Review of “Do Historical Matters Matter To Faith?” (2012)

This collection of twenty-two essays by respected conservative archaeologists and biblical scholars, like Alan Millard and Craig Blomberg, was occasioned by the publication of God’s Word in Human Words by Kenton Sparks. In that book Sparks queries the inerrancy of the Bible and argues that evangelical Christians (amongst whom he includes himself) should accept the conclusions of critical scholars. Readers, however, do not need to be acquainted with Spark’s book as the engagement of the present volume with that book is symptomatic of wider discussion: should Christians accept the results of critical scholarship?[1]

The book is divided into four parts. The first part treats the theological implications of treating the bible as errant or ahistorical. This would be the most appropriate part of the book to address the titular question and yet none of the essayists quite grasp that nettle. For example, in the first chapter Thomas H. McCall briefly summarises various epistemologies and explains to what degree a believer’s acceptance of scripture is based on tackling the challenge of critical scholarship under each epistemology. Yet this consideration is too brief to give any firm direction on this issue.  Similarly I do not think James Hoffmeier fulfils his brief of demonstrating that “a historical exodus is essential for theology” (chapter four). An essay on Irenaeus’ view of scripture (chapter five) feels out of place in this collection.

The remaining three parts of the book address issues arising from critical scholarship and the minimalist approach to biblical history. In part two these include the source critical approach to the Torah (chapter six) and Isaiah (chapter ten), and the historicity of Daniel (chapter eleven). There are some weaker chapters. I am not sure that Robert Bergen’s analysis of word distribution (chapter eight) is helpful or even coherent, and I suspicious how Jens Bruun Koroed’s construction of the Old Testament as cultural memory (chapter thirteen) would be applied in historical studies. The essay on the authenticity of psalm titles (chapter twelve) makes an interesting test case for the way evangelicals can engage with critical scholarship, nevertheless the “critical-realistic” reading the authors suggest feels unnecessary and retrograde.

The New Testament section (part three) is shorter and more straightforward, presumably because the challenges to inerrancy are less pronounced here. The section opens with a useful summary of interaction of critical scholarship with biblical studies, and how Sparks’ book fits into that dialogue (chapter fourteen). Then two essays dealing with how the inerrantist can utilise critical scholarship in study of the New Testament (chapters fifteen and sixteen); both these essays include some useful proposals for addressing alleged inaccuracies or contradictions. Chapter seventeen is review of the evidence relating to the authorship of the Pastorals, arguing that there are good reasons for doubting the (self-confirming) consensus that these epistles are pseudonymous.

The final part concerns the Old Testament and archaeology. It is not clear why this is separated from part two or placed after the section on the New Testament. These essays tackle three known problems in biblical archaeology, which are the veracity of Joshua’s conquest (chapter nineteen), the evidence of Israelite monotheism (chapter twenty) and historicity of the kingdoms of David and Solomon (chapters twenty-one and twenty-two). In each case the essayists show how minimalists have misused absence of evidence to draw positive conclusions.

Despite its problems, this collection of essays is a strong rejoinder to some of the challenges to biblical inerrancy and an interesting contribution to the question of how scholarship interacts with faith. It is also a good sounding for the state of play regarding major issues in biblical scholarship, both archaeological and textual. This will certainly be essential reading for any scholar who also accepts the inerrancy of scripture. It may, however, be too technical (and in places, too abstract) for the general reader.