In preparation for teaching Survey of the Old Testament this semester, I’ve been reading
several introductory works on the OT. On
one hand, I’ve been working my way through Edward J. Young’s An Introduction to the Old Testament,
Revised Edition (Eerdmans, 1964). Young taught
OT at Westminster Seminary, was fully conversant with modern
historical-critical study of the OT, yet largely rejected it, and defended
traditional, pre-critical understandings of the OT, including affirmations of
its historicity. On the other hand, I’ve
also been reading Tremper Longman III’s Introducing
the Old Testament (Zondervan, 2012; an abridgement of Longman and Dillard’s
An Introduction to the Old Testament). Longman is a contemporary evangelical who attempts
to bridge the divide between naturalistic modern historical-critical and
traditional approaches to the OT.
The contrast between Young and Longman is evident at numerous
points along the way in their handling of the OT. While Young tenaciously defends the general
historical reliability of the OT accounts (creation, exodus, conquest, etc.),
Longman offers an excursus on “theological history” in which he argues that one
need not defend the historical
veracity of OT details in order to appreciate its theological purposes (pp. 84-85). Thus, Longman states: “While not all narrative texts are
necessarily historical (e. g., Job) and not all historical texts are concerned
with the same measure of precision of historical reporting (e. g., Gen. 1—11),
historical narrative is important in the Old Testament” (p. 84). He urges readers to distinguish “between
writing about past events and the events themselves,” noting: “Historical narrative is a representation of
the events and involves literary artifice” (p. 84).
I was struck by the divergence of these approaches this week
as I read both authors on the genre and historicity of Esther.
Though Longman’s interpretation of Esther is “conservative”
in that he does not see the work as purely a work of fiction, he is only
willing to offer the tepid affirmation that it is historical “in its broad
outline”:
Like Ruth, Esther has been catalogued
as a short story or novella, often with the implication that it is a work of
fiction. However, the highly artistic
nature of the storytelling does not preclude the idea that the book is telling
a story that, at least in broad outline, actually happened in space and
time. Debate will continue, since, while
classical and cuneiform sources by and large demonstrate the author’s familiarity
with Persian mores and court life, there remain some problems with the
historical details of the book (p. 82).
In sharp contrast is Young’s analysis of Esther’s historicity
(pp. 355-56). He acknowledges: “By many modern scholars, the historicity of
the book is completely denied and it is regarded as nothing more than a
historical romance” (p. 355). After
sifting through the evidence, Young reaches a conclusion typical for his Introduction:
However, in light of the remarkable
historical and geographical accuracy of the book, and in view of the extremely
weak character of the arguments adduced against that historicity, in view of
the fact that the book purports to be straightforward history and is lacking in
the fancy that characterizes mere romances, we believe that the only correct
interpretation is to regard the work as strictly historical (p. 357).
These contrasting conclusions highlight two divergent
approaches to the study of the Old Testament, the assimilation of modern
historical-critical scholarship, and the affirmation of Biblical
authority. Upon reflection it appears to
me that the contrast between Young and Longman is not merely that between a “fundamentalistic”
and an “evangelical” approach, but that between a “confessional” and a “non-confessional”
approach. Young’s insistence on the historicity
of Esther (and the rest of the OT) flows from his commitment to the
infallibility of Scripture as expressed in chapter one of the Westminster
Confession of Faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment