>glenn responded to my comments about "exegetical expertise":
>>I did not tell you that all theories of Genesis are equally valid. I was
>>using a reductio ad absurdum. If you remove verification and falsification
>>from the process of Scriptural theorizing then you make all views equal.
Peter Vibert wrote:
>- 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".
>
I will defend my statement above or be forced to admit I am wrong based upon
the outcome of an experiment I am going to suggest. I am willing to play the
gambler here. I do not know the outcome of this. I would suggest that the
best judges of an issue are those who have no interest in the outcome. As
such, the best judges in my mind of how the language of early Genesis should
be interpreted are those who existed prior to the time when Creation/Evolution
became an issue.
The test. Can anyone show that a sizeable minority of commentators prior to
the year 500 A.D. viewed Genesis 1-2 as non-historical? I would propose the
sizeable minority as being 15% of the commentators. I suggest this value for
a reason. It is big enough to avoid the single crackpot and big enough to say
that if 15% of the people read the original languages in 33-500 A.D. and read
everything as non-historical then it is clear that it is the LANGUAGE and not
the SCIENCE which is driving their interpretation. Polls today suggest that
50% of the U.S. believe in 6-day creation. And they have their exegetes who
defend their exegesis. I would guess that their exegetes would probably
surpass the 15% level meaning that there is a sizable controversy about how
the language should be handled. I am looking for this type of controversy in
the early church where it should have been the language and not the science
which determined the interpretation. This type of experimental test clearly
allows me as the non-expert in hermeneutics to know that I am not being driven
by those who have an ax to grind either way.
Peter writes:
>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.
>
I do think that one recognition point is the degree of unanimity on the part of the practitioners in a field.
Those who disagree with continental drift in the geologic sciences today do not surpass the 15% level
suggested above. Those astronomers who believe in a geocentric universe also do not surpass the 15% level.
(yes, I know of at least one!) Those who go against such odds need to be viewed with suspicion. They may be
correct (as was Alfred Wegener, the author of continental drift) but these cases are rare.
>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.
>
I most certainly agree with you Peter, that the internal evidence of the text must be considered. But my
cursory examination of the ancient record of Biblical interpretation suggests to me that in the past no one
read Genesis the way many do today. This would strongly suggest to me that the "internal evidence" of the
text alone, is not what is driving the game here. I feel (but can not prove) that it is the external evidence
which actually drives it. I most certainly may be wrong, but if it is the language, then I would think that
there should have been a considerable difference among the Church Fathers about this issue. Keith Miller
suggested that since the time of Augustine the early chapters of Genesis were viewed non-literally. There was
no citation to back up that assertion. If you know of some, I would be most interested in them.
glenn