses an emerging issue—a loss of confidence in the historicity of the Bible—and in the sense that its authors are conversant in the current state of the debate. The topics discussed include all the essentials: the foundational theological issues, the major source-critical and historical-critical questions, and matters arising from archaeology. This book will be a valuable resource for both scholars and students.”—Duane A. Garrett, Professor of Old Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; author, A Modern Grammar for Biblical Hebrew and Amos: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text
“This is a brilliant response to evangelical skeptics such as Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks, and, in a broader sense, also to mainstream skeptics such as Philip Davies, Keith Whitelam, or Robert Coote. The list of contributors is a stellar lineup of first-rate scholars in their disciplines who defend the traditional, orthodox view of Scripture as historically reliable in sophisticated and convincing ways. Even those who might remain unconvinced of the book’s main argument will have to rethink their positions. I highly recommend this work.”—David M. Howard Jr., Professor of Old Testament, Bethlehem College & Seminary; author, The Structure of Psalms 93–100; coeditor, The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul and Reading the Psalms Theologically
“This book takes us to the front lines of many of the contemporary confrontations in critical scholarship, addressing the skeptics head-on. A host of able defenders contend for the trustworthiness of the Bible in the face of critical challenges and fairly criticize some of the ‘assured results’ of biblical criticism—opening the way for a more confident faith. Only the Holy Spirit himself can fully confirm the truth of God’s Word, but he can use books like this to confound the doubter and affirm the faithful.”—Bill Kynes, Senior Pastor, Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church, Annandale, Virginia; author, A Christology of Solidarity
“This is a thoughtful and heartening response to Sparks and other progressive evangelicals who believe the time has come to move beyond what they perceive to be an outdated view of Scripture’s inerrancy. Those seeking to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15) will find here methodological, philosophical, theological, archaeological, and geographical resources for navigating the historical context of Scripture that call attention to its divine origins. Hoffmeier and Magary have provided a great service to the academy and church in this scholarly compilation of evangelical writers who conserve the tradition of the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Soli Deo gloria.”—Laura C. Miguélez, Adjunct Professor of Theology, Wheaton College