Biblical Hebrew Forum

[davidfentonism AT aim.com]

 Dear Yitzhak,
 
 Somehow, you have taken my remarks as having an acerbic tone. Allow me to 
say it was not intended to be that nor expressed in that way. Ironically, I 
was interested in discussion and now it has seemed to have regressed to where 
I must clarify my original clarification just to get back to ground zero. So, 
here goes, Yitzhak. I used, "A philosophical theory of criticism (usually of 
literature or film) that seeks to expose deep-seated contradictions in a work 
by delving below its surface meaning" as my definition of deconstructionism. 
I was also quite specific about the single term I "appropriated" which was 
"choir." In hindsight, I did not appropriate it at all. I actually accepted 
your pejorative use of choir with honor and then explained the scriptural 
position on benefits exclusive to choir membership. I did not take offense at 
the offense.
 
 About what you have said here concerning the nature of b-hebrew, facts, 
historicity, inerrancy, oddball theories and so on, I defer to my original 
argument to you. I did take them all into consideration when I responded. The 
gulf in understanding now as then has to do with what I said prior: the very 
nature of questions, conceptions and misconceptions, agreements and 
disagreements, etc. from an unbelieving scholarly or lay community will be 
qualitatively different and unbridgeable to the nature of the questions, 
conceptions and misconceptions, agreements and disagreements, etc. of the 
believing community. Intellectual debate is NOT Midrash.
 
 Last, I did not accuse you specifically of "attack" (even though you did and 
have) but I was referring to the habit as evidenced now. This is an example 
of the qualitative nature of the debate between the choir and the skeptic 
scholars. The differences you say are not there have been there for millennia 
and are irreconcilable without the Tzerach or Ruach Elohiym as the only 
bridge between the otherwise unbridgeable gulf of which I spoke. I almost 
forgot. I do not have to rely on an abstract definition of Midrash (or 
PaRDeS) . I've seen it too many times to count and have read Midrashim. This 
is yet another example of Hebrew emunah (faith) and the Greco-Roman 
conception of faith as mental assent to something. All of this points to that 
unbridgeable gulf. I didn't make the gulf, I found it upon coming to faith. I 
ask you do not take my response as having any hostile intent. My replies are 
not to cause strife but increase our mutual understanding of our respective 
communities.
 
 Shalom,
 David Fenton
    ----------------------------
 Gal. 27-29: For as many as have had a tevilah into Moshiach have clothed 
yourselves with Moshiach. There is not Yehudi nor Yevani (Greek), there is 
not eved (servant) nor ben chorin (freedman), there is not zachar (male) nor 
nekevah (female), for you are all echad in Moshiach Yehoshua/Yeshua. And, if 
you belong to Moshiach (YESHAYAH 53:10), then you are of the ZERAH of Avraham 
Avinu, you are yoreshim (heirs) according to the havtachah (promise).   
 -----Original Message-----
 From: yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com
 
  David,

I don't know what "deconstructionist" means for you, but it apparently means
something different than what it means in scholarship.  So it would be best
if you did not employ it.  Similarly, the terms "maximalist" and "minimalist"
don't do much if you use them one way and I use them in a different way. I
don't understand why you think appropriating terms used in scholarship and
giving them your own totally different meanings advances discussion of
scholarship.  The same can be said for the "choir" analogy.

To understand the "choir" issue, you have to go back to my original message
where I explained why the nature of the b-hebrew list itself prevents many
scholars from maintaining active participation.  To explain this, I 
constructed
a hypothetical list which in my opinion would have been more conducive to a
discussion between both scholars and laymen on a wide variety of issues, not
just linguistic.  The issue of biblical historicity was only one of
the issues that
was dealt with.  Separate issues included such things as matters of fact, and
what I called oddball theories.  I am not saying attempts to question certain
facts or attempts to raise "oddball theories" wouldn't "have their day" during
discussion on such a hypothetical list, but that is all they would have.  
There
wouldn't be endless constant suggestions of infixed pronouns based on
Modern Hebrew pronunciation, phonological reconstructions that ignore a
wide array of evidence we do have for such reconstructions, claims of
attestations of Biblical Hebrew that don't exist, etc.  These are "oddball"
theories or issues of fact.  One person, who read my message as calling
for censorship of those claims on this list, likened it to a choir.  I in 
turn,
likened it to a discussion of a flat earth on an astronomy forum.  Claims of
biblical historicity is not what I likened to a flat earth claim, nor do I see
them as such.

The only evidence of "attack-mode" is messages like yours or those that
called what I said "battle tactics" etc. Your discussion of Midrash vs.
scholarship attempts to find differences where there is none.  Midrash is
actually the initial attempts for systematic study of the Bible, including
defining the methodology (the rules of midrash of R' Yishmael, for
example).  In fact, that is what midrash means.  Compare:
byt mdr$ - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=312398
dr$ - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=613968
mdr$ - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/cgi-bin/jpaoff.cgi?off=1267920
You can also compare the terms in Arabic for "school" or "teacher."

Yitzhak Sapir
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
   
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.