Disagreeing With BibSac and Tanner

Earlier this week Michael Whitenton posted some thoughts on a review of  “Is Daniel’s Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 2″ by J. Paul Tanner in Volume 166 (Number 663) of Bibliotheca Sacra.

I don’t want to put any words into Michael’s mouth, but at the time of writing his review on his site I think he would have agreed that BibSac and Tanner were worthy of the always coveted Scotteriology Really Very Special Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of BS:

Michael, after some discussion with a disagreeing interlocutor, decided to remove the post from his site saying, “Here’s the thing, despite the fact that I disagree with both the author’s conclusions and his methodology, I was out of line to slam the author and the journal in that way.”

For the record I would like to point out that I was in complete agreement with the point of Michael’s critique.

Michael quoted this passage from the Tanner article:

The question [the use of משיח נגיד in Daniel 9], however, is not what these terms might theoretically mean but what the author (both human and divine) intended by them.

Michael’s main critique regarding this passage was the intellectual arrogance displayed by Tanner as he assumes that he can discern what both the authors, human and divine, originally intended. There are so many philosophical, epistemological, and hermeneutical problems with that statement one hardly knows where to begin, not to mention biblical studies methodological concerns, and Michael’s mocking reply seems almost appropriate to someone that assumes such a level of Cartesian certainty and the ability to discern God’s intentions (Isaiah 55:8?).

Of course, the problem for me is: how much theology can we assume and bring into a discussion of historical inquiry and biblical studies? To properly deal with this subject I would have to start two more blogs and write a book. I mean we are talking about Daniel; the textual, redaction, and historical circumstances surrounding this book are not insignificant.

But wait there’s more. Michael also quotes:

Furthermore the late addition of this punctuation marker ['atnāh] (long after the first century A.D.) calls into question how reliable this marker is, since it was not part of the original text and therefore was not inspired.

I wish that I could include Michael’s response as I believe, once again, he made some good points; perhaps overstated, but salient nonetheless. Now this might be a good time to enquire: if we can’t make overstated comments on a blog then why have one (as I’m sure Mike would never do this in his own academic work or a peer review) but that would be a digression…

Well, Mike, I’ll help you out and be the bad guy: the statement is epically ill-formed and misguided, and shows little to no awareness of textual criticism. This is a can of worms that no conservative scholar wishing to defend inspiration and inerrancy wants to open. If we are going to play the game of “original text” and “inspired” then we better start making some changes to our Bibles.

For instance, but one example of many: the earliest manuscripts that we have of Ephesians do not include the words “in Ephesus” in the letter opening. This means in all probability that the words were missing in the original “inspired” text, and it is highly unlikely that a scribe would omit this while copying the letter.

This means, following Tanner’s logic, “in Ephesus” is not inspired. Therefore, if you want an inspired Bible you should take yours out right now and cross that spurious phrase out. And while you’re at it cross out “Ephesians” at the top of the page, and we’ll wait until an “inspired” manuscript is found to name the book.

Come to think of it Mike, I’m not sure you were harsh enough.

Advertisement