Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear Peter:

Before I get to one part of your email, I would like to make clear the fact 
that the several points of criticism mentioned in my last post, regarding 
your previous email, are still a concern to me. I cannot see how any one of 
the quotes you gave from my emails to Stoney, namely:

Greg:
 >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.

And:

Greg:
> 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.



could in any sense be considered a basis for you to even consider offering 
the following to me in any meaningful sense:


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


There was no such retreat in sight, for I *never* said anything that could 
suggest to any reasonable person an intent on my part to impose my knowledge 
of Hebrew over Stoney's, as a substitute for arguing the point. You should 
have qualified your comments better, or, IMO, never made them at all and 
realized that *I* was the one brought out of a discussion of the Hebrew text 
(by means of Stoney's initial post quoting me at the beginning) and into the 
discussion of English. Therefore, I have every right to make clear that my 
arguments relate to a different issue entirely. 

You also claimed that I tried to lay down some "law," which is unfounded. 
Finally, you had the nerve to *suggest* that I should give way to Stoney on 
the question of English because, IYO, he knew more about the subject than I, 
when you previously objected to the made-up argument that I claimed I knew 
more Hebrew than Stoney. So, can you see how I might not appreciate someone 
1) inventing an argument that I did not advance, 2) intimating if not 
outright claiming that I did advance such an argument, and 3) having someone 
use the very same made-up argument with respect to Hebrew, to try and grant 
an English air of superiority for the other person? 

Now, you also wrote:

In a message dated 05/22/2001 2:41:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< 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. >>


The facts are these: He quoted an email of mine relating to the Hebrew issues 
under discussion. I made this clear in my last email, and you *completely* 
ignored it. Then he proceeded to offer arguments based on English literary 
devices. How is it a put-down for me to respond by 1) noting that my comment 
related to Hebrew issues, not English, 2) that if he wanted to further a 
discussion of *my* arguments then the Hebrew text is where we should begin 
(in harmony with his quotation of my material), and 3) by responding to his 
arguments and granting the possibility (!) of his point? 

He was under no obligation to take issue with my arguments, and could easily 
have pursued the matter in general or with someone else. But for you to 
intrude on my response and defense of my *Hebrew* arguments and conclusions 
which were attacked, and for you to then misrepresent my arguments the way 
you did, is wrong.


<< 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. >>


Here you claim that I was careful to avoid an ad hominem when before you 
intimated or directly claimed that I had advanced one. Had you suggested this 
more qualified observation, then there would still be a question of what in 
the world made you even think along these lines, but your claim was not 
qualified as above. I appreciate the qualification, however, and hope you 
will be more careful when you again decide to put yourself in someone else's 
shoes. Your initial remark was callous, unwarranted, and a blatant distortion 
of the facts.



<< 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. >>



It is obvious you cannot accept it, for have failed to apologize for your 
gross mischaracterization of my argument, which is not defensible on any 
level. You have not offered any quote even remotely approaching your blatant 
distortion. You have also failed to address your misrepresentation that I 
tried to lay down some "law," and you failed to comment on your use of the 
same type of argument on Stoney's behalf, at the end of your post. Based on 
that argument, and the rest of what you wrote, it is clear that you do not 
have good intentions, here. 

 
<< 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. >>



You offer no argument on behalf of either yourself or Stoney. I cannot 
comment on " . . . . . " When you decide to argue meaningfully and without 
misrepresentation, then I will gladly show you the "wood for the trees."

I have explained why I take the position I take, and it has everything to do 
with 1) context, 2) Hebrew syntax and 3) Hebrew semantics. Your argument 
seems to revolve around English translations, wood, and trees. When you find 
a basis for your view in the three categories listed as informing my 
position, then, if you can stop the character assassination, provide your 
arguments. 

I am not here to discuss English apart from Hebrew, nor to have my words torn 
from their context to support such a discussion. 

Please stop reading into my words feelings and intentions I do not have, and 
which have no relationship to anything I wrote. 

Greg Stafford