Basic HTML Version
ship. "Finally, we need ro consider
whether such results obcained from
our present sicuacion are capable of
being rransposed wichouc modi–
ficacion
to
a differenc cultural siru–
arion of ancienr rimes [rhac is, che
time of Isaiah). Only when we have
fully mer chese condirions will we be
in a position ro go on
to
examine
biblicalliterature wirh che objeccivicy
Radday so righrly desires."
Real objecriviry is far from being
established. Accurare and scienrific
crireria - carefully resced under labo–
racory condicions - muse !irse be
derermined. Unril scholars have done
cheir proper homework, chey should
forger abouc speculacing over auchor–
ship.
The results of any presenr srudy -
especiaJJy when ir concerns scacistics
- are open ro inrerprerarion. The
scaristics mean no more when com–
piled by a compurer chan when done
che slow way wirh penci1 and paper
- assuming, of course, that che calcu–
lations are marhemarically accurace.
The inrerprecacion of rhe results still
depends on human beings and is srill
subjecr to che same problems, diffi–
culties, and disagreemenrs •nf human
reason.
T he Computer D oes Not
Make the Scholar
As che well-known New Testa–
mene scholar Bonifatíus Fischer
recendy wrote, "lt is scrange in gen–
eral rhar che use of a compucer is
taken in
che
public mind as a proof of
scholarly thoroughness. Why does
che same noc hold for the use of a
founrain-pen or a rypewriter, espe–
cially an eleccric one?" ("The Use of
Compucers in New Testament Scud–
ies, with Special Reference ro Texrual
Criticism,"
journal of Theological Stud–
ies
XXI, 1970, p. 297). The problem
is, in realiry, in che
public
mind. The
mere use of che computer is no more
a proof of scholarly soundness than is
che
use of a pen or a rypewri ter.
In such things as literary and lin–
guisric analysis, che rype of instru–
ment used - wherher compucer or
36
chalk - makes no difference in che
resulrs. The entire question concerns
che scholar's premise - his hypothe–
sis or basis for research.
If
a carpenrer
starts our ro build a house wich
che
wrong blue prinrs, ir makes no ruffer–
ence whecher he uses hand tools or
power rools. He will scill come up
with che wrong produce!
Again quoting Dr. Fischer, "A
scudy and irs result gain nothing in
value merely because they were
achieved wich che help of a compurer.
A worrhless piece of work remains
worrhless even if done by a com–
pucer"
(ibid.,
p. 298).
Computers Shown Inconclusive
A conference on computers and
che bumanities ac Yale Universiry in
January 1965 was told of sorne inrer–
esting resulrs from applying Mr. Mor–
ton's merhods ro orher wrirings:
Ir was possible ro "prove" thar
James
Joyce's
novel
Ulysses
was che
work of five differenr men and rhar
not one of rhose was the author of
Joyce's
Portrait of the Artist
as
a
Yormg
Man.
We are nor rold whether
Mr. Joyce's heirs were informed of
this or what rheir reaction was if so.
Bur we doubr very much rhat anyone
is receiving royalries from che books
as a coaurhor!
In fact, Dr. John W. Ellison rold
che same conference that he had sub–
jected Mr. Morton's own writing ro
che same type of analysis. The results
indicaced multiple authorship!
T h e Positive Conui burion
of Computers
Computers definitely have a place
in che field of biblical and cheological
research. Someday chis may even
involve helping ro determine contro–
versia! aurhorshíp. Bur not yer.
Now, rhough, computers can
make a much-needed conrriburion in
che compilarion of Jinguisric data for
concordances, grammars, and lexi–
cons. Much of the work which goes
inro producing such items is ofren
the mechanical arranging of material ,
che consrruction of charrs and cables,
and che incorporation of new infor–
mation. Because of chis work, many
of che standard
refecence
works are
years out of date. Compucers should
be used in updating and revising
these works.
For example, ir rook someching
like six or seven years ro produce che
Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Con–
cordance of the
0/d
Testament
in che
1800's, partly because of rhe elaborare
merhods of cross-checking used ro
prevent error. Bur once che rext of
che Bible has been programmed inro
a compurer, praccically any type of
concordance needed can
be
produced
in a matter of hours on a compurer
princour.
One
of che biggesc problems in
any field of research is that of keeping
up with rhe larest information. Thou–
sands of books and arricles
Row
off
che presses each year. For a researcher
co keep up with all this is impossible.
Bur exhaustive yer current bibliogra–
phies, once impossible ro produce, are
now made feasible by che use of che
compurer. Many libraries are using
compurer prinrours ro keep users up
on the lacest acquisirions which have
nor yec been added ro che manual
card catalogue.
Textual research requires a grear
deal of laborious comparing and
cross-checking. Computers, once
properly programmed, can reduce che
work of years ro hours or minutes.
They can provide a quick reference ro
che readings of different manuscripts,
rexrs, and versions and compile infor–
macion on che comparisons on
demand.
These are only a few illusrrations
from a mulrirude which could be
given. The fact that sorne have pre–
marurely used che compurer ro ascer–
rain authorship should not cause us
to
overlook che valuable contribu-
tions ir can make.
O
For those interesred in a further
discussion of rhe contencs of rhe
Bible, we have rhe free article,
"Do We Have the Complete
Bible?''
PLAIN TRUTH September-October 1972