Has anyone else noticed how often scholars who aren't themselves part of the Calvinistic tradition get Calvinism so egregiously wrong -- I mean when they are writing as scholars specifically about Calvinism and Calvinists? Two quick examples -- one a blatant error of fact on a specific doctrine, the other a myopic inability to "get" the most basic ground-motive of the Reformed faith:
The Calvinists took the bread and wine as symbols only, simple reminders of the Last Supper. When Calvin was questioned about the Real Presence, he said that Christ was everywhere and hence present at the sacrament also. (p. 29 From Dawn to Decadence. Jacques Barzun. Harper-Collins, Perennial: 2001.)
Independence of mind ... was stimulated by the new Calvinistic faith. The Kirk had removed from its members any assurance of eternal salvation by the work of the Church and its sacraments. On the contrary, a man's salvation depended on himself: he must prove himself to be one of God's elect -- a congenial doctrine to people who had always believed in self-reliance and a man's importance to himself. (p. 70 The Scotch-Irish: A Social History. James G Leyburn. Chapel Hill U of NC Press: 1962.)
If scholars are so befuddled when it comes to a tradition that still exists contemporary with their scholarship, how much can we trust the conclusions of modern scholars when they tell us about the mindset of, say, second-temple Jews? Don't take that question as more cynical than it was meant to be. I think such scholarship needs to be given a serious look. But I also want to be cautious: the potential for unnoticed (and perhaps uncorrectable) mistakes needs to be taken into account. Stepping back from the work of examining the scholarship itself to see how compelling it is -- even the most compelling-seeming (from our vantage point) scholarship may face a reliability issue. I assume it is not completely unreliable. It is, then, "somewhat" reliable. What are we to make of this somewhat-reliable historical scholarship? What role should it play in our interpretation of Scripture?
Concerning your second quote, we must remember that continuity of tradition does not imply continuity of motivation. There may be no difference in reliability between historical scholarship of traditions "contemporary with their scholarship" and defunct traditions. How would contemporary-eity give raise to greater reliability? Perhaps it is the reverse. Scholars of contemporary traditions must contend not only with the historical record and historical scholarship, but also with potentially self-serving ongoing apologetics.
Posted by: at February 25, 2008 01:00 PM