Shoddy Scholarship
I have to confess I could not believe that Catherine Kroeger engaged in the sort of shoddy scholarship that Wayne Grudem shows she did. And I suppose if a well educated scholar like her can engage in such transparently one-eyed usage of primary sources (to the point of misrepresenting what the original author actually said - intentionally or unintentionally) I should not be suprised that a far less educated man did the same thing. But I am.
[Name blanked out] is a Christian author committed to the eschatology espoused by the Left Behind series. Never heard of the guy before a few days ago, but it seems he has written quite a few books solely on that topic. Now, that doesn't worry me - I'm quite happy for people to believe that and even write about it, though personally I find the evidence for that particular position to be singularly lacking - but what does worry me is the lengths people will go to bolster their position.
In one of his books, [name blanked out] provides quotes of writers in the early Church to "prove" that the Early Church believed in a very similar eschatology to he and his crowd - specifically the pre-tribulation rapture. Unfortunately for him, the quotes do nothing of the sort, as anyone who actually bothered to go and read the quotes in context (all freely available on the internet) would be able to see. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading the text. There is only one quote that might possibly be taken as describing a pre-tribulation rapture, but the same early church author clearly talks about the church going through the tribulation elsewhere, so it is likely that was not the intent of this particular quote.
[I wish I still had the book on me. I would then feel free to use the guy's name and give examples.]
How could this guy be so shoddy? Did he just skim those writings and pounce on any fragment of a sentence that looked like it might possibly support his view, cry Eureka and copy it down? Or is he just so committed to his point of view that he cannot see that these ancient authors are not saying what he wants them to say? And yet he has the audacity to declare that people who say that doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture is only a couple of hundred years old do not bother to actually read early church texts!!
How many more examples of this type of shoddy scholarship are there out there????
["Harsh," said my wife, when she came into the room and looked over my shoulder at this post. You think so? I think I'm just calling an implement for digging holes an implement for digging holes.]
[Name blanked out] is a Christian author committed to the eschatology espoused by the Left Behind series. Never heard of the guy before a few days ago, but it seems he has written quite a few books solely on that topic. Now, that doesn't worry me - I'm quite happy for people to believe that and even write about it, though personally I find the evidence for that particular position to be singularly lacking - but what does worry me is the lengths people will go to bolster their position.
In one of his books, [name blanked out] provides quotes of writers in the early Church to "prove" that the Early Church believed in a very similar eschatology to he and his crowd - specifically the pre-tribulation rapture. Unfortunately for him, the quotes do nothing of the sort, as anyone who actually bothered to go and read the quotes in context (all freely available on the internet) would be able to see. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a matter of reading the text. There is only one quote that might possibly be taken as describing a pre-tribulation rapture, but the same early church author clearly talks about the church going through the tribulation elsewhere, so it is likely that was not the intent of this particular quote.
[I wish I still had the book on me. I would then feel free to use the guy's name and give examples.]
How could this guy be so shoddy? Did he just skim those writings and pounce on any fragment of a sentence that looked like it might possibly support his view, cry Eureka and copy it down? Or is he just so committed to his point of view that he cannot see that these ancient authors are not saying what he wants them to say? And yet he has the audacity to declare that people who say that doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture is only a couple of hundred years old do not bother to actually read early church texts!!
How many more examples of this type of shoddy scholarship are there out there????
["Harsh," said my wife, when she came into the room and looked over my shoulder at this post. You think so? I think I'm just calling an implement for digging holes an implement for digging holes.]
posted by Ali at 5:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home