1. The Doctrine and Nature of Revelation/Scripture in the Modern Period
Read The Harnack-Barth Debate (http://www.religion.emory.edu/faculty/robbins/Pdfs/
DebateHarnackBarth.pdf and reference Bender chapters 6 and 7. You may also want to
revisit Harnack in Olson, as well as review your reading on Barth in Olson and Ford. Then
write a five-page paper (max) per the instructions below.
Drawing upon these readings, write a paper on how Scripture can be understood
4
theologically and how this is distinguished from a purely historical reading, taking into
particular consideration and discussing what was at issue in the Barth vs. Harnack debate.
What was at the heart of their disagreement? And what was good exegesis for both?
Include in your paper a discussion of the place and importance of a historical study of
Scripture, as well as the challenges that historical criticism presents for a doctrine of
Scripture. In what way are these challenges presented by such figures as von Harnack in
the past and Ehrman in the present? How did Barth address such challenges, and in what
ways can we say that Barth rejected both fundamentalism and a skeptical radical historical
criticism? What might we learn from this debate for our own confession of Scripture as the
Word of God today?