Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Greg,

You write "it is clear that you do not have good intentions". This is not
true. My only desire is to see the important issues which Stoney has raised
be discussed openly in the manner which they deserve. I apologise that I
have used language which has been misunderstood. But I did not say that you
used ad hominem argument, only that you were getting rather close to it with
your implications that you knew more Hebrew than Stoney.

I understood you as laying down some kind of law when you wrote: "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." I
interpreted this as a general remark, and thought that my interpretation was
confirmed when in your next posting you misquoted yourself, writing "I
simply stated that the purpose of this List is for the discussion of
Hebrew." But if it was rather intended as a comment on this specific thread,
I apologise for the misunderstanding, but I can hardly be blamed as you seem
to have misunderstood yourself in exactly the same way. Perhaps we can
clarify: did you or did you not intend to state a general principle that
"the purpose of this List is for the discussion of Hebrew"? To my mind this
is some kind of law. You can argue that this law is taken from the list
charter, but you do seem to be trying to interpret this in a tighter way
than the moderators have ever done; they have never sought to stop
discussion of specific passages of the Hebrew Bible, whether or not
conducted solely from the Hebrew text.

I apologise for making an argument that sounded like "Stoney knows more
English than you do, therefore he must be right". I didn't intend it to
sound like this. Firstly, I should have said "literary criticism", in which
Stoney has a Ph.D., rather than English, which is I assume the mother tongue
of both of you, and myself. Secondly, I didn't suggest that he must be
right, rather that he has put forward an argument that needs to be answered.
Stoney's basic argument does not contradict your understanding of the Hebrew
syntax and semantics in its context. It is an argument from literary
criticism. There are two ways in which you could invalidate his argument:
one would be to show that he has based his argument on an untenable
understanding of the Hebrew, which you can hardly do as he is largely
accepting your understanding; the second is to answer him according to the
tenets of literary criticism, which you have made no attempt to do. Rather
you have tried to deny that it is valid even to look at this text from the
point of view of literary criticism rather than Hebrew grammar. You did this
with a touch of ridicule and by misrepresenting Stoney as talking about
"English literary devices", when in fact he is talking about
cross-linguistic universals of literary criticism. Now I accept that
Stoney's intervention took this thread in a new direction rather than
responding directly to your arguments. But I don't see that that is an
invalid thing to do.

Meanwhile I look forward to any response to Stoney from the point of view of
literary criticism.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: GregStffrd AT aol.com [mailto:GregStffrd AT aol.com]
Sent: 23 May 2001 04:04
To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
Subject: Re: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action


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