Re: [asa] The Barr quote

Murray, thanks for this thorough review. You quoted Barr as follows: "This
is so because, if we are to ask what the Bible 'properly' is, as distinct
from 'transferred' terms like 'the Word of God', we would have to say, as I
wrote long ago, not revelation coming from God to humanity but the Church's
(properly: Israel's and, later, the Church's) response to and interpretation
of that revelation."

I respond: clearly, I need to know more about Barr than I do. Is Barr here
taking essentially a post-Barthian neoorthodox view of revelation?

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
wrote:

> Hi Randy,
>
> Let me take your post one step at a time, and see what we can make of it;
>
> Randy Isaac wrote:
>
>> In light of all your comments, is it accurate to say the following?
>>
>> Barr and "any professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class
>> university" believe that the authors of Genesis 1 fully believed and
>> intended a message of creation in six 24-hour days. With this, the typical
>> YEC agrees.
>>
>
> I'd tentatively suggest this is close to how YEC's would LIKE the situation
> to be but I think the reality is different for at least two reasons (already
> alluded to by other respondents on the thread);
>
> (1) "world class university" is Barr's value judgment and it reflects
> Barr's assessment of what constitutes credible biblical scholarship.
> HOWEVER if we allow the voices of all those poor hack conservatives (and
> I write that with keyboard firmly in cheek) then there is clearly
> another (conservative evangelical) scholarly tradition whose adherents
> follow an approach akin to that of Bernard Ramm, Gleason Archer and many
> more. They would NOT agree with the claim made in the above regarding the
> original author's beliefs.
>
> (2) Barr was writing in 1984 and to assume that the views of biblical
> scholars - even those at "world class" universities - has remained
> static would be dangerous. Even IF Barr's comments were correct in 1984,
> I'm not precisely overawed by a more than 20-year-old opinion on a field
> which has been an area of major controversy and major development in the
> intervening period - and on this point introducing scholars such as John
> Walton, Henri Blocher and John Collins who have made significant
> contributions since 1984 should warn us against too facile acceptance of
> Barr's tentative ("probably") and limited ("as far as I know") and dated
> (1984) position as regards the views of a particular subset of scholars
> (those in OT and Hebrew at "world class universities") many of whom would
> have since left the field.
>
> In consequence I'd rephrase your above to the following - which I'm sure
> you'll find to be a very disappointing rehash of Barr's original remark!
> Critical differences are in caps;
>
> <quote>
> Barr TENTATIVELY ("probably, as far as I know") SUGGESTED (note past
> tense!) that MOST professors of Hebrew or Old Testament at "world-class
> universities" (possibly an expression of Barr's theological commitments)
> AT THE TIME OF HIS WRITING TO WALTON (1984) believed (past tense!) that the
> authors of Genesis 1 fully believed and intended a message of creation in
> six 24-hour days. With this, the typical YEC agrees. AND THIS WITH THE
> CAVEAT THAT FEW OF THESE SCHOLARS HAD GIVEN MUCH CONSIDERATION TO THE
> QUESTION.
> </quote>
>
> Now, my recent remarks have made clear that I don't consider this an
> entirely unreasonable judgment on Barr's part, BUT it is a judgment and a
> dated one at that. As such it is, for me, a rather fragile foundation upon
> which to build a case!
>
> I might only add that the problem becomes even more compounded if one
> chooses to consider that the author(s) of Genesis may have had particular
> socio-political or religious agendas. Space forbids much development of this
> point here, but even a cursory familiarity with recent studies in myth and
> history will show that many cultures deliberately rewrote their history in
> the interest of particular socio-political or religious interests. As one
> small example, consider the excising of unpopular pharaohs from Egyptian
> monuments. Examples could be added ad infinitum (or, at least, ad nauseum!).
> On the surface this may seem a dangerous place for evangelicals to take a
> theory of scripture, but it has to be nuanced with (1) a strong sense of the
> providential guidance of God; and (2) an awareness that God works all things
> (even human treachery) together for good - even the enemies of Christ must
> be allowed their way in order that the purposes of God come to pass; and (3)
> an understanding that we have already decided to leave behind the simplistic
> claim that Genesis is a form of historical narrative (which point I add with
> apologies to those, such as Dick Fischer, who would take another view).
>
>
>> Barr & co. apparently would also believe the following with which the
>> typical YEC would not agree:
>> --the world was not in fact created in six 24 hour days so that the Bible
>> is in error
>>
>
> Certainly Barr did not consider the account scientifically true. From
> his 1991 Gifford Lectures on natural theology;
>
> <quote>
> "For generations people have been accustomed to say that the first
> chapter of Genesis did not purport to be a scientific account of the
> origins of the world, and this is an understandable apologetic response
> to the fact that THE ACCOUNT IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE." (Barr, James.
> Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
> p.175. emphasis added)
> </quote>
>
> --the Genesis passage is humanly inspired but not divinely inspired
>>
>
> Barr held to the view that scripture is a witness to revelation rather
> than revelation itself and he allowed no more inspiration for scripture
> than he did for the Church. This again can be seen from his 1991 Gifford
> lectures;
>
> <quote>
> More certainly, we can say, the dogmatic locus of the doctrine of scripture
> is that it should be part of the doctrine of the Church. It belongs there,
> along with the other resources that the Church uses and upon which it
> depends, like the doctrines of the nature of the Church, the ministry, the
> creeds, the sacraments and so on. This is so because, if we are to ask what
> the Bible 'properly' is, as distinct from 'transferred' terms like 'the Word
> of God', we would have to say, as I wrote long ago, not revelation coming
> from God to humanity but the Church's (properly: Israel's and, later, the
> Church's) response to and interpretation of that revelation. That is what it
> directly and univocally is, and it is on these terms that we can approach it
> and enter into it exegetically. But its response and interpretation contain
> structures which derive from, and depend on, natural theology and other
> kinds of 'natural' knowledge.
> Thus the terms like 'holy', 'inspired', and even 'infallible', often used
> of the scripture in traditional Protestantism, are viable and usable in so
> far as these terms have meanings analogous to those of the holiness,
> inspiration, infallibility, and so on of the Church as a [198] whole. The
> Bible has as much infallibility as the Church has (in Protestant terms, not
> too much). It is inspired in much the same way, as the Church is inspired by
> the presence of the Spirit within it.-
> (Barr, James. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
> 1993. p.197-98.)
> </quote?
>
> Such is, in brief, Barr's view and I think two important points might be
> made in respects of it;
>
> (1) It stands in most definite denial of a verbal plenary inspiration of
> scripture - which would be the theory of choice amongst fundamentalists, and
> perhaps amongst conservative evangelicals. The later would nuance such a
> theory in regards of Genesis by allowing that God could inspire
> word-for-word an account which was other than historical narrative. But
> essentially Barr is consciously rejecting the verbal plenary approach and so
> standing in contrast to fundamentalist and conservative evangelical views
> (he would have classed both as "fundamentalist")
>
> (2) Amongst those other scholars (the "& co." of your query) who rejected
> the verbal plenary approach there were different possible options as to the
> degree and kind of inspiration (if any!) which lay behind the Genesis
> narrative. Indeed, it is perhaps not too much to say that attempting to find
> a doctrine of scripture which adequately nuanced the balance of human and
> divine elements (if, indeed, there were taken to be any divine elements!)
> was always a very great difficulty for liberal and neo-orthodox scholars and
> the issue was consequently not given to one single solution.
>
> --the message that God created the world in six 24 hour days is not God
>> telling us what actually happened
>>
>
> From Barr's perspective this is most certainly correct. Indeed, from what
> I've written above, even IF the YEC view of origins was correct, Barr's
> theory of scripture would perhaps still not allow him to say that Genesis
> account is a case of "God telling us" anything at all (but I think I just
> introduced an unnecessary pedantry!)
>
> --Genesis was written in 5th or 6th century BC by Hebrew scribes
>>
>
> Barr may have believed this - it would at least be consistent with the sort
> of "world class" scholarship in which Barr considered himself to be engaged.
> I have, however, never encountered any specific remark by Barr on the
> subject.
>
> As an aside, despite my ignorance of Barr's position I would wager to
> suppose that few if any YEC's would wish to quote Barr with approval on the
> matter - whatever his view might be. Did somebody mention selective
> quotation?
>
>
>>
>> If so, we have a curious situation:
>>
>> the interpretation of a 6 24hour day creation is correlated with a view
>> that the Bible (or at least Genesis) is of recent (relatively) human
>> inspiration and origin, not God's message of truth to us.
>>
>> the view that Genesis has an indeterminate (either long or no message of
>> chronology) is correlated with a view that the Bible is of divine
>> inspiration and origin, with Genesis written earlier, taken from God's
>> theological message to a Mesopotamian audience.
>>
>> That's quite the opposite of what is normally claimed. Scientific evidence
>> of an old earth would be consistent with both of the above views (heads I
>> win, tails you lose) but the YEC position would pick and choose from each
>> one.
>>
>>
> I've had to mull over this a bit to try and get the gist of your point. I
> _think_ you're suggesting that the foregoing discussion leads to one of two
> possible situations;
>
> First, the contrast which seems to arise in respects of the conservative
> evangelical vs. liberal/fundamentalist approach;
>
> EITHER
>
> (1) Genesis is a human (non-inspired) account of a young creation
>
> OR
>
> (2) Genesis is a divinely inspired account of an old creation
>
> As opposed to, second, the contrast most people would imagine exists;
>
> EITHER
>
> (1a) Genesis is a human (non-inspired) account of an old creation
>
> OR
>
> (2b) Genesis is a divinely inspired account of a young creation.
>
> The gist of your point seems to be that people argue about the 1a/2a option
> whereas the actual debate should be over the 1/2 option?
>
> Let me know if I have this latter bit right and I'll give you my considered
> response as soon as possible. But so as you won't die wondering (smile) I'll
> give my knee-jerk reaction; it seems to be an interesting re-framing of the
> debate, but perhaps too dichotomous given the very great variety of theories
> of inspiration which have been proposed particularly on the liberal side. If
> we put the myriad of liberal views aside, however, such a reframing may have
> interesting implications for the debate between YEC vs conservative
> evangelical exegetes of Genesis.
>
> Anyway, get back to me and we'll kick it around some more.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> 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.