hedrick@topaz.UUCP (03/17/87)
There has been some recent discussion about the accuracy of Scripture. Tom Albrecht's fine exposition of the conservative Reformed position prompted me to go back and review what John Calvin had to say about the subject. I was quite interested to come upon the following in the preface to the Library of Christian Classics edition of Calvin's commentaries. Commenting on I Peter 3:14, "And be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled", he [Calvin] goes so far as to accuse Peter of misconstruing Isaiah (ch 8). But he excuses Peter on the ground that he was only referring to the prophet for a purpose of his own, and not explaining "every word used by the prophet." He says that when Paul quoted Ps. 68:19, in Eph. 4:8, "When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men," he actually changed the wording of the psalm, even though "he can hardly be said to have departed from the substance." But he believes that Paul did not actually quote the psalm; he "used it as an expression of his own, adapted to the matter on hand." Paul more than once gets into difficulties by using "the Greek translators" (on Heb. 10:5, 38), and at least once one cannot tell what prophet he is quoting from (on I Cor. 15:54). When Stephen says in Acts 7:16 that the patriarchs were taken to Shechem and buried in a sepulcher bought by Abraham, he clearly contradicts Gen. 50:13, Josh. 24:32. Calvin refers to Jerome's statement that the pilgrim Paula saw the tombs of the twelve patriarchs in Shechem. But he is not convinced. He says that perhaps Moses was using "synecdoche," that is, Joseph stands for the patriarchs; or that perhaps Luke was following an old tradition. He ends the discussion with, "Quare hic locus corrigendus est." Hence this verse must be corrected! (See also on Josh. 24:32, Gen 46:8, 47:31.) He also admits that when Luke made Paul speak Hebrew in Jerusalem, he may have been mistaken. Calvin thinks Paul spoke the common language of the day -- Aramaic (Acts 22:2). He thinks Mark is less accurate than Luke about Easter Morning (on Mark 16:1), and that Matthew's version of Jesus' denunciation in ch. 23:24 is defective ("defecta est oratio apud Matthaeum"). Even Christ himself does not quote Isaiah exactly, but applies his words to his own purpose (on Matt. 15:7). - Calvin: Commentaries, ed. Joseph Haroutunian, Westminster, p 30 It is my view that until the 19th or 20th Cent., what most people meant by accurate was "substantially accurate". I claim that in the last few centuries, our concept of historical accuracy has become more literal than it used to be. I suspect that some of this is due to the ideal of objectivity. But I also think we have been influenced the invention of the camera and tape recorder. These establish a very literal concept of what accuracy means. You only need to take a look at Gospel Parallels (an edition of the Gospels that put corresponding sections of Mat, Mark, and Luke side by side) to see that the Gospel writers didn't see anything wrong with reorganizing material or adjusting quotations. Presumably they believed they were still accurately representing what Jesus was trying to say. I think there is reason to think that similar flexibility existed with respect to narrative as well. I find the above comments about Calvin interesting because they seem to imply that Calvin also had a concept of substantial accuracy rather than tape-recorder perfection. Of course Calvin is not God, and he could be wrong just as I could. But it is extra support to my argument that the fundamentalist position imposes modern standards on the Bible, and is not an essential part of the Chrisitian faith. Vasu says: >... If someone told me the >accident occurred on 4th and Market at 3pm, and someone else told me >it occurred on 17th and Mission at 7:30 pm, and both claimed to be a >perfect source of authority, I would immediately become suspicious. However if they didn't claim to be perfect, and what you had were second-hand reports of an event that had happened 30 years ago, you would probably find this level of disagreement perfectly normal. This level of disagreement would make you sceptical if the witnesses claimed to know the models and colors of all the cars, but on the other hand you probably wouldn't doubt that an accident had actually happened, and you would probably also accept as fact items that were more likely to be memorable, such as the fact that somebody had been killed. This does not mean, by the way, that I agree with Vasu's whole list of purported disagreements within Scripture. Several of them involve a failure to consider the context of the statements, are matters of arbitrary definition (e.g. whether a bat is a bird is really a matter of definition), etc. I've already gone on long enough, so I'll leave this to others.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/20/87)
In article <10191@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> hedrick@topaz.UUCP writes: > It is my view that until the 19th or 20th Cent., what most people > meant by accurate was "substantially accurate". I claim that in the > last few centuries, our concept of historical accuracy has become more > literal than it used to be. I suspect that some of this is due to the > ideal of objectivity. But I also think we have been influenced the > invention of the camera and tape recorder. These establish a very > literal concept of what accuracy means. We have also been heavily influenced by the study of semantics. Reorderings, rephrasings, retellings, translations and other modifications of texts (common before text was written down, and still common during transcription) are well known possible sources of semantic change. We know that these have occurred extensively in the Bible. Context is also important to semantics. A single passage may well be intended to be interpreted differently under different contexts. Even a recording (audio or video) cannot reproduce the context of an original listener's culture. Thus to believe that the original meanings of Jesus' preaching has come to us today requires a miraculous preservation of semantics. The assumption of "substantially accurate" is merely wishful thinking without evidentiary basis. One can point to the profusion of interpretations of scripture as evidence that there is no understanding, or one can claim that they are all valid because there were multiple meanings intended. There's no proof either way: once again, believers must resort to blind faith, that most worthless justification for belief. How many places need we point out the arbitrary choice of faith as sole support, before Christians start to ask why they chose to put their faith in it? -- "Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." Dave Trissel -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0-tro