Historical

Historical-Critical Scholars on the Bible

Vol. X, No. 3, March 1997

This month’s Antiheritage is taken from pp 157 and 159 of Beyond the Impasse?, edited by Robison B. James & David S. Dockery (Broadman Press, Nashville, 1992). Each chapter of the book is written by a different author, and the cited chapter is by Dr. Paige Patterson, President, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC. However, our focus is not on Patterson’s views, but rather on the authors he quotes.

... R. P. C. Hanson and A. T. Hanson are refreshingly plainspoken about the conclusions of at least the majority of historical-critical scholars.

There are certain conclusions that stand out, certain basic assumptions which must considerably modify how we use the Bible. Here are a few taken very much at random. Many more could be added.

(a) Everything narrated in the Old Testament about the history of Israel up to the entry into Canaan is either myth or legend. Solid history only begins after the entry, and even then there is a considerable element of legend.

(b) Mark is the earliest of the four gospels and was used by both “Matthew” and Luke in the composition of their gospels.

(d) Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles (I and II Timothy and Titus). They probably belong to the early years of the second century. It can safely be claimed that the best scholars in all Christian traditions would accept these conclusions.

The Hansons continue by assuring the reader that the Bible cannot be taken as a handbook for theology, Christian worship, an accurate account of the origin of the world, or of mankind, or even of Israel. Under no circumstances, the Hansons allege, does the Bible contain any significant “revealed” information about the future. Indeed, the Bible is no more reliable than other similar documents of its age. In fact, the Hansons conclude, “Historical criticism of the Bible has challenged two widely held beliefs about it; that it is inerrant and that it is inspired.”

[On p 159 the text quotes Glenn Hinson, for a number of years professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, but now moved to the liberal Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, which is supported financially by the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Baptist General Association of Virginia (through the WM-2 giving track). Patterson quotes a paragraph written by Hinson in his book Jesus Christ.]

All sources, however objective they claim to be, have biases. They reflect the slanted viewpoints of their authors. At the same time, most possess, in varying degrees, some element of fact. The fact that none of these is absolutely factual, however, does not take away all of their value. What it takes away is the dogmatic certainty with which historians in the past sometimes operated. With dogmatic certainty out of the question the historian speaks in terms of relative certainty. He approaches all sources critically and seeks to evaluate their accuracy from as many sides as possible. In the case of the Gospels one can safely conclude that a kernel of historical fact underlies the early Church’s handling of the material.

[Editorial Comment: Note that both the Hansons and Hinson deny the inspiration of Scripture as it has been understood by Christians through the centuries and, much more important, as Jesus testified to it. There is a “lust of the flesh” aspect to their denial, for if the Bible is not God-breathed, then it is up to scholars such as themselves to ferret out those parts which are of value and those which are not. May Christians always stand on the absolute truth of the Word and not rely on the silly blatherings of men, no matter how many initials may appear after their names. TCP]