Evidence for the Bible, by Elgin Hushbeck

I am indebted to Henry Neufeld of Energion Publications for providing me with review copies of two recent books in the Consider Christianity series, with the stipulation that I review them here on my blog. I should add that they came with no obligation that the reviews be positive. I intend to start with Book 1 in the Series, titled Evidence for the Bible. A few caveats, to start. While I attend Evangelical services and have long identified myself as an Evangelical, I stopped doing so this year. In truth, I was never a true Evangelical. Evangelicals almost universally hold to inerrancy, and those who wouldn't go quite that far nevertheless hold an extremely high view of biblical authority. My parents are both forward-thinking, educated people, so inerrancy was never on the menu for me. In the past few years my opinions about the Bible have moved in some more liberal directions even than the basic suspicion of inerrancy with which I was raised. So I automatically raise my eyebrows any time someone publishes a book with a title like Hushbeck's. Hopefully I will write fairly. From what I've read of his book, I think I would like Hushbeck as a person; the last thing I want to do is be unnecessarily vicious. But I do have strong feelings on this subject, which IMO is an important one.

Evidence for the Bible can be divided broadly into three sections, with the first being focused on historical considerations, the second being concerned with the findings of science, and the third making some general observations on internal consistency and inspiration. I intend to devote several posts to specific sections of the book. In this post, however, I will start with some general observations.

It's always a nice gesture, whenever you plan to vehemently disagree with someone, to point out some positive features of their work. It is not merely to satisfy this obligation that I observe that Elgin Hushbeck's book is well-written. He's clearly a thoughtful individual who has put a lot of time and energy into a project that, for him, is done in the service of a greater good. Nor is his work without its valid points, and in my opinion any work that offers a fresh perspective is a useful one. Hushbeck is to be commended, moreover, for diving into some issues where most Evangelicals fear to tread, and for being unafraid to face the demons of liberal scholarship and scientific atheism. The book also has a clean, attractive format, is easy to follow, is well-edited (though not free of typos), and is mercifully short. Indeed, it's remarkable the amount of ground Hushbeck covers in so few pages.

All of that said, however, Hushbeck's approach has serious deficiencies. The most grievous one is his bibliography. One cannot browse it without noticing the almost complete dearth of citations from critical, professional biblical scholarship. Not only does Hushbeck miss some of the most cogent critics of the Bible-- Israel Finkelstein comes to mind-- but he also misses its most credible defenders, including James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen. These are unforgiveable omissions. Aside from a reference or two to Bruce Metzger's classic text-critical handbook, the sources that Hushbeck does include in his notes tend to be introductory textbooks written from a conservative perspective and presuppositional apologetics volumes like Josh McDowell's. Certain sources also emerge as dominant, like for example Gleason Archer's Old Testament survey text (published, predictably, by Moody Press). Hushbeck's ignorance, of German, moreover, is painfully evident. In one place he refers to "the German scholar Frank" (meaning, apparently, Franz Hermann Frank) and spells two German words in the title of "Frank's" book incorrectly. The omission of the author's first name, the publisher information, and a page number makes it altogether evident that he's relying on Josh McDowell's partial citation of this work. Hushbeck doesn't even bother to look up the full reference. In the section on science the situation is little better. While Hushbeck does manage to include citations from some of Darwinism's most credible critics, like for example Michael Behe and William Dembski, two categories of thinkers are noticeably absent. The first category, that of theistic evolutionists, is in my opinion an egregious omission. As Darwinian science solidifies, the gaps are going to get smaller until theistic evolution is the only really viable option remaining. With any luck, Christian thinkers will wake up to its viability in the near future rather than retreating to it as a last-ditch option when the writing appears on the wall. Secondly, Hushbeck makes little if any reference to real evolutionary scientists. He is again parroting Christian apologists rather than making a sustained effort to interact with the best arguments the critics have to offer. In short, Dr. Hushbeck is unaware of some of the strongest arguments against his views, and he severely limits his enterprise by merely rehashing what has already been said by other Christian apologists.

Over the next few posts, I will explore some ways in which I believe that the specifics of Hushbeck's analysis are deficient.