MemberJuly 1, 2021 at 2:14 am
Grisanti, Michael A. “The Present State of Old Testament Scholarship.” In The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, 149–62. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2011.
 Since the mid-1970s a number of influential scholars have demonstrated a thoroughgoing skepticism toward the historical validity of the OT. [Copenhagen] They suggest that the OT books were composed no earlier than the exile, and most likely in the Persian (5th to 3rd Cs BCE) or Hasmonean (166-64 BCE) period. Almost all minimalists totally reject the OT as a credible source for historical reconstruction.
 Thomas Thompson affirms that “not only is the Bible’s ‘Israel’ a literary fiction,… [w]e can now say with considerable confidence that the Bible is not a history of anyone’s past.” [ref]
 “The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures knew little or nothing about the origin of Israel…. The period under discussion, therefore, does not include the periods of the patriarchs, exodus, conquest, or judges, as devised by the writers of the Scriptures. These periods never existed.” [Robert B. Coote ref]
 Niels P. Lemche ref saying much the same thing
 Summary: Though minimalist scholars represent a minority of biblical scholarship, their conclusions have impacted the world of biblical scholarship…. In light of the loud and sweeping statements made by minimalists in general, the larger population has even less confidence in the credibility of the OT as it stands.
 critical scholars continue their rejection of the divinely authorised message of the Bible. Many of their methodologies assume that God was not involved in revealing His message to His people through prophetic spokesmen (revelation) or that the Holy Spirit superintended the process through which these prophets wrote down that message (inspiration)…. Evangelical interpreters can benefit from critical methodologies that are not integrally based on antisupernatural assumptions.