Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Harold Holmyard wrote:
>   
> > Dear Bryan,
> >
> > I gather from Yitzhak that you wrote the following.
> >     
> > > (3) Issues of Biblical history.  Anyone who brings up a claim that
> > >       
>
> I wrote the above.  The only parts I did not write are three lines of
> a direct quote from Bryan's at the beginning, and additional quotes
> from posts by Bryan, Kirk, and list charters which were placed in
> quotation marks.  Why did you think Bryan wrote it?
>   

HH: I don't know. My mistake. Apologies to Bryan.  I took the second 
paragraph as also Bryan's, and so the rest seemed likely to be his. I 
was uncertain. You wrote in the second paragraph:

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.



HH: I guess you wrote this, but I was taking it as Bryan. Of course, it 
is a distortion of Bryan's comment if it is not his. He was saying just 
the opposite, and your view of how scholars will think is idiosyncratic. 
You should not attribute it to all scholars.

> Harold, regarding what you wrote to Bryan but evidently meant to me,
> I think you are misrepresenting the positions of most scholars.

HH: I did not speak for "most scholars," so I don't know how I could 
misrepresent their position.

>   Nor is
> this the issue.  The issue is that if a scholar came on the list and
> suggested some literary source criticism analysis, he would have to
> respond and defend source criticism of the Pentateuch (or perhaps
> other Biblical books) itself rather than getting constructive criticism
> about his suggestion.

HH: He might. It depends what he said. And perhaps it would be 
constructive criticism.


>   You or wikipedia may attempt to suggest that
> a huge body of scholarship accepts a conservative view of the
> Pentateuch.  This is not accurate, however.

HH: Yes, it is. There are thousands of them, I believe.

>   What you or wikipedia
> cannot change, however, is that most scholars, who in fact do not
> accept a conservative view of the Pentateuch, would not find the
> list hospitable for discussions of literary analysis. 

HH: If what people say makes sense, there will be a ready audience.

>  As a result, you
> would probably not hear their voices on this list.  Perhaps that is ok
> with you, but for me it is unfortunate.
>   

HH: I don't know how to respond to this.
> The same can be said for your comments regarding the Patriarchal
> Narratives. 


HH: What about my comments on the patriarchal narratives?


>  Since I mentioned Miqra, here is how the moderator
> of Miqra prefaced a thread on a very similar issue:
> http://216.12.134.77/forums/post/48.aspx
>   

HH: That proves only that a bunch of people at Mikra hold to a later 
date for the patriarchal narratives than Jim Stinehart does. The world 
is a bit bigger than Mikra. And Stinehart does not even seem to have a 
traditional dating himself, putting Genesis 34 in the 14th century.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard

>