Canon, Attribution and Texts of Terror, by Daniel Heck

We are pleased to open another session of the SVS Workshop! Daniel Heck has been working on this fascinating and provocative paper, “Canon, Attribution and Texts of Terror,” for presentation at SVS 2015. With the goal of “thinking with the Vineyard,” this paper explores challenging questions regarding the nature of Scripture and its inspiration by testing against some of the most difficult texts in the Bible. Enjoy reading, and then join in the discussion!

Abstract

At the 2014 Society of Vineyard Scholars meeting, Amy Plantinga Pauw recommended that the herem warfare commands in Joshua should be read like Nathan’s cautionary parable to David in 2 Samuel 12. But is it appropriate to read an apparently positive historical account of divinely-ordained genocide as a cautionary parable? This paper considers some of the tensions that arise from this proposal, in light of the Vineyard’s core value of “the main and the plain” and the Vineyard USA’s statement of faith, which affirms inerrancy. After considering the Bible’s use of attributed statements in the Gospels, this paper suggests some ways in which Pauw’s recommendation, “main and plain” reading and the statement of faith might be reconciled.

Questions for the workshop

1. The paper touches on issues of inspiration, and deals broadly with the inerrancy debates. What problems and concerns do people have with the way exegetical questions of attribution end up eclipsing those discussions? I’m especially interested in the way broader discussions of inspiration interface with the argument made here.
2. The paper places notions of authorship at the center of canonical Biblical interpretation, even as it construes the Bible as an authored text that makes extensive use of sub-authors, much like an epistolary novel. Are there any major literary theoretical insights that should be considered, that can be expressed plainly?
3. I’m very interested in how this approach might play out when it comes to pastoral work and evangelization. Presumably, some members of our churches would be scandalized by this suggestion, while others would find that it gives them ways to exegete and engage the Bible in helpful ways. Also, some skeptics of Christianity are bound to be underwhelmed by this type of approach, while others might find that it opens new avenues for them to experience and exegete the Bible. I’m interested in feedback on who would be scandalized, who would be helped, and how this might impact interactions between these groups. I’m interested in how we might situate the paper within a broader pastoral reflection on how we navigate differences within our churches, and between our churches and those we hope to reach for Christ.
4. The paper proceeds from an assumption that Biblical archaeology has hit a rough spot when it comes to the historicity of Joshua. In other words, it is looking very difficult to reconcile the account in Joshua with the archaeological record. Is there any academically respectable archaeological work that suggests otherwise?

Interested to read more? Head on into the Workshop.