Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Attention Moderators:

Peter has misquoted and misrepresented me to this List. Please see his 
comments below, enclosed by ****** and act accordingly. I assume such 
behavior is not fitting for this List. 


In a message dated 05/21/2001 2:37:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< Greg, you are not, I think, a list moderator (nor am I). So I don't think 
it
 is for you to try to lay down a rule that all arguments must be based
 directly on the Hebrew text. >>



Dear Peter:

No such "law" was given by me. I simply stated that the purpose of this List 
is for the discussion of Hebrew. Naturally, where other languages related to 
Hebrew and/or arguments are presented with some link to that core subject, 
they are fine *with me.* That's the point, *with me.* I am here to discuss 
Hebrew, not how one might view certain English translations *apart from* the 
Hebrew text. 

I do not see how such a point is appropriate for this List at all, but if you 
and other wish to pursue it, fine. You are not a moderator, nor am I, so you 
have no more right than I do to claim what this List is about. I for one 
believe that I am on much surer ground in claiming that an argument that is 
offered without any reference to the meaning of the Hebrew text, that in fact 
completely ignores it and goes straight to English translations (how does one 
get there without first consulting the Hebrew text?), than you are in 
believing it is a proper topic for this List. But, again, this is my feeling, 
and you did not find me objecting to Stoney's discussion with other people, 
but *with me* (the person he quoted in relation to the meaning of the 
*Hebrew* text). 



<< Over a number of years there has been useful
 discussion of the Hebrew Bible on this list from people with all levels of
 Hebrew from almost none to high level scholars. I, for one, would like to
 keep the list that way. If you would like a change, you should work through
 the moderators to seek a proper consensus for such a change. >>



You assume that I have offered some change. Can you tell me where in the List 
charter there is any reference to the discussion of English apart from 
Hebrew? But, again, if you want to further such a discussion, by all means go 
right ahead, assuming the moderators believe a topic that bypasses the core 
objective of this List is relevant. 



<< Without such
 consensus you have no right to lay down the law, especially in terms which
 must seem a real put-down to someone like Stoney who is trying to understand
 the text as best he can from the background he has. >>



You are way out of line. I offered nothing even remotely resembling a 
"put-down." You need to rethink your actions, here, Peter. The moderators 
clearly do not believe as you do, otherwise they would have said something 
and quoted me on the point. Also, Stoney is not trying to understand the 
Hebrew text at all. He already has an understanding which is why he began 
with the English translation! From there he comments based on his 
understanding of the context, which understanding provided nothing to support 
his unique argument.


 
<< Stoney has made a plausible case, based on one of the possible proper
 understandings of the meaning of the underlying Hebrew, for an understanding
 of this passage as an expression of divine irritation. >>



He has made not such case, but only offered speculation based on different 
English literary styles of writing. He has not argued from the Hebrew text at 
all. 



<< I actually think that
 he has made quite a strong case which deserves further exploration. If you
 have proper evidence against this understanding, rather than feelings and in
 addition to the argument from silence that "There is no contextual indicator
 pointing to irritation", please present them properly. >>



I presented my objection, namely, a failure to provide any basis from the 
Hebrew text or from the context. I did not just give my "feelings," but 
argued from the context. I even granted that it was a possibility! You need 
to read more carefully and think more clearly before you offer such wild and 
off-base comments. 


***************************
<< But please don't
 retreat into the ad hominem type of argument "I know more Hebrew than you
 do, therefore I am right". >>
***************************


You have deliberately and grossly misquoted and misrepresented me. 
Moderators, please act on this act of misrepresentation. Peter has provided a 
"quote" and attributed it to me but which I never made. I never even came 
close to communicating such thoughts. That is why Peter does not quote me at 
all. Peter, I demand a public apology for your terrible behavior. I never 
said those words; I never even remotely approached them; and I never offered 
such a terrible argument like that. 


 
<< One specific point: "I'll be" is etymologically the same as "I will be" (or
 perhaps "I shall be", the correct form as I was taught). But etymology is a
 poor guide to meaning. Actually "I will be" etymologically means "I want to
 be", but you take the weaker understanding of it as a simple future. Stoney,
 as a literary scholar, probably knows English better than you do and
 realises that there are significant differences in nuance, as well as in
 level of language, between "I'll be" and "I will be". >>



"I shall be" is actually a more archaic form of "I will be." Are you 
suggesting that "I will" commonly means "I want" in everyday English? There 
are certain differences between "I will be" and "I shall be" but rarely are 
they detected in normal English speech. You offer no proof, so your argument 
deserves no further comment, except to say that, essentially, all you have 
offered here is, 'Stoney knows more English than you, therefore he must be 
right'! This is the same type of comment you accused me of making with 
respect to Hebrew. 

Greg Stafford