T.B. asserts that the Bible really is historically reliable, offers the usual reasons why it must be so, and then concludes by naming a few volumes on the subject that he has read or plans to read. There’s nothing really new here- nothing that hasn’t been said before a thousand times in a thousand different places. What struck me, though, and what provoked me to post the present little bit, is how interesting it is to note that T. has- evidently- read only one side of the issue.

To be sure, he may well have read Davies on the subject- but he doesn’t say so. He may have read Ebeling or Brunner or Barth or Kasemann- but he doesn’t say so. He might even have picked up Thompson or Lemche or Whitelam. But he doesn’t say so. I am, therefore, compelled to imagine that he hasn’t and because he hasn’t, he doesn’t have available to his mental arsenal the full resources necessary to make an informed determination on the topic.

Scholarship requires, at its heart, the scholar to investigate issues from both sides, pro and con. And then, and only then, to make an informed decision. Informed decisions are only possible when both sides of an issue have been looked into closely. And yet, that sort of informed consideration is the very thing that’s lacking in much of biblical studies today- from both sides. Fundamentalists and evangelicals (supposing that they really are different things- which I doubt) read fundamentalists and evangelicals. Liberals and moderates read liberals and moderates. Scholars read both fundamentalists and liberals. Why? Simply to get both sides of the story and then to make a decision based on their own evaluation of the evidence.

Much that passes for scholarship is anything but. It is the reinforcement of preconceived or previously held viewpoints. And that’s the problem with reading only one side of the issue.

Oh- and p.s.- scientists do the same thing- so they shouldn’t somehow imagine themselves superior to biblical scholars.  Evolutionists wouldn’t deign to read creationists with an open mind; and intelligent designers wouldn’t dare actually read an evolutionist with an open mind.  So the problem of reading only narrowly and those with whom one agrees is endemic to academia (and outside of it the problem is even worse).