Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Academic Debate"

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
  • To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Academic Debate"
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:22:02 +0200

Dear Bryant,

I actually agree with most of what you wrote below, but without the implied personal criticism. I agree that both people who study the Bible as a source of religious inspiration and those who study the Bible out of a detatched academic curiosity, and everyone in between (probably most) deserve to be called "scholars", and in no way intended to imply that those who do not accept my position are not scholars. So let me re-state: by "faith" I mean acceptance of the basic Judeo-Christian doctrine that Scripture (however one defines the word) is "the word of God" and thus must be "correct" (and yes, I am perfectly aware that there are many different definitions of both "word of God" and "correct"). God delivered His word through the sayings and writing of prophets and these are recorded in the Bible. And so the Bible is to be believed. This of course still leaves a wide range of possibilities for interpretation, but the basic doctrine is still there.

Modern Critical Academic study of the Bible, as practiced in the world of "academic scholarship" in major universities wroldwide and whatever the personal "faith" of the scholar, does not accept this premise. The Bible is an ancient text which should be subjected to the same critical analysis as any other ancient text, and questions of dating, authorship, sources and authority are at the core of that analysis. Since modern critical science (of any kind) cannot take the supernatural into account, it must resort to the logic and experience that we mere humans have with the natural world around us. Since none of us have yet recieved direct prophecy from God, we cannot "take on faith" that the authors of the Bible did either. Which leads us to question: who wrote the books, why did they write them, when were they written and what were their sources? The answers often leave the historical reliability of the various book very much in doubt.

Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>
To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>; "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Academic Debate was P.S. Re: 6-Month "Year"


Dear Yigal,

[Yigal]
The academic/scientific approach does not accept any authority just on faith,
and considers everything open to questioning - including whether any sort of
deity is behind the composition of the Bible in the first place. You know
that, we know that, and there is no use in repetedly re-hashing it.

[Bryant]
You must remember that all people use "faith" in everything they do, think, or
say. Do not make the mistake that "faith is without knowledge." Quite the
contrary. Faith always includes knowledge. Without faith knowledge makes no
sense. Without knowledge faith is irrational. Faith and knowledge go hand in
hand. The one cannot exist without the other.

Frequently, academic circles of the liberal side make a dichotomy between faith
and reason (knowledge). This type of dichotomy is a false one. Everyone uses
faith. It is the question of the accuracy/creditability of the knowledge behind
that faith that is the problem. I accept the text as written unless the context:
literary genre, grammar, historical markers, rhetorical devices: hyperbole,
metaphor, understatement, overstatement, chiasm, acrostics, puns, etc., tell me
otherwise. If there is a problem, as in the problem of the text between Jeremiah
52 and II Kings 25 on another thread, then that requires that any decision will
always be tentative until more information becomes available that can decide the
issue one way or the other; if that is even possible. That is being
intellectually honest. I do not use phrases such as, "most scholars,"
"scholars," etc., because frequently that is basically implying/stating, "You
are not a scholar if you do not accept this reasoning or fact." That is
intellectually dishonest. Everyone is a scholar. The question then becomes the
degree of competency. In fact, this last question cannot be spoken about on this
list because it would be ill-mannered to do so. The person's own writings will
make it evident without comment being necessary.

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page