Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

On Dec 26, 2007 2:42 PM, Edward Belaga wrote:

> (3) My worries relevant to the functioning of this forum are the
> one-dimensionality of the dominant, guiding vision provided by you
> and, especially, Yitzhak.

Because of this comment I felt I should respond.  It is only from
yesterday that you posted it, and it seems like ages.  I am not
the guiding vision for this forum.  My vision regarding this forum
has been posted in the past.  It is now also somewhat irrelevant
since I have directed my attention to managing a new forum -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canaanite
You can visit and join it if you like.  The "vision" for that forum
should become clear to you if you read the introduction and the
list guidelines.  There are different areas of scope between the
two forums, but it might make clear what my vision here would
have been like.  In short, there is a specific academic orientation
-- meaning, for example, that eccentric ideas won't dominate
discussions and would have to carry the burden of proof in any
case, but unlike other academic lists, -- HiphiList has been
mentioned here, an academic degree is not required and everyone
is encouraged to join and post.  So, in light of all that, I find the
idea that I form the vision for this forum a little surprising.  I think
also, in light of the recent posts on the subjects by other
members on the topic, that it appears quite clear that my view
is more of a lone voice than a guiding vision.

In any case, I'm happy that you try to learn from me, and I hope
I can learn as much from you.  But you must recognize that I do
not limit myself to one particular area covered by modern
scientific study into language and literature.  I discuss everything
and always try to provide the modern scientific understanding of
the particular topic at hand, as well as my own views on the
issue.  I really don't see any reason to do otherwise.

This whole discussion hit off because Jim Stinehart remarked on
the fact that scholars don't accept his puns, and then some other
poster chose to make what I viewed as a rather offensive comment
that beyond being offensive, also suggested that Wellhausen's
theory was discredited.  I responded by discussing the position of
Wellhausen's theory in modern scholarship and how far if at all it
has been discredited.  I did so because I personally think that this
list shouldn't be purely linguistic but should allow other literary
topics as well, including substantive discussions relating to
Wellhausen's theory or a modern version of it.  But then, I'm not
the dominant or guiding vision for this forum.

Yitzhak Sapir