Christadelphian exegesis is under threat

Christadelphian exegesis is currently under threat from two competing schools of thought. Both are subjective, anti-intellectual, and opposed to the practices of our pioneers.

The first is distinctly fideistic; its advocates claim that simply opening the Bible and praying for guidance is enough to guarantee good results. The second school of thought encourages deep exegesis but recommends poor methods. Its proponents prefer amateur Christadelphian scholarship over professional non-Christadelphian scholarship, and the works they rely on are often outdated. Alarmingly, among those today who claim they follow the pioneers’ approach, very few demonstrate familiarity with it.

A glimpse into the past may be instructive. Articles in the Christadelphian Magazine from the late 19^th to early 20^th Century generally reflect the following characteristics:

• Extensive knowledge of (and respect for) professional scholarship.
• Sound knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek.
• Familiarity with the latest discoveries in archaeology, palaeography, textual criticism, and other Bible-related disciplines.
• Familiarity with past and current trends in biblical scholarship, textual problems, different textual streams, and higher criticism.[1]
• Use of the latest and most advanced Bible translations.
• High standards of literary composition.

Volume 18 of The Christadelphian (1881) contains a 3,800-word article by Bro. Thirtle (‘Remarks by Brother Thirtle’) in which he casually refers to the Alexandrian, Ephraem, Laud, Vatican, Sinaitic and Beza manuscripts, the KJV, the Revised Version, Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible, and the works of highly regarded scholars such as McClellan, Griesbach, Tischendorf, Scrivener, Green, Alford, Tregelles, and Lachmann. He also makes use of Westcott and Hort’s critical Greek text and the New Testament ASV—both newly published that year—and demonstrates a thorough grasp of Koine Greek grammar.

Bro. Thirtle’s article reflects an assumption that the reader will comprehend these academic references. Our pioneers were well-informed Bible scholars and wrote for a well-informed audience. We must ask if this is still true today.

Last year a brother sent me an anonymous comment posted on his blog:

‘In the late 1960s, as a convert to the Christadelphian brotherhood from the authoritarianism of Roman Catholicism, I was drawn by the scholarly and academic nature of the early Christadelphian writings and the sound reasoning associated with them.’

‘Scholarly and academic… sound reasoning.’ This is the legacy of the pioneers. We have a duty to uphold it.