From: bivalve (bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com)
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 20:31:50 EDT
>What I find questionable - here, with Jonah, and with many other
>texts - is the assumption that there must be overwhelming evidence
>in order to get us to believe that a biblical text is not a record
>of "history as it really happens." <
>This assumption, especially when combined with "might have been"
>arguments, allow one in principle to examine the historicity of
>biblical texts without in fact ever concluding that any aren't
>accurate history. That may seem an advantage to some but I think it
>dodges a lot of hard questions.<
I would argue that indeed overwhelming evidence is necessary to
legitimately conclude that a biblical text, or any other potentially
historical record, is not a record of history as it really happened.
Much less overwhelming evidence is needed to suggest that it might
not be history as it really happened. In many cases, the independent
evidence on the historicity of scripture passages (for or against) is
underwhelming. However, the NT in particular asserts the importance
of the Gospel as real history. The addition of fictional
embelishments to a narrative, no matter how theologically useful,
raises questions about the general reliability. It does not mean
that one must immediately throw out everything, but does require
examination.
The only solid criterion for deciding historicity is comparison with
historical and modern evidence. Taking the specific example of Peter:
The event claims to be miraculous, so scientific evidence that people
do not normally walk on liquid water is not disproof. It does mean
that some evidence of the likelihood of miracles in this situation
would be helpful. As an illustration of the accessibility of Jesus's
power to us through faith, it has function as a sign, supplementary
to the main sign of Jesus' power over the Sea.
There is no contrary evidence, i.e. witnesses that assert that Peter
was seen to stay in the boat the whole time. John also records his
readiness to hop overboard.
It is part of an overall account of historical events.
It suits the purpose of the author, which would be expected of
fiction and of much historical writing.
It matches the style of the author, which would be expected of
anything not directly copied from another source.
The various biographies posted to this list not long ago are, in
almost every case, from a single source. To the extent that they
show distinctive styles, they are written in the style of each
individual, and they address the theological and personal interests
of the author. Yet I do not think they are fictional. I do not find
the cited criteria for detecting midrash in the Scriptures any more
convincing than the existing criteria for detecting ID in biological
systems. Both sets of criteria point out things worthy of
investigation, for midrash or ID, but as proof leave much to be
desired.
Incidentally, the uses of the word midrash in Chronicles do not seem
to have the connotation found in later Judaism; in fact, it seems to
be cited as a source for historical information, though probably with
theological commentary.
Part of the difficulty is that some liberal critics (for want of a
better term) consider highly underwhelming evidence as sufficient
reason to reject the historicity of Scripture; the Jesus Seminar
being a notorious example. It is no wonder that questioning the
historicity of minor details arouses the suspicion that one is trying
to throw out the entire Bible. Thus, it is important to distinguish
between a call to examine the texts carefully, being open minded
about the literary genre, and an assumption that they must be
deliberate falsehoods.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:46:45 EDT