Basic HTML Version
{2) rhe freguency of use of rhe Grcek
worcls
Ka {
(kai,
usually mcaning
·'and'' ) and
M (de
usually meaning
"ancl" or "bur"). Mr. Morron pro·
posed rhar an aurhor has a consisrcnt
partero of usage in rhesc arcas which
does nor change wirh subjccr, age, or
purposc. Even if a forger deliberarely
imitares rhe wrirer, he wiJI almost
certainly not follow rhe genuine
aurhor's subconscious parrern. Thus,
any writing which deviarcs grcarly
from rhe '"norm" is considerecl ro be
of differenr aurhorship. Morron claimcd
rhis proposal was borne out by an
analysis of severa! Greek wri rcrs.
Mr. Morron's analysis of rhe Paul–
ine cpisrles shows four books follow a
particular ··norm." (Galarians was
arbirrarily used as rhe basis for derer–
mining rhar "norm.")
~lorron
claims
rhac rhis proves Paul wroce only four
or five of che epistles ascribed ro him
since che orher books differ widely
from char ''norm."
Are the Conclusions Valid?
The findings of Mr. Monon and
chose working wirh him have been
received wich very lirclc agrecmenr or
S)'mparhy by orher scholars.
The rcason is rhar many scrious
doubrs have been advanccd againsc
rhe crireria uscd for "disproving"
Paul's aurhorship. In orher words, are
scnrence lengrh and rhc frcguency
usage of
Ka{
and
Ó{
somerimes
(if nor ofren) complcrcly unreliable?
K. Graysron, when rcvicwing Mor–
ron's book in
The E>..pository Times.
challenged che encirc premise as
unproved. He poimed out char chere
are r< ..asons why semence lengrh and
che occurrence of common words
may be "cwo of che less rcliable sra–
risrical tests."
Bíblica! scholar Bonifarius Fischer
poinced out thar rhcrc are serious
quesrions abour Morron's definirían
of a ''sencence" in Greck prosc. Punc–
ruarion was generally Jacking in rhe
original manuscriprs and was only
added by larer edicors! Dedared Dr.
Fischer: "Doubcs spring up al! over
rhe place. How differenr rhc modero
34
conceprion of a senrence is from che
rheories of ancicnr rheroricians and
grammarians! Wc nccd only rhink of
how modcrn cdirions of che Grcek
New Tcsramcnr diverge in rheir
puncruarion"
(op. cit..
p. 301) .
Harvey K. McArrhur of che Harr–
ford Seminary Foundarion did
research on Grcck wrirers nor invesri–
gared by Mr. Morron and his col–
leagues. He found a number of
examples in which Mr. Morron's
rheory of
Ka{
frequency jusr did
nor fir. Two werc rhe wrirings of
Epicrerus and Marcus Aurelius. Dr.
McArrhur wrore: "... iris widely rec–
ognized rhar Paul had ar leasc sorne
affiniries wirh Epicrerus becausc of his
use of diarribe style. Thus whar is
inapplicable ro Epicrerus mighr con–
ccivably
be
inapplicable ro Paul''
(' ·KA/
Fregucncr in Greek Lerrers,"
New
Testammt
Stttdies
15, 1%9,
p.
340).
Professor McArrhur also did a spe–
cial srudy of ccrrain Greck episdes or
lerrers comparable ro wrirings in
episrle forrn. He concluded rhar
Paul's lerrers reflccred a range of vari–
arion approximared by orher nored
wrirers: "The range of
kai
frequency
found in lerrers bcaring Paul's name
is abnormal bur ir is approximared by
che variarions found in Basil, Ignacius
and Synesius"
(ibid..
p. 348).
Mr. Morron himself has pointed
our rhat certa in rypcs of Greek wrir–
ing, such as dialogues, do nor fir inro
his hyporhesis. Paul incorporared a
variery of forms of marerial inro his
epísrles and also freguenrly quored
from rhe Old Tesramenr (one renrh
of rhe book of Romans is direcr
quote). Ar rimes, he passcd on "rradi–
rions"
( 1
Cor.
11:23-25; 15:3-7).
Taking al! rhe doubrs, objecrions,
quesrions, and lack of evidence inco
account, ir is no wonder chat Mr.
Morcon and his col leagues have nor
acquired roo large a follo•ving! One
criric. in reviewing anorher of Mr.
Morron's coaurhored books, wrore:
"Having used compurers for bíblica!
srudies over rhe Jase fifreen ycars, chis
reviewer refuses ro be incimidared by
rheir merhod, and he seriously gues-
rions irs validiry. Becausc a compurer
docs only whar rbe human has pro–
grammcd for ir, irs srarisrics and con–
clusions are no betrer rhan rhc mind
of rhc programmer" (John W. Elli–
son,
.Jormzal of Biblicai
Literat11re
LXXXTV, 1965,
p.
190).
Limitacions of rhe
Computer
Norice rhar compucers have limira–
rions. Human beings are able ro do
rhe
same work.
lr jusr rakes rhem
longcr. Compurers are able ro reduce
rhousands of man-hours of work ro a
few seconds. But rhey cannor do any–
rhing rhar a human being could not
also do, given enougb rime.
No, rhe computer has nor reachecl
rhc leve! of rhe Volkswagen which is,
according ro che ads, '·onl)' human."
Compurers are nor human. They can–
nor rhink or reason qualicarively.
Thcy can do only what rhey are pro–
grammcd ro do by
human
program–
mcrs. They are able ro work o nly as
"insrrucred" by rhe human program–
mer and only wirh rhe informarion
"fed" ro chem.
The compurer is simply rhe insrru–
ment - rhe roo! - in rhe hand of
rhe scholar. just as is che slide rule,
che specrroscope, rhe rypewricer, and
rhe lcad pencil. Each can hclp rhe
rescarchcr do bis work quicker and
easier. Bur rhe researcher srill has ro
do his own rh inking. If rhc rescarchcr
is working from a wrong premisc. che
rcsulrs will be wrong, wherher he fig–
ures rhem by pencil and paper or wirh
rhc help of a compurer.
The compurer can only arrive ar
wrong conclusions
if
rhe programmer
gives ir wrong insrruccions or fccds ir
wrong informarion. Iris imporranr ro
realize chis fact. Deciding such rhings
as Biblical aurhorship depends on rhe
judgmenr and rhe undcrlying assump–
cions of rhe scholar using che com–
purer, nor on rhe abiliry of rhe
compurer icsclf. In orher words, rhe
conclusions of rhe compurer are only
as accurare as rhe premises of rhe
compurer programmer or analysr. If
rhe rheorerician is working wich
PLAIN TRUTH September-October 1972