Mr. Blomberg acknowledges the fact the Ehrman is a first-rate scholar and that after reading this book the lay reader (the target audience for the book) will know much more about the Bible than they did before. It is, according to him and with a few noted exceptions, very good scholarship.
But Mr. Blomberg also discovers something troubling about the book - Mr Ehrman has "an axe to grind." He is writing from a biased perspective. So, too, by the way, he says, was Robert Funk, the founder of the Jesus Seminar.
My response to this is: and who doesn't have an axe to grind? What scholar, preacher, teacher, or writer doesn't have a particular theological or intellectual axe to grind? If you don't believe that you have something to say that is worth saying and different than what others are saying, why bother saying it? Ehrman and Funk know this. One of the reasons they tell us their personal stories in their books is so that we get a better sense of where they are coming from and can then better understand their bias. And both of them openly acknowledge in their writings that as time goes on and we learn more about history, make more archeological discoveries, enter different periods of time when other issues matter more, the thinking of scholarship will evolve and change. It is the nature of the beast of scientific discovery: theories are built on the foundation of what we know today with the full understanding that the final word has not been spoken. What is important in scholarship is that the bias is acknowledged.
Mr. Blomberg himself has a bias. It is on display in this passage:
But otherwise, the most disappointing feature of the volume is Ehrman's apparent unawareness of (or else his unwillingness to discuss) the difference between inductive and deductive approaches to Scripture. The classic evangelical formulations of inspiration and inerrancy have never claimed that these are doctrines that arise from the examination of the data of the existing texts. They are theological corollaries that follow naturally from the conviction that God is the author of the texts (itself suggested by 2 Tim. 3:16, Jesus' own high view of Scripture and his conviction that the Spirit had yet more truth to inspire his followers to record). But if the texts are "God-breathed," and if God cannot err, then they must be inspired and inerrant.Note where he says: "They are theological corollaries that follow naturally from the conviction that God is the author of the texts .... But if the texts are "God-breathed," and if God cannot err, then they must be inspired and inerrent." This is Blomberg's bias: he has a conviction that God is the author of the texts (and as he notes between his parentheses, don't the scriptures themselves suggest this), and therefore since God cannot err, then they must be inspired and inerrant.
Ehrman offers no supporting arguments for his claims that if God inspired the originals, he both could have and should have inerrantly preserved them in all subsequent copies. It would have been a far greater miracle to supernaturally guide every copyist and translator throughout history than to inspire one set of original authors, and in the process it probably would have violated the delicate balance between the humanity and divinity of the Bible analogous to the humanity and divinity of Christ. All that is necessary is for us to have reason to believe that we can reconstruct something remarkably close to the originals, and we have evidence for that in abundance. No central tenet of Christianity hangs on any textually uncertain passage; this observation alone means that Christian textual critics may examine the variants that do exist dispassionately and without worrying that their faith is somehow threatened in the ways that Ehrman came to believe.
Here is the Jay Steele simple-minded common-sense response to that bias and quote. Simply substitute "Jay Steele" for the words "the text": >>They are theological corollaries that follow naturally from the conviction that God is the author of Jay Steele. (and don't we believe this to be true about the creation of humans and that we are God-breathed) But if Jay Steele is "God-breathed," and if God cannot err, then he (Jay Steele) must be inspired and inerrant.<<
Why? The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. It most certainly doesn't about me and I believe it doesn't about the scriptures either. But that is my bias. Mr. Blomberg begins with a theological assumption and seeks to prove it or protect it. That is his bias. You can see it again here: "I went to a liberal Lutheran liberal arts college that was rapidly changing its approach to religious studies to try to conform to the secular university model, despite its Christian heritage, yet my studies demonstrated to me that it was needlessly running too fast too far." He, too, tells us his story so we can better understand his bias. Good for him. But my response to this last quote is that he left out two important words at the end: "for me." Which is fine. He was only willing to allow his scholarly studies to lead him down a path so far, and then he had no wish or no need to go any further. That is his bias.
Mr. Blomberg's bias is that the scriptures reveal the complete truth of God; no matter what we might learn in science, biblical scholarship, or life there is nothing that is ever going contradict that truth.
My bias is that the Christian scriptures reveal the beginning of theological reflection about Jesus, God, truth, and the meaning of life. But "The Truth" is being revealed to us little by little in the unfolding of life. And every time we get a little closer and understand a little more, another level of depth and truth is opened up to us. The joy of life and the key to spiritual growth is following the truth fearlessly wherever it leads.
No comments:
Post a Comment