Embedded Files
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 17:3 (1,095)
January 25, 2012
Subject: Doing the right thing ... or else
In this issue:
ARCHAEOLOGY - controversial Israeli archaeologist emphasizes connections between archaeology and the Bible
BIBLICAL RELIABILITY - defending the Gospel canon
BOOKS - the transformation of Christian publishing over the past decade from obscurity to mainstream prevalence
MORALITY - secular solution: do the right thing ... or else
----
ARCHAEOLOGY
"Archaeology's Rebel: Bible in One Hand, Spade in the Other" by Gordon Govier, editor of ARTIFAX and producer of The Book and the Spade radio program <www.bit.ly/qJW3B> -- profiles 56 year-old Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar, granddaughter of Benjamin Mazar, "one of Israel's most distinguished archaeologists."
Govier discusses the controversy surrounding Eilat's willingness to emphasize connections between archaeology and the Bible. He begins with the Ophel City Wall site, "Jerusalem's newest archaeological attraction. ...
"The Ophel lies just below the Temple Mount and above the City of David, the oldest area of Jerusalem. It is one of the most authentic locations for pilgrims to 'walk where Jesus walked.' Now it is possible to stand in the shadow of massive walls that date back to the First Temple.
"'The Bible describes how King Solomon built the walls of Jerusalem in 1 Kings 3:1,' Mazar told Christianity Today. 'I'm suggesting that what we've revealed can be related quite safely to King Solomon.'
"Such a bold biblical connection from a modern Israeli archaeologist is rare. It provokes other archaeologists (except for evangelical ones), but it also exposes how the discipline has changed over the past several decades. Biblical archaeology has become a field of scientists who are self-conscious about the biblical pursuits that guided - and sometimes misguided - the discipline during earlier years.
"Archaeologists of the early 20th century who linked their discoveries with biblical stories occasionally found that later evidence or more refined scrutiny called their judgments into question. Such premature connection is an indictment that has hung around the neck of biblical archaeology for so long that some archaeologists today are more apt to apologize for biblical connections than to trumpet them.
"But not all. In the July/August 2011 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, editor Hershel Shanks chided Israeli archaeologist Ronny Reich for asserting that hypothetical biblical connections should be saved until after the archaeological evidence has been properly sorted out. Shanks believes that Mazar, in her willingness to make the biblical hypothesis sooner rather than later, is not wrong. ...
"How many archaeologists today are willing to admit to testing a biblical hypothesis? In 1998, the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), the main professional organization for archaeologists working in the Middle East, changed the name of its magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology [www.bit.ly/xjl489] in order to separate itself from that modus operandi. Mazar, on the other hand, seems more like her grandfather and the archaeologists of earlier generations. ...
"Mazar calls the Bible a historical document. But she also says that it needs to be tested and examined. While evangelicals can appreciate her vigorous defense of the Bible as an independent narrative in the field of biblical archaeology, she does not view it as holy writ." Christianity Today, Nov '11, pp48-52. <www.bit.ly/uDu0yH>
---
BIBLICAL RELIABILITY
Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy, by Charles E. Hill (professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary) [1] -- Chad Spellman begins his review by noting that "Popular accounts of biblical canon formation are often fraught with intrigue and marked by persistent rumbles of conspiracy. ... [M]any agree that the selection of the Gospels was a late, controversial, and arbitrary development that was only achieved through the methodical suppression of rival voices. ...
"Hill seeks to present the historiographical minority report to this scholarly consensus. Through an investigation of the relevant historical data, Hill aims 'to examine critically some of the foundational scholarship used to support and promote this now popular narrative of how the church ended up with four, and only four, Gospels.' ...
"After a chapter on recent manuscript discoveries in Egypt, Hill begins with Irenaeus of Lyons in the late second century. In his writings, Irenaeus mentions each of the Gospels and provides a creative defense of why there are four of them. ... Hill next surveys a number of figures that followed Irenaeus (e.g. Tertullian, Origen) and shows from their writings that the acceptance of the four Gospels was relatively widespread.
"In the rest of the book, Hill digs deeper into church history in search of a figure capable of choosing the Gospels. Hill proceeds to implicate Clement of Alexandria, Serapion of Antioch, and the author of the Muratorian Fragment as 'co-conspirators' along with Irenaeus in granting the four Gospels authoritative status. ...
"Pushing back further, Hill engages the mid-second century teaching of Justin Martyr. In his apologetic work, Justin appeals to the 'Memoirs of the Apostles,' which were written by 'Jesus' apostles and their followers' and were utilized in the worship of the churches. When Justin cites these memoirs, the content is drawn from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Consequently, Hill concludes that 'Justin knew all four canonical Gospels and knew them as an already standard grouping.' ...
"Hill entertains the possibility that there was an 'arch-conspirator' in the first century who had a hand in choosing the Gospels. He suggests that an important, and perhaps the earliest, testimony to a four-Gospel collection is embedded in the writings of church historian Eusebius. ...
"After this extensive survey, Hill returns in a concluding chapter to the book's central concern. If his survey of evidence is plausible, then the question of who chose the Gospels at least predates the fourth century. Each step taken back into the history of the church has a signpost pointing to an earlier generation. The evidence for an authoritative moment of selection by a 'primal chooser' is 'embarrassingly lacking' and 'we simply know of no councils or synods from this period which deliberated on the matter.' Even the attempt to formulate possible criteria of canonicity that the church used misses the point, because 'the church essentially did not believe it had a choice in the matter!' ...
"Although Hill discusses many technical details and messy historical issues, he manages to keep his prose accessible and stimulating throughout. He also frequently engages the arguments of figures who have popularized the current secular paradigm of canon formation (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Dan Brown). ...
"Hill also provides helpful introductions to a number of key issues in the canon debate and includes a brief glossary of unfamiliar terms." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 54:3 - 2011, pp631-634.
---
BOOKS
"Religious books: Coming in from the fringe" by Amy Choate-Nielsen -- describes the secular acceptance of Christian publishing. Notes that "The religious book industry - 98 percent of which is made of Christian titles, according to the Association for Christian Retail [Christian Booksellers Association] - has seen a transformation over the past decade from large obscurity to mainstream prevalence."
What drives the change? Money. Choate-Nielsen notes that "the world's leading Bible publisher," Zondervan's parent company ... "HarperCollins, a Rupert Murdoch News Corp. subsidiary, has plans to buy top Christian book publisher Thomas Nelson by the end of the year and go after the growing numbers of consumers making online and ereader purchases. If the deal goes through, HarperCollins will control 49.5 percent of the Christian publishing market, with no single other publishing company controlling more than 10 percent."
The story concludes by describing the wide disparity among the religious bestseller lists of the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and Publishers Weekly. Deseret News, Nov 26 '11, <www.bit.ly/uT6ywG>
---
MORALITY
"Doing the Ethical Thing May Be Right, but It Isn't Automatic" by Alina Tugen -- asks: "if I saw what seemed to be a crime or unethical act committed by a respected colleague, coach, teacher or friend, would I storm in and stop it? Would I call the authorities immediately? Would I disregard the potentially devastating impact on my job or workplace or beloved institution?
"Absolutely, most of us would probably reply. I think so, others might respond. And the most honest answer? I don't know.
"As much as we would like to think that, put on the spot, we would do the right - and perhaps even heroic - thing, research has shown that that usually isn't true. ...
"'Across the board, research points to the fact that people want to behave well but give in to temptations.'
"Research also shows that it is much easier to step over the boundary from ethical to unethical when there is a gradual erosion of moral values and principles rather than one big leap. ...
"Although no one thinks it's an easy task, [Philip G. Zimbardo, professor emeritus of psychology at Stanford University] is not alone in his faith that people can be taught, and even induced, to do the right thing.
"'I am a true believer that we can create environments to act ethically,' [Francesca Gino, an associate professor at Harvard Business School] said. 'It just might take a heavier hand.'" New York Times, Nov 18 '11, <www.tinyurl.com/7ze8dco>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - Who Chose the Gospels?: Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy, by Charles E. Hill (Oxford Univ Prs, 2010, hardcover, 240 pages) <www.tinyurl.com/27e9vas>
--------
( - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse