[b-hebrew] Canaan's Southern Boundary: Genesis 10: 19

Yitzhak Sapir yitzhaksapir at gmail.com
Tue Apr 28 13:15:05 EDT 2009


On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Ron Snider wrote:
> Seriously, another mind numbing exposition that has nothing to do with
> this list.  Can we put an end to this nonsense?

I wonder what is it about Jim Stinehart's posts that irritates
some people  on the list so much.  Perhaps it is that he accepts
certain views that are shunned by a particular reading of the
Bible.  I don't agree that Jim's exposition has nothing to do with
the list.  If the list's purpose is an attempt to reach a better
understanding of the Hebrew Bible (as described in the charter at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bhebrew/ ), Jim's posts are right on topic.
In contrast, Karl's response to Jim is just as tendentious, but truly
off topic for the list.  The last time someone personally attacked a
moderator the way Karl just did, the moderators deemed it crossing
the line and publicly removed him from the list.  Come on, Yigal
Levin holds that "ancient Jews were inferior to their neighbors"?
Where does that come from?  Jim may twist people's words
(including Yigal's), but at least he goes to the effort to find out
Yigal's views on the subject, and when he quotes him, he does so
respectfully.  Karl's responses to Jim generally voiced positions
just as eccentric as Jim's positions themselves, and usually in
much less respectful terms than Jim.  As mentioned, in the last
post, he even paints Yigal as an anti-Semite and suggests that
George meant that Yigal's position should be taken as "science
fiction."  But the (public) postings to the list concentrate on Jim's
so-called off-topic posts, rather than Karl's.  So perhaps, what
irritates people so much, is that his eccentric positions are
incompatible with a particular understanding of the Hebrew
Bible.  Barre (the member who was publicly removed) also
voiced such eccentric positions incompatible with a certain
understanding of the Hebrew Bible (in much less respectful
terms than Jim), and also generated public calls for removal.
So maybe it is not the eccentric nature of the posts that is a
problem.  Maybe it is not the tone of the posts that is a
problem.  Maybe it is just that the views expressed are
incompatible with a particular understanding of the Hebrew
Bible.   How can acceptance of and insistence on only one
particular understanding lead to a better understanding of
the Bible?

Yitzhak Sapir



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list