Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>]

== I think that we need to be clear that we all have a presupposed theology.

We all have assumptions, which means nobody can be truly objective, but not 
everyone has "theological" assumptions. These are the most dangerous because 
it immediately sets the limits as to what a scripture can and cannot say.

== We come into the discussion not as blank slates but with presuppositions. 
I think it is naive to suggest that only Evangelical seminaries have an 
agenda so to speak.

Never said that. I just think it is highly disingenuous for Evangelicals to 
label "liberal" scholars as "agenda driven," given the fact that they 
themselves wear their biases on their sleeves.

== Indeed, a rejection of divine authorship of Scripture for example, is a 
presupposition many critical scholars bring to the text.

Please demonstrate one single example where a rejection of this assumption 
serves as a tragedy in exegesis.

== I think that this gross misrepresentation of a biblical/seminary 
education. While I can't speak for all seminaries and Bible colleges, I am a 
product of both. What is your experience? While I can't speak for all 
programs I can tell you that in my experience we often used the same books 
as non-Evangelical institutions. We were required to use the standard 
language tools such as BDB, HALOT, DCH, BAGD (now BDAG), TDNT, TDOT. LSJ and 
so forth. Furthermore, especially in the OT, we were required to interact 
with critical commentaries and special studies. We were required to parse 
verbs and memorize paradigms and vocabulary (to the chagrin of many 
students!)  just like anyone else.

I'll let the words of Bart Ehrman make my point:

"No wonder that most of today's NT scholars, by their own admission, are not 
capable of rendering independent judgments concerning textual variants 
preserved in the tradition (I except my NT colleagues here, by the way; and 
they will for the most part agree, I think, with my opinion on this point). 
It strikes me as a pity that most doctoral candidates in New Testament are 
not trained even to use the apparatus of the standard Greek text, the 
Nestle-Aland 27th ed., that most divinity school students are not taught the 
fundamental problems of the textual tradition that they are expected to 
teach or preach, and that most of the laypersons in the churches to which 
the graduates of divinity school go are left completely unaware of the 
problems of the texts of the books that they themselves revere as 
Scripture." http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000b.html

==  While this may have been your experience, I’m not sure anecdotes are the 
best way to go here. Otherwise we can trade personal bad experiences from 
either camp.

Then have at it. Please show me one example of an exegesis gone awry, 
because the scholar didn't assume inerrancy or divine providence.

== By the way, if what you mean by anthropomorphic that God has human 
characteristics and form, I think a good biblical case can be made that God 
is in essence immaterial in nature.

This further demonstrates my point. The student from DTS snags one verse of 
scripture from the NT and then declares "Bible doctrine." Nevermind the Old 
Testament.

== I wonder what you mean by “the norm for the Ancient Jewish of God.” You 
seem to suggest that there might be a monolithic static view of Judaism.

Ancient Judaism understood God anthropomorphically. He had human form. 
Yahweh was enthroned in the temple, and had humanity created after his 
image. This eventually took a drastic turn towards the abstract, however, 
when Judaism became hellenized. Particularly with Arisobulus.

== I also wonder what you mean by “pummeled him with scholarship.”

Edmond Cherbonnier, Jacob, Gunkle, von Rad, Westermann, Neusner, etc.

== I would suggest that you don’t win the day by appealing to scholarship in 
general. There is good scholarship and poor scholarship.

I compare both sides and deduce from that.

== You make your points through evidence and sound argumentation.

Thank you. I certainly try.