Seeskin’s faith-based and critical approach is possible (in his mind) because he recognizes the human dimension in the production of the biblical texts, and he shuns biblical inerrancy. Inerrantists assert the historicity of biblical events like the exodus and conquest, but Seeskin does not. This approach distinguishes Seeskin, and many other Christians and Jews, from modern American conservative evangelicals. As we argue in Misusing Scripture, the premise of biblical inerrancy is incompatible with scholarship, with scholarly inquiry and critical thinking. On this we and Seeskin seem to agree.
Seeskin’s faith-based and critical approach is possible (in his mind) because he recognizes the human dimension in the production of the biblical texts, and he shuns biblical inerrancy. Inerrantists assert the historicity of biblical events like the exodus and conquest, but Seeskin does not. This approach distinguishes Seeskin, and many other Christians and Jews, from modern American conservative evangelicals. As we argue in Misusing Scripture, the premise of biblical inerrancy is incompatible with scholarship, with scholarly inquiry and critical thinking. On this we and Seeskin seem to agree.