Style and Contradiction: Methodological Problems in Source Criticism

I’ve been reading through George W. Coats’ 1976 study, From Canaan to Egypt: Structural and Theological Context for the Joseph Story, and was struck by an interesting methodological point he makes regarding the precise delineation of pentateuchal sources.  Now while certain forms of source criticism are compatible with confessional Old Testament studies, others are not.  Development of the form critical method in the past few decades has enabled even conservative scholars/pastors to benefit from the textual analysis found in form critical commentaries (e.g., the Forms of the Old Testament Literature series) even while disagreeing with some of the conclusions drawn from that analysis.  But I found the following paragraphs, one dealing with stylistic analysis and the other with apparent contradiction, to be insightful.

[D]iscussions of source critical problems tend to flounder in a methodological morass.  The problem is especially critical now because Pentateuchal critics do not commonly spend time in self-conscious examination of methodology for source analysis, or even extensive examination of criteria for making particular source analyses.  Wolfgang Richter, an exception to the rule, has helped to identify the extent of the problem.  He noted that of the three principal kinds of criteria basic for source analysis – style, contradiction in the development of narration, doublets – two must be judged as weak evidence.  Stylistic analysis presupposes a careful control of the peculiarities in an author’s work.  In the Yahwist, for example, style can be relatively well defined.  It is thus quite possible to identify where the Yahwist’s hand is present.  But the opposite side of the coin is more problematic.  A break in style may mean that a new source is present.  But it may also mean that the same source now employs traditional language for a particular genre of material, language stamped by long oral usage an thus outside the realm of the Yahwist’s peculiar control.

From Canaan to Egypt, pg. 56. (Bold emphasis added)

An argument from contradiction faces similar difficulties.  A critic of modern literature can expect narration of a plot without contradictions.  But literature from the ancient world may well reflect a different standard for handling contradictions.  This point is particularly important in dealing with narration formed through generations of oral transmission.  In such cases contradictions can be maintained within the scope of a single narration without resolution of tension.  Thus, contradictions do not necessarily mean that two different sources are present.  They may signal nothing more than a wedding of two stages in the history of tradition.  But even in narrative material that reveals the work of more studied composition, standards for consistency or concern for contradiction may not follow the same guidelines of current literary art.  Source critics must be careful to determine whether what they think might be a contradiction is in fact contradictory to the flow of the narration.  It is, of course, clear that contradictions may occur and may indicate source combination.  One should not be blind to contradictions, or dismiss them out of hand.  Yet, neither should one impute contradictions to the text if the flow of the narrative can be understood in other ways.  One should not assume that a narrative must have contradictions derived from source redaction.

From Canaan to Egypt, pg. 57. (Bold emphasis added)

Now of course I would part ways with Coats’ openness to calling tensions in the biblical texts contradictions in the true sense of the word since the word “contradiction” is fairly freighted.  What is more, the history of exegesis has shown numerous readings of purportedly contradictory passages which show how different texts can be read harmoniously side-by-side.  It is somewhat self-serving and arrogant to claim that all of these readings were simply misguided and/or worth ignoring.  Indeed, I don’t think Coats and others fully appreciate the import the final bolded sentence above.

Still, I like Coats’ care to note that interruptions to narrative flow need not indicate source division.  A careful reading of biblical narrative, and a willingness to grant literary sensitivity to the biblical authors, should lead us toward better understandings of how said interruptions might actually be intentional tropes that contribute to a unified plot-line.

_______________________
Rev. Andrew Compton
Christ Reformed Church (URCNA)
Anaheim, CA

The Worldview of Naturalism

In Western culture, one popular worldview is that of naturalism.  Naturalism is the worldview that believes, in a word, that nature is all there is.  This worldview “regards the natural, material, and physical universe as the only reality.”  Naturalists say the cosmos is a closed system of cause and effect; nothing is beyond nature, there is no supernatural.  Quite obviously, this worldview is diametrically opposed to the historic Christian worldview.

Kenneth Samples has an outstanding chapter on naturalism in his book, A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.  In this chapter, Samples lists some typical distinctive features of naturalism.  In the form of a question, what are some beliefs a naturalist holds?

1) Monism. Monism is the metaphysical view that all reality is one thing or stuff.  By rejecting the supernatural, naturalists affirm that ‘everything is composed of natural entities.’  Naturalists agree that the physical universe – with its constituents of matter, energy, time, and space – is the one fundamental reality from which all things are derived.

2) Materialism.  Materialism is a particular type of monism.  This metaphysical view considers everything in the universe to be matter (that is, composed of material objects).  Nonmaterial entities or substances – souls, spirits, and angels – simply do not exist.  And, because the God of the Bible is an immaterial nonphysical being, materialists dismiss God as nonexistent and illusory.

3) Physicalism. Physicalism asserts that what actually exists is ultimately constituted of physical realities.  This theory entails the idea that all realities can be described an explained using only the vocabulary of chemistry and science.  Physicalism outright rejects all forms of mind-body dualism.

4) Scientism.  Scientism asserts that science is either the only reliable method (strong scientism) or the best, most dependable method (weak scientism) for obtaining genuine knowledge.  Naturalists who embrace scientism are convinced that the natural sciences are the only path that lead that lead to knowledge and truth.

5) Darwinian Evolution.  Naturalists assert that all life is the result of purely natural processes.  Evolution as a biological theory asserts that complex life-forms developed from more primitive life through a variety of mechanisms….  Naturalists staunchly defend some form of evolutionary theory because biological evolution is the only naturalistic explanation for life and the appearance of ‘homo sapiens.’

6) Antisupernaturalism. By insisting on natural causes, naturalism by its very definition dismisses the existence of the supernatural realm.   …All events, objects, and phenomena in the world must have purely natural explanations.  As one naturalist put it, ‘Naturalism, in essence, is simply the idea that human beings are completely included in the natural world: there’s nothing supernatural about us.”

7)  Atheism/Agnosticism.  Naturalists are typically atheistic in outlook, believing that no God or gods exist.  Because no supernatural realm exists, there can’t be a supernatural deity to affect the natural universe from the outside.  Atheists believe rather that the human mind invented God and, therefore, he is illusory.

8) Secular humanism.  The philosophical viewpoint of secular humanism strongly embraces all seven previous points that reflect the subcategories or family traits of the naturalist worldview.  This position emphatically opposes belief in God, religion, and anything supernatural.  Some would say therefore that secular humanism can be summed up in the statement: ‘Man is the measure of all things.’”

Though I’ve edited Samples’ points for the sake of length, this is a good summary of the worldview of naturalism.  In the rest of this chapter, Samples goes on to evaluate it by worldview standards: is it logical? coherent? does it have explanatory power? does it address the needs of humanity? (etc.).  You’ll have to read the chapter to see how Samples takes naturalism apart and says it is not a valid worldview and that it cannot stand up to Christianity.  Again, here’s the book: A World of Difference (the above quotes were taken from chapter 12).

rev shane lems

Grief, Grace, and Growing

A friend from church recently told me about this book that has to do with grief: Jerry Sittser’s A Grace Disguised (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, 2004). This book is the outcome of Sittser’s deep, dark, emotional, and faith-filled fight with grief after he lost his mother, young daughter, and wife in a single car accident.  He had to continue with life after the tragedy, however, because three of his children survived the accident.  A Grace Disguised is definitely not a macho “suck-it-up-and-drive-on” self-help book, nor is it feminine “get-in-touch-with-your-inner-feelings” fluff; rather, it is more like a modern-day psalm of lament with bright glimmers of Christian hope dispersed throughout.

It did hurt me to read this book.  Even to think of losing my little girl, my wife, or my mother in such a tragic manner brings me to tears.  I had to set the book down from time to time because I didn’t like the pain.  When you read this book you go through the grief with Sittser.  However, he doesn’t really talk about his experience in order to put himself or his family front and center.  In fact, over and over he says how many times he failed to deal with grief and its effects in a proper way.  Sittser doesn’t make himself out to be a saint in this book!  But he does explain his experience and brokenness in order to put the focus on God’s grace which penetrates through grief to cause growth.

Here are a few lines from the book that I highlighted.

“…I lost all hope, collapsed to the ground, and fell into despair.  I thought at that moment that I would live in darkness forever.  I felt absolute terror in my soul” (p. 41).

“Sorrow is noble and gracious.  It enlarges the soul until the soul is capable of mourning and rejoicing simultaneously…however painful, sorrow is good for the soul” (p. 74).

“Catastrophic loss is like undergoing an amputation of our identity” (p. 81).

“What is bad will always be bad.  But grace will bring good out of a bad situation; it will take an evil and somehow turn it into something that results in good.  That is what God accomplished through the crucifixion.  He turned the evil of an unjust murder into the good of salvation.  God can do the same for us as well” (p. 105).

“The sorrow I feel has not disappeared, but it has been integrated into my life as a painful part of a healthy whole” (p. 51).

I cannot recommend this book enough.  If I were a rich man, I’d purchase a few cases of these and give them out to any of our readers who have faced grief in the past or are facing it now.  And I’d send a copy to many pastors and elders (and others) who minister to those in sorrow.  I’m confident most of our readers would benefit from this book. It is short, clear, vivid, and full of grace.  Please, get this book: A Grace Disguised.  It will hurt, but it will open your eyes to see hope amidst the hurt.

rev shane lems

A Closed Canon

   In 1934, Walter Bauer argued that there was no clear line between heresy and orthodoxy in the early church, but since the orthodox were stronger, their views eventually prevailed in what we now call the New Testament (a sort of survival of the fittest).  Bart Ehrman has taken this thesis and run with it.  Similarly, others like Hal Taussig are talking about “A New New Testament” made up of other early religious writings.  These men and their ideas essentially cast loads of doubt on the historic New Testament canon that Christians have always accepted, studied, believed, defended, and died for.

In light of Bauer’s thesis, it’s important to have a biblical and apostolic view of the New Testament canon.  Authentic diversity should not be the standard that leads us; rather, apostolic doctrine is what we Christians should hold tightly.  After all, the apostles are the foundation and Jesus is the cornerstone (Eph 2.20).  We accept the apostles’ words because Jesus commissioned and sent them in his name and by his authority (Mark 3:14, 6:7-13, etc.).  In the Old Covenant there were prophets and prophetical writings; in the New Covenant there are apostles and apostolic writings.  I appreciate Herman Ridderbos’ words on this topic.

“When understood in terms of the history of redemption, the canon cannot be opened; in principle it must be closed.  That follows directly from the unique and exclusive nature of the power the apostles received from Christ and from the commission he gave them to be witnesses to what they had seen and heard of the salvation he had brought.  The result of this power and commission is the foundation of the church and the creation of the canon, and therefore these are naturally unrepeatable and exclusive in character.”

“The closed nature of the canon thus rests ultimately on the once-and-for-all significance of the New Testament history of redemption itself, as that history is presented by the apostolic witness.  All the more, then, the New Testament cannot be qualified fundamentally as a witness to the faith of the early church.  Such thinking not only fails to understand the revelatory nature of the canon, it also destroys the principle distinction between the canon of the church and the subsequent faith of the church.  The closed character of the canon, in contrast, fully preserves this principial distinction between faith and revelation” (Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, p.25).

As I’ve mentioned before, if you’re interested in the study of the NT canon, I highly recommend Michael Kruger’s work – specifically Canon Revisited and The Heresy of Orthodoxy (with A. Kostenberger).  These books, along with Ridderbos’ aforementioned work, are great resources to refute the recent attacks on the NT canon and the emphasis of diversity.

rev shane lems

 

Arminians, Calvinists, and Limited Atonement

Here’s a great insight from a great book: What’s So Great About The Doctrines of Grace? by Richard Phillips.

“…It is helpful to note that both Arminians and Calvinists believe in limited atonement.  The question is with regard to what is limited.  Arminians believe that the atonement is limited in terms of its efficacy.  Calvinists believe the atonement is limited in the scope of people for whom it was intended.  Arminians believe the atonement is unlimited in scope but limited in effect: it offers everyone the chance of salvation.  Calvinists believe the atonement is limited in scope but unlimited in effect: it effectually saves the elect.” 

“If we think of the atonement as a bridge spanning a great river, Arminians see it as infinitely wide, but not reaching all the way to the far bank; Calvinists hold that the atonement is a narrow bridge, wide enough only for the elect, but reaching all the way to the other side.  We [Calvinists] believe that Christ’s death actually saves those for whom He died” (p. 56).

Richard Phillips, What’s So Great About The Doctrines of Grace?

rev. shane lems