Journal: Conservative Theological Journal
Volume: CTJ 08:25 (Dec 2004)
Article: Dallas Seminary’s Chisholm Wanders Off Trail
Author: Thomas S. McCall

---

CTJ 8:25 (December 2004) p. 318

Dallas Seminary’s Chisholm Wanders Off Trail

Thomas S. McCall

President
The School of Tyrannus, Tyler, TX

Dallas Theological Seminary, my alma mater, would like to present itself as continuing to be the bulwark of evangelical, Dispensational, Biblical teaching that it was in the earlier days of Drs. Walvoord, Ryrie, Unger, Pentecost, and others. There are many signs, however, that there has been a decided and harmful shift in the faculty away from sound Biblical interpretation during the more than 40 years since it was my privilege to be a postgraduate student there. This is evidenced, in part, by an indifferent attitude toward the miraculous restoration of Israel in our time in preparation for the Tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ, and in downgraded interpretations of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament.

A case in point is the recent book published by a professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Seminary, Dr. Robert B. Chisholm, entitled Handbook on the Prophets. The author says the book is not intended “for the professional scholar,” but as an introductory survey of the prophets for students, pastors, and serious laypersons. In an endorsement of the book, Dr. Oswalt states that it is “a thoughtfully conservative approach. .. offering concise but incisive support for positions that take the Bible’s own claims seriously.”

To give credit where credit is due, there are conservative aspects about the book, including its analysis of the authorship and dating of the prophetic books. For instance, the dating of Daniel represents a clear delineation between the liberal and conservative understanding of the Bible. The liberal critics believe that Daniel could not have been written before the third century BC, because of the historical and linguistic material in the book. Chisholm does

CTJ 8:25 (December 2004) p. 319

not here clearly embrace the conservative view, but he forcefully presents the conservative argument that Daniel was written in the sixth century BC:

Modern critics also argue on linguistic grounds for the later date of the book.... Evangelicals have challenged this conclusion. Archer, for example, argues that there are only three Greek loanwords in the book, all of which are technical terms for musical instruments. He shows that the Assyrians and Babylonians had contacts with Cyrpus and Ionia and suggests that the instruments in question could have been known in Mesopotamia at a relatively early date. The Persian loanwords number fifteen; all are governmental or administrative terms that could have been known to Daniel, who served under a Persian regime. Archer also concludes on linguistic grounds that the Aramaic and Hebre...

visitor : : uid: ()