Conquest and Sola Scriptura. A Response to Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Criticism of From Conquest to Coexistencepdf
Conquest and Sola Scriptura. A Response to Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Criticism of From Conquest to Coexistencepdf
Page 1 of 130
Koert van Bekkum shared this file. Want to do more with it?
  1. 1Conquest and Sola ScripturaA Response to Ecclesiastical and Ecumenical Critique of From Conquest to Coexistence1“And because we believe that it is God who, also in our time, through his almighty and omnipresent power upholds and governs all things, therefore we receive thankfully and hopefully the world which he enables us to know through scholarshipin the midst ofwhich he gives us a place. Naturally,in this connection,we distinguish between facts, which scholarship enables us to know, and the interpretations which are given to these facts in different ways by the various interpreters. But facts are stubborn things which demand respect and are placed on our path through God’s providence. Thus,just as we make gratefuluse of all kinds of technologyinvented by human ingenuity, so we also accept with joy the increase and expansion of our knowledge which the scholarshipof today has given us in abundance.”2“We must be prepared on more than one point to reconsider our own views in order to come to a deeper insight of Scripture. The criticism is dominated by unbelief but it is not completely foolish. We should endeavour to read Scripture in such a way that attention is paid to real facts.”3INTRODUCTIONAs an Old Testament scholar and Reformed theologian, I have taken part in an international debate since the end of the 1990s. In this debate, the conviction has grown that most stories in the Old Testament do not refer to actual events. Until the 1960s most biblical scholars and historians assumed that biblical history writing was historical. Afterwards this changed rapidly. First the patriarchs (early 1970s), then the conquest of Canaan (1970s) and also the biblical account of the kingdom of David and Solomon (1990s) were interpreted as unhistorical (cf. Van Bekkum 2003).When my contributions to this debate are consulted, the conclusion can be drawn that, against the tide of much contemporary scholarship, on account of the self-attestation of Scripture (Belgic Confession Article 5), I have defended the historicity of Genesis 1-11, the patriarchs, the exodus and the conquest (including the conquering of Jericho and the miracle described in Joshua 10:12-15), David and Solomon, etc.4In some publications, my starting point in Reformed theology comes out more strongly than in others. This has a reason. My contributions are designed to: a) more preciselydescribe the mannerin which biblical history writing refers to these events, and b) present the results of this research to the international scholarly community debating these questions in such a way that they are not automatically rejected as being toobiased.The background to this approach lies in two considerations. First, a Reformed theologian may not ignore the question how our understanding of Scripture is affected by new facts and arguments which are presented as time goes on. Together with the Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck, I am convinced that it is no coincidence that the new material which the study of the Ancient Near East has produced becomes 1Tobe published in Lux Mundi33.2 (2014).Translated by Rev. S. Carl Van Dam, Houston, BC, Canada.2Bavinck 1911:12.3Holwerda1951.4See Van Bekkum 2003:352, 2010c (Genesis 1-11 and the accounts of the patriarchs); 2011; 2012a; 2013b (exodus and conquest); 2000; 2012b (Judges 1); 2003:342-344, 352; 2011:568-572; 2014:226-236 (David and Solomon).
  2. 2available at this time in history. Apparently the church now needs this new material to understandScripture so that it is placed in its own context wherein it was revealed. It is also clear (both to Reformed theologians as well as others) that this material is to be used in a good way –all the more reason to take up this task seriously (Bavinck 1911:12). Second, I have learned from the Kampen Old Testament scholar Benne Holwerda that a Reformed exegete cannot suffice only with dogmatic arguments but, for the sake of an honest understanding of the Bible, must also meet the non-Reformed community on itsown turf and try to formulate alternatives on internal grounds. Those who neglect this task too easily absolve themselves of matters which should be dealt with and also do not take the opportunity to come to a better understanding of the Bible (Holwerda 1951; 1971:159-160).My publications attempt to contribute to the current scholarly discussion. From the perspective of the church the tendency is that Reformed people do not need to be ashamed if they assume that God has given a dependable picture of his deeds in history in holy Scripture, even when this is questioned in a scholarly way. At the same time, my writings make a contribution to understanding holy Scripture and the preaching of the gospel.The question can arise as to whether such an approach means that the interpretation of the Bible can actually only be carried out by experts. The answer to this is that the Bible is so clear that the message can be understood by every believer. The Bible is read by the whole church. Moreover, according to its nature, scholarship only has limited value: the results of scholarship are only legitimate within a framework which has previously been agreed to by the scholars who take part in the debate. At the same time, it is true that “experts” always play a role inthe reading of the Bible in the church. Even just the translation of the Bible itself, which is read by ordinary believers, is the result of the work of those who know the original languages. And also the experts themselves are dependent upon the work of other experts (Kwakkel 2010).The history of Reformed exegesis of the last century shows that Old Testament scholars who try to better understand the Bible by placing it in its own Ancient Near Eastern context are not always understood. This has to do with the godly fear that the authority of the Bible would be undermined and salvation vanish. And besides this, it is also difficult to accept that the interpretation of a specific passage can change due to scholarly research (Van Bekkum 2013a). In this senseit was not surprising that my explanation of the book Joshua in my dissertation, defended at the seminary of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Van Bekkum 2010a; 2011), caused some unrest in the churches and that weighty criticism followed. The academic and ecclesiastical discussion about this is to be expected and should be continued and seen in its proper context.Nevertheless, there is good reason for me to interact further with the criticism. The critical questions have continued for three years and, in the meantime, have burdened ecumenical relations now that sister churches of the Reformed Churches (Liberated) in Australia, Canada, the United States and South Africa in talks with deputies for foreign churches as well as in official synod decisions have characterized the dissertation as in conflict with the Reformed confessions (Letter of Admonition FRCA2013; Acts CanRC2013:178; RCUS Abstract2013:52; cf. Batteau 2012). Recently the book was again dealt with in an appeal to General Synod Ede 2014 (Brief2014). It is true that synod declared this appeal to be inadmissible, but that doesn’t mean that the questions which are posed should just be ignored. Not only the sister churches but also the appellants have a right to answers to their questions.After three years of experiencing continual criticism, I personally feel the need to say something in return. The persistent suggestion in all the criticism is that my book has placed scholarship above
  3. 3Scripture. This suggestion does my book a grave injustice and touches my confessional integrity. Therefore, I would like to provide clarity about how my book should be understood and what my position is. Hopefully this will contribute to peace in the churches and good relations with the sister churches overseas.The rest of this response will explain: 1) the communicative context in which the dissertation was written; 2) its rhetorical form, after which I will discuss 3) the most important objections to the content and 4) briefly return to the ecclesiastical debate.1.THE COMMUNICATIVE CONTEXTIn many respects, the way in which Reformed biblical scholarship is done, certainly from the point of view of guiding principles, has not really changed since the 19th and 20th centuries. The Bible is to be received as God’s revelation and interpreted as well as possible using the means of literary and redemptive-historical tools and with a view to the congregation. The Reformed churches have chosen to conduct the training of ministers in an academic setting. It is considered important that the training be at a high standard, be aware of what is happening elsewhere and be able to work with new developments. This was the case in the past and is still the case today.At the same time, the situation has changed. The establishment of the Kampen Theological School (1854) and the Free University in Amsterdam (1880) occurred in the context of the reconfessionalization of the Netherlands and the pillarization of Dutch society, which was just starting. Present day Reformed theology has to deal with the opposite movements. The Netherlands has become heavily secularized; theology is marginalized and society is fundamentally open. While in the past it was difficult –especially in the field of Old Testament –to keep up with one’s own Reformed Bible scholarship, today that is even more difficult. It has become impossible to oversee the entire field. And what is more, not only fellow scholars but also church members in general, are asking that theology be done in the manner in which they experience their faith in their life: in accordance with Reformed principles and at the same time in the midst of real life, in open contact with other people.On this point, there is a real danger for misunderstandings in the contact with sisterchurches overseas. The Dutch law governing higher education (WHW) forms the framework wherein Reformed academic theology operates in the Netherlands. Naturally this law reflects the developments mentioned above. The emphasis upon doing scholarly research is unmistakable and, as a result, communication with the outside world has increased. That is why the Theological University in Kampen went from a school to a college (Hogeschool) (1936), was officially recognized by the government (1976), and became a university (1987). Since the critical Oberman report (1989) due to the lack of appropriate academic level, the Theological University has done much to guarantee the academic standard of its own research. Because of these changes the Theological University in Kampen remained what it was: an academic school for training ministers. But even though the organizational and academic requirements were increased, the government has no say in the content of the teaching or research. That would be in conflict with the constitutional freedom of education (Grondwet, Art. 23). It is therefore completely incorrect to claim that the Theological University in Kampen has changed its name in order to meet the government half-way or to escape from subscription to the confessions (VanRietschoten, 2010). The most that can be said is that, more than before, a distinction is made between publications written for
  4. 4church members and those written for other scholars or for believers of different traditions or non-religious people.2.RHETORICAL FORMIn view of these goals formulated by the Theological University in Kampen since 1989, the rhetorical form of my dissertation about the entry of the people of Israel into the land of Canaan needed to take into account three factors: the content must set forth responsible Reformed theology on an academic level in open communication with other scholars whether they be religious or not. At the end of the day, I found this form by dealing with a matter which was and is vigorously debated: the relation between the message of biblical historical narratives the their reference to the past. The connection with current research made it possible, in my view, to demolish from the inside the current consensus that no entry of Israel into Canaan took place. This intention also made it possible to deliver structural criticism against all sorts of methods in current research. By analyzing previous research I made it clear that, contrary to what was often thought, political and religious presuppositions do play a large role. I developed a model in which, on the one hand, it is possible to speak to one another about the data, and yet, on the other hand, to pose the question of truth and to bring in the principles of Reformed theology (Van Bekkum, 2010 and 2011,Chapter 1). First, this model offers a description for how this process goes for most participants. Second, I show the reader, whether believer or not, the data and go through the various interpretive options (Chapters 3-7). Finally, I make clear what my own perspective is, namely, that I am a Reformed theologian and that this naturally has consequences for how I view the Bible and for which options I have chosen along the way (epilogue).Thus the book is an attempt to consider to what degree a Reformed conviction with respect to a topic where all interpreters have the same extra-biblical data can be convincing for those who are not Reformed, without hiding what I believe. It is assumed that in the process the scholar contributes to the understanding of Scripture and the development of Reformed theology. In this way I present for the first time a hypothesis about the dating of the book Joshua wherein not just a few separate biblical and archaeological elements are worked in, but rather a view that is based upon a systematic integration of all the elements which are important (Van Bekkum 2010:326-353; 2011:389-423).The debate in the churches points out that the book does not explicitly refer to the Reformed method of interpreting the Bible. This is logical because the dissertation is not a treatise about how a Reformed theologian should read the Bible. The starting point of the book is the data which all biblical scholars, whatever their background, share with one another. The assertion that this is the way in which students in Kampen are taught to exegete (among others Douma 2010) is therefore also incorrect. My book only deals with that purpose indirectly. The purpose of exegesis as taught in Kampen is to find an answer to the question, “What is the specific character and meaning of this Scripture passage in the context of the whole of God’s revealed Word as written in the Bible?” (Kwakkel, 2004:39). However large a tome my dissertation is, it is nothing more than carrying water and chopping wood for the actual work which is done by others. Yet this does not take away from the fact that the praise of God which comes out in the exegetical sections is certainly meant as praising God. Glorifying God in a way which non-religious people understand is still glorifying God. It is painful that this is being questioned (Van Rietschoten 2011). The fact that this book is being used in making sermons fortunately shows that it can also happen differently.
  5. 5The rhetorical form is also the reason why this book only deals with the tradition of Reformed exegesis in passing (cf. Capellen 2010-2011; Acts CanRC2013). The book tries to highlight the inconsistencies of the contemporary consensus and therefore also seeks discussion partners primarily in those circles. This certainlydoes not take anything away from the value I place in my own tradition. This precise point becomes evident in the epilogue of the book, but also in many other publications (Van Bekkum 2001; 2003; 2005; 2009b; 2013a).5The use of this rhetorical form does, of course, raise the question about the place of sola scriptura. In what way does Scripture have the last word in a specific exegetical matter? During the writing process and its guidance, constant attention was paid to this question. It is my convictionthat all the results fit very well within classical Reformed hermeneutics. This is not surprising since the book compares Scripture with Scripture and always uses extra-biblical information within the overarching framework of confessional theology. Moreover, the confession itself states that these facts can make their own contribution. A Reformed person is not someone with blinkers on (Van Bekkum 2010 and 2011, epilogue).Reviews from fellow experts show that in their judgment the confessional conviction is woven throughout the book –something which is evaluated as very positive (Peels 2010), as neutral (Hess 2012), or as very negative (Grabbe 2011; Knauf 2012).3.OBJECTIONS TO THE CONTENTa) Explanation of the “sun miracle”The initial occasion for all the unrest and criticism was an interview in Nederlands Dagblad(Dutch daily Christian newspaper) entitled “Not everything in Joshua really happened” (Van de Poll 2010). This headline above an otherwise excellent interview was very unfortunate. The intent of the book is precisely to do justice to the purpose of the biblical text. It shows alternatives for certain forms of popular and scholarly understandings of the text. Since the interview also addressed my slightly different reading of Joshua 10:10-15,the conclusion was quickly made: this dissertation denies what is stated in the Bible. In the words of an editorial written by Rev. Stam of Canada in Clarion, “Dr. Van Bekkum states that the miracle of the sun standing still did not really happen as described in the Bible” (Stam, 2010).This summary of my view is completely incorrect. The miracle stands, my book concludes (see also Van Bekkum 2010b). It might be, however, that the text itself means something different than has been thought. Through the discovery of clay tablets from Canaanite Ugarit it has become more and more clear in recent decades that the Israelites not only associated “sun” and “moon” with the lights in heaven but also with Canaanite gods. In various passages in the Bible where the terms are used there is polemics with the false gods. This raises the question: how is this in Joshua 10? What is more, the poetry of Joshua 10:12-13 shows strong similarities with several lines in Habakkuk 3. The section in the book about these verses in Joshua explores how extra attention for these relatively new elements in the 5It has also been stated that the lasting value of the hermeneutical reflections which came out of the decisions of Synod Assen in 1926 no longer play a role in the Theological University in Kampen (Douma 2010). This is a remarkable claim, seeing the fact that, in addition to my dissertation, “Historicity of the Bible in Neo-Calvinism” functioned as an associate research project in which these matters were considered (Van Bekkum 2000b; 2001; 2003; 2005; 2009b).
  6. 6discussion adds to its understanding. In addition, the exegesis investigates the frequent assertion that the poetic section has a very different meaning from what is given to it later in Joshua 10. These matters are dealt with in a way that is very common in the Reformed tradition: first, attention is given to the meaning of the smallest exegetical unit (in this case the poetic section); next, this is placed in the broader context. In both cases, comparing Scripture with Scripture precedes the comparison with extra-biblical material. The net result is a careful hypothesis which is laid before other interpreters for assessment (Van Bekkum 2010:237-250, 352-353; 2011:279-295, 422).Thus the miracle is certainly not denied; extra-biblical material does not lord it over the biblical text. To put it more strongly, in this case the dissertation even states explicitly that the value of certain extra-biblical parallels is limited.Critics have been surprised that no priority was given to the traditional interpretation (Douma 2010; Capellen 2010-2011; Report CRCA2012). The answer to that is that the hypothesis wants to further the research by drawing attention to elements in the text which sofar have been inadequately treated, namely, speaking to the sun and moon as though they were persons, and the parallel in Habakkuk 3:11.The most important point for all the critics is that the proposed exegesis views part of the passage (the “long day”)as figurative. Now it is indeed possible that the arguments from the text for this position are not strong enough. At the same time, it needs to be recognized that the alternatives proposed by the critics require other elements in the text to be taken figuratively: some people think that there was light without the sun, just as in Genesis 1, so that the day could be prolonged; othersstate that it was the earth which stood still rather than the sun (and moon). In addition, the two aspects of the text to which the proposed hypothesis tries to do justice are not seriously considered. One reaction does deal explicitly with the possibility that sun and moon are personified in the poetic section. But the Old Testament reasons for this exegesis are not discussed.An alternative is proposed in connection with New Testament material and Flavius Josephus (Van Houwelingen; De Boer 2010). Now it is useful to bring this in, but methodologically speaking that should only happen after first giving an explanation on the basis of the relevant Old Testament passages.In hindsight, it can be concluded that the incorrect but, given the headline, understandable unrest about whether or not a miracle happened has hindered a normal exegetical discussion. At the same time, we need to soberly acknowledge that it is doubtful whether it will ever be possible to really get a handle on the passage. All interpreters wrestle with the fact that the perception of the world and the heavenly bodies which is assumed in the text is different from our modern perception. It is perfectly clear that the text speaks of a unique miracle. But this is first told to those who experienced the world in a way which is foreign to our modern experience of it. This makes it very difficult to define the nature of the miracle (Van Bekkum 2010:352-353; 2011:422).b) “Truth claim” and “truth value”Another important point of criticism concerns the distinction which the book makes between the so-called truth claim and truth value of the text, that is, that which the text claims to be true and the question whether this claim is in fact true. The criticism contends that this distinction opens the way for man to test and judge the truth of God’s Word. And that is in conflict with the confession and Reformed hermeneutics (Douma 2010; Acts CanRC2013:172-173, 214).
  7. 7It is indeed true that in Reformed hermeneutics the claim of the text and what God wants to say in the text are bound together. But what cannot be separated can be distinguished. In ethics and dogmatics, it is common practice to first look at what the text saysand afterwards to ask the question what it meansin the current ethical or dogmatic context. The same procedure can be applied to the reference of the text to the past. After all, the text is not the past itself. The importance of first reading the text well before you dig up the past becomes apparent from the way in which the book Joshua is often connected with archaeology. Whether or not they consider the Bible to be a historical source or not, pretty well all historians working on this question look for destruction layers in tells dating to the Late Bronze Age. The clear observation that, according to Joshua and Judges 1, only four cities were destroyed (Jericho, Ai, Hazor and Jerusalem), shows how limited this approach is. Thus it comes down to first reading well: what does the text actually say?Further, it is important to read my book very carefully regarding the use of the distinction between truth claimand truth value. In the description at the end of Chapter 1 of the procedure which will be followed, it is stated that the working hypothesis which flows out of the exegesis with regard to the truth claimcan be tested in connection with extra-biblical material. The “testing” of one’s own, preliminary human interpretation is, however, quite different from “judging” the Bible itself (Van Bekkum 2010:34; 2011:40). It is therefore also of importance that the word in question “judge”(Van Bekkum 2010:32; 2011:37; cf. Acts CanRC2013:214) is used in a primarily descriptive passage: this is how the process usually works. It is, however, no coincidence thatthe word choice in the final explanation of my method is a bit different. It is not about “judging” the Bible but about “testing” a human scholarly hypothesis acquired through research. This is possible because it fits within Reformed theology to be able to discuss the meaning of a text with the help of all possible means. Also connected to this is that such a researched explanation of the Bible can be compared to extra-biblical material (cf. Van Bekkum, Van Houwelingen, Peels 2013a:251-253).In the same passage, my book adds a very important observation, namely, that philosophical and religious presuppositions, for example about the acting of God in history, play a crucial role in connection with the final acceptance of the truth value(Van Bekkum 2019:32; 2011:37). This sentence is, of course, meant descriptively and applies to everyone. But whoever is familiar with the debate –non-Reformed readers at least have noticed this –realizes that this passage also creates room for the Reformed position that truth claim and truth value coincide. This is evident in the rest of the book: nothing the text saysis brushed aside as unhistorical. The epilogue also explicitly states this position.None of the critics (Douma 2010; Capellen 2010-2011; Acts CanRC2013:214) mention these crucial sentences. In this way, an inaccurate picture is presented of the method being used and the criticism that the distinction undermines sola scripturamisses the target. The question does remain whether, in the final analysis, the distinction between truth claim and truth value causes the two to be separated too much with the result that the Bible itself is judged (Van Dam 2014). This question deserves serious consideration. But a charitable reading of my book shows that this concerndoes not apply to it.c) Terminology and inspirationCritics have also expressed their surprise at the use of postmodern terminology. A text has an “ideology”, contains “propaganda” and is the product of a certain “community.” The reason for using this terminology is as follows: when one wants to show that a certain scholarly consensus is self-contradictory and untenable, then one needs to make its language one’s own. In addition, questions
  8. 8about the tradition, direction, social background and convictionsof the human authors of Scripture are not wrong a priori.Of course, the use of such terms raises the question whether all sorts of presuppositions are being adopted, for example, that the authors of Scripture were shaped by blind prejudice or that theirthinking was totally determined by the interests of their group. In Chapter 1, the aforementioned terms are defined in such a way that such negative associations are excluded and remain open concepts. The “community” can also be a group wherein religion and revelation are very much valued. Above all, the community appears to be very critical of the social environment. The result of this precise definition is that the reader, who shares in the faith confessed in the epilogue, can effortlessly read the “scribes” as “inspired prophetic scribes” of Joshua.One critic completely ignores this manner of definition and the concrete use of the terms and concludes that the book locks the writers up in themselves (Boon 2012). It is completely impossible to defend oneself against such a suspicious reading of my dissertation. Others honestly ask whether this book takes inspiration seriously if the human process behind the writing and clarification of the history is studied in such detail (Capellen 2010-2011; De Wolf 2010). The answer to this is the following. According to Reformed theology, biblical history writing, also when this is prophetically inspired, is a process in which people have been involved with everything they have (Luke 1:1-4). This makes it impossible todistinguish between a divine and human factor. When one studies this process carefully and lets the text itself determine in what way God reveals himself, then the process of inspiration is taken seriously. It is of course true that, also in this case, God’s involvement in the writing down of the biblical text remains a mystery. But such an approach gives the concrete manner of the working of the Spirit much more its due than explanations wherein direct inspiration is immediately referred to when dealing with difficult questions. In that case there is a very real danger that God functions as a “God of the gaps.”d) AnachronismsCritics also question the view that certain elements in Joshua are described using terminology from the perspective of the author(s) from a later time. Some examples of this are: “iron” is used in connection with chariots, the naming of the northern boundary of the conquered land and the naming of the inhabitants of the southern coastal areas as “Philistines” (Douma 2010; De Wolf 2010). It is also considered to be incorrect that the description of the inhabitants of the promised land would be given in a schematized form (Capellen 2010-2011).The supposition behind this criticism is that something which is described in terms of a later period therefore also did not happen earlier (Douma 2010). Compare this with what the book actually says: concrete events from the Late Bronze Age were written down a few hundred years later in language which could be understood at that time, and which allows the more definitive fulfillment of the land in the time of David and Solomon to ring through, when the not-yet conquered area of, for instance, Joshua 13:1-7 was taken over. Thus the book is certainly about what happened. In the biblical portrayal, the text adds its own angle (cf. Van Bekkum 2013b). One might think that an account given in partly anachronistic terms or in a more stylistic form undermines the historical character of the account. But this idea rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of history writing in general and of ancient history writing in particular. All history writing refers to occurrences in terms that are understandable for the intended audience. Also today an anachronistic use of terms can happen in this connection, sometimes completely subconsciously. Usually this happens without any damage being done to the description of the events or their historicity. Thus there is every reason to allow this manner of
  9. 9explanation to remain in the toolbox of the Reformed exegete. Moreover, the argument that certain occurrences in the Bible cannot be historical because an account contains elements from a later time is exposed as being unsound.The question, of course, is how it can be determined that a text contains anachronisms. That is always the result of a complex interaction of biblical and extra-biblical material (e.g. 2 Samuel 24 describes the northern boundary of the territory ruled by David and that boundary is the same as the one in Joshua 11; in Judges 1 the Amorites are said tostill be living in the southern coastal plains). It is important that each case be carefully considered on its own. I was aware of the alternative explanations, mentioned by some critics, for the stylized manner in which the Canaanite peoples are named and for the presence of the Philistines (Capellen 2010-2011; De Wolf 2010). I chose not to follow those paths because they are not able to do justice to all the information we have at the moment. In the words of Herman Bavinck: these solutions unduly ignore some “stubborn facts”.e) Chronology and JerichoAnother misunderstanding arose in connection with a quotation from Kenneth Kitchen, who holds that dating the exodus only on the grounds of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is a “lazy man solution” and that this figure should not be taken literally (Van Bekkum 2010:32-34; 2011:38-40). The criticism is that I would hold that reading the Bible according to its plain sense is not possible and that such a method should be exchanged for one which is more critical (Douma 2010; Capellen 2010-2011; De Wolf 2010; Boon 2012; Acts CanRC2013:172, 214).Now it is true that Kitchen states his view quite strongly. The reason I quote him is because this Egyptologist, who is also well-known for his high view of Scripture, correctly perceives that this number (480) is used by many as an argument straight from Scripture for a fifteenth century BC date of the conquest (Acts CanRC2013:214). But such a straightforward argument does not exist at all. Ever since in 1867 it was discovered how a list of annual appointments of officials from Assyria could be connected to known and dateable solar eclipses, historians have developed a chronology using the available archaeological, historical and textual data. Both the early as well as the late dating of the conquest are highly dependent upon extra-biblical material. In addition, this chronology continues to be fleshed out and made more precise. A Reformed orientalist such as Cornelis van Gelderen showed in his Bijbelsch Handboek(1935) (Biblical Handbook) that he is very conscious of the open and ongoing character of this discussion in which all the data need to be constantly reevaluated. As Kitchen rightly comments (and Van Gelderen would agree with him), those who do not pay any attention to this neglect doing their homework. Therefore it is not surprising that in Reformed, Presbyterian and evangelicalcircles there have always been proponents of both dates, also of the thirteenth century.6One element in this debate is that a few questionshave been raised in connection with our increase in knowledge about how numbers are used in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. To what degree is the number in 1 Kings 6:1 a literal reference to exactly 480 years? And to what extent does this number for the period between the exodus and the building of the temple also have a meaning with more content? My book ascertains that these questions can only be answered through a thorough 6M. Noordtzij, A. Noordtzij, J.H. Kroeze. In the Anglo-saxon world: R.K. Harrison, D.J. Wiseman, A.R. Millard, R.A. Cole, J.D. Currid, K.L. Younger, Tremper Longman III, R.S. Hess and J.K. Hoffmeier.
  10. 10textual examination of the number in the context of all the numbers within Scripture from Exodus to Kings.7The passage under discussion from the dissertation only wants to state that the biblical data cannot function as an absolute point of departure in the discussion about the dating of the conquest. It is one element which must be read seriously within its own literary and historical context. The passage emphasizes that the Bible must be read well rather than that it undermines Scripture. The rest of the book focuses on the textual and historical elements in the chronological debate which the book Joshua brings to our attention (Van Bekkum 2010:357-386).Naturally this does not mean that the hypothesis of a fifteenth century conquest is inaccurate by definition or that no attempts have been made using correct methodology to show that a fifteenth century conquest is the most natural answer. But the suggestion of various reviewers (Paul 2010; Capellen 2010-2011; De Wolf 2010; Boon 2012) that a fifteenth century dating solves the archaeological difficulties of, for example, the conquest of the city of Jericho is incorrect. The excavators dated the remains a century earlier, that is to the sixteenth century. It seemed that this point of view had to be corrected. Subsequent research in the 1990s, however, confirmed the earlier date. Thereby Jericho remains in all honesty an “archaeological problem”. At the very last, however, this does not mean that the destruction of this city as written in the book Joshua is in my view unhistorical. The positioning of Joshua 6 in the whole of this book of the Bible speaks volumes also with regard to its historical intention.8Stronger yet: the clear corroborations between text and archaeology on the level of the social structures in the Late Bronze society as a whole even points in the direction of a historical interpretation of Joshua’s story of the conquest of the land (Van Bekkum 2013b:180-184).4.REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONLooking back on the criticism of my dissertation within the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and from sister churches in the International Council of Reformed Churches (ICRC), it is, first of all, helpfulto note that it stands within the broader context of unrest concerning developments in the Dutch churches. These churches have certainly changed. This causes internal as well as external relations to become strained and raises the question to what extent churches with these developments are remaining faithful to the gospel.In that light it is not surprising that a dissertation which attracts attention causes critical reactions. The motive behind these reactions is completely positive: it is all about keeping one another faithful to the Word of God. It is important to truly appreciate this. I have also felt this intention in recent years. I have learned from conversations and reviews and have grown to understand that outside of the immediate circle of Western European biblical scholarship certain terms and passages are understood differently 7In my view, there is certainly a historical referent to the number, although the substantive meaning of the number 480 (12x40) has greaterweight than the precise date. Unfortunately in my dissertation it was not possible to elaborate on this topic. For a start, see Van Bekkum 2010d.8On the basis of the archaeological problem of Jericho, Loonstra (2010) concludes that the book Joshua rebuilt a folktale into history. In my view, this path can only be followed if the text itself gives reason for it. I do not see how this is the case.
  11. 11than within that circle. I have also realized that, for example, the end of Chapter 1 of my book concerning the method could have been formulated better or differently.The opposite also happened. Sometimes there wasn’t even the veneer of a serious discussion and my book simply functioned as a stick with which to beat the Theological University in Kampen or the Reformed churches (liberated).The above indicates how important it is in a critical discussion to place the matters in their proper perspective and to summarize the position being critiqued correctly. On this point, it seems to me that something has gone wrong in the Dutch and international reactions. The communicative context and the rhetorical form of the dissertation were especially underappreciated.9Further, the representation of various important points was often misleading and simplistic. To a certain extent,this can also be expected when an academic workbecomes a matter for ecclesiastical debate. The result of this is that across the board in the Dutch and international conversation the main question –being the relationship of the dissertation to the confessions and Reformed hermeneutics –is not handled properly.In the end, this is unfortunate for all taking part in this conversation. Those who judge prematurely that the book is in conflict with the Reformed confessions prevent themselves from dealing with questions which, in the present context, comeupon them forcefully from out of the classical Reformed hermeneutics (cf. Van Bekkum, Van Houwelingen, Peels 2013):-What is the basis of the conviction that the Bible tells about God’s wondrous deeds? Is it the confession that the Bible is God’s Word by means of which the certainty of historicity is guaranteed? Or does a given trust in Christ precede this, a trust which can also live with the fact that certain matters remain unclear? (cf. Van Bekkum 2000; 2009a; 2012c).-How do you conduct academic biblicalscholarship from a confessional perspective in open contact with the world?-What is the place of new knowledge in the interpretation of the Bible and of the perception that it has become impossible to oversee all the developments?-And last but not least: is it really true that a Reformed theologian can settle the discussion about the historicity of a passage in the Bible by referring to the “plain sense” interpretation thereof? Or does this manner of reasoning run the risk of ignoring the different ways inwhich the Bible refers to the past, and does a reading which begins with the specific form and presentation of the text do Scripture more justice?These questions go to the heart of the specific character of sola scripturaand the intention to fully honour this rule. They deserve an open discussion within the context of Reformed ecumenicity. This sharpens everyone. And it would prevent churches from needlessly limiting their tradition or drifting away from it.All in all, I can only conclude that in the Dutch and international discussions about my dissertation unnecessarily big words were spoken. It is unfortunate that this has happened and it has also not left me unaffected. Hopefully, when other topics are dealt with, others will be left with the impression that they were at least understood, even in the midst of difference of perspective.Koertvan Bekkum, 20 March, 20149An exception is the Report CRCA2012:34-35, where the subcommittee asked what impact it has that the Reformed in the Netherlands are forced nowadays to react to critical voices outside the church.
  12. 12BibliographyActs of the General Synod of the Canadian Reformed Churches, Carman 2013Batteau, J.M. 2012. ‘Two Reactions to Koert van Bekkum’s Dissertation’, Lux Mundi31.1, pp. 12-17Bavinck, H. 1911. Modernisme en orthodoxie, Kok: KampenBekkum, K. van. 2000a. ‘De historiografie van de vestiging van Israël in Kanaän aan de hand van Richteren 1:1-2:5’, Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift54, pp. 295-309—2000b. ‘Zekerheid en Schriftgezag in neo-calvinistische visies op de historiciteit van de bijbel’, in: Koert van Bekkum, Rien Rouw (red.) Geloven in zekerheid? Gereformeerd geloven in een postmoderne tijd (TU-Bezinningsreeks 1), Vuurbaak: Bar-neveld, pp. 77-108—2001.‘“Naar de klaarblijkelijke bedoeling zintuiglijk waarneembaar”. De kwestie-Geelkerken in theologiehistorisch perspectief’, in: George Harinck (red.), De kwestie-Geelkerken –Een terugblik na 75 jaar(Ad Chartasreeks, 5), De Vuurbaak: Barneveld, pp. 87-108—2003. ‘Het Oude Testament als historisch document. Een verkenning van de omslag in de visie op de oudtestamentische geschiedschrijving’, Theologia Reformata46, pp. 328-355—2005. ‘“Het begin van een eigen weg”. Geschiedenis en antithese in het werk van Benne Holwerda’, in: G. Harinck (red.), Leven en werk van prof. Benne Holwerda(Ad Chartasreeks, 10), De Vuurbaak: Barneveld, pp. 177-216—2009a. ‘God is al nederig’, in: Martine van Veelen, Cees Dekker (red.), Hete hangijzers. Antwoorden op 17 kritische vragen aan het christelijk geloof, Buijten en Schipperheijn: Amsterdam, pp. 293-308—2009b. ‘Sprekende slang’, in: George Harinck, Herman Paul, Bart Wallet (red.), Het gereformeerde geheugen. Protestantse herinneringsculturen in Nederland, 1850-2000, Bert Bakker: Amsterdam, pp. 585-594—2010a. From Conquest to Coexistence. Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan(dissertatie)—2010b. ́Hoe de Bijbel van wonderen verhaalt ́, Nederlands Dagblad 6 april—2010c. (met G. Kwakkel), ‘Een veilige leefwereld voor de mens in dienst van God. Overwegingen bij alternatieve lezingen van het begin van Genesis’, Theologia Reformata53 (2010), pp. 318-335—2010d. ‘Datering Intocht 13eeeuw v.C.’, Bijbel, geschiedenis en archeologie15.2, pp. 8-12—2011. From Conquest to Coexistence. Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiography of Israel’s Settlement in Canaan(Culture and History in the Ancient Near East, 45), Leiden, Boston—2012a. ‘Jozua. Beloofd land als gave en opgave’, in: De profeten. Geroepen tot getuigen(Vragen naar het Woord, 2), Gouds Leerhuis, Gouda 2012, 8-27—2012b. ‘Coexistence as Guilt. Iron I Memories in Judges 1’, in: G. Galil et al.(ed.), The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10thCen-turies BCE: Culture and History(Alten Orient und Altes Testament, 392), Ugarit Verlag: Münster 2012, pp. 525-548—2012c. ‘He Became Humble’, Lux Mundi31.1, pp. 24-27—2013a. ‘Het gelijk van Van Gelderen en “de wet van Noordtzij”. Over het belang van het biografisch genre voor de theologie’, HDC-symposium bij aanbieding biografie J.G. Geelkerken door Maarten J. Aalders, Vrije Universiteit,22 mei 2013—2013b. ‘“Dit is het land”. De boodschap van bijbelse aardrijkskunde’, in: Koert van Bekkum, Rob van Houwelingen, Eric Peels (red.), Nieuwe en oude dingen. Schatgraven in de Schrift(ApeldoornseStudies, 62; TU-Bezinningsreeks, 13), Vuurbaak: Barneveld, pp. 177-196—2014. ‘“The Situation Is More Complicated”. Archaeology and Text in the Historical Reconstruction of the Iron Age IIASouth-ern Levant’, in: Eveline van der Steen, Noor Mulder-Hymans,Jeannette Boertien (eds.), Exploring the Narrative. Jerusalem and Jordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Margreet Steiner(Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies, 464; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London, New York), pp. 215-244Bekkum, Koert van; Rob van Houwelingen, Eric Peels. 2013. ‘Gereformeerde bijbelwetenschap en bijbelse hermeneutiek’, in: Van Bekkum, Van Houwelingen, Peels (red.), Nieuwe en oude dingen, pp. 243-255Boon, P.G. 2012. ‘From Conquest to Coexistence –A Trojan Horse’Brief aan GS Ede 2014Capellen, A. 2010-2011. ‘Verovering en vestiging. Jozua 9-13 en het archeologisch onderzoek I-VII’, www.eeninwaarheid.nl.
We use cookies to provide, improve, protect and promote our services. Visit our Privacy Policy and Privacy Policy FAQs to learn more. You can manage your personal preferences, including your ‘Do not sell or share my personal data to third parties’ setting using the “Customize cookies” button below.