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

David,

But why is it misplaced? YECs use Barr as a scholar who affirms their claim
that the only reasonable interpretation of the writer of Genesis was yom =
ordinary day. That supports YECism. The fact the he then uses that as part
of an argument against inerrancy is unimportant. They can agree that from
that point on, they diverge from Barr.

To me it seems like a fair argument for YECs to make.

David Heddle

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 8:13 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Murray -- good points -- I really wasn't trying to criticize Barr so
> much as to suggest that the effort to use his quote to support YECism is
> misplaced.
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology

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 08:56:14 2008