A journal for reformational thought vol 2 no 4 June 1980. Edited by Al Wolters.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 20
( ANAKAINOSIS |
A Journal For Reformational Thought
Volume Two, No.4
Editorial: Worldview and Textual Criticism
II Peter 3:10 offers en interesting exemple of a passage of Scripture
where worldview considerations seem to play a decisive role in interpre-
tation, even in the choice of the reading adopted for the Greek text.
In the familiar words of the King James Version, this verse reads:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in
the night; in the which the heavens shall pass
away with a great noise, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the
works that are therein shalt be burned up.
Especially the italicized words are often quoted to defend the view
that the present world, with all the human achievement (including
culture) which it contains, will be completely destroyed in the final
"day of the Lord," and that therefore the "new heavens and new earth’
of which Peter speaks in verse 13 must be a brand-new product of God's
hands, essentially unrelated to our present earthly life. Such an
interpretation lends itself to the depreciation of earthly (i.e. crea-
tional} life which has been characteristic of two-realm worldviews in
Christian circles. After all, it is all part of a scheme of things
which is doomed for destruction. As such it stands sharply opposed
to 2 worldview which emphasizes God's faithfulness to His creation,
the substantial identity of this world and the next, and the value of
our obedient works now for the eschatological renewal of heaven and
earth.
In the light of these overall considerations of worldview, it is
interesting to note that the Greek text of this verse is somewhat
uncertain, specifically as regards the word translated “shall be burned
up." This reflects the Greek xataxaroctat, which is quite poorly
attested in the manuscript tradition (apart from the 3th century Codex
Alexandrians, it is found chiefly in very late byzantine miniscules).
The evidence is much stronger for the reading ebPeSnoctar, literally
“will be found" (which finds support in all the earliest manuscripts
and versions), Accordingly, all modern editions of the Greek New
Testament have adopted this latter reading in their text.
Clearly the implications of this restored text run counter to those
of the traditional text on which the King James Version was based.
The passage now speaks of the preservation, rather than the destruc-
tion of the earth and "the works that are therein,” To be sure, they
June 1980will pass through the fires of judgment, they will even "pass away"
and "melt," but thereafter they "will be found," nevertheless.
It is curious that most modern translations of the New Testament
choose not to follow the established text. The Revised Standard
Version still has “will be burned up,” without so much as a mar-
ginal note to indicate a textual variant. Today's English Version
has simply "will vanish," which seems to be based on the even more
improbable reading &eavvoSroovta: (found in a single fifth-century
manuscript) and which even more clearly implies annihilation of
the creation. The French, Italian, German, Dutch and Spanish equi-
vatents of the TEV (all done in the last decade or two) give simi-
lar renderings, running from "cessera d'exister" to "serd quemada.”
The New English Bible (followed by the New International Version}
translates “will be stripped bare,” which does not seem to relate
to any of the textual variants, and certainly does not convey the
idea of preservation either. in fact, of the versions I have
checked, only the Dutch Weuse Vertaling gives a literal render-
ing of the probable Greek text: "de aarde en de werken daarop
aullen gevonden worden." This is all the more significant because
two of the team of Dutch translators (Aalders and Grosheide) were
Neocalvinists associated with the Free University.
It would seem that the decision of the various translators with
respect to the Greek text was not unrelated to certain worldview
predispositions on their part. The depreciation of "this world”
seems to have led many to choose for a less probable Greek text
rather than accept a reading which made little sense in their
worldview.
Two final comments about this matter. S.G. de Graaf, the Dutch
author of Promise and Deliverance, has an excellent discussion of
questions relating to II Peter 3:10 in his treatment of Lord's
Day 18 and 19 of the Heidelberg Catechism, see Het Ware Geloof
(Kampen, 1954}, pp. 346ff. and 385£f. (He translates the text
in question as: "will be left over"). Herman Bavinck, in defead-
ing the traditional Calvinist position on this matter, makes use
of the Aristotelian categories "essence" and "forn" (see e.g., his
Our Reasonable Faith, p. 566); it is only the form that changes
while the essence of creation remains. It strikes me that a more
Scriptural distinction to make in this regard is that between "law"
and "subject." God remains faithful to His creation ordinances, He
does not allow His creational purposes to be frustrated, even
though the subject-side of creation (which is distorted by sin) is
convulsed by a catastrophic conflagration. {A.W.}
ARR RRR RRR
Correetion: The March, 1980 issue of dnakainoste gave an inaccurate
and misleading title to the essay by William Rowe on
Aristotle. The titie should have been "Two Conceptions
of the Unmoved Movers in Aristotle.” Our apologies to
the author for this mistake. (A.W.)The Film Medium and Its Christian Use
by John Hamilton
A Short Summary of John R. Hamilton, an Hietorical Study of Bob Pierce
and World Vieion’s Development of the Evangelical Social Avtion Film;
Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Southern California, 1980; 454 pp.
Almost from its inception, the film medium has been used for persua-
sion and attitude change, most notably in the work of early Soviet
filmmakers such as Sergei Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov. The use of film
as an instrument of social change has since been furthered by Joris
Ivens, John Grierson, Pare Lorentz, and directors of the Canadian Na-
tional Film Board, representing documentary traditions; by Stanley
Kraner, Otto Preminger, and other directors of flollywood "social
consciousness" dramas; ‘and by avante garde filmmakers such as Stan
Vanderbeek.1?
In a sense all films are persuasive as they promote a certain veltan-
echauung or mood or point of view. But whether self-consciously
message-oriented or deliberately didactic, any film can be analyzed in
terms of its religious, philosophical, or ideologica! implications and
impact, because they are the creative product of human beings.
Films which influence people and contribute to social change may be
sponsored films, or governmental, industrial, educational, or strictly
commerical, theatrical, or even exploitative. Persuasive films can
be found in a number of showcases and stem from a variety of production
intents.
The earliest known use of the word “propagate” to refer to something
other than plant and animal reproduction was by the seventeenth cen-
tury Catholic church office, Congregation de Propaganda Fide, the
“Agency for the Propagation of the Faith."2 The word "propaganda"
simply referred to the putting forth and spreading of ideas. With
this broad definition, one could say that all films are propaganda
in effect, because they are persuasive.
Notwithstanding this aspect of “preaching the faith"3 present in all
works, one may pragmatically delinit the propaganda film field of in-
quiry according to the intention of the filmmaker, asking whether it
is his design to form, reinforce, or change audience beliefs, opinions,
or actions.
Propaganda films may be further narrowed by requiring some kind of
organizational sponsorship behind the production, it is usually an
organisation having a message to tell which turns to propaganda.
Wolfran von Hanweht gives this operational definition of propaganda:
"An organized attempt to persuade people to change (or reinforce) their
mind (faith, opinion, belief)."* Jacques Ellul also stresses the role
of organization in defining propaganda. “Propaganda is a set of methods
employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or
passive participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psycho-
logically unified through psychological manipulation and incotporated
3