On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Dave Probert wrote:
>> DL: I will send you the post that began this discussion on Sarah.
>
> I still have it (12/4/95 with Russ Maatman, right?). I just disagreed
> with Heb 11:11 being ``"a wrong idea" that got into the Text'' due to
> ``the state of the [of] science in the first century.''
Correct.
DL> > But briefly, my point was to underline that the Scripture's view of
> > reproductive science changed between Gen 11: 30 (PREFORMATISM THEORY) to
>
DP> So how exactly does preformatism come out of Gen 11:30? What is the
> hebrew expression that leads to this conclusion?
ANE reproductive science viewed women as "fields", that is why they are
deemed "barren" if they don't "produce" "fruit". This is a fine example
of scientific theorizing in action. An observation is made, an
analogy is noted, and terminology from the more familiar context is
applied, resulting in a metaphor for the new model. In this case, an
agrarian society applied an agrarian concept to describe
human reproduction--and frankly I think it is quite clever. (cf. Ian
Barbour, Religion in an Age of Science--Chap 2 "Models and Paradigms").
The notion of Preformatism was widely accepted in the ANE--for that
matter it is even noted as late as the Koran: "Women are your fields: go,
then, into your fields whence you please." 2:224. Charming, eh?
Regarding the actual Hebrew word for BARREN it is 'aqAr' (long 2nd
'a') which comes from the verb 'aqar' (short 2nd 'a'). The verb means
'to pluck' or 'to root up'. This fits quite nicely into an agrarian
context--that is, "seed has been laid down" (the ejaculatory act), but it
has been "plucked up", leaving the "field" without "fruit". Remember
Abraham's "seed" was good because he fathered children by other women.
So there was something wrong with Sarah. The seed Abraham was laying
down was being plucked up.
Cf. Hebrew Lexicons: BDB, p. 785. TWOT, II: 692.
> Also, are you saying that Gen 11:30 and Heb 11:11 refer to the same
> situation? I think they don't. Sarah was barren. But the emphasis of
> Heb 11:11 is that she became unbarren when she should have been barren
> due to her age. If her original barrenness was biological it could
> have been due to a tilted uterus, or disease-scarred falliopian tubes.
> Perhaps the author of Hebrews was more accurate than he ever intended
> to be, in that he gives a specific biological reason for the later
> conception.
Of course, there is a double whammy. First, Sarah was barren, and second
she later was too old. The writer of Hebrews refers to Sarah as being
"steira" (GK) which means "barren" or "incapable of bearing children"
(Bauer's NT Lexicon, p.766). He/she also refers to Sarah as "para
kairon alikias", that is literally translated, "above/beyond [the]
time/season of age" In other words, she was too old. So I can appreciate
the point you are driving at, but the writer of Hebrews is definitely
referring to BOTH aspects: (1) her life long barreness and (2) the fact
she was beyond child bearing years.
> > In saying this, I was trying show that
> > when the Holy Spirit inspired the Biblical writers, it was within their
> > intellectual horizon--specifically, the writers were allowed to make
> > statements about nature (ie, scientific statements) that was consistent
> > with the science of their day.
>
> This is where I think we *disagree* alot more than you think. The
> examples you give were not writers making statements about nature. Heb
> 11:11 is making a statement about the common sense state of things in
> the most appropriate language of the day. If the details of what
> is said are analyzed (as you have done), indeed it appears to suggest
> something scientifically inaccurate, but that is an aspect of language,
> not science.
You lose me here. The writer is making a "statement about the common
sense of the state of things" (ie, she was barren and too old--which is
indeed a "statement about nature"--specifically, it is indeed an ANE
biological statement). And, yes, he/she is using the "most appropriate
language of the day BECAUSE they believe women had seminal emissions.
Our modern notion of "ovulation" was just not part of the intellectual
furniture of that day--and that is a historical fact (Read that paper I
have suggested).
It is not the language. Conceptually, 1st century biology was beyond
biology 20 centuries earlier, but it was not as accrurate as biology 20
centuries later--ie, ours.
> The problem *is* language. I read more physics than biology, and it is
> very common to find physicists using language which is inaccurate IF
> TAKEN LITERALLY. However it is still the best language to use, because
> the inaccuracies are not important, and use of accurate language would
> detract from the main point. Nobody accuses anybody of substantive
> error when they do this.
You offer a fine truism here, I very much acknowledge it. However, the
physicists are more than aware of the epistemological problem in the
construction of models and the use of metaphors in same. Be assured this
was not the state of intellectual affairs in the 1st century. Dave,
think like a 1st century nomad, not a 20th century intellectual.
> Our difference seems to be that you think the `science' is important,
> whereas I think that the issue in Heb 11:11 is `language'.
Actually, it is the FAITH of Sarah that is important.
> If *all* you were saying is that the Scripture is written in language
> that is not always literally accurate, then we *would* agree, because
> I believe that much of language works by being evocative rather than
> literal
Are you suggesting that the writer of Hebrews was fully aware of the 20th
century notion of female reproduction (specifically, ovulation), but
because that was the LITERAL reality, and because there was no term at
that point in intellectual history to describe that LITERAL reality, that
he/she decided to use a common LITERALLY UNDERSTOOD term (i.e., katabolan
spermatos) in a METAPHORICAL manner? Do you think his/her audience
appreciated/understood these intellectually gymnastics? I very much
doubt it. It is alot simpler, and the paraBiblical literature supports
this (Please read: "Did Sarah Have a Seminal Emission?" in Bible Review
Feb 1992), that the writer of Hebrews, like his/her contemporaries
thought that women had a similar mechanism as men, though its
manifestation was (obviously) different. Nevertheless, it was a "seed
laying down" mechanism. They did not think in our terms of "ovulation"
simply because they didn't have the tools to affirm it--the idea of
ovulation is very late.
> > The double seed theory makes no allowance that the "emission" of an egg
> > is only in the mid-cycle of a woman cycle.
>
> Thanks. Now I understand why the double seed theory is in error, but I
> think you are really splitting hairs here. So the author of Hebrews
> used language which might be taken by his contemporaries to mean that
> Sarah had received the ability to ovulate during intercourse, yet the
> apparent reality is that she received the ability to ovulate mid-cycle.
Yes, Yes, Yes. This is exactly what they thought--women "ovulate" during
intercourse, they "katabolan spermatos", they have seminal emissions.
And, of course, that is indeed scientifically inaccurate as we now know.
> But the error is in *their* presumption about ovulation (i.e. female
> ejaculation) rather than in the language itself.
The language reflects their concept of female reproduction accurately.
> (BTW, I am not really a fundamentalist, or else I might ask you to disprove
> that she received the unusual ability to ovulate during intercourse!)
Well done! You should, because then I would give up on you and leave you
alone :-)
> I know you want to be able to say that the author was making false
> scientific statements, and I think there may well be false scientific
> statements in the Bible... but I don't think this is one.
Slight correction here. It is not that I "want" to say this, it is that
when I read the Bible in the original languages statements like this jump
out, and I have account for what is there. That's the exegetical method.
Life would be a lot simpler if these little hermeneutical "caveats"
weren't there. But then on the other hand, I am very grateful for them.
They are hermeneutically precedent setting. The reason I use this one
is that it is quite a distance from this volatile evolution/creation/Genesis
debate, and the science of human reproduction is not debatable. If I can
show that the science of the Bible is historically conditionned, and that
its substance even changes between the Testaments, and that these
scientific views have since been superceded with a substantively more
correct view, then I believe we have a case to argue that the science
used to conceive the creation of the universe as deposited in Gen 1 was
also historically conditioned, and has also been superceded. As Bible
believing Christians, then, we are not bound to the cosmology of the
Text, but rather to its theology. For example, we should be more
concerned about the onotological implications of the reality of the imago
Dei, rather than the mechanism by which it is imparted--whether by fiat
(as the ancient would suggest) or by process (as the modern would suggest).
> I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions you want to draw about
> the influence of contemporary science on the inspiration of Scripture.
> However I do think you should find a better example on which to base
> the argument.
Well, this is where I and a number of my theological colleagues who
specialize in NT would disagree with you. For that matter, it was a NT
scholar who got me on to this Sarah seminal emission problem.
> A good example doesn't come to my mind, but I would expect that the best
> types of examples would be where somebody is trying to explain how or why
> something happens (in the natural causative sense).
But that is what Heb 11: 11 is doing. It is explaining a "natural
causative" event that was not operative, and that through a miracle it then
became operative.
> To be useful
> such an example would have to be more than just quoting somebody, but
> an actual statement of Scripture itself. For some reason these types
> of statements are rare in the Bible.
>
> > Firstly, the term is a technical term for ejaculation. Secondly, it
> > cannot be used for ovulation because ovulation was not discovered till
> > very late.
>
> You seem to be conceding that there was no better term for ovulation, yet
> you want to impute substantive error.
There was no better term, because the concept of ovulation have yet to be
conceived (that is a historical fact), and there was no need for it.
> If you could just rewrite Heb 11:11 to *not* have what you consider to
> be substantive error, then maybe that would go a *very* long way to
> demonstrating that Heb 11:11 is indeed an example useful for your argument.
I couldn't. And that's my point--because I have a 20th century
appreciation of female reproductive problems. Besides I have no idea what
Sarah'sproblem was. No one does for that matter. Her "barreness" as
clearly stated in Genesis was reinterpreted by the writer of
Hebrews into his/her intellectual context. But the
reality is we cannot even say it was an ovulation problem because they
had no idea about ovulation. What is observationally correct and agreed
upon by all sides (the writer of Genesis, the writer of Hebrews, you and
me) is that she did not have a child until she was very old, and that due
to God's miraculous intervention.
> At this point I think we should be in agreement, because I think you
> should concede that the issue is language, not science. The
> `substantive error' you identify is intrinsic in the limitations of
> language. Heb 11:11 is *not* an example of an erroneous scientific
> statement. At worst it is a statement that neglected to correct erroneous
> science.
In saying this you are assuming that the writer of Hebrews was
conceptually aware of ovulation, but since no technical term for
ovulation had emerged he/she used the technical term for male
ejaculation--katabolan spermatos. I disagree because there is no
historical evidence to support your assumption. For that matter, I
behooves you to support your argument with historical evidence. This is
why I have suggested the Bible Review paper to be examined--it is a
historical/exegetical paper, and quite stands against your thesis.
> > You are committing eisegesis by introducing to an ancient
> > text an intellectual category foreign to the writer.
>
> BTW, I would tend to think that *you* are the one insisting on
> eisegesis, because *you* require the author of Hebrews to speak in
> intellectual categories not available to him.... but I really cannot
> suggest this, because I don't actually know what `eisegesis' means.
Many thanx. This has been one of the best discussions I have ever had on
the net.
Eisegetically Yours, :-)
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------