The Evangelical versus the Critical Two Opposing Views The question of perspective: 1. We all approach the Bible with presuppositions or preconceived notions a. There is no such thing as a neutral observer) 2. These effect the way we approach the text we are studying 3. Thus, one's view regarding the inspiration of the Bible is crucial. Conservative (Generally Evangelical) View 1. The Bible is God's inspired revelation to humanity, and it is through the Bible that God speaks to us. a. At the very least, the New Testament was written by its acknowledged authors and accurately relays the story of Jesus. 2. Microevolution of the New Testament story a. The story of Jesus has an organic continuity, as the NT is written the various authors reveal more depth in who Jesus was and what he came to do. b. Though they may reveal different aspects of him, they are all the truth. 3. Obviously, the supernatural element of the New Testament is not denied, thus the Bible can be trusted in what it teaches (revelation, miracles, resurrection, etc). 4. Evangelical scholars don't ignore evidence, they have heard the same evidence regarding the Bible and trust in what it tells us about Jesus. The Liberal (Often the Critical) View 1. The Critical Scholar would desire to approach the Bible without bias or prejudice but take into account the historical situation and other data relevant to studying the text. a. As such, the Bible is a very human book that reflects human shaping of the stories of Jesus. b. There is no presumption that the Bible was inspired, it should be treated like any other book. 2. The Bible thus reflects more the views of its human authors rather than God. 3. Macroevolution of the New Testament story a. The story of Jesus changes into a whole different idea as different New Testament writers write on Jesus. b. The different aspects of Jesus simply show the way the NT writers perception of Jesus evolved as the years went on. (i.e. Apocalyptic prophet eventually evolves into divine son of God). 4. The supernatural element is not real, and thus the miracles, resurrection, inspiration of scripture cannot happen. 5. Many critical scholars deny the truth of some events in the Bible and the acknowledged authorship of some of its books. Is a Critical Approach Necessarily Bad? Should the Bible be approached uncritically? Two Views 1. Yes! Of course, we should simply accept that the Bible is true on mere faith alone without any critical examination of what it says and its historical background, etc. a. But, what makes the Bible any different than any other book?
b. Jesus rose from the dead? Where did you get that idea? From the Bible!!! Circular reasoning! 2. No! With a book of such importance do we not have an obligation to approach it critically at some level? a. Should we not examine the authorship of books that claim to be inspired? b. Should not extraordinary claims made by an ancient text (a man raising from the dead, healings, etc) require one to examine the origins and claims of the text? c. Should not a book accepted to be inspired be approached, at some level, critically to eliminate our own biases encroaching upon what the author intended? d. Should not a sensible, conscientious person offering up an ancient text as the only way to salvation be able to demonstrate that the text can be trusted? i. Remember the call to always be prepared to give an answer found in 1 Peter 3:15. So a critical approach is not completely bad, but it should be a truly unbiased approach, that does not allow its presuppositions to cloud the truth revealed when critically examining the work.
A Case In Point Example of the Two Views At Work Handout # 2 The Slaughter of the Innocents and Jesus' Flight To and Return From Egypt (Matt. 2:13-18) The issue: Was this story of Jesus' flight from Herod historically accurate (Conservative) or simply a literary creation of Matthew to portray Jesus in a certain way (Liberal). Liberal View The story likely never happened. Matthew simply created the story (just as Luke likely created his version of Jesus' childhood). This story would probably be treated more as a pious fraud by sincere writers trying to portray Jesus as who they thought he was. Hypothetical Argument 1. The historical record of Josephus, who himself narrated many stories of Herod's atrocities, and the rest of the historical record have NO records of this event occurring. a. Would not such a horrendous event like this have been recorded by Herod? 2. Inconsistency with other Biblical text (Luke) a. Why does Luke speak nothing of this trip to Egypt? b. Why couldn t they get their stories straight, surely this is hardly a minor trip. 3. Similarity to Other Biblical Ideas a. Jesus' flight to Egypt bares striking similarities to the story of Moses (the attempt of an evil king to kill him) i. Is Matthew simply inventing the story to cement Jesus as a second Moses as he seems to imply in other areas of Matthew? Conservative View The story is historically true, it did occur just as the inspired scripture said it did. Hypothetical Argument 1. Josephus and other history ignore the story? So what? There could be a number of possible reasons for such an omission. a. Maybe Josephus had an unknown reason for omitting the story. b. Maybe Josephus simply did not care about the death of a few Jewish peasants (remember the high places circle he surrounded himself with). c. Maybe Josephus simply did not know of the story. i. After all, how easy would it have been to murder a few infants in a small village in 1 st century Palestine, and keep it under the radar in an era where historical records are notoriously lacking. d. Is this not something one could expect from Herod considering his record? e. In short, is not this whole objection based upon, in some way, an argument from silence? 2. Inconsistency with other Biblical Text (Luke) a. Perhaps Luke simply omitted the story for theological reasons? b. He would certainly not have been the first biblical writer (or secular historian) to do so. 3. Similarity in Other Biblical Ideas a. Could Matthew have just as likely chose to make mention of the real, historical event of
Jesus' flight to Egypt to illustrate an agenda the Holy Spirit had: showing Jesus' similarities to Moses? a. Like any story teller, does the author not reserve the right to emphasize certain, true events to better illuminate a theme he is trying to show?
A Common Starting Point What Happened With the Christ Event? What can be acknowledged by all as almost beyond dispute about the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth: (with slight modifications from E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus) 1. Jesus was born sometime between 6-4 B.C., near the time of Herod the Great's death 2. Jesus spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth, a Galilean village 3. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist 4. Jesus called disciples 5. Jesus taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee 6. Jesus preached the kingdom of God 7. Jesus went to Jerusalem for Passover around 30-33 A.D. 8. Jesus created a disturbance in the Temple area 9. Jesus had a final meal with his disciples 10. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, specifically the high priest 11. Jesus was executed on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate 12. Jesus' disciples at first fled after his death 13. Jesus' disciples saw him (in what sense is not certain) after his death 14. As a consequence, they believed that he would return to found the kingdom 15. Jesus' disciples formed a community to await his return and sought to win others to faith in him as God's Messiah It seems beyond dispute, for either the evangelical or critical scholar alike, that the disciples believed they had seen Jesus after his death in some form. 1) The dividing line lay in just what these appearances entailed. a) Was Jesus truly risen from the dead appearing to his disciples? (Evangelical/Conservative) i. To arrive at this point, you BELIEVE what the apostles (as recorded in the Bible) said about experiencing Christ risen from the dead. b) Was the appearances of Jesus a subjective experience by his disciples? (Critical/Liberal) i. Was it a psychological event/in their head? ii. Was it a mass delusion? iii. Was this some type of spiritual experience not involving him risen from the dead? iv. Was it some kind of combination of above after the tomb was empty for a nonmiraculous reason? v. Did they simply invent the story? Where we stand? Who do you believe? Do you look at the historical data like an anti-supernatualist scholar (one who does not believe in anything beyond this natural world) and assume that the disciples were relaying an experience that though powerful enough to lead them to a radically transformed viewpoint, was not the Lord risen from the dead? Do you look at the historical data as the good news relayed by individuals who had personally seen Jesus of Nazareth, risen from the dead, and spent the rest of their time teaching that he was the Christ, the son of the Living God?
1 Corinthians 15: 1-8 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.