11AR16-10

Apologia Report 16:10 (1,060)

March 24, 2011

Subject: "The demise of Scripture in Biblical Studies"?

In this issue:

APOLOGETICS - "we cannot hope to understand, and to defend, the NT's use of the OT until we understand the OT's use of the OT"

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY - responding to objections that by itself the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness

+ "the hermeneutical transformation effected by modern biblical criticism"

ORIGINS - Philosophy Now magazine responds to What Darwin Got Wrong

------

APOLOGETICS

"The Old Testament's Use of the Old Testament for Messianic Jewish Apologetics" by Seth Postell -- the introduction reports that "There has been a growing discomfort among evangelicals with the classic approach to messianic prophecy and fulfillment, whereby a list of Old Testament (OT) prophecies and their New Testament (NT) fulfillments are provided in two columns as proof for the messiahship of Yeshua. Why? Missing from this approach is an awareness of the larger context from whence these OT verses have been taken. All too often, we lack the ability to convincingly demonstrate, from the OT itself, that these verses were originally intended by the historical authors to be messianic prophecies.

"One popular alternative to the classic approach does not appear to be very attractive either. There are those who seek to defend the NT's interpretation of the OT by appeals to the 'Jewishness' of the apostolic interpretive method. ...

"The purpose of this paper is to propose a paradigm for understanding, and defending, the NT's interpretation of the OT and its identification of Yeshua as Him of 'whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote' (John 1:45). What I would like to consider is the OT's own use of itself. The argument presented here is as follows: we cannot hope to understand, and to defend, the *NT's* use of the OT until we understand the *OT's* use of the OT. To demonstrate this thesis, I will be looking at three examples: one from the Torah, one from the Prophets, and one from the Writings, in honor of the pattern laid down by our Master Teacher on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:44)." Mishkan, #63 - 2010, pp30-40.

---

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

The authority of the Bible is critically important to all Christians. It is defended at multiple levels and in different ways. Ken Samples presents a concise package from the Reformed Protestant perspective. In "Responding to Objections to Sola Scriptura" (Modern Reformation, Nov/Dec '10, pp37-41) he covers the following:

1) "Scripture itself does not teach the principle of sola scriptura [the doctrine that, by itself, the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness]; therefore, this principle is self-defeating."

2) "The earliest Christians didn't have the complete New Testament. Therefore, references to Scripture by Jesus and his apostles apply only to the Old Testament."

3) "The Roman Catholic Church wrote, canonized, and interpreted Scripture. The Bible cannot be greater than its cause - the Church."

4) "Oral apostolic tradition is mentioned in Scripture (see 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2) and granted divine authority alongside the apostolic writings."

5) "Sola scriptura is an unhistorical position. Nobody believed in it before the sixteenth century. Sola scriptura was therefore a theological innovation of the Protestant Reformers."

6) "Private interpretation leads to denominationalism. Sola scriptura is therefore unworkable as an authoritative principle."

7) "The original biblical manuscripts did not contain a table of contents to designate exactly which books were canonical and which were not. Therefore Protestants relied upon Roman Catholic tradition in order to even produce the canon of Scripture. This dilemma is self-defeating for the principle of sola scriptura."

The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, by Michael C. Legaspi [1] -- in his review, James R.A. Merrick begins: "Few studies since Hans Frei's Eclipse of Biblical Narrative [2] have inspected the hermeneutical transformation effected by modern biblical criticism. Enter Michael Legaspi. He examines the work of influential eighteenth-century biblical scholar Johann David Michaelis whom he believes exemplifies the movement away from viewing the Bible as Scripture, God's governance of the church, to seeing it as an historical artifact useful for scholarly knowledge and cultural progress.

"The author considers the interplay between the Bible, the classics, and the formation of the University of Gottingen, the seedbed both for the modern university and for modern theology. ...

"Though unsuccessful, his [Michaelis] efforts had the effect of inventing an 'academic Bible.' Michaelis, in other words, so alters the nature, purpose, and context of the Bible and its interpretation that he establishes a new nexus of meaning which effectively creates a rival Bible."

Legaspi's "treatment of Michaelis supports the sentiment that, although the conflict between theological and critical interpretation is usually fought on the grounds of history, in fact the clash is ideological.

"This monograph proves a nice supplement to Frei's aforementioned work and will be most profitable when read alongside Thomas Howard's masterful Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University [3]." Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, 28:2 - 2010, pp245-246.

---

ORIGINS

What Darwin Got Wrong, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini [4] -- reviewer Massimo Pigliucci laments that "it was positively disheartening to see prominent philosopher Thomas Nagel ... in The Times [www.j.mp/6RGA2B] endorsing the pro-intelligent design book Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer [5]. However, the biggest splash yet has to be attributed to the profoundly inane What Darwin Got Wrong, co-authored by philosopher of mind Jerry Fodor and cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini - neither of whom, interestingly, is either an evolutionary biologist or a philosopher of science.

"This rather slim volume alleges to show why scientists and philosophers of science got evolution all wrong over the past 150 years, apparently without anyone noticing the blunder. It does so by means of a two-pronged attack, corresponding to the division of the volume into two parts....

"The first section of the book claims that 'Darwinism' (a term used mostly by creationists, though the authors certainly do not belong to that silly lot) has put far too much emphasis on external cause of biological change, namely natural selection, and has ignored internal mechanisms."

In the second part, "The basic idea is that natural selection cannot be a scientific theory because it doesn't support counterfactuals [alternative possible outcomes]." Of course, Pigliucci disagrees with these claims and briefly responds to them. Philosophy Now, Oct/Nov '10, pp38-39.

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, by Michael C. Legaspi (Oxford Univ Prs, 2010, hardcover, 240 pages) <www.j.mp/fHgsRL>

2 - The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics, by Hans W. Frei (Yale Univ Prs, 1980, paperback, 365 pages) <www.j.mp/e4EVbR>

3 - Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University, by Thomas A. Howard (Oxford Univ Prs, 2009, paperback, 480 pages) <www.j.mp/f0VOpN>

4 - What Darwin Got Wrong, by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli- Palmarini (Picador, 2011, paperback, 320 pages) <www.j.mp/harvJ3>

5 - Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer (HarperOne, 2009, hardcover, 624 pages) <www.j.mp/hq9Pzm>

--------

( - next issue - )