Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Dear Kevin:

On 3/28/07, Kevin Riley <klriley AT alphalink.com.au> wrote:
> 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.

The traditional understanding of Christians and Jews is that the text
was inerrant, at least in the original autographs, with corruption
limited to copyist errors. In those days, inerrancy was not an issue,
so was not addressed, at least not directly. However, there are verses
that assume inerrancy, hence the traditional understanding.

> ....  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.

According to a study done by the Barna Group, fewer than 10% of
Americans who call themselves "Christian" follow the New Testament's
definition of that faith as it is described in the New Testament. So
of course the denominations' teachings will follow their members'
beliefs.

But that should not be an issue, because people of all faiths
(including atheism) study Biblical Hebrew, and as long as we all limit
our discussion to the language itself, we should have no problem
interacting with and learning from each other.

> ....  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?

This goes for all sides, right?

While I believe in inerrancy, I don't think I have ever harangued any
other member to accept that belief. On the other hand, I have been
disparaged for not accepting a "scholarly consensus" that has nothing
to do with a study of the language itself, rather has only to do with
a proposed "history" of the language that has no documentary support,
further which contradicts historical references within the text itself
as to its authorship dates.

> ....  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.
As I stated above, that was not an issue in those days, hence not
addressed directly. However, as you correctly mentioned, such a belief
is not a requirement for a study of the language itself.

> Kevin Riley
Karl W. Randolph.