Inerrancy-Chicago Statement

[mark kennedy]

Would you agree that all of these grades of historical reliability are found in scripture?

I think that some of the books might be of very little significance as history. Proverbs for instance, probably doesn't give us an genuine insight into the period of the United Kingdom.

I find it interesting that Ramsay considers historical work "of the highest order" to be "an artistic and idealized picture".

Really? You never read Tocqueville, the guys is very artistic and idealized.

Not unvarnished description then.

Then there is the telltale reference to the "progressive tendency of the period" which sounds like he personally is captivated by the modernist metanarrative of progress. (Pretty much to be expected of a European or American writer in 1895).

Always thought the modernist mindset was precipitated by the rise of modern transportation and printing presses myself. Other then that there is nothing new under the sun.

So history "of the highest order" becomes "history that tells a modernist story of progress". IOW, history "of the highest order" is history told within the framework of my mythological metanarrative.

Would Tocqueville or Thucydides fit into your mythological metanarrative?

 

[gluadys]

It never occurred to me that there was a uniquely feminist hermeneutical principle applied to exegetical work.

Wow! So you have totally missed a whole major field of exegesis.

 

[gluadys]

I think that some of the books might be of very little significance as history. Proverbs for instance, probably doesn't give us an genuine insight into the period of the United Kingdom.

That is a red herring answer. Obviously a question about the historical records of the bible is about those sections of the bible which appear to record events in history.

Pertaining to these, would you agree that the quality of such writings covers the whole gamut of Ramsay's classification? IOW that every one of Ramsay's classification of different sorts of historical writing is represented in scripture.

Really? You never read Tocqueville, the guys is very artistic and idealized.

A question like this reminds me that you and I don't tend to communicate in mutually compatible ways.

I was not expressing surprise that history can be written artistically. I was interested that artistry and idealization, particularly of "the progressive tendency" of the period, would be criteria for judging the quality of the history. In fact, on re-reading that fourth item, I notice that one measure of quality is noticeably missing: accuracy.

Instead Ramsay speaks of "genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events." Then he goes on to describe how the author would organize the material using such subjective standards as "critical events" "less important events" and "mass of unimportant details" in order to arrive at his artistic idealization of the progressive tendency of the period.

Describing the task of the historian in this way is equivalent to saying that the role of the historian is to be a mythmaker. Facts are unimportant in themselves; they are only useful in propogating the approved mythology of the time. In an artistic, idealized way, of course.

Now I have no problem with the concept of historian as mythmaker/propagandist.

But I didn't think you were open to this, especially in terms of the history in scripture.

Would Tocqueville or Thucydides fit into your mythological metanarrative?

Sorry, I should have placed the last bit in quotation marks too. I was really referring to Ramsay's mythological metanarrative. And yes, he very likely would have included both Toqueville and Thucydides; Toqueville as an earlier colleague in the writing of history and Thucydides because it is part of his own myth that Thucydides was the first true historian.

 

[gluadys]

First of all we don't have the autographs, we do have an abundance of nearly identical copies for the New Testament. There are some 30,000 extant manuscripts that do not differ significantly, these are collectively known as the originals. The Old Testament on the other hand were so meticulously well preserved that their distance from the autographs are not an issue.

I did err in using the term "autographs". But this still leaves me a little mystified about the Chicago Standard reference to "grammatical-historical hermeneutic".

You are laying emphasis on using a text judged to be as close to the original as we can get, free of later glosses and interpolations. That seems to be what "historical" means to you---that the exegesis be based on such a text and not one with later emendations.

And I think we can both agree that exegesis needs to use the grammar responsibly. Further that we are talking of the grammar of the original language, not of a translation, in the "original" texts as defined above.

So, at this point we have two principles:

1. Respect the grammar of the text and do not introduce concepts that violate the grammatical construction of the original language.

2. Base the exegesis on the soundest texts we have, judged by the best scholarship methods to be free of scribal glosses, omissions, editorializing, etc.

What bothers me is that no exegete would disagree with these principles, yet different exegetes would still use different hermeneutical approaches.

A feminist, a liberationalist and a literalist would all agree on the need to respect the grammar and use most historically accurate text available. But they would still be using a different hermeneutical approach and discovering different meanings in the text.

So what is meant by "grammatical-historical hermeneutic"?

Why is this included in a standard on inerrancy? What is the connection between the hermeneutic and inerrancy?

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow! So you have totally missed a whole major field of exegesis.

You are up to your old tricks, ask an ambiguise question and never accept the answer.

 

[mark kennedy]

That is a red herring answer. Obviously a question about the historical records of the bible is about those sections of the bible which appear to record events in history.

Oh, if that's what you meant then it's history, straight up and flat out.

Pertaining to these, would you agree that the quality of such writings covers the whole gamut of Ramsay's classification? IOW that every one of Ramsay's classification of different sorts of historical writing is represented in scripture.

Are all the writers in the Bible historians of the highest order? Gee wiz, it's hard to say when you are talking in generalities. I will say the historical narratives are much more reliable then secular sources and uncontested by them.

A question like this reminds me that you and I don't tend to communicate in mutually compatible ways.

No we don't, it's one of the reasons I don't bother making elaborate responses.

I was not expressing surprise that history can be written artistically. I was interested that artistry and idealization, particularly of "the progressive tendency" of the period, would be criteria for judging the quality of the history. In fact, on re-reading that fourth item, I notice that one measure of quality is noticeably missing: accuracy.

Accuracy is a given, comprehension is really tough. When you can relate a definitive period in history that makes it comprehensive is rare. The artistry is like resolution on your computer, it's optional but the more detailed and clear the better.

Instead Ramsay speaks of "genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight into human character and the movement of events." Then he goes on to describe how the author would organize the material using such subjective standards as "critical events" "less important events" and "mass of unimportant details" in order to arrive at his artistic idealization of the progressive tendency of the period.

It's not as easy as it seems to get through all the extraneous details. I think what Ramsey liked was the way Luke got to the point.

Describing the task of the historian in this way is equivalent to saying that the role of the historian is to be a mythmaker. Facts are unimportant in themselves; they are only useful in propogating the approved mythology of the time. In an artistic, idealized way, of course.

One main feature separates the two, an historian is compelled by the facts. A mythographer only cares about the 'idea'.

Now I have no problem with the concept of historian as mythmaker/propagandist.

I always have a problem with propagandists.

But I didn't think you were open to this, especially in terms of the history in scripture.

My dear, I am always open to your literary flights into fancy. I don't always agree with where you are going and certainly don't like where you are taking me but it's always interesting.

Sorry, I should have placed the last bit in quotation marks too. I was really referring to Ramsay's mythological metanarrative. And yes, he very likely would have included both Toqueville and Thucydides; Toqueville as an earlier colleague in the writing of history and Thucydides because it is part of his own myth that Thucydides was the first true historian.

Come again, Ramsey described a mythological metanarrative? I'll need the quote.

 

[gluadys]

You are up to your old tricks, ask an ambiguise question and never accept the answer.

But I didn't ask a question at all.

 

[gluadys]

Are all the writers in the Bible historians of the highest order? Gee wiz, it's hard to say when you are talking in generalities. I will say the historical narratives are much more reliable then secular sources and uncontested by them.

Well, if you want to get specific, is the quality of historical reporting in Judges up to the same standard as that in Luke?

The artistry is like resolution on your computer, it's optional but the more detailed and clear the better.

It's not as easy as it seems to get through all the extraneous details. I think what Ramsey liked was the way Luke got to the point.

Bit of an internal conflict there. Does clarity require more detail or less? In any case, Ramsey seems to favour the latter approach.

One main feature separates the two, an historian is compelled by the facts. A mythographer only cares about the 'idea'.

I think "compelled" is too strong a word. "Constrained" would be better. The responsible historian cannot invent fact or contradict fact. But s/he can certainly select and marshall fact in the direction dictated by the mythological idea. So the idea still controls the presentation more than the facts do. This provides the illusion that the idea is compelled by the facts.

My dear, I am always open to your literary flights into fancy.

Ah, you're so sweet.

Come again, Ramsey described a mythological metanarrative? I'll need the quote.

I already provided it. It is the last phrase in his fourth standard:

and makes his work an artistic and idealized picture of the progressive tendency of the period.

Of course, his whole ranking system is itself an idealized picture of progressive tendencies in the art of historiographical writing.

btw, I hope you will find time to respond to post 24. All this is an pleasant diversion, but I would like to get back to the prinicipal topic.