Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <zellmer AT digitelone.com>]

Ian Hutchesson wrote:

> The best thing then for you to do is stop trying to defend your
wounded faith.

and NPL wrote:

> I see no reason to repeat my argument. Ken you are simply wrong and
> speaking nonsense. Go to Rome and see for yourself, or go to Athens
> and see for yourself, and go to Jerusalem and see what you can find
> from the 10th century, and don't bring forward the old crap that it is
> under the temple mount. What we don't have, we cannot use. I prefer as
> I said hard evidence: If I found a genuine inscription from the 13th
> century where was written: 'I, Joshua, sin of Nun, rests here. I
> conquered Canaan', I would have to change some of my ideas. Find it,
> and make your day.



I have just finished reading the Rabinovich article that Jim West called
attention to a few days ago.  (Thanks, Jim, for forwarding it to me.)  I
found it to be an example of solid reporting without the editorial
comments that I have found in most modern-day news articles.  I came to
this conclusion despite the use of "minimalist", because its intended
audience appears to be those to whom the term would be no more emotional
than, say, "banana" or "commentator."

Rabinovich does state that, "Perched at the edge of a new millennium,
revisionists are boldly proposing to rewrite basic tenets of a faith
that has been the spiritual underpinning of much of Western civilization
for the past two millennia."  Having seen literally hundreds of messages
on the list along these lines during the past few month, I am not a bit
surprised by the statements by Ian and Prof Lemche quoted above.  If
this is even in part the purpose for such "discussions," then I, for
one, find these topics to be as out-of-line on this list as were the
infamous homilies which resulted in so many of the ones of Jewish faith
to leave a few years ago.  And the fault lies on both sides of the
arguments, because both sides seemed determined to change the other's
basis of faith.

I am by no means saying that these items should not be discussed.  Most
of my days include discussions comparing and contrasting personal
beliefs.  But this is not the forum where these discussions should take
place.  Less I be misunderstood, I am not stating that commentaries such
as those that Jonathan  Bailey expressed a desire for are out of place.
Nor is it the tone of the posts that I am complaining about, although I
have found them to be much less than scholarly or gracious.  What I am
pointing out is that a clear characteristic of this list and the b-greek
list has been an openness for participation of all faiths as long as the
discussions do not center around the differences of the faiths.  This is
not the characteristic of the recent discussions, and it is a sad state
of affairs in which we find ourselves.

Unless someone can clearly point out where Rabinovich's summary is
inaccurate, I feel that I am in line when I ask Jonathan Robie as
list-owner and his three co-chairs to make some clear statement as to
the appropriateness of these discussions.

Still waiting for the millenium to arrive NEXT January 1 and reminding
Ian that he was several hours behind the times compared to us in eastern
Asia,

Paul