[b-hebrew] Deconstructionism

davidfentonism at aim.com davidfentonism at aim.com
Tue Apr 10 23:42:37 EDT 2007

 Dear Yitzhak & Kevin,
 By way of clarification, I am not an inerrantist in the true sense because extant MSS all have errors of one sort or another. My ONLY position in regards to inerrancy is that Hashem communicated all of His Torah (both OT & NT) completely free of error in any way, shape or form.
 Further, PaRDeS is not itself kabbalistic but the Sod or 'S' level alone is. Neither is adherence to inerrancy required or proof of belief. I haven't proposed that idea and I haven't intimated that as far as I can recall. the implications attributed to me (below) are not my own and seem to be constructed in order to provide a response to those ideas. I defer to my own statements on those very points which I think were clear in their own right.
 David Fenton
 Gal. 27-29: For as many as have had a tevilah into Moshiach have clothed yourselves with Moshiach. There is not Yehudi nor Yevani (Greek), there is not eved (servant) nor ben chorin (freedman), there is not zachar (male) nor nekevah (female), for you are all echad in Moshiach Yehoshua/Yeshua. And, if you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).   
 -----Original Message-----
 From: yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
 To: b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 11:15 AM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Deconstructionism
  On 4/4/07, Kevin Riley wrote:
> In practice inerrantists are very likely to be opposed to deconstruction as
> it strikes at a central issue for the overwhelming majority of inerrantists
> - that the text has one plain, intended meaning and all other meanings are
> to some degree false.  To accept deconstruction as a valid way of
> approaching scriptural texts is only possible if you have rejected most of
> the assumptions on which inerrancy is based and are at least willing to
> assume that the text *may* have more than one valid meaning.  The idea that
> a Biblical author may in fact have communicated more than a plain reading of
> what the text itself reveals is not likely to sit well with most
> inerrantists.  The "interpretive lenses" of inerrantists and
> deconstructionists are in reality likely to be very different, even if on a
> strictly logical basis it may not be a necessity that this be so.

But then, isn't this concept "that a Biblical author may in fact have
communicated more than a plain reading of what the text itself reveals"
at the basis of the Kabbalistic "PaRDeS" to which David earlier made
reference? or of the Rabbinical "Seventy Faces of Torah" compounded
with "These (the interpretations of Bet Hillel) and these (the
interpretations of Bet Shammai) are the words of the living God"?  In
fact, of the basic Rabbinical distinction between pashat and darash
("the simple [meaning]", "the expounded [meaning]")?  If inerrancy
is opposed to these concepts, and inerrancy is a requirement of the
"believer," then all of traditional Judaism should be rendered "non-
believers."  (I do not feel that inerrancy is a requirement of a believer,
regardless, but it seems that David does).  Besides, in the statement
of David that I quoted, the implication is that all those who oppose
inerrancy are "deconstructionists," just as the implication is that all
those who work from tradition (and not "their own preconceived notions")
hold by inerrancy.  (I disagree with both implications).  Even if
deconstructionism is in some way opposed to inerrancy, that doesn't
mean that all those who are opposed are deconstructionists.

Yitzhak Sapir
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list