The conclusions of critical biblical scholarship often pose a disconcerting challenge to traditional Christian faith. Between the two poles of uncritical embrace and outright rejection of these conclusions, is there a third way? Can evangelical believers incorporate the insights of biblical criticism while at the same time maintaining a high view of Scripture and a vital faith? In this provocative book, Kenton Sparks argues that the insights from historical and biblical criticism can indeed be valuable to evangelicals and may even yield solutions to difficult issues in biblical studies while avoiding pat answers. This constructive response to biblical criticism includes taking seriously both the divine and the human aspects of the Bible and acknowledging the diversity that exists in the biblical texts.
God's Word in Human Words
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From the Back Cover
"Finally, a fresh, creative, carefully nuanced approach to biblical criticism from an evangelical! Sparks skillfully makes his case for a 'believing criticism' by carefully assessing the current available alternatives. His thorough, methodical work stakes out for many thoughtful evangelicals a credible, theologically based, devout place to stand in integrating critical work and faith. I highly recommend it."--Robert L. Hubbard Jr., North Park Theological Seminary
"This important volume provides a bridge between critical scholarship and traditional views on Scripture. In the process of surveying the flash points created by modern critical scholarship, Sparks champions 'practical realism' as an approach that provides a more productive middle ground. Both evangelicals and nonevangelicals will benefit from this very frank discussion of the history and possible future for biblical scholarship."--Victor H. Matthews, Missouri State University
"Sparks issues an irenic invitation to reconcile academic consensus with evangelical conviction in ways that respect and inform both. His plea for his fellow evangelicals to take historical criticism much more seriously features impressive and honest arguments for mainstream critical stances toward Old and New Testament texts, informative tours of fields from hermeneutics to Assyriology to patristic and Reformation theology, and a bold proposal to affirm biblical inerrancy in terms of perfect divine accommodation to human error. May it encourage and shape the fruitful conversation we evangelicals absolutely need to have."--Telford Work, Westmont College
"Sparks asks hard questions. In this volume he provides answers that he believes satisfy intellectually as well as spiritually. His erudition is evident on every page. Of course, not all will agree with his version of 'practical realism' and how it relates to biblical hermeneutics, but few can deny that he has advanced the conversation in a way that is helpful and healthy."--Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary
"Sparks emphatically affirms both the methodology and results of historical and modern biblical criticism and the authority of Scripture. He distinguishes divine inerrancy from the finite and fallible human vessels through whom God chose to reveal God's Word. This is a valuable window into the 'progressive evangelical' approach to the nature of Scripture."--Elaine A. Phillips, Gordon College
"This important volume provides a bridge between critical scholarship and traditional views on Scripture. In the process of surveying the flash points created by modern critical scholarship, Sparks champions 'practical realism' as an approach that provides a more productive middle ground. Both evangelicals and nonevangelicals will benefit from this very frank discussion of the history and possible future for biblical scholarship."--Victor H. Matthews, Missouri State University
"Sparks issues an irenic invitation to reconcile academic consensus with evangelical conviction in ways that respect and inform both. His plea for his fellow evangelicals to take historical criticism much more seriously features impressive and honest arguments for mainstream critical stances toward Old and New Testament texts, informative tours of fields from hermeneutics to Assyriology to patristic and Reformation theology, and a bold proposal to affirm biblical inerrancy in terms of perfect divine accommodation to human error. May it encourage and shape the fruitful conversation we evangelicals absolutely need to have."--Telford Work, Westmont College
"Sparks asks hard questions. In this volume he provides answers that he believes satisfy intellectually as well as spiritually. His erudition is evident on every page. Of course, not all will agree with his version of 'practical realism' and how it relates to biblical hermeneutics, but few can deny that he has advanced the conversation in a way that is helpful and healthy."--Bill T. Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary
"Sparks emphatically affirms both the methodology and results of historical and modern biblical criticism and the authority of Scripture. He distinguishes divine inerrancy from the finite and fallible human vessels through whom God chose to reveal God's Word. This is a valuable window into the 'progressive evangelical' approach to the nature of Scripture."--Elaine A. Phillips, Gordon College
About the Author
Kenton L. Sparks (PhD, University of North Carolina) is professor of biblical studies and special assistant to the provost at Eastern University. He is author of several books, including Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
39 of 44 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Sparking a Debate Over Inerrancy and the Critical Study of Scripture
December 1, 2008
Format:Paperback
Kenton Sparks does his best in this book to convince evangelicals that it's all right to critically study the Bible while holding on to a belief in the Bible's authority and inerrancy. However, it gets more complicated than that. Sparks is out to expose conservative evangelical scholars who use faulty arguments to explain away the findings of more moderate and critical scholars.
Sparks begins by noting that scholars who study ancient Egypt and Assyria don't just accept any inscription they find at face value and call it authentic. They have tests that can reveal the inscription's authenticity. The same is true with the Bible. Sparks goes on to show that scholarly and critical studies of the Scriptures reveal that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (there were several different traditions combined together over many centuries), the Flood may not have happened as it is written, the Exodus story may not have happened as it is written, the Creation accounts differ and reflect literary art more than they do actual science and history, John and the Synoptic gospels contradict each other at certain points (as do the OT books of Samuel and Chronicles), and Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles.
But after all this and more, Sparks still wants to hold to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy, holding that God speaks inerrantly through Scripture while accommodating Himself to all the errors that human beings made when they wrote the Scriptures. In other words, God is inerrant, but the Bible writers were not.
Sparks believes that if we allow for the possibility that large swaths of Scripture are inspired sagas or legends or myths that teach spiritual truth, many of the critical problems scholars face will disappear.... Read more ›
Sparks begins by noting that scholars who study ancient Egypt and Assyria don't just accept any inscription they find at face value and call it authentic. They have tests that can reveal the inscription's authenticity. The same is true with the Bible. Sparks goes on to show that scholarly and critical studies of the Scriptures reveal that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (there were several different traditions combined together over many centuries), the Flood may not have happened as it is written, the Exodus story may not have happened as it is written, the Creation accounts differ and reflect literary art more than they do actual science and history, John and the Synoptic gospels contradict each other at certain points (as do the OT books of Samuel and Chronicles), and Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles.
But after all this and more, Sparks still wants to hold to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy, holding that God speaks inerrantly through Scripture while accommodating Himself to all the errors that human beings made when they wrote the Scriptures. In other words, God is inerrant, but the Bible writers were not.
Sparks believes that if we allow for the possibility that large swaths of Scripture are inspired sagas or legends or myths that teach spiritual truth, many of the critical problems scholars face will disappear.... Read more ›
15 of 21 people found the following review helpful
By Book Guy
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
Sparks' book is long overdue. Evangelicals and other conservative Christians just look foolish asserting Moses wrote the Pentateuch, Jonah is history, and Daniel's prophecies were given in the 6th century BC, and even more that Genesis 1-11 is history, not legend. Like others who have sought to mediate a high view of scripture and the historical-critical method, Sparks adopts an incarnational and accomodational approach to scripture, as have C.S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock and Peter Enns, i.e., the Bible is like Ancient Near Eastern literature in every way, yet without sin.
Unfortunately, I have to register a reservation about his actual approach in doing this. Sparks first assumes the validity of the method both by examples and, frequently, by arguing based on the "consensus" of the scholarly guild, which non-experts are not in a position to challenge. Really? We have way too much of that sort of thing these days, with whole areas in biomedical ethics or environmental policy given over to scientists and "experts" who will decide for us what is and isn't true. As Angelo Codevilla has pointed out, this is just a ruse for people empowered by this rhetoric to tell everyone else to shut up and sit down and is profoundly anti-democratic.
For what is at the essence of the critical method if not an insistence that people making assertions, whoever they may be, provide evidence to the hearer's satisfaction of the truth of these assertions? David Deutsche has pointed out that in science, at least in the research seminar, the lowest novice can ask the Nobel laureate "on what basis do you justify your conclusion?" and expect a cogent summary of the evidence.... Read more ›
Unfortunately, I have to register a reservation about his actual approach in doing this. Sparks first assumes the validity of the method both by examples and, frequently, by arguing based on the "consensus" of the scholarly guild, which non-experts are not in a position to challenge. Really? We have way too much of that sort of thing these days, with whole areas in biomedical ethics or environmental policy given over to scientists and "experts" who will decide for us what is and isn't true. As Angelo Codevilla has pointed out, this is just a ruse for people empowered by this rhetoric to tell everyone else to shut up and sit down and is profoundly anti-democratic.
For what is at the essence of the critical method if not an insistence that people making assertions, whoever they may be, provide evidence to the hearer's satisfaction of the truth of these assertions? David Deutsche has pointed out that in science, at least in the research seminar, the lowest novice can ask the Nobel laureate "on what basis do you justify your conclusion?" and expect a cogent summary of the evidence.... Read more ›
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
By Jeremy Myers
Format:Paperback
I suppose that if someone is going to hold to the tenets and conclusions of historical criticism and its approach to Scripture, this book contains the approach they should use.
It is probably one of the best defenses of critical scholarship I have read. For this reason, the book deserves five stars.
I, however, remain unconvinced. I wanted to give it 1 star, but met half-way and gave it 3.
The main reason is this: I have been writing for close to twenty years. If someone applied the principles of historical criticism to my own books, sermons, and articles, they could easily prove that what I wrote twenty years ago were not written by the same person who writes under the same name today.
When comparing the two sets of documents, everything is different: the approach, the vocabulary, the grammatical structure, the theological ideas presented, the syntax, the illustrations used, etc.
I am convinced the same thing could be done to any author throughout history. The principles and methods of historical criticism, when applied to any author -- even modern authors -- can prove that the books and articles that bear their name were not actually written by the author, were not written in the year that they claim to be published, and bear the marks of extensive editing and redacting.
So I don't care how "evangelical" we can make historical criticism, it is the wrong approach. When we adopt its principles and methods, we end up reading Scripture with the wrong time frame in mind, the wrong audience, the wrong author, and the wrong theology, and end up with wrong conclusions and wrong applications about the text.
If you want a good evangelical defense of historical criticism, this is the book for you.... Read more ›
It is probably one of the best defenses of critical scholarship I have read. For this reason, the book deserves five stars.
I, however, remain unconvinced. I wanted to give it 1 star, but met half-way and gave it 3.
The main reason is this: I have been writing for close to twenty years. If someone applied the principles of historical criticism to my own books, sermons, and articles, they could easily prove that what I wrote twenty years ago were not written by the same person who writes under the same name today.
When comparing the two sets of documents, everything is different: the approach, the vocabulary, the grammatical structure, the theological ideas presented, the syntax, the illustrations used, etc.
I am convinced the same thing could be done to any author throughout history. The principles and methods of historical criticism, when applied to any author -- even modern authors -- can prove that the books and articles that bear their name were not actually written by the author, were not written in the year that they claim to be published, and bear the marks of extensive editing and redacting.
So I don't care how "evangelical" we can make historical criticism, it is the wrong approach. When we adopt its principles and methods, we end up reading Scripture with the wrong time frame in mind, the wrong audience, the wrong author, and the wrong theology, and end up with wrong conclusions and wrong applications about the text.
If you want a good evangelical defense of historical criticism, this is the book for you.... Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Evangelical Discussion of Critical Method
This book is written by a "progressive" evangelical addressing a tough issue for many evangelicals--as best as I can tell. Read more
Published 5 months ago by Rhea H. Forman
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Good Contribution to an Important Issue
In this volume Kenton Sparks invites Evangelicals to reconsider biblical authority according to a paradigm which, rather than undermine critical biblical scholarship, seeks to... Read more
Published on January 4, 2011 by Daniel McClellan
1.0 out of 5 stars
same old heresy
Heretical views presented in a thoughtful manner by a sincere and scholarly spokesman are all the more dangerous for their attractive packaging. Read more
Published on August 7, 2009 by PK
5.0 out of 5 stars
A lot to think about
This book is a discussion of the difficulties raised by historical criticism of the Bible and a discussion and criticism of the evangelical responses to historical criticism,... Read more
Published on June 27, 2009 by Paul R. Bruggink
5.0 out of 5 stars
I Highly Recommend This Book.
Christians do not trust the scholarship of atheists. They think we have an agenda and that we misrepresent the facts because we're God haters. Okay, I guess. Read more
Published on June 7, 2009 by John W. Loftus
