Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Yitzhak:

On 3/31/07, Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Karl,
>
> I can only respond now to your earlier post.  No sarcasm was intended.

Who didn't see sarcasm in that post? Let's quote it again:

"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?"

If you fail to see sarcasm in the above, why should I not question
your command of the English language?

> ...  If you
> saw any, you misunderstood the post, which was simple: ask a few pertinent
> questions about your position.

What does that have to do with your statement? That you should bring
my position up is another example of a red herring logical fallacy.

> ...  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.

This is a complete distortion of what I wrote, as such it is a straw
man logical fallacy.

> ...  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.

Do you mean to claim that you don't have a personal set of beliefs
that you work from? Everyone has a religion, just not everyone is
willing to admit that his set of beliefs constitutes a religion.

As for your linguistic discussions, do you mean those that contradict
historical claims?

> But I see no reason and even find the suggestion very insulting, that I should
> limit my discussions to language itself.

I didn't bring it up before, but I suspected that merely my presence
as a respondent on this list is a threat to your religion because I am
your superior in knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and in the history and
ideology of the methodology that you use, yet I don't follow your
beliefs. But now that you bring up that you are insulted ....

> ...  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.

Why should I? When I have limited myself to historical and linguistic,
not theological arguments? My theology follows the historical
statements, does not precede them as yours does.

When I have listed my personal beliefs, I have clearly denoted them as
personal beliefs, with no call on anyone that he should follow them.

There are historical statements within the text itself, and your
contradicting those statements has nothing to do with history or
linguistics, but everything to do with ideology, in other words
personal faith. That your personal faith happens to coincide with the
scholarly consensus ...

> ...  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.

You are more ignorant than I expected. Especially after I have
repeatedly pointed out that "scholarly consensus" is itself based on a
faith, a religion.

> ...  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.

Only when that position is given as a given, not as one option among many.

> ...  This phenomenon borders on proselytism.

When a position is given as a given, that is 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.

As I stated above, apparently you are more ignorant than I expected.
What you call "the fundamentals of scholarship" are a religion, and to
insist that they should be accepted uncritically is proselytism.

A quick, few sentence history of the theory starts with 1807 when the
first book espousing it that I know of was published, The early
authors were quite open that they based their beliefs on naturalism (a
religion, faith) and evolution (a faith, religion). Wellhausen and his
contemporaries refined that belief to the JEPD theory, still based on
the same faith. BDB, Bultmann, etc. and their students continue to
refine that faith, all based on the same basic principles. With this
as the published history, how can you remain so ignorant to the
religious claims of "scholarly consensus"?

> ...  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

Be insulted. As long as you insist on being so ignorant of logic,
history and faith that you push your faith by ignoring history and
using logical fallacies while insulting others on this list, is there
any hope for you? Are you not insulting yourself?

If you can't come up with anything better, should I bother to respond
to you again?

Karl W. Randolph.