Journal Article Critique
Read the article you attached and then write a minimum of 2 full pages and NO MORE THAN 3 PAGES. You are expected to read the article with a critical eye and to interact with the authorâ€™s theology and worldview. Since you are not considered an authority, you must withhold personal references, opinions, attitudes, and values from the critiquing process. Please follow this template when writing each critique:
Contents Page (Section headings should be as follows: Introduction, Brief Summary, Critical Interaction, Conclusion, Selected Bibliography)
The body of your critique includes the following sections:
I. Introduction (1 paragraph)
A. Provide a purpose statement.
B. Provide a brief overview of the paperâ€™s contents.
II. Brief Summary (1 paragraph)
A. Capture the thesis of the article.
B. Share the overall content of the article.
III. Critical Interaction (1â€“2 paragraphs)
A. The point is not whether you agree with the authorâ€™s point of view, but that you recognize what the author is discussing and what theological issues are at stake.
B. It is important for you to document your assessment of the author throughout. If you evaluate the authorâ€™s opinion, give an example along with an endnote to designate an outside source where the opinion can be observed.
C. Does the author approach the subject with any presuppositions/or biases?
D. With what theological and biblical perspectives does he/she approach the subject?
E. What is the authorâ€™s goal?
F. Has the author developed his/her thesis logically?
G. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the authorâ€™s arguments?
H. Did the author prove his/her thesis?
I. What are some applications that arise from this article?
IV. Conclusion (1 paragraph)
A. This is where you wrap up your work by conveying how well the author achieved his/her goals. Very briefly summarize your evaluations here.
B. Does the author leave you with any questions? If so, what are they?
Selected Bibliography (on a separate page)
The minimum of 2 full pages not to exceed 3-page requirement refers to the Introduction, Brief Summary, Critical Interaction, and Conclusion sections. It does not include the Cover page, Contents page, or Selected Bibliography. If your critique exceeds the 3-page requirement for sections Iâ€“IV, your grade will be reduced.
Formatting Requirements: Make sure your critiques are formatted in the following manner:
Follow Turabian style
Use footnotes to document research statements.
Use 1â€ margins all around.
Make text double-spaced.
Use 12-point Times New Roman font.
Indent the 1st line of a paragraph Â½ inch.
Do not insert any extra lines or additional points between paragraphs.
Include a cover page
BELOW IS THE REQUIRED ARTICLEâ€¦
Table of contents
1. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority
Document 1 of 1
The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority
Author: Sexton, Jason
ProQuest document link
Abstract: None available.
Get It At Liberty, Check for full text via Journal Finder
The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. By G. K. Beale. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008, 300 pp.,
Well known for detailed analyses and critical scrutiny of his interlocutors, Gregory Beale, Professor of New Testament at Wheaton College, has offered the latest contribution to the inerrancy debate. As the first significant defense of inerrancy in the last twenty years, its stated aim is â€œto focus on a specific debate that bears upon the broad issue of biblical authority that has arisen recently in evangelicalismâ€ (p. 21). Accordingly, the majority of its proper content is taken up in exacting dialogue with Peter Enns (chaps. 1-4). This discussion is followed by a defense of the traditional view of Isaiahâ€™s authorship (chap. 5) and a section assimilating a theological understanding of the biblical cosmos with biblical authority (chaps. 6-7). Afterthoughts appear in three appendices dealing with (1) hermeneutics and epistemology, (2) the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and (3) sixteen quotations from Karl Barthâ€™s Church Dogmatics, alluding to his commitment to an errant and fallible Bible.
After locating himself within the last thirty years of the U.S. evangelical context, Beale raises concern about revisions of â€œthe standard North American evangelical statement on Scripture.â€ He identifies the general cause of the revisions to be (1) postmodernism and (2) the fact that conservative students are earning doctorates in nonevangelical schools (p. 20). The contemporary face of the â€œnew challengesâ€ to inerrancy (p. 21), elsewhere defined as â€œa new version of an older view known as the infallibility of the Bibleâ€ (p. 220), is offered by Enns, whom Beale deems â€œtoo influenced by the extremes of postmodern thoughtâ€ (p. 44). Beale elsewhere identifies Enns with von Rad (p. 43) and the Rogers and McKim proposal (p. 46), which lapses the debate back into its previous wave in the late 1970s and early 80s.
The first two chapters assess recent developments in OT studies. The Scripture principle espoused in J. I. Packerâ€™s â€œFundamentalismâ€ and the Word of God is representative of Bealeâ€™s position (p., 21, passim). He thus takes direct issue with the view of non-historicity and â€œmythâ€ in the OT, and also with â€œlegend,â€ which Beale deems to be Ennsâ€™s answer to evidences wrought by historical-criticism (p. 38). The book sees attempts to neatly separate â€œcognitive informationâ€ (e.g. historical or scientific facts) from â€œmorality and salvific issuesâ€ as deeply flawed, as is the â€œincarnational modelâ€ (p. 40).
Beale indicts Ennsâ€™s Inspiration and Incarnation (2005) for seeing difficulties from biblical data as too problematic while not adequately representing alternative evangelical interpretations. According to Beale, this prompts believers to lose confidence in the Bible. He shows how Enns too quickly distinguishes theological from historical truth while paying little hermeneutical regard to â€œconscious historical genre signals by biblical writersâ€ (pp. 66-67). Heavy dependence on ANE extra-biblical sources is also shown to be faulty because some of their genres, which themselves are difficult to define, may have no relevance to the Bible at all (pp. 72-73). Yet Enns is said to want ANE literature to play a dominant role for understanding history, attempting to interpret texts in their literary and historical contexts while not plunging into immediate harmonizing, as some inerrantists have been prone to do. Beale commends him for this; still, Beale finds the category of â€œmythâ€ the â€œleast probableâ€ in cases like Genesis. Thus, Ennsâ€™s interpretive starting point is questionable (pp. 78-79).
Chapters three and four interact with Ennsâ€™s view of the use of the OT in the NT, posing challenges and identifying weaknesses and implications for the view that NT writers quoted mythical accounts while being convinced that the accounts were historically true. Contra Enns, Beale suggests that NT writers, though not necessarily doing historical-grammatical exegesis, were â€œengaging the Old Testament in an effort to remain consistent with the original context and intention of the Old Testament authorâ€ (p. 87). A major weakness Beale points out is that Enns avoids other scholarly options by polarizing the historical-grammatical method from the christotelic one, leaving no other alternatives (p. 104). Yet Beale notes that Enns admits that a â€œproper methodâ€ still may not bring exegetical clarity on every point (p. 111).
Beale further notes Ennsâ€™s selectivity in responding to criticism, neglecting the major issue of â€œmythâ€ in 1 Cor 10:4 (p. 118), which yields ground for Beale to challenge what he thinks are Ennsâ€™s underlying assumptions. Some of Bealeâ€™s accusations of Enns do not seem to be on target. For example, Beale accuses Enns of deeming it â€œinappropriately modernistâ€ to think that Jesus and the apostles â€œcould have had understandings of the Old Testament that had significant links to the Old Testamentâ€™s original meaningâ€ (p. 121, quote is Bealeâ€™s). Enns simply never said this.
Chapter five gives scriptural evidence for Isaiahâ€™s integrity, the problem having first been mentioned in the introduction. Arguments for the single-author view are made and supported by R. Shultz and E. J. Young. These arguments include the NTâ€™s view of Isaiah, along with Isaiahâ€™s historic and prophetic nature. Here is where the inerrancy debateâ€™s bearing on the Bibleâ€™s authority is brought out (p. 123). Beale lends substantial weight to Isaianic authorship for Isaiah and posits that the evidence reveals â€œrepeated references to the active, personal role of Isaiah in writing and prophesying in all parts of the bookâ€ (p. 128). After this, Beale contrasts a critical reading of Isaiah in order to dismiss any Barthian views of Scripture. He also demonstrates the authority of biblical passages, whose texts give testimony to precision and accuracy (e.g. Matt. 15:7; â€œrightly did Isaiah prophecy of you . . .â€). A strong case is made here for the infallibility and inerrancy of prophetic texts, with time transcendent vocative application of prophecy, displaying that authorial authority is bound up in the message (p. 135). After making reference to Matthew 24:35, along with the time and culturally-transcendent nature of Godâ€™s word, Beale concludes, â€œThe truth of Christâ€™s words and teachings are not culturally bound but transcend all cultures and remain unaltered by cultural beliefs and traditions that contain untrue elementsâ€ (p. 144).
Chapters six and seven present unique material synthesizing biblical cosmology with scientific cosmology, showing how the celestial and temple archetypes are reflected in phenomenological descriptions of the natural creation (p. 163). Beale makes acute correlation between the heavenly embodiment/temple/tabernacle and the cosmic embodiment/temple/tabernacle that will likewise be displayed in the future â€œnewâ€ embodiment of the cosmos, the future heavenly temple/tabernacle. While self-critically thinking that not â€œevery partâ€ of his analysis of the â€œastronomical significanceâ€ will be persuasive, and later noting the difficulty of presenting this systematic depiction because â€œonly snapshotsâ€ are scattered throughout Scripture (p. 204), Beale nevertheless deems it corporately sufficient to symbolize the heavens as Godâ€™s â€œbig cosmic tabernacle.â€ Following Jewish commentators, he argues against a late-developed cosmic-temple understanding and gives reasons why pagan nations had similar temple structures, mimicking Godâ€™s natural temple, which is the cosmos (pp. 174-75). ANE concepts of foreign gods and temples also symbolized cosmological accounts of the world (pp. 175-176), though Israelâ€™s was the â€œtrue templeâ€ and pagan temples had no account of the eschatological significance that Israelâ€™s story did (p. 183). For Beale, â€œthe cumulative effect,â€ while not all similarities drawn are admittedly as strong as others, is that Eden is indicated as â€œthe first archetypal earthly temple,â€ situated in â€œgarden-like formâ€ upon which all of Israelâ€™s temples were based (p. 191).
Chapter seven moves back to the issue of the authority of Scripture. OT cosmic descriptions are all said to be â€œcharged with a temple theology to one degree or another,â€ arguing against the idea of OT writers thinking in terms of the â€œmythical conventionsâ€ of their day. These descriptions are said to be â€œnot scientific but theological, understanding the cosmos as a big temple,â€ which Beale argues is â€œsuch a theological pointâ€ that upholds inerrancy and can be readily accepted by Christians of the twenty-first century (pp. 194-96). As he understands it, â€œeverything [in Scripture] is charged with theological significanceâ€ (p. 205), and much cosmological language should not be deemed as â€œscientific description,â€ because intentions are often to describe â€œa templeâ€ that can still today be called â€œan accurate theological descriptionâ€ (p. 209). Beale goes so far to suggest that it is an issue of biblical authority to believe the cosmos is a temple (p. 214), though the case should probably be made more softly in light of his earlier acknowledgement of the difficulty of its systematic presentation (p. 204). This temple theology and cosmology, nevertheless, give ground for â€œsome figurative and even literal phenomenological descriptions that are easily understood and even shared by modern readersâ€ (p. 214) and provide further options for interpreting the relationship of OT from other ANE conceptions of creation, history, and temples (p. 216). Accordingly, there is no reason to think that the biblical writers were locked into unconsciously imbibing their mythical acculturation. If so, as Beale has argued, they would have been employing a modernist-notion of thinking in compartmentalized ways, according to both their culture and their theology, which seems likely to be an â€œartificial imposition onto the biblical writersâ€ (p. 217). If this is the case, however, the ancients would seem to have had a theologically developed view of Scripture in light of ancient pagan traditions similar to the one today that contrasts inerrancy in light of opposing views wrought by todayâ€™s acculturations.
The first appendix is a revised 1999 article dealing with epistemological and hermeneutical matters in a critique of Steve Moyiseâ€™s â€œsoft postmodernismâ€ (p. 224), followed by a brief reflective addendum on how globahsm relates to postmodernism (pp. 261-65). Moyise asserts that modern readers â€œcreate meaningâ€ from biblical texts instead of recognizing meaning â€œalready inherent in the textâ€ (p. 229). While not willing to say that interpretation is void of creativity (p. 245), he is also unwilling to confuse the authorâ€™s original meaning with extension or application of that meaning (p. 239). Admittedly, the issue may be an epistemological disagreement over authority and inspiration (pp. 250, 252). For Beale, the issue is a â€œChristian worldviewâ€ that bases its knowledge on Godâ€™s revelation, whose â€œenduring foundationâ€ for the â€œabsolute transcendent determinant meaning to all textsâ€ is something presupposed on the basis of â€œan omniscient, sovereign, and transcendent God.â€ This God â€œknows the exhaustive yet determinant and true meaning of all texts because he stands above the world he has constructed and above all the social constructs his creatures have constructed,â€ yet because he created them to share partly in his attributes, they have â€œsome determinant meaning of the communicative acts of othersâ€ (p. 257). According to Beale, if one cannot know what God communicated in his inspired Scripture, then the Bible â€œhas no binding relation to us.â€ He therefore sees â€œan authoritative word of Godâ€ as no good at all if one cannot know â€œwhat that word has said.â€ Herein Beale finds â€œthe ultimate danger of postmodern perspectives on interpreting the Bibleâ€ (p. 259).
The second appendix gives the basis from which Beale has sought to operate throughout the book â€“ the Chicago Statement with its affirmation, denials, and exposition (pp. 267-79). The final appendix gives place for Barthâ€™s view of Scripture (pp. 281-83), which is getting a â€œrevival of interestâ€ (p. 20) and whose influence Beale sees as highly problematic for evangelicals today. By citing Barth at relevant points, and having taken him to task elsewhere in the book, Beale hopes to clarify the Barthian position on Scripture so evangelicals can acutely observe his views and perhaps understand where one influence on the current state for an evangelical view of Scripture has come from.
While the strengths of Bealeâ€™s book are many and readily seen, criticisms are notwithstanding. Though beginning strong, it does not deliver conclusively for many reasons. Unfortunately, the â€œrhetorical toneâ€ of the debate is still a bit rough. Is it really always helpful to point out opponentsâ€™ inaccuracies and ambiguities? And whereas the â€œunclearâ€ label is reserved for Enns and Moyise (pp. 27, 229), I found Bealeâ€™s work very confusing at times, especially when dealing with rejoinder, surrejoinder, additional surrejoinders, first and third-person passive depictions, and even another author in the conversation, which seemed unnecessary. While one cannot fault attempts at objectivity, a research assistant hardly offers unbiased clarification in a debate, and here seemed only to add to the convolution. Unfortunately, mutual understanding seems limited between Beale and Enns (pp. 61, 63, 67, 112), even though purported clarifications abound and, though shielded by occasional disclaimers (p. 55), so does the rhetoric. In a debate so historically explosive, with undergraduates, pastors, and academics eager to take sides, clarity and charity are essential.
When Beale interacted with Ennsâ€™s view of â€œmyth,â€ he never defined the term (pp. 2738). One also wonders whether Walton is a truly reliable guide for Bealeâ€™s purposes, unwilling himself to state whether or not the Genesis cosmology or Adam was essentially historical (cf. John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006], 209). Beale also makes the bold claim that â€œthe majorityâ€ of conservative scholars hold to a completely objective, unbiased view of recording history. While purporting a consensus fallacy is never a good idea, Beale provides no footnote or references for this assertion (p. 38).
As Beale notes, Enns often offers simplistic and weak arguments, occasionally creating false dichotomies like the limited options of the christotelic versus the historicalgrammatical hermeneutic, or the historical reading versus the mythical reading, with no alternatives. Yet Beale does not grant merits to Ennsâ€™s arguments at points and occasionally pigeonholes him (pp. 66-67). Ennsâ€™s response to the accusation of being a postmodernist is also never acknowledged (cf. JETS 49/2: 317, n. 10), though his stance as a supposed postmodernist characterizes the tone of the book. And this occurs even though Beale himself borrows from an acknowledged postmodern â€œcritical realismâ€ (p. 48). Underlying assumptions are also read into Enns (p. 121, passim). Nevertheless, Bealeâ€™s own ability to read into things cannot be mistaken. For example, when the â€œtempleâ€ agenda appears (chaps. 6 and 7), one wonders if any other objective reading of Scripture is even possible. This situation could even be potentially harmful to Bealeâ€™s entire case. The book also includes no serious engagement of postmodern thought occurring with any leading postmodern thinker(s). Instead, Beale seems to be interacting with convoluted challenges to the standard doctrine of inerrancy mainly brought about by evangelicals. He thus deals with what he understands postmodernism and its influence to be.
One may also wonder how the phenomenological designation of cosmic descriptions set forth by Beale relates to the historical or scientifically accurate descriptions, or as-it-happened time-historically located events that correspond with reality. In other words, in light of Bealeâ€™s approach to the OT, were the events really essential history and did they happen in the manner the Bible says they happened? Or might his position be guilty of a negative proof fallacy where one never finds errors because even observable ones can be explained as â€œphenomenologicalâ€ or â€œcosmologicallyâ€ theological? For example, does â€œtempleâ€ carry anything more than â€œtheological significanceâ€ throughout? It would be no surprise if at this point Beale himself may be inadvertently treading down a mild postmodern path of sorts.
Furthermore, it does not seem that any Barthians or evangelicals considering a Barthian view of Scripture will be persuaded by Beale. Barthians know that there is more to Barth than what he states in any one or many places. Barths thought in Church Dogmatics is said to be â€œone cohesive argument, and no single stage within the argument is definitive for the wholeâ€ (John Webster, Karl Barth [London: Continuum, 2004, 50]). As with Barth, Beale also seems to misunderstand the Chicago Statement. He criticizes evangelicals who consider themselves â€œreformers of an antiquated evangelicalism, represented, for example, by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancyâ€ (p. 21). Yet in stating this Beale fails to recognize the very nature of the Chicago Statement, including Packerâ€™s comments about its shelf-life (J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible [Westchester, IL: Cornerstone, 1980] 48) and its own self-invitation for modification and extension (cf. the Preface to the Chicago Statement in the book under review, pp. 268-69), though Beale himself offers some modification, albeit in a very minor way (p. 267, n. 1)
There are a few minor typographical issues (e.g. â€œrealtiesâ€ should be â€œrealitiesâ€ [p. 184] and the dated usage of BADG is questionable [p. 118; cf. with BDAG on p. 135, n. 12]. Beyond this, jumbled argumentation seems to tie the book together, with Beale in the defensive posture for his somewhat disjointed program. This may be the result of the book consisting of six articles that appear in other publications. It must be noted though that this work did not set out to be a complete defense of a doctrine of inerrancy or a comprehensive constructive Scripture principle in light of the recent resurgent argumentation against inerrancy, although Beale is certainly capable of one. Evangelical Christians will have to look elsewhere for this, which seems not too far down the road in the present context.
Whether one agrees with Beale on his point of temple cosmology or on his method, one must admit that his thought constructively builds on a theological commitment to the Bibleâ€™s inerrant authority, though his exegetical method and its other theological variegations may be sketchy and subjectively indeterminate. Beale seriously engages the exegetical and theological task given to evangelicals from an inerrantist framework. He has engaged arguments head-on and ANE literature with his presuppositions about inspiration and with his stated interpretive program. He accomplished exactly what Enns should do/have done in order to subject his ideas to the biblical evidence. For this Beale is to be highly commended. Other biblical scholars and theologians would be well served in learning from Bealeâ€™s approach of subjecting new ideas to the Bibleâ€™s authority. Moreover, he has provided a helpful installment in the inerrancy debate, seeking to engage detractors adequately, defend satisfactorily and advance constructively the inerrancy position. Those who will most benefit from this book will be individuals who have been impressed by recent arguments from inerrancyâ€™s critics. Beale has given them a new way for holding to inerrancy while simultaneously engaging serious biblical theology.
University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland
Publication title: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Number of pages: 6
Publication year: 2009
Publication date: Jun 2009
Publisher: Evangelical Theological Society
Place of publication: Lynchburg
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Religions And Theology
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: General Information
ProQuest document ID: 211237188
Document URL: http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/211237188?accountid=12085
Copyright: Copyright Evangelical Theological Society Jun 2009
Last updated: 2012-03-19
Database: ProQuest Central
Our Service Charter
Excellent Quality / 100% Plagiarism-FreeWe employ a number of measures to ensure top quality essays. The papers go through a system of quality control prior to delivery. We run plagiarism checks on each paper to ensure that they will be 100% plagiarism-free. So, only clean copies hit customers’ emails. We also never resell the papers completed by our writers. So, once it is checked using a plagiarism checker, the paper will be unique. Speaking of the academic writing standards, we will stick to the assignment brief given by the customer and assign the perfect writer. By saying “the perfect writer” we mean the one having an academic degree in the customer’s study field and positive feedback from other customers.
Free RevisionsWe keep the quality bar of all papers high. But in case you need some extra brilliance to the paper, here’s what to do. First of all, you can choose a top writer. It means that we will assign an expert with a degree in your subject. And secondly, you can rely on our editing services. Our editors will revise your papers, checking whether or not they comply with high standards of academic writing. In addition, editing entails adjusting content if it’s off the topic, adding more sources, refining the language style, and making sure the referencing style is followed.
Confidentiality / 100% No DisclosureWe make sure that clients’ personal data remains confidential and is not exploited for any purposes beyond those related to our services. We only ask you to provide us with the information that is required to produce the paper according to your writing needs. Please note that the payment info is protected as well. Feel free to refer to the support team for more information about our payment methods. The fact that you used our service is kept secret due to the advanced security standards. So, you can be sure that no one will find out that you got a paper from our writing service.
Money Back GuaranteeIf the writer doesn’t address all the questions on your assignment brief or the delivered paper appears to be off the topic, you can ask for a refund. Or, if it is applicable, you can opt in for free revision within 14-30 days, depending on your paper’s length. The revision or refund request should be sent within 14 days after delivery. The customer gets 100% money-back in case they haven't downloaded the paper. All approved refunds will be returned to the customer’s credit card or Bonus Balance in a form of store credit. Take a note that we will send an extra compensation if the customers goes with a store credit.
24/7 Customer SupportWe have a support team working 24/7 ready to give your issue concerning the order their immediate attention. If you have any questions about the ordering process, communication with the writer, payment options, feel free to join live chat. Be sure to get a fast response. They can also give you the exact price quote, taking into account the timing, desired academic level of the paper, and the number of pages.