Terry observed:
>As sympathetic as I am to those who want to squash Glenn wrt his comments
>on Kline and as sympathetic as I am to Kline's arguments, I find it a bit
>disturbing that we so quickly move to an attitude of "let's accept the
>exegesis of the experts" in this forum. After all, the esteemed editor of
>PSCF urged us to discuss this paper. Does that simply mean that we
>summarize it and attempt to understand it or are criticisms allowed? I
>think that Glenn's concerns are fair and ought to be addressed as part of
>the give and take of this conversation.
Jack Collins (a wecome new voice) says:
>The first to mention is one that several correspondents have already hit
>on: >how does someone who is not an expert in the discipline of Biblical
>exegesis >judge Kline's views? And what are you supposed to do if I, who
>claim expertise >in this discipline, express disagreement with him? Apart
>from the specific >views themselves, I think in an interdisciplinary
>setting it would be helpful >to make one's procedure for drawing
>conclusions more transparent. It would >also be helpful to let
>non-experts know whether there is any debate on the data
>themselves and their low-level interpretation, as well as on their high level
>interpretation. You will have to take my word for it that there is a lot in
>that article that could be debated.
- I think these all point us helpfully in the same direction: how DO we decide?
I submit there are several things we need to do. One is to recognize that
each discipline (OT exegesis, engineering, cell biology, physics...) has
its own code of expertise, methodologies, training, etc.; ie. each is what
we now call a "professional field". So we owe people in other professions
the courtesy of listening to their informed opinions. To me this means
outsiders would do well to avoid making Glenn's kind of (probably
deliberate over-) statements to the effect that, in the absence of
[scientific] verification and falsification "any of the very numerous
[biblical] models are all just about equally good".
A second issue, however, is to recognize that there are very good and less
good practitioners in each profession. We all know something about how to
recognize them in our own professions. How do we spot the "real experts" in
another profession? In part, I agree with Jeff Mullins that we have to
"take the truth of [scientific] pronouncements on authority unless we are
an expert in the
field, and I think that even experts tend to take the word of other experts
that they have found to be good and trustworthy researchers". But I also
believe that if we are serious about dealing with 'Science and Christian
Faith' we had better become as professional as we can in BOTH areas. In the
context of this discussion, we scientists need to learn more principles of
exegesis, more biblical languages, more philology, more biblical
theology... and become able to read and grasp something of the
disagreements between experts that Jack refers to. Nobody said this was
going to be easy, but I think it's essential if we are not to come across
as just one more set of people sounding off on subjects we don't
understand.
A third methodological point is one on which I agree completely with the
main thrust of Glenn's approach: that "external evidence" from science or
any other area of General Revelation MUST be used in doing good exegesis!
My only argument with Glenn is over the possibility of making good
exegetical decisions based on the "internal evidence" of the text alone.
As to the substance of Kline's article.. that's for another post..!
Peter