[b-hebrew] Karl and Jim debate and more
dwashbur at nyx.net
dwashbur at nyx.net
Fri Dec 12 16:24:28 EST 2008
On 12 Dec 2008 at 12:16, David Kolinsky wrote:
> Dear David
> You Wrote
> "Karl and I have had our clashes in the past, but I really don't see it this way. In addressing my somewhat unique views, he has never made me feel he was calling me an idiot or anything else. Disagreement can be healthy for all concerned, and I am definitely not one who could be called "non-confrontational." But I have probably come closer to insulting him than he has to insulting me,"
> First, allow me to clarify that I am not interested in slaming nor insulting Karl. But it seems that my comments won't be taken at face value and that I need to prove where Karl seems to be insulting and badgering in an attempt to shut people (in this case Karl) down:
> All of this seems to me like bullying.
What would you suggest? The consensus among scholars here who are much more
qualified than you or I is that Jim's ideas are precisely what Karl describes them as: silly, off
the wall, whatever. How is pointing that out "bullying"? I once had to review a book for JBL
by a fellow I had had several clashes with, and I couldn't pull any punches. I concluded by
saying the book was not within the realm of what I would call scholarship. Is that bullying? If
you have a better way to state this kind of truth, I would be happy to hear it. I have suggested
to Karl several times that he just start using his Delete key more and ignore Jim, but I can't
make those kinds of decisions for him. He seems to feel that some sort of answer is called
for. That's his prerogative. In addition, not once in the material you quoted did he engage in
any kind of ad hominem; he addressed the ideas, theories, and the unwarranted verbosity
used to express them. There's a big difference.
> and I see great value in using cognates in the analysis of Biblical Hebrew. They are not perfect, but they are tremendously valuable.
I use cognates myself on occasion, but their value is limited. That's especially true for
shirttail languages like Arabic or Egyptian.
> Does no one on this list see that XB and its expansions means "to join and bind" and in some forms evolves bind up > crowd in > push together > beat together > beat apart
It would appear not. And this gets us back into the etymological fallacy, which has already
been addressed. For more info in it, see Donald Carson's book "Exegetical Fallacies."
More information about the b-hebrew