Late last night as I was attempting to fall asleep I turned on the TV and found a very interesting program on the Discovery Channel on Einstein. It didn’t help me sleep because I found the topic very interesting, and not necessarily because I like reading about the theory of relativity and how it can be synthesized with quantum physics via the superstring theory (thanks to Brian Greene for explaining this to me). It actually caught my attention because the program was actually focused on the concept of competing theories to explain the physics of planetary orbit, among other things.
What caught my attention the most was the concept that Einstein’s theory was so precise in its equations that it actually made the theory both fragile and strong. On the one hand it was fragile because if one test proved that his equations were wrong then the entire equation and, by extension, his entire theory of special relativity would be demolished. On the other hand, if one test proved it to be correct then it would be proven not only to be correct, but to be a revolutionary discovery with implications that modern day physicists still grapple with.
In order to test Einstein’s theory, which he presented in the form of a lecture on his equations before it was proven, the world had to wait for a solar eclipse, which didn’t happen until 6 years after he published his paper (1911; astronomers started testing this in 1917). In that gap of time, before his theories could be proved, Einstein had many critics as well as supporters. It was a very nervous time for Einstein because he was constantly defending his theory, without proof, knowing that if there was one dent in his equations the entire theory was finished.
While I was watching this program and listening to the descriptions of the fragility of Einstein’s theory, I couldn’t help but think about systematic theology and how, most of the time, a similar ‘nervousness’ defines how people defend their theological convictions. Many that I have frequent contact with tend to look at their systematic formulations in a similar way that many looked at Einstein’s theory in those 6 tension filled years. If one dent or one kink is found, the whole thing goes under.
This might explain why some are so ardent in defending their theology, even when the dents in their beliefs could easily be seen from space (keeping with the science language). For instance, Philip Davies, in his new work Memories of Ancient Israel, points out the extremities to which Kenneth Kitchen goes in his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament in order to defend his preconceived notion about what the OT is and how it ought to relate to history. Instead of letting the data (both biblical and extra-biblical) shape how Kitchen goes about understanding what the OT is and how it relates to history, he seems driven by a dogmatic, extra-biblical presupposition of what the OT is and how it relates to history. In Kitchen’s case, the historical record of the OT is completely accurate. As Davies shows, this is not the case based on an investigation into the historical record of the ancient Near East.
I use Kitchen as an example, but the symptoms that he shows in his work are spread very widely among evangelical Christians. I almost get the feeling (and this is hyperbole, but there is some truth in it) that evangelicals have the idea that they already know what the Bible says and how the Bible relates to history. The function of their investigation is not to further their knowledge, but to further their security and defense of the position they already hold. The posture of systematicians seems to be, “Here is what the Bible says,” as they turn towards Biblical scholars, “now go prove that we are correct.” Any data that confronts their system is rejected outright and labeled as ‘liberal’ or ‘neo-orthodox.’ And this is not necessarily done because the data is flawed or because it is based on bad scholarship; it seems to be done, more times than not, because the data being presented will put a kink into their dogmatic armor…and, as the story of Einstein’s theory has taught us, one kink has the ability to bring the whole thing down. That this is the case can be seen by debates that focus not on the Bible and the extra-biblical data that is affecting our understanding of the Bible, but focus on what Confessions or Calvin or Bavinck or [insert favorite 'orthodox' theologian here] say about the subject, as if that settles it once and for all.
Turning back to the Kitchen/Davies example: Davies is not wrong simply because the Confession or Calvin or some other person says something that contradicts him. At the same time, Kitchen is not correct because he is supported by the Confession or Calvin or Bavinck. Either is proven correct or incorrect by looking at the data, not at theological formulations from the past (especially considering those past theological formulations were made in ignorance of the vast amount of ANE material we have today). When a discussion reverts to some mention of theological formulations made by those in the past, the discussion is no longer about serious scholarship that is dealing with the data; it is about defending one’s own theological convictions. Not only that, but it is telling of one’s theological convictions in that one kink in the armor seems to render the entire thing useless. Otherwise, why would defending it with archaic quote ever come to mind?
Dogmatics is not the end all of theology. Knowledge is not static and I refuse to be cornered into a position where I am left dealing not with the data, but with playing ‘find the damning quote’ in order to justify my own position. Dogmatics must be open enough and flexible enough not only to incorporate the findings of biblical scholars, but to see their work as strengthening the work of the dogmatician.
Had Einstein’s theory had as many dents in it as some modern formulations of theology perhaps Einstein’s name would have not come to be what it is today. Of course, he could have simply labeled his critics ‘quacks’ and ‘lunatics’ and kept demanding that his theory was valid. That seems to be MO in theological circles these days.
Admittedly that was a bit of a rant. What are your thoughts?
18 November 2008 at 4.47 pm
Good thoughts. I’m a physics major at the University of Louisville and part of a local church body.
Just so your facts are straight, Einstein won the 1921 nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. His theory of relativity made him most popular, given the astrophysical and philosophical implications, so had the nobel prize gone to someone else, Einstein would still be a name he is today.
18 November 2008 at 5.09 pm
Darren: Thanks for the correction. I edited the post to reflect your insights (i.e., removed the reference to the 1921 Nobel Prize).
18 November 2008 at 6.48 pm
Art,
I am glad you are reading PR Davies. I often find his work incredibly helpful and stimulating. On an almost totally unrelated note, some of the most interesting articles I have ever read are the various angry exchanges between Davies and John J. Collins. Have you ever run across these?
18 November 2008 at 11.37 pm
Unrelated but related Department:
Congrats to you, Art, on achieving Jim West’s coveted blog roll:
http://jwest.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/true-the-finite-isnt-capable-of-the-infinite/#comment-8057
19 November 2008 at 10.36 am
Art:
Man, I go away for a month or two and when I come back you’re a “biblical minimalist”?
Seriously, though, I used to lurk here pretty often, and commented a few times. Its been about two months since I’ve been back, so please excuse my ignorance, but this seems to be a pretty drastic change. Are you calling yourself a “minimalist” now?
19 November 2008 at 2.06 pm
Justin: Throughout my course work and my side reading I have always had some questions about the (for lack of a better term) ‘maximalists’ readings of the OT. I think this is well pointed out in Kent Sparks’ book God’s Word in Human Words in the section relating to Kenneth Kitchen and other scholar’s responses to biblical criticism.
After reading through some of Lemche and Davies work, I find their model persuasive and their critiques of the ‘maximalists’ to be very profound. Of course, not every model is perfect and I think that both Lemche and Davies are aware of that, which is why they continue to write on the subject and continue to work through issues that are still present in their work.
So, you are correct in noticing this shift in my thought. At the moment I find myself in line with the minimalists’ critique of maximalism and find their model to be much more persuasive than the maximalists model. Of course I’ll continue to read and study the issues at hand, but that is where I am at right now.
19 November 2008 at 2.23 pm
Art:
I’m not trying to bait you here, but it might help my understanding if we define our terms a little more concretely here. Would it be fair to say that you no longer view the Old Testament (at least pre-monarchy, I guess?) as a reliable record of the history of the time? That at least is my definition of a “minimalist”, and I don’t think that most who claim the title would disagree.
19 November 2008 at 2.43 pm
justin: I do not mean to dodge the question at all, but I suppose it matters on what you mean by the phrase ‘reliable record of the history of time.’
Do I think that ‘Philistines’ were a civilization in the time period of Genesis? No. Do I think that the customs, traditions, practices, etc. of the patriarchs ‘fit in’ with their assumed historical context according to a strict biblical chronology? No.
It is widely acknowledged by scholars of all stripes that there are many anachronisms in the OT that don’t line up with the archaeological record of the time period that following a strict biblical chronology would place them.
Two quotes from ‘minimalist’ authors, when tied together, might help as I find them very helpful.
“the individual pieces of information in the patriarchal narratives do not yield a viable period that supports their historicity.” N.P. Lemche, Prelude to Israel’s Past, 28.
(speaking of the book of Daniel)): “According to most scholars, following a very ancient critique by the non-Christian philosopher Porphyry, the writer of the book was not a sixth-century exile himself, but its authors (or at least its final editors) lived in the second century BCE, as show by historical errors. To some this circumstance made the book a fraud. This accusation is revealing; from a secular perspective the Bible is not under judgment, and in the ancient (including the Jewish) world, pseudepigraphy was so common that it was surely recognized and accepted as such. The charge implies a belief in biblical ‘honesty.’ But critical historians determine historicity by rational means and neither attack nor defend the ancient literature for not being infallible.” P.R. Davis, Memories of Ancient Israel, 4.
These quotes, taken together, bring up an important point that I am now working through. On the one hand, historians and archaeologist have made it clear that when one follows a strict biblical chronology, the facts don’t add up. On the other hand, that is not an attack on the OT, but a way for us to understand better what type of book the OT actually is. Perhaps we have been looking at the Bible incorrectly…and we should be open to the possibility that our theological constructions, being man made and fallible, might have been wrong when we take an honest look at the data.
Again, I don’t mean to dodge the question, but I do want to be clear and not say that I am something (i.e., you’re idea of a minimalist), if that is not what I actually am.
19 November 2008 at 3.21 pm
Damn. Well, good luck working through it, Art. I wish you the best in this.
21 November 2008 at 9.14 am
A quick thought here, I find the so-called minimalists that I have read (e.g., Lemche, Davies, Grabbe) are ridiculously misrepresented by many evangelicals. In this case, as with many!, if one were to read and listen to what most evangelicals say the ‘minimalists’ claim, he or she will not have gained any understanding of what ‘minimalists’ actually claim and do. Again, sadly, in general this is to be expected of evangelical ’scholarship.’
As much as I hate to say this, even Provan skews things a bit in his assumptions-critique in Long, Longman, and Provan’s A Biblical History of Israel.
27 November 2008 at 1.56 pm
“Dogmatics must be open enough and flexible enough not only to incorporate the findings of biblical scholars, but to see their work as strengthening the work of the dogmatician.”
This is a great point, Art. I presently am finishing my BA in philosophy at Calvin College, and going to seminary after. I have been debating for a very long time whether to specialize my studies in either dogmatics/theology, or Old Testament/ANE. I am keenly aware of the sharp dependence of the former upon the latter, and it makes me really just want to do degrees in both, hehe.
To address some things that came up in the comments:
This is a difficult issue for me. I have strongly always been a proponent of “loving the Lord with all my mind,” which to me means letting data reshape my theological understanding. For example, I converted in my youth from being a young-earth creationist to old-earth, etc.
When it comes to scripture, it’s a hard issue. Ultimately, it boils down to interpretation of both (A) scripture, but also (B) the data. If we understand the scripture correctly, then the data should be ‘X’. But if the data says ‘Y,’ then either our interpretation of the scripture is wrong, or interpretation of the data. Our humility should temper our faith.
I am extremely sympathetic with Enns’ views, and some of what you describe in the comments above (letting the data reshape our presuppositions about what exactly the Old Testament is as a text). I am wary of “jumping ship,” but we need to love the Lord with our minds, and give an honest exploration into the subject.
PS- I recently slimmed down the million blogs I read, but yours made the cut (among the very, very few remaining!). You consistently are always writing on subjects of interest, and is literally one of my few remaining and favorite reads on the ‘net. Westminster is presently at the top of my seminary list, so perhaps we’ll meet sometime soon =D.