Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, K Randolph wrote:

> The dictionary meaning you referenced does not bring out one important
> aspect of “consensus”, is that all members of whatever group agree to be
> represented by a certain statement, teaching, pronouncement, etc. The moment
> one member of that group objects, he has broken that consensus. There never
> was a consensus among scholars that there were native speakers of Hebrew
> into the second century AD. There is just a majority, possibly only among a
> certain subset of which you are a member.

Karl,

Are we going to have a discussion about 'consensus' now?  Now we find you
have you limit your definition of 'consensus' from the definition in a major
dictionary.  (See also their rather interesting usage note that deals with the
difference between our two definitions).  How can we agree to disagree
when you have cornered yourself into such a ridiculous position?  Next we'll
find out you have your own definition of 'agreement'.  Trust me, when a
scholar discusses the consensus of scholarship, he doesn't have to write to
every scholar to ensure that he agrees to be represented by the statement.
He simply has to have his own honest objective assessment of the current
positions in scholarship.  When someone speaks of consensus in
scholarship, they don't mean that there are no divergent viewpoints or that
every scholar would represent himself by that statement.  Just that these
viewpoints have not been successful in undermining the hold of the
consensus.  You may be a native speaker, but I've probably read much more
scholarship than you have, and I think I have a better idea of what scholars
means when they discuss the consensus in scholarship.

Karl, between the two of us, you're not the better authority on
English, Biblical
Hebrew or logical fallacies.  But you take the position that you are
as if being a
native speaker means you are the better authority on English (even as
you agreed
that my English is better than the English of many uneducated native 
speakers),
as if reading the Bible in an unpointed text over and over without any
additional tools
-- essentially in a personally improvised divergent manner -- makes you 
somehow
better at understanding what this text meant, and as if being able to
name logical
fallacies means you know when that logical fallacy is in use.  This
attitude is not
just fallacious itself, it is condescending.  I'm saying this not as a
moderator, but
as a co-contributor to whom you've been very condescending.  Please drop this
attitude.

Yitzhak Sapir