Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryant J. Williams III" <bjwvmw AT com-pair.net>]

Gentleman,

I think this topic has digressed beyond the list parameters. The moderators
will correct me if I am wrong. At this point, PLEASE just agree to disagree.

Thank You,

Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy
of Com-Pair Services!
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.23/740 - Release Date: 3/30/07
1:15 PM
>
>


For your security this Message has been checked for Viruses as a courtesy of 
Com-Pair Services!