[b-hebrew] Mythoi kai Kerygmata
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Wed Jul 21 15:26:40 EDT 2010
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 6:49 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Mythoi kai Kerygmata
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr>
> To: "Barry" <nebarry at verizon.net>; <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Nooo! Don't go!
> I had stated that I was going to leave this be, but felt that some sort of
> response was necessary here.
>> Anyway I'm not one of "many students".
>> This is a forum among listees here, as far as I understand it.
>> You're not "teaching" me anything, we are discussing on a par.
>> Hope this helps.
> I must admit I was a bit surprised at the, shall we say, vehemence of your
> response, but I suspect a "world view" clash here. As for myself, I
> always consider myself a student, and I believe that anyone at anytime may
> have something to teach me, if only I'm willing to listen.
I don't think there is any world view clash here.
You wrote: "You have precisely the reaction that many students give when
faced with the
I perceived this wording and analogy as disparaging and contemptuous. As far
as "facts" go, the fact is I did perceive it that way.
Your assertion, your big claim, that "the theory of evolution amounts to
mythology" remains to be substantiated.
This was the initial "bone of contention" and this issue, the real issue,
Maybe we can move to the real issue of sorting myths, mythology from
This does have a bearing as regards the forum's topic.
>> Wikipedia is just a huge heap of amateurish crap trying to masquerade as
>> I'm afraid you missed an opportunity to convince me you are professional
>> and competent.
>> I would rather consider a reference to a relevant book written by some
>> competent individual.
>> So far, erh, well, to put it short, well: none... nothing...
> Sigh. The reason I picked the Wiki article was because it was Q&E. Did
> you think I didn't vet the article before I posted it? It happens to
> reflect the "consensus academicus" on the subject. Some of the ideas may
> be new to you, but that doesn't mean that they're new or non-standard.
The last sentence makes little to dismiss the general perception I have of
contempt and disparagement on your side.
What exactly makes you think that "Some of the ideas may be new to [me]"?
> As for Wikipedia, I used to think the same, until I interacted with other
> academics on the issue, and actually started reading some of the articles
> in subject areas I knew something about. Now, I wouldn't recommend it
> anymore than I would recommend any encyclopedia, but the interesting thing
> is the self correcting nature of the articles. It can at least be a place
> to start, just like any other secondary source.
> If you like, here is an article from the Columbia Encyclopedia:
> Anything here inconsistent with the Wiki article? Myth isn't so much
> about content, but use.
I tend to think that myth can be defined through lexical and linguistic
features and its contents.
I'm not sure "use" whatever that means is a secure or necessary criterion.
What's the need for a "functional" extrinsic definition of myth?
I tend to think that an internal and intrinsic definition is possible.
In all cases, I'm not ready to buy the idea that "Myth isn't so much about
content, but use."
This claim stands completely unproved, as far as I'm concerned.
>> Anyway the forum is about "the discussion of Biblical Hebrew language and
>> I don't buy your "hit-and-run" rhetorics about throwing some huge
>> provocative pseudo-truth and then expect that huge crap to be left
>> Dirty tricks for retarded rabbits of the day, aren't they?
>> Hope this helps again.
> Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you think that this is a
> discussion *inter pares*, you might want to act like it.
You're welcome, please proceed.
I indeed think it should look like a discussion inter pares.
>> By the way, do you have anything relevant to say about "Biblical Hebrew
>> language and literature"?
> Certainly -- our understanding of "myth" is integral to our understanding
> of the Hebrew Bible. Classical and Biblical scholars have a certain
> agreement on what they mean by the terminology, and clarifying is usually
I must say that for the time being there is little clarification in sight,
on several counts.
Who is "our" for example?
More information about the b-hebrew