F.F. Bruce on the Boundaries of Evangelical Scholarship

Dan Reid of IVP posts this quote from the great F.F. Bruce:

"No such conclusions [he is referring to pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic biblical scholarship] are prescribed for members of the Tyndale Fellowship. In such critical cruces, for example, as the codification of the Pentateuch, the composition of Isaiah, the date of Daniel, the sources of the Gospels, or the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, each of us is free to hold and proclaim the conclusion to which all the available evidence points. Any research worthy of the name, we take it for granted, must necessarily be unfettered" (F. F. Bruce, "The Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research" EQ 19 [1947] 52-61).

Dan subsequently comments: "This is a point well remembered today, over sixty years later, when it seems that some forces within evangelical scholarship (and no commentary on Tyndale Fellowship is intended here!) would indeed like to fetter research and its results (declaring what is in bounds and what is out, sometimes on question-begging grounds), often by appealing to the evangelical past. Well, the evangelical past was not all of one mind, just as it is not today."

For me the questions is: can one accept a certain view of the gospel and a certain view of biblical criticism (e.g. dating the final form of Daniel in the second century BCE or regard 2 Peter as a post-Petrine writing) and remain an evangelical? Bruce himself was conservative as they come, esp. with anything to do his NT history and staunch evangelical (see his biography In Retrospect). But I take his point to be that one can be confident enough in the gospel that one does not see the entire veracity of God's revelation collapse if some critical conclusions on sources happen to be correct.

I think evangelicals wrestling with the origins and study of the Bible should read three books (and these books should themselves be read critically of course!):

Kenten L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words - on biblical criticism.
Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation - on cultural context and historical contingencies.
Craig Allert, A High View of Scripture - on canonisation.

Biblical Criticism and Confessionalism

In light of recent discussions on the blogsophere, I have a number of questions for leading figures in the Reformed Tradition concerning how they answer historical-critical questions in light of their confessional committments (let me add that these are genuine questions, I honestly want to know how Reformed Theologians address these issues, and I imagine that many others what to know as well).

1. What is the "Reformed Orthodox" view of using extra-biblical sources in exegesis? What led you to this answer and what (if anything) makes your answer prescriptive?

2. Why is Genesis 1-3 similar to the Enuma Elish? On what do you base your answer?

3. Did the Apostle Paul believe in the inerrancy of the autographa? Why are Paul's citation of Scripture often different from the wording and meaning in the original Hebrew Bible and even the Septuagint (to give one example: Isa. 59.20 cited in Rom. 11.26-27)?

4. Did the historical person of Enoch prophesy about the coming of the Lord (Jude 14-15)? Why does Jude cite this extra-canonical source (an Enochic tradition?), without differentiating it from the Hebrew Scriptures that he also quotes in his short epistle?

Moreover, what I want to know is:

- What is the evidence and reasoning behind your answer?
- How do you differ from Enns' answer?
- What are the theological implications of your answer (if any)?

Let me tag a number of eminent Reformed thinkers and scholars with these question (in other words, I would like you to hear their answer to these questions). Justin Taylor - Reformed Baptist, prolific blogger, and publishing editor at Crossway. Scott Clark - Historical Theology Professor at Westminster West. And I would especially love to hear from the good folk at Reformation21. Others can chime in on the comments section.