Howard writes, in regard to Aquinas' hermeneutics,
> To be very candid, I do not find it at all helpful.
Nor do I. I intended this posting as a bit of historical information, not
as a hermeneutical set I would ever endorse.
I recall a conversation with a YEC student, Joel, a few years ago. I was
pointing out to him that Isa. 40:22a does not refer to a spherical earth, as
he had stated to me. Joel responded that the prophet must have known that
the earth was spherical because God was directly communicating to him (and
God knew). I replied that I didn't think that was the case, since the
purpose of the passage in question was to proclaim salvation, not teach
science; there was no reason to suppose that God had imparted any knowledge
or truth to this prophet (or any prophet) beyond that which God intended the
prophet to proclaim. Furthermore, even if God had communicated to the
prophet that the earth he was standing on was spherical, how could anyone
know God did so, since the prophet certainly didn't say it was spherical?
Joel's claim was unsubstantiated speculation, and an unconvincing argument
to support his eisegesis.
This is all aside from my conviction that Moses did not write Genesis.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <hvantill@novagate.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Accomodation (was Re: Scripture and the ASA; Robt Rogland's
post)
>
>
> >From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>
> > This notion of accomodation also turns up in medieval commentaries on
the
> > Six Days. There's an excellent example of it in Thomas Aquinas _Summa
> > Theologiae_,
>
> [snip]
>
> > "But since this theory can be seen to be false by solid arguments,
it
> > should not be maintained that it is the sense of this Scriptural text.
Take
> > into account, rather, that Moses was speaking to ignorant people and
out of
> > condescension to their simpleness presented to them only those things
that
> > are immediately obvious to the senses.
>
> But is this anything more substantial than a rhetorical "dodge"? Note the
> two principal hermeneutical options here undestood:
>
> 1. Moses had no privileged science-like information and spoke with
integrity
> within the limited vocabulary and knowledge of the day.
>
> 2. Moses did have privileged science-like information but was led by God
to
> suppress it and to speak as if he knew no more than what could be said
> within the limited vocabulary and knowledge of the day.
>
> How would Aquinas or Calvin (or anyone else) be able to tell that option 2
> was the correct one?
>
> [snip]
>
> > St. Thomas is clearly seeking to reconcile the biblical text with
the
> > dominant scientific theory of his own time, the Aristotelian theory of
the
> > elements, which makes air lighter than earth and water, and thus above
the
> > waters of the Earth, where it constitutes Earth's atmosphere.
>
> He was also, it seems, trying to preserve the presupposition that the
human
> writers of the biblical text had privileged information that could be
> suppressed for various reasons.
>
> [snip]
>
> > It does illustrate that
> > there is a long history in Christianity of trying to relate biblical
texts
> > to scientific theory and knowledge, and this was one way, a respected
one
> > for several centuries, that was used to do so, whatever one might think
of
> > it today.
>
> To be very candid, I do not find it at all helpful.
>
> Howard Van Till
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 22 2002 - 00:45:17 EDT