Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Greg, do you not know the difference between a request not to do something
and an accusation of having done so? I think you need to learn this
difference between these things in English before trying to understand the
Hebrew Bible.

I apologise to you that some with an inadequate understanding of English may
have misunderstood my statement as an accusation. I am not going to
apologise for something which I did not intend as an accusation and which is
not written in the form of an accusation, rather of a polite request.

I do apologise if I failed to understand the subtle distinctions you were
making between the purpose of this particular discussion and the general
purpose of the list.

I have already apologised for writing that Stoney "probably knows English
better than you do". I hope you can accept this apology.

I understand that you do not wish to answer Stoney's point about
"storytelling". He is an expert on this matter, and has stated his point.
You are free not to respond if you wish, but if you do wish to, you should
do so by reasoned arguments and not by rubbishing the whole method of
literary criticism, as you do when you write '"storytelling" of this kind
(marked by irritation in the reply) has not been shown to relate to anything
in the text or context?' Surely literary criticism relates to all
literature, and "storytelling" insights to all narratives? Well, this sounds
a bit like laying down the law, and I don't want to do that. This paragraph
is my recommendation to you. If the moderators have other feelings on this,
I will be glad to hear them.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GregStffrd AT aol.com [mailto:GregStffrd AT aol.com]
> Sent: 24 May 2001 06:22
> To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Cc: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
> Subject: Re: Exodus 3:14 -- Request for Moderator Action
>
<snip>
>
> 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."
>
<snip>


> 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
>