Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Textual Criticism (and the rejected post)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[2]: Textual Criticism (and the rejected post)
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 20:11:13 -0400


I agree that anonymous messages should not be posted. (Was it
anonymous when Don first found it?) And I think a very good reason for
considering this inappropriate is simply its unscholarly approach
(though that does not mean there are no grains of truth in the
speculation presented as dogmatic truth). But I am concerned at your
comment that "the person's post contains ad hominem, faith-based
arguements, which our charter forbids". It seems to me that this
person starts by stating clearly his presuppositions (his points 1 and
2 - I agree with a large part of this but not the last part), for
which he can only be applauded. But he does not base his argument
unduly on these presuppositions (although the tone he uses reflects
his presuppositions) but rather on some reasonable (though
speculative) ideas about how different religious traditions may have
been reflected in the texts those traditions used, and the texts which
they attempted to suppress. His overall conclusion is that he prefers
the text which has been least corrupted. Now we may not all agree on
which text this is, but I think we all want to find the best text. So
please don't suppress his arguments too hastily.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism (and the rejected post)
Author: <brocine AT earthlink.net> at Internet
Date: 20/10/1999 23:06


Dear Don and Peter,

There are three issues involved in the decision to reject
Don's additional posting of this unknown person's e-mail
(BTW, the rejected post is shown below following my
comments). One is that the person's post contains ad
hominem, faith-based arguements, which our charter forbids.
Second, the person is an unnamed writer of an e-mail. If we
start passing on a broad spectrum of third party e-mail
comments by unnamed sources, the list will become more of a
litter basket than a "scholarly" discussion. Thirdly, the
staff had a chance to reject the second post (and did so).
Typically, even inappropriate posts will be forwarded to the
list automatically by Lyris, the list's host (the list is not
totally moderated). However, a member's first two posts are
sent to the b-hebrew staff for approval. This mechanism
exists to insure that new contributors understand the mission
of the list and post appropriately (at least the first two
times ;-) ). Lyris interprets an "old" member who changes
his e-mail address as a new member and consequently sends the
first two postings to the staff for approval. The point is
that the staff saw an inappropriate post, so that it did not
pass the post along. The truth is, the *first* post quoting
this unnamed person should probably not have been approved
either. Sorry, that's my fault.

Shalom,
Bryan Rocine
b-hebrew staff

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page