John Goldingay, an influential professor at Fuller Theologican Seminary, is one of the translators of the soon-to-be-released Common English Bible. Here are some excerpts from his Installation Address (which is online; feel free to consult the entire address to fully appreciate the context). They should provide a pretty good idea of the sort of theology he advocates:

“There are no Old Testament passages which are predictions of Jesus.”

“It is the same evangelical conviction about God’s delight in communicating with people which makes it impossible for an evangelical to believe that Isaiah wrote the whole of the book called Isaiah or to believe that the visions in Daniel came from the sixth century.”

So it’s impossible, in Dr. Goldingay’s world, for an evangelical to believe that the visions in Daniel came from the sixth century. (He meant the sixth century B.C.) I guess that means that Matthew – perhaps Goldingay would prefer some other name or a reference such as “the author of the Gospel of Matthew” – was not an evangelical, in light of the reference to Daniel in Matthew 24:15. And since Jesus is the speaker there in Mt. 24, I guess that rules Him out, too. Unless perhaps Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 were among those things which Goldingay reckons that Jesus did not actually say.

“So when tradition says that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, evangelical study of the Old Testament is quite at home asking “Did he?” It [i.e., collectively, evangelicals who study the OT] knows that we do not need to provide God’s word with spurious support by linking it with some famous figure, as if it might lose its authority if it were of anonymous authorship. The belief that Moses wrote the Pentateuch was only a human tradition.”

Got that? When Matthew 8:4, Matthew 19:7-8, Mark 1:44, Mark 7:10, Mark 10:3-4, Luke 2:22, Luke 5:14, Luke 16:29-31, Luke 24:44, John 1:17, John 5:45-46, John 7:19, Acts 3:22, and Hebrews 10:28 refer to Moses, they are lending spurious support to the Pentateuch by linking it with Moses, and are perpetuating a human tradition.

“Tradition says that Job, Ruth, Jonah, and Esther are factual stories, but evangelical study of the Old Testament is quite at home concluding that actually they are God-inspired parables. Rather than describing them as parables, I would prefer to describe them as fictional stories, novels inspired by God, but in the end I have yielded to the persuasion of Professor Marianne Meye Thompson.”

The last sentence means basically that he assented to a colleague’s advice that it would be too offensive to call them works of fiction, so he doesn’t do that even though that’s what he considers them to be.

“Those narratives [in I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, and I & II Chronicles] include material which is not factual, not historical. They tell us that people said and did things that they did not do and say, just as the Gospels tell us that Jesus said and did things that Jesus did not say and do (this is simply an implication of the evidence presented by a Synopsis).”

Got that? The OT books of history contain material that is not historical. But don’t worry, because Goldingay still believes that God was in charge of the production of history books about ahistorical history: “Every word in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, every word in the Gospels, is God-given, God-inspired, and contributes to our getting a true impression of the history.”

Just to make the picture complete, here’s what Goldingay said about Genesis 1:

“I assume that the traditional critical view is right that Genesis 1 was written in Babylon among people from Judah who had been transported there by the Babylonians.”