Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear Peter:

Your last response is a mark of very slight progress. I do not believe you 
are in touch with my main objections to your mischaracterization of my 
arguments. Let me once more attempt to clarify the problems with what you 
wrote, and with what you continue to write:


In a message dated 05/23/2001 10:02:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< 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. >>



I appreciate your apology, but my concern has nothing to do with you using 
words that were misunderstood, but with *you* misunderstanding and 
misrepresenting what was written by someone else: me. You wrote clearly and 
without qualification. *Now,* after the fact, rather than simply apologizing, 
you are trying to add words to what you wrote, and that is appreciated, in so 
much as it shows that you recognize something inappropriate with your 
original words as they stood. That is progress. 



<< 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. >>



No, you said no such thing. You wrote:

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



This has no relationship to *anything* I wrote. You wrote nothing about 
'getting close to' or 'implying' such a thing. You came right out and made a 
terribly inaccurate and irresponsible comment that has no relationship to 
anything I wrote. I said nothing even remotely approaching such a 'retreat,' 
or a claim such as "I know more Hebrew than you, therefore I am right." 

The fact that you continue to try and defend such an claim is shocking. That 
you would read into either one of the two quotes you gave from my posts a 
basis for your claim (which I quoted in my last email) such an immature and 
groundless argument is nothing short of unbelievable. I think you need to 
take a step back, stop trying to defend what you wrote, and just acknowledge 
that you made a mistake, spoke in haste, and will exercise greater care in 
the future. There is no shame in such a course. Yet, you seem inclined to do 
anything but what a scholar and a gentleman should do.

 
<< 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." >>



Peter, you are only making things worse for yourself. Again, there are two 
issues on this point, in my replies to Stoney: 1) his use of my 
arguments/conclusions on the subject of the Hebrew text, and 2) the general 
purpose of this List. I commented on *both.* In my first post to Stoney, 
which you apparently did not read when writing the above, I wrote:


<< 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. >>


Note, I did not here mention the "List," but this discussion, namely, the 
discussion he picked up, on which he quoted me. This was after I responded to 
his points and tried to direct him back to the essence of my arguments, 
arguments that *he* referenced in introducing his post. This is what you 
don't understand and continue to ignore, even though I have explained this to 
you twice! I next wrote:


<< If you wish to purse any reason grounded in the Hebrew text for not 
preferring my view, then do so. If you wish merely to pursue the potential 
paralinguistic aspects of this issue then I don't think either of us can do 
using the Hebrew text; hence, there is no value in such a discussion on this 
List. >>


Now we get to the purpose of this List, a purpose that you have not shown to 
be different from what I claimed. However, as we can see, I was commenting on 
both the specific question in relation to my posts, and also with respect to 
the List in general. Nothing has been offered to contradict what I wrote on 
either point; instead, you ignore the fact that my posts on the Hebrew 
aspects of the issue were referenced in introducing his point. I hardly 
misquoted myself, and it is unfortunate that you continue to take such angles 
of attack instead of dealing with my clearly stated objections. You are the 
one adding qualifiers faster than a speeding bullet to your initial 
mischaracterization, not me. 



<< 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. >>



No, Peter. You need to spend a little more time thinking about and *reading* 
what I actually said: I wrote about both the specific and the general, and 
there was nothing unclear in doing so. There was also *nothing* even remotely 
approaching the uncalled for misrepresentation of my arguments and intent, on 
your part. The fact that you do not engage my specific, numbered objections 
to your comments, in previous posts, points to a problem on your end in 
facing up to what should have been a simply, "I am sorry; I misread you," 
reply. If you can't do that, then at least stop trying to justify yourself, 
and simply move on. After all, I was the one who was misquoted and 
misrepresented. If I can accept the fact that you refuse to apologize, then 
the least you can do is let the issue go after I make clear that I said 
nothing of the kind and intended nothing of the kind, and nothing I wrote in 
any way supports your misrepresentations. 



<<  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. >>



I stated something specific to the thread as it related to the use of a quote 
from my post on the subject, and also concerning the general purpose of the 
List. You have failed to do anything to show that I am not correct in doing 
either. This List is for the discussion of the Hebrew text. It is not a 
discussion of English, apart from Hebrew, which is what I have stated clearly 
and directly several times. Other languages come up in relation to Hebrew, 
but as far as I can see, the charter says nothing about allowing discussions 
of English literary criticism or "storytelling," apart form some aspect of 
the Hebrew text.



<< 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. >>



Can you give me examples of prior discussions which I might compare with the 
present one? Again, I cannot comment on such unsupported statements. 
Regardless, the List charter is what it is, and you are the one who seems to 
be going beyond what is written. If that is acceptable, then so be it. But 
this does not explain your terrible misuse of my words, claiming that I said 
or implied something that has nothing to do with what I said. I also clearly 
spoke with reference to both the specific thread and the general purpose of 
the List, which you yourself have not established at all; yet you claimed 
that I laid down some "law" that was in error. First establish the true law, 
Peter, THEN we can see if I was in error in thinking that this List is for 
the discussion of Hebrew and other languages in so far as they have some 
relation to Hebrew (which is what I clearly stated several times). 

If I am wrong in thinking this, it in no way justifies your terrible behavior 
in putting a horrific ad hominem argument in my mouth. You claimed that I 
argued that 1) this List is for Hebrew and related issues, and 2) that I am 
right because I know more Hebrew than Stoney. 2) is the main concern, which 
you avoid, and 1) is something you have not contradicted, either.



 << 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. >>



As you so callously told me, take it up with the moderators. That's what you 
said, and I think it is simply another indication that you need to think more 
carefully about what you write, before you write it. But it is good to see 
you apologize for a specific error on your part, which error is startling 
since your had previously put me down for using a similar argument that I did 
not even use!



<< 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. 
>>




First of all, I answered his point. I did so on several levels, in more than 
one post. Now, you said, very clearly and without qualification:



<< 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". >>



You did not say, "Stoney, a literary scholar, has advanced an argument that 
needs to be answered." Please stop misquoting and misrepresenting yourself. 
You said he "probably knows English better than you do," implying that he is 
right and I am wrong! There is no other meaningful implication that could be 
gathered from what you wrote (if you think there is, please explain), and, 
what is more, you wrote it without any knowledge of my English education, or 
his, it seems, but only what he told us when he arrived. 



<<  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. >>



I understood the argument, and responded to it as did several others on this 
List, each of us reaching similar conclusions. The fact that you have ignored 
the majority of my replies to him, and instead have chosen to focus on a few 
comments I made *after* arguing the point, is your problem, not mine. 



<< 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; >>



I do not need to invalidate something that has not first been validated at 
all! I don't have to refute something that does not originate from the Hebrew 
text, in the context of a discussion concerning the meaning of the Hebrew 
text! There is no basis in the Hebrew text for his claims, and, in spite of 
that fact, I provided contextual arguments against it though granting the 
possibility of his view. This is why what you wrote is so out of line, 
because not only did I *not* say or imply what you put into my mouth, but I 
argued against the point and still granted it's possibility! 



<< the second is to answer him according to the
 tenets of literary criticism, which you have made no attempt to do. >>



I am not going to go beyond the syntax, semantics and context of the text. 
There is no basis for his view in any of these areas, so I am not going to go 
beyond them to even entertain something that cannot and has not been argued 
from the above. Neither of you have even attempted to do so. 



<<  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. >>




I offered no such ridicule, but stated plain facts that have not been 
disputed. I misrepresented no one, but spoke about "English literary 
devices," namely, devices used to mark IRRITATION. That is, after all, a key 
aspect of his argument. You again misrepresent me, by quoting me out of 
context on this point. This is why it is apparent to me, in addition to your 
previously documented misquotations and misrepresentations, and your refusal 
to apologize for a vicious ad hominem attack, that you do not have good 
intentions here. 



<< 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. >>



That's because you are not focussed and bent on avoiding the point I have 
made time, and time, and time again. Taking the topic in a new direction is 
one thing, but to do this:


In a message dated 05/18/2001 7:00:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
stoney AT touchwood.net writes:

<< But would it be out of line for an outsider and amateur to suggest that 
 everybody's missing the point? -- For instance,  Greg Stafford wrote:
 >Moses' question was essentially, "Who should I say sent me?" YHWH's reply
 >was, literally, "I will be who I will be. . . . Tell them 'I will be' sent
 >you." Now, it seems to me that this response means that the Israelites will
 >know who He is by what He *will do*.
 
 Everything I know about storytelling tells me that this response is not a 
 theological or theontological proposition but an irritated reaction to 
 repeated interruption. >>



My arguments and conclusions had nothing to do with storytelling, so how 
could I have missed a point that was not based on storytelling, when 
"storytelling" of this kind (marked by irritation in the reply) has not been 
shown to relate to anything in the text or context? My arguments were about 
the Hebrew text, and so it is legitimate for me to object and to request that 
when critiquing my arguments based on such, that those very things be taken 
into account to show that what I did was not correct. What is not legitimate 
is to introduce "storytelling" as an argument against my Hebrew-based 
conclusions, and then proceed to argue from English translations apart from 
Hebrew. 


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

I have responded using the only categories that have been shown to have any 
merit in this discussion: 1) Hebrew syntax, 2) Hebrew semantics, and 3) the 
context of the text in question. To the extent that arguments from literary 
criticism can be shown to relate to the text or context of Exodus 3:14, I 
will comment on the point. But nothing has been offered that in any way 
supports the idea that God's reply was a sign of irritation. That is what I 
objected to, though granted as an unlikely possibility in view of the 
context, and that is what you consistently neglect to mention. 

Greg Stafford