Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On 3/31/07, K Randolph wrote:
> 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

Hello Karl,

I can only respond now to your earlier post.  No sarcasm was intended.  If you
saw any, you misunderstood the post, which was simple: ask a few pertinent
questions about your position.  I find it ridiculous that so many days ago you
wrote a plea to the moderators asking not to enforce what you call
"censorship" based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote, and now you
appear to call for censorship yourself.  I don't mind if you limit
your discussion
to language, although we know from previous discussions that even linguistic
discussions with you end up very quickly invoking your own personal beliefs.
But I see no reason and even find the suggestion very insulting, that I should
limit my discussions to language itself.  You don't start messages with
"According to fundamentalist biblical inerrant beliefs ..." and I
should not have
to start messages with "According to scholarly consensus" or whatever.  In
general, everything I write, I try to represent the position of scholarship 
as I
understand it, and practically always preface my own personal positions
appropriately.  Right now, every time that someone brings up a position
that is not in the views of some list members consistent with Biblical
inerrancy, a discussion starts on the validity of scholarship relating to
biblical historicity or the documentary hypothesis or the rejection of Mosaic
authorship, etc.  This phenomenon borders on proselytism.  More significantly,
however, it means that advanced discussions from a scholarly point of view
almost never take place on this list, except on limited issues of language,
because discussions always stop in the basics due to list members
contesting the methodology of critical scholarship itself, and due to the fact
that as a result, very few scholars who deal in a wide array of subjects post
regularly on this list.  Just like I don't contest the fundamentals of 
Christian
beliefs as that would be proselytism, there should be no reason that the
fundamentals of scholarship should be contested constantly.  There is no
reason that it should be so, and your call to limit discussions to language as
sort of a compromise is insulting.

Yitzhak Sapir