What do you think?
Rate this book
History, criticism & faith: Four exploratory studies
Book by Colin Brown, Editor
224 pages, Loose Leaf
First published January 1, 1976
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 7, 2024
FOUR "EXPLORATORY" ESSAYS IN CRUCIAL AREAS "WHERE HISTORY AND FAITH MEET"
Colin Brown is professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, as well as a priest of the Episcopal Church, and has served as associate rector of his parish church for nearly 20 years. He has written other books such as 'Philosophy and the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle Ages to the Present Day ,' 'Karl Barth and the Christian Message,' 'Christianity and Western Thought, Volume 1: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment,' etc.
The publisher wrote in the Preface to this 1976 book, "The four studies in this volume ... are exploratory in a double sense. It is their aim to explore certain crucial areas where history and faith meet. They seek to probe this ground in the light of current critical thinking, and to give a positive, constructive statement of their conclusions. Three main areas have been selected for investigation: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the philosophical questions that arise for a faith that is grounded in history. Within these wide areas attention is focused on a series of issues which are of decisive importance to Christian faith today." The four essays are by Gordon Wenham; F.F. Bruce ['Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament']; R.T. France; and Colin Brown.
The chapter on "History and the Old Testament" admits, "the empirical archaeological fact that that there was no city at Et-Tell... when Joshua is said to have captured it, is more difficult to cope with. Here the truth of the Bible as a historical document is most easily subject to test. In the period we are considering we would not expect to find archaeological remains of the crossing of the Red Sea or the wilderness wanderings... But if the conquest of Canaan was anything like the description in the book of Joshua, it ought to have made a considerable impact on the archaeological record of the land. The coming of the Israelites should be marked by the ashes of burnt-out cities and by a different type of culture in the new Israelite settlements that succeeded the previous Canaanite levels." (Pg. 55)
He adds, "the results of archaeology are seen not to be quite so clear-cut and decisive as they are sometimes made out to be or even as the devout believer would like them to be. Whatever branch of criticism one is dealing with, one must recognize that there is an element of subjectivity. Archaeology and textual criticism may involve less subjective judgments than literary or tradition criticism, but in every branch we must acknowledge that our results are at best probable, not certain." (Pg. 62)
In the chapter on the sayings of Jesus, the author states, "The essential question we must ask ourselves is: What were the evangelists trying to do? Too often the conservative student of the Gospels assumes that the answer is that they were trying to reproduce verbatim exactly what Jesus said, a correct transcription of [his very words]... It does not take much thought to see that this cannot be right. To begin with, our Gospels are in Greek, and most scholars agree that Jesus normally spoke in Aramaic. What we have, therefore, is a translation, and no translation can be exact... Whatever we have in the Gospels, it cannot be the ipissima verba Jesu, unless Jesus spoke in Greek." (Pg. 126)
About the trinitarian formula for baptism in Matthew 28:19, he observes, "If Jesus pronounced this baptismal formula, why was baptism in Acts apparently in the name of Jesus alone? Why does Paul speak of baptism into Christ, not into the threefold name? Above all, if Jesus had to clearly stated the formula, 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,' why do the New Testament writers seem to be groping toward a clear trinitarian doctrine, mentioning the three persons in every possible permutation of order, and only in John 14-16 achieving anything like a thought-out statement of the relationship of the three persons? The formula of Matthew 28:19 looks much more like the end-product of this doctrinal process than its starting point." (Pg. 131)
This book contains some excellent (sometimes surprising!) scholarship, and may "stretch" the mental, exegetical, and theological muscles of Christians who read it.
Colin Brown is professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, as well as a priest of the Episcopal Church, and has served as associate rector of his parish church for nearly 20 years. He has written other books such as 'Philosophy and the Christian Faith: A Historical Sketch from the Middle Ages to the Present Day ,' 'Karl Barth and the Christian Message,' 'Christianity and Western Thought, Volume 1: From the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment,' etc.
The publisher wrote in the Preface to this 1976 book, "The four studies in this volume ... are exploratory in a double sense. It is their aim to explore certain crucial areas where history and faith meet. They seek to probe this ground in the light of current critical thinking, and to give a positive, constructive statement of their conclusions. Three main areas have been selected for investigation: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the philosophical questions that arise for a faith that is grounded in history. Within these wide areas attention is focused on a series of issues which are of decisive importance to Christian faith today." The four essays are by Gordon Wenham; F.F. Bruce ['Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament']; R.T. France; and Colin Brown.
The chapter on "History and the Old Testament" admits, "the empirical archaeological fact that that there was no city at Et-Tell... when Joshua is said to have captured it, is more difficult to cope with. Here the truth of the Bible as a historical document is most easily subject to test. In the period we are considering we would not expect to find archaeological remains of the crossing of the Red Sea or the wilderness wanderings... But if the conquest of Canaan was anything like the description in the book of Joshua, it ought to have made a considerable impact on the archaeological record of the land. The coming of the Israelites should be marked by the ashes of burnt-out cities and by a different type of culture in the new Israelite settlements that succeeded the previous Canaanite levels." (Pg. 55)
He adds, "the results of archaeology are seen not to be quite so clear-cut and decisive as they are sometimes made out to be or even as the devout believer would like them to be. Whatever branch of criticism one is dealing with, one must recognize that there is an element of subjectivity. Archaeology and textual criticism may involve less subjective judgments than literary or tradition criticism, but in every branch we must acknowledge that our results are at best probable, not certain." (Pg. 62)
In the chapter on the sayings of Jesus, the author states, "The essential question we must ask ourselves is: What were the evangelists trying to do? Too often the conservative student of the Gospels assumes that the answer is that they were trying to reproduce verbatim exactly what Jesus said, a correct transcription of [his very words]... It does not take much thought to see that this cannot be right. To begin with, our Gospels are in Greek, and most scholars agree that Jesus normally spoke in Aramaic. What we have, therefore, is a translation, and no translation can be exact... Whatever we have in the Gospels, it cannot be the ipissima verba Jesu, unless Jesus spoke in Greek." (Pg. 126)
About the trinitarian formula for baptism in Matthew 28:19, he observes, "If Jesus pronounced this baptismal formula, why was baptism in Acts apparently in the name of Jesus alone? Why does Paul speak of baptism into Christ, not into the threefold name? Above all, if Jesus had to clearly stated the formula, 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,' why do the New Testament writers seem to be groping toward a clear trinitarian doctrine, mentioning the three persons in every possible permutation of order, and only in John 14-16 achieving anything like a thought-out statement of the relationship of the three persons? The formula of Matthew 28:19 looks much more like the end-product of this doctrinal process than its starting point." (Pg. 131)
This book contains some excellent (sometimes surprising!) scholarship, and may "stretch" the mental, exegetical, and theological muscles of Christians who read it.
Displaying 1 of 1 review