“Evangelical biblical scholarship” is thriving

I’ve been responding to some of the comments in the Called to Communion thread following up on Brandon Addison’s excellent article there describing the ancient church at Rome:

Ray Stamper, I’m continuing to address your comments in #28:

You seem to be entirely evading his point and mine. A point often voiced on this site, particularly when technical debate concerning pre-Irenaean documentary texts has ensued here. Dr. Owen is manifestly correct. It is a fact that the very same methodological assumptions which lead academic biblical scholars to view Cirlot and Dix as “dated”, such that the new guard has “moved passed” them

I think “dated” is a mischaracterization. And “moved past” is also a mischaracterization.

In the light of my previous comment, outlining Lampe’s methodology, it seems fair to say that the understanding is rather that “they are lacking in some information”. Now, to be sure, that doesn’t invalidate everything they say. And nor does it entail harsh skepticism. But it does involve re-reading what they say and understanding that in some areas, their analyses may simply be lacking.

are the same methodological assumptions which would, without doubt, lead these same scholars to throw “the vast bulk of evangelical biblical scholarship” into the trash can.

This comment betrays a lack of knowledge as to what “evangelical biblical scholarship” is all about, over the last 50 years or so.

“Evangelical biblical scholarship” is not in a position to be thrown into the trash can. “Evangelical biblical scholarship”, though it may not be respected by some “critical scholars”, has largely adopted and refined and made its own many of the “methods” (if not the “assumptions”) of critical scholarship.

Notice what Daniel Wallace says:

I can speak to issues in New Testament studies at Dallas Seminary, which I know best. Our NT faculty have degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Sheffield, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Dallas Seminary, and Glasgow. We teach a historical-critical method of interpretation, tempered by our presuppositions that the universe is not a closed-system but one in which God has been active. Our students are trained extensively in exegesis of the New and Old Testament, are conversant with the secondary literature, and are able to interact with various viewpoints. Something like 80% of our doctoral dissertations are now getting published—and in prestigious, world-class series no less. (The same, by the way, is true of our master’s students who earn their doctorates elsewhere.) When Harold Hoehner was alive, there were three members in the department who were members of the prestigious Society of New Testament Studies. Now, down to two, we are anticipating several others getting voted in, in due time.

Wallace is leading the effort to document and catalogue New Testament manuscripts. We know more today than we ever did about the ancient church. Elsewhere he says that these efforts “reveal some text that has not been seen before”.

It’s not “evangelical biblical scholarship” that’s in “hunker-down-with-fingers-in-our-ears” mode. Michael Kruger, author of “Canon Revisited” (among other works) is leading a team of New Testament scholars to produce a work on Christianity in the Second Century.

That promises to be one of the most exciting works to come out of “evangelical biblical scholarship” to date.

What were you saying about a “trash can”?