Science
Science
The word science () occurs only once in the NT, in 1Ti 6:20, and then only in the Authorized Version . The Revisers use the word knowledge, and this gives its real meaning. The knowledge which the Apostle has in view and here condemns was a mystical interpretation of the OT, and particularly its legal parts. But the age of science, as this word is now understood, had not then arrived; and the word in its modern significance is nowhere found in NT writings.
J. W. Lightley.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
science
Science is defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas as the knowledge of things from their causes. When science is said to be in conflict with religion, it is well to recall what believing Christians have done for the various practical sciences of today. Articles will be found elsewhere on
astronomy
botany
chemistry
geography
geology
mathematics
medical science
mineralogy
philology
physics
zoology
They list Catholic and other Christian celebrities in each.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Science
(, madda; Dan 1:4, knowledge, as elsewhere rendered). In one passage only (1Ti 6:20) this word has also been given by our translators as the equivalent of the Greek term , a word which is used about thirty times in the New Test., but which in all other passages is properly rendered knowledge. It doubtless here refers to the so called gnosis, or that affectation of spiritual knowledge which set itself in array against the Gospel of Christ, and which boasted of its superior insight into the nature of things. It was from this sort of pretentious knowing that the Gnostics derived their name and they were among the earliest corrupters of the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. SEE GNOSTICS. Many readers have erroneously supposed that Paul is speaking of something else than the knowledge of which both the Judaizing and the mystic sects of the apostolic age continually boasted, against which he so urgently warns men (1Co 8:1; 1Co 8:7), the counterfeit of the true knowledge which he prizes so highly (1Co 12:8; 1Co 13:2; Php 1:9; Col 3:10). It was not until after the accession of David that the Jews became remarkable for their intellectual culture; but the patriarchs probably possessed a considerable knowledge of practical astronomy SEE ASTRONOMY, such as is still popular among pastoral tribes, probably corrupting it by an admixture of judicial astrology. SEE ASTROLOGY.
The literature of the Hebrews was chiefly limited to ethics, religion, the history of their nation, and to natural history, on which Solomon wrote several treatises no longer extant. If the phenomena mentioned in Scripture had been described with the accuracy of modern physical science, they would have been unintelligible to the persons for whose use the sacred writings were originally designed. The most numerous references to Oriental science occur in the book of Job (see Schmidt, Biblischer Physikus [Zullichau, 1731, 1748]).
In modern times the appeal of rationalists and semi-infidels has especially been to the discoveries of science, especially geology (q.v.), as militating against the Bible; but in every instance a careful and candid comparison has shown their compatibility. SEE INTERPRETATION, BIBLICAL SCIENCE AND REVELATION. It is an undeniable fact that there is a Controversy between scientists and theologians, but we propose to answer in this article the question, Is there any antagonism between science and revelation? It may be well to define the position which some of the most distinguished scientists take, and which they claim to be alone tenable. Prof. Huxley says, There is but one kind of knowledge, and but one method of acquiring it; that that kind of knowledge makes scepticism the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin. He describes all faith as blind which accepts anything on any kind of authority but that of scientific experience. He describes true religion as worship for the most part of the silent sort,’ at the altar of the Unknown and Unknowable, and proclaims justification, not by faith, but by verification, as the gospel of modern science (Lay Sermon, read at St. Martin’s Hall, London, and published in the Fortnightly Review, Jan, 15, 1866). He further says that the improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such, and maintains that the method of the inductive sciences is the only method by which any human creature can arrive at any sort of truth. The natural consequence is that such men find themselves opposed to revelation, which assumes that man by searching cannot find all truth, and therefore teaches what is, otherwise, unknown and unknowable. Many scientists assert that their investigations prove the falsity of the statements and teachings of Scripture. That the conclusions of scientists may not harmonize with what they believe to be the teachings of Scripture we readily admit; but that the real facts taught in the one contradict, antagonize, those revealed by the other we as unhesitatingly deny. In fact, revelation, as we hope to show, really has no controversy with science. Let us glance at some of the alleged contradictions.
1. Genesis. The first chapters of this book have been the great bone of contention, theologians having been wont to assume that Moses asserts the formation of the entire universe, or at least of our own globe, with all its internal and superficial furniture, in six literal days; while scientists at present in the main contend for an immense period of astronomical and geological eras, which they claim that they read in the nebular reductions, the rocky strata, and the vital evolutions. But a close inspection of the phraseology of Moses shows that he has not committed himself to either of these opposite opinions. He Simply states in Col 3:1 the fact of God’s creation of our own planet and its solar system, substantially as they now exist, without specifying any particulars as to the time, mode, or order of the process; and in the following verses he narrates successive stages of a subsequent special creation of the present vegetable and animal tribes, either over the earth generally or possibly in a particular locality only. The Bible and modern science thus appear to be discoursing upon two entirely different subjects, and cannot possibly contradict each other.
2. The Antiquity of Man. The questions of the antiquity and unity of the human race upon the earth are indeed more explicitly touched upon in the Bible, but modern science has hitherto adduced nothing adequate to overthrow the Biblical testimony. Presumptions to the contrary, it is true, have been raised in some quarters by certain phenomena; but these admit of so ready an explanation on other grounds, and are rebutted by so many other facts, that scientists at large still hold fast to the opinion that man is of comparatively recent origin, and must have sprung from a single family.
3. The Flood. The universality of Noah’s flood as to the surface of the globe, although we admit the first inference from the Biblical account, is found on a closer examination not to be necessarily intended by its language; and a consideration of its uselessness and impracticability for the mere purpose of drowning a few thousands in a particular locality induced expositors to limit its prevalence long before the modern scientific objections were thought of.
4. The Resurrection, etc. The doctrine of the survival of the soul after death, and of the resurrection of the body, are coming more and more to be seen to be not only not incompatible with physiological science, but to be almost necessary deductions from psychological and metaphysical reasoning, even apart from revelation. If the miraculous element be admitted into nature, and hard facts demand its occasional intervention, as well as its primal impulse, all difficulty on physical grounds vanishes from these problems of the future world. The imperceptible but frequent renewal of the material organism actually furnishes a striking illustration of the continuity of identity in the midst of apparent dissolution and atomic change.
5. Alleged Unscientific Statements. But it is said that certain specific statements of Scripture are shown by science to be false. For instance, in natural history the coney and the hare are classed with the ruminants (Lev 11:5-6; Deu 14:7), whereas in fact they have no cud; and the ant with non-hybernating insects (Pro 6:6-8; Pro 30:25), whereas in truth it lies torpid all winter. The answer to this is that the Scripture writers give a correct account of an actual phenomenon, although their descriptions are not couched in scientific terms. Their language is always optical, i.e. in accordance with the exterior or apparent phenomena. As, in the case of the hare, they undoubtedly refer to the constant motions of the lips, which seems like chewing the cud. They were not mistaken as to the fact which they meant to state, nor do they use language which when properly interpreted conveys a false impression. If their hearers or readers already had an impression scientifically erroneous in some respects, they were not bound to correct that impression, provided it did not interfere with the purpose or truth which they had in view. Popular language always uses this liberty, but it is not therefore chargeable with untruth. Science is simply systematized knowledge, and therein it differs from popular or general information. The facts remain the same both to the scientific and unscientific man; they are only viewed in a different light and with different associations.
The Biblical writers, of course, having no scientific notions or standpoint after the Baconian school, ignore its nomenclature, and express themselves in the plain language of fact or sensible phenomena. They broach no theories, they employ no technical terms; they confine themselves to actual things in their phenomenal forms. This is a universal rule with them. Hence they seem to disagree with science whenever its rigid canon of verbal precision is applied to them, for of course their vocabulary is different; but the dispute is about words only, while the things meant are identically the same. The sacred writers, in scholastic phrase, if you please, use solecisms in grammar inelegancies in rhetoric, the argumentum ad hominem in logic, an unscientific terminology throughout for such was their vernacular; but they never fall into error as to matter of fact. The conflict between science and revelation, when carefully scrutinized, is seen to be only a disagreement between particular theories of particular scientists and particular interpretations of particular passages of Scripture. And, furthermore, when the scientific principle of thought is compared with the theological, or the unveiling of the Holy Ghost to men, they are found to be on two absolutely different planes, and unable, properly compared, to clash with each other. The fundamental error of the scientists of our day is in their method. It is mechanical, external, superficial, false. They exalt the senses, which are the mere servitors of mind, into the mind’s masters, and terrible is the bondage to which they thus doom the spirit of man. Admit that mind is a force, and that there is an infinite mind, and then that in Scripture which to many scientists is most objectionable, viz. the miraculous, becomes natural and easy of belief. The main body of scientists of the present day are firm believers in Christianity, and science has no warmer advocates than are to be found among Christian believers. SEE REASON AND RELIGION.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Science
gnoosis, rather “knowledge falsely so-called” (1Ti 6:20). There was a true “knowledge,” a charism or “gift” of the Spirit, abused by some (1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:8; 1Co 13:2; 1Co 14:6). This was counterfeited by false teachers, as preeminently and exclusively theirs (Col 2:8; Col 2:18; Col 2:23). Hence arose creeds, “symbols” (sumbola), i.e. watchwords whereby the orthodox might distinguish one another from the heretical; traces of such a creed appear in 1Ti 3:16; 2Ti 1:13-14.
The germs of the pretended gnoosis were not developed into full blown gnosticism until the second century. True knowledge (epignoosis, “full accurate knowledge”) Paul valued (Phi 1:9; Col 2:3; Col 3:10). He did not despise, but utilizes, secular knowledge (Phi 4:8; Act 17:28, etc.); and the progress made in many of the sciences as well as in the arts (as in that of design, manifested in the vases and other works of that description), was evidently very great.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Science
SCIENCE.1. The word science, in the language of to-day, refers sometimes to a process and sometimes to the results of that process. The process itself is the representation in thought of the facts and events of human experience. The result of this process is the formulation of statements and doctrines which are regarded as true. We therefore use the word science generally to embrace both (1) scientific method and (2) scientific truth. The object of science is to apply its method to every field of possible knowledge, and so to include within its doctrine all the facts of human experience.
I. State of science in the civilization in which Christ lived
1. Relation to Hellenism.The civilization of Palestine was complex and syncretic. The two main factors in it were the ancient Hebrew culture (largely tinctured by other Oriental elements), which preponderated, and Hellenism. This latter was a power extending throughout the Graeco-Roman world, and tending to influence every department of life; and so, despite the innate conservatism of the Jews, the more external elements of Palestinian culture received a strong Hellenistic tincture. The organism of the State was deeply affected, public institutions were modified, and social relations not untouched. The arts, too, were influenced, but, by the time the science of the Hebrews was reached, the wave of Hellenism had lost much of its vigour. The mind of the Jew was equipped against it. The Greek language was, after all, but slightly known (cf. Act 21:40; Act 22:2), and, though Herod surrounded himself with Greek literati and many Jews received a Greek education abroad, these facts indicate the limit of the penetration of Greek science into the life of the Jews. This may be illustrated by reference to St. Paul. Though brought up to some extent under Hellenistic influences in Tarsus, his culture was Greek only in its form and in certain of its graces. To the Hebrew mode of thought and Rabbinic logicinward and characteristic elements of Jewish culturehe tenaciously clung. His writings are all those of a Jew rather than of a Hellenist. It is, then, unnecessary to attend to Hellenistic thought when considering the science that formed the intellectual background of the teaching of Christ. The Aristotelian logic had no nameable influence upon His own thought, or upon the mind of the Synoptists who reported His words, or upon the conceptions of the common people who heard him gladly. The logic of the society in which Christ moved was Rabbinic and not philosophic, and its standard of truth was religious rather than scientific.
2. Hebrew standard of truth.We recognize that, according to the scientific standard, those propositions are true which accurately and impartially describe observed facts; that is, the test of truth is its logical form as descriptive. This notion of truth was originally foreign to the Hebrews. The words in the OT which are translated true, truth, etc., may be traced to roots which have primarily an ethical meaning and convey the notion of constancy, steadfastness, faithfulness (see art. Truth in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ). Hence they are more generally applied to a person than a proposition, and attach to a proposition only in a derivative way, the sayings of God being faithful because His character is beneath and behind them,they are established in the Divine nature, and so cannot be moved. Thus, that a proposition should tally with facts did not stand out with such importance as it does for us moderns: indeed, to the ancient Hebrew, truth was a matter of motive and character rather than of accuracy. Thus in the Decalogue there is no actual and direct condemnation of lying, but the prohibition is directed against the bearing of false witness, the dastardly motive being the thing denounced, rather than the failure accurately to describe facts. This comes out in strong relief in the Jewish notion of history. The aim of the historian was less to give a record of events than to edify. Indeed, by the time of Christ the whole circle of historical ideas had received a fanciful character, because that narrative was deemed to be the best which gave the most laudatory account of the Hebrew heroes.
Truth then, according to the Hebrew mind, was that which edified, and not merely accurate description of fact. Only from this point of view can we understand many NT sayings with reference to truth. Jesus claimed that He Himself was the truth. In saying I am the way, and the truth, and the life (Joh 14:6), He is not referring to what we call scientific truth, but rather edifying and ennobling thought, or, as explained above, religious truth. Pilate, a Roman logician, had quite a different conception of truth. When he said What is truth? (Joh 18:38), he was moving in a universe of thought foreign to the Jews.
3. Hebrew method of attaining truth.The Hebrew idea of truth being so different from our scientific standard, it is to be expected that their way of reaching it would correspondingly differ from our scientific method,the observation and description of facts. The Hebrew method did not always seek facts, and, when they were at hand, was not content simply to describe them.
(1) Facts were sometimes invented.
This may be illustrated by reference to Talmudic geography. The Talmud answers the question* [Note: Tosefta, Maaser sheni, ch. 2; Hallach, ch. 2; Jerus. Shebhiith vi. 2; Bab. Gittin 8a.] as to which islands belong to Israel and which do not, by saying that if a straight line be drawn from Amanus (?a mountain in the north) to the River of Egypt, those islands situated within this line belong to the land of Israel, etc. But, of course, no islands ever belonged to the land of Israel at all. Again, it is deliberately asserted that there are seven seas in Palestine. Only six are named, but one of these is named twice in order to make up the number seven, merely so that the holy number may be introduced. And, further, apart from this specific enumeration, the Talmud names only four seas as included in Palestine. These two instances are typical. In the first, islands are said to exist which have never been observed, and in the other the number of actually existing seas is artificially increased in order to bring in the sacred seven.
(2) Metaphysical explanation was sometimes attempted, description in itself being considered inadequate. The introduction of the number seven above is an illustration of this. Psalms 24 gives another type, where Jahweh is praised for His power and skill in making the solid and immovable earth to rest upon the fluid and fluctuating sea. The observation is a bad one, but that does not concern us. The point for us to notice is that to the observation that the land is founded upon the sea is added the metaphysical explanation that this is a miraculous exhibition of the power of God. The fact that this is poetry, and could be paralleled with passages taken from modern Western poetry, does not affect the point, for these modern passages are admittedly and obviously poetical in contradiction to scientific statements, whereas in Hebrew literature there is no such distinction. What is said in poetry is equally true to the Hebrew mind when written in prose, as when the idea of the windows of heaven is repeated in such various literary styles as are found in Gen 7:11, 2Ki 7:2, Mal 3:10. Hence the indiscriminate Jewish doctrine of inspiration, which made no distinction between styles of literature, ascribing to all passages of the Canon an equal measure of truth.
The Jews did, of course, accumulate, as the Talmud and the OT sufficiently show, a mass of valid technical knowledge. They knew much concerning metals, such as gold; other chemical substances, such as soda; and certain processes of metallurgy. The Jews, says Ernst von Meyer, did indeed possess a certain disjointed knowledge of chemical processes acquired accidentally, but these were applied for their practical results alone, and not with the object of deducing any comprehensive scientific explanation from them. [By scientific explanation here von Meyer means what has been called description above]. They never made experiments. Any conclusions concerning nature at which they arrived were due to haphazard reflexion upon chance occurrences. Accurate description was not their object, nor did they attempt it. The facts of nature, like the incidents of history, were to them properly explained by reference to other things than those which might be observed. Rabbi Joshua, for instance, gives the following account of rain: The clouds ascend to the heights of the heavens, then stretch themselves out like a sponge and take up the rain-water; but having holes in them like a sieve, they let the water fall through on to the earth in drops. That only one drop falls at a time is due to a kindly Providence, for otherwise great harm would be done to the earth (Bergel). The Rabbis explained thunder as the crashing together of clouds, or as the splitting of ice in the clouds when struck by the hot lightning. Earthquakes were variously described as God clapping His hands, or sighing, or treading upon His footstool. Of all scientific efforts the Jewish teachers seem to have been most successful in Astronomy. They described the heavens as a hollow, dome-like, half-ball, spread over the flat earth. The stars they held to be fixed to the inner surface of this dome; some of them being firmly fastened and others moving along ways made for them.
To whatever branch of knowledge we turn, we find that observations are an insignificant part of the system of teaching about nature, and for the method of mere description we have the method of metaphysical explanation.
4. Defects of Hebrew thought.The history, political and geographical situation, and religious exclusiveness of the Hebrews assisted in the cultivation of a type of thought as characteristic and powerful as any that the world has seen. It is not enough to say that the Hebrew mind was Semitic; for, while it shares many of the characteristics of the thought of other Semitic peoples, in some respects it stands out from them in bold contrast. Among the fine qualities of the Hebrew mind were: (1) a sanity and sobriety of thought which preserved their religion and literature from all those offensive and extravagant traits which mark the popular religions of Syria, Asia Minor, and Arabia; (2) an extraordinary gift for the observation of individual incidents and facts, as appears in the inimitable narratives of the historical books of the OT; the vivid portraiture, satire, and denunciation of the prophets; and the marvellous, if often trivial, minuteness of Rabbinic discussions; (3) unparalleled energy of feeling and sense of individuality; and (4) a strength of will that alone can account for the vitality of a people which has been exposed to a more bitter persecution and more relentless fate than any other race in history. Of these four notable characteristics the third and fourth are obviously not such as tend to the cultivation of the scientific frame of mind. With the first and second it is quite otherwisesobriety of thought and a keen eye for particulars are necessary to a proper scientific observation. But at the same time they are insufficient for scientific description, which demands certain mental qualities in which the Hebrew mind was notably deficientbreadth of vision, systematic and architectonic power, consistent and persistent thinking. An examination of Hebrew thought discovers, in general, a notable defect, traceable to this failure in breadth of grasp and over-emphasis on the particular and strong development of the emotional and volitional nature. This defect is the absence of the power of logical abstraction, and it shows itself in two ways that are of considerable importancefirst, the Hebrew mind could not frame general definitions; and, secondly, it had no notion of general law.
The Western (Greek) mode of definition per genus et differentiam we commonly assume not only to be the only mode possible, but also to be indispensable to thought. While it is indispensable to our modern thought, especially with its highly developed scientific method, it was not indispensable to the Hebrews, for they did without it. The Hebrews defined, not by reference to a classas when we say man is a rational animalbut by reference to a type, as when it is implied that natural man is Adam, and redeemed man is Christ, the second Adam (Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15).
In the second place, this inability to think abstractly prevented the Hebrews from arriving at the notion of natural law. The word law in Hebrew literature always meant the arbitrary pronouncement of a ruler (of course a despot) or deity. Law meant nothing general or abstract. The Torah was an actual and definite direction given in Jahwehs name by the priest, and was either judicial, ceremonial, or moral. The various synonyms for torah have in general the same definite, particular characterjudgment, statute, commandment, testimonies, and precepts* [Note: Respectively mishpt, hukkh, miwh, dth, pikkdm.] (see art. Law (in OT) in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ). When used in a general sense to indicate a large section of the OT, it is in no way abstract, but only collective.
The nearest approach which Hebrew thought offers to our highly abstract natural laws is to be found in certain proverbial sayings (e.g. Jer 31:29, Mat 16:2-3), and a few rough groupings of empirical facts which we shall notice later on. There is nothing, however, that in any real sense corresponds with the modern idea of law as the rsum or brief expression of the relationships and sequences of certain groups of perceptions and conceptions, existing only when formulated by man (Karl Pearson). The same characteristic explains the absence of abstract philosophic terms from Hebrew literature. The doctrine of freewill, e.g., though constantly implied in the OT, is never abstractly stated. Instead of saying man is free, Scripture says man can choose; he can act; he can do (Delitzsch, Syst. of Bibl. Psychol. p. 192).
5. Hebrew knowledge of Nature.It follows from what we have seen that the Jews had no sound body of scientific doctrine. They had no very clearly defined conception of the earth and its surroundings, either in early times or at the time of Christ. They regarded the earth as the middle point of the universe. The heavens were a mere material covering or dome (Is 34:4, 40:22, Psa 104:2, Job 37:18), with doors (Gen 28:17, Psa 78:23) and windows (Gen 7:11; Gen 8:2, 2Ki 7:2; 2Ki 7:19), and the earth rested on the sea (Psa 24:2). These are obviously little more than childish reproductions of sense-impressions. The same is true of every department of physical science, including Astronomy. There is no criticism, no classification, no formulation of laws, no definite effort towards a coherent description of phenomena. When we turn to Mathematics, we find traces of very rudimentary knowledge. The square is mentioned (Exo 27:1; Exo 28:16), and the circle (Isa 44:13), the plumb-line and scales were known (Amo 7:7, 2Ki 21:13). The four simple mathematical processes appear also to have been practised: Addition (Num 1:22; Num 26:7), Subtraction (Lev 27:18, Exo 16:23), Multiplication (Lev 25:8, Num 3:46), Division (Lev 25:27; Lev 25:50).
The only department of thought in which the Hebrews can claim to have elaborated anything at all worthy to be called science is literary criticism. This, however, was pursued, not in a modern spirit of desire for knowledge, but because the disasters which the nation had experienced drove its religious leaders to a more careful analysis and preservation of the Law, in order that, by obeying it, the anger of God might be appeased and the prosperity of the people might return. The scribes busied themselves in providing for all conceivable legal cases that might occur, and especially in making a hedge or fence round the Law, i.e. in so expanding the compass of legal precept beyond what was laid down in the Pentateuch and in the oldest form of tradition, that it might be impossible for a man, if he observed all their traditional rules, to be even tempted to transgress the Law (see art. Scribes in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ). Thus the literary and legal science of the scribes had all the defects of the scientific temper of the Jewsthe criterion of truth was not descriptive accuracy, but edification, the method was inventive and metaphysical, there was an absence of generalizing and systematizing power, and an over-emphasis of the particular and concrete.
II. Relation of Christ to the science of His time and race.We have now to inquire as to the mind of Christ in respect of the various matters discussed above, that is, we have to ask whether His standard of truth was Hebrew or modern; whether He sought to explain nature by the metaphysical or the descriptive method; whether He shared the mental characteristics of the Hebrews or not, and whether we are to assume that He held those erroneous views of nature which were common among the Hebrews.
1. Among the most obvious characteristics of the mind of Christ is His sense of the radical opposition between Himself and the life of His own day. This opposition expresses itself at every turn in many ways. The political ambitions of the Herodians, the compromising worldliness of the Sadducees, the formalism and pride of the Pharisees, and the carnal carelessness of the generality, alike met with His denunciation and appeal. The traditions of the scribes He altogether rejected, and even the authority of the Law He subjected to a penetrating criticism. Against all existing systems of thought, all Rabbinical teaching, all conventional observance, He set up one authorityHis own consciousness of God, Himself. In a unique way He lived in the realities of things, never compromising, never with double mind. To the great reality of the Father and of the Kingdom was added the great reality of Himself, in simple deep-founded truth.
2. We have seen that the Hebrew notion of truth differed from the modern notion, in that it rather attached to the nature of a person than to the quality of a proposition. A proposition was true, not so much because it tallied with certain facts as because it had its origin in a certain character. In other words, the Jewish idea of truth was religious, while the modern idea is scientific. But the Jewish idea was never purely religious. It was confused with metaphysical and mechanical elements. In the mind of Jesus, however, this Hebrew notion of religious truth is purified of all foreign elements, and ceases all contact with the accidents of experience, making its home in the soul and in God.
It is noteworthy that the Synoptists report no sayings of Jesus from which these conclusions as to the meaning Christ attached to the word truth can be formally drawn, though, when once they have been drawn, it is seen that none of the sayings of Jesus contradicts them. In the Synoptics the word truth is not used by Jesus except in such phrases as of a truth, the Gr. equivalent for Amen (Luk 9:27; Luk 12:44; Luk 21:3). When we come to the Fourth Gospel, however (which we assume to be of sufficient historicity to allow us to use the words ascribed to Jesus as representing His thought), we find the words true and truth continually in the mouth of Christ. Now, while the criterion of truth in the mind of Christ does not vary, we must not be surprised if different shades of meaning are expressed from time to time by the same words true and truth. Indeed, Jesus does not use the word truth always with the same nuance of meaning. In the first place, it represents a quality in a person (Luk 4:23, Luk 18:37), then a quality which attaches to actions (Luk 3:21), and, finally, that which may be communicated from God to man in thought so as to affect the life and give the quality referred to above (Luk 8:32, Luk 14:17, Luk 16:13, Luk 17:17). The whole conception is summed up in Luk 14:6, where Jesus says, I am the way, and the truth, and the lifethe Personality of Jesus is a revelation that is ethical and vitalizing, and that comes to men to quicken consciences, illumine minds, and arouse affections. There is, indeed, in this thought an element answering to our modern notion of accuracy; it is not, however, explicit, but implicit in the idea of a faithful or reliable character. Thus Jesus carries the Hebrew idea of religious truth to its final expression, and in so doing neither anticipates nor challenges the modern notion of scientific truth. To the modern mind truth is description of phenomenato Christ it meant spiritual insight: by the modern mind it is reached through demonstration and reasoningfor Christ it was instinctive or inspirational: to the modern mind it is part of a system of thoughtwith Christ it was an element or moment in life.
, says Beyschlag, is to Him not this or that worldly and finite truth, but the truth of God, the revelation of God as the eternally good, who, as such, is open-hearted to the world it is the sister of , for every revelation of God is a revelation of holy love (NT Theol. ii. 429). See also Truth.
3. But although truth, according to the mind of Christ, was a Hebrew and religious concept and not the modern scientific notion, the thought of Jesus was free from all the extravagances which we have seen to be characteristic of the Jews, though it shared some of their conceptions as to natural phenomena.* [Note: Jesus evident acquiescence in Jewish demonology, at least in its main features, is a case in point.] If His thought was not scientific, neither was it pseudo-scientific. Neither the midrash of the Jewish annalist nor the magical metaphysics of the Rabbis has any place in His teaching. While He was a keen observer of nature (Mat 6:26; Mat 6:28; Mat 13:31-32; Mat 13:36-43, Mar 4:26-29, Luk 13:6-9; Luk 13:20-21), His utterances about nature never attempted explanations beyond the reach of observation; and while His judgment was to an unequalled degree independent, He neither criticised the scientific opinions of His day nor attempted to add to humanitys inadequate store of knowledge. Whether this abstinence from scientific speculation and instruction was intentional (as Wendt suggests), or the natural result of His unwavering and complete concentration of soul upon His Fathers business, is not important in this connexion. It is sufficient to notice that He eschewed alike Rabbinical explanations and scientific research, dealing finally only with those matters which are naturally the objects of spiritual intuition, and which, unlike natural phenomena, cannot be adequately investigated by the human understanding.
So far as nature is concerned, then, we may say that the knowledge which Jesus exhibits in His sayings is just such as a free mind with great natural powers of fresh observation might gather from a joyous intercourse with the ordinary aspects of the material world.
4. One matter of considerable controversial importance, however, in this connexion demands brief attention. What was the attitude of Jesus to the literary science of the Rabbis? It was a double attitude. First, He abolished certain precepts of the Law itself (Mat 5:32; Mat 5:38), and added others on His own authority (Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39); and, secondly, He disparaged and discredited the learned societies of scribes, and, by the weight of His own authority, overthrew their teaching. But this repudiation of the teaching of the schools and criticism of the Law was not conceived in any modern scientific temper, or achieved by means of modern critical apparatus. It was the inevitable outcome of Christs conception of Divine truth as a living reality within Himself. His utterances concerning the OT were all from this point of view. He judged them according to their spiritual and religious value, not according to any canons of textual criticism, modern or ancient. This is true even in the case of the quotation from Psalms 110. He did not weigh a truth, says Bishop Moorhouse, in what we should call critical balances the question of the age or authorship of any passage in the OT was never either stated by our Lord Himself or raised by His opponents.
5. We have next to ask whether we may conclude from His recorded sayings that Jesus shared those logical characteristics which we have seen to be at the foundations of Hebrew scientific thought. We noticed two main marks of the Hebrew mindits vivid, simple, and temperate apprehension of the details of life and nature, and its inability to take such a wide and comprehensive view of fact and experience as would make the generalizations of modern science possible. The first of these is pre-eminently characteristic of the thought of Jesus. The vivid originality, profound simplicity, and pictorial impressiveness of His speech make every reader of His words agree that never man so spake. His insight into the human soul, His parables so true to life, His startling paradoxes, His telling object-lessons, all show the best traits of Jewish thought carried to their highest power. The concrete, stirring, and simple elements of life are seized and appreciated with the imagination of the poet and the practical sense of the workman. Jesus is never abstract, never modernbut always particular and Hebrew. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to speak of the mind of Jesus as defective in the sense given above. While He always expresses Himself with the simple concreteness characteristic of Hebrew thought, it cannot be said that He is limited by it, for it is the best possible medium or dialectic in which to enunciate religious truth. It is scientific truth which demands abstraction, with definitions per genus et differentiam and laws. We have seen that Jesus remained always and wholly within the world of religious truth, and always and wholly outside the world of scientific statement. He was not a theologian who theorized about religious truthHe was the Truth. He was not a philosopher who tried to prove the being of GodHe declared God. And so the apparatus of scientific description was for Him unnecessary. It would be futile to speculate as to whether He could have used it had He wished. All we need say is that He was a Jew with a Hebrew mind of the highest possible type, and so in the fullest possible sense equipped to utter the highest revelation of God which has been vouchsafed to man.
Literature.Bergel, Die Medecin der Talmudister: Studien ber die naturwissensch. Kenntnisse der Talmudisten; Beyschlag, NT Theol.; Bousset, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum; Delitzsch, System of Biblical Psychology; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus; Gnzburg, Dogmat. histor. Beleuchtung des alten Judentums; Kopp, Gesch. der Chemie; Lewysohn, Die Zoologie des Talmuds; E. von Myer, Hist. of Chemistry; Moorhouse, The Teachings of Jesus; A. Neubauer, Gog. du Talmud; W. Nowack, Lehrb. der Heb. Arch.; Karl Pearson, Grammar of Science; Schrer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] , passim; Stevens, Teaching of Jesus; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus.
Newton H. Marshall.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Science
SCIENCE.The word science occurs in AV [Note: Authorized Version.] only twice (Dan 1:4, 1Ti 6:20), and in both places it simply means knowledge; as in Barlowes Dialoge, p. 109, There is no truthe, no mercye, nor scyence of god in the yerth.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Science
sens: This word as found in the King James Version means simply knowledge. Science occurs in the King James Version only in two places, Dan 1:4, children … understanding science ( , yodheedhaath, those who understand science). The meaning of the term here is knowledge, wisdom. The only other occurrence of science is in the New Testament (1Ti 6:20, avoiding … oppositions of science falsely so called, , tes pseudonumou gnoseos, the falsely called gnosis). Science is the translation of the Greek gnosis, which in the New Testament is usually rendered knowledge. The science here referred to was a higher knowledge of Christian and divine things, which false teachers alleged that they possessed, and of which they boasted. It was an incipient form of Gnosticism, and it prevailed to a considerable extent in the churches of proconsular Asia, e.g. in Colosse and Ephesus. Timothy is put on his guard against the teaching of this gnosis falsely so called, for it set itself in opposition to the gospel. See GNOSTICISM.
Science in the modern sense of the word, as the discovery and orderly classification and exposition of the phenomena and of the laws of Nature, is not found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament unless the passage in Daniel be interpreted as meaning the scientific knowledge which the learned men of Babylon possessed of mathematics and astronomy, etc. See also Act 7:22. To the Hebrew mind all natural phenomena meant the working of the hand of God in the world, directly and immediately, without the intervention of any secondary laws.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Science
Both in the Hebrew and in the Greek the words signify ‘knowledge,’ and are generally so translated. They are rendered ‘science’ only in Dan 1:4, where ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ are also mentioned; and in 1Ti 6:20, where it is science, or knowledge, ‘falsely so called,’ doubtless alluding in Daniel to the speculations of the Magi, and in the Epistle to Timothy to the philosophers or Gnostic heretics, whose ‘knowledge’ had no real foundation.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Science
Observations of, and deductions from, facts
Job 26:7-14; Job 28; Ecc 1:13-17
So-called, false
1Ti 6:20
The key of knowledge
Luk 11:52; Rom 2:20 Geology; Astronomy; Philosophy
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Science
is translated “science” in the AV of 1Ti 6:20; the word simply means “knowledge” (RV), where the reference is to the teaching of the Gnostics (lit., “the knowers”) “falsely called knowledge.” Science in the modern sense of the word, viz., the investigation, discovery, and classification of secondary laws, is unknown in Scripture. See KNOW, C, No. 1.