Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism

Written by Christopher M. Hays and Christopher B. Ansberry, eds. Reviewed By Flavien Pardigon

Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism is a collection of essays written by a rising generation of biblical scholars who self-identify as evangelicals while adopting the methods and results of historical criticism to varying degrees.

The editors state that the purpose of the book is not to discuss inerrancy nor to offer an apologetic for a “traditional” evangelical method of interpretation. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite: the book is meant to demonstrate that one can hold on to “essential” evangelical doctrines while accepting historical-critical scholarship. Thus it explores ways in which evangelicals can or might have to adjust and adapt their theology—especially its fundamental doctrines—in the light of current critical theories. It is an appeal to evangelicals not to be afraid of the broader academy and to get involved in its scholarly efforts. In this regard, this book joins hands with likeminded publications by authors like Mark Noll, Peter Enns, and Kenton L. Sparks.

The book’s argument is developed through seven thematic studies framed by two programmatic methodological essays. Each topical essay addresses a key issue over which, historically, evangelical beliefs have collided with modern scientific and historical-critical positions. Following the same basic pattern, they begin with presenting the critical viewpoint on their topic and continue with discussing its potential theological implications. They purport to explore the extent to which evangelical doctrines would have to be modified if critical views were to be true, and assess whether that would strike at essentials of the faith or not. This framework allows the authors to introduce, corroborate and illustrate the family of hermeneutical approaches they are propounding under the name of “faithful criticism,” something they see as the necessary pendant to what they call a “critical faith.”

“Adam and the fall” seeks to demonstrate that rejecting entirely the historicity of Gen 2 and 3 does not undermine Christian orthodoxy. Looking especially at Rom 5, the authors first deny the traditional doctrines of original guilt and original sin, especially in their federal form. They also argue that ancient authors (including Paul) held to time-bound opinions that modern readers do not have to adopt. Finally, they claim that Paul’s argument in Romans 5 does not require a historical Adam at all, since its point is to highlight the magnificence of the salvific ramifications of Christ’s singular righteous act” (p. 44).

The exodus: fact, fiction or both?” takes stock of the lack of historical evidence for the event of the exodus and seeks a way to preserve its Scriptural and theological value. To overcome the antithesis history vs. myth, Ansberry proposes to use the concept of cultural memory,” which understands such narratives as “repositories of shared memories that shape the identity and beliefs of the group” (p. 67).

“No covenant before the exile? The Deuteronomic Torah” considers the issues raised by historical-critical views concerning the origins and composition of the Deuteronomic materials. It argues that the Ancient Near Eastern view of authority allowed for pseudepigraphy, a practice that allowed later generations to hear the voice of the putative author speak to them as it was reapplied to their own contemporary circumstances. Thus Moses’ basic teaching (traditum) of strict monotheism continues to speak through the subsequent, multi-layered and ongoing traditio.

“Problems with prophecy” offers a re-definition of the nature of biblical prophecy that makes room for inaccuracies of predictive prophecy (due to the limitations of human language and man’s free decisions) and vaticinium ex eventu (prophecy after the fact). Prophecy is defined as “an organic, creative word moving toward an ultimate goal,” seeking to express God’s redemptive purposes for the world, a task for which human language is insufficient.

“Pseudepigraphy and the canon” looks first at the issue of the authorship of the Pentateuch and Isaiah, and then at the authorship of the Fourth Gospel and the disputed Pauline epistles. Pseudepigraphy is presented as the “necessary and faithful” method of appropriation and reapplication of the message of ancient authors. Divine condescension means God would have used historically conditioned forms and conventions to get his message across, including documents actually intending to deceive the readers concerning their actual authors.

“The historical Jesus” looks at the debated issue of how Jesus actually portrayed himself as the messiah or divine Son of God. The essay argues that it is appropriate for faith to accept Jesus as messiah and divine, whatever his historical self-awareness and self-portrayal might have been. Next follows a discussion of the issue of the miraculous that recognizes their role in our belief in the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and the resurrection being sine qua nons.

“The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles” focuses on the perceived discrepancies (or contradictions) in chronology (especially between Gal 2 and Acts 11, 15) and theology. The essay seeks to identify some of the underlying concerns and presuppositions that influence scholars in their interpretation and judgments on these issues. Thus hermeneutical, methodological and exegetical considerations have a significant impact beyond mere historical reconstructions.

It is impossible to address the strengths and weaknesses of each essay, though, to be fair to the authors and to provide a more concrete and precise picture of the book, it would need to be done. We must limit ourselves to the central purpose and argument of the book. (Editor’s note: see further Robert Yarbrough, “Should Evangelicals Embrace Historical Criticism? The Hays-Ansberry Proposal,” Them 39 [2014]: 37–52.)

One can only agree with the authors’ desire to see more evangelicals and fundamentalists study and engage critical scholarship while retaining a truly evangelical faith, refusing to leave the field of historical studies to radicals. We must also commend their effort to do so constructively, wanting to be open to the truth, wherever it is found and even if it challenges one’s convictions. And who would contend with their wish to let Scripture in its (God-)given form mold us and our thinking rather than to let our human-derived preconceptions determine what it must be and say? Finally, we must admire their courage and audacity in not shying away from some of the most vexing, debated and heated issues.

However, the “via-media-between-two-extremes” presentation, though striking, is too simplistic, hence and thus misrepresents reality. In this regard, the claim that the Church seems to be driven “towards the Scylla of sincere but anti-intellectual sectarianism and the Charybdis of rigorous but apostate criticism” (p. 205) is simply not correct. There are various scholarly options available already, including educated and open-minded conservative evangelical ones.

Another weakness is the decision not to engage critical scholarship itself in a critical way, and thus not to raise the problems inherent to that type of approach, especially at a hermeneutical, methodological, and epistemological level. Granted, this is not the point of the book, and it would have made it longer and more complex. But such elements need to be included in order to advocate a substantial engagement with critical scholarship rather than what may appear to some to be sheer capitulation—even for non-specialists. It would furnish their readers with a broader and fuller picture of what is involved and at stake, something necessary to make informed decisions. As it is, the book might on the contrary reinforce extremes.

As a rule, it is better to interact with the best representatives of opposing and alternative positions when making an argument. By mentioning almost exclusively extreme or uninformed fundamentalist responses to critical scholarship in contrast to their proposal, the authors expose themselves to the accusation of using boogeyman or straw man tactics here. This is true no matter how common such opinions might be in pulpits and pews.

A framework and tool set supplemented this way would be more effective in attaining the editors’ stated goal, at least because it would help lower the fear factor and increase the desire to join in the fun. It would enlarge the vista for evangelicals to contemplate and compare legitimate ways to cultivate their faith with intellectual integrity.


Flavien Pardigon

Flavien Pardigon
John Owen Centre
London, England, UK

Other Articles in this Issue

Jesus and the authors of the New Testament consistently link how Jesus’ followers are to live (ethics) with when they live (eschatology)...

Possessing a helpful explanation of the slowness of spiritual change can be encouraging to Christians who are not growing spiritually as quickly or consistently as they might have hoped...

Many have written on the difficulties of pastoral ministry, backed by research into the demise of those who become discouraged in the work...

In light of John A. D’Elia’s A Place at the Table and Stanley E...

A trio of recent books raises important questions on how Scripture is handled in halls of (certain kinds of) learning and how such handling affects Scripture’s perceived truth and message...