Edward Joseph Young, or E J Young, was Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1936 till his untimely death in 1968 at the age of 60. He was one of the first students at the seminary where he taught. An expert on Hebrew and the Semitic languages, he wrote many articles and several books, mostly on the Old Testament. He was also the General Editor of the Eerdman's New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Young came to my attention in the 1970s, when I stumbled upon his book, Thy Word is Truth. In it he argued for the inerrancy of Scripture and dealt skilfully with how that was consistent with the fact that it was authored by human writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I was pleasantly surprised how simply he wrote despite the gravity of the subject and, to say the least, I was hooked. Then, while training for the pastoral ministry, I bought a copy of his book, My Servants the Prophets. It was, and still is, for me the best introduction to the subject of Old Testament prophets and prophecy. Soon after that I bought his 3-volume Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. It is, together with Alec Motyer's Commentary on Isaiah, the most enriching commentaries on Isaiah I have read. Not many modern scholars will hold Young in the same esteem largely because of his conservative views about Scripture and the Old Testament. And yet, in his day, Young was well respected even by those who disagreed with his views. This was because Young was a scholar of the highest calibre and he possessed scholarly "integrity". Professor H H Rowley once said that unlike many conservative scholars, Young was ready to admit to difficulties which he could not solve. This, Rowley commented, was "preferable to the bogus solutions so often put forward."
I have posted this excellent article by Young here because it spells out what his own personal convictions are as a biblical scholar. It also highlights what marked his scholarly integrity. We do live in times where far too many Christian scholars, unfortunately, have lost that same integrity. I trust this article by Young will serve as a timely reminder to those who, like me, are engaged in preaching and teaching God's people through His Word.
This is the first part of the article. The second will follow in due course. This article was first published as E. J. Young, “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship,” Faith & Thought 93.2 (1963): 74-87.
______________________________
One who reads the Book of Psalms attentively must be struck with the strong emphasis that is found therein on the study of the law. The righteous man is characterised in the first Psalm as one who meditates in the Law of God day and night. Application to the Scriptures is stressed in the longest of the Psalms, the one hundred and nineteenth. That the man who would live godly in Christ Jesus must be well versed in the Scriptures goes without saying.
It soon becomes apparent, however, that mere cursory reading of the Bible will not meet the needs of the Church nor of the individual Christian. There must be a more careful and painstaking study of the Bible. The Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew, and the study of these languages raises many problems. What does the Bible say? What is the relation of the Bible to the many recent discoveries? All these questions and many more simply point up the need for Christian scholarship.
We shall be concerned in this brief article with the philosophy that underlies Christian scholarship. What is a Christian scholar, and what is Christian scholarship? Questions such as these will occupy our attention and we shall even engage in some apologetic for Christian scholarship.
THE BASIS OF CHRISTIAN SCHOLARSHIP
Christian scholarship must approach its task with certain presuppositions. It cannot agree with those who insist that their only desire in research is without any preconceived biases to follow the facts whereever they lead. There is a type of scholarship which prides itself upon its objectivity. It has no desire to be guided by any presuppositions; it has no bias or prejudice. Rather, it will follow the facts wherever they may go. It treats the Bible like any other book, fully confident that in so doing it is able to explain the Bible. Above all it wishes to reject any presuppositions upon which its research is to be based. Theology is not to guide study, it says, for it desires to be purely objective. Facts and facts alone are its only concern. Wherever they point, it will follow, irrespective of the consequences. Its only desire is objectivity, a disinterested, dispassionate search for truth. Truth, and truth alone, is its concern.
Now this sounds quite commendable. What could be more admirable than a disinterested following of the facts, with no theories or preconceived notions of our own to get in the way? Admirable as this sounds, however, it is not admirable at all, and the reason why it is not admirable is that it paints a false picture of the situation. It might indeed seem at first blush that a truly objective method of research would divest itself of all theories or presuppositions and simply plunge in after the facts, boldly following them to whatever consequences they might bring. As a matter of fact, however, such a method is not objective. It is a method deluged with presupposition. It is a method which has already erected a presupposition which is to guide its research. That presupposition is simply that it will reject all presuppositions and follow facts. It presupposes, apparently without realising that it is so doing, that it is perfectly capable in its own strength and ability not only of meeting and recognising the facts but also of interpreting them correctly. It has, in other words, itself adopted certain presuppositions, and these govern its investigation. Those who follow such a method of study never come to the conclusion that the Bible is a special revelation from God, for they have already ruled out the view that the Bible differs from other books. Even this type of study, then, which seems to be objective, is in reality not objective at all. It too has its presuppositions, and they guide it in its procedures.
No scholarship can be without presuppositions. What kind of book is the Bible, and how is the Bible to be studied? In answering these questions, scholarship may appeal to the human mind as the ultimate and final basis of predication, or it may declare that wisdom and knowledge belong to God. If scholarship assumes the intimacy of the human mind it will never come to the conclusion that the Bible is the Word of God, for it has already made the human mind capable of judging God. Christian scholarship indeed has its presuppositions; it believes that this is God’s world, and that He is the Creator of all things. It regards the Scriptures as unique. They are unlike all other books, for they are the revelation of God Himself. How does the Christian scholar come to this knowledge? He comes to it, for God himself has made it known that the Bible is His Word. Christian scholarship believes that man’s final persuasion of the divinity of the Bible lies in the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is God who testifies to His word, and the renewed soul receives the Scriptures as God-given. Christian scholarship, therefore, believes the Bible to be the Word of God, and seeks to think God’s thoughts after Him as they are made known in the Bible.
In thus describing the basic presupposition of Christian scholarship we would point out that not all Christian scholars are consistent. Not all follow their presuppositions as they should. In particular, elements of anti-theism may enter into a man’s thinking when at one point or another he becomes inconsistent. The man who is willing to assert the presence of historical errors in the Bible, for example, is one who, whether consciously or not, has set himself above the statement of Christ. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ and the express declaration that all Scripture is God-breathed. There are many Christian scholars who do not exhibit a consistently Christian method of study, for at one point or another they depart from the position required by genuine Christian theism. A truly Christian scholarship, however, is based upon the assumption that God is the Creator and that in His written Word He has spoken in a special way.
Christian scholarship therefore is not ashamed of its presuppositions. In fact it glories in them, for it knows well enough that all approaches have presuppositions, whether consciously or unconsciously adopted. Christian scholarship knows where it stands and what it is seeking to accomplish. It understands that there is really but one alternative to the position which it has adopted. If it does not proceed upon the assumption that God is the ultimate source of meaning in life, and hence the ultimate point of predication, it knows that the only alternative is to believe and assert the ultimacy of the human mind. The human mind, however, is something created and finite, and from a finite source knowledge of the ultimate meaning of life can never come.
Christian scholarship therefore, if it is to be truly Christian, will, in consistency with its basic presupposition, acknowledge the Bible to be the Word of God. To discover in what sense the Bible is God’s Word it will turn to the Bible and allow the Bible to speak for itself. What the Bible has to say about itself, Christian scholarship will willingly accept. In other words the Bible is the norm which must guide genuine Christian scholarship. For that matter the true Christian scholar will be guided by what the Bible has to say on all subjects. An illustration will make this clear.
The nineteenth century witnessed a continual production of theories concerning the origin of the Pentateuch. These theories were interesting, and some of them were ingenious, but they all had this in common, that they were willing to contradict explicit statements of the Bible. In the Pentateuch we often read that Moses spake, but these theories were perfectly willing to assert that he did not speak. When in the book of Deuteronomy, to take an example, we read that the Lord spake unto Moses, the theories we are now considering had no hesitation in asserting that Deuteronomy was produced in the seventh century B.C. If it was a work of the seventh century B.C., however, it would follow that the Lord did not speak to Moses, as Deuteronomy claims. Hence, whatever else may be said of these theories, they were not Christian. They were willing to assume that their originators had a better knowledge of the situation than did the Scripture itself. And that is a bold assumption. This is not to say that the men who advanced these theories were themselves not Christians. On that point no man can judge, God alone is able to pass judgment upon the human heart, and we are not for a moment saying that the advocates of the positions which we are now discussing were not Christians. But, if they were Christians, in advocating these theories, they were acting in a manner quite inconsistent with their Christian beliefs. And whether the men themselves were Christians or not, their theories were not Christian theories, for they went contrary to express statements of the Bible.
The same may be said of some of the views that are being presented today, views which are widely acclaimed and even received with favour by some evangelicals. These theories have not the slightest hesitation in overriding express statements of the Bible. For that reason they are not in accord with Christian presuppositions and consequently they may be dismissed as mistaken explanations of Israel’s history and religion. This is not to say that there is no value in them or that they should not be studied. But the unlearned reader who simply reads the Old Testament itself and believes it to be true has a far more profound insight into the truth of Israel’s history and religion than he will find in the positions advocated by some modern scholars. One of the saddest signs of the times is that some evangelicals do not seem to recognise that fact.
May the writer be pardoned for mentioning personal experiences? Every now and then following a lecture, some young student will approach and say something like, ‘Why didn’t you pay more attention to Mowinckel, or, Do you not think that Von Rad’s writings are showing us some exciting new things in Old Testament studies?’ Now, surely, we should pay attention to what modern scholars are writing, and surely we can learn from modern scholars, but when we are making a serious effort to understand the history of Israel and its religion we shall learn far more by a serious exegesis of the Old Testament, an exegesis undertaken in a believing spirit, than we will from the writings of men such as Von Rad and Mowinckel who hold an extremely low view of the Bible. Christian scholarship rejoices in the confines that the infallible Word of God places upon it. It wishes to be true to the Bible.
And this brings us to what is probably the heart of the matter. True Christian scholarship will be characterised by humility. What, however, do we mean in this connexion by humility? We mean simply obedience to God. The humble scholar is the one who is truly obedient to God. But how shall one be obedient to God? The answer is that to be obedient to God means to do His will. We learn of His will, however, in His Word. Hence, we shall follow His Word in all that it says. Even though we may not always understand all the factors involved, we shall, if our desire is truly to be Christian, allow the Word of God to be our guide in all things. Its statements will direct our investigation, and we shall never dare to go contrary to those statements, for we know that they were breathed forth by Him who is truth itself and cannot lie. Christian scholarship then would be bound by the Bible, and rejoice that such is the case.
An objection is likely to rise at this point. Is this not obscurantism, it may be asked, is it not fundamentalism? What about the great gains of nineteenth-century scholarship? Are we to throw them by the board? In answering these questions we would point out that names in themselves are not too important. It matters not if unbelievers call Christian scholarship obscurantist. After all, some of the most obscurantist positions imaginable are those held by the ‘advanced’ scholars of the nineteenth century. What about Wellhausen’s view of Genesis, a view which he claimed was held by all scientific scholars? Can one imagine anything more obscurantist than that view, namely, that from Genesis one could learn nothing concerning the background of the patriarchs? This position, so confidently and almost arrogantly advanced by Wellhausen and others, is now completely shown to be false, and those who today, had they been living in Wellhausen’s time, would probably have gone along with him, are perfectly ready to acknowledge that Genesis does give an accurate picture of the patriarchal background. We who believe the Bible need not fear the term obscurantist.
Nor need we really be afraid of the term fundamentalist. Better to be called a fundamentalist than to be found in the ranks of those who deny the Bible. In the long run the truth will prevail, and if Christian scholarship continues in devotion to God’s Word, it need not fear what man can say. Its purpose in the last analysis is the glory of God, and in seeking to accomplish this purpose it may well expect opprobrium.
It may be thought that what we have written involves too negative an attitude toward that scholarship which is not based upon Christian presuppositions. We must therefore indicate some of the areas where we believe that one can learn from such scholarship. For one thing, unbelieving scholarship is not always consistent with its basic presuppositions. Just as fallen man is not as bad as he can be, so also non-Christian scholarship is not completely consistent with its own basic assumptions. The result is that it often says things which in themselves are good and true. In the writings of Von Rad, for example, although we think that the basic position is wrong, there are nevertheless many fine things that are said. Sometimes in the exegetical sphere, for example, there is at least a formal agreement with what a Bible believing scholar might assert; in this respect one can learn much from Von Rad’s writings, even though, when judged from the Christian position, the basic approach must be regarded as seriously mistaken.
Furthermore, many gifted researchers who may not themselves embrace Christian presuppositions have nevertheless done remarkable service in the fields of archaeology and language. Of course even in these fields, basic presuppositions are important, and the Christian would maintain that only upon theistic positions do these fields of study have meaning. This is true, and yet many gifted men have performed remarkable service in these areas. We may think of the tremendous amount of excavation that has been done, and the extremely difficult work of deciphering the cuneiform languages. For all of this we should of course be profoundly grateful.
It must be recognised that if non-theistic presuppositions were correct, this positive work could not be done. For then there would be no true meaning in life. The fact that serious philological and archaeological work can be done is in itself an argument in favour of the theistic position. Certainly the Christian scholar recognises with gratitude the fact that much work has been done in these fields, sometimes by Christians and sometimes by non-Christians. The Christian recognises truth wherever it is to be found and understands full well that even a man whose basic presuppositions are false will himself act contrary to those presuppositions and say and do much that in itself is true.
True Christian scholarship therefore is willing and glad to recognise the debt it owes to all who have advanced the cause of learning. In itself, however, it would hold as the great goal to be achieved the glory of God. In all that it does it strives to bring glory to God, the Creator. The Christian investigator, whatever be the field in which he is working, will realise that this is God’s world, and in his endeavour to arrive at the truth will be guided by the Bible itself. He will not proceed in his investigations contrary to the Bible, but will permit the Bible to be His guide.
No comments:
Post a Comment