tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post5668117082278283422..comments2023-11-22T12:30:25.017-08:00Comments on Paroikos Bible Blog: Review of "The Sword of the Lord: The Roots of Fundamentalism in an American Family," by Andrew HimesPaul A Himeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-73407134503718894842012-11-24T12:34:13.103-08:002012-11-24T12:34:13.103-08:00Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Cejka. I'm ...Thank you for your kind words, Mr. Cejka. I'm glad you enjoyed both my Uncle's book and this review.Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-62361630784507078312012-11-23T11:03:24.128-08:002012-11-23T11:03:24.128-08:00Dear Dr Himes:
Your review of your uncle's bo...Dear Dr Himes:<br /><br />Your review of your uncle's book was the finest I have read yet of his work. The book itself resonated with me at a deep and profound level. Your review raised some appropriate criticisms and placed the work in perspective--familial, historical, and theological. Sir, if your dissertation is half as well written as this review, I cannot wait to read it. My best to you, sir.Joseph Cejkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-73521978592687857472011-08-02T22:11:02.615-07:002011-08-02T22:11:02.615-07:00Response, part 2
Regarding, inerrancy, I'm cu...Response, part 2<br /><br />Regarding, inerrancy, I'm curious as to your definition. My definition would be something along the lines of " accuracy and internal consistency" [with the assumption that this does not apply to metaphors, approximations, etc.]. The well-known Chicago Statement claims that Scripture is "without error or fault in all its teaching" (there's a lot more to the statement, of course, but I single that out as the clearest statement).<br /><br />So the concept of inerrancy, as I see it, has to do with complete accuracy, whether historical accuracy or scientific accuracy (making appropriate allowances for descriptive language). The contrasting idea, of course, would be "inaccuracy." Neither "accuracy" nor "inaccuracy" were concepts invented by the scientific revolution. Were there some people before the 17th century that suggested Scripture was inaccurate? Absolutely. Were there some people that defended Scripture's accuracy before the 17th century? Again, this is definitely the case. By my definition, then, the concept of inerrancy ("the complete accuracy of Scripture in all that it asserts"), existed before the 17th century.<br /><br />That 1st century writers recognized that there could be varying degrees of accuracy is apparent not only in Josephus, Contra Apion, but also in Polybius, The Histories 1.5.3-5; Plutarch's Lives: Romulas 1-3; and especially Tacitus' The Histories 1.1 (where he bemoans the fact that after the battle of Actium, writers became less accurate in their historical narrative)<br /><br />So I'm puzzled as to the suggestion that the concept of inerrancy couldn't have existed before the 17th century. Since the concepts of accuracy and inaccuracy existed, why would the concept of inerrancy be so foreign? I don't see what the 17th century and the scientific revolution would have added that didn't exist before. Even before the 17th century experiments were conducted, theories were tested, and non-supernatural causes were proposed for natural phenomena.<br /> <br />The fact that ancient historians would have held to material you and I would believe is legend is irrelevant to the discussion. Even ancient cultures understood that something that is "legend" or "myth" is not the same as something that is "true"; this is clearly indicated in Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues, 1-4, 14. Furthermore, in light of Polybius, The Histories 1.5.3-5; Plutarch, Lives: Romulas 1-3; and especially Tacitus, The Histories 1.1, I would question how exactly "historically accurate" would differ from our generation to their generation. Either something happened historically or it didn't. The fact that Tacitus may have held to beliefs that I consider legend is irrelevant to the fact that he understood that there was a difference between "accurate" history" and "inaccurate" history. It is very well possible that in 100 years this generation will have been viewed as holding to some outrageous claims, either in history or science. Furthermore, there are quite a few scholars that would suggest that inerrantists such as myself hold to "dreams and legends," but they would not argue that we fail to grasp the concept of "inerrancy." Thus I would argue that what one believes is irrelevant to whether or not one can grasp the concept of "completely reliable." I can very well imagine an ancient Roman general questioning his scout as to the complete reliability of the map he has drawn for the troops!<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />your nephew PaulPaul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-9644930696225652012011-08-02T22:10:36.788-07:002011-08-02T22:10:36.788-07:00Thanks, Uncle Andy, for your response. Good to hea...Thanks, Uncle Andy, for your response. Good to hear from you and and hoping you'll get to visit down here sometime (and check out the Rice archives here at SEBTS).<br />As a rejoinder (of sorts)<br />1. Naturally it's your book :) so you get to devote your chapters to whatever you feel like, I just think it could have been streamlined some.<br /><br />2. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I just think it's unfair to critique somebody on the basis of what they didn't say when we really don't know what they did say in the first place (except for one or two details)<br /><br />3. This was my mistake, I misunderstood your appoint. I apologize and have corrected it in my review.<br /><br />4. We seem to have considerable disagreement over the concept of "inerrancy." Granted "all language is historically and culturally defined" but nevertheless concepts are very much cross-cultural, even across the ages. If not, the very idea of translation would be impossible. If I may use an example from social-scientific criticism, the key concepts of "honor vs. shame" may be diverge between cultures, but there will nevertheless be similarities. Thus "shame" in English will generally be translated as "hazukashime" in Japanese or something similar, with the understanding that there will never be complete overlap between the word in Japanese and English. Nonetheless there will be some overlap, otherwise translation would be fruitless. No one claims that any word (except, perhaps, those of an extreme technical nature) can have complete identification of its semantic range between two languages or even within the same language over the course of a couple centuries. The point is not complete semantic identification but rather conceptual similarity to the degree that the concept would be understandable in either culture. Thus the concept of "honor" exists both in Greco-Roman culture and in modern American culture, albeit with different nuance and significance.Paul A Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238272703123690959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-19291691029246393672011-08-02T14:08:33.846-07:002011-08-02T14:08:33.846-07:00Paul, thanks so much for your intelligent, thought...Paul, thanks so much for your intelligent, thoughtful, and balanced review! I am appreciative of the spirit and eloquence of your writing, and grateful for your good words. Your criticisms of the book are well-considered, generally accurate, and gracefully presented. I would like to reply briefly to a few of your specific points:<br />1. I do believe it was important to devote an entire chapter to the Scopes Trial. This was a watershed event in the history of 20th century fundamentalism, and had a dramatic influence on the subsequent story. Although many academics such as yourself are familiar with the Scopes history, I am guessing that the vast majority of my intended audience of non-academics know little or nothing about the historic important of the trial.<br />2. In my discussion of the Sherman, Texas revival of 1931, I believe it was eminently fair to assume that John R. Rice said nothing about the recent history of lynching a black man in that town. There is no record that John R. Rice in any of his many published sermons and books throughout his life called out or condemned acts of racial injustice in the South. If he failed to do so in Sherman in 1931, his silence was part of a universal and uninterrupted pattern of silence. His motivation was clear and well-stated: saving souls took precedence over acting against social injustice.<br />3. You are accurate in noting my mistake about the Old Testament, or Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation that has been available to scholars for centuries. However, I believe you are incorrect to criticize me as careless or inaccurate in claiming that “the oldest extant texts of the…New Testament were Greek manuscripts dating from the fourth century . . .” To back your critique, you provide a list of New Testament manuscripts that date from much earlier in the second and third centuries. However, as far as I can tell, none of the New Testament manuscripts you refer to were available to 19th century or even early 20th century Biblical scholars. For example, P52, dating to the second century, was not translated and published until 1934. Sinaiticus was largely hidden from view, little known to American or European theologians and the subject of minimal scholarly review or analysis until the mid-twentieth century. The Dead Sea Scrolls were rediscovered only between 1947 and 1956. And so on.<br />4. You disagree with my statement that “before the end of the 18th century, few Christian theologians had claimed that the Bible as a whole was without internal contradictions, or textual or factual errors.” However, my assertion is evidently accurate, considering its context, no matter what you believe about inerrancy. My central point is that the modern concept of “inerrancy” simply did not exist before the scientific revolution, and it could not possibly have existed. Terms like inerrancy are only defined in the context of related or contrasting ideas and metaphors. All language is inherently culturally and historically defined, and it is very dangerous to assume that any word we use today shares an identical set of linguistic and semiotic assumptions with the identical word used hundreds of years ago. Before the advent of the scientific revolution in the 18th century, no one would possibly have considered whether the Bible was scientifically accurate in any modern sense, because “science” did not exist as a concept in the way that we define and understand it today. Moreover, “historical accuracy” did not mean the same thing in ancient times that it does today. Every ancient historian from Callisthenes to Aristotle to Livy assumed many things to be factually based that you or I would dismiss as the stuff of dreams or legends.<br />5. Finally, I agree with you that my critique of dispensational and premillennialism is unduly harsh, counter-productive and inadequate. I appreciate your comments and will take them into account as I prepare an update to the book this summer.<br /><br />I am grateful for this conversation and for your helpful corrections!Andrew Himeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556387518865629670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3390403314045876459.post-67553082968804142552011-07-23T21:03:15.868-07:002011-07-23T21:03:15.868-07:00Interesting article. Though, I'm always amaze...Interesting article. Though, I'm always amazed when a book is written on the Fundamentalist History that always has to mention BJU. Usually, an opportunity is never missed to mention of BJU's segregation until the early 70's. What is amazing is most public schools (especially the ones in my hometown) were segregated until the early 70's. It appears to be an attempt to denegrate BJU, on an issue that was a large struggle in most of the country at that time and just not BJU.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com