Founders Ministries Blog: "The Southern Baptist Convention: Retrospect and P...

Founders Ministries Blog: "The Southern Baptist Convention: Retrospect and P...: Dr. Tom Nettles spoke at the 2012 Founders Breakfast in New Orleans before the opening session of the annual meeting of the Southern Bapti...

Second Thoughts

You need to read First Things First before you read this post. Read it, and then return here.

 I remember that spring morning. I remember some moments in my life so vividly that they scroll through my mind like a powerpoint. Brief glimpses from my childhood and from big events that are almost overshadowed by the photographs of them, but some moments I remember.

I remember the first time I saw the woman who would become my bride. She thinks I did not notice her in the orientation where I gave a perfunctory greeting. I noticed. She was the most beautiful girl in the room.

Before you judge me as shallow or superficial, I did my due diligence and discovered that she was a freshman, having graduated with honors from high school and coming highly recommended by her church and school. I learned that she did have a boyfriend; but I was undeterred by that small insignificant obstacle.

I remember that moment when she, radiantly beautiful, stood by my side exchanging our wedding vows. Three years later, when she knocked on the door of my classroom in the school where we both taught, telling me we were expecting our first child, she shone like a new diamond. Four times I watched her go through natural childbirth and in each delivery I remember a moment when her grace and strength gave her a beauty I will never forget. Those moments would be helpful harbingers in days to come.

My wife’s humility has never allowed her to agree with my assessment of her physical beauty and yet she knew I felt that way. That would bring greater anxiety in the severe mercy that would assault her self-image and her physical appearance.

That Sunday morning when she called me, devastated, I did not know what to do, think or say. I have a habit of reflexively saying, “It will be alright.” Comforting at times but I am sure sometimes downright annoying. These blogs will help us tell about the journey of faith and fear, mountain tops and valleys that followed.

Blind Love and Blessings

 In the next several posts I will be reflecting on a common story. told by my wife and me.  To quote my wife:

 "My husband and I have agreed to relate the story by telling it through two different perspectives, his and mine, and by means of two different blogs, his and mine. We agree that it is risky to leave ourselves open to either criticism and/or voyeurism but it seems the only way to give the glory to our God. To not talk about the things the Lord has taught us is to fail to acknowledge God’s goodness."

I ask that you first read   Blind Love and Blessings
And stay tuned.

Top Ten Myths about Bullies

In which an effort is made to dispel the most egregious errors encountered by those forced to confront said villainous behavior and in which the author recounts, with understandable ambiguity, assorted personal trials and tribulations which, in anecdotal fashion, supply the modest verification of the theses set forth 

It becomes necessary at the outset to define our term lest any reader be misled and wade through the arguments presented only to discover it is not a topic of interest  to them and thereby a waste of their time. To those remaining at the end of the article: no refund of time or energy will be given nor will there be any legal recourse available to you in protest of said policy.

To be clear this essay is not about fish found in or around New Zealand, known as "bully" fish such as pakoko or titarakura - small freshwater fish of the genera Gobiomorphus and Philynodon.

Neither is the discussion at hand concerned with the adjective “bully” i.e. dashing, jolly, my bully boy nor the interjection "bully" used as "bully for you, well done! bravo! 

And lastly, although this one offers etymological mysteries worth exploring, this essay makes no investigation of “bully” as used in the 1500’s: "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from the Dutch boel "lover, brother."

Oh, and one more disclaimer; this essay makes no further statement about “bully”  as  a desperate, freewheeling scramble for a Soccer ball by a number of players, usually in the goal area; nor about “bully” in Field Hockey -  a method of putting the ball into play in which two opponents, facing each other, tap their sticks on the ground near the ball and then make contact with each other's sticks over the ball three times, after which each tries to gain possession of the ball. 

Those readers who have persisted to this point are well advised and well equipped to understand the general purpose of this essay.  I trust both of you will leave a comment.

[LEGAL HAS ASKED ME TO INSERT HERE A DISCLAIMER TO THE EFFECT THAT NO WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, ATTENDS TO ANY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED HEREWITH.]

Acceptable definitions of bully include; a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people; and similarly - a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people.

Through my lifetime – and I do not intend this to be my last will and testament (unless all of the sundry bullies I have encountered happen to read this, unite and form a coalition to …. well let’s not dwell on that thought) – through my lifetime I have read about, watched and heard about bullies; their number is legion (and perhaps their name, too.) I have read about historical figures who qualify; I have known many fictional and real bullies; the Bible has a veritable menagerie of them – for some reason King Ahab comes to mind, although the real villain of that story is Queen Jezebel – but I must ask the reader to stop interrupting my train of thought because – let’s see, where was I – oh yes! Bullies I have known.

I only mention all this to make the self-serving statement that I know about bullies. I have suffered at their devices, at times stood up to them, and on the rare occasion seen some of them handily defeated.  I only offer in this essay a list of the greatest and most dangerous myths about bullies.

Myth Number 10:  “If someone makes you cry or will not let you have your way, they are a bully.” 

Not necessarily; in most cases it just means you are a crybaby, or selfish, or spoiled, or lazy or well, that’s the general idea.

Myth Number 9: “Bullies only know how to use their brawn, not their brains.”

Again, not necessarily.   Some bullies are very, very, smart.  This is a dangerous assumption and leads people to try and “out think” the bully when a better option might be to “out run” the bully. Looks cowardly but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. As Bret Maverick once said, “He who runs away lives to run away another day.”

Myth Number 8: “If you stand up to A Bully, they will back down.”

No. No. No! Sometimes that only brings you into range to have the living daylights beaten out of you.  I was told this myth as a child and implemented it unsuccessfully on a number of occasions. I have also made this mistake as an adult; some lessons are harder to learn than others.

Myth Number 7: “No one likes a Bully.”

Heard that one in the third grade.  Turns out many of the girls liked him a lot; some of the boys admired and followed him like ducklings imprinted on a Mama Duck and one of the teachers thought he was “made of sterner stuff” than the rest of us and the bully’s dad bragged that “he was a chip off the ole block.” Stand up to a bully in some crowds and the crowd will beat the living daylights out of you.  Trust me on this one. This is a true story.

Myth Number 6: “Bullies will grow up and out of their bullydom.”

Again, I have seen no statistical or even anecdotal evidence to verify this. What I have seen is bullies get older, bigger and meaner. Not all of them mind you; some of them get the living daylights beaten out of them along the way. Sad, but true.  As the little girl said, “I’ll cry all night” when that happens.

Myth Number 5: “Bullies only use their physical advantage to get their way.”

Now this is a slight variation of myth number 9 but it deserves emphasis.  I have seen bullies use every tool, every technique, and every trick imaginable.  I have seen rich bullies use money; I have seen poor bullies use poverty; I have seen sad people use grief, sick people use illness, officials use their office; friends use guilt, scholars use credentials, preachers use pulpits, reporters use microphones, fools use folly and whole groups of people use history – all in blatant efforts to bully others.

Myth Number 4: “Bullies get what’s coming to them.”

Not in this life – not on your life.  I know judgment is coming; but I recommend that you leave vengeance to God and to eternity. Don’t waste time and energy in the here and now watching or waiting or trying to get even or justice or satisfaction. 

Myth Number 3: “Bullying is caused by _________.”

Now, first a confession to my readers, or reader if that other fellow left early – I rather arbitrarily chose 10 for this list, knowing I could at any time change it to 11 or 7 or 5; writers seldom mention that but it is more common than most list makers would like you to know; however number 3 could be expanded to make this a list of 27 or 37 things about bullying that no one would ever read. My point is that you can fill in that blank with anything you can think of  - sports, business, religion, patriarchy,  matriarchy, fallen arches – or preface those with “the lack of: sports, business, religion, patriarchy, matriarchy, golden arches – you get the idea.  The fact is bullying occurs anywhere and everywhere; in church, out of church, in the best neighborhood, and in the worst. In the courtroom, in the cloakroom, in the boardroom, in the locker-room, in the bedroom, in the classroom, in the – well, everywhere. Bullying is just one more manifestation of sin that comes from the human heart. 

Myth Number 2: “We should make bullying illegal.”

I would draft this legislation, vote for this legislation, enforce this legislation - if it would work; but – and this is very controversial but still true – it will not work. At best, it is a futile gesture; at worst, it is another form of bullying; ironic, I know, but sadly true.  You may be happy to know that the conduct of bullies is often illegal and already punishable by fines, and/or incarceration; and the court of public opinion (usually) frowns upon it.  There is often a great deal of head-shaking, hand-wringing about it (with stern letters to follow) but that’s about it. The fact is it cannot be outlawed, proscribed or made void where prohibited. It’s rather like the cockroaches of which bullies often remind me. Ubiquitous, unstoppable and inescapable this side of the Great White Throne Judgment.

Myth Number 1:

And before I list this last myth, permit me a brief moment of self-congratulatory self-satisfaction about guessing right on the number of myths; I was mowing my lawn in between times and had to wait for it all to take shape in the grist forming in the mill of my mind… anyway

Myth Number 1:  “Bullies ruin everything.”  

Oddly, you might want to argue with me about this one; but hear me out.  In my final analysis, I do not think the bully ruins anything; don’t get me wrong – it’s not for lack of effort; there is much thrashing, and weeping and wailing, much sound and fury – but it signifies nothing. The bully causes my backbone to stiffen; he still causes me to step into the arena, he still makes me want to defend and protect the weak, to speak the truth, to stand for right – even if I stand alone. And when I lay my head on my pillow at night, when my conscience assesses my day, when I stand before my Judge – I will not be sorry that I did.

P.S. Christians will understand about the Others:

Hebrews 11:32-40 ³² And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: ³³ Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, ³⁴ Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. ³⁵ Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: ³⁶ And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: ³⁷ They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; ³⁸ (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. ³⁹ And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: ⁴⁰ God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Book Review

Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11.

By Joseph Blenkinsopp,  New York and London: T and T Clark International, 2011, xii + 214 pp., $100.00 paper.

Joseph Blenkinsopp, with a brilliant mind and admirable ability to write, is a Catholic scholar of considerable merit. He is Emeritus Professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, USA. His research is obviously familiar with rabbinic, patristic and medieval literature and he quotes with ease from the works of Homer, Hesiod, Plato, Shakespeare, Donne, Cowper, Nietzsche, and Barth.

The author adopts a format that assumes creation cannot be restricted to an event, nor to two versions of an event. He sees the biblical record as descriptive of an allegorical sequence: creation - uncreation - recreation. He utilizes speculative discussion rather than systematic exposition.  His view of Genesis is best summarized by his statement: “… the Biblical text is a relatively late Hebrew-language version of a literary mythic tradition of great antiquity” (page 132).  He relies heavily on the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, also called the JEDP theory, in which: J=Jahwist, E=Elohist, D=Deuteronomistic  History, and P=Priestly Code. He sees these as the “sources” of the patchwork literary quilt of the Hebrew Bible.  Blenkinsopp never explains or defends this theory but simply assumes that his readers know it and accept it as foundational.

Blenkinsopp, then, assumes Genesis to be composed of fragmented myths about Creation, the Flood, early man, and Hebrew origins. He contends these legends were orally assembled, and redacted through the centuries after being adapted from Mesopotamian mythology.  He suggests the Pentateuch may have reached its final form as late as the Post-Exilic Period (538-432 B.C.).

The author is willing to allow for any interpretation of Genesis chapter one except “a straightforward chronological reading of the chapter” (page 20). He insists that the “ex nihilo” view of creation, though accepted by Judaism and New Testament Christianity, is not the preferred interpretation from a “linguistic and exegetical point of view” (page 30). The author finds it necessary to remind his readers that science assures us that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the catastrophic extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago “led eventually to the emergence of mammals, including humans” (page 5).  There is not even the whisper of an acknowledgement that many Biblical scholars and competent scientists dispute this evolutionary tale; there is not in the bibliography a single entry that would indicate that Blenkinsopp has read any defense of a literal six-day creation; to be fair he does mention “creation science” (page131); nor would he be comfortable with a framework hypothesis for Genesis one and two. Such omission must be intentional considering the author’s acumen and ability.  Given Blenkinsopp’s view of God, which could be charitably described as open theism, it is probably inaccurate to describe his view as theistic evolution. 

Speculative discussion serves Blenkinsopp’s purpose better as he promotes Genesis 1 – 11 as mythology; his view is that the Bible has no more credibility or reliability than any other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythology.  He is clearly conversant and comfortable with a plethora of mythologies and indicates they all have a contribution to make in understanding human origins and specifically the question of evil.

Blenkinsopp includes a litany of speculative mythology including Adam’s “first” wife as Lilith or perhaps a serpent-goddess. He is certain that there is no connection between “Adam” and sin but finds perhaps an allegorical explanation of the nature of death. His ethical concerns consist of how humanity can deal with a damaged world “into which we, like the first parents, have been thrust” (page 19).

He also is very much exercised over the long-term detriment of the concept of original sin and how that has adversely affected the advance of feminism. Blenkinsopp leaves little doubt about his dismissal of original sin; he laments, “This unfortunate tradition of denigration, in which male fear of the female played, and continues to play, a significant part, was perpetuated in Early Christianity” (page 79). The “traditional” view of original sin offends “our modern sensitivities” (page 80).

The author concludes, that Genesis 1 – 11, while not inerrant nor infallible, can provide us with “often surprising resources for understanding our place in the world, opening up new perspectives, and suggesting fresh points of entry into a revelation and worldview that can free us to go beyond our mundane formulations and taken-for-granted assumptions” (page190).  What that revelation might be or what value that worldview might have, Blenkinsopp is perhaps reserving for another book.

There may be some value in such a book in a study of ANE mythology; its rambling format makes it less suitable for reference.  The book could be useful for graduate students to observe the clear incompatibility the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis with the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.

David Pitman

Temple Baptist College, Cincinnati, OH

Received a wonderful invitation to attend the 2012 Think Tank hosted by TruthXChange  


Dr Peter Jones Two-ism and the Doctrine of God

Dr. Ardel Caneday: The Doctrine of Scripture

Dr Dennis Johnson: The Doctrine of the Incarnation

Dr Steve Baarendse Art and Literature

Book Review

The Sacred Text:  Excavating the Texts, Explaining the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures.  Edited by Michael Bird and Michael Pahl,  Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias. 2010, xv + 265 pp., $114.00.

This book is the seventh in the Gorgias Précis Portfolios.  These portfolios are collections of essays in conference or Festschrift (a collection of essays or learned papers contributed by a number of people to honor an eminent scholar) but united around a common theme.  Gorgias Press is an independent academic publisher of books and journals covering several areas related to religious studies, the world of ancient western Asia, classics, and Middle Eastern studies.  These publications are peer reviewed before acceptance and utilize electronic files in the publication process to ensure that titles will not go out of print.  The limited print distribution explains something about the cost of the volume.

This particular collection of essays is the combined effort of twelve contributors.  One of the twelve, Michael Pahl served as co-editor with Michael Bird.  Its preface places a significant value on Christians discussing “in truly fresh ways about the nature, purposes, and function of Scripture.” (p. xii) This preference for “fresh ways” proves to be indicative of some of the more innovative discussions in the book.  As a collection, perhaps by design, there is very little continuity or common agreement as to specific terms or definitions.  The overall framework as described by the editors seems more artificial than accurate.  There is no glossary but a modest index; each chapter includes a helpful list of recommended books for additional research.  The format is extensively footnoted.

The Introduction (by Michael Bird, Ph.D., Queensland) states an admirable goal for the book to provide “brief introductions” to complex issues including:

Excavating the Texts, or the formation of the Christian canon in the context of the ancient church:

            1 The Septuagint as Scripture in the Early Church - Karen H. Jobes (Ph.D.,           Westminster Seminary), Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College and Graduate School.

           
            2 Scripture in the Second Century - Tomas Bokedal (Th.D., Lund), Lecturer in       New Testament at King’s College, University of Aberdeen, U.K.

            3 Scripture and Tradition: Seeking a Middle Path - Michael W. Pahl (Ph.D., Birmingham) Pastor at Lendrum Mennonite Brethren Church, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

            4 Scripture and Canon - John C. Poirier (D.H.L. Jewish Theological Seminary) Chair of Biblical Studies at Kingswell Theological Seminary in Middletown, OH.

Explaining the Interpretations or the hermeneutical strategies for interpreting the Christian Scriptures:

            5 Scripture and Biblical Criticism - Jamie A. Grant (Ph.D., Gloucestershire) Vice- Principal and Tutor in Biblical Studies at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, U.K.

            6 Scripture and Theological Exegesis - Thorsten Moritz (Ph.D., Kings’ College London) Professor of Hermeneutics and New Testament at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MN.

            7 Scripture and Postmodern Epistemology - Robert Shillaker (Ph.D., Open University) Lecturer in Systematic Theology at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, U.K.

            8 Scripture and New Interpretive Approaches: Feminist & Post-Colonial - Jennifer G. Bird (Ph.D., Vanderbilt) Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Greensboro College in Greensboro, NC.

Engaging the Theologies or the theological status and function of Scriptures in various Christian traditions:

            9 Catholic Doctrine on Scripture: Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Interpretation - Brant   Pitre (Ph.D., Notre Dame) Professor of Sacred Scriptures at Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans.

            10 Scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy: Canon, Tradition, and Interpretation -George Kalantzis (Ph.D., Northwestern) Director of Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies.

            11 Still Sola Scriptura: An Evangelical Perspective on Scripture - James M. Hamilton Jr. (Ph.D., Southern Seminary) Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at Southern Seminary.

            12 The Word as Event: Barth and Bultmann on Scripture - David Congdon  (Ph.D., student in systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ.

The book is characterized by careful and competent scholarship in each of the contributors; it also has the distinct advantage of a pervasive irenic tone and an apparent conciliatory attitude toward those who may disagree with a particular viewpoint.  In pursuing diversity the editors not only selected a wide-range of theology but also a wide array of scholars, very much representative of the English-speaking world.  They are all contemporary scholars.

This volume certainly attains its goal of encouraging greater appreciation for the existence of “sacred texts” as held by Christians.  The complexities of the issues discussed and the controversies they engender certainly prompt the reader to pursue these matters that are introduced.  The collective work of these scholars, no doubt specialists in their fields, is a commendable undertaking.

This review is prepared for the Evangelical Theological Society, (which view is that “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs…”) It is illuminating to observe how this concept is approached and applied.

Dr. Michael Bird, lecturer in Systematic Theology at the Bible College of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, writes the Introduction.  While acknowledging the “ancient idea of inerrancy” (p.14), he posits a contrast between inerrancy and infallibility; he invokes a carefully nuanced appeal to the veracity of Scripture that should be acceptable to even the Barthian viewpoint.  Dr. Bird insists “that the church did create the biblical canon” (p. 9) and “God inspires authors to write Scriptures and inspires the church to make a canon” (p. 10).  This will be clearly contradicted by Dr. Hamilton’s statement in chapter eleven that the church did not make the canon but “recognized as inspired” the Protestant canon.  This is not hair-splitting.  Dr. Hamilton footnotes his comment with Article I of the CSBI (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) which states:  “We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source” (p. 218). 

The Introduction also has one glaring error of syntax.  Dr. Bird says, “… there is a closer relationship between ecclesiology and bibliology than is normally underappreciated in Protestant dogmatic.”  (p. 9).  This should no doubt read “that is normally underappreciated” or “than is normally appreciated.”  Correctly understood, Dr. Bird still fails to make a convincing case for any failure of the traditional Protestant view of the relationship between ecclesiology and bibliology.  Dr. Bird argues that the Reformers call for sola Scriptura would be better understood as suprema Scriptura and that the traditional Protestant view has been reduce to nuda Scriptura (the bare Scriptures) (p. 11).  It may be observed that while Dr. Bird would assent to many of the affirmations of the CSBI, he would not agree with most of the denials as stated by the CSBI.  His essay seems to agree with the CSBI Article One affirmation: “We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.”   However he would disagree with the corresponding denial: “We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.”

 Whether he is right about “the pulpit pounding fundamentalist”  (a curious derogation), he does not engage the scholarship of James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham, original signatories of the CSBI.

Article XIII of the CSBI says, “We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.”  Several of these contributors are clearly uncomfortable with the term inerrant.  Dr. Robert Shillaker, chapter seven, quotes, if not with total agreement, certainly with admiration, of those who want us to get beyond “cheap inerrancy” (p. 157) and “the too-modern-sounding term inerrancy” (p.158).  Shillaker concludes that somehow the Bible uses “truth” and readers should in some manner “expect something similar as Scripture is read” (p. 158).  Something similar to truth is to be expected. 

Dr. Jennifer Bird, in chapter eight, says that reading “the words of humans that reflect cultural biases can be mistaken for the word of God” (p.173).   Dr. Bird engages 1 Peter 2:18 – 3:16 and finds the text as written to fall seriously short of egalitarian ideals.  She does not question if egalitarian ideals are possibly wrong or inadequate, but rather says the text must be liberated from its cultural biases so “the life-stealing aspects” of the Bible would be removed and “the life-giving words [may] speak unencumbered for themselves” (p. 173).

In chapter nine, Dr. Brant Pitre, couches the Roman Catholic view of inerrancy within orthodox terms while vitiating the principle with the demand that Sacred Tradition “which is also the word of God,” (p. 194) be held as equal to Scripture.   Dr. Pitre anticipates non-Catholic readers finding that view “problematic” but adopts an incarnational and ecclesial hermeneutic, elevating Catholic doctrine as promulgated by the living Magesterium (read current Pope and a synod of Bishops) above the Bible. 

In an interesting, but unconvincing argument, Dr. Michael Pahl, in chapter three, presents a novel “middle path” between Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition (p.63).  He observes the debate has become Scripture versus Tradition and he would frame the discussion as Apostolic-Kerygmatic Tradition. His search for the heart of the gospel is commendable but he does not explain any kind of authority that such a kerygma would have or how it would come to possess it.  His thesis would not satisfy the Catholic demand for the role of the Magesterium and would weaken the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura.  His conclusion seems to beg his question.  

Of course, these views reflect the very diversity the editors desired to present.   The contributors’ credentials and current employment are included in this review to give some context to their viewpoints.

There are some stellar contributions: 

In Chapter one, Dr. Karen Jobes provides a succinct introduction to the Septuagint.  She summarizes its origin, its use in the New Testament with specific attention to Isaiah, the Psalms and the Minor Prophets.  She concludes with an evaluation of the proper appreciation of the Masoretic text in relation to the Septuagint.

In chapter five, Dr. Jamie Grant offers a superb brief history of modern Biblical Criticism and an essential introduction to the canonical approach of Brevard Childs. Grant offers a warning that “scholars throughout many generations have been guilty of a degree of intellectual arrogance” (p. 116) and encourages all to approach the Scriptures “with an attitude of appropriate humility” (p. 118).   He echoes a valuable sentiment from the preface of the CSBI: “We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.”

Dr. George Kalantzis, in chapter ten, provides a clear comparison and contrast of the bibliology of Eastern Orthodoxy with both Roman Catholic and Protestant perspectives.  There are no magisterium and communion-formative Confessions in Eastern Orthodoxy.  There are few commentaries.  Kalantzis identifies a synergeia between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy.  Even the canon is not considered a closed issue; “it is firm but not rigid” (p. 202).  This, in part, leads Kalantzis to conclude that “though Orthodox theology formally teaches a high view of Scripture, Orthodox praxis manifests a low use of Scripture” (p. 212).  True of some Protestants as well.

In chapter eleven, Dr. James Hamilton, writing from the evangelical perspective, states clearly and confidently that the sixty-six books of the canon are inspired and inerrant. Hamilton deftly presents the witness of the Old Testament to its own canonicity and the New Testament evidence of the Old Testament canon.  He deals with the New Testament canon, surveying the traditional views and then making the case from Scripture’s “self-authentication” (p. 235).   He acknowledges the standard objections to the evangelical view and at one point he gently chides critics with the observation that “a remarkable amount of confidence is necessary to declare the Bible to be in error” (p. 238).  Dr. Hamilton argues, “the evangelical view of Scriptures is derived from the Bible alone… Rather than being a philosophical or theological construct, the evangelical doctrine of Scripture arises inductively from the text of Scripture itself.”  (pp. 216-217).  This view is irreconcilable with the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, the Barthian, the post-modern and Feminist/Post-colonial viewpoints espoused elsewhere in this book under review.  It is also at odds with any “middle path” of compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism.

In chapter twelve, Dr. David Congdon, in a very astute essay, identifies the commonalities of Barth and Bultman on the Scriptures as potential events that “must become God’s Word” (p.245).  He writes with considerable skill, comparing and contrasting Barth and Bultman, and makes the case that their core views of Scripture were not dissimilar but his conclusion as to their value for moving beyond that perspective is somewhat overstated.

Overall this book does not serve well as an introduction precisely because of the disparate viewpoints espoused.  It would be more useful if the alliterative title, Excavating, Explaining and Engaging, was presented from each of the various viewpoints; perhaps a counterpoint or rebuttal format would enhance the book in a utilitarian way.  As is, it would be too advanced for most undergraduate students and too elementary for most graduate students, except perhaps as a collateral reading. Unfortunately, the cost would prove impractical as a collateral reading in most settings.  More seriously, many chapters in this book are less than subtle attacks on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.  To any evangelicals who think this issue was resolved in the last century, this book is a clear challenge to that opinion.  Dr. Albert Mohler (in the Fall, 2010 issue of Southern Seminary Magazine) calls it the “Fifty Years’ War”.  Dr. Mohler concluded his essay saying, “The rejection of biblical inerrancy is bound up with a view of God that is, in the end, fatal for Christian orthodoxy.  We are entering a new phase in the battle over the Bible’s truthfulness and authority.  We should at least be thankful for the undisguised arguments coming from the opponents of biblical inerrancy, even as we ready, once again, to make clear where their arguments lead.”    Article Five of the CSBI’s opening statement warned, “The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”

With the clear exceptions noted previously, much of this book, The Sacred Text, is a clear effort to reject biblical inerrancy or at least to limit or disregard it;  this effort  resurrects old views (couched as “fresh ways”)  of truth “contrary to the Bible’s own.”

David Pitman

Temple Baptist College, Cincinnati, OH