RE: [asa] The Barr quote - observations on critical responses to Barr

Murray,

I take the comment as constructive criticism, and point well taken on the
three or four individual scholars who have been mentioned as counter
examples. I am really speaking from ignorance, not being well-read on
scholars from "world class universities" for instance between 1940 and 1981.
However, I don't suppose the views held by Walton or others were earth
shattering or unique in their day.

On the other hand, I think the quote from AIG that you provided is essential
and useful evidence in the other part of the statement. The attempt by YECs
to use the Barr quote to prove the validity of their position (appeal to
authority, in defense of their ultra-literal interpretation of the text) is
contradicted by their own disparaging words about (presumably) some of those
same "Biblical scholars".

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 10:26 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] The Barr quote - observations on critical responses to
Barr

Hi Jon (and David Opderbeck!),

I hope you won't be too put-out if I venture to defend Barr from some of
the criticisms you make of him in your post?

I'd like to offer the following observations;

First, Barr's letter to Watson is clearly intended not as a categorical
statement about all OT or Hebrew scholars. Rather, he clearly states "as
far as I know" etc. I suppose that the remark about world-class
universities further restricts the scope - but it's not likely that
we'll ever understand precisely what Barr meant by "world-class" -
although see my remarks in the next paragraph.

Second as a reputable scholar in the field, I think that Barr has every
right to (1) make a determination about what constitutes a "world-class"
university and (2) make a general comment about what views are held by
scholars at same. In any case, one might turn the objection you raise on
its head by making the obvious point that a university is deemed
"world-class" precisely because the views of its scholars are deemed
worthy of wide familiarity within their field of expertise. In which
case, citing one or two instances of scholars of whom Barr was
(apparently) ignorant may prove not that Barr was wrong, but that the
universities in question are actually not, in fact, "world-class"
because their faculty were insufficiently well-known to merit Barr's
attention.

Third, without wishing any slight upon John Walton or Moody Bible
Institute, I note that Walton received his PhD in Hebrew Studies in
1981, and from then until 2001 taught at Moody Bible Institute. Given
that Barr was writing in 1984, then Walton had, at that time, only three
years of teaching at Moody under his belt. Further, his first serious
work in OT scholarship "Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural
Context: A Survey of parallels between biblical and ancient Near Eastern
texts" appeared in 1989. Again, I have no wish to impugn either Walton
nor Moody, but nobody would credibly say that an unpublished author with
three years at Moody under his belt is a credible counter-instance to
Barr's claim.

I might suggest that much the same logic applies in the case of those
scholars cited by David Opderbeck. Blocher's first publication on
Genesis ("In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis") appeared
in 1984. Whilst John Collins was appointed at Covenant in 1994 with his
commentary on Genesis 1-4 appearing in 2006. Whilst Blocher therefore
cuts it fine, it would still seem that neither are credible counter
instances to Barr's remarks as to the state of OT and Hebrew scholarship
in 1984.

Of course, I realize that appeal to such scholars may demonstrate that
the landscape of Hebrew and OT studies has shifted since the time of
Barr making his remarks - but I do think Barr deserves to be defended
from accusations that his position was "a sham". Particularly so when
those accusations are based on clear anachronisms.

Indeed, who knows what Barr might write today if he were given the
opportunity to revisit the issue?

Kindest Regards (again),
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

> Further, the statement itself seems to me a fallacy of generalization,
> because how does Barr know every single professor of Hebrew or OT
> scholarship? Given that we've had over a century of evangelical and
> Catholic scholars accommodating Christian thought to Darwinian science
> and modernist Biblical interpretations, I find it very difficult to
> believe that it's even close to being true, at least of their personal
> opinions. Further, I believe it is a matter of fact that there are
> reputable Hebrew scholars who question even the supposed original
> meaning of the text (I'm thinking of John Walton, and you may be more
> familiar with others of repute), whether they are "professors at
> world-class universities" or not. It seems to me that both Barr's
> statement and AIG's use of it are a sham.--

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 17 00:38:05 2008