Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Peter Enns

Home
About
Books
Articles & Essays
Upcoming Events
Archives
Inspiration and Incarnation
- Book Summary
- Endorsements
- The Audience of I&I
- I&I and the Authority of Scripture
- NPR Interview
- I&I and Inerrancy
- Responding to Critics
- Interactions with Bruce Waltke
  - My response to the Introduction of Bruce Waltke’s surrejoinder to my response above.
  - Bruce Waltke’s Revisiting Inspiration and Incarnation.
- A Response to Richard Pratt
  - Pratt 2
  - Pratt 3
  - Pratt 4
  - Pratt 5
- I&I and Westminster Theological Seminary
  - I&I and the Westminster Confession of Faith
  - My Response from the Westminster Theological Journal (Spring 2009)
- Christianity Today Coverage
Science, Faith, and Inerrancy

Home
Evangelical
7 problems with a recent evangelical defense of the historicity of Genesis 1-11

7 problems with a recent evangelical defense of the historicity of Genesis 1-11

Last updated on: May 26, 2015 at 10:00 am by Peter Enns

7 problems with a recent evangelical defense of the historicity of Genesis 1-11 2015-05-26T10:00:45-04:00 Peter Enns

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Zondervan’s latest volume in their popular “Counterpoints” series concerns the historicity of Genesis 1-11, Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. The three well-known contributors are James Hoffmeier (Trinity International University), Kent Sparks (Eastern University), and Gordan Wenham (Trinity College and University of Gloucestershire).

The editor, Charles Halton, summarizes the differences between them:

Professor Hoffmeier believes that theology begins from the foundational understanding that the events recorded in Gen 1-11 really happened and that the Israelite scribes did not borrow from the Mesopotamian or Egyptian myths but were writing in opposition to them. The Israelites corrected the misunderstandings and mythologies of their day with an authoritative and historically accurate portrait.

Professor Wenham believes that there is a core of historical reality in Gen 1-11 but that the telling we have is like an impressionist painting–we can only make out vague outlines of what really took place.

Professor Sparks thinks that the writers of the Bible employed standard forms of ancient historiography whose primary intent was not to precisely relay events that occurred in space and time. These scribes emplotted a theological story that reveals deep insights into the character and nature of God. (pp. 155-56, my emphasis and formatting)

I’m familiar with the unavoidable limitations of the “Counterpoints” format (I’ve worked on two of the volumes, here and here). Not every question can be addressed, nor is this the place for authors to say everything they want to say about their topic.

Nevertheless, I had the modest hope for this volume that James Hoffmeier–the pre-eminant evangelical scholarly defender of the historicity of the exodus–would put evangelicalism’s best foot forward, move beyond familiar apologetic rhetoric, and offer readers a best case for why the historical and comparative evidence point clearly toward Genesis 1-11 as history.

Instead, more often than not, I found Hoffmeier rehearsing frustratingly predictable apologetic tactics that are typically deployed whenever the historicity of a biblical episode is considered “under attack,” (tactics that Kent Sparks patiently laid out in his 2008 book God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship).

Hoffmeier’s “here I stand” rhetoric is clear in his introductory section, which I reproduce below (pp. 23-24, my emphasis):

Genesis 1-1 begins the story of redemption–the loss of God’s presence, intimacy between God and humans, and access to the tree of life. The narrative commences with “Paradise Lost,” and culminates in the New Testament with “Paradise Regained,” to borrow from one of John Milton’s seventeenth-century classic poems. Because of this overarching theme connecting the early chapters of Genesis to the book of Revelation, Genesis 1-11 must be taken seriously. In recent centuries, especially because of the influence of Enlightenment rationalism on scriptural interpretation, readers of the Bible wonder whether Genesis can be read as it once was in pre-critical times. The dominant scientific worldview has understandably influenced the way Christians read the Bible in general and Genesis 1-11 in particular. A consequence of this hermeneutic has prompted the preoccupation of European biblical scholars to employ “scientific” (Wissenschaftlich) approach that has sought to isolate the sources that stood behind Genesis, thereby denying the Jewish-Christian tradition of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

The short essay cannot devote time to the history of speculation about sources and origins of the book of Genesis, the so-called “critical” study of the Pentateuch. Consider, however, that the four-source hypothesis of Wellhausen that dominated biblical schoalrship from the mid-nineteenth to the end of the twentieth century has been in “sharp decline,” as E. W. Nicholson has observed and he admits “some would say [it is] in a state of advanced rigor mortis.” Consequently, the “assured results” of critical scholarship are being rejected, ironically enough, by European Old Testament scholars!

This rhetoric of “faithful to the Bible” vs. “critical scholarship” is disappointing and sets the tone for Hoffmeier’s essay and his responses, particularly to Sparks.

Let me summarize and interpret Hoffmeier’s concerns by rephrasing his comments.

1. Genesis 1-11 sets the theological stage for the rest of the Bible, and so, if Genesis 1-11 cannot be trusted to deliver to us historical truth, the entire theological structure of the Bible falls apart. Hence, the historical nature of Genesis 1-11 must be protected at all costs.

2. Denial of the historical nature of Genesis 1-11 is simply the product of atheistic thinking–of Enlightenment rationalism, which is fundamentally in rebellion against God. Hence, biblical criticism is only “so-called ‘critical'” because it is rooted in the deep bias of anti-biblical thinking.

3. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of Enlightenment thinking is the bewilderingly speculative preoccupation to distill sources behind Genesis. Since Wellhausen’s four-source theory (JEDP) has been rejected by even European scholars–and as such is DOA–we evangelicals who reject (and have always rejected) source criticism are not only vindicated but are actually show ourselves to be more rigorously academic than those who blindly hold to older critical “orthodoxies.”

4. Further, continuing to give quarter to the particularly odious, speculative theory of sources pits one against the entire Jewish and Christian pre-critical tradition that has accepted Moses as the fundamental author of the Pentateuch.

These opening paragraphs do not bode well for encouraging academic discourse. Hoffmeier revisits these themes in his essay and in his response to Sparks. To the 4 listed above, let me add 3 others that surface.

5. Since Genesis 1-11 refers to people with lineages and real geographic locations, it is clearly intended to be read as relaying historical space/time events, and so we must take this historical intention “seriously”–which means accept that this historical intention produced a historically accurate text.

6. Sparks puts science over the Bible, and which inexorably leads to a denial of the resurrection of Christ, which is also impossible on scientific grounds.

7. Genesis 1-11 cannot be influenced by Mesopotamian myth because it is a polemic against Mesopotamian myth.

Sparks addresses these 7 points and other concerns in his 10-page response, and regardless of where one’s sympathies lie, interested readers should avail themselves of both.

My own brief responses are as follows.

1. I agree that there is a theological “structure,” so to speak, for the Christian Bible, and that structure reflects the theological sensitivities of the biblical writers and of those who directed the process of canonization (first OT then NT). But the presence of this theological structure does not settle the vexing historical problems of Genesis 1-11, and to think that it does is a common evangelical and fundamentalist assertion.

Theological needs–better, perceived theological needs–does not determine historical truth. Evangelicals do not tolerate such self-referential logic from defenders of other faiths, and they should not tolerate it in themselves.

2. Claiming alleged Enlightenment influence on opponents is a well known conversation stopper among evangelical apologists, and I am particularly disappointed to see Hoffmeier resort to it. Evangelical defenses of historicity are often quickly propelled into the philosophical stratosphere of “presuppositions,” which has the unfortunate effect of reducing debates on concrete matters to claims of theological superiority.

As far as I am concerned, “you’re just beholden to Enlightenment rationalism” is on the same rhetorical level as “that sounds like Hitler (or Bultmann, or Barth),” or more economically, “you’re liberal.”

This sort of rhetoric is not designed to converse but to gain a theological upper hand by determining the playing field and rules of engagement. It has worn out its welcome and has no place in scholarly engagement.

3. Another common evangelical tactic repeated here by Hoffmeier is to equate Wellhausen’s 19th c. theory of Pentateuchal composition with source theories that have developed since Wellhausen. Sparks effectively addresses this in his response.

Let me simply say that source criticism is most certainly not dead, though most all have moved beyond Wellhausen, including neo-documentarians like Joel Baden and Jeffrey Stackert. (On this see Dozeman, Schmid, and Schwartz, The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, 2011; especially Schwartz’s essay, “Does Recent Scholarship’s Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis Constitute Grounds for Its Rejection?)

And one would be hard-pressed indeed to find any biblical scholar outside of the inerrantist camp–whether Israeli, American, or European–who does not see the Pentateuch as having a rich and complex developmental pre-history spanning several hundred years and not coming to end until long after the return from exile.

P and D are not seriously questioned among biblical scholars. The origins of Israel’s ancient narratives– J and E–are. That is a great discussion to have. But the “we know Wellhausen was wrong so now we can retreat back to Mosaic authorship” rhetoric is at best misleading because it is grounded in a description of Pentateuchal scholarship that is absolutely wrong.

4. Following on #3, Hoffmeier seems to think that debunking Wellhausen not only neuters any source analysis of the Pentateuch but de facto puts Mosaic authorship back in its rightful place as the traditional, and problem-free explanation for Pentateuchal origins.

But Mosaic authorship, regardless of how the matter is framed, cannot be given a free pass. Its problems, which have been observed since long before the advent of “Enlightenment rationalism,” do not simply disappear.

Pre-critical misgivings about Mosaic authorship (albeit few and far-between) are not unknown (e.g., of Abraham Ibn-Ezra, 12th c. rabbi). Ironically, none other than conservative Calvinist E. J. Young lists in his Introduction to the Old Testament a long history of questions raised concerning Mosaic authorship stemming back at least to Jerome in the 4th c. (who queried whether Moses could have written the account of his own death in Deuteronomy 34 or whether perhaps Ezra is repsonsible).

Questioning Mosaic authorship is not recent invention. Where the modern period differs is in moving from canonical observation to historical explanation.

One should also note that source analyses do not necessarily stem from anti-religious bias. Jean Astruc (d. 1766) was the first to argue for different sources in Genesis based on the use on the divine name (Yahweh and Elohim, which become J and E, respectively), and did so in an effort to protect Mosaic authorship (by arguing that Moses was working with ancient sources).

Similar to response #1 above, disagreement with tradition does not make such disagreement wrong. “Who are you to go against tradition?” can be a valid question at times, but more often than not is a bullying tactic aimed at closing off discussion. Tradition can be wrong, as it was with a geocentric cosmos and “the Jews killed Jesus.”

5. Sparks addresses this point, when he states what appears to me to be obvious: intending to write history doesn’t mean you pulled it off, and biblical authors do not get a free pass on “historical accuracy,” especially without addressing the type of history writing we can expect from ancient Israelite/Jewish authors.

Addressing this key issue is what Sparks’s essay is all about. Hoffmeier, however, seems content to assume ancient and modern standards largely overlap.

Ancient genealogies and narratives set in real locations do not a historical narrative make, despite Hoffmeier’s strong contention to the contrary.

6. This same slippery-slope line recurs again and again and again and again whenever it is suggested that science or other scholarly disciplines affect how we think of the Bible (especially in the evolution debate), but this rhetoric is useless for reasoned and scholarly discussion.

I can say with full confidence that Sparks has not made some thoughtless presuppositional commitment to “Wissenschaft über alles (i.e. science triumphs over all!!), as Hoffmeier rather indelicately caricatures him (p. 142). To say that the study of human history–including ANE religious texts–renders suspect the historicity of Gen 1-11 is not to say that science triumphs over ALL but that science informs our thinking on issues that are actually open to scientific investigation.

Cosmic and human origins leave footprints that can be studied through scientific means (and is why Hoffmeier, I presume, does not think the world is 6000 years old). The resurrection of Christ doesn’t provide such footprints and therefore is not open to the same type of scientific investigation.

Of course, many do believe that science is the ultimate determiner of truth and so things outside of scientific investigation cannot have happened, but that is not at all where Sparks is coming from and to attempt to discredit Sparks by painting him as a science worshipper is somewhere between a gross misunderstanding and a low blow.

Allowing–even embracing–science to inform our reading of an Iron Age text does not mean one will also have to deny the resurrection. This line of defense needs to be put to rest.

7. I find it incredible that Hoffmeier contends that Genesis 1-11 is essentially independent of Mesopotamian origins stories. This is like suggesting that Roman theology and politics can be best understood apart from preceding Greek culture.

A key element in Hoffmeier’s argument is that Gensiss 1-11 is a polemic against Mesopotamian myth and therefore independent of it. But the fact that Genesis 1-11 is certainly polemical does not in any way suggest that far older Mesopotamian myth does not form the cultural back drop for Genesis 1-11. The polemic only works because it embraces ancient assumptions about the nature of the cosmos.

Genesis 1-11 cannot be isolated from its environment like this. To suggest that Genesis 1-11 alone escapes the many-layered interpenetration of ancient origins stories we find throughout the ANE is an essential rejection of any value for comparative study of the Bible.

To sum up, despite whatever positive evidence Hoffmeier feels he has adduced in his essay for the historicity of Gen 1-11, those points are only convincing if one is willing to:

assert that theological need is the unimpeachable grounding for reading Genesis as history,
characterize alternate view points as beholden to the philosophical biases of “Enlightenment rationalism,” and consequently
keep at arm’s length two fundamental (and outside of inerrantist camps, universally accepted) elements of modern scholarship on Genesis: that Genesis (1) has a lengthy, complex pre-history that continues into the postexilic period, and (2) reflects far older Mesopotamian (and Canaanite and Egyptian) influence.

Let me stress this third point. We all know that historical criticism has its problems and excessive confidence in its alleged objectivity is to be roundly criticized–as it has been for generations. But the two elements of critical scholarship Hoffmeier rejects are not excessive or trendy but the very intellectual structure of the historical/academic study of the Pentateuch.

Hoffmeier is free to dismiss them, but let the be no mistake of the degree of distance Hoffmeier is willing to put between himself and basic, even elementary, conclusions of generations of modern scholarship on Genesis and the Pentateuch in order to maintain his position.

Hoffmeier is well within his right to make assertions and defend them. But as I said at the outset, I was hoping for something more than this. I’ve read much of what Hoffmeier has written. He is an educated man and capable of much more. But we don’t find it here.

If this type of rhetorical defense is the best that evangelical academia can muster to defend its theology, evangelicalism may have little left to contribute to the discussion.

Evangelical biblical scholarship

Genesis 1-11

Genesis: History Fiction or Neither

James Hoffmeier

Kent Sparks

Previous Post

May 18, 2015

a book that actually claims there is actually a future for evangelicalism that doesn't involve killing each other

Next Post

May 28, 2015 Reading John: An Interview with Christopher Skinner

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category "aha" moments "The Bible" on the History Channel 1 Corinthians 10:4 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 1 John 1 Peter 3:15 1 Timothy 5:19 1st Advent 2001 World Series 9/11 A Beka Books A Long Faithfulness A More Christlike God A Year of Biblical Womanhood A. J. Jacobs Abraham abuse of power academic freedom Acts 10 Adam Adam and biblical genealogies Addison Hodges Hart adjunct teaching adolescent sexual purity aesthetics age of the earth Al Groves Al Mohler Alan Millard Albert Einstein Alberta Alex Rodriguez Allah American Sniper Ana Greene Andrew Louth Andrew T. Lincoln Andrew Wilson Andy Gill anger animal suffering announcement Anthony le Donne Antony Flew apologetics Apostles of Reason Are You Waiting for "The One"? Aren Maeir atheism Augustine author interview Babylonian exile Back to Red Balaam son of Beor Barack Obama Barnes and Noble Bart Campolo Bart Ehrman baseball Becoming Divine Becoming Who You Are belief in God belligerence Benedictine spirituality Benefit of the Doubt Berry Friesen best of 2014 Bethlehem Between Heaven and Mirth BIble Bible and Ancient Near East Bible and diversity Bible and History Bible and imagination BIble and myth Bible and politics Bible and science Bible and social sciences Bible and women Bible as Story Bible Curriculum Bible difficulties Bible wars Biblica biblical archaeology biblical authority biblical canon biblical contradictions biblical criticism biblical genealogies biblical Greek biblical historiography biblical inspiration biblical interpretation biblical lifespans biblical literalism biblical prophecy biblical theology biblicism bibliogian Big History Project Bill Gates Bill Nye binding of Isaac BioLogos birth of Jesus blog commenting blog comments blogging Bob Jones University Press Bohannon fundraiser book proposals book publishing book reviews Born of a Virgin? Brad Jersak Branch Davidians Brandon Ambrosino Brandon Withrow Brene Brown Brevard Childs Brian McLaren Broken Word Bruce Glass Bryan College bunny theology BuzzFeed Byzantium C. H. Dodd C. John Collins C. S. Lewis Caesar Is Not Calvin and Hobbes Calvin College Calvinism camel domestication Canaan Canaanite genocide Canaanite religion Carl Sagan Carlos Bovell Carolyn Custis James Cedarville University certainty chain saws Changing Faith Charles Halton Charleston shooting Chasing Francis Chasing the Wind Chicago Cubs Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Choon-Leong Seow Chris Christie Chris Keith Chris Tilling Christian America Christian apologetics Christian blogging Christian colleges Christian family Christian humanitarian efforts Christian leadership Christian liberty Christian Life Christian nation Christian persecution Christian Smith Christian Taliban Christian-Muslim dialogue Christianity and art Christianity and evolution Christianity and Islam Christianity and politics Christianity Today ChristianMingle.com Christians and academia Christians and sex Christmas Christopher B. Ansberry Christopher M. Hays Christopher Rollston Christopher Southgate Christopher W. Skinner Christotelic interpretation Chuck DeGroat Church Fathers and scripture circumcision co-dependence Coffeehouse Theology cognitive dissonance Community Bible Experience compost pile conquest of Canaan Consider No Evil contemplative Christianity control cosmos counter testimony Craig Blomberg creation creationism Creative Trust Literary Group creeds and confessions crisis in Syria crisis of faith crocs with socks crucifixion CT shootings culture wars cycle of life D. Brent Sandy Dan Harrington Dan Haseltine Daniel E. Fleming Daniel Kirk Daniel Taylor dark night Darwin David G. Benner David Koresh David Opderbeck David Williams Death Before The Fall defending the Bible defending the faith Denis Alexander Denis Lamoureux denominationalism depth psychology Derek Flood Derek Jeter desert fathers Dick Vitale Did God Really Command Genocide? Dietrich Bonhoeffer Disarming Scripture Discerning the Mystery Disturbing Divine Behavior diverse portraits of God divided monarchy Divine Vintage Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? doctrinal inconsistency doctrine Documentary Hypothesis doubt dualistic thinking dying to self Early Church Easter Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible Eastern University Eat With Joy Ecclesiastes Ed Cysewski election 2012 election 2016 empire criticism enlightenment Epic Fail Episcopal Church Eric Metaxas Eric Seibert Eucharist Evangelical biblical scholarship Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism evangelical scholarship Evangelical Theological Society Evangelicalism evangelicals and academia evangelicals and politics everything breathes evolution evolutionary creation Evolving in Monkey Town Excalibur exchanging the peace Exodus exodus and conquest Exodus: Gods and Kings experiencing God Ezekiel 37 Ezra 9-10 faculty firings Fail faith and certainty faith and intellect Faith and Reason faith and theology faith seeking understanding false self FAQs FarmVille fear figurative readings first Christian Bible first half of life Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy food and religion ForeWord Reviews forgiveness Found Four Views on the Historical Adam Fox News Francis of Assisi Francis Schaeffer Frank A. James III Frank Viola Frederica Mathewes-Green From Evolution to Eden From Fear to Faith fundamentalism fundamentalism and art future of evangelicalism Fuz Rana G. I. Williamson Galatians game theory garden of eden Gary A. Anderson Gary Burnett Geerhardus Vos gene pool genealogies of Jesus Genesis Genesis 1-11 Genesis 1-2 Genesis 1-3 Genesis 15:6 Genesis flood Genesis for Normal People Genesis: History Fiction or Neither genetic studies genetics Gentiles George Washington Gerd Thiessen German language Gilbert Gottfried Göbekli Tepe Temple God God and country God and sports God in the Dock God in Translation God's absence God's gender God's sovereignty God's Word in Human Words good news/euangelion Gospel of John Gospel of Luke Gospel of Mark GospelFutures GospelMemes Gospels granite Greg Cary Gregory A. Boyd Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory of Nyssa growth Haggai Half the Church Hans-Georg Gadamer Harold Heie Harvie Conn Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Hebrew Patriarchs helicopter parenting helpful hints Henri Nouwen Hermann Gunkel hermeneutics high school reunion Hippasus of Metapontum historical accuracy historical criticism historical Jesus Holy War in the Bible homeschooling homosexuality honesty How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian Hugh Ross humility humor and spirituality I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution Ian Morgan Cron immortality incarnation inerrancy Inspiration and Incarnation intellectual models Intelligent Design inter-religious dialogue interracial marriage intolerance introverts in church Irenaeus irrational numbers Isaiah Isaiah 17 Israel Israeli-Palestinian conflict Israelite history J. R. Briggs J. R. Daniel Kirk Jacob L. Wright James A. Sanders James Barr James D. G. Dunn James Flynn James Hoffmeier James K. A. Smith James Martin Jana Riess Jared Byas Jars of Clay Jeannine Brown Jeremy Begbie Jesus Jesus and the Old Testament Jesus as divine and human Jesus as messiah Jesus Is Lord Jesus scholarship Jesus' wife Jewish biblical interpretation Jimmy Greene Job Job 1-21 jobs in academia Joe Modica Joel Baden Joel Butler John 10:35 John 20:19-29 john byron John Calvin John Dickson John Dominic Crossan John Franke John Goldingay John K. Stoner John of the Cross John Oswalt John Piper John Schneider John Walton John Wesley Jon Stewart Jon. D. Levenson Jonathan Dudley Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Fitzgerald Joseph and his brothers Joshua Delusion journey Judah judgement free zone justice and righteousness justification by faith Justin Martyr Karl Giberson Kashi Ken Ham Kent Sparks Kevin Vanhoozer Kim Jong Un Kindergarten King David King David and His Reign Revisited kingdom of God/heaven Konrad Schmid Kurt Eichenwald lament land of Israel Larry Hurtado Law of Moses leadership leaving church Leaving Egypt: Finding God in the Wilderness Places Legends of Genesis Leon Wieseltier Leonard Sweet Les Miserables Lesslie Newbigin letters from God literaliam literalism literary agents living in the questions Losing my Religion love love of God Love Wins Loveology Lucian Luke Norsworthy Luke Timothy Johnson Madonna and Child manners Marc Brettler Marcionism Margaret Kim Peterson Mariano Rivera Mark 2:23-27 Mark 3 Mark Noll Mark Roncace Mark S. Smith Mark Strauss Mark T. Edwards Martin Hengel Martin Luther Martin Luther King Marvin the Martian Mary Magdalene Matthew 18 Matthew Flannagan Megan DeFranza Menachem Wecker Mere Christianity Mesha Inscription messiah Messiah College Micha Boyett Michael Bird Michael Graves Michael Gungor Michael Halcomb Michael Hardin Michael Hidalgo Michael Moore Michael Pahl Michael Ruffin Michele Bachmann microbes midrash Miley Cyrus missiology Mitt Romney modernism Moises Silva Molly Worthen Monte Harrell Hampton Mora Downey morals and the arts Mother Teresa Mt. Hood my home office My Utmost for His Highest Myron Penner mythic membership consciousness N. T. Wright Nachmanides need for attention Neil degrasse Tyson Neil Williams neo-Calvinism new paradigms New Testament New Testament use of the Old Testament New Year New York Yankees Newsweek Newsworthy with Norsworthy Newtown Nicholas Wolterstorff no one likes Canada Noah (the movie) Noah and the flood Noah's ark NOMA Not Your Mother's Morals Obedience Old Testament Old Testament ethics Old Testament history Old Testament prophets Old Testament Theology Old Testament Turning Points Olive Branch Books online course Oprah Oral Tradition orality and the Bible oreos Origen original sin origins myths origins of the Old Testament Orthodox Presbyterian Church Oswald Chambers Owen Strachan pale blue dot Parker Palmer pastoral burnout Patterns of Evidence Paul Paul and the Faithfulness of God Paul Copan Peace Hill Press Pentateuch Pentecost Pete Enns Peter Drucker Peter Liethart Peter Rollins Peter Traben Haas Ph.D. job market Philippians 3:10 pilgrimage Planet Fitness politics postmodernism prayer Presbyterianism Priene Calendar Inscription problem of evil prodigal son professional Christian progressive evangelical theology Protestantism Proverbs Proverbs 26:4-5 Proverbs 26:7 Proverbs 26:9 Proverbs 31:10-31 Psalm 110 Psalm 82:6 Psalms psychotherapy public criticism Qumran Qur'an Rachel Held Evans Rachel Marie Stone Randal Rauser Randall Heskett Randy Hardman Raw Revelation Raymond B. Dillard Raymond E. Brown Reading Genesis 1-2 Reading John reading the Bible Really!?! rebuilding the temple reception history Red Letter Christians Reformation Reformed theology Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear religion religion and popular culture religious hostility respectful conversation respectful conversations resurrection resurrection accounts resurrection in the Old Testament retributive violence Reuel/Jethro Reza Aslan Richard Hess Richard Rohr Rick Perry Ridley Scott Rite I rival eschatology Rob Bell Rob Dalrymple Robert Yarbrough Robin A. Parry Roman empire and the New Testament Romans Romans 1:18 Romans 9:25-26 Ronald E. Osborn Ryan Miller sabbath breaking Sacred Word Sacred Word Broken Word Samaritans Samuel L. Jackson Samuel Miller Sandy Hook Sarah Moslener Sarah Palin satan Saving the Original Sinner scepticism science and faith science curricula science education Scot McKnight Searching for Sunday self-absorbed self-centered seminary senate blocks gun legislation Septuagint Sermon on the Mount Seven Glorious Days shame shameless self-promotion Simon Schama sin singing size of universe slippery slope Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting Solomon Soren Kierkegaard source criticism Southern Baptist Theological Seminary southern Presbyterians Spinoza spiritual formation spiritual memoir spirituality Spirituality and the Awakening Self St. Benedict St. Nicholas Stephen Jay Gould Stephen L. Young Stephen Lawhead Stephen Taylor Steve Moyise Steven Collins Steven Pressfield Storm of Words story storytelling Strangers and Pilgrims Once More suffering Sumerian King List Super Bowl supernova Surrender to Love Sylvia Keesmaat T. Michael Law talking about God teaching Bible to young Christians Ted Bobosh Telling God's Story Teresa of Avila textual criticism Thanksgiving The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary The Beauty of God The BIble and the Believer The Bible Made Impossible The Bible Tells Me So The Biblical Cosmos The Book of Common Prayer The Books of the Bible The Byrds The Civil War The Courage to Teach The Discarded Image The Drew Marshall Show The Early History of God The End of Apologetics The Episcopal Church and science The Evangelicals You Don't Know The Evolution of Adam The Future of Evangelicalism The Godfather the gospel The Gospel According to the Blues The Gospel Coalition The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society The Groaning of Creation The Historical David The Historical Jesus The Inspiration and Interpretation of Scripture The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Anything The Jesus Driven Life The Jewish Study Bible The Last Battle The Liturgists Podcast The Lost World of Scripture The Old Testament: A Literary History The Oral Gospel Tradition the problem of Scripture The Prophetic Imagination The Rebel Jesus The Skeptical Believer The Story of the Jews The Twible The View The Violence of Scripture The War of Art The Wife of Jesus The Wonder of the Universe The Year of Living Biblically theistic evolution theological conflict theological diversity in the Bible theological interpretation theology Thomas Keating Thomas Merton Three-Legged Stool Thucydides Tim Keller Tim McCarver Todd Starnes Tom Krattenmaker Tony Campolo Toughest People to Love Toward the Other tradition transformation Tree of Life tree of the knowledge of good and evil Tremper Longman III tribalism trust in God Tullian Tchividjian Turn tweed in San Diego Unbelievable? Uncategorized uncertainty unfaithfulness of God Valentine's Day Victor Matthews violence of God Virgin Nation Walter Brueggemann Was the Birth of Jesus According to Scripture? water We Make the Road by Walking Wesleyan Quadrilateral western Christianity Westminster Theological Seminary What We Talk About When We Talk About God What? When God Spoke Greek William Dembski winemaking wisdom women and children as slaves women and the Bible women in ministry World Series worship wrath of God writer's block writing writing tips Yahweh young evangelicals young scholars and the internet Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth zero-sum game Zondervan Counterpoints Series Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary

Select a Month August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What is the collective name of the stories Jesus told?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Miracles Parables Psalms Gospel