Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: GregStffrd AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
  • Subject: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action
  • Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:03:39 EDT


Attention Moderators:

Peter has misquoted and misrepresented me to this List. Please see his
comments below, enclosed by ****** and act accordingly. I assume such
behavior is not fitting for this List.


In a message dated 05/21/2001 2:37:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< Greg, you are not, I think, a list moderator (nor am I). So I don't think
it
is for you to try to lay down a rule that all arguments must be based
directly on the Hebrew text. >>



Dear Peter:

No such "law" was given by me. I simply stated that the purpose of this List
is for the discussion of Hebrew. Naturally, where other languages related to
Hebrew and/or arguments are presented with some link to that core subject,
they are fine *with me.* That's the point, *with me.* I am here to discuss
Hebrew, not how one might view certain English translations *apart from* the
Hebrew text.

I do not see how such a point is appropriate for this List at all, but if you
and other wish to pursue it, fine. You are not a moderator, nor am I, so you
have no more right than I do to claim what this List is about. I for one
believe that I am on much surer ground in claiming that an argument that is
offered without any reference to the meaning of the Hebrew text, that in fact
completely ignores it and goes straight to English translations (how does one
get there without first consulting the Hebrew text?), than you are in
believing it is a proper topic for this List. But, again, this is my feeling,
and you did not find me objecting to Stoney's discussion with other people,
but *with me* (the person he quoted in relation to the meaning of the
*Hebrew* text).



<< Over a number of years there has been useful
discussion of the Hebrew Bible on this list from people with all levels of
Hebrew from almost none to high level scholars. I, for one, would like to
keep the list that way. If you would like a change, you should work through
the moderators to seek a proper consensus for such a change. >>



You assume that I have offered some change. Can you tell me where in the List
charter there is any reference to the discussion of English apart from
Hebrew? But, again, if you want to further such a discussion, by all means go
right ahead, assuming the moderators believe a topic that bypasses the core
objective of this List is relevant.



<< Without such
consensus you have no right to lay down the law, especially in terms which
must seem a real put-down to someone like Stoney who is trying to understand
the text as best he can from the background he has. >>



You are way out of line. I offered nothing even remotely resembling a
"put-down." You need to rethink your actions, here, Peter. The moderators
clearly do not believe as you do, otherwise they would have said something
and quoted me on the point. Also, Stoney is not trying to understand the
Hebrew text at all. He already has an understanding which is why he began
with the English translation! From there he comments based on his
understanding of the context, which understanding provided nothing to support
his unique argument.



<< Stoney has made a plausible case, based on one of the possible proper
understandings of the meaning of the underlying Hebrew, for an understanding
of this passage as an expression of divine irritation. >>



He has made not such case, but only offered speculation based on different
English literary styles of writing. He has not argued from the Hebrew text at
all.



<< I actually think that
he has made quite a strong case which deserves further exploration. If you
have proper evidence against this understanding, rather than feelings and in
addition to the argument from silence that "There is no contextual indicator
pointing to irritation", please present them properly. >>



I presented my objection, namely, a failure to provide any basis from the
Hebrew text or from the context. I did not just give my "feelings," but
argued from the context. I even granted that it was a possibility! You need
to read more carefully and think more clearly before you offer such wild and
off-base comments.


***************************
<< But please don't
retreat into the ad hominem type of argument "I know more Hebrew than you
do, therefore I am right". >>
***************************


You have deliberately and grossly misquoted and misrepresented me.
Moderators, please act on this act of misrepresentation. Peter has provided a
"quote" and attributed it to me but which I never made. I never even came
close to communicating such thoughts. That is why Peter does not quote me at
all. Peter, I demand a public apology for your terrible behavior. I never
said those words; I never even remotely approached them; and I never offered
such a terrible argument like that.



<< One specific point: "I'll be" is etymologically the same as "I will be" (or
perhaps "I shall be", the correct form as I was taught). But etymology is a
poor guide to meaning. Actually "I will be" etymologically means "I want to
be", but you take the weaker understanding of it as a simple future. Stoney,
as a literary scholar, probably knows English better than you do and
realises that there are significant differences in nuance, as well as in
level of language, between "I'll be" and "I will be". >>



"I shall be" is actually a more archaic form of "I will be." Are you
suggesting that "I will" commonly means "I want" in everyday English? There
are certain differences between "I will be" and "I shall be" but rarely are
they detected in normal English speech. You offer no proof, so your argument
deserves no further comment, except to say that, essentially, all you have
offered here is, 'Stoney knows more English than you, therefore he must be
right'! This is the same type of comment you accused me of making with
respect to Hebrew.

Greg Stafford




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page