Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Re[8]: JEPD Evidence

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Polycarp66 AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: Re[8]: JEPD Evidence
  • Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 10:20:55 EST


In a message dated 12/20/99 5:12:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
peter_kirk AT sil.org writes:

<<
May I ask you a question? Suppose that a student of yours presented a
well argued discussion of some Biblical passage concerning a
miraculous event, and concluded that this was an actual historical
event in which a divine being acted in a supernatural or miraculous
manner. (The beliefs of the student are here irrelevant - there are
well attested cases of unbelievers who have studied the resurrection
of Jesus and concluded that this was a real supernatural event.) Would
you accept that as a valid conclusion, or would you rule it out a
priori (no matter how good the arguments) and fail the student? If the
latter, I think that you would be the one illegitimately bringing into
the matter your own personal beliefs, in the non-occurrence of
supernatural events (I am of course only guessing at your personal
beliefs here). It is irrelevant that your beliefs happen to correspond
to those of one 18th century German and his followers.
>>

How would one go about proving a supernatural event? By its very nature it
would not be subject to the laws which normally govern phenomena. The
closest one could come would be to say that it cannot be explained. There
are, however, many events which cannot be explained given our current
knowledge. That it cannot be explained may simply mean that we do not know
the explanation -- not that it doesn't exist.

I personally was raised to accept the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I
no longer find that position credible. Nevertheless, someone should be able
to accept that principle and still be considered a member of the scholarly
community. The problem arises when this commitment is allowed to determine
the outcome of his investigations a priori. This leads to a dishonest
treatment of the evidence. As a matter of fact, one cannot approach a subject
of any kind without some faith commitment -- even if that is simply that you
don't accept the traditional faiths. The only real question of importance is
whether you will deal honestly with the sources.

Please, don't anyone think that I am accusing any individual of anything. I
am simply ruminating about the relationship of one's faith commitment to his
scholarly activity. Perhaps it would be good for me to state my own position
so that everyone may know where I'm coming from. I was raised a
Fundamentalist. When I left for college and seminary, I espoused traditional
Reformed theology. In seminary I began to doubt everything. I finally
concluded that, although a good deal of what I had always accepted as fact
was in fact mythology, this mythology was true and important in its own
right. In many ways I am an unreconstructed Calvinist, but I don't interpret
everything quite so literally. So now you know the background for my
position -- take it for what you think it's worth.

gfsomsel

gfsomsel




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page