Managed to get some wifi. Here are my notes for chapter 4.
Chapter 4 goes through traditional responses to Biblical criticism which include warranted but erroneous rejections of biblical criticism, fideistic rejections of it, philosophical objections raised against it and what sparks calls, critical anti-criticism-- which is in my mind, more or less is a conservative attempt at evangelical-Biblical criticism. More time is spent on the latter of the four responses but Sparks starts off pointing out that erroneous beliefs can be warranted . For example, our ancestors can be intellectually forgiven for thinking the earth was flat. He speaks of a dialogue between Billy Graham and Charles Templeton, the latter of which would see many critical problems with the Bible and discuss them with the former. Graham was clearly vexed by them to the point of feeling pain at the base of his skull and finally said, while admitting he could not prove or answer some of the questions, “I accept this this book by faith as the Word of God.” Since he was not a biblical scholar, and none of us can test and prove every single belief we have, whether religious or otherwise, Sparks thinks Graham’s beliefs could have been warranted whereas Templeton, as a scholar, could not justifiably take the same posture. Ironically, I wasn’t convinced Spark’s belief about Graham was warranted but he vindicated himself in the following paragraph/section offer a competing interpretation of Graham’s posture which suggest is might not have been fully warranted and he uses this to segue into the issue of blind faith or fideism which has been one traditional response to the problems raised by biblical criticism. I find the line between fideism and warranted erroneous belief to be a bit blurry in many cases.
The Fidestic Response to Biblical Criticism: Fideism “is the term philosophers use to refer to such instances in which religious views are held so intensely that factual realities and rational evidence had no power to alter or affect them.” Sparks lists four telltale signs of fideism:
[1] Special pleading or having a double standard When someone isn’t as critical of our own views, interpretation or theology as that of others. Different standards and rules are applied to each. Sparks lists a poignant example. Christians will often try to discredit the book of Mormon on the basis of unfulfilled prophecies yet “these same evangelicals will not entertain a similar critique of their own faith when the prophecies of Ezekiel and Isaiah seem to have failed. A fair assessment of Mormonism should allow Mormons the same flexibility for handling unfulfilled prophecies that evangelical Christians grant themselves.”(p 137)
In my experience, apologists are some of the most ingenuous and creative people on the planet when it comes to trying to resolve countless Biblical contradictions. When it comes to imagining how some of their own prized theology could be wrong their creative thought seems to shut down. Suddenly, the rules of the game change and wooden literalism becomes the norm.
I have likewise seen many Christians dismiss the entirety of the Gospel of Thomas (some on this very forum!) because in their eyes the last saying (114) is misogynistic. While I think this interpretation of the saying is incorrect, that is beside the point and I agree we can certainly say that misogyny appears inconsistent with the more inclusive and egalitarian practices of Jesus but one wonders how much of the Bible these GThomas critics have actually read? Should we also dismiss the entirety of the Bible since it is clearly misogynistic in many places? We should be engaged with steel as opposed to straw man arguments.
[2] Rejecting someone’s belief or opinion because they are non-Christian or Christians blinded by the secular world. Sparks admits there is some truth to the idea of outsiders not being able to fully understanding the divine discourse “but it is simply wrong to aver that, in matters of scriptural interpretation and ancient history, every Christian opinion is superior to every non-Christian interpretation. History demonstrates quite satisfactorily that those within the church often get things wrong, and those outside often get things right.”
In my mind, many believers also find pet scholars who agree with their ideology and tend to read a specific kind of material. I am not sure how you can truly dialogue with scholarship on an issue if you never actually immerse yourself in it and give competing opinions a fair shake. For most I think ignorance is bliss. But I am fan of reading something and then seeing it cross-examined by another expert in the field. That’s why you can find so many works by so many different authors on my shelf approaching Jesus from every angle.
[3] The Necessity of so much apologetics. Sparks thinks fideism is clearly cloaked in the “unusual or unexpected amount of effort is necessary to defend out beliefs. For instance, one wonders why a prominent evangelical scholar required an “encyclopedia” to resolve the apparent errors in the Bible that he claimed was free of human error. Is it not possible in light of so many difficulties, that the author’s beliefs about the Bible were in some respect mistaken?”
The sheer amount of linguistic gymnastics and pious imagination that comes with inerrancy in the face of countless Biblical problems is justification it is not inerrant. If it doesn’t look, quack, swim or have feathers like a duck, its i probably not a duck. No other book on the planet of this nature (so many authors written over so many years in different settings, potentially a thousand years apart) would ever be inerrant. Humans make mistakes and views change over time. The Bible just does not look inerrant by any stretch of the imagination. This belief is desperately clung to because some erroneously think inspiration requires it and for others they just accept it as an axiom of faith and no matter how ridiculous it appears to be in light of external and internal evidence, it must be held to.
[4] Thinking your ideology and opinion literally speaks for God while disagreeing with you are disagreeing with God. Sparks writes in what is one of my favorite blocks of text so far, “Perhaps the most telltale indicator of fideism appears when we find ourselves believing our own view of things is literally “what God says” while the views with oppose reflect “what human beings say. Consider this example from a fundamentalist book on biological evolution: ‘If the days of creation [in Genesis 1] are really ‘geologic ages’ of millions of years, then the gospel message is undermined at its foundation because it puts death, disease, thorns and suffering before the Fall. This idea also shows an erroneous approach to scripture—that the Word of God can be interpreted on the basis of fallible theories of sinful people.’ To be sure, the author of this statement has his finger on a potentially significant theological difficulty raised by evolution, namely, that death seems to have entered creation before the fall of humanity. Nevertheless, his understanding of the ideological conflict itself is quite erroneous. Although the author describes the situation as a quarrel between God’s infallible Word and fallible human science, this is an illusion created by the assumption that his interpretation of Scripture is a perfect reflection of “what God says.” In reality, however the conflict is not between the Word of God and human science but between fallible human interpretation of Scripture and fallible human interpretation of nature . By sleight of hand, the author implicitly assumed that his own interpretation of Scripture was infallible, thereby shielding his “infallible” views from the criticisms of modern science. His fideism is perhaps emically unconscious, but it is also intellectually insidious.” Pg 138
This last quote is extremely poignant and relevant to me. It is common to be told “you are disagreeing with God” when you disagree with a particular conservative’s interpretation of the Bible. If the word of God cannot be interpreted on the basis of fallible scientific theories created by sinners, one wonders what we are to make of the idea of fallible and sinful Christians who interpret the Bible as the inerrant word of God? A model of inspiration, a systematic theology and Biblical hermeneutics all constructed by fallible human sinners? In some respects this fideistic response to Biblical criticism is akin to sawing off the very branch of a tree you are sitting on.
When analyzing fideism, Sparks saved Carl Henry, one of the evangelical founding fathers for treatment last. Per Sparks his arguments are “thoroughly cartesian” as he “desires indubitable religious knowledge and fully believes that he can get it from an inerrant Bible.” In Spark’s view Henry believes that once we “deductively recognize” that scripture teaches its inerrancy that “we may safely assume that any critical conclusions that inductively imply error in Scripture are quite mistaken . . . so much for biblical criticism.” While affirming the appropriateness of “embracing theological commitments” and allowing them to “shape our view of the data we interpret, ” Sparks writes, “As we saw in a previous chapter, however, the problems uncovered by biblical critics are neither minor nor insignificant. The difficulties are broad and comprehensive, a veritable avalanche of data that is far too substantial to be swept aside with the flimsy theological brook used by Henry.” Pg 139 Since Henry doesn’t allow Biblical criticism to challenge his own beliefs about the Bible, he fits the charge of being fideistic. I also think Billy Graham belonged in the category as well, or maybe it would be best to say he had a foot in both doors!
Philosophical Reactions to Biblical Criticism . Sparks goes through criticism of the discipline put forth by Provan and Plantinga. Both seem to misunderstand the nature and methodology of Biblical criticism. It does not need to rest on anti-supernatural presuppositions or be built on incorrect enlightenment thinking.
To this end Sparks points out how Biblical criticism isn’t all that modern in some cases. Origen (c. 184-253) already figured out that at least parts of John could not be historically accurate by comparing them to the synoptics (Commentary on John 19:53, ANF 9:393). Origen is also known for the statement about spiritual truth in the gospels being found in material falsehood. I am not sure Spark’s comment “by the second century” is correct as Origen’s literary activity may be mostly in the third-century. But I don’t have my sources to check Origen where I am at. But he also points out the pseudo-prophetic nature of Daniel was recognized in the third century by porphyry and Augustine created a harmony of the Gospels where he struggled to harmonize them. Also, it was recognized in the twelfth century that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and thought that Isaiah had multiple authors by Ibn Ezra . Though not mentioned by Sparks, there is an abundance of budding textual criticism evinced by some ancient authors as well. Most likely to be rejected by evangelicals are where Sparks thinks scripture itself comments on its own problems:
“When the Hebrew Chronicler saw that Goliath was killed by both David and Elhanan in the book of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 17; S Sm 21:19), he solved this contradiction by having Elhanan defeat “ Lahmi, the brother of Goliath ” (1 Chron. 20:5). The Chronicler resolved the Pentateuch’s contradictory Passover laws in a similar way. Exodus command that the Passover be “roasted, not boiled” (Exod. 12:8-9), whereas Deuteronomy commanded that it be “boiled in water” (Deut. 16:7). In Chronicles we are therefore told that the Israelites “boiled the Passover in fire” (2 Chron. 35:13a, my translation), which in the end meant nothing other than boiling the flesh in pots and jugs (35:13b). Similar harmonizations appear elsewhere in Chronicles. Let us not forget also that Ezekiel himself confessed that his prophecy about Tyre did not come to pass (Ezek. 29:17-18).” Pg 144
To Spark’s arguments, based on Markan priority, I would add some redactional changes by Matthew and Luke indicate disagreements with the theology and interpretation of Jesus by Mark at times. in addition I would note that Luke’s prologue might include an implicit critique of Mark but considering Luke used a large portion of that Gospel in his own writing, one would be very hard pressed to argue Luke considered the core material in a negative fashion. Also, whereas the synoptic Jesus asks that the cup be taken from him, in the Gospel of John Jesus literally scoffs at this notion. The Johannnine author was thus not very fond of the Gethsemane tradition. The point of all this is Biblical criticism is not a modern, anti-miracle invention of the Enlightenment and these philosophers are wrong on this point, in addition to misconstruing what biblical critics actually believe.
For critical anti-criticism, which is where evangelicals attempt Biblical criticism, Spark goes through 8 types of inadequate strategies used by evangelicals in response to Biblical criticism”
1 Artificial Presentation of the Evidence
He points out how conservatives misconstrue old testament critics arguments for multiple authors of the Pentateuch with a divide and conquer technique. They attempt to treat the different divine names and double stories (often conflicting) completely separately, discrediting both. But critical scholars don’t make their arguments based on these separate pieces of information, For them it’s a package deal. The coincidence of these doublets in conjunction with the divine names is the argument! Sparks writes, “I have yet to see an evangelical critique of Pentateuchal criticism that presents the critical evidence in a coherent way that critical scholars present it.” Pg 147 Sparks then goes on to discuss Kitchen’s attempt at arguing for a singular author for Isaiah and Miller’s attempt to show the four apocalyspes are not an ex eventu prophecy from the second century BC. Using these three cases as exemplars he suggests evangelicals “present the critical evidence either incompletely or unfairly.”
I won’t go through all 8 of the inadequate strategies highlighted by Sparks but their titles are below. What impresses me in this section is how Sparks is dialoguing with actually evangelical arguments in each case and attempting to demonstrate them with examples:
2 Artificial Comparative Analogies
-
Selective and Illegitimate Appeals to Critical Scholarship
-
Lowering the Threshold for Historicity
-
Red herrings – The misleading Use of “Test Cases”
-
Misleading and illegitimate harmonizations
-
Critiquing Biblical Criticism with Biblical “Testimony”
-
Pleading Ignorance and Obfuscating the Issues
Some other highlights: Sparks points out where Jude gets the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch wrong (two pseudonymous works). Must we assume Jesus gets authorship correct and an inspired book like Jesus does not? Could he have erred or simply accommodated his audiences beliefs as correcting mistaken authorship was not his purpose.
“Precritical orthodoxy makes it possible, and modern critical research makes it likely, that Jesus has not told us who really wrote the Pentateuch, Isaiah or Daniel. “ pg 165
Also on page 167 Sparks goes through 4 reasons the biblical scholarship of more sophisticated evangelicals still has ”rhetorical ambiguity”: “To put it baldly: it seems to me that serious scholarship does not sell among conservative Evangelicals.” An author has to choose between being a good scholar and selling books. Others reasons include not fully understanding the theological implications themselves, having pastoral concerns for their churches as this could create problems, and conflicts with working for conservative schools, suspicious of biblical criticism, with high statements on scriptural authority.
Sparks ends with a bit of hope in that many evangelicals are coming around to accept the strong evidence presented by Biblical criticism:
“For instance, many progressive evangelicals now accept that there are sources in the Pentateuch, that Isaiah was authored by several prophets, that Daniel includes pseudoprophecy, that the Chronicler’s History is partially fictional, that Jonah is fictional, that there are difference between John and the Synoptics that cannot be historically harmonized, and that the Pastoral Epistles were written by someone other than Paul.” Pg 169-170