My book review for Kenton Sparks’ God’s Word in Human Words has been published by the Review of Biblical Literature.
You can check it out by clicking here or you can download the PDF directly by clicking here (ctrl+click->Save as…).
Condensed review: It’s a brilliant book; read it immediately…twice.
27 January 2009 at 8.52 am
i enjoyed the review. sounds like a great book, and it will get added to my wishlist
27 January 2009 at 8.58 am
congrats!
27 January 2009 at 10.43 am
congrats art,
Sometime you have to tell me how you keep getting these gigs, speaking at eastern, writting reviews and presenting papers. Obviosuly you are doing something right.
Nick…
27 January 2009 at 12.23 pm
Very nice! I was looking forward to this for sometime. I just began reading this book too and am enjoying the first chapter analysis.
I appreciate your work bro.
Peace
27 January 2009 at 5.22 pm
congrats!
27 January 2009 at 10.06 pm
Congrats Art!
28 January 2009 at 2.52 pm
Just saw your review in RBL. How would you say this compares with Pete Enns’ book? I knew Pete when I went through the WTS ph.d. program in late 80’s….
28 January 2009 at 3.00 pm
nick: I just make things up as I go along and hope that people believe me.
rich: I think Kent and Pete’s work is very similar. In a discussion Pete did at Duke this past fall, he calls Kent’s book “Inspiration and Incarnation on steroids.”
Both scholars are coming from evangelical convictions, but also noticing some weak points in how evangelicalism’s doctrine of Scripture (in its current form) does not hold up when confronted with issues in modern critical scholarship. Both attempt to learn from modern critical scholarship, appropriate the data, and integrate it in their thinking in order to have a high doctrine of Scripture that is robust enough to deal adequately with the data brought up by modern critical scholarship.
Pete uses the “incarnational” model whereas Kent focuses on “adoption” and “accommodation.” Both come to very similar conclusions and both, I think, are extremely helpful.
28 January 2009 at 7.11 pm
I also have first hand experience seeing individuals abandon the Christian faith because their specific evangelical churches had no response to biblical criticism. It’s ironic, I think, because those with a fideistic approach to Scripture claim they have a “big” view of the Bible, but in reality such a view is both detrimental to the faith and ignorant of the rich human aspect of Scripture.
Also, I am not familiar with Kenton Sparks…
31 January 2009 at 5.58 am
I particularly liked the follow sentence in the concluding paragraph, “I am in full agreement with Sparks that evangelicals shirk the difficult questions when it comes to biblical criticism and revert to fideism, hiding their heads in the sand of the ‘essentially divine’ origin of Scripture.”
Nicely put.
1 February 2009 at 2.49 pm
Art: Thank you for drawing attention to this book. I am nearly half way through (its a slow read!) and am feeling many of my presuppositions shake. In many ways Sparks opens up a new world of possibilities (for good or ill). Coming from conservative circles some some of these sound blashphamous a first blush. Nonetheless, I am excited to be challanged and think through these issues. Throughout Bible college and seminary straw man arguements are common stock for the presentation of critical views.
1 February 2009 at 2.55 pm
Also, Art do you argree with his appraisal of presuppositionalism as the embodiment of classical foundationalism? If so what does that say of WTS?
2 February 2009 at 8.27 am
Brandon: That is a point that has been brought up by some people, such as Gary Johnson in his chapter in Reforming or Conforming. I’m not well versed in philosophical arguments for or against Van Tillian presuppositionalism, but I can say that Sparks’ argument makes sense. I think Gary Johnson’s critique of that point in Sparks’ book is a valid critique, although I don’t think it dismantles Sparks’ main point in that section, chapter, or book. I also think that Gary Johnson overstates the critique and does not give it much attention (as it is only a footnote). If the critique is going to be established as an actual argument against Sparks then more work should be done.
2 February 2009 at 2.41 pm
Thanks, I will look into Johnson. It seems to me that modern modifications of Presuppositionalism would partially dodge Sparks’ critque and ironically have much in common with practical realism (and thus postmodernism).
Also, Beale and Trueman have a new interesting radio interview at:
http://www.reformedforum.org/ctc54/
2 February 2009 at 4.43 pm
I listened to that interview on Friday. I listen to that podcast every week. Obviously I have my disagreements, but they are well done podcasts.
1 November 2009 at 8.55 pm
Good review from an insider’s perspective, Art. Sounds like Sparks deals a little more honestly with the evidence than most Evangelical scholars.