Luther's Chronology, Part 6f (Barr – Bible "inconsistencies, errors")

In Part 6e of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1 here), I reviewed the objections of Professor James Barr († 2006) to biblical chronology based on textual variations and criticism.
Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:

1. UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
2. BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
3. LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
4. PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)

In this Part 6f, I will cover Barr's pointed remarks about the Bible's "inconsistencies" and "errors".   I highlight in yellow the pertinent wording and in some cases I follow with some comments of mine directly afterward highlighted in green.

UBC, pg 587:

For Ussher everything in the Bible was correct and accurate. This principle, however, was modified in those cases where two biblical passages [on Abraham's birth date in Acts 7:4 and Genesis 11] seemed to conflict. There was room for much freedom in interpretation, and need for much ingenuity.

*** But for you, Prof. Barr the modern scholar, not everything in the Bible is correct and accurate.  Ussher's respect for the Bible is a vestige of the true Protestantism, that is true Lutheranism which holds to an inspired, inerrant, infallible Bible as God's Word. Even though Ussher's judgment in this case was different than Luther's, yet it gives Ussher some authority in chronological matters. ***

UBC, pg 589:

But, if we may leave theoretical chronology [i.e. general biblical chronology] and turn for a moment to historical fact, there is no doubt that the duration of the kingdom was far less than 430 years: the actual historical duration, as modem scholars see it, is about 372 years (Solomon's accession 962 B.C.; start of temple 958; destruction of temple 586). If this is correct, out of the 430 years found by simple addition from the books of Kings, 58 years have to be disposed of as cases of overlapping, results of textual mistakes, theoretical schematism or pure historical errors of the sources.

*** Barr steps out of his review of Ussher to reveal his side, that of "modern scholars" on the period of the kingdoms of Judah.  "historical fact"!, "no doubt"! Yes indeed, we can trust you, Professor Barr for with you, not the Bible, there is no doubt and historical fact. But Barr himself says above "If this is correct..." about his own reckoning. He is not sure of anything, even himself.  And we are supposed to trust his judgment? (see also LBC, pg 57 below)  ***

UBC, pg 598, note 28:

... the more biblicistic emphasis of Protestantism.

*** "biblicistic"?  This is the term used by modern theology like other terms such as biblicism, biblical literalism, bibliolatry, letter worship, etc.  It is an attempt to equate the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible to idolatry. It was used by some of those professors in St. Louis who broke with the teaching of the old (German) Missouri Synod (and Luther and the Lutheran Confessions), many of whom left and formed Seminex. ***

UBC, pg 599:

He [Ussher] did sometimes contradict the plain sense of a biblical text, but this was because there was another biblical text that seemed to require him to do it. The principle of "comparing scripture with scripture", far from producing a clear and manifest agreement, actually served as the mode by which very artificial and implausible interpretations could be introduced. It was actually the assumption that all scripture hung together that forced Ussher at certain points to nullify the extremely probable sense of the text.

*** Tsk tsk, a Calvinist professor thrashing a Calvinist theologian!  Can't you Calvinists agree?  And Professor Barr – you held the key to the "extremely probable sense of the text" – how?  With your "scholarship", your "balanced" approach, your "historical critical" approach to the Bible!  Ah, but see what a red face Barr gets when he reviews Martin Luther's Bible chronology!  Then he goes ballistic! (see LBC, pg 56, etc.) ***

UBC, pg 600:

The Bible in fact left many gaps.

*** Now I know the Bible left gaps in chronology... because Professor Barr said it. Whew, I never thought of that when I read my Bible. But Professor Barr, did you read the passage about God loving the world? John 3:16  Sort of contradicts your theology of Calvinism. ***

BCLS, page 11, pdf page 13:

But if Paul, who was a totally inspired and authoritative person, actually followed the Septuagint or any other text, then that must mean that the Masoretic Hebrew is not absolutely inspired and right, since a text that differs from it may be correct. Even one such discrepancy totally destroys the possibility of a biblical chronology on the old style. Biblical chronology has to be perfect, otherwise it breaks down altogether.

***  Barr pits the Septuagint Greek text against the Hebrew text of O.T.  But Franz Pieper answered this objection nicely in his Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs 250-251:

The form of the old Testament quotations as given in the New Testament does therefore not prove "fatal" to the theory of "verbal inspiration," but is, on the contrary, a mighty proof of inspiration. ... . There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is "taking liberties" with His own Word.

BCLS, page 12, pdf page 14

The Bible is supposed to be infallible ...  According to common theory of inspiration, the Holy Spirit prevented all error from getting into the text of the Bible, and yet here, in a most central book [Matthew], no such prevention of error has taken place. But if Matthew can have a completely erroneous sequence of events, then any other chronological indication in the Bible can be erroneous in the same respect.

*** Barr militates the "disparate" sequence of events in the NT against ïnfallibility and a "theory of inspiration". Barr brings all of human reasoning to bear here... it must make sense to his reason in order to be infallible or inspired by God. Barr demands that we can still believe our Bible somewhat and can still be Christians. We MUST believe Professor Barr on this! Ah, but he more than chips away at the foundation for Christianity — he works to make the Bible unbelievable.  ***

LBC, pg 55:

Luther's solution to this question [of Abraham's birth date] is undoubtedly right; it shows common sense and critical ability, while the alternative position as adopted by Calvin and Ussher makes literary nonsense of the Genesis passages.

*** Luther is praised here (see UBC, pg 588 above), not because he gives priority to the Genesis chronology over Acts 7:4, but because he acknowledges that the Book of Acts had an "error". It wasn't common sense or critical ability – it was his faith, faith in the Holy Scriptures. Barr will not allow this, but he will allow that the Book of Acts had an "error". ***

LBC, pg 55:

It is a clear error, Luther says ('iste enim error perspicuus est'), when it says that God appeared to Abraham 'in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran' (Acts 7:2-3)

*** Barr loves to jump on Luther's statement here for he has Luther himself claiming the Bible has an "error".  But Luther explains that this "error" is really not an error because Acts "spoke in careless and popluar terms".  I.e. the Bible is really not a book of chronology, but a book of salvation. John 20:31 ***

LBC, pg 55:

It hardly enters Luther's mind that one or other of these figures [2 Kings and 2 Chron. on Ahaziah age at at his accession] might be simply wrong. He thinks of far more complicated possibilities than that.... Luther took it seriously.

*** Barr's solution is that Holy Scripture is wrong, essentially that it has an error in the inconsistency between 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.  But Luther knew that Holy Scripture is without error, so there could be another explanation (besides a copyist error) for the difference in the accounts of Ahaziah, even if it seemed so complicated to Barr. ***

LBC, pg 57:

The figures given for all the kings of Judah, from the fourth year of Solomon, when the temple was commenced, to its destruction, add up to 430 years. Modern scholars consider the true historical period to have been just over 370 years: in other words, out of the sum of 430 found by pure addition they have to account for over fifty as cases of overlapping, theoretical schematism, different chronologies, mistakes of the authors and textual errors in transmission.

*** See UBC, pg 589 comment above ***

PSC, pg 382:

Some biblical passages were not absolutely clear. The whole thing worked on the assumption that the Bible was without errors and its figures should in general be taken literally, but this tended to breakdown where the Bible had two references to the same event and these did not quite agree. 

***  Barr shows no interest in being truly reasonable here.  His supposed instances where "two references ... did not quite agree" have been handled by true harmonists and by a submission to the authority of God's Word.  He wants us to be "reasonable" by his definition of reasonable.  ***

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

These objections of Barr were largely answered by Franz Pieper and covered in my blog post "Objections to Inspiration (Part 2) – Contradictions, Errors".

In the next Part 6g, I will cover Barr's demand for the use of the "historical critical" methodology – i.e. "scholarship".

Luther's Chronology, Part 6e (Barr – Textual variations / criticism)

In Part 6d of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1 here), I reviewed the use of "theoretical schematism" of Professor James Barr († 2006) to criticize biblical chronology.
Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:

1. UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
2. BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
3. LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
4. PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)

In this Part 6e, I will cover Barr's use of textual criticism, and so-called textual variations.  I highlight in yellow the pertinent wording and in some cases I follow with some comments of mine directly afterward highlighted in green.

UBC, pg 583:

In the seventeenth century, and indeed in Ussher's own time, a further new discovery [beyond Septuagint Greek Bible] had still more emphasized the question of textual variation. The Samaritan Bible contained only the Pentateuch, and in Hebrew, though in a script different from that of the Jewish text. Made known to the west through a discovery in Damascus in 1616, it immediately achieved considerable renown. Many scholars thought it superior to the accepted Jewish text.

*** "Textual variation" – a favorite subject of "critical" writers like Professor Barr — we can't be sure about our Bible because of these.  But not so for believers, for they have received the Word of God through the "received text", especially Luther's Bible and KJV.  The Bible was written that we "... might believe that Jesus is the Christ" (John 20:31)  Professor Barr and all modern theologians stumble on their "scholarly", "scientific" judgments.  ***

UBC, pg 584:

In ... 1583, Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) published his de emendatione temporum, the foundation of scientific chronology. He was a Calvinist, and professor at Geneva, later at Leiden, and an enormous scholar in classical and historical learning, in textual criticism and in the critique of sources.

*** Ok, I should be shaking in my boots, me – a Bible believer, at such an enormous scholar in textual criticism... a Calvinist at that! What would I do without "scientific chronology"! ***

UBC, pg 588:

Would this, then, not have suggested that the true chronology of biblical times should be built upon the Septuagint's figures all the way through? Not according to Ussher. He adhered to the Jewish Hebrew text (not the Samaritan) throughout, and where the New Testament contradicted the obvious meaning of it he used his interpretative wiles to explain it in agreement with the New Testament.

*** Here Barr has a point that Ussher is indeed inconsistent.  Not so Luther, who held to the OT chronology where it differed from a NT passage because the OT chronology was the source of chronology, not the NT which sometimes followed the Greek Septuagint. I suppose one could say there is value in reading Professor Barr's judgments but why not just read the Bible... and Martin Luther?  ***

UBC, pg 589:

... out of the 430 years found by simple addition from the books of Kings, 58 years have to be disposed of as cases of overlapping, results of textual mistakes, theoretical schematism or pure historical errors of the sources.

UBC, pg 598:

Ussher stuck steadfastly to the Hebraica veritas, the truth as expressed in the traditional Hebrew text.... Ussher's chronology could be directly attached to the English Bible that everyone used and read in conjunction with it. No system which appealed at times to the Septuagint or the Samaritan [text] could have had that sort of acceptance.

*** Maybe Barr does not agree with this?  Maybe the Septuagint and Samaritan texts had some truth where they differed from the Hebrew text? He does not say it here but see next item... ***

UBC, pg 601:

It is probable that in the last stages of the development of the Old Testament chronological interests became more lively, and that some of the data we now have in our Bibles are products of late editing and comparable with the adjustments we see in the Samaritan and Greek texts. ...

UBC, pg 605, appendix a.:

The figures of the kingdom [of Judah] must be accounted for through textual errors, or through overlaps and coregencies, or on the grounds that they were adjusted to fit a theoretical chronological schematism. 

*** "textual errors" and "theoretical chronological schematism" – Barr's devices to make the Bible believable (?) ***

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 7:

It is likely that these various sets of figures imply that in fairly late times attempts were still being made to adjust and realign the chronology of the Old Testament. This is confirmed by a work like the Book of Jubilees, which is a rewrite of Genesis-Exodus, coming from the third or second century BC.

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 7:

...at that time [time of the Flood] the last touches were added to the Book of Genesis; moreover, the special place of Enoch in the genealogy of Genesis cannot be unconnected with the Book of Enoch, a 2nd-century BC work concerned with astronomy and heavenly things.

*** "late times attempts ... to adjust ... the Old Testament" and "last touches added to Genesis" clearly shows Barr's complete failure as a Christian theologian since he denies the Bible was written by the Prophets themselves. ***

BCLS, pg 6, pdf page 8:

[Paul in Gal. 3:17] put in the exact figure of 430 because he knew it very well: it was familiar and obvious to him. Moreover, no one today will doubt that in this he followed the text of the Greek and the Samaritan, both of which made the figure of 430 in Exod. 12:40 cover not only the time of  Israel in Egypt but also its time in Canaan beforehand, i.e. going right back to Abraham’s entry into the land.

***  Barr basically says no reasonable person would say that the Bible does not contain an error here.  This is a direct attack on the veracity of Scripture for he is using Scripture against Scripture.  Franz Pieper responds thus (Christian Dogmatics volume 1, p. 251):

We are of the opinion that human reason, if it be reasonable, must refrain from explaining the departure of the New Testament quotation from the wording of the Old Testament by assuming "mistakes" or "slips of memory" in the holy writers. There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is "taking liberties" with His own Word. And as the apparent contradictions in the Scriptures prove that the Scriptures are not a fabrication of designing men, so particularly the manner in which the Evangelists and Apostles quote the Old Testament is a powerful proof that they have not spoken and written of themselves, not by purely human deliberation, but that they wrote by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

BCLS, pg 10-11, pdf page 11:

Another factor which brought chronological questions into the limelight at the time was the discovery, in 1616, of the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch. It was widely noted for its different chronological figures from the standard Jewish text; and many people thought that the Samaritan was in this respect the better. ... another, but different,text in the original language, and thus presented a new challenge.

BCLS, pg 11, pdf page 13:

... the existence of variant texts, of which the Samaritan, being in actual Hebrew and of ancient repute (its alphabet was exotic and more ancient in history than that normally used by Jews), was the most powerful.

BCLS, pg 11, pdf page 13:

One could say that the Masoretic text must be right, but for Christians that could only be a purely dogmatic decision: there was no good reason why it must be right.

*** There are good reasons for Christians, contrary to Barr's assertion.  The testimony of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of the church – believers through the ages.  That is what "textus receptus" means – the received text, received by the believing church. The doctrine of other texts that vary in doctrine, e.g. gnostic texts were not received by the church.  ***

BCLS, page 11, pdf page 13:

But if Paul, who was a totally inspired and authoritative person, actually followed the Septuagint or any other text, then that must mean that the Masoretic Hebrew is not absolutely inspired and right, since a text that differs from it may be correct. Even one such discrepancy totally destroys the possibility of a biblical chronology on the old style. Biblical chronology has to be perfect, otherwise it breaks down altogether.
     ***  Barr pits the Septuagint Greek text against the Hebrew text of O.T.  But Franz Pieper answered this objection nicely in his Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, pgs 250-251:

The form of the Old Testament quotations as given in the New Testament does therefore not prove "fatal" to the theory of "verbal inspiration," but is, on the contrary, a mighty proof of inspiration. ... . There is but one explanation: the Holy Ghost is speaking through the Apostles and is "taking liberties" with His own Word.

LBC, pg 56:

And a moment's admission of a copying error in either Chronicles or Kings would have shattered the whole frail edifice.

*** Barr's solution to difference between 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings is "a copying error".  But Luther's solution was to "believe that in the Scriptures the true God speaks" and would rather show that the received text could indeed be without error, even though he would admit a possible "copyist error". ***

LBC, pg 57:

The figures given for all the kings of Judah, from the fourth year of Solomon, when the temple was commenced, to its destruction, add up to 430 years. Modern scholars consider the true historical period to have been just over 370 years: in other words, out of the sum of 430 found by pure addition they have to account for over fifty as cases of overlapping, theoretical schematism, different chronologies, mistakes of the authors and textual errors in transmission.

PSC, pg 382:

... the Bible existed in at least three textual traditions,which differed in the chronological figures, ... Anyway, one can see that the differences of text (Hebrew, Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Hebrew) form a difficulty.

*** See my comments shown under UBC, pg 583 above ***

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Most of these points were answered in my blog post that brought out Franz Pieper's defense against the objections to Inspiration based on variant readings.  The strongest evidence he brings is God's own promise to believers:

We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise.When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day. Again, when Christ admonishes all believers to continue in His Word (John 8:31-32: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth"), He guarantees that His Word will be present for us to continue in it.

Although Pieper also points out reasons a posteriori (after the fact) why we have God's Word even today in our Bible, I can add to his points with a recent article by Albert Mohler, a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, on a discovery of an ancient papyrus fragment purportedly teaching that Jesus had a wife.  His article is entitled "The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship" and indeed shows its "discovery" is sensationalism intended to cause Christians to question their Bible.

Lest anyone think that Franz Pieper "buried his head in the sand", hear what he says further (C.D., vol. 1, pg 240):

We, too, in our theological seminary at St. Louis introduce our students to modern textual criticism. That is a part of the complete external equipment of a theologian of our day.  But we point out two things to our students: 1) We know a priori from the divine promise that in our present Bible we have the Word of Christ which is to be taught in the Church and by the Church to the Last Day. 2) We recognize, too, a posteriori, that the divine providence has so wonderfully held its protecting hand over the Bible text that in spite of the variae lectiones not a single Christian doctrine has become a matter of doubt.

Textual criticism was not viewed by Pieper as something necessary for Christians but rather to be defended against so that their Christian faith, which has no basis other than God's Word, would not be shaken but strengthened.

In the next Part 6f, I will cover Barr's pointed remarks about the Bible's "inconsistencies" and "errors".

Luther's Chronology, Part 6d (Barr – "theoretical schematism")

In Part 6c of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1 here), I reviewed the objections of Professor James Barr († 2006) on the general figure of 4000 years for the Old Testament.
Again, these reviews of Barr make use of his four essays:

1. UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
2. BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
3. LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
4. PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)

In this Part 6d, I will cover Barr's use of the term he euphemistically calls "theoretical schematism", a term he prefers over what he really means for the Bible: legends or myths.

In the following, I will quote several passages from all four of Barr's essays that bear on this subject.  I highlight in yellow the pertinent wording and in some cases I follow with some comments of mine directly afterward highlighted in green.

UBC, pg 589:

... out of the 430 years found by simple addition from the books of Kings, 58 years have to be disposed of as cases of overlapping, results of textual mistakes, theoretical schematism or pure historical errors of the sources.

UBC, pg 599:

The Bible itself was something quite different [from fiction, for Ussher]. It never occurred to Ussher that a biblical text might be chronologically inexact, or that it might be the product of legend or of some intentionality other than correspondence with plain fact, with events as they had really been.

UBC, pg 601:

It is probable that in the last stages of the development of the Old Testament chronological interests became more lively, and that some of the data we now have in our Bibles are products of late editing and comparable with the adjustments we see in the Samaritan and Greek texts. ... But to us, of course, the idea that creation should be so close in time leads in a direction which to Ussher was quite unknown, that is, towards the recognition that the Bible's ideas about early chronology were legendary rather than being accurate recording.

*** Barr comes out of the closet all the way here... "it is probable" our Bibles are "products of late editing", "legendary" and therefore not from the original writers, i.e. Moses and the Prophets. ***

UBC, pg 603, appendix a.:

It is convenient to consider Old Testament chronology - that is, the chronology as presented by the Old Testament text, not necessarily the actual historical chronology of real events...

*** Barr is saying "actual historical chronology of real events" is not " the chronology as presented by the Old Testament text".  In other words, the Bible is not all actual history. ***

UBC, pg 605, appendix a.:

The figures of the kingdom [of Judah] must be accounted for through textual errors, or through overlaps and coregencies, or on the grounds that they were adjusted to fit a theoretical chronological schematism. 

BCLS, page 2, pdf page 3:

...1 Kings 6.1 tells us that Solomon began the building of the temple in the 480th year after the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt: does this belong to the category of real historical reckoning, or is it a schematic and theoretical construction?

BCLS, page 7, pdf page 9:

Attempts have been made to explain this through notions of co-regencies, overlaps and the like; alternatively the explanation may lie in schematism, that is, in theoretical schemes for dates and periods, to which the factual dates have at certain points been adjusted.

BCLS, page 8, pdf page 10:

A brief word should next be said about the probable purposes and motivations that may have lain behind the chronological references and schemes of the Bible. The central motive may be expressed with the strange term protology―the opposite of eschatology―that is to say, the interest not in the future end of the world but in its beginning and the time back towards that beginning. The time from the origins to the setting up of some particular stage, the reaching of some decisive landmark, was all-important, and there is Mesopotamian evidence that supports this. This is why biblical chronology works from the beginning and is at its best and clearest at the beginning.  The Book of Jubilees shows us the pattern: it was exactly fifty jubilees, 2450 years, from creation to the entry into the promised land. And this motif was well caught by Ussher.

*** This "motif" of Barr, "protology", may have indeed been a motive of some ancient historians and chronologists, and can indeed be a reason to downgrade the credibility of some of them.  But it is absolutly untrue of the Holy Scriptures, the product of the Holy Spirit.  And Luther states that it is the Holy Scriptures that are his basis, not "good historians" or other chronologists.  ***

BCLS, pg 12, pdf page 14:

The theoretical schematism of biblical chronology is well echoed by Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, with fourteen generations each from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian exile, and from the exile to Christ;

BCLS, pg 13, pdf page 16:

If other chronologies were legendary or mythical, possibly the biblical one had some element of the same character.

BCLS, pg 16, pdf page 19:

Of all the figures in the Bible, none has more clearly the air of a theoretical and schematic figure than this 480 [years], which is forty times twelve and combines two common schematic numbers of the Bible. The 480 years from exodus to temple has no more claim to historical accuracy than the 365 years that Enoch lived before he was taken up by God.

BCLS, page 16-17, pdf page 19:

Or, more correctly, we should say not ‘legend’ but ‘theological schematism’. Israel inherited legends that went back to the beginnings of the world,and doubtless modified them, built them into new forms, included historical realities within them,and [p.17] adjusted and adapted the whole to fit with and to express certain general theological currents of thought.

LBC, pg 57:

The figures given for all the kings of Judah, from the fourth year of Solomon, when the temple was commenced, to its destruction, add up to 430 years. Modern scholars consider the true historical period to have been just over 370 years: in other words, out of the sum of 430 found by pure addition they have to account for over fifty as cases of overlapping, theoretical schematism, different chronologies, mistakes of the authors and textual errors in transmission.

*** (see also UBC, pg 589 above) "theoretical schematism" is likely an idea Barr borrowed from Kantian philosophy, a schema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schema_(Kant). "mistakes of the authors" is from pure unbelief.  ***

Barr did not want to be seen calling the Bible full of legends and myths so he invented the term "theoretical schematism".  Why was this?  Because he did not want to be seen for what he actually is – an enemy of God's Word.  For Franz Pieper said it best:

...whoever denies the inspiration of Scripture, i.e., denies that the Word of the Apostles and Prophets is God's own infallible Word, destroys, as far as lies in his power, the foundation of the Christian Church, because, according to Eph. 2:20, the Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. 

In the next Part 6e, I will cover Barr's points on Textual Variations and Textual criticism.

Luther's Chronology, Part 6c (Barr – 4000/6000 year scheme)

In Part 6b of this series (Table of Contents in Part 1 here), I reviewed the fact that Professor James Barr († 2006) is a thoroughly modern scholar/theologian, who joins a long list of those who question the Bible's historicity.
In addition to the 3 previously mentioned essays by Barr, I have since discovered a third essay by him in the Sources section of the Wikipedia article on Chronology of the Bible:

• Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science? The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987. Delivered at the Senate House, University of London on 4 March 1987. London: University of London, 1987. 

So there are now 4 essays by Barr that I will abbreviate in this way. I will use all of these to get the full account of Barr on this subject:

1. UBC – Ussher and Biblical Chronology, 1985 (archived here)
2. BCLS – Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science?, 1987 (archived here)
3. LBC – Luther and Biblical Chronology, 1990 (archived here)
4. PSC – Pre-scientific Chronology, 1999 (archived here)

In this Part 6c, I will review Barr's comments on the main aspect of biblical chronology – the idea of 4000 Old Testament years and 6000 total years.  This is a "gotcha" for Professor Barr, one of his two "gotchas" for us Bible believers.  On the very title page of Luther's work is this saying:

Those who claim to be students of the prophet Elijah contend:

The world will stand for six thousand years

Two thousand empty

Two thousand of Law

Two thousand of the Messiah

Professor Barr makes several references to the Weimar Ausgabe (WA, or Weimar Edition) of Luther's Works.  In 1920, in volume 53 (or WA 53), Luther's Latin version of his chronology, Supputatio annorum mundi was printed with copious commentary and notes in pages 1 - 184.  The editor was "F. Cohrs" and Barr found a friend in him because of his critical assessment of Luther.  Mr. Cohrs pointed out that this saying is recorded in the Jewish Talmud and Barr can hardly conceal his glee in repeating this great find of Mr. Cohrs [LBC, pg 53]:

Luther was very deeply influenced by the saying of 'the Tanna of the House of Elijah', recorded in the Talmud ('Ussher' [UBC], 581, [B. Abodah Zarah 9a (Soncino ed., p. 43)]): The world is to exist 6000 years: the first 2000 years are to be void; the next 2000 years are the period of the Law; and the following 2000 years are the period of the Messiah'. Such a saying suited Christianity admirably, and was repeated again and again in the time of the Renaissance and Reformation. In his first edition Luther placed it at the head of his entire chronological work. He seems to have thought that this 'prophecy' came from the biblical Elijah himself; Cohrs remarks (WA, 12f.) that Luther 'would have been disappointed if he had realized that the saying came originally out of the Talmud'. For, although Luther had got hold of this material through Carion/Melanchthon (of whom we shall speak shortly), he was much more deeply impressed and dominated by it than they had been, so that the need to make it work out in exact chronological results was very important to him. This can be traced in detailed alterations made between the first and second editions of the Supputatio. [ref. WA, 12-15]

Aha!... Prof. Barr has us Luther followers.  Here is Luther, who blasts the Jewish Talmud as devilish and yet he not only quotes it, but is "very deeply influenced" by it and greatly needs it to make his chronology work.  Wow, we Lutherans should put our tails between our legs on this and admit Luther's attacks against the Talmud were wrong... we should sympathize with the Jews of today.

Rubbish!  Luther was "very deeply influenced" by Holy Scripture, he needed Scripture to make his chronology work out.  If the saying Luther used indeed originated from the Talmud, which is not certain, it was only presented as a general idea, not from Scripture.  Barr himself admits that many other respected scholars and theologians used the approximate figure of 4000 years of the Old Testament: Bede, Orderic Vitalis, Carion, Melanchthon, Scaliger, Petavius, and or course James Ussher.  And Barr knew of Julius Africanus, a 2nd century Christian writer whose dating based on the Greek Septuagint (5500 years) corresponds to a 4000 year figure based on the Hebrew text.  And Barr himself admits:

A literal biblical chronology would mean a world created in seven days about 4000  b.c., give or take one or two hundred years. (PSC, page 8)

Barr uses this "gotcha" to attempt to rub it in when he says (LBC, pg 52):

This momentous quatermillenary [4000 years], bringing the end of the law and freedom from it, was a marvelous chronological illustration and vindication of Luther's own theology.

Luther did not rely on his chronology to "vindicate" his theology – he had the rest of the Scriptures to do that.  However Luther's chronology did take note of this overarching message of Scripture, a message that perhaps Professor Barr did not understand as a Calvinist.  Perhaps Professor Barr did not believe Scripture when it says:

John 1:17 – For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

In Part 6d, I will cover Barr's use of the term "theoretical schematism" – legends and myths.

Pieper: Objections to Inspiration (Part 2) – Contradictions, Errors

This concludes a 2-part series from Part 1 which highlights two of the eight points where Franz Pieper, in his Christian Dogmatics books, defends the Doctrine of Inspiration of Holy Scripture against the attacks of modern theologians and scholars... scholars like Professor James Barr and his writings against biblical chronology. (see Table of Contents on Chronology posts here)

Now Pieper addresses the issue of alleged contradictions and errors in the Bible — in his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 241-243:

    4. The alleged contradictions in Scripture and erroneous statements in general are stressed particularly by the opponents of inspiration.  At the time when Philippi [a Jewish convert!] had not yet gained the right attitude toward Scripture and still admitted the possibility of errors in Scripture, he nevertheless censured the "furious search for discrepancies" on the part of the moderns, which was "due primarily to the wicked attitude which boasts of having eliminated all assumptions and presuppositions; they claimed the right to cut loose from the presupposition that Scripture is the Word of God, but in place of that sat down in the temple of God and presupposed that they were God" (Glaubenslehre, 1st ed., I, 199). With regard to the alleged contradictions in Scripture the situation is briefly this: if only there is some readiness to come to an understanding, the possibility of harmonizing the seemingly contradictory statements can easily be shown; and no fair-minded person will ask more than that. Ebrard [Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, 2d ed., p. 59] should not have reproved Chemnitz for "offering the probable when he could offer nothing certain." Chemnitz's principle is the only sensible one. In recent years A. T. Robertson [a fundamentalist Southern Baptist!] has written these apt words: "In explaining a difficulty, it is always to be remembered that even a possible explanation is sufficient to meet the objector. If several possible explanations are suggested, it becomes all the more unreasonable for one to contend that the discrepancy is irreconcilable. It is a work of supererogation to show that this or that explanation is the real solution of the problem. Sometimes, owing to new light, this might be possible, but it is never necessary. And by reason of the meager information we have on many points in the Gospel narrative, it may always be impossible in various cases to present a solution satisfactory in every point. The harmonist has done his duty if he can show a reasonable explanation of the problem before him. It is to be remembered also that there is as much prejudice against the supernatural element in the Gospels as there is a favorable opinion for the accuracy of the narratives." [Quoted in Broadus, A Harmony of the Gospels, 8th ed., p. 232; another fundamentalist Southern Baptist] We shall have to agree with Robertson. This might be added: If we should meet with a case where we can discover no way of adjusting the difference, we leave the matter in abeyance, since as Christians we believe, on the authority of the Son of God, in the infallibility of Scripture - "the Scriptures cannot be broken" (John 10:35). All objections against the inerrancy of Scripture disgrace the Christian, because they oppose a human judgment to Christ's judgment.
     Luther knew very well how to deal with the unbeliever and the Christian according to his flesh in an apologetic way, but when he describes the attitude toward the Scriptures which is becoming to the Christian, he uses firm, yes, strong language. He says, for example: "They [the sophists] say the Scriptures are far too weak that we should silence heretics with them; reason must do it, and it must come forth from the brain; thus one must prove that the faith is the right one. But our faith is above all reason, and it alone is the power of God. Therefore, if the people will not believe, then be silent; for you are not held to compel them to receive Scripture as God's book or Word; it is enough if you give the reason therefor. But if they take exceptions and say: You preach that one should not hold to man's doctrine, and yet St. Peter and Paul, and even Christ, were men -- when you hear people of this stamp, who are so blinded and hardened as to deny that what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote is God's Word, or doubt it, then be silent, speak no more with them, and let them go. Only say: I will give you reasons enough from Scripture; if you will believe it, it is well; if not, go your way. Will you say: Then God's Word must suffer defeat? Leave that to God!" (St. L. IX: 1238 f.) According to Luther, it is utterly unworthy of a Christian to refuse to accept as God's Word and inerrant what Christ and the Apostles spoke and wrote. This judgment Luther also applies to the historical trustworthiness of Scripture in all cases where there is a discrepancy between secular writers and the statements of Scripture. He says: "I make use of the secular writings in such a manner that I am not forced to contradict Scripture. For I believe that in the Scriptures the God of truth speaks; in the histories good people display, according to their ability, their diligence and fidelity (but only as men) or at least that their copyists have perchance erred" (St. L. XIV:491). Likewise Luther maintains the inerrancy of the Scriptures when they differ with the natural scientists. He says with regard to the doctrine of the creation of the world: "When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and all that is therein in six days, then let it stand that it was in six days, and you dare not find a gloss how six days were one day. And if you cannot understand how it could have been done in six days, then accord the Holy Ghost the honor that He is more erudite than you" (St. L. III:21). As to the accommodation of the differences in the reports of the Gospels, Luther (just like Chemnitz in his Evangelienharmonie) [or Harmoniae Evangelicae] is content with pointing out several possible ways of solving the apparent discrepancies. (St. L. VII: 1780 f.) He is so far from doubting the correctness of the reports that he even declares the apparent disorder in them to be God's work and wisdom (St. L. VII: 1297).

It almost horrifies me when I think that the Devil himself in Matthew 4:1-11 did not raise the issue of "variant readings" or "contradictions" or "errors" in the Bible, but our modern theologians and scholars do.  Are they trying to outdo the Devil?

What other objections did Pieper address and defend against?

• inaccurate quotations of OT in NT (pgs 247-251)
• insignificant matters by the Holy Ghost? (pgs 251-255)
• "solecisms", barbarisms (pgs 255-260)
• single passages of Scripture itself against Inspiration (pgs 260-265)

So now I am refreshed and re-armed by Pieper against modern scholars and will address James Barr's writings against Luther, his Chronikon, and biblical chronology in Part 6c of my series on Luther's work.

Pieper: Objections to Inspiration (Part 1) – Variant Readings

I am interrupting the series (Table of Contents here) on Luther's Chronikon and the subsequent review of the modern scholar James Barr.  The reason I am doing this is because, after reviewing Barr's essays on biblical chronology, I have been constantly challenged in my Christian faith.  Professor Barr offers several reasons to question the credibility of the Bible with it's "legends", "errors"... with his "historical criticism" and "textual criticism" of the Bible.

But Franz Pieper long ago addressed these challenges by modern scholars against Holy Scripture.  I just now am refreshed by Pieper's wonderful defense of the Bible and the Doctrine of Inspiration.  Here is what he wrote in 1924 in his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 232-233:

Objections to the Doctrine of Inspiration

    The objections raised against the inspiration of Holy Scripture constitute an exceedingly sad chapter. They are as harmful as the objections voiced against the satisfactio vicaria of Christ.  Whoever denies the substitutional satisfaction of Christ denies the very essence of the Christian faith, because only the reliance on Christ's vicarious satisfaction (1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-3; John 1:29) is the Christian faith.  And whoever denies the inspiration of Scripture, i.e., denies that the Word of the Apostles and Prophets is God's own infallible Word, destroys, as far as lies in his power, the foundation of the Christian Church, because, according to Eph. 2:20, the Christian Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.  Nor dare we forget that everyone who denies the inspiration of Scripture eo ipso becomes a critic of Scripture and as a critic of Scripture -- which as God's Word is not to be criticized but believed - is subject to the divine judgment described in Matt. 11:25.  None of us, even though he were a doctor in all four of the learned professions, can deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture without suffering an impairment of his natural mental powers.  The arguments advanced against the inspiration of Scripture are below the level of the natural powers of mind which mankind still possesses since the Fall. 

Hmmm... Pieper puts all would-be scholars who deny the inspiration of Holy Scripture as using powers

"below the level of the natural powers of mind which mankind still possesses since the Fall".  

There are a lot of low-level powers being used by so-called "scholars" today.  You will find many of these as general editors, volume editors, and even translators in the American Edition of Luther's Works.

Pieper hammers home the scriptural doctrine here.  This is truly the spiritual strength of the old (German) Missouri Synod which rested squarely on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.

How did Pieper answer the objections to the doctrine that the Holy Scriptures are divinely inspired?  In his Christian Dogmatics, volume 1, pages 232-265, Pieper devoted 33 pages covering these objections (like those of Professor Barr) in a way that leaves a Christian praising God for His wonderful Word... and sticking to his Bible.  This section alone is worth the price of the whole 4-volume set of Christian Dogmatics.  I will pass over for now the first two objections that Pieper answers in his book:

1. Different style in the various books in the Scripture (page 233)
2. The appeal of the holy writers to their historical research has been advanced against the inspiration of the Bible. (page 236)

Here are the main objections that James Barr uses and Pieper's refutation.  The first is used by Barr when he speaks of the Septuagint (Greek) and the Samaritan text as various readings of the Old Testament:

3. The variant readings (variae lectiones) found in the copies of the originals are said to disprove the doctrine of inspiration. Variant readings in the copies do exist. But, first of all, let us bear in mind that it is not fair to argue from the variant readings in the copies against the inspiration of the originals. We have never held that the copyists of the holy writings were inspired. Spelling mistakes or slips or attempted corrections in the copies have absolutely nothing to do with the inspiration of the originals....
     But now the objection to the inspiration of Scripture assumes another form, namely, that an inspired Scripture becomes useless and should no longer be urged, since the presence of variant readings makes it, after all, uncertain which is the original Word of God. The critics make much of this objection. Theodor Kaftan claims ...: "Every theologian knows that there is no authentic text," "that the number of variant readings is legion," and "that it must give the verbal inspirationist quite a jolt when he realizes that no one, not even he himself, is able to tell which text is the one that is verbally inspired."  The exact opposite is true!  In spite of the variants in the copies of the Bible we have a reliable Bible text. Referring to this reliable Bible text, Luther uttered the words : "The Word they still shall let remain." We have two ways of knowing that in the copies the Word of the Apostles or, what is identical with it, the Word of Christ, has been preserved for us.
     a. We know we have this Word a priori, that is, prior to any human investigation, on the basis of the divine promise. When our Savior says in His high-priestly prayer (John 17:20) that all those who will come to faith to the end of time will come to faith through the Word of the Apostles, He therewith promises us that the Word of the Apostles will be present in the Church to the Last Day. Again, when Christ admonishes all believers to continue in His Word (John 8:31-32: "If ye continue in My Word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth"), He guarantees that His Word will be present for us to continue in it. If there are such as do not recognize the Word of Christ which they have as Christ's Word, such failure is certainly due to their blindness, that, seeing, they do not see and, hearing, they do not hear, because they do not understand. (Matt. 13:13 ff.) Again, when Christ instructs not only the Apostles, but His Church (Matt. 28:20) to teach all nations all things whatsoever He has commanded them, He gives the Church the guarantee that His doctrine in all its parts will be clearly and surely known to it to the end of time. Christ also comes to the defense of the text of the old Testament. When Christ says in particular of the entire Scriptures of the Old Testament that they cannot be broken (John 10:35), He is certainly affirming that the text of the old Testament is reliable. Similarly He states (Luke 16:29): "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them."  Likewise in His temptation (Matthew 4) [Matt. 4:4, 4:6-7, 4:10] Christ operates with the γέγραπται as with an immovable certain text.  We do not read that the devil brought up the matter of "variant readings." So we know a priori, before any investigation, from the promise and the testimony of Christ, that in the Scriptures now at the disposal of the Church we have a reliable text, or, in other words, the authentic doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, that is, of God, in spite of the variae lectiones in the copies.
     b. We reach the same result also a posteriori, on the basis of scientific investigation. Human scientific investigation establishes the fact that not a single Christian doctrine has been rendered doubtful in any point by the "legion" of variant readings. (pages 237-239)

Dear Christian reader, do you want to know how Luther would answer all these modern theologians and scholars like James Barr on the doctrine of Inspiration?  Then read Franz Pieper.  Then trust your Bible.

In Part 2 of this series, I will address another objection that Barr uses – alleged contradictions and errors in Scripture.