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 1980 will 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