Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yigal:

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:

> Dear Bryant,
>
> You're right, the basic assumption underlying my statement is a
> source-critical methodology, which is universally accepted in modern
> biblical studies.


This is not true. While it may be true among state (tax) supported
institutions, are they the only places for Biblical studies? Among private
institutions, there are modern Biblical studies that reject source-critical
methodology.


> Your statement is basically a declaration of faith:


How is source-critical methodology not equally a declaration of faith?


> since
> the Bible says that God is the "author" of the "Priestly Benediction", than
> He is". That's fine in the context of a faith-based discussion, which is
> NOT
> what this list is about.


Then isn't source-critical methodology, because it is a faith-based
discussion, also what this list is NOT about?


> My post was a reaction to a previous statement,
> that the "silver scrolls" somehow disproved "minimalism". One cannot
> "prove", "disprove" or even discuss anything, unless we first have a common
> ground for discussion. The common ground here is that the methodologies
> that
> are used in the scholarly world are valid, and that simple statements of
> faith are not.
>
> See above. There are many who say that the methodologies that are used in
the scholarly world are not valid, and the reason is that those
methodologies are based on statements of faith which not all accept.


> There is a very big difference between "maximalism" and "fundamentalism"
> (which I do not mean in a negative way and appologize if anyone here is
> offended by the term).


Well, ... "minimalism" and "maximalism" are both part of a "fundamentalism"
that is opposed to a different "fundamentalism".


> "Maximalism" is a scholarly methodology, by which one
> can accept anything that is not made very unlikely by known archaeological
> or other empirical evidence.


This is a statement of faith.


> In other words, EVEN a "maximalist" would not
> take the statement in Josh. 10:13 about the sun and the moon standing still
> literally, since this contradicts so much of what we know about the
> physical
> universe. Instead, he would try to find a "rational" explanation.


This is a historical question. Is this a valid historical observation? Were
there other observations made of the same event? If so, then the true
scholarly response would be to try to understand what was involved, not to
deny the multiple observations. According to some sources, around the same
time, the Chinese reported that one day the sun remained on the western
horizon for a very extended period, and in Central America the surviving
records mention one day that the sun didn't rise: what caused those
observations?


> A
> "fundamentalist" would say "God can do whatever he likes, so if the Bible
> says it happened, it did". Both approaches are legitimate within their own
> contexts, but you can't carry arguments from one to the other. In other
> words, if you want to have a dialogue with "minimalists", you have to
> accept
> the basic methodology, of which minimalism is one possible conclusion. If
> you don't you're not holding a dialogue, you're preaching.
>
> Disagree. Why can't a dialogue can be made, albeit on a deeper level, on
the level of foundational beliefs?


> Yigal Levin
>
> Response to George Athas:
Re: Velikovsky: he was a philosophical naturalist (i.e. his religion
rejected the supernatural) and as such, could be called an über-maximalist.
While many in the scholarly community look down their noses at him, he was
willing to look at historical records that most within the secular community
would prefer to sweep under the rug, and then try to give a naturalist
explanation for them. The "scholarly" rejection of him has the appearance of
an inquisition against a heretic.

Karl W. Randolph.