Nepaug Bible Church - http://www.nepaugchurch.org - Pastor's Sermon Notes - http://www.nepaugchurch.org/Sermons/zz20041107.htm

ANSWERING OTHERS WITH REASONS FOR OUR FAITH
Part III. Defending The Bible's Divine Inspiration And Authority
A. Defending God's Inspiration And Transmission Of The Bible's Text
2. Answering Liberal Theology's Form-Critico, Traditio-Critico and Redaction Theories That AMEND The Documentary Hypothesis

Introduction: (To show the need . . . )

On an evening news program one night this past week following our national elections, ABC news anchorman, Peter Jennings reported that the most significant issue behind the voting that was expressed at the exit polls was the issue of "moral values"!

This surprised the major television news networks, so Mr. Jennings said he will focus more on this matter in future newscasts.

However, Mr. Jennings noted from the outset that it is difficult to come to a consensus on what constitutes "moral values": Gays in San Francisco for example would say moral uprightness means giving them the liberty to marry as Gays where many others claim moral uprightness is heeding the Bible and not legalizing Gay marriage!

As a Bible teacher, I know that this difference over the definition of "moral values" arose two generations ago when Liberal Theology scholars countered the credibility of the Bible's texts so as to have the Bible's authoritative assertions on morality undermined.

For example, we learned in our last message in this series that the Documentary Hypothesis that denies the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy was so widely accepted by the start of the 20th century that the scholarly periodical, Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenshaft indicated that no scholarly Biblical institution would deny its validity (cf. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis, p. 7).

However, from later archaeological finds, this theory began to unravel. Accordingly, Liberal Theology scholars began to revise the Documentary Hypothesis to hold that though original accounts in the Bible might have been largely true, they were corrupted by authors who edited and revised them so that the Bible today is myth! If that is so, people can deny its "morality" and come up with other "values"! That has led to the political and moral challenges we face today!



Well, HOW can we ANSWER those who QUESTION why we hold the Bible and its Gospel of salvation by faith in Christ and what it defines as SIN and RIGHTEOUSNESS to be true in VIEW of these REVISED theories of Liberal Theology?



(We turn to the sermon "Need" section . . . )

Need: "As archaeological finds show the Documentary Hypothesis is errant, Liberal Theology scholars have amended it to say the Bible was EMBELLISHED in time so it is CURRENTLY faulty, making its message and morals unathoritative! How do I answer this?!"
  1. Three main REVISIONARY theories asserting the Bible's ONCE TRUE accounts became FLAWED in TIME have been set by Liberal Theology scholars (1973 Dallas Theol. Seminary class notes from Prof. Bruce K. Waltke, Th. D., DTS; Ph. D., Harvard Div. S.):
    1. The Form-Critical Theory - Upheld by Herman Kumpel, this theory holds men in Moses' era passed on accounts orally around campfires, mixing truth with myths through repeated sharing of these accounts.
    2. The Traditio-Critical Theory - Promoted mainly by A. H. Nyburg, this theory asserts these "corrupted" campfire stories were then reduced to the writing of the O. T. by Hebrew priests at the 586 B. C. fall of Jerusalem, and the priests further added false embellishments to them.
    3. The Theory of Redaction - The Traditio-Critical theory of the O. T. as applied to New Testament writings is termed "Redaction Criticism."
  2. Yet, archaeological findings ALSO counter these revision theories:
    1. Findings dispute the presumptions behind these revision theories!
      1. Scholars promoting these revision theories presume a psychology of canonicity -- man's valuing the accurate preservation of religious works -- did not exist when the Bible's events occurred. This allegedly kept them from passing accurate records on down to us!
      2. However, this presumption is countered by the witness of "The Conquest of Death" text found in two pyramids: the pyramid of Unis being one (5th Dynasty, 2,400 B. C. [Pritchard, ANE Texts, Princeton Univ., 1969, p. 32-33]). This text was never meant for public display as the Egyptians barricaded their tombs to protect mummies from grave robbers in the belief that eternal life of the soul came only to those with preserved bodies (Compton's Ency., vol. 16, p. 542). Yet, this hidden but elaborately carved stone text still honored pagan gods! Thus, Egypt's rulers who raised the Pentateuch's author, Moses gave him a 900-year-old "psychology of canonicity" before he ever began to write the Pentateuch!
    2. Besides, recent findings counter these revision theories themselves:
      1. Re: The Form-Critical Theory - Time mag. (12/18/95, "Are The Bible's Stories True?", p. 68-69 by M. Lemonick) tells of the 1993 find by A. Biram (Heb. Univ. Coll.) & J. Naveh (Heb. Univ.). The inscription has the words "House of David" & "King of Israel" and is dated in the 9th cen. B. C., 100 yrs. after David! Form-critico supporters doubt David existed, so this find counters their theory!
      2. Re: The Traditio-Critical Theory - The same article reports the 1979 finding of Israeli archaeologist, Gabriel Barkay of 2 silver scrolls in a Jerusalem tomb dated circa. 600 B. C. , 14 year before the 586 B. C. Babylonian Captivity. They contain a benediction from the book of Numbers that Traditio-Critical promoters claim did not yet even EXIST ! This find counters their theory!
      3. Re: Redaction Criticism - In 1935, a copy John 18:31-32 (Rylands frag.) was found in Egypt dated A. D. 100-150 by paleographers (Unger, Arch. & N. T., p. 21. Marchant King (Bib. Sac. [1973] 130:517, p. 35-40) notes this fragment has an Alexandrian text type reading, so it came from a complete copy of John's Gospel. As this fragment came from the "hinterlands," decades are needed for the Gospel to travel from its author to this area, so John's Gospel was written no later than A. D. 90. Conservative scholars use this as the latest date for John's authorship, Ryr. St. Bib., KJV, p. 1492! This finding counters N. T. redaction and form criticism theories!
  3. Then, Scripture itself counters the claims of these revised theories, claiming it is God's authoritative Word on ALL it asserts:
    1. Peter claimed he did not heed "cleverly invented stories", but saw Christ's O. T. predicted glory at His transfiguration, 2 Pet. 1:16f NIV.
    2. When he then heard the Father call Jesus His Son (huios), a term meaning Jesus was equal with the Father (2 Pet. 1:17; Jn. 5:18), Peter wrote those O. T. prophecies became "more certain" to him, 1:16-19!
    3. Jesus claimed that every part of every word affecting meaning in the O. T. is God inspired, countering these 3 revision theories, Mtt. 5:18!
Application: (1) May we TRUST the Bible's divine inspiration and hence its (a) Gospel of salvation by faith in Christ (John 3:16) (b) and its moral definitions, and so (2) answer each one who asks why we h eed the Bible's stands as we do, 2 Peter 3:15!

Lesson: Re: the 3 main revised theories of the Documentary Hypothesis, (1) archaeological evidence shows (a) a psychology of canonicity was in place BEFORE Scripture was penned, (b) and these theories err as does the Documentary Hypothesis! (2) Also, Scripture testimony opposes all these Liberal Theology theories, claiming it is God's authoritative Word!

Conclusion: (To illustrate the sermon lesson . . . )

 (1) One of the charges Liberal Theology scholars have made against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is that Deuteronomy 34:5-12 records the death and subsequent obituary of Moses. It has been claimed that since Moses could not have written those final verses of Deuteronomy since he was deceased at the time, it follows he likely did not author other parts of the Pentateuch as well!

However, Gleason L. Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 257 reports it was a common practice for a second author to append a great author's work with his obituary. In fact, Dr. Archer writes that since Joshua was Moses' guardian apparent of the written Torah, it would have been "quite unthinkable" were Joshua not to have written Deuteronomy 34:5-12 in honor of Moses! For all practical purposes, then, Joshua's addition of Deuteronomy 34:5-12 to Moses' words in the rest of the Pentateuch actually certifies the reality of the Mosaic authorship of Genesis 1:1 through Deuteronomy 34:4!

(2) Then, the article by Michael Lemonick cited in the 12/18/95 issue of Time magazine to which these sermon notes earlier allude notes that in 1990, Frank Yurco, an Egyptologist at the Field Museum on Natural History in Chicago used hieroglyphic clues from the Merneptah Stele to identify figures on a Luxor wall relief to be ancient Israelites! Now, this stele is dated 1207 B. C., and it exalts a military victory by Pharaoh Merneptah, reading: "Israel is laid waste." That stele thus testifies Israel was a recognized people in Canaan 3,200 years ago, much earlier than both form and traditio criticism proponents had initially held was possible (Ibid.)



Thus, archaeological finds have CONTINUED to expose the deficits not only of the initial Documentary Hypothesis by Liberal Theology scholars, but also of their REVISED theories that oppose the divine inspiration of Scripture and the validity of its own claims of authorship.

Let us thus TRUST our BIBLE to be the God-inspired and thus divinely authoritative Word that it has ALWAYS CLAIMED to be; may we trust in its MESSAGE to be saved from hell to heaven by faith in Christ and to live pleasing to God in this life by His power, and may we accept its DEFINITIONS of MORALITY as being those desired by our CREATOR!