Posted by: proregno | July 28, 2012

Is Joshua histories betroubaar ? – Vrygemaakte professor sê ‘nee’ …

…. en, skryf dr. John Byl (sien sy artikel hier onder), dat ‘n Christelijke Gereformeerde professor van Nederland,  prof. Eric Peels, onderskryf die professor (Koert van Bekkum van die Vrygemaakte Kerke in Nederland) se boek, wat o.a. meen die son het nie werklik stilgestaan in Joshua 10 nie, en dat ander historiese dele in die boek Joshua nie waar is nie, ‘want argeologie’ sê so.

Die belangrikheid van hierdie saak vir ons in SA, veral die Doppers, is dat beide proff’s van Bekkum en Peels se kerkverbande (Gereformeerde Kerk Vrijgemaakt, en, Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerke in Nederland) sustersbande het met die GKSA, en dus ook ‘n groot invloed uitoefen op ons teologiese skool en teologiese denke.

Dr. Byl vermeld ook van ‘n artikel wat krities is op prof. van Bekkum se boek, naamlik van dr. J. Douma, oud-professor van die Vrijgemaakte teologiese skool in Nederland.  Hy meld egter ook dat dit juis dr. Douma se eie kompromieë aangaande Genesis 1 is, wat lei tot van Bekkum se kritiese teologie:

One reaction is from Prof. Dr.J. Douma, formerly professor at the TUK (Theological University, Kampen – slc). He is very critical of van Bekkum’s assumption that the historical writing in the Bible must be judged as an aesthetic product:

We must then pay attention to the artistic construction of the stories, discovering simplification, selectivity, and suggestive detail (p. 32 f.). Rhetorical devices such as hyperbole, exaggeration, and anachronism are signaled…this new way of reading the Bible signals a break with the way the TUK has done exegesis up till now…”

The article states:

Douma concludes by saying that he acknowledges Van Bekkum’s intention to subscribe to Article 5 of the Belgic Confession, where the Reformed Churches affirm that the Bible is inspired and totally trustworthy. However, according to Douma, Van Bekkum contradicts this confession by so qualifying its historical reliability that one no longer can speak of the Bible’s clear historical assertions.

So much disappears as “aesthetic construction” and “ideological propaganda” that the Bible is no longer is seen as communicating clearly what has happened in history. Miracles disappear in a mist of poetic rhetoric. This is a serious departure from orthodox Reformed exegesis, and is unacceptable as a contribution to Reformed theology.

I concur with Dr. Douma’s assessment and concern. Yet, unfortunately, Dr. Douma himself, by reducing Genesis 1 to a mere literary device (see my earlier post), has set the stage for Dr. van Bekkum to likewise undermine the historicity of the book of Joshua. Dr van Bekkum is merely taking Dr. Douma’s faulty reasoning one step further. And, no doubt, their students will take it further yet…to its logical conclusion. After all, once we can no longer accept all of Scripture as historically reliable, how can we be sure that any of it is?

Hier is dr. John Byl se volledige artikel oor hierdie saak, soos dit oorspronklik verskyn het op sy blog, bylogos:

Is Joshua Historical?

A few years ago, I mentioned in a post that the Theological University in Kampen (TUK), Netherlands, had awarded a doctorate to Koert van Bekkum for a dissertation that denied that in Joshua 10 the sun actually stood still or that the day was actually lengthened. According to him, this is just a literary device celebrating a great victory. His thesis has been controversial within the Gereformeerde Kerken Vrijgemaakt (GKV), which runs the TUK.

Recently, on June 2, 2012, the Synod of the GKV appointed Dr. van Bekkum as lecturer at the TUK. Since the GKV is a sister church to the Canadian Reformed Church, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at van Bekkum’s disssertation and its theological implications.

Van Bekkum’s Thesis
Dr Van Bekkum’s thesis has since been published as From Conquest to Co-existence (Brill, 694pp, 2011), for the bargain price of $234.98 at Amazon.ca. If you can’t afford a hard-copy, you can read it free online.

For readers with limited time, the substance of the thesis can be found in an interview (in Dutch) with Dr. van Bekkum. The title of the interview–“Not everything in Joshua really happened“–gives the bottom line. A more detailed critique (in English) has been written by A. Capellen.

A Questionable Methodology
Dr Van Bekkum states that he wants a dialogue between archaeological data and the Biblical text. What actually emerges, however, is a rather one-sided monologue where archaeological considerations dictate a radical re-interpretation of the Biblical text. In the Epilogue of his thesis he justifies this:

“…Christians should embrace the world as it is known through science and accept well interpreted evidence gratefully, for facts are stubborn things which are brought on our way by God’s providence.

So in the end, the ultimate reason not to use (systematic-)theological arguments, is a theological one: the trust in the truth cannot be valued as trust in God, if it is not willing to explore the diverse forms of reality on their own terms and to appreciate the results of this exploration as knowledge of God’s reality. For this knowledge is fairly limited by its nature, but still has to be considered to be real knowledge influencing the understanding of the Bible.” (p.597)

In other words, we should consider the results of archaeology as God-given, and therefore re-interpret the Biblical text accordingly. The Bible is to be understood in the light of archaeology, rather than vice versa.

Reducing the Historicity of Joshua
One result of this is that Dr van Bekkum –primarily on archaeological grounds– places the conquest at the late date of about 1220 BC (and the Exodus at about 1260 BC). This contradicts I Kings 6:1 (480 years between Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon’s reign [about 967 BC]).

Consequently, Van Bekkum questions the historicity of much of Joshua. Thus, for example, Joshua did not conquer Jericho (contra Josh.2&6) or Ai (contra Josh.7-8), since according to van Bekkum these were uninhabited ruins at the time; the sun and moon did not actually stand still (contra Josh.10); the Canaanites did not have yet chariots of iron (contra Josh.17) at that time; the Israelites numbered only several 10,000 (not 600,000 men as per Num.26:51); etc.

Van Bekkum claims that the book of Joshua contains many exaggerations and literary story techniques. Not everything is intended to be taken as literally true.

The reviewer A. Capellen concludes:

All considered, Van Bekkum’s book has disappointed me… In the thesis he has, in fact, continued the track he already started in a number of articles. They can be read in the bundles ‘Geloven in Zekerheid?’ [Faith in Certainty?]9 ‘De kwestie Geelkerken’ [The Geelkerken issue]10 and in the periodical ‘Theologia Reformata’.11 With reference to what is called there a ‘rational-positivistic’12 manner of dealing with Scripture these publications opened the door to an understanding of Scripture that that removes itself from the historic-grammatical literal exegesis.

In doing so Van Bekkum completely follows the line the TUK has taken since the appearance of the bundle ‘Woord op schrift’. I cannot forgo the impression that in this respect he even has been instrumental for this new direction. Consequently we see the plea for the use of narrative conventions and a more metaphoric understanding of Scripture also return in this thesis even though the notion ‘metaphor’ is practically not used in this study.

Two Different Reactions
The GKV magazine Lux Mundi (March, 2012) has an interesting article entitled “Two Reactions to Koert van Bekkum’s Dissertation“.

One reaction is from Prof. Dr.J. Douma, formerly professor at the TUK. He is very critical of van Bekkum’s assumption that the historical writing in the Bible must be judged as an aesthetic product:

We must then pay attention to the artistic construction of the stories, discovering simplification, selectivity, and suggestive detail (p. 32 f.). Rhetorical devices such as hyperbole, exaggeration, and anachronism are signaled…this new way of reading the Bible signals a break with the way the TUK has done exegesis up till now…”

The article states:

“Douma concludes by saying that he acknowledges Van Bekkum’s intention to subscribe to Article 5 of the Belgic Confession, where the Reformed Churches affirm that the Bible is inspired and totally trustworthy. However, according to Douma, Van Bekkum contradicts this confession by so qualifying its historical reliability that one no longer can speak of the Bible’s clear historical assertions.

So much disappears as “aesthetic construction” and “ideological propaganda” that the Bible is no longer is seen as communicating clearly what has happened in history. Miracles disappear in a mist of poetic rhetoric. This is a serious departure from orthodox Reformed exegesis, and is unacceptable as a contribution to Reformed theology.”

I concur with Dr. Douma’s assessment and concern. Yet, unfortunately, Dr. Douma himself, by reducing Genesis 1 to a mere literary device (see my earlier post), has set the stage for Dr. van Bekkum to likewise undermine the historicity of the book of Joshua. Dr van Bekkum is merely taking Dr. Douma’s faulty reasoning one step further. And, no doubt, their students will take it further yet…to its logical conclusion. After all, once we can no longer accept all of Scripture as historically reliable, how can we be sure that any of it is?

The other, quite different, reaction is from Prof Dr Eric Peels, professor of Old Testament at the seminary of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken (CGK- sister church to the Free Reformed Churches in North America). Peels is very positive. He considers van Bekkum’s work to be “beautiful“, a “masterful job” for which he has “enormous appreciation“. Such gushing enthusiasm does not bode well for the direction of the CGK.

The Lux Mundi article concludes:

The future will reveal which assessment is the most convincing to, and therefore which path is to be followed by the Reformed community in The Netherlands.

Just three months later, the synodical appointment of Dr. van Bekkum to the TUK has clearly indicated which path the GKV has chosen.


Responses

  1. Nog ’n teken van die verwoestende effek van “scientisme” – die verabsolutering van die wetenskap – op die denke van gelowiges.

    In Artikel 2 van die NGB leer ons dat ons God ken deur twee middele, eerstens deur middel van die skepping, onderhouding en regering van die hele wêreld en tweedens deurdat God Hom NOG DUIDELIKER en MEER VOLKOME aan ons bekend maak deur Sy Heilige en Goddelike Woord. Die term “nog duideliker en meer volkome” dui daarop dat die kennis wat opgedoen word deur die skepping, ondergeskik is aan die kennis deur middel van die Skrif.

    “Die natuurboek moet gelees word met die bril van die Woordboek”, het oorlede prof. Johan Heyns gesê. Wat nou gebeur, is dat die omgekeerde gebeur: die Woordboek (die Skrif) word gelees deur die bril van die natuurboek (die wetenskap). Soms wonder mens of die Skrif hoegenaamd in ag geneem word.

  2. Ons moet soos Paulus se: ‘…ons verkondig Christus wat gekruisig is, ‘n struikelblok vir die Jode en dwaasheid vir die Grieke’ (1 Kor 1:23). Laat ons aanvaar dat wat die Woord van God leer, altyd dwaasheid in die oe van die ongelowige we^reld sal wees.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: