Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Coming in Hot

I ended the last post with a question: who are the evangelicals abusing the Biblical texts and how are they doing so?

This is essentially the core charge of the book to which Dr. Josh Bowen has contributed his chapter  “‘Your Eye Shall Have No Pity’: Old Testament Violence and Modern Evangelical Morality” to the volume Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With The Bible (Rutledge, 2023). It therefore follows, if you’re going to make such an accusation that it follows your should be able to produce evidence that substantiates the accusation.

However, reading Bowen’s chapter—which is specifically being reviewed in two parts (one and two) by Paul Copan over at the North American Mission Board (SBC) blog—one thing specifically stands out: there are no names named and no specific instances that are cited. In fact, beyond the mere accusation, nothing is actually presented.

What’s interesting, is that in his response to Copan, Bowen actually has to agree with Copan’s central point: the Old Testament uses the same literary forms as it’s historical contemporaries.

What’s the issue then?

For Bowen, it seems that the issue is that, “many [of the biblical] narratives [truthfulness appear to] rise and fall on the story’s non-hyperbolic nature.”

Perhaps one might say that I’m reading too much into Bowen’s intentions, however I think that throughout this examination and response that this has been the key contention. Indeed, Bowen himself makes this assertion when he writes in the chapter in question,

Assuming the biblical authors were at times utilizing ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric, and this use of hyperbolic language somehow creates a justification for the OT’s violent and genocidal descriptions…[68]

As I’ve noted, human history is marked with violence. Undoubtedly, Bowen would argue that at least some of that violence would have been justifiable. One may not necessarily like violence, or be prone to it, but that doesn’t mean that sometimes violence is not only necessary but required. After all the D+Day invasions along the coast of France were necessary to drive out the occupying forces of Nazi Germany.

My point here is simply this: if you’re going to accuse the Israelites of genocide for employing the same literary tropes and devices of their contemporaries then why aren’t you accusing their contemporaries of doing the exact same thing?

Hitting the Real Target

Bowen’s argument essentially aims at two related and interrelated targets: biblical inerrancy and biblical authority.

Evangelicals who insist on the inerrancy of Scripture (ie its truthfulness) also necessarily insist on its authority to speak to all matters of human behavior and redress them.

The subtle argument of those like Bowen (ie apostates) is that if the Bible is true in all that it says and it is authoritative in all that it commends, then it necessarily commends actions, beliefs, and behaviors that are morally problematic.

This is the kind of narrow, simplistic, a-historical, woodenly literal thinking that one expects of the most fundamentalist King James Onlyist congregations in the most remote parts of America from almost 50 years ago.

The problem with such a myopic view is that it often forgets its place in history. It forgets that it is the recipient of great gifts. It forgets that it is standing on the shoulders of giants.

I’ve written a lot on this blog about inerrancy and biblical authority and there’s a search bar at the top of the page where one can type in those words and find all of the related posts, so I’m not going to rehearse them here, except to post this link to a lecture I gave on the subject and this one too. I only will say this: inerrancy isn’t dependent on the devices that the authors used to communicate, rather it’s dependent on the God who moved the author to write, and it gains its authority in that fact.

I will also add, and reiterate, that the biblical text is first and foremost a historical text, and being a historical text, one should not be surprised to encounter the tropes and devices of ancient authors in such an ancient text. These do not impact either its truthfulness (unless you’re going to dismiss its contemporaries for the same reason) or it’s authority, as it has been given to us, “for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, [and] for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Conclusion

Whether or not one takes Bowen’s chapter seriously will be dependent upon whether or not they take the accusations of the volume seriously, chief among them that, “…evangelical biblical scholarship exploits the Bible and ‘biblical’ archaeology in ways that do injustice to the Bible’s origin, history, nature, and interpretation…”[69].

If that was Bowen’s particular aim in writing his chapter, then he failed. How did he fail? He didn’t produce one single example. He only attacked those who try to place the biblical text into its proper literary and historical context.

In fact, in his response to Copan’s comments, he comes across as a five year old who just got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And this is emblematized in his reporting of an interview with Old Testament scholar, John J. Collins

While there is a second part addressed to Copan that is equally as dismissive and condescending, I want to end this by nailing down on something that Bowen lands on in the close of his initial entry, namely the topic of presuppositions, namely when he writes,

Arguments like “they deserved to be destroyed or driven out because of their sin” or “it was hyperbolic language, so killing a lot of them was okay” will only work for Copan and other evangelicals when one presupposes that the deity that commanded such violent actions was the one true God, and therefore justified in issuing such divine judgments.

This single sentence should immediately be subject to his own standard: What is he presupposing to suggest otherwise?

That is where we are, and that is where we exit this part of our journey. Bowen’s chapter and his response to Copan ring hollow. He assumes so much and fails to properly justify his own assumptions.

Bowen essentially fails to understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse. Important distinctions need to be held and maintained when it comes to matters of history and the literary means by which history is conveyed and —more importantly—these issues need to be examined within their respective historical contexts.

The simple truth is that the biblical text records history. It doesn’t flinch when it tells it. It doesn’t try to obscure the reality or mask the horror of human behavior. In fact, it’s only because of its divine origin that it can provide us grounds by which to judge such actions, consistently and coherently.

Notes

68. Joshua A. Bowen. “‘Your Eye Shall Have No Pity’: Old Testament Violence and Modern Evangelical Morality” p. 177-199. Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With The Bible (Ed. Mark Elliot, Kenneth Atkinson, & Robert Rezetko. Rutledge. 2023. p. 190

69. Robert Rezetko, Mark Elliott, and Kenneth Atkinson. “Introducing Misusing Scripture”. Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With The Bible (Ed. Mark Elliot, Kenneth Atkinson, & Robert Rezetko. Rutledge. 2023. p. 8