Marion Fox, in arguing the number of generations between Perez and David ( TSR, 7:2, p.7), makes a fatal mistake which is so very common in Bible apologetics. He assumes that one can pick and choose among the various meanings that a word may have. Thus, he selects a meaning for son that does not force a contradiction.
This defense is a branch of that great, central crutch of apologetics, which states that if the skeptic can't disprove every single loophole then the skeptic has no proof of error in the Bible. In this instance, Fox is daring the skeptic to prove that son could not be used in the other sense.
Let us briefly examine the central crutch of apologetics before continuing with Fox.
In the real world of atoms and energy, one can never rule out every loophole no matter how good the evidence or the theory. (Believe it or not, there are logical loopholes to the claim that the earth exists!) This follows directly from the nature of inductive logic, which is central to the acquisition of knowledge in the real world. Consequently, loopholes can always be found; the better the theory, the more exotic (less believable) the loopholes. In other words, pointing out the existence of a loophole does not rule out the case for error in any meaningful sense.
It is ludicrous, or at least contrary to good sense, to take the position that no idea about the real world can be proven wrong. Every day we make judgments based on things being right or wrong. Thus, the mere citing of a loophole as an adequate means of defense must be dropped. Either that, or we must give up the idea of ever proving that an error exists anywhere. Such is the error, briefly put, of that great, central crutch of Bible apologetics.
What must be done, in order to get a fair and meaningful answer, is to weight the case for error against the case for no error -- and to go with the better argument. If the better argument clearly points to error, then the objective mind will draw that conclusion. Objective minds will remain open to new data, of course, since no case for error can be 100% certain. However, in all but borderline cases, the proper and meaningful conclusion must be "error," and not the biased view that time and further knowledge will eventually remove that conclusion of error. More likely, time and further knowledge will increase our confidence in that conclusion of error, even as it has increased our confidence in the sphericity of the earth.
The concept of error above is none other than the everyday meaning stripped of its mistaken views of certainty. When we talk about error in the real world, no matter how obvious, it always has an element of uncertainty about it. A sufficiently imaginative mind would always find loopholes, but that does not stop us from calling an obvious error an error. We call the flat-earth idea an "error." We don't call it a discrepancy that might be resolved in the course of time! In principle, such a description might not be wrong, but without supporting evidence it is worthless speculation. We simply call the flat-earth view an error, and rightly so. "Error" means no more and no less in our world of atoms and energy. (In the abstract world of mathematics, things are a little different.)
Consequently, when we find the case for an error in the Bible to be overwhelming, according to the above view of error, we have found an error as real as any of its counterparts in the world about us. We rightfully call it an "error." That is what we mean by "error." The everyday concept of error includes loopholes, provided that they are so small as to present no serious challenge to the case for error.
In the case of Fox, he has adopted an inferior solution with the idea that it might be right. "Prove me wrong," he would probably say. He has produced a loophole and is under the illusion that it defends against the claim of error. As we have seen, a loophole is not an adequate defense against error -- unless it is more believable than the case for error. So, that brings us to the central question. Which meaning of son is the more believable in the context of the detailed genealogies?
The most common meaning, by far, of the word son is in the literal sense. That must be our starting point in keeping with the principles of good interpretation. The meaning with the best track record is most likely, all things being equal, to be right. We then look for evidence of alternate meanings in the surrounding context. We overthrow the common meaning only if the evidence is such that using the common meaning would constitute a clear error.
Fox has produced evidence for his alternate meaning in a genealogy that has been obviously abbreviated. Jesus was clearly not a literal son of David. However, in the Perez to David genealogy, there is no clear evidence for intended abbreviation. It is given as though it were a factual genealogy, and that is how it must be taken. Fox's argument is irrelevant.
Obviously, there is nothing in the surrounding context that challenges the normal meaning of son. The main account, given in 1 Chronicles 2:4-15, is beautifully consistent with the common meaning of son. That, and some additional points by Till, make it clear that there is only one intelligent interpretation of son in this context, and that is the literal, common meaning.
Therefore, if God is the author of the Bible, he has contradicted himself by allowing David to be a part of his congregation. No bastard was to be admitted, even through the 10th generation.
(Dave Matson, P. O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116, e-mail 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR's NOTE: Dave Matson and I have both written extensively on the how-it-could-been hermeneutics that inerrantists use to "harmonize" the Bible. In the May/June 1996 issue of TSR, we published "How-It-Could-Have-Been Scenarios" (p. 1) and "More How-It-Could-Have-Been Speculations" (pp. 5-6). In the Spring 1993 issue, my article "Any Loophole Will Do" (pp. 8-9) and Matson's "What Is Wrong with Any-Loophole-Will-Do Hermeneutics" (pp. 9-11) were published. All of these articles have pointed out the fallacies in arguing that the mere postulation of possible, even if unlikely, scenarios resolves the problem of biblical discrepancies. Although TSR offers space to inerrantists who want to refute our arguments or present their own case for inerrancy, no one has tried to respond to Matson's and my argument that a textual inconsistency or discrepancy resulting from the face-value meaning of language remains an inconsistency or discrepancy until inerrantists offer plausible evidence that a hypothesis based on a how-it-could-have-been scenario is not just theoretically possible but very likely true. We invite them to confront this issue.
ASCII Copies
In addition to all TSR articles being accessible at
http://theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/,
we can copy them to your disks in ASCII files for your personal use. To
receive yours, send three (3) formatted DOS disks and $1 for postage to
P. O. Box 717, Canton, IL 61520-0717.
