|
If solid proof was ever needed that non-scholars need to mind their own business when it comes to critiquing the Bible, here it is.
Callahan’s book is in trouble from the very start - or the very end, as the case may be: The bibliography is uninspiring and notable
for its inadequacy; it includes seven encyclopedias (!), several Bibles, two Bible commentary sets (including one from 1929!), and
less than 20 total sources in support of the authors’ own viewpoint - many of them historical atlases or works decidedly
inappropriate for the subject at hand. On the other side, Callahan has examined less than a dozen conservative works on the
subject, including McDowell’s ETDAV; the most scholarly such work consulted in Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties!
It seems fairly obvious that Callahan did no more than visit his local library and use what resources he found there - and then
presumed that there was no more to be found.
Further marks of unsophistication emerge as the main text itself is examined. Callahan’s treatment of Ezekiel’s Tyre prophecy, for
example, fails on almost every one of the same points as those critiques we have discussed elsewhere, and his treatment of the
Book of Daniel uses the same old arguments that have been refuted and outdated for years. (He refers to there being “a number
of Greek and Persian words” in the text of Daniel, in support of a Maccabeean date; the reader is not told that the Greek words
are only three in number, and are all musical instruments that could very well have been brought to Babylon by Greek traders;
and, that the Persian words are but 15 in number, and are mainly administrative terms - not surprising if Daniel lived for a time
under Persian rule and served in their administration!) He asserts that Mark shows “considerable ignorance of the geography of
Galilee,” using the same old Tyre/Sidon saw; finally, he has the nerve to compare the arbitrary
voting process of the Jesus Seminar to the voting of the canonical councils!
Callahan, of course, knows no Biblical languages, and is not a specialist in any Biblical field, so the superficial scholarship we find
here is not surprising. He does, however, take time in his introductory material to defend his ability to address the topics in
question, and has the nerve to suggest that he is able, with his own knowledge, to see the “gaps” in the thinking of conservative
scholars.
In terms of his evaluation of prophetic fulfillment, his analysis offers no surprises, either. Historical inaccuracy is often claimed,
but seldom justified with sufficient background data; in some cases, it is not even clear where the data comes from. The “written after the fact” excuse is called upon often to explain a fulfilled prophecy, as is the idea that a prophecy
is “vague” or predicts something that is no big deal to predict - though in each case, evidence is lacking, vagueness is not defined,
and odds of occurrence are not offered. Callahan also shows not even a glimmer of knowledge of typology,
and uses the word “fundamentalist” throughout his work in a derisive and snooty manner.
One positive aspect of Callahan’s work is his expose’ of the less desirable elements of “doomsday” Bible prophecy experts (the
“black helicopter” crowd) who interpret every world event in light of the Book of Revelation. This, Callahan rightly condemns, but
such analyses have already been done inside Christian circles, and we certainly do not need someone without so much as a
hermeneutical hint poking around in the trash can. The reader would do better to consult the works of Christian scholars like R.
C. Sproul (or our series here).
This book
offers scholarship that is no better than that of the majority of the essays in The Jury Is In, and the fact of it sticks out like a sore
thumb. It is just the current Jury Ch. 11 with more words in it.
I do have one nice thing to say about this book: There’s some nice art on the cover.
![[ Order Your Copy Today From Amazon.com ]](banner2.gif)
![[ Go To Top Of This Page ]](top_of_page_16x21.gif){kind=small}
