Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

   Dear Yitzhak,   I would argue that my use of terms like "skeptics" or 
"critics" or "naysayers" are appropriate for discussions of scholarship and 
are employed. I think "deconstructionist" is likewise apropos because we are 
discussing a particular text, albeit the language(s) of that text. To me, the 
terms "maximalist" and "minimalists" attempt to measure the degrees to which 
"scholars" adhere to or repudiate b-hebrew (i.e., the Bible). I have not 
attempted that nor intend to. Moreover, your response, Yitzhak, tries to 
portray scholars as some class of b-hebrew examiners that are not relative to 
descriptive linguistics (i.e., critics or skeptics or naysayers).   
Furthermore, it seems you misconceived my use of those terms as anything but 
pejorative --as contrasted to my choir (not yours) which does not always see 
eye-to-eye on the text, far from it-- which I do not say about the adherents 
to the validity of the entire TN'K. As you know, Midrash has been around for 
millennia and has its own expression in xian apologetics and xian 
hermeneutics. This list is a form of that in many ways. I am making a 
distinction between Midrash and 'scholarly' debate on the topic of b-hebrew.  
 The difference is this: Midrashim derive from discursive approaches by 
divergent sects within biblical and Rabbinical Judaism. They are all 
believers in the divine inspiration of the text. By contrast, "scholars" use 
their own discursive approach which is (as I said before) incompetent to 
apprehend the text itself beyond the agency of their method. Why? 
Skeptics/critics lack the premise which is the key to a successful midrash 
and that is the unequivocal acceptance that Torah (i.e., all of G-d's 
revealed Word) is eternal and is inspired by Hashem's Holy Spirit; that He 
wrote it and men were used as pens to record His Word; that Torah is the 
charter of all creation which pre-existed all creation and that all creation 
came to be to give physical expression to Torah. (The Greek point of view 
that the Bible is subject to examination at the same interpretive levels as 
offered by PaRDeS is spurious.)   The above is evidenced by your description, 
which you find relevant, of the variety of scholarly backgrounds and 
agreement or disagreements here or there and so on. That is classic Greek 
thought. I am not disparaging that but attempting to explain a bit better 
what I meant by an unbridgeable gulf between the believer of b-hebrew/Bible 
and the scholar/examiner of the same. Thus, the value of the Greek approach 
is sorely lacking for the believer and it has nothing at all to do with 
acceptance of the same positions as the choir. For the choir, understanding 
derives from the Author of the Bible but the scholar relies on his/her own 
intellectual resources to apprehend G-d's revealed word.   Thus, besides 
illustrating this gulf, that you misread my appropriation of your "choir" 
metaphor from your original pejorative intent to my transforming it into a 
reference for the peculiar people of Y--H shows much of what I have been 
saying about the way scholars see b-hebrew vs. how believers see b-hebrew. 
Your choir label also is in line with my presupposition that skeptics and 
critics attack rather than add value to the Midrash of the community of 
believers who do not see eye-to-eye on the Book either. As Peter very aptly 
pointed out, your condescending or snide and incompetent (textually speaking) 
analogy is evidence of this attack-mode scholars have of engaging believers 
who accept the b-hebrew and the multiple meanings a single word, phrase or 
passage can render based on the quixotic notion their "voices" (far from 
silenced by the way) have anything meaningful to add to the midrash. In the 
mind of the believer, an analogy of the difference here is comparable to life 
and death. You will notice much of what I have said here is in keeping with 
what Scripture teaches as well. The believer defers to Scripture which needs 
no defense but the scholar defers to human reason which changes all the time 
across time. 
  
  My regards,
 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, 28 Mar 2007 1:38 PM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
 
  Dear David,

Terms such as "skeptics" or "critics" or "naysayers" don't do much to
advance the discussion.  "Deconstructionists" is worse, since
deconstructionism is a form of literary analysis, but you are using it as
a blanket label for all scholars who do not hold to Biblical inerrancy much
like the earlier discussed labels of "maximalists" and "minimalists."

I did not describe "skeptics" or "critics".  I described scholars.  You write 
of
"those who accept (not blindly by any means) the inerrancy of the TN'K
as originally scripted."  If a scholar questions something in the Bible, only
to find it matches archaeological or other criteria, is he an "adherent to
the inerrancy of the TN'K" (though one that does not accept the inerrancy
blindly) or is he a "skeptic"?  You see, scholars can come from all kinds of
backgrounds and not all of them find fault in the historicity of events of
the Bible.  Some accept the historicity of some events and don't accept
others.  And even if you accept the historicity of some event that
someone else does not, or do not accept the historicity of some event
that someone else does, that does not mean that the other person has
interpretations of "no comparable value" to those who accept the
same positions as yours.

Thus, the sentence, "There is much to be learned amongst the choir members
but the naysayers offer no comparable value" shows much of what I have been
saying.  The "choir" was used originally as a negative label for all those who
say hold a similar position unanimously and are not ready to listen to other
opinions.  But you took it in a positive sense, identifying yourself
with this "choir."
The choir analogy was probably related to my claims on "issues of fact."  
Well,
can you imagine, though, an astronomy forum where various participants keep
bringing up ideas such as that the earth is flat, and this becomes a
topic of discussion because all opinions are equal.  While some
hobbyist astronomers
and even serious scholars might find value in such a forum, there is
no question
that the level of discussions and the amount that the hobbyists can learn from
the scholars will be severely limited.  Here too, perhaps you may
think that the scholars offer "little comparable value" but in reality
you are probably missing
a whole lot by not hearing their silenced voices.

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.