I read an interview today with James Crossley, an NT scholar at the U. of Sheffield. He was named the “Blogger of the Month” for January, which means that someone thinks he’s important. I just wanted to point out two paragraphs near the end:
There are plenty of evangelicals doing excellent stuff and in certain cases you ‘d never guess they were evangelicals. Then some do the kind of history that can only be described as the equivalent of Intelligent Design. God directly intervened in history, made Christianity happen, bodily raised Jesus from the dead etc. etc. These are the kinds of explanations professional historians wouldn’t touch, just as professional scientists, at least so it seems to me, wouldn’t touch Intelligent Design.
Relating this to your question (sort of), there is something problematic going on when certain scholars can talk of doing good history, accuse opponents of doing bad history, and then tell us that someone’s mother was a virgin, people really did bodily rise from the dead, and that God’s hand is working in history. If you believe those latter points and want to argue for them, fine. But it isn’t what historians would call good history so perhaps it is time, at the very least, to acknowledge that the rhetoric is inconsistent. I can’t imagine too many professionals working in history departments coming up with arguments in favour of the miraculous or the divine hand in history.
In other words, if you believe that there is a God who works in this world (i.e., supernatural), then you are, by definition, not a historian. History, by definition, excludes the possibility of the supernatural. This idea is anything but new, but I thought it worthy of noting given its clear and recent expression.
If you want to win the debate, simply define your terms so that your opponent is automatically disqualified.
Bingo. It’s the old, “I can’t defend my position so I’ll go after your character in a vain attempt to discredit you” argument. Miracles can’t happen so any description of them is inherently myth. I thought “historians” were supposed to be objective. He’s saying that a pre-conceived belief governs everything he looks at as a historian, the very thing he seems to be accusing “evangelical” historians of doing.
Thankfully there are esteemed biblical scholars at pretigious universities who would disagree with Crossley just as you (and I) do. More the exception, to be sure, but the world would benefit if you chose to join the ranks of such “exceptional” scholars.
Julie – I appreciate the words, but I’ve thought about it quite a bit and I don’t think I’m going to be a scholar. I really like to teach and I really want to be a good teacher, and I don’t think I have energies enough to become a good teacher and a good scholar. I would love to inspire students to become fearless missionaries, international teachers, and (for a few) good scholars.
I’m wondering what other examples we could give to refute such a position? He’s basically referring to empirical verification (i.e. if it’s not empirically verifiable now, then it must a bunch of hooey if it’s written into history). This is an incredibly limiting point of view, and if carried out would have sweeping implications that extend beyond the validity of the Biblical narritive. Bogus scholarship indeed!
Thanks for the post and reminder. Thank you also for responding to Carson’s comments, I found it really helpful. Thank you also for inspiring me in my quest to be a faithful teacher of God’s Word and faithful shepherd of a local congregation of Christ’s flock. I’m glad that you decided to be a good teacher, and by God’s grace, you are.
Erm, where did I say these things attributed to me???? I was firing at the RHETORIC of opponents claiming ‘good history’ when comparing their history with other histories while the use of the supernatural wouldn’t be called ‘good history’ by historians. I am only criticising the inconsistent use of rhetoric. Personally I avoid categories of good and bad history but I am concerned about their use.
What about this: ‘If you want to win the debate, simply define your terms so that your opponent is automatically disqualified.’
Where do I do that? In print and in practice I have openly pressed for greater interaction with evangelicals.
So, nice comments but they are not referring to me despite all the confidence.
James – I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I am opposed to the view which automatically disqualifies as “history” anything which includes a supernatural element. Many believe this and I read your interview to say the same. I am glad they do not apply and appreciate the clarification.