As many already know, I am in my second semester of Biblical Greek here at GCTS. Calvin has a jump start on me in this language, having already taken Greek I and II (twice, in fact!), Intermediate Greek, and the required “Interpreting the NT” class.

So far, I have been doing very well in the class. On good days I like Greek; on bad I despise it. Most of the time, I’m ambivalent. Ultimately, Hebrew is my first love, and Greek is a rather poor substitute. Nevertheless, though I balked at having to take Greek initially, I’ve found it’s not as bad as I had believed, and Greek and I have developed a uneasy camaraderie of necessity, if not love.

That being said, I’m about to actually take the Greek I’ve learned and for the first time use it in my study of the Hebrew Bible. That’s right, I’m going to attempt to translate the passage I’ve chosen for my exegesis paper this semester (Lam. 2:18-22) from the LXX, and then retrovert it (this should be…interesting) back into Hebrew.

I just thought this momentous occasion of actually using what I’ve been learning for the first time required special note.

Since my husband decided to bring my name up in the inerrancy issue, I thought I’d put my two cents in, for what it’s worth. First I’d like to say upfront, as Calvin did, that I have nothing but respect for those who disagree with my handling of the issue, and harbor no ill feelings or resentment toward an alternative viewpoint, so long as we’re continuing open and honest discussion.

Theoretically, I agree with John. I don’t believe that one has to agree with the Chicago statement of inerrancy in order to say that one believes the Bible is inerrant. I also agree that the word “inerrant” is in need of some major redefinition (or perhaps re-education needs to be done of people on what the term really should signify). I would very much like to say that I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy (and do in fact say that, on most days). At the same time I fully understand that my definition of inerrancy is not the same as most evangelical Christians. The problem, then, is not with the word itself, but with the meaning that has been injected into it.

Therefore, practically, I agree with Calvin (my husband, not the reformer!). The term is almost useless for actually communicating what one believes, if one doesn’t believe the standard definition. The majority of conservative evangelical Christians have an assumed definition for the word. If one says, “I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy,” they assume that you hold to their (standard) definition. Claiming to believe in inerrancy while at the same time redefining the word is fine for philosophical or theological discussions among us eggheads (and I say this with the utmost respect!), but it does nothing for communication to people outside that group, unless one explains oneself extensively. And, at least as I see it, the purpose of having a single vocabulary word to describe a concept is so that one doesn’t have to explain oneself extensively every time one uses the word. Like it or not, the word means a certain thing in modern, evangelical circles, and no matter how earnestly we believe that the word should be both retained and redefined (which I do believe, theoretically), that belief has little to no chance of translating itself into practical doctrine for evangelical Christians. It’s far too ingrained into the the evangelical psyche to start a mass effort of recontextualization, at least among laypeople (if any sort of “mass effort” were even possible to achieve in any amount of time that would be helpful to the current culture). Call me a pessimist, but there’s my take on it. I hope sincerely that I will be proven wrong.

Therefore, practically, I avoid using the word when postulating my beliefs about the nature of Scripture. It helps to avoid confusion, because though I’d love to hold on to the word, the redefinition that I and others would like is just not likely to happen on a wide-scale. It’s not just “subject to misunderstanding” (as John put it), it’s completely inevitable that one will be misunderstood if one uses the word in a non-standard way. And, when speaking with regular ol’ people (non-eggheads), I’d prefer not to feel like I’m being deceptive when I use a word that I know perfectly well they won’t view the same way that I do.

Of course, if push came to shove and someone forced me to choose, I would still say I believe in inerrancy (as opposed to my dear husband, who would abandon use of the term for the above reasons) – by my definition, which I would then have to explain at length in order not to be deceitful, therefore starting the debate all over again about the usefulness of the word…

Just call me “sitting-on-the-fence” Mandy.

I have often participated in discussions about the use of the word “inerrancy” in reference to the Hebrew Bible, both online and via good old-fashioned physical dialog (which I should note, does not normally involve physical contact such as slapping someone). James McGrath has recently reviewed G.K. Beale’s book on the topic. I have not yet read Beale’s work, and so I cannot comment on it. However, John Hobbins has waded into the discussion with a post in which he argues yet again that Christians simply cannot dispense with the term inerrancy.

I should note at this point that I am friends with John, and respect him greatly. I also respect my wife who, last time I checked, shares his view. However, I simply do not see how what Mandy and John call inerrancy has any relationship to what the mass of conservative evangelicalism calls inerrancy. I think that John understands this, and so he argues that we need not give up the language altogether, but rather that we need to seek to “appropriate” and “re-contextualize” it. It seems to me that this is another way of saying “redefine.” That may be fine and good, but I think it is a dead-end debate for the church.

Lest I be accused of simply disregarding John’s proposition without due consideration and a proposition of my own, I present the following reasons for abandoning the term inerrancy.

1. The term has, on the whole, been co-opted by conservative evangelicalism to mean a very narrow view of Scripture. Specifically that view which has been codified in the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. It is highly unlikely that any group will be able to wrest control of the word’s definition from conservative evangelicals and the Chicago statement. For better or for worse, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is the modern definition of the term.

2. Inerrancy frames the question in the wrong light. To every lay person whom I speak with, “inerrancy” frames the question of the Bible in the following terms: a) God wrote/inspired the Bible, therefore it cannot have errors or b) God could not have inspired the Bible because it has errors. I believe that Peter Enns brings up a similar point in Inspiration & Incarnation. Both of those ways of framing the question of the Bible in relation to God and inspiration are unhelpful.

3. Relatedly, the language of inerrancy in our modern world automatically causes one to expect from the Bible a definition of error which conforms to our modern, scientific definition of error. Such a standard simply cannot be applied to a document that is over two thousand years old. It is patently absurd to expect the Bible to conform to our definition of error, yet that is exactly what we do when we use language such as “inerrant.”

Could all of the above be overcome with proper explanation? Most likely. However, is it worth fighting over a word? I’m not convinced that it is. In fact, I think that the Church, and those in it who wish to call themselves evangelical but do not agree with the definition of inerrancy contained within the Chicago Statement, would do much better to simply begin using different language to refer to what we mean. Am I advocating abandoning the term “inerrancy” to the conservative evangelical sect? Yes, I am. I don’t see where the word, regardless of how it may have been used in the past, is a good term to use for today.

I agree whole-heartedly with John on this, that each generation must appropriate doctrine for themselves. This means, at times, that a particular generation must dispose of antiquated language in favor of language that more adequately does what language is meant to do–communicate something.

In the end, discussion is good, and I’m sure that is partially John’s intent with his post. Nevertheless, I do believe that what we ought to be discussing is not how to restore a modicum of balance to the word “inerrant,” but rather what other word(s) might better describe what we want inerrant to mean.

It is the time of the semester when I normally give an update about how classes are going. So, here goes:

Epigraphic Hebrew – I’m still a little amazed that I even have the opportunity to take such a class at a seminary. I’m really enjoying it. So far we’ve translated the Mesha Inscription (technically Moabite, I suppose, but hardly that different from Hebrew), several of the Arad letters, the Gezer Calendar, and a couple of the inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud! It has been an absolute blast. My only compliant is that we’re reading the inscriptions in transliteration. My preference would be to have a decent paleo-Hebrew font that was used, and I can’t really see an excuse for not having such a thing given the prevalence of Unicode today, but I digress.

Targumic Aramaic – This is going well. I’m far slower in translating than I would like, but I’m improving with time. Partially the issue at this point is forcing myself to knuckle down and do the work. I’m not enjoying this class nearly as much as Epigraphic Hebrew, but its still good, and I’m learning quite a bit.

Old Testament Poetical Books – This is the standard exegesis course in the poetry of the Hebrew Bible here at GCTS. On the one hand it’s always good to translate some more and talk about various issues of Hebrew Grammar. I’m enjoying that aspect of the class, even though I might prefer to translate more Hebrew each week.

History of Israelite Religion – This is a Boston University class, and I’ve learned quite a bit so far. We actually listened to a visiting lecturer present some fascinating research on “Divinized Demons and Demonized Devinities” in Ancient Egypt. My paper for the course is on the place of Job in Israelite Religion. It’s coming along nicely, after a bit of a bumpy start. So, overall this has been enlightening.

You can read the relevant post here.

I, generally speaking, agree with Doug’s thoughts on the passage. Regarding the specific question of why the story of the Danite Migration is in the Bible in the first place, Doug is right on: it explains why Dan’s territory is in the north, as well as discounting the cult site at the titular town. To be certain, the author of Judges, as he has throughout the rest of the book, is coloring things so as to get across a point. That point is, I believe, that everyone does what is right in their own eyes. In fact, I might put a little more emphasis on that particular reason for this story’s place in Judges than Doug seems to. The whole point of this story, and the story in the chapters that follow it, is to show how brutal and horrible Israel was. No doubt Dtr wanted to depict people who may have “meant well” but in fact defied YHWH; much like those in his own day.

Perhaps the more fascinating issue for me is the fact that so few of those who claim the book of Judges as part of their foundational document, have ever read and wrestled with the stories in the closing pages of the book. That is to say, your average church-goer (perhaps also your average synagogue-goer?) has no clue that there even is a Judges 17 and following, let alone what said chapters contain. As a Christian, I would very much like to see this material engaged with in the Church.

If one wishes to talk of application for today, it seems somewhat obvious to me: people still do evil things in the name of a God, but one can hardly blame such acts on the deity. Free will is, after all, a rather important part of being human.

It’s that time of the semester again. I need to start thinking about what classes I’ll be taking over the summer and the fall. It’s also time for my normal round up of how my current classes are shaping up, but that will have to wait for another post. So, here are my tentative thoughts for this coming summer and fall. I’d love your thoughts on any classes (or types of courses) that I might want to be sure to add, since this is my last year of work on my MA.

Full Summer:
-A Semlink (GCTS’ distant ed) to cover either A) an ethics elective or B) a World Missions or Evangelism elective.
-Readings and Research course; these courses are basically a way to deal with a topic or section of Scripture that GCTS does not normally deal with in classes. I’m currently exploring possible topics, and would love suggestions.

Summer II (mid-June ’til mid-July):
-Gospel of John; this is an NT exegesis course. For my MA in Biblical Languages, I’m required two NT exegesis courses.

Fall 2009:
-Literature of Ancient Israel; Dr. Machinist is scheduled to offer a seminar on a book of the Bible this Fall (though I’m not sure which book as of yet). He was on leave this year, and so I didn’t have the chance to take a course with him. I really want to take that opportunity.
-Advanced Hebrew Grammar; This is a course that Mandy and I will be taking as a directed study with Dr. Tom Petter. We’re both really looking forward to it. To some extent we’re serving as guinea pigs as he develops these courses (epigraphic Hebrew this semester, Hebrew grammar next semester). This will also mean we’ll have over four years of formal classroom education in Hebrew.

The following are classes I’m not 100% sure I’m taking (and, to be honest, I can’t take all of them):
-Old Testament Prophetical Books; this is being offered by Donna Petter in the fall, and since her dissertation focused on Ezekiel, I thought that it might be an interesting course to take with her. It’s also one of the courses that my adopted advisor has recommended I take before graduating, so if I’m going to take it, nows the time.
-History and Archaeology of the ANE; This course is taught by Tom Petter. Again, this is one that my advisor has recommended to me. Mandy took this our first semester here and learned a ton. I’m sure I would learn a lot…but…ya know…pottery. *shudder*
-Exegeting the OT: Theology of the Divine Presence; This is a new course (as far as I know) that is being offered by Donna Petter. I just think the idea of the divine presence is fascinating, especially in regards to divine favor/anger. In addition, the Ark narrative in Samuel is fascinating, and I would hope that such a passage would come up in this class.
-Akkadian; This is a single semester introduction to Akkadian grammar. We don’t learn the signs, and learn very little vocab. Mandy has already taken it. I wouldn’t mind an intro to another semitic language, and Akkadian is certainly something I’ll have to tackle eventually (unless I can manage to sneak around it by taking Egyptian). The cons are that this course is offered on Wednesday evening, and that I’m honestly not sure how well I’ll know Akkadian after one semester…I suspect not too well.
-Biblical Global Justice; this one being offered by Borgman. I’ve never taken a class with him, so that might be interesting. This would also be an ethics elective, and I do need one of those before I graduate. So far there isn’t a correspondingly interesting course being offered in the spring. I might also be able to write my paper on something interesting….like justice in the Book of Job. Maybe.
UPDATED-05-03-09
-Middle Egyptian I; I have just learned that there is a possibility that I could take Middle Egyptian I this fall, and then Middle Egyptian II this spring at one of the BTI schools. This seems to me to be an amazing opportunity. However, it would probably require travel down to Boston on a second day of the week, unless I were to forget about the seminar with Machinist next semester. So, I’m very much interested in your thoughts on how I should proceed here.

As you may have noticed, I’ve listed 7 classes for the next semester. I can’t take that many. I’d prefer to take only 4, especially since I’ll be tackling a course at Harvard (or another BTI school, if I take Middle Egyptian I). However, either in the Fall or Spring I’ll have to take five courses in order to graduate, so I suppose one is as good as the other. I’d love to hear your thoughts on which classes seem best from your perspective.

It can be found here. Enjoy.