Who would do such a thing? I mean, I’ve seen some crazy stuff here, but who denies the actual history that the Bible occasionally conforms to? ; )
Science relies on evidence to support theories of explanation. On the other hand, theologians place no or little value on extra biblical evidence pertinent to Genesis. According to Alister McGrath, “The theological tools by which Scripture is scrutinized, analyzed and dissected are tradition, reason and experience.”1
Although “reason” is alluded to I have seen few signs of it in their text books and commentaries on Genesis 1-11. Nobody is accusing Alister of being irrational. He appears to be a fully rational human being as are many other astute theologians. However, they could benefit in their evaluation of Scripture if they did a little homework to supplement their reason.
- Alister McGrath, Christian Theology an Introduction (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
All they, astute theologians like McGrath, lack is the gospel. They don’t lack mere knowledge. They’re awash with knowledge. You certainly don’t know anything that they don’t. Where they are irrational, when they go so far, which you appear to among many others here, and I feel he does as in his conflict with Dawkins, is in thinking that anything that they think know apart from the gospel justifies the gospel.
It needs no justification. As John, Aquinas and Barth all realised after lifetimes of selling knowledge by the pound.
Hi Klax, you wrote:
“Who would do such a thing? I mean, I’ve seen some crazy stuff here, but who denies the actual history that the Bible occasionally conforms to? ; )”
One example: Although extolling the first eleven chapters of Genesis as “among the most important in Scripture,” Walter Brueggemann, author of Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching eschews any historical value in them. He refers to Genesis as a “process of story-telling” and introduces the early chapters simply as “prehistory.” “In these texts, there is almost no historical particularity,” he explains. “Other than the reference to specific peoples in chapters 10-11, there is no concrete identification to historical persons, groups, movements or institutions.”1
Notes
- Walter Brueggemann, Genesis Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 11.
You don’t think spending over 30 years researching the history of the ancient Near East in the Library of Congress gives me a slight edge?
Under whose auspices? No, not at all, not with regard to theology let alone the gospel.
Sorry, can you join up the dots there? Brueggemann is wrong because he’s right?
No, Brueggemann is uninformed, yet makes statements that would lead someone to believe he actually reached his conclusions due to some sort of scholarship on his part. He is relying on liberal tradition which in turn depends on a long chain of theologians who simply parroted those who came before. That’s how tradition works. If scientists did the same thing we would all be creationists.
No. That is utterly absurd.
Professor of Theology, Eden Theological Seminary (1961-1986);
Professor of Theology, Columbia Theological Seminary (1986-2003);
William Marcellus McPheeters Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Columbia Theological Seminary (2003-present)
Over one hundred books, dozens of scholarly articles, largely on rhetorical criticism
And your résumé is?
You could make that same argument against Galileo in favor of the Pope. Which one had a better grasp of theology? Who actually got the evidence? Apparently credentials outweigh research. My theology was published in the Washington Post in 1986. I began research in the Library of Congress that year. But here is the kicker. I confined the totality of my exploration to just eleven chapters. When Abraham leaves Mesopotamia I don’t even care where he goes. Old Testament theologians don’t have that luxury. They don’t dwell on chapters where they believe, “there is almost no historical particularly.” So they go on to other books of the Bible they can dig their teeth into. My point would be if you don’t know any historical evidence then you should resist the temptation to expound on your own uniformed biases causing others to think you actually have the answers.
My book, Historical Genesis from Adam to Abraham came out in 2008. Perhaps you could find an error in it. To date no one else has.
Who’s read it? [Six named non-academic people in 12 years. At least 13 potential buyers - one a year - found their reviews helpful. At £30 I won’t be joining them.] Please compare your résumé with Brueggemann’s.
That seems like it borders on an ad hominem, but maybe its justified? I don’t think it’s advisable for @Dick_Fischer to claim that no one’s found an error in his book; I certainly think his book gets a few things wrong.
Ah, British, that explains the snarky attitude. Okay, you don’t want to spend any money. Go on YouTube (it’s free) I have a series of videos under the title, “Creation, Genesis and Origins” that has had over 200,000 views. Or read one of my peer reviewed articles in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Here is one that was published in 1993 titled, “In Search of the Historical Adam, Part 1.” I’m sure you can find part 2 with minimal effort. @TITLE = In Search of the Historical Adam: Part 1
2 Likes
Just post a review by a credited academic. Yes we excel at Carroll’s hunting.
What few things did did you find Jack? An attack on a person is bad form. Wouldn’t dream of it.
Oooh, and again, what’s this got to do with the gospel? Are the lost messages of Jesus and Paul in the video?
Glad you asked. I don’t have a copy of any “lost messages” I’m stuck with the New Testament.
Matthew 24:37-38 quotes Jesus who spoke of Noah. Also, in Luke 17:26: “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.”
Paul references Adam in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Jude. So it would appear that in the minds of Paul and Jesus these were real people who actually lived. But Brueggemann (whose credentials far exceed mine) says that in Genesis, “there is no concrete identification to historical persons, groups, movements or institutions.”1
Let me be clear, I don’t single out one man for public scorn, I quoted him to show the prevailing attitude of liberal theologians of which he is just one.
Notes
- Walter Brueggemann, Genesis Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 11.
Let me make this point aside from Genesis history. In Alister McGrath’s text book, Christian Theology an Introduction, required reading for many theology students of which I was one, the strategy commonly employed through which the meanings of Scripture can be wrung out of the inspired text are: “tradition, reason, and personal experience.”
Through these long-established tools future generations of exegetes can produce the same negligible results and minimal progress that has hamstrung theology for hundreds of years.
As science soars unimpeded by 17th century thinking, theology remains mired in obsolete conventions giving an ironic twist to the phrase, “that old time religion.” Yes, it is old, and remains that way, insulated from progress. If scientists have hopes of exerting influence on Bible education it will come by way of teaching the theological community the benefits of using methods scientists typically employ to derive theories that explain the natural world.
So what? They were part of their mythos. It would have been impossible for them to not use those ancient literary tropes. Forcing them to be literal makes reality a lie.
McGrath is many things, but he’s not a totally wooden Biblicist. His method, flawed as it is, isn’t yours. You studied under him at Oxford did you?
All theology needs is the gospel. Although it would vastly benefit from staring rationality in the face. What astounds me is the almost total ignorance of translation, the culture of the original texts and the unexamined post-Jewish Greco-Roman baggage, i.e. tradition, that we bring to them.
When I lived near Oxford from 1971-1976 I was a young major in the U. S. Air Force flying F-111s stationed at RAF Upper Heyford near Bicester. I saw much of your lovely country from an altitude of 500 feet at a speed of 450 knots. But I digress …
According to the Barna Group in a report titled, Six Reasons Young Christians Leave the Church, “Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.”
A Gallop Poll taken in 2018 showed a remarkable decrease in professing Christians and church goers in recent years. U.S. church membership averaged 68% during the 1990s, however, according to the report, “The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 …” Needless to say, if this downward trend continues it doesn’t bode well for the long term survival of Christian colleges and seminaries not only in the U. S. but in your country too.
Although a combination of factors can be blamed there is something we could fix that might have a beneficial impact on those deplorable numbers. Understanding Genesis has been a sticking point for apologists for centuries. The text does resonate within the context of the history of the ancient Near East when Genesis is understood as Semitic history, not human history. And that is the problem in a nutshell. Translators believed the purpose of Genesis was to describe the inception of all mankind on planet earth, or it was largely myth with some theological importance known only to theologians.
I got moved on real quick for stopping to watch an F-111s take off there in '84
A couple of years later I was walking near Wellingborough when the shadow of two passed over me. Talk about Psalm 23!
The Protestant churches are doomed in the West, except for the worst, they will always find a market.
It’s because the Church does not proclaim the gospel. Even by words.