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

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Sat May 17 2008 - 11:39:31 EDT

Mmm, I don't know the others, but I have met and talked with John Walton, and attended one of his lectures on the ancients' view of creation. It makes a great deal of sense, but that kind of beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder.
As kind as he is, he might take a little umbrage at the "in their day" characterization. I think it's safe to say that he's still "in his day".  :-)
Regards - JimA [Friend of ASA]

Jon Tandy wrote:

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.


  

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 11:39:59 2008