Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>]

Moderators, I would like your opinion on this exchange.

Greg, I absolutely agree with your statement "I never said those words;...
and I never offered
such a terrible argument like that" (one clause deliberately omitted). I did
not attribute these words to you. I wrote:

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

This was not intended as or stated to be a quotation of your words. I
apologise if anyone misunderstood me as saying that it was. Nor did I intend
to characterise your argument as ad hominem. I did see this as a possible,
undesirable direction towards which your argument was tending. I was
appealing to you to avoid any tendency in this direction. Here are your
actual words (with some of Stoney's):

<quote>

 >If you have examples involving Hebrew grammar to support your position,
then
 >please share them with us. This is, after all, a discussion of Hebrew.


Stoney:
 A hit, a very palpable hit! . . . however, it is being conducted in English
 and occasionally that language has been abused to the detriment of the
 discussion. >>


I know of no examples in the present discussion that have abused English.
What you say does not change the fact stated above, namely, this is
discussion about the Hebrew text. I look forward to your participation in
that discussion. But if you do not have anything to offer that is grounded
in
a discussion of the Hebrew text, then this is not the appropriate place for
this discussion.

<end quote>

I understood you as saying that Stoney has no right to take part in this
discussion if he is not able to do so on the basis of the Hebrew text,
whereas you claim that right because you can argue from the Hebrew text.
This, to me, is clearly a put-down. (I guess the moderators have been too
busy to read all of your long postings to spot this breach of the list
charter.) It is not the same as "I know more Hebrew than you do, therefore I
am right", but it does seem to me to be tending in that direction, while
being careful to avoid ad hominem argument. So, sorry, I cannot accept your
"I never even remotely approached them". If you wish to dispute this one,
you may refer the point to the moderators.

As for the main point of discussion, I think your error is that you are
failing to see the wood for the trees. You think that by understanding every
Hebrew tree individually you have understood the wood. Now Stoney
understands the individual trees fairly well because he can follow many good
English translations, commentaries etc as well as the long discussion on
this list. As a literary specialist, he is looking at the wood rather than
the trees. But you have no argument to offer him on this level, except to
nitpick at his understanding of individual trees, and to suggest that you
understand his area of expertise, literary criticism, no better than he
understands yours, Hebrew.

Peter Kirk


-----Original Message-----
From: GregStffrd AT aol.com [mailto:GregStffrd AT aol.com]
Sent: 22 May 2001 17:04
To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
Subject: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action


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