T&T Clark offers the following essays free for electronic download (HT: John Hobbins):
In Search of Philip R. Davies: Whose Festschrift Is It Anyway?, edited by Duncan Burns and John W. Rogerson
When YHWH Tests People: General Considerations and Particular Observations Regarding the Books of Chronicles and Job by Ehud Ben Zvi
Prophecy as Inspired Biblical Interpretation: The Teacher of Righteousness and David Koresh by Lester L. Grabbe
“Jew By Nature”: Paul, Ethnicity, and Galatians by R. Barry Matlock
The Second Temple Origins of the Halakhah of Besah by Jacob Neusner
Why Talk About the Past: The Bible, Epic and Historiography by Thomas L. Thompson
The Rhetoric of 2 Peter: An Apologia for Early Christian Ethics (And Not ‘Primitive Christian Eschatology’) by Robert L. Webb
The Death of Biblical History by Keith W. Whitelam
Charles,
What is your assessment of the essay “the death of Biblical History’? How would you treat his comment that ‘biblical history is not only dead, it is deadly’? His viewpoint seems to be that the bible is no accurate record of history, meaning that its ancient accounts are neither true nor historical. He also seems to be unwilling to accept any supernatural or ‘God actions’ as a part of the history of our world and planet. Yet if history is an honest accurate recounting of historical events, and if God exists and interacts with human and earthly events, then to leave God out is to have an inaccurate and incomplete historical account. In other words, if God has acted in our world, he is a historical figure, and his past actions are as much history as human actions.
Looking forward to your comments!
Pastor Bill >
I don’t think that Keith Whitelam would agree to the assumptions of your syllogism: “God exists” and “history is an honest accurate recounting of historical events.” Therefore, he is perfectly comfortable leaving God out of *historical* accounts.
I think part of the shrill tone is from what Whitelam senses is just biblical apologetics in the guise of critical scholarship.
My assessment of the essay is that scholars should thoughtfully consider his challenge to examine their methodologies, assumptions, and consistency of logic.
Charles,
thanks for that assessment, I have not read any of his works or reviews before, and couldn’t tell exactly where he was coming from. I do agree that all historians and Theologians need to be careful and accurate in their methodologies and conclusions, and those always goes back to what they put the most weight in…observable data…or supernatural revelation. One or the other will always win out in forming our interpretations. The best technique is to never exclude one or the other, but to seek harmonization where possible, and default to the higher authority.
Blessings on you!