Christian Challenge Apologetic Series: Week One

Apologetics Series

April 2, 2021

 

“On Proving God: Strategies for Defending the Existence of God”

by

Richard Klaus

 

1.    Introduction—What is apologetics?

 

a.    “Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non-Christian philosophy of life.”[1]

 

b.    “Philosophy of life”: Worldview

 

c.     Scriptural basis for apologetics

 

                                               i.     1 Peter 3.15

                                              ii.     2 Corinthians 10.3-5 --we need apologetics in the midst of the church!

                                            iii.     Acts 17.1-4, 16-18

                                            iv.     Acts 18.1-4, 24-28

                                              v.     Acts 19.8

                                            vi.     Philippians 1.16 --“defense of the gospel”

 

d.    Goals for tonight:

 

                                               i.     Provide a worldview approach to Christian apologetics

 

                                              ii.     Provide some instruction on how to argue for God’s existence

 

                                            iii.     Provide some specific examples of argumentation

 

·     NOTE: Using and recommending: James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016)

 

e.    For the next couple of weeks:

 

                                               i.     Next week: The Problem of Evil

 

                                              ii.     Third week: Challenging the Worldview of Naturalism

 

2.    Worldview: Definition and Questions

 

a.    “A worldview is a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) that we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being.”[2]

 

b.    James Sire’s Worldview Questions[3]

 

                                               i.     What is prime reality—the really real?

 

                                              ii.     What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?

 

                                            iii.     What is a human being?

 

                                            iv.     What happens to a person at death?

 

                                              v.     Why is it possible to know anything at all?

 

                                            vi.     How do we know what is right and wrong?

 

                                           vii.     What is the meaning of human history?

 

                                         viii.    What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?

 

c.     “The fact is that we cannot avoid assuming some answers to such questions.  We will adopt either one stance or another. Refusing to adopt an explicit worldview will turn out to be itself a worldview, or at least a philosophic position.  In short, we are caught.  So long as we live, we will live either the examined or the unexamined life.  It is the assumption of this book that the examined life is better.”[4]

 

·     Note: Not everyone will acknowledge being “religious” but everyone ought to recognize they have a worldview!

  

3.    Worldview Analysis

 

a.    Components of a worldview

 

                                               i.     Metaphysics: what exists; what is real

 

Right now, I’m sitting at my desk.  I feel its solidity—I tapped it with my pen it and it seems solid.  Most of us believe that it exists.  We believe that matter exists.  But is this all that exists?  Some people say, “Yes—all that exists is matter and energy.” Others say something beyond the material realm exists—a transcendent realm some may call “spiritual.” Still others of people on the planet believe that it is only the transcendent (spiritual) realm that exists.  All the perceptions of material things are just illusions that need to be transcended to get at the really real.  Figuring out which view of reality is correct regarding these issues takes up the issue of metaphysics

 

                                              ii.     Epistemology: Theory of knowledge.  What do we know and how do we know it?

 

If a friend asks me, “Do you have any potato chips in the house?” I know how I would go about finding the answer.  I would look at the spot in our kitchen where we keep our bags of chips—if I saw a bag, then I would know (or think I know) that I have potato chips.  I used my eyes and other physical senses to get knowledge. Now, what if my friend asks me, “Is there love in this house?” the way I might know this may be different. I don’t find “love” just laying around in the kitchen.  Epistemology deals with the kind of questions dealing with how I know what I know.  What are the ways a person can get knowledge—scientific investigation, reason, intuition, testimony, religious revelation?  Are these forms of getting knowledge reasonable—are we rational to rely on them?  These are the questions of epistemology.

 

                                            iii.     Ethics: What is the nature of “right” and “wrong.”  Seeks answers to specific ethical issues.

 

We all sense that certain actions are “right” or “wrong.”  But what is the nature of this “sense” we have?  Is it the case that what we think is right/wrong is just relative to us or is it something more objective and true for everybody? What provides the foundations for our ethical systems—personal preference, society, an evolutionary past, God, etc.?  Ethics, as a philosophical category, also can deal with specific ethical questions such as bioethics (abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc.), political ethics (ethics of warfare, pacifism, etc.), and others.

 

b.    Everybody has a worldview

 

                                               i.     Atheism and skepticism is not neutrality

 

                                              ii.     There is no neutrality

 

4.     Three aspects of analysis—what we do with our disagreements.  

 

a.    What happens when worldviews come into conflict and conversation?

 

b.    How can we reason through the differences?

  

c.     Proof: Seeking to provide positive reasons and evidence in support of one’s worldview.

 

d.    Defense: Answering and rebutting objections offered to one’s worldview.

 

e.    Offense: Critically questioning and analyzing another’s worldview.

We have all engaged in Proof, Defense, and Offense in all sorts of areas of life.  For example, if you and a friend have ever debated which pizza place is the best, then you probably used these categories.  Here’s an imaginary example:

Fred: “I think the best pizza place is Ray’s Pizza.  It has great crust, fresh sauce, and the ingredients are put on in great quantity.”  [PROOF]

 

Linda: “But Ray’s is too expensive!”

 

Fred: “No it’s not.  They have amazing lunch specials which are under $10.00.”  [DEFENSE]

 

Linda: “My favorite place is Little Caesar’s pizza.”

 

Fred: “Little Caesar’s?! The crust is like cardboard and the sauce is not much better than ketchup!”  [OFFENSE]

 

Of course, when we are debating worldviews, the importance level is heightened and people can become very tense when disagreements arise about the things they hold most dear in their lives.

 

  

5.     Tests for the truthfulness of a worldview.

 

a.    Consistency: Does the worldview have contradictions?

 

b.    Coherence: Does the worldview have pieces that fit together well or are they in tension with each other?

 

c.     Explanation: Does the worldview explain things we observe about ourselves and the world around us?

 

d.    Evidence: Does the worldview fit the evidence we have available to us—evidence from history, science, conscience, etc.?

Note: “That said, this test can be tricky because, as I noted earlier, there’s a complex two-way relationship between worldviews and evidence.  No one interprets evidence in isolation from their worldview.  Since our worldviews include our ultimate presuppositions about what’s real, what’s reasonable, what’s possible, and so on, our worldviews influence how we interpretand evidence that is presented to us. So we can’t just point to ‘the evidence’ or ‘the facts’ to prove or disprove a worldview.” –James Anderson

 

e.    Existential: Can I consistently live out this worldview?

 

6.    Comparative worldview approach

 

a.    “Ideally, a worldview should be evaluated in comparison with otherworldviews—at least with the major alternatives.  The reason for this is that if we think a certain worldview faces some difficulty or problem, we might be tempted to dismiss it simply for that reason, without taking proper time to consider whether competing worldviews face the same or similar challenges—or perhaps even greater challenges.”[5]

 

b.    Comparing Christian theism to naturalism as a philosophical worldview

Note:

(1) More worldviews than naturalism—“spiritual” alternatives (i.e., Wicca).      

(2) Nevertheless, naturalism is a major force in college and higher education and our culture.

 

c.     Definitions of naturalism

 

                                               i.     “Naturalism asserts that all of reality—including us—consists at bottom of nothing more than fundamental physical particles and forces, operating according to the laws of physics.”[6]

 

                                              ii.     “Naturalism denies that there are any spiritual or supernatural realities transcendent to the world or at least we have no good ground for believing that there could be such realities… It is the view that anything that exists is ultimately composed of physical components.”[7]

 

7.    Our series:structured around this Proof-Defense-Offense understanding

 

a.    Tonight: Proof: reasons to consider the existence of God as rational; giving reasons

 

b.    Week two: Defense: the problem of evil

 

c.     Week three: Offense: challenging the worldview of naturalism

 

8.    Proof: Presenting positive evidence and reasons for God’s existence

 

a.    Doesn’t require certainty

 

b.    Not the same as persuasion

 

c.     Nature of the object of knowledge determines the kind of evidence and reasons we can expect

 

·     Example: Consider the following questions and how you would go about “proving” the answer

 

o   “Is there a bag of chips in the house?”

o   “Is there radiation in the house?”

o   “Is there love in the house?”

o   “Is there logic in the house?”

 

9.    God as an object of knowledge: The Nature of the object of belief

 

a.    God—the Christian God—is not like any other piece of knowledge

 

b.    Skeptic’s view: knowing God’s existence is like belief in…

 

                                               i.     Loch Ness monster

 

                                              ii.     Fairies

 

                                            iii.     Flying Spaghetti Monster 

 

 

c.     “What these skeptics often fail to recognize is that the God of the Bible is a fundamentally different kind of being than Santa Claus, the Yeti, and so on, and therefore the way in which one proves God’s existence must be fundamentally different too.”[8]

 

d.    “Indeed, according to Christianity God is fundamentally and radically different from every other thing in existence.”[9]

 

10.The Significance of the object of belief

 

a.    Loch Ness monster

 

                                               i.     Little significance hangs on the its existence

 

                                              ii.     Intriguing and some media coverage but no impact on our everyday lives

 

b.    “Not so with God.  If God exists, that affects everything, simply because of who God is.  If God exists, everything else depends for its existence and nature on God.  If God exists, the ultimate reality is personal and rational and moral in nature.”[10]

 

c.     “The question about the existence of God, likewise, is not just a question about whether one more thing exists in the inventory of reality.  It is a question about the ultimate context for everything else.  The theist and the atheist should see everything differently.”[11]  

 

11.The Christian God: Completely Unique

 

a.    God transcends both space and time

 

                                               i.     Loch Ness monster and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist in space and time

 

                                              ii.     God created both space and time

 

b.    God is an infinite being

 

c.     God is absolutely independent: self-existence; “necessary Being”

 

                                               i.     a se= Aseity

 

“The term aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from or by oneself.’  In the theological literature, the term designates a divine attribute b which God is ‘what he is by or through his own self.’  Since God is a se, he does not owe his existence to anything or anyone besides himself, nor does he need anything beyond himself to maintain his existence.  He is not like the idols that depend for their existence on select materials, skilled craftsman, and ritual offerings (Isa. 40:19-20; 44:15-17; Ps. 50:8-15).  Indeed, he has no needs at all (Acts 17:25).  So the terms self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient,and independentare often used as synonyms for a se.”[12]

 

                                              ii.     Everything else depends for its existence on God but God depends on nothing for his existence.

 

12.Acts 17.16-34: Paul at Athens

 

a.    Sophisticated unbelief: non-Christian philosophers (v. 18 Epicurean and Stoic)

 

b.    Read Acts 17.23-29

 

c.     Paul is presenting a radically unique view of God: correcting and refining their faulty notions

 

                                               i.     v. 29: “… we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like…”

 

                                              ii.     We ought not to think that God—the biblical God—is like…

 

1.    the Loch Ness monster

 

2.    Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

3.    Thor or Odin

 

13.In light of the radical nature and significance of God’s existence, how do we go about proving or demonstrating this to be true?

 

a.    “So how can God’s existence be proven? Here’s my answer in a nutshell,… Even though God cannot be directly perceived like the ordinary things within the universe, it turns out that we cannot make sense of ordinary things we do perceive—and the universe as a whole—unlessGod exists.  In short, only a worldview centered on a transcendent, perfect, personal Creator can make rational sense of the very things we take for granted all the time.”[13]

 

b.    James Anderson lists out six features he discusses:[14]

 

                                               i.     God and Existence

 

                                              ii.     God and Values

 

                                            iii.     God and Morality

 

                                            iv.     God and Reason

 

                                              v.     God and Mind

 

                                            vi.     God and Science

 

c.     Others have argued in similar fashion with regards to similar sets of features:

 

                                               i.     Roy Abraham Varghese[15]

 

1.    Rationality

 

2.    Life: the capacity to act autonomously

 

3.    Consciousness: the ability to be aware

 

4.    Conceptual thought: the power of articulating and understanding meaningful symbols such as are embedded in language

 

5.    The human self: the “center” of consciousness, thought, and action

 

6.    Varghese adds this helpful comment:

 

“Three things should be said about these phenomena and their application to the existence of God.  First, we are accustomed to hearing about arguments and proofs for God’s existence.  In my view, such arguments are useful in articulating certain fundamental insights, but cannot be regarded as “proofs” whose formal validity determines whether there is a God.  Rather, each of the five phenomena adduced here, in their way, presuppose the existence of an infinite, eternal Mind.  God is the condition that underlies all that is self-evident in our experience.  Second, as should be obvious from the previous point, we are not talking about probabilities and hypotheses, but about encounters with fundamental realities that cannot be denied without self-contradiction.  In other words, we don’t apply probability theorems to certain sets of data, but consider the far more basic question of how it is possible to evaluate data at all.  Equally, it is not a matter of deducing God from the existence of certain complex phenomena.  Rather, God’s existence is presupposed by all phenomena.  Third, atheists, new and old, have complained that there is no evidence for God’s existence, and some theists have responded that our free will can be preserved only if such evidence is noncoercive.  The approach taken here is that we have all the evidence we need in our immediate experience and that only a deliberate refusal to “look” is responsible for atheism of any variety.”[16]

 

                                              ii.     Gregory Ganssle[17]

 

1.    “A World That Is Ordered and Susceptible to Rational Investigation Fits better in a Theistic Universe.”

 

2.    “A World with Consciousness Fits Better in a Theistic Universe.”

 

3.    “A World with Significant Free Agency Fits Better in a Theistic Universe.”

 

4.    “A World with Objective Moral Obligations Fits Better in a Theistic Universe.”

 

14.My list for tonight: the existence of an infinite, personal God best explains…

 

 

a.    Reason and consciousness

 

b.    Moral values and obligation

 

c.     Science

 

·     NOTE: Each of these topics could be its own session—in fact, the last one regarding Science, was a full presentation back in 2018!  

 

·     The goal is get the structure of the argument.  You will need to fill in the details with further study.

 

 

15.Reason and the laws of logic: Fundamental laws of thought and reasoning

 

a.    Laws of logic

 

                                               i.     A is A  (law of identity)

 

                                              ii.     A is not non-A  (law of non-contradiction)

 

                                            iii.     Either A or non-A  (law of excluded middle)

 

b.    Nature of these laws; not like physical laws!

 

                                               i.     Universal

 

                                              ii.     Invariant

 

                                            iii.     Immaterial (abstract in nature)

 

c.     The nature of the laws of logic don’t make sense in a naturalistic, materialistic universe

 

·     “It is further supposed that we know these laws.  But the only acceptable physicalist analysis of knowledge would have to be some kind of causal interaction between the brain and the objects of knowledge.  But if we know or have insight into the laws of logic, we must be in some kind of physical relationship to the laws of logic.  This is quite impossible if the laws of logic are, as I have contended, nonphysical, nonspatial and nontemporal.”[18]

 

·     Worldview tests for truth: Consistency and Coherence

 

d.    Christian answer

 

                                               i.     Laws of logic as grounded in the nature of God

 

                                              ii.     Laws of logic reflect the nature of God’s thinking and how we ought to think

 

e.    Irony

 

                                               i.     Atheist claim: Belief in God is illogical

 

                                              ii.     But the argument here is that we need God to make sense of logic!

 

16.Consciousness—we need conscious minds to use logic

 

a.    Features of consciousness

 

                                               i.     First-person subjective perspective on the world

 

                                              ii.     Thoughts, feelings, and experiences

 

                                            iii.     Pain

 

1.    “An experience of pain is what philosophers call a quale.  It is an experience with a feel or a way it seems to be to its subject from a first-person point of view.  Pain is a certain way of feeling that each person apprehends experientially.  To ask whether extreme pain feels extremely painful is odd because extreme pain is feeling painful.  Pleasure similarly has an experiential what-it-is-like feeling, or quale.  Multiple quale are termed qualia.”[19]

 

2.    “Even if we could acquire an exhaustive physical description of your brain, right down to the last physical particle, that would tell us nothing about the experience you’re having.”[20]

 

                                            iv.     Intentionality: our thoughts are about something

 

b.    These mental events are not physical in nature.

 

c.     Naturalism/materialism’s problems with consciousness

 

                                               i.     All that exists is material in nature—how to explain the mental?

 

1.    “The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process… If this is the correct account of our origins, then there seems neither need nor room, to fit any nonphysical substances or properties into our theoretical accounts of ourselves. We are creatures of matter. And we should learn to live with that fact.”[21]

 

2.    “The brain is a physical system whose operation is governed solely by the laws of chemistry and physics.  What does this mean?  It means that all of your thoughts and hopes and dreams and feelings are produced by chemical reactions going on in your head.”[22]

 

                                              ii.     “[F]or naturalists the key philosophical project of strict naturalism is to locate the mental in the physical world, and this means explaining the mental in terms that are not mental.”[23]

 

1.    “Naturalism’s major problem, then, is explaining how mindless forces give rise to minds, knowledge, and sound reasoning. But every naturalists wants others to think that his Naturalism is a consequence of his sound reasoning.”[24]

 

2.    “Once you understand the nature of matter, mass-energy, you realize that, by its very nature, it could never become ‘aware,’ never ‘think,’ never say ‘I.’ But the atheist position is that, at some point in the history of the universe, the impossible and the inconceivable took place.”[25]

 

3.    “The difficulty for Naturalism is that it’s very hard to conceive how minds could arise out of purely material processes. Conscious minds have very distinctive features, such as first-person subjective perspective on the world and a capacity for thoughts, feelings and experiences.  Such features are so thoroughly different from physical properties such as mass, energy and size, that there seems to be a fundamental discontinuity between the mental and the physical.  No scientist or philosopher has come anywhere near close to explaining how conscious minds could be generated by non-conscious physical structures, no matter how complex those structures become. Increasing the complexity of something doesn’t result in a fundamentally different kindof thing coming into existence: a self-conscious subject of thoughts and experiences.  A highly complex physical structure is still nothing more than a physical structure.”[26]

 

                                            iii.     Further problems with materialism and the mind[27]

 

• The problem of the unity of consciousness. How could a material object like the brain, extended across space and composed of billions of discrete physical parts, serve as the basis for the unity of our conscious experience?

 

• The problem of personal identity over time. If the matter of my brain is entirely replaced over time, how can I be the same person as that cute little boy in photos from the 70s?

 

• The problem of intentionality. My thoughts have the property of intentionality or ‘aboutness’. They’re about things beyond themselves; they’re directed towards those things. But no purely material structure as such has intentionality or ‘aboutness’. Physical structures (like words on a page) only have ‘aboutness’ derivatively, in virtue of the prior operation of a mind. Consequently, thoughts, beliefs, and other intentional mental states cannot be explained in purely material terms. (Don’t take my word for it; hard-nosed materialist Alex Rosenberg will tell you the same.)

 

• The problem of epiphenomenalism and one-way causation. If consciousness and mind are simply emergent phenomena, arising out of an entirely material substrate, they can have no causal power over that material substrate. Given a materialist account of mind, there can be at most brain-to-mind (“bottom-up”) causation, but not mind-to-brain (“top-down”) causation. But in that case, the commonsense assumption that my physical actions are caused by my choices is quite mistaken. I may feel like I have rational, purposeful control over by actions, but if materialism is true, that feeling is entirely illusory.

 

 

d.    Theism and consciousness

 

                                               i.     Two views

 

1.    Matter preceded and produced mind (naturalist option)

 

2.    Mind preceded and produced matter and other minds (Christian theism)

 

                                              ii.     “The Christian worldview… affirms that mind preceded matter.  Not human minds, of course, but God’s mind.  God is an eternal, self-existent, transcendent, personal being with a mind—and not just any mind, but a perfect, absolute, infinite mind.  Furthermore, God created a universe that had both material and mental aspects from the outset: He created humans with minds as well as bodies.  Not only can we physically manipulate the universe with our bodies, we can think aboutthe universe with our minds.  Our finite minds aren’t the first minds to exist in the universe; on the contrary, our human minds are dependent on—one might even say modeled on—an eternal divine mind. We are literally designed to think God’s thoughts after Him.”[28]

 

e.    Irony

 

                                               i.     Atheist as a conscious person can’t explain consciousness!

 

                                              ii.     Christian theism as a worldview makes better sense of the reality of consciousness.

 

17.Moral values and obligation (this will be quick; more on week three)

 

a.    Moral realism: 

 

·     Objective moral values exist; moral values are discovered—not created

 

·     These moral values are valid and binding whether anybody believes in them or not

 

 

Note: Four observations about moral facts and explaining them[29]

 

1.    Moral facts are not physical in nature; they don’t have physical properties.

2.    Moral facts are a kind of communication; a proposition which is a command. Commands only make sense with two minds involved.

3.    Moral facts have a force of feeling—a feeling of “oughtness.”

4.    Moral facts can be violated and this produces a certain kind of discomfort—a sense of guilt.

 

How to explain—moral rules are…

1.    an Illusion

2.    an Accident

3.    a product of Intelligence

 

 

b.    Quotations regarding the difficulty of reconciling naturalism/atheism with moral realism.

 

·     Jean-Paul Sartre

 

“The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it.”[30]

 

·     Julian Baggini

 

“If there is no single moral authority [i.e., no God] we have to in some sense ‘create’ values for ourselves… [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error.”[31]

 

·     Friedrich Nietzsche

 

“There are altogether no moral facts”; indeed, morality “has truth only if God is the truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.”[32]

 

·     Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg—“Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” (2003)

 

“Darwinism thus puts the capstone on a process which since Newton’s time has driven teleology to the explanatory sidelines. In short it has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe its contents and its cosmic history. But in making Darwinians into metaphysical nihilists, the solvent algorithm [random variation acted on by natural selection] should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental.”[33]

 

“…morality is at most an instrumentally useful illusion.”[34]

 

“But when we combine an evolutionary account of ethical beliefs with the conception of Darwinian theory as a ‘universal acid’… the result is moral nihilism.  If all apparently purposive processes, states, events, and conditions are in reality the operation of a purely mechanical substrate neutral algorithm, then as far [as] explanatory tasks go, the only values we need attribute to biological systems are instrumental ones.  An evolutionary account of moral belief will not only explain ethics but it will explain it away.”[35]

 

c.     This leads Christian philosopher Mitch Stokes to conclude:

 

“If naturalism is true, there’s no morality apart from what humans value, want, or prefer.  Morality is purely a matter of taste.  In short, naturalism implies moral nihilism, the view that there are no human-independent moral rules.”[36]

 

d.    Christian theism and moral value and obligation

 

·     In contrast… Christian theism does provide a worldview that more readily comports with moral realism.

 

1.    God is the standard of moral value—he is himself “the good”

 

2.    God’s commands provide a basis for our moral duties

 

3.    God as a personal, righteous Judge ensures moral accountability—evil will be punished appropriately and justice vindicated

 

Excursus: More fully developed thoughts on the above by William Craig

 

·     William Craig offers the following three points that are illustrative of Christian-theistic ethics and compatible with the teaching of Jesus.

 

·     (1) “First, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral values.  To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.  It is to say, for example, that the Holocaust was morally evil even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought it was good.

 

“On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God.  He is the locus and source of moral value. God’s own holy and loving nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions are measured.  He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.  Thus, if God exists, objective moral values exist.”

 

·     (2) “Second, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for objective moral duties.  To say that we have objective moral duties is to say that we have certain moral obligations regardless of whether we think so or not.

 

“On the theistic view, God’s moral nature is expressed toward us in the form of divine commands that constitute our moral duties.  Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from his moral nature.  On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.”

 

·     (3) “Third, if theism is true, we have a sound basis for moral accountability.  On the theistic view, God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions.  Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated.  Despite the inequalities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. We can even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice that run contrary to our self-interest, knowing that such acts are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures.  Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance.”[37]

 

 

e.    Irony

 

                                               i.     Atheists sometimes want to talk about…

 

1.    How bad Christians have been in history

2.    How bad the Bible is

3.    The problem of evil

 

                                              ii.     And, yet… atheistic materialism cannot account for objective moral values.

 

                                            iii.     Objective moral values fit better within the Christian worldview.

 

18.Science

 

* NOTE: I presented an entire talk on this topic at the 2018 Deep Faith Conference: “Who’s Afraid of Science? Why Science Needs God!”[38]  I also turned these notes into an essay: “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict”[39]

 

a.    Science rests upon philosophical assumptions

 

                                               i.     These philosophical assumptions are not proven by science but have to be presupposed in order to do science

 

                                              ii.     Scientism is false—see J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018) 

 

b.    Moreland offers the following list of presuppositions that are utilized by scientists to undergird the scientific methodology.[40]

 

(1) The existence of the external world.

 

(2) The orderly nature of the external world and its knowability.

 

(3) The uniformity of nature and induction.

 

(4) The laws of logic, epistemology, and truth.

 

(5) The reliability of the senses and the mind.

 

(6) The adequacy of language to describe the world.

 

(7) The applicability of mathematics and the existence of numbers.

 

(8) The existence of values.

 

c.     Christian theism makes better sense of these philosophical presuppositions

 

                                               i.     “The nature of the assumptions of science do not prove the existence of a God very much like the God of the Bible, but in my view, they provide reasons for preferring theism over scientistic naturalism.  The assumptions are at home in a theistic worldview; they fit quite naturally.  If God is himself a rational being, then it stands to reason that he would create a rational, orderly universe.  If he created us, then it naturally follows that he would give us the proper faculties to know and appreciate the inner workings of his world by ‘thinking his thoughts after him.’  The existence of objective values makes far more sense if there is an objective Lawgiver than if there is not.

 

“If we begin with ‘In the beginning there was the Logos,’ then we have reasonable explanations for these assumptions. But if we begin with “In the beginning were the particles (or plasma, strings, etc.),’ it is hard to see how these assumptions could have obtained.”[41]

 

                                              ii.     “Atheistic worldviews can’t account for why science is reasonable and successful because they can’t provide any rational justification for the foundational assumptions of science.  Ironically, then, atheistic scientists have to live by faith!  Or to put the point more provocatively: they’re tacitly depending on a radically different worldview—a God-centered worldview—whenever they engage in their scientific work.”[42]

 

d.    Irony

 

                                               i.     Claim: “Christianity is anti-science!”

 

                                              ii.     Truth: Christian worldview fits better with presuppositions needed for science.

 

19.Conclusion

 

a.    My goals

 

                                               i.     Provide some instruction on how to argue for God’s existence

 

1.    What are we talking about when we talk about “God?”

 

a.    Nature and Significance of God as an object of knowledge

 

b.    God of the Bible is completely unique; not like other objects of knowledge

 

2.    Compare worldviews

 

a.    Naturalism as a worldview contender

 

b.    No neutrality

 

3.    Only the existence of God makes sense out fundamental realities we encounter and use all the time

 

a.    Without the existence of God, nothing else makes sense!

 

                                              ii.     My list of fundamental realities

 

1.    Reason and consciousness 

 

2.    Moral values and obligations

 

3.    Science

---

     [1]Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976), 1.

     [2]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5^thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 20.

     [3]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5^thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 22-23.

     [4]James W. Sire, The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog—5^thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009), 24.

     [5]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 48.

     [6]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 98.

    [7]Kai Nielson as quoted in Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism( Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 9.  James Sire’s The Universe Next Door—5^thed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2009) has a chapter—chapter four: “The Silence of Finite Space: Naturalism”—which contains a good discussion of philosophical naturalism.  

     [8]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 94-95.

     [9]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 95.

     [10]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 97.

     [11]Thomas Morris Making Sense of It All  (Eerdmans, 1992), 25.

     [12]John M. Frame, “Divine Aseity and Apologetics” in Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics editors: K. Scott Oliphant and Lane G. Tipton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 115.

     [13]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 96-97.

     [14]He does this in his book Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 102-135.  He also summarizes this discussion in his article “The Inescapability of God” Christian Research Journal vol. 40, no. 05 (2017)—online: http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAF2405.pdf.

     [15]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 161-162.

     [16]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 161-163.

     [17]Gregory E. Ganssle A Reasonable God: Engaging the New Face of Atheism (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2009), 168-175.

     [18]Victor Reppert, C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity, 2003), 81.

     [19]Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 44-45.

     [20]James Anderson, “Materialism and Mysteries,” Analogical Thoughts  (February 19, 2021)—online: https://www.proginosko.com/2021/02/materialism-and-mysteries/.

     [21]Paul Churchland as quoted in J. P. Moreland, “Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology as Research Programs: A Comparison of Their Most Plausible Specifications” in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress, 2007), 130.

     [22]Quoted in J. P. Moreland, “Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Psychology as Research Programs: A Comparison of Their Most Plausible Specifications” in Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse in Dialogue (Fortress, 2007), 131.

     [23]Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Naturalism(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 84.

     [24]Ronald H. Nash, Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1988), 259.

     [25]Roy Abraham Varghese “The ‘New Atheism’: A Critical Appraisal of Dawkins, Dennett, Wolpert, Harris, and Stenger” in Antony Flew There Is A God (HarperOne, 2007), 163.

     [26]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 123.

     [27]Items in box taken from James Anderson, “Materialism and Mysteries,” Analogical Thoughts  (February 19, 2021)—online: https://www.proginosko.com/2021/02/materialism-and-mysteries/.

     [28]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 125.

     [29]These are taken from Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1998), 165-169.

     [30]Quoted in Peter S. Williams “Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?” (2011)—online: https://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god.  Williams is quoting Sartre’s Existentialism Is a Humanism(New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2007), 28.

     [31]Quoted in Peter S. Williams “Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?” (2011).  Williams is quoting Julian Baggini Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2003), 41-51.

     [32]Quoted in Paul Copan “Grounding Human Rights: Naturalism’s Failure and Biblical Theism’s Success” in Legitimizing Human Rights: Secular and Religious Perspectives, Angus J. L. Menuge, ed. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013), 5. Note: pagination is to online version: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/Paul_Copan-Grounding_Human_Rights_in_Menuge_2013.pdf.  Copan is quoting Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols and the Anti-Christ(New York: Penguin Books, 1968), 55, 70.

     [33]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5); November, 2003, 653.

     [34]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5); November, 2003, 655.

     [35]Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life” Biology and Philosophy18(5); November, 2003, 661.

     [36]Mitch Stokes, How to Be an Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2016), 227.

     [37]William Lane Craig, “Opening Statement” Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics; editors, Robert K. Garcia and Nathan L. King (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield), 30-31.

     [38]Richard Klaus, “Who’s Afraid of Science? Why Science Needs God!”—Notes from Deep Faith Apologetics Conference (October 20, 2018)—online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2018/10/whos-afraid-of-science-why-science.html.

     [39]Richard Klaus, “Why Science Needs God: Analyzing the Religion and Science Conflict” Christian Post(January 12, 2019)—online: https://www.academia.edu/38140780/Why_Science_Needs_God_Analyzing_the_Religion_and_Science_Conflict.

     [40]The following list of presuppositions is drawn from J. P. Moreland’s Christianity and the Nature of Science(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1989), 108-133 and Scientism and Secularism(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 57-69.

     [41]J. P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2018), 75.

     [42]James N. Anderson, Why Should I Believe Christianity?(Christian Focus, 2016), 135.  Also see James Anderson’s essay, “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God: The Theological Foundation of Modern Science” Reformed Faith & Practice vol. 4, issue 1 (May 2019)—online: https://journal.rts.edu/article/the-laws-of-nature-and-of-natures-god-the-theological-foundations-of-modern-science/.

Bruce Waltke on Oral Tradition in the Old Testament

Bruce Waltke’s essay on oral tradition seeks to challenge some of the assumptions and principles upon which much of contemporary Old Testament criticism is based.[1]  Two crucial principles which are challenged by Waltke are: “(1) that most of the literature of the Old Testament had a long oral pre-history before being written down, and (2) that during its oral stage, the ‘literature’ was often transposed into new settings with new meanings.”[2]  These two principles are accepted by many who engage in the disciplines of form criticism, tradition criticism, and canonical criticism.  Waltke points to the importance of challenging such principles in that if allowed to stand these principles raise questions about authorial meaning of the text.  A highly fluid oral period calls into question the ability to accurately get at the meaning of the text itself.

            In seeking to “debunk” the two principles of oral tradition listed above Waltke focuses on three elements in his essay. First, he analyzes the ancient Near East evidence to show that the biblical literature had a short oral prehistory and was transmitted conservatively.  Second, Waltke briefly looks at other literature outside the Semitic realm and shows that even here there is little evidence to show that oral traditions were transmitted in a fluid state.  Third, and even more briefly, Waltke turns to discuss the issue of oral tradition in the prepatriarchial narratives.

The bulk of Waltke’s essay (pages 19-27) is taken up examining the evidence from ancient Near East documents and inscriptions. This provides the closest context from which to judge Israel’s literature.  Waltke looks at the early evidence for written texts being used with the goal of keeping one question in mind: “Did the people under investigation preserve their cultural heritage through an oral tradition subject to alteration or through written texts precisely with a view that its heritage not be corrupted?”[3]  Waltke surveys material from Ebla, Mesopotamia, the Hittites, the peoples of Ugarit, the Egyptians, and Northwest Semitic peoples.  Some of this evidence is contemporaneous with the biblical material but some of it, such as the royal archives of Ebla, pre-dates the Hebrew patriarchs by three to five centuries.  This evidence from Ebla shows their culture to be highly literate and that they preserved their culture in writing.  A similar dynamic of literacy and cultural preservation through written sources is found throughout the ANE material.  Furthermore, there is little evidence for a flexible oral tradition in these cultures.  This material from the ANE context comports well with the Old Testament’s witness to its transmission as utilizing written sources.

            Waltke next looks at other literature from non-Semitic speaking peoples, although  he recognizes that these sources “do not carry as much weight in deciding the issues as analogies from the ancient Near Eastern literature or from the Old Testament itself.”[4]  Examination of Homer, the Talmud, the Rig-veda, and the Quran reveals no large-scale textual reformulation over time.  “The best evidence for an oral tradition such as that proposed by modern source critics come from Indo-European peoples of a much later time, especially from Old Icelandic (c. A.D. 1300).”[5]  But here, as Waltke point out, the evidence is so far removed in time and culture so as to be unconvincing.  Thus, Waltke is able to conclude, “Having examined the literatures of the ancient Near East and other literatures as well, no evidence has been found in any Semitic cultures, including Islam, that tradents molded an oral tradition to meet changing situations over the centuries.”[6]

            Lastly, Waltke turns to briefly discuss the issue of oral tradition in the Patriarchal narratives.  He recognizes the case for oral tradition is most strong for the stories in Genesis 1-11.  It is here that Waltke quotes Gleason Archer as he invokes the role of the Holy Spirit:

The legacy of faith was handed down through the millennia fro Adam to Moses in oral form, for the most part, but the final written form into which Moses cast it must have especially superintended by the Holy Spirit in order to insure its divine trustworthiness.[7]

 

By this means Waltke is able to argue for the historicity and reliability of the Patriarchal narratives.

            Waltke’s essay is good at refuting the large-scale adoption of the principles of critical methodologies, especially as those methodologies argue for a lengthy oral period behind the biblical text that has undergone extensive morphing.  Only those predisposed to Waltke’s supernaturalism will follow his argument as he invokes the superintending work of the Spirit of God.  But this is just to recognize that larger worldview concerns always enter into the interpretation of facts and their meaning.  

            Waltke’s major point about the writing cultures of the ANE is his most powerful evidence.  Much more could have been written here to further substantiate the argument had he desired.  The literacy of some of these cultures was extensive.  For example,  P. J. Wiseman mentions that there are more than a quarter of a million cuneiform tablets that have been found.  He quotes the German Friedrich Delitzsch:

In truth when we find among the letters which have survived from those ancient times in great abundance, the letter of a woman to her husband in his travels, wherein after telling him that the little one are well, she ask advice on some trivial matter; or the missive of a son to his father, in which he informs that so-and-so has mortally offended him, that he would thrash the knave, but would like to ask his father’s advice first; or another letter in which a son urges his father to send at last the long-promised money, offering the insolent inducement that then he will pray for his father again—all this points to a well-organized system of communication by letter and of postal arrangements.[8]

 

Waltke’s argumentation could also further be strengthened by insights from anthropologists who specialize in analyzing oral cultures.  I agree with Waltke’s appeal to the work of the Holy Spirit in guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the Patriarchal narratives but there can and should be a defense of the historical trustworthiness of oral transmission. The insight of New Testament specialist Kenneth Bailey’s concept of “informal, controlled oral tradition” in which the community plays a preserving role in the transmission is important. Within the oral performance “the audience shares in the responsibility of accurately preserving the essential historical remembrances.  That is, if an oral performer misrepresents the tradition—sometimes in even relatively minor ways—the audience frequently corrects him in the midst of the performance.”[9]  The statement of social anthropologist Elizabeth Tonkin also speaks to this issue: “Oral history is not intrinsically more or less likely to be accurate than a written source.”[10]  Such reasoning and the field studies upon which they are based could be one more way to update Waltke’s argument and further strengthen his conclusions.

 

SOURCES CITED

Eddy, Paul Rhodes and Gregory A. Boyd. The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical 

Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007.

 

Waltke, Bruce. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17-34 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser 

Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986.

 

Wiseman, P. J.  Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas

 Nelson, 1985.

---

     [1]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [2]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 17.

     [3]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 19-20.

   [4]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 27.

     [5]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 29.

     [6]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 29-30.

     [7]Waltke, “Oral Tradition,” 30.  

     [8]P. J. Wiseman, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis(Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 50—emphasis added.

     [9]Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Tradition(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007), 262.

     [10]Rhodes and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 263.

Old Testament and Higher Criticism: The Priestly Source

* This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. 

REVIEW OF BERNHARD ANDERSON ON THE “PRIESTLY TRADITION”

2014

Bernhard Anderson discusses the concept of the “Priestly tradition” in his book Understanding the Old Testament.[1]  He outlines the nature and formation of this source for the Pentateuch.  He then provides some discussion about the theological perspectives found in this source.

            The Priestly tradition (P) is part of the larger construct of multiple sources alleged to underline the Pentateuch (J, E, D, and P).  Of these four sources P was originally thought to be the oldest of the sources but current critical scholarship has abandoned this idea since, in the words of Anderson, “it is evident that in style and theological outlook this work reflects the worship and theology of the Jerusalem temple.”[2]  This places the final redaction of P after the Fall of Jerusalem, sometime during the Exile.[3]  Anderson is quick to point out that “the date of literary composition does not necessarily provide an index to the age of the material itself.”[4]  The Priestly writers were using oral sources that they built upon and interpreted.[5]  They made these modifications out of a motivation to “authorize the views and practices of Jerusalem priests by showing that they had their origins at Sinai.”[6]  The methodology by which the P source is isolated from other sources is articulated by Anderson 

as follows: “After we take from the Pentateuch the Old Epic tradition (J and E), and after 

Deuteronomy is subtracted, the residue belongs to the Priestly tradition…”[7]

            The P source is seen to be marked by a certain theological perspective regarding the divine plan in Israel’s history. Anderson states a central concern of P: “In the Priestly view, the succession of divine covenants represents a history of God’s dealings with the world on the basis of pure grace (sola gratia), unconditioned by human performance.”[8]  Anderson breaks down the text into three periods:[9]

1.    Creation to Flood: climaxing in God’s covenant with Noah

2.    Noah to Abraham: climaxing in God’s covenant with Abraham

3.    Abraham to Moses: climaxing in God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai

The first section (creation to flood) is marked by affinities with other ANE creation stories.  This section also “reflects a long history of liturgical usage and bears the marks of intense theological reflection over a period of many generations.”[10]  The second section (Noah to Abraham) juxtaposes the violence of humanity and the graciousness of God in sparing Noah and making covenant with him.  In the third section (Abraham to Moses) there is an emphasis on the tabernacle, sacrifices and holy days—“everything found between the Old Epic story of the making of the covenant (Exod. 24) and the departure from Sinai (Num. 10:11ff.).”[11]  Anderson notes that these three successive periods were marked by a sequence of names for the deity which is distinctive for each period: (1) ‘Elohim, (2) ‘El Shaddai, and (3) Yahweh.[12]  Thus, the P source has a distinctive formation and theological perspective. 

            Although the P source is a staple of critical Old Testament scholarship it is not beyond criticism.  When the focus is simply on the differing theological nuances contained throughout the Pentateuch then those who engage in this critical scholarship have many exegetical and theological insights.  For example, Anderson’s insights regarding the structure and meaning of the Genesis account that speaks of the “image of God” are worth noting.[13]  The problems arise when the historicity of the Pentateuch is called into question by the use of a lengthy process of development that occurs on the oral traditions being passed down.  This notion of an evolving oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke.[14]  By examining the literature from ancient Near East documents and inscriptions he has shown that ANE cultures preserved their cultural heritage through written texts and not through oral traditions subject to alteration.  He concludes, based upon this comparative study, that there is very little evidence for a flexible oral tradition in these cultures.

            Sometimes the details of a passage that is alleged to be from the P source fit better within an earlier time period.  One such example is Abraham’s purchase of cave at Hebron for a burial place for Sarah (Genesis 23).[15]  Kenneth Barker mentions how this fits better with the ancient Hittite laws. He writes:

Law 47 stipulates that when a landowner sells only part of his property to someone else, the original and principal landowner must continue to pay all the dues on the land.  but if the landowner disposes of an entire tract, the new owner must pay the dues. Apparently Abraham wanted only the cave, with no complications or further financial or social obligations, but Ephron knew that Abraham had to deal quickly in order to have a place to bury Sarah; so he insisted that Abraham buy the entire lot and assume responsibility for the dues as well.  Abraham evidently agreed to this arrangement for the sake of family needs.[16]

 This leads Barker to conclude: “This is a better and more probable background to the story than the dialogue-document kind of contract known from the late eighth century B.C. and chiefly in the Neo-Babylonian period.”[17]

          Although the “Priestly source” is affirmed by many, there are reasons to be skeptical. Those who affirm P can, at times, have genuine exegetical and theological insights but there is no need to follow them in their denials of the historicity of the Pentateuch in favor of an evolutionary view of Israel’s history.

---

     [1]Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4^thed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1986), 449-466.

     [2]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [3]See the chart on page 453 of Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament.

     [4]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [5]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 453.

     [6]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [7]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [8]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [9]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [10]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 456.

     [11]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463.

     [12]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463-464.

     [13]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 458.

     [14]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [15]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 461.

     [16]Kenneth L. Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 134.

     [17]Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” 134.