rob117

Not personal beliefs (a Shakespeare critic can be a biblical literalist without it affecting his work), but rather, in the study of relevant non-dogmatic fields (biology, geology, classics, Assyriology, Egyptology, archaeology, biblical criticism, ethnography, etc.) at what point did unabashedly starting with the assumption of inerrancy cause one to be regarded by one's colleagues as a crackpot? I read a book on Mesopotamian mythology written as recently as the 1940s and published by a major university (I think it was UChicago Press) where the author took biblical inerrancy as a given. Maybe by that time it was rare (although I suspect it really wasn't, given the analogous phenomenon of explicit racism among some major Civil War historians at the same time), but in 19th-century works it is common to find remarks made by major scholars along the lines that the present desolate state of Babylon proves "the truth of Scripture".

Has anyone else encountered explicit acceptance of biblical inerrancy when reading old scholarly books, and if so, how far back do you find it?

douglas

I'm not sure if this answers you're question but I have two text books from the mid-50's: Exploring the Old Testament (Purkiser, Demaray, Metz, Stuneck) and Understanding the New Testament (Kee and Young). One was my Mom's and the other my Dad's from their undergrad years at two major colleges in Ohio.

The Kee and Young text is fairly objective (although it assumes a historical Jesus) and tries to put the NT into a historical framework. For example, they discuss the effects of Helenization, the rise of the mystery religions, and how these may have layed the groundwork for Jesus and Christianity. They also discuss the social landscape that Paul worked in, and how it was ripe for a chrisitian-like movement.

The Purkiser book, on the other hand, holds strictly to inerrancy and frequently refers to Jesus as "our lord and saviour". Biblical stories are assumed as historical fact.

For me, this indicates that at least by the 50's scholars felt fairly free to challenge the inerrancy and historicity of the bible, and some universities were starting to interject these texts into their curriculum.

jakejonesiv

The one thing that is not allowed in academic circles is to challenge the assumption of uniqueness of the origin of the Christian religion. Otherwise, all these Ph.D's in various aspects of Christian study would be reduced from their privleged position to the level of comparative religionists.

The result is that you can easily argue that Jesus actually rose from the dead and be accepted in acedemic circles. But suggest that Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the Eucharist were borrowed from pagan religions and the hounds will be set loose.

Ben C Smith

Can you provide some examples of this? Thanks.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

All this really occurs almost a century earlier. But the tide of 20th century archaeological and literary discoveries forced biblical scholars to adopt more conservative ideas on these subjects.

All the best,

Roger Pearse