hays – exegetical.tools

Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism, eds. Hays and Ansberry

June 9, 2015

You should buy this book and read it. I don’t suggest that because I agree with the basic premise of each chapter, but because I disagree with it. This book takes various historical-critical conclusions and determines whether they can be squared with Evangelical (or even orthodox) dogma. The tension between Evangelicalism and historical criticism tension is perhaps felt more in Old Testament studies, with dating conclusions in constant flux….

Galatians and Christian Theology, ed. Elliot, Hafemann, and Wright

March 13, 2015

Warren Campbell

The volume is structured into three parts: justification, the gospel and ethics. Each section includes a number of essays from a wide range of scholars of different disciplines and academic interests. While an extended review of every essay is certainly unnecessary in this forum, a brief….

Richard Hays’ Reading Backwards: SBL Review Session

December 4, 2014

Todd Scacewater

Last week at SBL I attended a review session on Richard Hays’ new book, Reading Backwards: Figural Christology and the Fourfold Gospel Witness. The reviewers included Marcus Bockmuehl, Marianne Thompson, and Francis Watson. The reviews were mostly positive, with most of the reviewers asking pretty tame (yet good) questions that either challenged small points of the book or gave slight push-back to Hays’ methodology. Hays in this work tried to do for the Gospels what he did for Paul, using his…

Review of Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism

August 17, 2014

Todd Scacewater

My review of Evangelical Faith and the Challenge of Historical Criticism, edited by Ansberry and Hays, has been published in American Theological Inquiry. I think this was a very important and timely project to appear in order to show what happens when Evangelicals try to use historical-critical conclusions while still retaining Evangelical tenets, such as inerrancy. I found quite a few internal inconsistencies in this attempt, which suggests the two ways of approaching Scripture simply aren’t as compatible as the authors wish them to be.…