Quote:
Originally Posted by timmopussycat  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie Quote:
Originally Posted by ADKing
How much of your own original exegesis would you be doing and how much would you be relying on the exegesis of other reformed authorities? If you intend to rely heavily on the work of others, I would say it is probably not necessary. If you plan on doing original exegesis your credibility would be enhanced by knowing Hebrew.
| I suppose I would be leaning heavily on other authorities, which is probably why I asked. | Anybody who is going to write on the OT at all had better know at least enough Hebrew to use a Hebrew dictionary. Relying on authorites alone can leave you with egg on your face when your authority makes a mistake.
And if you find yourself doing origianal exegesis, be sure check your analysis and conclusions with a competent Hebraist.
To adduce but one example of what can go wrong when one has a little knowledge and doesn't double check; one young theology student claimed Deut 19:15 finds God legislating that "in ... capital crimes that the witnesses who bring the accusation against a person be innocent of that very same crime."
Had this writer checked the Hebrew he would never have put forward this interpretation, for two grammatical points render it untenable. The NASB reading of the first clause of the verse is, “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or sin which he has committed;” establishes what is not permitted while the second “…on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be established” is the law that the passage establishes. Legislating the need for two or more witnesses to establish guilt indicates that the Hebrew word "echad" is here to be translated as “single” in the first clause rather than its lesser meaning of the indefinite article "a".
Thus the translation “a witness” is almost certainly incorrect. The text is not saying "A man shall not rise up against a man ...." but “one witness” shall not rise up against a man.
Also, if I correctly remember the text, the "he has committed" is not reflexive. If so, it is the accused who may have committed the crime; whether the witness did so or not is neither stated nor implied. Thus the text is not legislating against a known criminal giving testimony in the case of a later instance of the same crime that he himself witnessed or prohibiting stool pigeons testifying against fellow criminals in the same crime: instead the intent of the text is to prohibit convictions on the basis of the testimony of a single witness: two or more witnesses are needed to convict someone of a crime. If God’s intent for the verse was to prohibit an uncaught criminal from giving testimony in a subsequent crime either the first clause would have been “A witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or sin which he himself has committed” or the second would have been “No criminal’s testimony shall be valid in a later trial for the same type of crime of which he was convicted.”
NT allusions to Deuteronomy 19:15 also rule out this student's interpretation. In John 8, the Pharisees attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of Jesus’ testimony concerning Himself by saying “You are bearing witness of yourself, your witness is not true” i.e. His testimony was invalid because it was unsupported by other witnesses. That this is an allusion to Deut 19:15 and the principle drawn from it that only confirmed testimony could be accepted as valid is shown by Jesus’ retort, “Even in your law it has been written that the testimony of two men is true. I …bear witness of myself and My Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” If the rejected interpretation of Deut. 19:15 was the correct understanding of the law the Pharisees could never have used an allusion to it in an attempt to muzzle Jesus since He had never been convicted of false witness. Moreover, if the students understanding of Deut. 19:15 was in fact correct, Jesus would not have replied with the fact that the Father was His second witness, but with the fact that He had never been convicted of false witness as he did when he elsewhere challenged his enemies "Which of you convicts me of sin?"
Alexander Pope still has the right of it: a little learning is a dangerous thing. |
Readers should note that Greg Bahnsen does not actually cite the text in the relevant section of Theonomy in Christian Ethics [p. 229, 3rd edition], but merely refers to it in brackets. Therefore, the construction which Tim has put upon Bahnsen's understanding of that verse is not based on what Bahnsen actually said himself, but on Tim's interpretation of Bahnsen.
It would be more proper to assume that Bahnsen believed that the principle that a witness should be free from involvement in the crime was something which could be inferred from the general principle of that passage. Tim does not seem to release that this was Bahnsen's MTh. thesis, and so his comments also reflect upon the competence of the scholars who gave him that qualification. Perhaps Bahnsen was wrong to infer what he did from that passage (though I think it can certainly be inferred from other Scripural texts - especially as the witnesses had to carry out the execution), however, this has nothing to do with an inadequate knowledge of Hebrew on his part.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; especially when that little knowledge is used by someone to discredit a PhD trained scholar and philosopher. Although he was a fallible man - I differ with him on EP, pictures of Christ and a number of other points - I do not understand why any Christian wants to make it their calling in life to discredit someone else, even to the point of actually putting words in their mouth and accussing them of things which they did not actually say.