Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

Dear All,

Let me quote the paragraph that I wrote that started the discussion on
the Documentary Hypothesis and the Patriarchal Narratives:
"Anyone who brings up a claim that raises the possibility that the Bible
is errant will be target to a discussion of whether the Bible is historically
correct, whether the Documentary Hypothesis is founded on solid
foundations, etc.  A scholar who has to debate the documentary
hypothesis which is generally accepted for a century now, or who has
to debate whether the Patriarchal Narratives are historical, now
discredited for decades, will find this list not a hospitable place to
discuss these issues."

Claims were brought up that what I had supposedly proposed is that
b-hebrew become a place "restricted to only one school of scholarship
where its members can preach to the choir, and all others silenced."

However, right now, Karl can bring up a question about Zerach and
concluded "In the absence of more data, he apparently was a Nubian
general under a Libyan pharaoh, and we are guessing."  Here Karl
is making a personal subjective assessment from alternatives
suggested by Yigal, somewhat rephrasing what Yigal said about
Albright.  That's fine.  No one had problems with that.  Suppose instead,
that someone took a different alternative suggested by Yigal and wrote,
"In the absence of more data, he apparently was a complete fabrication
of the Chronicler."  Such a statement would inevitably cause an entire
discussion on the issue of biblical inerrancy.  This is such a
strong problem in this list, that essentially most discussions of
biblical history, or of literary analyses of the Bible, which do not
assume that the Bible is essentially accurate in its representation,
let alone inerrant, are rendered off-limits.  In other words, those
positions *are* silenced.  Those who want to discuss these
positions do have to do so elsewhere.  Mostly, they go away from
the list.  This includes prominent scholars.  So if you are worried
that b-hebrew might become a place restricted to only one school
whose members can preach to the choir, you should be worried
right now.  Because it has become just that.

Despite the rather wide range of topics apparently permitted by
b-hebrew, practically the only scholars who are still on this list
deal primarily or even exclusively with linguistic issues alone.
Thomas Thompson used to post on this list.  He would probably
have something to say about the discussion on the Patriarchal
Narratives.  But you don't hear him now, because he has
apparently voted with his feet.  He still posts on other lists.
But here we don't get his input.  Some of you suggested that
Bryan was writing the exact opposite of what I was saying.  Was
he?  Well, I'm sure he can speak for himself.  But perhaps the
fox hunt that he speaks of applies equally well to Thompson as
it does to "fresh PhDs".  A "fox hunt" could well describe the
type of discussions that go on here whenever biblical historicity
is called into question. It would be nice if we could both have
discussions that assume that biblical historicity is not
inerrant, without having to debate biblical historicity in that
regard, and on the other, also have discussions that assume
biblical historicity is inerrant.  In other words, to have both
points of view represented.

I wrote a sentence saying, "A scholar who has to debate the
documentary hypothesis which is generally accepted for a
century now, ... will find this list not a hospitable place to
discuss these issues."  In response I was told that "It is really
a battle tactic, not neutral moderating, to claim that scholars
should hospitably accept the documentary hypothesis. There
are many scholars who do not accept the documentary
hypothesis."  I did not hear the drums of war, and I have no
idea where I suggested that scholars should hospitably
accept the DH.  It's a very twisted reading of what I wrote
originally.  If a scholar does not, that's fine!  What I said
was that the DH is generally accepted for a century now, and
would a scholar come on the list and suggest something that
assumes the DH, he would have to debate the nature of the
DH.  How the above sentence began a discussion of the DH
is a case in point!

Now, in the discussion of the Patriarchal Narratives all kinds
of suggestions were made.  This is not the place to debate
them point by point.  However, along the way, in representing
the place of discussion between "maximalists" and
"minimalists" I suggested that the essential difference between
the two "groups" is that *today* (not in the late 80s or 90s but
today!), it is the question of the historicity of the United
Monarchy.  If a scholar accepts the United Monarchy but does
not accept the Patriarchal Narratives, the Exodus, the
Conquest, or the period of the Judges, he is still on the
"maximalist" side because he finds the accounts of history
of the books of Samuel/Kings to contain accurate information
from the 10th century BCE.  The real reason many of you
disagree is that many of you have a different point of view than
that adopted by Biblical scholarship.  Whereas in Biblical
scholarship, such a position is considered "maximalist," for
various other groups, anyone who doubts the historicity of some
part of the Bible is a "minimalist."  So that a pastor might use
"minimalist" in one way, and a scholar in another way, and then
that same pastor might quote that same scholar on the issue of
"minimalist" even though they have completely different ideas
about what a "minimalist" is!  This is itself very problematic but it
also means the terms are meaningless.  Instead of saying
"maximalist/minimalist" we can just use "inerrant Bible believer"/
"inerrant Bible heretic" and be done with it.

Now, I personally think these books, along with the book of Judges
do contain information dating from this period, so that would make
me a maximalist in the view of most scholars in the field.  But in
representing the issue I must state that maximalists accept this
period *if such a period existed* because whether such a period
existed is a current and valid question in modern studies.  Yet,
Uri comes along and insinuates on the basis of this comment that
if I am not an archaeologist or even if I were an archaeologist but
don't know more archaeology than Mazar, then I must accept the
historicity of the United Monarchy and cannot place it in a sentence
that begins with an "if"!  So now, if we go back to the initial point of
the topic I started, if a scholar comes along and suggests that this
is an open question, if he, to use my original words, "brings up a
claim that raises the possibility that the Bible is errant [then he] will
be target to a discussion of whether the Bible is historically correct."
The way Uri twisted my comment shows this very vividly.  And so
there is no reason to think that a scholar, not even a "maximalist"
who accepts the historicity of the United Monarchy but who feels it
proper to place the question of this historicity in an "if" clause, will
feel comfortable staying long on this list.

So there's two examples of how my words have been twisted
(by Uri and Harold) and yet verified just the same.

As for Harold's points, he quotes many different sources.  I
think many of these sources are irrelevant to the position of
scholarship on these issues.  That some people, for example
a devout pastor, may view the issue of minimalism or
maximalism differently is not unthinkable but is not the point
I was making.  However, on one point that Harold quoted, I
think Harold simply didn't understand the quote he was
bringing, but it's a good quote:

> HH: Here is a comment by Christopher O'Brien, Adjunct Professor of
> Anthropology at California State University, who seems to use maximalist
> in a broad sense:
> http://northstatescience.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-there-biblical-archaeology-some.html

> Two observations struck me while reading Hoffmeier's letter and
> returning to the original articles that he cites. The first is that I
> question whether the whole minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical
> archaeology is really a construct of biblical fundamentalism more than
> it is a theoretical debate in archaeology. Supposedly "minimalists" see
> the Bible as offering little or no history verifiable through
> archaeological research. At the other end of the spectrum, "maximalists"
> see the Bible as mostly historical, documenting people, places and
> events frequently verified by archaeology.

First of all, the questions of minimalists or maximalists as he defines
them, is related to what Hoffmeier apparently wrote.  Hence the quotes,
and hence the "Supposedly."  He further writes, "Although I have not read
every piece on this subject, I simply don't see those accused of
'minimalism' defining themselves that way. ... Along the supposed
continuum from minimalist to maximalist, for fundamentalists and
evangelicals it appears minimalism occupies the range from 0 to 99%."
In other words, O'Brien's position is not as Harold suggested but rather
different.  Maximalists in O'Brien's viewpoint are not those who accept
100%.  Instead, maximalists is simply a label used by fundamentalists
and evangelicals (in O'Brien's viewpoint) to color the debate.  In O'Brien's
viewpoint this label seems to be very likely "a construct of biblical
fundamentalism" and is probably not a "theoretical debate in
archaeology."  So while Harold seems to me to have misrepresented
O'Brien's position, I think O'Brien's point is a good one.  More 
significantly,
we may go back to Ronald Hendel from UC Berkeley, who suggested in
the BAR editorial to which O'Brien refers that Albrightian archaeology
"did not illumine the times of Abraham, Moses and Joshua. Rather, it
helped to show that these times and events are largely unhistorical."
Regardless of whether you agree with this statement, I have to ask how
comfortable would Ronald Hendel be on this list.  There is no question
that he could have brought great input.  The loss is all ours that scholars
such as him are silenced and distanced from the list.

I note that issues of fact, oddball theories and a lack of balance are
also problematic in that scholars would find less use of this list and
by saying only moderation would make the list hospitable for scholars,
I do not mean moderation that silences voices so that only "Chabad"
or any of various denominational or religious groups should be used
as the "moderating criteria." But even without "moderation" of any
various religious groups, today the voice of Biblical scholarship in
many fields of study, except perhaps some areas of linguistics, is
silenced on this list. This is really unfortunate.  Anyone who worries
about b-hebrew being a forum where the "members can preach to the
choir, and all others silenced" should consider worrying right now.

Yitzhak Sapir