In my studies this semester, I have spent much time learning about, reading, and interacting with biblical scholars, church leaders, and philosophers of the last 500 years. The one thing that I’ve come to see in many since the Enlightenment is a scholarship that is un- or even anti- biblical. Somehow, many still attempt to call this “biblical scholarship”. If scholarship denies the existence of or works of God in this world, it is not and can not be biblical. Period. End of story.
How this type of scholarship has infected universities and seminaries the world over causes me no end of anguish. God is not only not honored by this type of scholarship, but His name is being profaned in the name of “biblical scholarship” and theology. This theology is a-theistic to its very core, and has exalted man in its demotion of God. God forgive us for this wickedness! May Your name be glorified in all the earth!
Provocative post! I’d love to know specifically to what you’re referring.
It’s an amazing thing that many of our prestigious colleges and universities began as places for biblical scholarship. Now, as you have rightly pointed out, many of these schools do more to dismantle the Creator and elevate the creation. It’s sort of an academic Tower of Babel. And, tragically, our nation is seemingly paying the price.
History of Religions school, Tubingen, Protestant liberalism… to name a few. The first two are openly atheistic and the third is slightly veiled atheism. The problem is 1) you can’t do theology if you don’t believe in God and 2) even if you say you believe in God, your theology will fail if you live like He doesn’t exist. Number 2, painfully, seems to describe most of our pastors and theologians.
As I have been studying church history, I have been looking at the websites of various seminaries that were founded by devout men of God. It has been so discouraging to see just how far many of these have strayed (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Andover Newton, etc.).
That you put Tuebingen on the list surprises me. Juengel, Moltmann, Bultmann, right? I dunno about the others. It seems to be a generalization that you’re making, but when it comes to someone like Ehrman, for example, I can see your point.
Ehrman is actually more understandable. He came from conservative Christianity to where he is. I think he misinterprets the evidence and makes unnecessary conclusions, but he didn’t start from atheism. Ehrman takes what scholars have known for hundreds of years and repackages it for the public to make it sound worse than it is. For a skeptic, it’s a great excuse to say, “I told you so!”
I’m talking about men like F.C. Baur who start as an atheist and allowed for no evidence of God’s existence. To allow no room for God in your system is like a scientist denying nitrogen exists and then conducting experiments on the atmosphere. Bultmann is another who seems to make the assumption that the NT is myth and everything resolves around that presupposition. Unfortunately, it seems like most people take their cues from people who start from some radical and unsustainable presuppositions. Of course if someone believes God doesn’t exist they are going to conclude the Bible is a human book! What else could they possibly conclude?!
Ha! Fun analogy! I don’t know anything about Baur so can’t comment there.
I like Bultmann, though. I agree with his postulation that the writing of the Scriptures is historically conditioned and that interpretation is necessary in order to retrieve the proclamation of Christ. His presupposition of Scriptures as myth doesn’t deny the Truth of the proclamation: it just seeks to look behind some of the imagery that made more sense in a particular historical context than it does today. Once you achieve that goal, the kerygma is much more clear to a modern recipient of the Good News.
In a very real way, I think Bultmann is like Luther. His real concern is not a literalistic interpretation of the text, but rather to dig into the text and to see “was Christum treibt.”
By the way, though we seem to disagree on this point, I’m enjoying your blog. Thanks for this discussion.
Blessings!
R.
I’ll have to read some more Bultmann. I’ve gotten snippets along the way, and haven’t had much appreciation for him. Maybe I’m misinterpreting him. I think some of it has to do less with Bultmann and more with people who interpret him to say that all of the Gospels are myth. I’m not certain if he went that far, but I know that some have drawn those conclusions.
2 Peter 1:16, Luke 1:1-4, etc. tell us clearly that the story of Jesus is not myth. It is something we are to know with “certainty”, Luke says. I’ve tried to use these passages before and then had someone tell me Peter didn’t write 2 Peter, so we can’t take his statement at face value. That can be downright irritating. It’s too convenient to be dismissive when something doesn’t agree with our views.
I trend toward typological and even slightly allegorical interpretation of Scripture, but I am careful to affirm along the way that the narrative is also historically true. Our interpretations should be both/and in that respect, rather than either/or. Both the extreme conservative side and the liberal side tend to see an either/or relationship. That just doesn’t do the Bible justice.
Hi, Andrew. Thanks for your response. I’m probably much more liberal about this than you would appreciate. For example, I agree that there’s a lot of mythical imagery taking place in the Gospels, which fits well with the historical context in which they were passed down and written. But I also think there’s a difference between viewing the Gospels as mythical and thinking that the gospel is untrue. This probably goes along (in an unsophisticated way) with what Bultmann believes.
I think of the Gospel stories and I think of the gospel that Paul taught. Who knows whether Paul knew anything about some of the miracle stories or virgin birth or any of that. He said, “…I have resolved to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.”
The core of the gospel (as I understand it) is that the eternal Word of God became flesh for our sake, died for our sake, and was raised, again for our sake. I believe that this literally, factually took place in history. Many of the rest of the stories in the 4 Gospels proclaim this message using storied language and mythical imagery, but I’m not sure they distinguish much between “fact” and “proclamation.” It’s beautiful, really, I think.
Having said all that, I leave plenty of room in my theology to allow that the miracle stories actually happened essentially as they are told (“essentially” because some of them seem to disagree on certain – somewhat trivial – factual issues), but at the same time, if they were somehow “disproven,” it would not shake my faith in the core of the proclamation.
Peace,
R.
I’m not too sure we’d be in as much disagreement as you think. There definitely is imagery in the gospels, much of which is meant to draw us back to themes in the OT (i.e. the exodus). There is much hidden in the text that we have to pay attention to when we read and interpret it. I’m not sure “myth” is a good word to use though, because it implies that the accounts are fiction. There is too much NT evidence that these are not myths, as I said above.
I don’t think the miracle stories disagree at all. I’d be curious to know which ones in particular you’re referring to. Generally, when someone makes that statement, it’s either because they are not reading the stories very closely, or are interpreting them in within an Enlightenment rationalist framework. I’d love to take a look at them with you and see.