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