G. K. Beale’s book The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority is a response to what he believes is a challenge to biblical authority that has arisen recently in evangelicalism. The book contains a response to Peter Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation, a defense for the single authorship of Isaiah, and a discussion of Old Testament cosmology as opposed to its modern scientific understanding.

It was somewhat frustrating to read the first part of the book because I had already read Beale’s articles (and rejoinders) along with Enns’ responses. What you get in the first few chapters is basically this exchange (Enns’ responses are summarized) with some modifications. I do not understand why Beale chose this format having the benefit of Enns’ responses. His critique is extensive and Enns’ original responses are short (as responses should be) so, at the end, you do not get a balanced exchange (plus most people will probably not bother to read Enns’ articles although Beale encourages us to do so). I do not mean to imply that Beale isn’t asking good questions or doesn’t have some valid points (this back-and-forth is what should be happening). What I did not appreciate was the format and the fact that Beale seems to put Enns in the worst possible light. This part of the book will satisfy those who didn’t like Enns’ book and irritate those who did.

The chapter on Isaiah’s authorship basically repeats traditional arguments and, from what I could see, does not advance the discussion. This will probably be of interest to people who would like to have a summary of the arguments for the single authorship of Isaiah and why Beale believes they are important. In the end, he concludes that a different view can not be said to hold a high view of Scripture.

Perhaps, the best chapter in the entire book in my opinion is chapter 6 entitled “‘Can Old Testament Cosmology be Reconciled with Modern Scientific Cosmology? Part 1.” Read more »

In a previous post, I mentioned Brevard Childs’ understanding of Mosaic authorship as a claim that “functioned as a norm by which to test the tradition’s authority.” Then we saw James Kugel’s long answer to the question: was the Pentateuch written by Moses?

To many people that accept some version of the Documentary Hypothesis or who believe that, regardless of how the Pentateuch came to be, it wasn’t written by Moses, this may be a moot question – a question that only the religious-minded would ask. The link between Childs and Kugel, to use but one example, is that these are men who read the Bible critically but are also part of a community whose tradition is at odds with their critical reading.

The fact that both Jewish and Christian traditions have strongly held to Mosaic authorship raises the question of why it is so important that Moses be the author of Torah.

Christopher Seitz explores questions of inspiration and unity of the book of Isaiah and sees the discussion of Mosaic authorship as a helpful way to understand Isaiah in its canonical shape. He does that by showing how Jon Levenson handles the issue (Levenson, “The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary Simultaneity of Scripture,” The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism [Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993] 62-81) and then relates his conclusions to why tradition has held that Isaiah was the sole author of the book (Seitz, “Isaiah and the Search for the New Paradigm: Authorship and Inspiration,” Word Without End [Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998] 113-29).

Seitz says that Levenson’s discussion encompasses at least three factors for the claim of Mosaic Authorship:

(1) The claim to divine authority
(2) The decisions of the community in acknowledging that authority
(3) Unity within the Torah
Read more »