Apologetics and Critical Scholarship

Douglas Mangum at Biblia Hebraica offers some thoughts on the intersection of critical scholarship and apologetics (Part 1 and Part 2). I won’t repeat the argument here since you can read his argument for yourself. But let me do two things: 1) give two short definitions, and 2) interact a bit with what seems a false dichotomy.

Two short definitions:

1. Critical scholarship – A type of scholarship that arose predominantly in the 19th century that reexamined long held beliefs about the inerrancy of the Bible. It generally concludes that the Bible is not inerrant, particularly in matters of history, geography, science, etc., though it may affirm a belief in “limited inerrancy,” that is that the Bible in inerrant (without error) only in matters of faith and doctrine, not necessarily other areas such as history, geography, science, etc.
2. Apologetics – A defense of the Christian faith.

Mangum’s argument: Many evangelical/conservative arguments against the conclusions of critical scholarship are not based on exegesis and consideration of the evidence. They are, in reality, apologetic arguments to defend a commitment to a particular view of the Bible. Conservative scholars are not really scholars; they are apologists, defending their view of Scripture in spite of the text in many cases, thus taking what would otherwise be clearly an error and harmonizing it to fit it into their view. He argues, in essence, that one cannot be (or at least finds it very hard to be) committed to a particular view of Scripture as inerrant (typically called a “high view of Scripture'”) and still properly use evidence.

Mangum’s examples: Some argue for Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the unity of Isaiah based on their view of Scripture, rather than based on the evidence from the Scripture. They argue for an early date of the Exodus (1445 B.C. rather than 12-13th century exodus) based on their view of the Bible rather than based on the evidence from archeology.

My concern with Mangum’s argument: He does not seem to interact in this article with the inseparability of apologetics and exegesis/evidence/argument. We cannot argue from a neutral position (which someone mentions, citing Bultmann that there is no presuppositionless exegesis). All of us are biased.

He does not seem to interact much with the idea that a commitment to inerrancy is not a “theological position;” it is an exegetical position derived from examining the evidence. He references this only briefly in one response (so far as I can tell), and is almost dismissive of it.

If you read Mangum without much thought, I think he makes sense. I don’t think Mangum’s attempt is to undermine Scripture. However, I think he espouses some false dichotomies and some “brush pile theology” that renders him able to make what are some invalid distinctions.

Can we approach Scripture with the values of critical scholarship and still honor what the text says about itself? I think not. If we take seriously the words of the text of Scripture, we must write off much of critical scholarship as misguided error. If we are serious exegetes of the evidence that Scripture gives of itself, we cannot at the same time be critical scholars.

Critical scholars are as much apologists are conservative scholars are. They are simply defending something else.