What Might be Wrong in Old Testament Scholarship? (Editorial)

What might be wrong in Old Testament scholarship? The question is deliberately vague and all-encompassing. We might ask, similarly, what might be wrong in Church Doctrine? What would we answer in this case? Suggested answers might include: the doctrine of the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of the Spirit, teaching about the Devil and Satan, the immortality of the soul, the nature of man and human sin, heaven and hell, the kingdom and Israel, to name a few matters.

Should we expect a similar list in Old Testament scholarship? The situation is slightly different since such scholarship is a recent invention—a product of the German Enlightenment. Even today, the influence of the Enlightenment is felt in the discipline. In contrast, many church doctrines are the product of Apologists and the Early Church Fathers. The two eras are poles apart but there is something to the comparison.

Many Christadelphians might prepare a bible talk on a matter of doctrine by investigating bible texts and consulting the writings of other Christadelphians. For example, unless a talk is being given on the History of the Trinity, it is unlikely that Trinitarian treatises will be consulted when preparing a talk on the nature of Christ. The same aversion is not evidenced in strictly Old Testament subjects where church commentaries might very well be consulted and their opinions adopted; this is a generalization, but it is an odd inconsistency.

It is not possible to say what is wrong in Old Testament Studies, but a list of what might be wrong could include such things as: the postulation of multiple editors, who changed and added to prophetic texts up until Maccabean times; a second and third Isaiah; rejection of single authorship for prophetic books; four sources for the Pentateuch; a Deuteronomist editor or school responsible for much of Samuel-Kings; postexilic origins for undated minor prophets; a Maccabean Daniel; legendary treatment of Genesis and Exodus; rejection of account of the Conquest; a developmental approach to Israelite Religion; a critical treatment of the claims of Bible history; and so on.

These things might be wrong and conservative and critical scholars will argue some of the points. Moreover, critical scholars have many variations on these hypotheses which may also be wrong. Our point is the question: What if they are wrong? Is this not a damning indictment of a discipline?