Critiquing: #009 Old Testament violence, Andy Stanley and Greg Boyd
March 12, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier
Key Terms: Old Testament Violence — Andy Stanley’s Proposal — Greg Boyd’s Interpretation — Exodus Historicity — Christian Faith Unhitched
Episode Assessment:
| Metric | ——– | Commentary |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Accuracy | C- | Some statements were speculative and lacked substantiation from historical or theological evidence. |
| Degree of Coherence | B | The arguments were generally well-structured but occasionally digressed without clear connections. |
| Absence of Fallacies | C+ | There were a few instances of hasty generalizations and false dilemmas. |
| Degree of Evidence | D+ | Limited empirical or scriptural evidence was provided to support major claims. |
| Degree of Testability | D | The claims made were often theological or interpretive, making them difficult to test. |
| Rational Confidence | C | The confidence in assertions was higher than warranted by the provided evidence. |
Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:
- Degree of Accuracy:
The transcript contained speculative claims, especially regarding the historicity of the Exodus and interpretations of Old Testament events. For instance, the discussion on the Levites’ migration out of Egypt lacked concrete historical backing.
“Richard Friedman has proposed an interesting take that it was the Levites only that escaped, migrated out of Egypt.”
- Degree of Evidence:
The episode did not sufficiently substantiate claims with scriptural or historical evidence. Assertions about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and the behavior of early Christians, needed more rigorous support.
“Andy Stanley … claims that we do not need the Old Testament in order for us to have a Christian faith because our faith rests on a historical event, the resurrection, and not on the authority of an ancient book.”
- Degree of Testability:
The theological and interpretive nature of many claims made them difficult to test. Statements about the divine intentions behind Old Testament violence or the necessity of the Old Testament for Christian faith were inherently non-falsifiable.
“Greg Boyd suggests that the difficult things said by God in the Old Testament are examples of God taking on a mask to relate better to the culture of the time.”
Argument #1: Unhitching Christianity from the Old Testament
Premise 1: Christianity is founded on the historical event of the resurrection.
Premise 2: The resurrection does not require the Old Testament for its validity.
Premise 3: Therefore, Christians do not need the Old Testament to sustain their faith.
Counter-Argument:
The Old Testament is integral to understanding the context and fulfillment of the prophecies that validate the resurrection. Without the Old Testament, the narrative of the New Testament loses its foundational backdrop, making it harder to comprehend the significance of Christ’s resurrection. The early church, as evidenced in the New Testament writings, continually referenced the Old Testament to explain and justify the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Argument #2: Greg Boyd’s Interpretation of Old Testament Violence
Premise 1: The violent depictions of God in the Old Testament reflect cultural accommodations.
Premise 2: God allowed these depictions to relate to the people of that time.
Premise 3: The true nature of God is revealed in the non-violent, self-sacrificial death of Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, the violent images of God in the Old Testament should be seen as temporary accommodations and not reflective of God’s true character.
Counter-Argument:
Boyd’s interpretation risks undermining the coherence of the biblical narrative by suggesting a fundamental disjunction between the Old and New Testament portrayals of God. It could lead to a selective reading of scripture, ignoring the ways in which the New Testament writers affirm the continuity of God’s character across both testaments. Furthermore, it raises questions about the trustworthiness of scripture if significant parts are considered mere cultural concessions rather than true revelations of God’s nature.
Argument #3: Historicity of the Exodus
Premise 1: Some scholars propose the Exodus narrative is a myth with possible historical kernels.
Premise 2: The Exodus account may have been written with theological and literary artistry rather than strict historical accuracy.
Premise 3: Therefore, the historicity of the Exodus should not be taken as literal fact.
Counter-Argument:
While the Exodus narrative may contain theological elements, dismissing its historicity entirely undermines the Jewish and Christian faith traditions that regard it as a foundational event. Archaeological evidence, though debated, provides some support for a historical Exodus. The narrative’s deep influence on Jewish identity and its reaffirmation in the New Testament suggest that it holds more than mere literary or theological significance.
◉ Addressing Argument #3:
The Exodus: Myth or Historical Reality?
Argument #3 appears to weaken the authority of the Bible to the degree it is indistinguishable from fictional books. The historical credibility of the Exodus narrative has long been a contentious topic, not only among secular historians but also within theological circles. The proposition that the Exodus account may be more mythological than historical, written with theological and literary artistry, challenges the traditional view of the Bible as a divinely inspired and historically accurate text. This perspective diminishes the Bible’s authority, rendering it comparable to other ancient mythologies or fictional literature.
The crux of the issue lies in the state of contemporary hermeneutics—the study and interpretation of biblical texts. Hermeneutics today is often marked by a fragmented approach, where scholars and theologians disagree on fundamental interpretative principles. This confusion is exacerbated by the tendency to read the Bible through various critical lenses, such as historical criticism, literary criticism, and social-scientific criticism. These methodologies can provide valuable insights but also lead to divergent interpretations that undermine a unified understanding of the Bible.
When the Exodus narrative is viewed primarily as a myth with possible historical kernels, it prompts a reevaluation of the entire biblical canon. If one of the foundational events of the Old Testament is not historically accurate, then the veracity of other biblical accounts comes into question. This slippery slope can easily lead to rationalism—the belief that reason and empirical evidence should be the primary sources of knowledge. Rationalism, while valuable in its own right, often dismisses the notion of divine inspiration and relegates religious texts to the realm of human invention.
The realization that there might not be a divine mind behind the Bible fundamentally alters the way it is perceived. Without the underpinning belief in divine inspiration, the Bible loses its unique status as a sacred text. Instead, it becomes a cultural artifact, subject to the same scrutiny and skepticism as any other ancient document. This shift can erode the faith of believers who see the Bible not just as a source of spiritual guidance but as the authoritative word of God.
In conclusion, Argument #3, which suggests the Exodus narrative is more myth than history, indeed weakens the Bible’s authority. The current state of hermeneutics, with its varied and often conflicting approaches, contributes to this erosion of authority. As these interpretations become more prevalent, the final step towards rationalism becomes almost inevitable. The Bible, stripped of its divine authorship, is then indistinguishable from other fictional works, a transition that challenges the very foundation of religious belief and practice.
Free of Faith 
Leave a comment