== I appreciate the fact that you recognize that all readers, exegetes if
you will come with assumptions (what I prefer to call presoppositions). But
I fail to see why "theological" assumptions are bad and other
presuppositions are okay. After all the Bible is a religious document, dare
we say a theological document.
But whose theology is being represented? That is the great battle amongst
scholars from all Judeo-Christian faiths. Which only reinforces my point, I
think, that setting theological confines as to what the Bible can and cannot
say, is a bad way of approaching it.
== It seems to me that the human authors of Scripture themselves come with
theological presuppositions. For example, in the OT the authors typically
assume that God has a covenantal relationship with Israel.
Sure, but the Bible, it is argued, is a historical document. It must
therefore be approached as if it is a historical document written by many
different authors. The theological presupposition I have problems with, are
those such as the one expressed here recently. "They demanded I call Yahweh
a liar!" This one left em scratching my head. I gather from this that
someone was learning something in Hebrew class that contradicted one or many
of his theological presuppositions, and the only way he knew to express his
dilemma was to say it required that he call God a liar.
== I would also add that all presuppositions, not just theological ones, in
one way or the other "sets the limits as to what a scripture can and cannot
say. For example, if one comes to the Torah with a Documentary Hypothesis
presupposition, then the statements in Torah which lay claim to Mosaic
authorship are discounted.
But this is discounted, first and foremost, by the fact that Deuteronomy
presents us with Moses' obituary. So we know beyond a doubt that Moses
didn't write this much of it, so the burden of proof rests on those who
insist Moses wrote all of it. I this undermines "tradition" moreso than
theology, I think. The thesis that Moses authored the entire book is also
belied by the fact that Deuteronomy, which was miraculously (and
conveniently I might add) "discovered" by Josiahn temple priests, and that
it contradicts many of the things taught in subsequent books of Moses, and
happens to support teh reforming ideas of Josiah. It isn't some devious
atheistic plot to throw a wrench into the traditional (mis)understanding of
the OT authorship. I am a Christian. I can accept the Bible for what it is.
It doesn't hinder my theology in the slightest to know that tradition
sometimes gets it wrong.
== By the way, since you appeal to the OT view of God then you might note
how many times the words "Thus says the Lord" the Word of the Lord," etc.
appear. Does this not reflect a presupposition and understanding of the text
which is divine in origin. And if one rejects this, then these and similar
statements cannot be taken at face value.
All this does is prove that the author is citing the Lord trhough his own
human, and fallible means. God did not write the Bible or else he never
would have used humans to begin with. Jer 8:8 makes it clear that scribes
have corrupted the law. God commisions men to write his law, but he doesn't
strike them down with temporary infallibility in the process.
== "Evangelical seminaries have an agenda so to speak." True enough.
Evangelical seminaries such as DTS often clearly and specifically identify
their mission. They will tell you why they believe they exist. Yes,
Evangelicals do often "wear their biases on their sleeves." That is they
don't hide it. Personally, I think that it is much more honest than
institutions which speak on an inclusive intellectual environment where all
manner of belief systems are welcomed accept for conservative
Evangelicalism.
But you're begging the question, and much of this is conspiracy theory that
relies on psychoanalysis. For example, I can enter an Evangelical debate
forum and start citing scholarly arguments. The audience will, 9 times out
of 10, draw attention to the fact that the scholars I cite are "liberals"
and will desist from addressing the arguments. As Niels Lemche said
recently, the underlying rule seems to be: "do not read Wellhausen; read
conservative books about Wellhausen. The moment a student with an
evangelical background enters into a direct conversation with the enemy, he
or she could be influenced by teh thinking of this enemy, something that can
only be seen as a menace to the student's continues fundamentalist base.
Although non-conservative literature may be cited, it is done within a
conservative framework." (Conservative Scholarship on the Move)
== By the way, I asked you what your personal experience was regarding Bible
college or seminary. Have you ever sat in on a class. Many seminarys will
allow you to sit in to see what it is like. DTS does. I did not ask you what
Bart Ehrman's experience was.
Yes I have, and I have been rejected from two seminaries because I could
not, in all honestly, sign the required confession of faith. The reason I
have not provided an answer to yoru request is because the moderator of this
list sent an email to me (offlist apparently) asking that I do not provide
such information: "Gentlemen, Please discontinue public discussion of your
respective training and personal qualifications. While discussion of the
relative merits of academic training or lack of it is acceptable, I will
halt this thread if it continues in this vein. We are at the edge of -- if
not beyond -- ad hominem."