|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion The making of the New TestamentAcademic schizosTHE MAKING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT A couple of decades ago, James Barr, former evangelical and arch-critic of what he called ‘fundamentalism’, observed that, when he attended biblical studies conferences, the methodology of ‘evangelicals’ was indistinguishable from that of others. He invited them to come clean and recognise that their approach was unaffected by their confessional stance. Put another way, many who claim to be evangelicals undertake their disciplinary work by ‘bracketing out’ any theological commitments. This discussion was in the reviewer’s mind when reading the present book. Designed as a textbook, it examines the formation, origin, collection and canonisation of the New Testament (NT) documents and provides what is (essentially) a brief summary of Metzger and Ehrman’s work on textual criticism. As such it is useful. However, the underlying assumptions are too often unchallenged by an evangelical doctrine of Scripture (e.g. Patzia is far too uncritical about the possibility of pseudonymous books). Such also enables him to too easily assume (not prove) a period of oral tradition before the formation of the Gospels, to uncritically assume the logically fragile (if widely adopted) arguments for Markan priority, to embrace linguistic and evolutionary assumptions in dating manuscripts and to marginalise (or completely ignore) other perspectives. No consideration is given to Robinson’s theses of the priority of John or the completion of the NT documents prior to the fall of Jerusalem. No reference is given to Theide’s (and other papyrologists) who argue for the existence of many of the otherwise late-dated NT books at Qumran: an auxiliary argument for early dates for NT books… and even evidence for the formation of some sort of pre-70 AD canon. We live in a world where the universal scholar is a thing of the past. However, biblical studies cannot be undertaken legitimately by self-proclaimed evangelicals if they adopt a sort of schizophrenic approach that adopts the methodology of the humanist-driven academy in disregard for confessional beliefs. Such is to exchange a questionable dogma for the guidance of revealed truth. Dr. Stephen Dray, © Evangelicals Now - November 2011 |
|
