Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

  I agree one can believe the Book and not accept its inerrancy and I said in 
my prior message that I KNOW there are copyist errors but that the torah as 
originally recorded is inerrant. I hope this clarifies what I was saying on 
that point, Mr. Riley.
 
 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: klriley AT alphalink.com.au
 To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
 Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:54 PM
 Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
 
  I think this is where I find this list [and others] at times frustrating. 
There is an equation of believer = someone who views the Biblical text is
inerrant, and this is contrasted with those who are unbelievers.  It isn't
that simple.  There are many believing Jews and Christians who either
question or deny inerrancy, and that is a long tradition in both faiths. 
One can believe in inspiration without supporting inerrancy.  That is in
fact the view of the majority of Christians - or at least, of the
denominations they belong to.  My understanding is also that neither
conservative nor reformed Judaism requires a belief in inerrancy.  All of us
who belong to one of those traditions, plus those who belong to no religious
tradition, should be able to discuss our understanding of the text and its
history without constantly being subjected to attempts to persuade us that
the text is inerrant.  The question of inerrancy is almost always irrelevant
to what the Hebrew says.  So too is the question of inspiration.  The text
of Genesis is not going to change simply because someone moves from viewing
it as purely human to seeing it as divinely inspired.  How we interpret it
will not change either.  How we apply it will, but that isn't the issue for
this list.  The story of David and Solomon will not change if I become
convinced there is no real history behind it - it will still say the same
thing.  Why can we not just let dates of the exodus, and whether Gen 1-11 is
history or myth, just go past without comment and concentrate on what the
text says?  And until someone can show me a verse where God unambiguously
states that he views the text as inerrant and that he chose every word, I
will continue to hold that view of the text to be just as much a human
opinion as any other.
 
Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message------- 
 
From: davidfentonism AT aim.com 
Date: 29/03/2007 1:33:13 PM 
 
 
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 Gre 
Ek 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 refe 
Rence 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 
_______________________________________________
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.