Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Charles, I strongly object to this personal attack! I am happy to leave
the subject if that is the consensus of list members - though so far
only two members have called for a halt and a considerably larger number
have joined in the discussion. But I cannot accept this kind of baseless
slander.

I especially resent your statement that I do not know a bit of grammar.
I would ask you to read my postings to this list over the past five
years in which I have demonstrated a reasonable, and I hope increasing
though certainly not perfect, knowledge of Hebrew grammar. If I have
misunderstood the grammar of Genesis 1:1, I would appreciate your
insights on how to understand it better. But such a generalised attack
is simply offensive.

In attempting to practice exegesis rather than eisegesis, I have sought
to find the oldest understanding of the Hebrew text and so quoted a
source more than 2000 years old. Is that why you say I am 2000 years
behind the times? Are you saying you want me to look only at the
evidence of modern interpreters and at the grammatical understanding of
modern Hebrew speakers? Surely that is eisegesis, the reading into the
text of more than 2000 years of interpretation and language change.

I accept that I don't know exactly what BERESHIT means, because there is
not sufficient evidence to be certain. If you do, and have evidence for
it, please tell us. If not, please withdraw your allegation.

Charles, I expect a public apology (on the list) from you.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles David Isbell [mailto:cisbell AT cox.net]
> Sent: 25 March 2002 17:14
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: Is R)$YT even a "time" word?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian M. M. Brady" <cbrady AT tulane.edu>
> 
>  Mommy?! Where is the list mom? This really should stop now...
> ***********
> Dear Christian,
> 
> I cannot agree more.  In the past several weeks we have learned a lot.
> According to the postings of Ian and Peter about each other, we now
have
> been told that:
> 
> [a] Neither one knows what bereshit means, although the accent on the
> final
> syllable of the word gives me a clue.
> [b] Neither one can read a text.
> [c] Neither knows a bit of grammar.
> [d] Both are 2000 years behind the times.
> [e] Both practice eisegesis rather than exegesis.
> <VBF>  <very big frown>
> 
> It should be clear by now that the issue between Peter and Ian cannot
be
> settled by appeals to grammar or syntax alone.  Since many of us
probably
> read this verse with our classes, can anyone imagine taking students
> through
> the exchanges we have seen here?  Why not leave it now, please!
> 
> If the text said BaRiShoNaH, dayyenu;
> If the text said Be-ReShiT Bero' [see Gen 5.1], dayyenu;
> If the LXX had an article, dayyenu;
> 
> I am certain that when the God who brought us out of Egypt first wrote
> this
> verse, it did not reflect this terrible grammatical muddle.  Something
has
> obviously been inserted by the Devil to keep us from reading the rest
of
> the
> Bible.
> 
> DAYYENU,
> Charles
>