Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Yitzhak:

Let me add to what I said before.

On 3/30/07, Yitzhak Sapir < yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
>  On 3/29/07, K Randolph wrote:
>
> > But that should not be an issue, because people of all faiths
> > (including atheism) study Biblical Hebrew, and as long as we all limit
> > our discussion to the language itself, we should have no problem
> > interacting with and learning from each other.
>
> Hi Karl,
>
> Why should "we" limit "our" discussion to the language itself?  The stated
> list topics clearly include such subjects as history of the text, related ANE
> culture, and literary analysis.  Furthermore, does this "we" include you,
> because only a few weeks ago you asked if Zerach was a general under a
> Libyan Pharaoh.  How was that limiting the discussion to the language
> itself?  Or should "we" limit the discussion to the language itself, only when
> ideas of Biblical errancy begin to pop up, which "we" must not hear?
>
> Yitzhak Sapir

First of all, from looking at previous discussions we have had on this
list, I expect that I have more knowledge about the history and
ideology of the documentary hypothesis than you do. I have no problem
if someone says, "According to the documentary hypothesis ...." just
as I have no problem with Shoshanna telling us about her position even
though I am not an Orthodox Jew (after all, are there not many others
besides Christians (e.g. Karaites) who reject the authority of the
"Oral Torah"?).

But what we are getting from you is almost constant proselytism. Those
who disagree with you are treated almost as if they were knuckle
dragging troglodytes for not accepting the "scholarly consensus". But
there are different schools of scholarship: just because one school
predominates at institutes of higher learning, does that make it right
(referring to the ad populum argument, logical fallacy)?

Another complaint we have about you is your truculant attitude that
comes across. If you answered everyone as you answered Yohannan about
1 Samuel 1:24 (very well done I say), would anyone complain? Instead
we often find  personal attacks, often wrapped in logical fallacies.

On this list, I have tried to maintain a neutral attitude while
discussing issues. I have listed my beliefs "for the record" so as to
try to avoid misunderstanding. If I have slipped into proselytism
mode, it was inadvertent, Of course, I cannot help but be like Paul in
Acts 26:29, but on this list I have tried to hew to the rules of no
proselytism. One reason for not proselytizing is that I figure that
members on this list are well enough educated that they have already
heard the proselyter's spiel, so why waste the effort?

In closing, I find your posts mixed: some are very good and materially
improve the discussion on this list, while others are long and
rambling, usually better if they had never been posted. And I cannot
help but oppose efforts at proselytism, especially that to a faith
which I consider inferior. And if you are not sure about what
another's posts communicate, is it not better to ask for clarification
than to post a long diatribe against it while misrepresenting it
(straw man argument, logical fallacy), going to a related but
irrelevant issue (red herring argument, logical fallacy) or attacking
the person who made the proposal (ad hominem argument, logical
fallacy)?

Wishing the best for you,
Karl W. Randolph.