Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On 3/22/07, Bryan M. Rocine wrote:

> You picked up my main point, right?  I simply advocate the kind of
> restraint that would make b-hebrew hospitable to more professional,
> credentialed Hebrew scholars.

I chose to quote this mail because it is shorter :)

Before I go on, let me point out that a scholarly/academic list for
discussion of the Hebrew Bible does exist:
Miqra, at http://216.12.134.77/forums/6/ShowForum.aspx
I have generally had technical problems receiving mail from Miqra
but perhaps the recent issue with yahoo/gmail incompatibility also
shows the way to resolving those problems.

I believe that the expectation and wish that b-hebrew would be more
hospitable to more professional, credentialed Hebrew scholars is an
ideal that can't be realized within the current framework of b-hebrew.
I believe that to be hospitable as such, b-hebrew must become a
moderated list, and its character must also change.  This is not
necessarily what should be done and I am not saying this is what
should be done.  As I said, there is an alternative for scholars.  But
if one wants scholars to feel hospitable, some basic problems have
to be answered.  Let me explain.

I will begin by quoting a mail you sent a long time ago, as a moderator:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew/2005-July/024366.html
" ... b-hebrew is *not* a scholarly list.  We are pleased to have many
scholars on the list and to hear from these experts.  We are also
pleased to have lay people and clergy (who are not professional
academics) on the list and to hear their perspectives as well.  While
they may not be experts, they have free access to contribute to the
board.  No one viewpoint owns the list, including the "scholarly
consensus," whatever that is.  Even scholars must understand, when
they join such a list, that they enter without a uniform, so to speak.
In other words, each member is free to value another member's
professional/academic credentials as he desires. ..."

In short, in order for the list to be hospitable to scholars, the scholarly
consensus must "own the list."  Otherwise, all kinds of issues will
be cause for a scholar to choose not to join, not to stay, or at most
lurk and not be active in discussions.

(1) Issues of fact.  The scholar who joins the list finds out very quickly
that he can't quote or refer to simple facts.  He will be contested on
these facts by laymen.  For example, a certain inscription in Safaitic
language and script has been used on this list to support the claim
that in the 2nd millenium BCE, we have an attested use of Biblical
Hebrew using -w as a mater lectionis for the third person suffixed
pronoun.  A scholar who finds he has to debate such facts instead
of making use of what he knows is really attested and at which
periods of time, will be discouraged from maintaining active presence
on the list.

(2) Issues of oddball theories.  Various members on this list have
proposed in the past (in one case on another list, before finding out
about this list), theories that can only be considered oddball, are at
variance with the modern scholarship on the issue, and yet the
proponents of this theory have not attempted to read scholarship
on the issue.  This includes theories such as that Hebrew had
originally only CV-only syllables or where the structure of Hebrew
words is proposed to be composed of infixed pronouns based on
the modern Israeli pronunciation of these words.  Now, these
theories are at odds with a huge body of evidence.  A scholar who
finds himself having to debate this once he raises a point contrary
to this "theory" will find himself discouraged from remaining in
active participation.

(3) Issues of Biblical history.  Anyone who brings up a claim that
raises the possibility that the Bible is errant will be target to a
discussion of whether the Bible is historically correct, whether
the Documentary Hypothesis is founded on solid foundations,
etc.  A scholar who has to debate the documentary hypothesis
which is generally accepted for a century now, or who has to
debate whether the Patriarchal Narratives are historical, now
discredited for decades, will find this list not a hospitable place
to discuss these issues.  The link provided in the mail you sent
back in 2005 quoted above says that the topics of the list include
"the history of the text and its study, the culture of the Ancient
Near East, the literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible, etc." and
in the recent message by Kirk, "a wide range of discussion
topics related to Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible".  But inevitably,
whenever the Documentary Hypothesis or modern views of
Biblical and ANE history are used as givens, various proponents
of conservative viewpoints that are at odds with these modern
views of literary analysis and Biblical and ANE history will
make their case.  No viewpoint owns the list, right?  Proselytizing
is not permitted, right?  But because these discussions inevitably
take place, the scholar who holds these viewpoints will find the
list inhospitable for anything but the most basic questions
regarding the Biblical Hebrew language.

(4) Issues where scholarship is misrepresented.  This relates to
some scholarship that relates to new theories challenging the
current consensus but which are proposed by those who do have
the necessary scholarly foundations on which to propose such
new theories (in contrast to issue #2).  But, this is still a problem
if the scholar does not get an accurate position of scholarship on
a certain issue.  A scholar who engages the list on a particular
topic of scholarship, and gets mostly the new theories but not
a good representation of the scholarly consensus will still find
it less profitable to engage the list in the future.  I am not saying
he doesn't want to know about the new theories, but he would
also want to know and be able to clearly identify from the
discussion what is the majority opinion and scholarly consensus.
If he cannot, the list would not be as useful for him in these
regards.

So what is left?  If a scholar can't discuss but the most basic
issues relating to the Hebrew language because issues of
modern Biblical and ANE history and literary analysis lead
to discussions bordering on proselytizing; if he finds himself
in discussions debating basic data and facts, so that he
cannot build on these facts; if he has to contend with oddball
theories that do not take into account the huge body of
evidence that is available; and if he does not get an accurate
representation of the position of scholarship -- why would the
list be hospitable to such a scholar?

The question of whether the list is hospitable to scholars is
not an issue of the behavior of the list members.  It is an
issue that the "scholarly consensus" does not own the list.
The character of the list would have to change drastically,
the list be constantly moderated, and some rules such as
the following taken from ANE-2 be enforced: "proselytizing,
claims of scriptural inerrancy, and statements advocating
the superiority of one religion over another are not permitted.
Virtually any sort of question is welcome on ANE-2 as long
as the question indicates thoughtfulness and demonstrates
that locally available resources have been exhausted. Non-
specific answers to specific questions are not welcome on-
list.  ... Scholarship depends upon the written and published
results of research. While short synopses of current
unpublished research are welcome and encouraged, ANE-2
is not the place to argue unsubstantiated ideas which your
fellow listmembers cannot follow up on in a library or from
otherwise available evidence. UFOology and modern occult
readings of the texts are not appropriate for discussion on
ANE-2. Other topics that are generally not appropriate for
discussion include personal visionary and revelatory
experiences and modern sectarian or political agendas.
While the discussion of eccentric ideas (even assuming such
a thing can be defined) is not forbidden, participants
expounding such ideas should recognize that the burden of
proof is their responsibility. Not all ideas are equal."

All these rules are enforced by moderation on ANE-2, and
at times, the moderators step in to the discussion and point
out where the burden of proof lies.  I am not saying all these
rules have to be put in place, that b-hebrew should become
a moderated forum, and that the character of this list has
to change drastically.  Following your message that I quoted
at the beginning of this mail, I came to a conclusion that
b-hebrew is not a place where scholars will feel hospitable
for the above reasons, and that this was a conscious choice
of the moderators.  All I am saying here is that you can't
expect scholars to feel hospitable in discussing their theories
actively on the list so long as all the above problems remain.

Given that, to my understanding, it is a conscious moderator
choice that this list have a different character from a scholarly
or academic list where scholars will feel more hospitable, what
remains is that non-scholars will find this list useful.  It is
therefore my aim on this list to provide dependable information
to questions raised by non-scholars.  I did not learn of the
modern scholarship on Tiberian vocalization, of the G-passive,
or of Rainey and other's description of the Hebrew verbal system
from this list.  I learned of it from personal reading after joining
this list.  It is unfortunate that this was so.  I hope that by
making clear which viewpoints are those of the modern
scholarship, the list would become more hospitable to
scholars as well.  But in view of all the above problems, I
seriously doubt it, and content myself with the fact that those
who are new to Biblical Hebrew will not be misinformed.  This
has generally been my position since that post of yours in
2005.

Yitzhak Sapir