Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Kevin,
>  
> With this subject of inerrancy, as with some others within my own tradition,
> my approach is that an unambiguous text does not need a book [or even a
> chapter in a book] to make it clear.  So I guess you could say I am
> unconvinced by the many books I have read.  I cannot think of any other
> examples that won't lead to a discussion here, so I will not give examples. 
> Texts that rely on a certain set of presuppositions [as all do on both sides
> of this question] for a "correct" reading are not, IMO, inherently
> unambiguous.  My basic assumption is that if God wanted an inerrant Bible,
> he would not only have inspired one, but also preserved the text uncorrupted
>   As most of us agree he has not done the second, I conclude the first was
> also not his priority.  What I am agreeing with Yitzhak on is that people
> should be able to give information that we all know comes from a particular
> tradition without anyone feeling the need to argue the tradition itself.  If
> I might be allowed to cite an example that occurs quite often: Shoshanna
> gives the orthodox Jewish point of view on a text - someone always feels
> obliged to point out that many on this list are Christians and don't believe
> that tradition.  We had extended discussions more than once simply to
> establish Christians, in general, don't accept the oral Torah as
> authoritative.  Did anyone learn anything new from this??  Someone else -
> and Yitzhak is an example - will give information from a more liberal
> scholarly POV, and again it is felt necessary to deny the validity of the
> tradition.  We have had long discussions to point out that conservative
> Christians generally don't accept the documentary hypothesis.  Again, what
> was really gained?  Didn't we all know this??  I think by now we all know
> most of the regular posters on here are from a conservative Christian
> background.  Perhaps I notice more because I don't accept either the
> inerrancy or the "scholarly" consensus as adequate ways of reading the Bible
>  but have found I have learnt a lot from people who come from both sides,
> and a few other traditions as well.  So I read for ideas, without worrying
> too much about the beliefs that lie behind them.  I have just had to accept
> that Evangelicals and fundamentalists and orthodox Jews and atheists - among
> others -  *are* sometimes right in how they understand the Hebrew because
> they *do* understand the Hebrew.  Bad [IMO] theological assumptions do not
> mean that the Hebrew will be understood wrongly, nor do good [IMO]
> theological assumptions mean that the Hebrew will be understood correctly. 
> The same is true of historical and sociological, etc presuppositions.  I
> would like to see us concentrate on the linguistic issues and just let the
> other issues go by *silently*.  
>  
> The strange thing is, when it comes to understanding the Biblical texts, I
> think I probably agree with Dave that the text needs to be understood at
> different levels, and only a believer can do that.  *But* when it comes to
> the literal understanding of the text, I cannot see that faith is required
> to see what is *said*, but only when you move to understanding what is
> *meant* - which is outside the scope of this list.  I see Scripture as two
> things - the written text which is open to exactly the same scrutiny and
> discussion as any text, and the "sacred" text which is always going to be
> interpreted through a religious or secular tradition.  The written text says
> what it says, whether it was inerrantly inspired, partially inspired, edited
>  redacted, mis-copied, or simply made up as a work of fiction.  I see the
> historical or literary criticism of scholars as nothing more [or less] than
> another tradition which I am free to learn from or reject.  I no more feel
> compelled to argue with their reading than I do with an orthodox Jewish or
> fundamentalist Christian reading.  The only question when it comes to what
> the text says is: are they correct?  That is a linguistic question, and does
> not depend on getting theology or history or anything else outside of
> language correct.
>  
>   
HH: That sounds feasible in abstract generality. In specifics, people 
usually say what they feel they need to say. Telling someone you don't 
accept the Oral Law is perfectly acceptable if good communication seems 
to call for it. Shoshanna did not just give a Jewish viewpoint; she 
sometimes did so as if obtaining that viewpoint was the end of the 
issue. So I think Shoshanna may have learned something new from people 
who really care what the Hebrew Bible means. Folks usually comment about 
a "tradition" when the other party seems to be imposing it on them to 
resolve the issue. For example, if the linchpin of an argument depends 
on an assumption from JEDP, one has a right to respond that JEDP is 
unacceptable to him. Your thoughts may underestimate the fact that many 
discussions involve a point of contention between two people. People are 
trying to resolve an issue, not simply air a variety of viewpoints. And 
sometimes the discussions are not about a particular text, as though the 
issue were simply what a text says. I agree with you that in such cases, 
the driving concern should be what the text says. But even in those 
cases, trying to detach what it says from what it means is a debatable 
enterprise. Texts might have special sentimental meanings for people 
perhaps, but determining what a text says, in another sense, is 
ascertaining what it means. A central purpose of reading is obtain the 
meaning that the author intended.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard