Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:
- UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
- BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
- LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
- PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)
UBC, pg 579-580:
It is impossible from the Old
Testament, taken alone, to know how far back its events had lain in history. At
the end of the Old Testament, e.g. the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, no firm
dating is given. The
construction of any biblical chronology required a synchronism with profane
history, with extra-biblical data, at some point or other. Ussher
himself tells us (viii.6-7) what the essential synchronism for him was....
According to the "Chaldaean" historical tradition, which means
through Berossus (Josephus, C. Ap., i.146-50), this took place in the year
which from Greek and Roman history can be reckoned back to and fixed as 563.
UBC, pg 581:
From the classical side he
[Ussher] could follow a chain of historical sequence right back into the
Persian period and up to before 500 B.C. Any biblical chronology had to dovetail into that network
of classical information. ...
The classical side is important also for our estimate of Ussher as a scholar. He was no 'man of one book',
no scholar who never
looked beyond the pages of his Bible. On the contrary, far more space in
the Annales is taken up by Greek and Roman history than by biblical and
Jewish;
*** Professor Barr
reports that Archbishop Ussher "was a strong Calvinist... including
absolute predestination" pg 576
Barr skirts the actual meaning of this term which is that God
unconditionally elected some to damnation - a damnable heresy. So we see Ussher
was from the sect of Calvinism and so had a severe weakness in believing the
"one book".
Very good Professor Barr... maybe this was Luther's failing
since Luther must have been what you call a 'man of one book' and a
"scholar who never looked beyond the pages of his Bible". But this would be a fallacy for Luther
himself gave some weight to extra-biblical historians for he said in his preface:
I use the historians in such a way that I am not made to
contradict the Scriptures. ... in the histories, good people by their
ability, their diligence, and their faithfulness prove (but as human beings),
or at least that the copyists, can err.
Did you get that?
Luther did use the historians, but only as subordinates to the
Holy Scriptures. ***
UBC, pg 599:
An apocryphal book of the biblical tradition like IV Ezra fared worse, as
we have seen, and its data were branded as mere fictions.
*** Now we see where we should get our "data" – from apocryphal books. ***
UBC, pg 603:
This very openness of Ussher (and
others) to extra-biblical
truth was, in the next half-century, to alter the balance: by then the pressure of extra-biblical
truth was to begin to cause men to think differently of the nature of biblical
truth.
*** Barr is saying that "historical criticism"
and/or "textual criticism" were gaining ground in the late 1600s,
spurred on by "extra-biblical truth". And so the sects and even Lutheran theologians began to stray not
only in the doctrines of the Bible, but also the inerrancy and infallibility of
the Bible. We must give weight
to "extra-biblical truth" over biblical truth! ***
BCLS, page 8, pdf page 10:
...that all biblical
chronology,when practised from after biblical times, necessarily depended on non-biblical data
for an entry into the biblical.
LBC, pg 58:
... all biblical chronologies have to depend on
extra-biblical information.
*** Although the Bible is not a book intended for
chronological data, yet it does give chronological information that is
absolutely true. Even Barr's own
statement belies his own stance: There is no true biblical chronology. ***
LBC, pg 58:
If Luther had placed the end of
the Hebrew kingdoms too late, the same happened with the rise of Alexander and the
end of the Persian empire, placed in 3655 AM or 305 BC, close on thirty years
too late. He was aware that 'almost all' place Alexander about thirty years
earlier, but he made it
clear that it did not matter very much to him where Alexander, Antiochus and
other persons are located by historians, so long as he knew the one
absolutely vital fact, namely, the date of the second year of Darius
Longimanus, from which point the 490 years of Daniel are reckoned. This was a cavalier remark, for
Luther was in fact highly dependent on the information that 'historians'
furnished.
*** Barr points out
Luther's stated purpose to set Holy Scripture as inerrant, over the "good
people" of the histories that can err. Barr then introduces his second
"gotcha" over Luther – the person of Annius of Viterbo in
the next paragraph. He
makes use of the writings of the editor of the Weimar Ausgabe
(German Weimar Edition of Luther's Works, 1920). I will address this subject of Luther's
"dependance" on historical forgies in my next Part 6k. ***
LBC, pg 59:
Historically, of course, Luther's reckoning is far astray:
496 BC is over forty years too late for Cyrus's establishment of the Persian
empire.
*** Barr, of
course, is using his modern history to make a statement that we are to believe. His version is the one we are to believe. It is important that we believe
Barr, not Luther (or the Bible).
Why? Because of his modern
"scientific" history. ***
LBC, pg 65:
The historical accuracy of the one scripture [Holy Scripture]
was therefore a major reason for belief in its divine inspiration. No
other book gave a historical account from the absolute beginning of the world
down to events knowable within ordinary human record. (Footnote 21): The Greeks, supposedly the epitome
of natural human wisdom, had nothing to match this. Their great
historians were vague about times and chronology. The first [Greek] historians
had no notion of an era and little sense of time in its larger aspects', writes
J. Forsdyke, Greece
before Homer: Ancient Chronology and Mythology (New York: Norton,
1964), 36. And such feeble chronologies as they had scarcely went back beyond
the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries BC at most.
*** This is perhaps one of the most valuable writings Prof.
James Barr ever had, but it is rather oblique in it's
praise of Holy Scriptures. It is rather
an apologetic
argument, also used by ancients, that the Jewish record (Hebrew text of the
Bible) was the most reliable of all ancient texts. Helpful for the Christian, but not authoritative. And so Barr is not authoritative for
Christians, but may be helpful in this case. Rather, read Luther and your
Bible. ***
LBC, pg 66:
[Luther's] handling of the early
chapters of Genesis is a
thorough historicization,
which reads into them a pattern like that of the Reformation, a content of
which the text itself is quite devoid.
*** The Bible, including Genesis, is authored by the Holy
Spirit and Luther's faith provided this "historicization". Hebrews 4:12 states this:
The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than
any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
the heart.
So Luther's "historicization" recognizes that the
Word of God is a Living Word from the Living God. Luther's
"historicization" follows the faith of the Bible, a faith that is
unchanged since Genesis 3:15. Barr's
Bible is indeed "quite devoid" for it seems to be dead for him, not
living, not powerful, not sharper than any twoedged sword, not a discerner of
the thoughts of the heart. And so it is Luther, not Barr, who is the true biblical scholar. ***
PSC, pg 382:
... in a certain sense one cannot make a biblical
chronology without going outside the Bible, not one by which one can
reckon back from later times. The
chronological scheme of the Hebrew Bible in the end fades away: it works fairly
well from Creation down to the end of the Hebrew kingdoms, but after that it
has only vague and scattered hints, and in the Persian Empire, though it
mentions various Persian emperors, no one can tell from the Bible alone how
many Persian kings there were or how long the Persian Empire existed.
*** Part of what
Prof. Barr states here (and elsewhere) is true. The biblical chronological information becomes more sparse after the
book of Genesis. But how can you
tell what is true with Barr and what is false?
God says in His Word that we must believe Him for "Thy Word Is
Truth". (John 17:17) ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Indeed, extra-biblical information is interesting for me: biblical archaeology and biblical research such as the works of David Rohl, John J. Bimson, David Livingston, and others. But I do not spend an inordinate amount of time with them because their research is not the authoritative basis for my faith. No, my faith is the same as Luther's:I use the historians in such a way that I am not made to contradict the Scriptures.This can only be done by being first firmly grounded in the Scriptures. Jesus said (John 5:39):
Search the scriptures ... they are they which testify of me.In the next Part 6k, I will cover Barr's other major "gotcha" for Luther followers – Luther's use of Annius of Viterbo and "Metasthenes" for his chronology. I mentioned this name above in my comment on LBC, pg 58.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments only accepted when directly related to the post.