Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

James,

there has been absolutely no doubt throughout this discussion what the
standardised (sometimes synonym for fossilised) position is. This whole
discussion started because of conclusions some (remaining nameless) who rest
their logic pattern on the foundation of standardised information. And so
the question is 'is that foundation stable'? Some people are not impressed
by statements like 'everybody agrees' and 'that's what the standardised view
is'. Furthermore, some people view the insistence to accept such a
foundation without evidence as paramount to arrogance and lacking in logic.
Statements like 'all experts say...' is not only demonstrably untrue (the
literature of any field is always rife with diverse viewpoints) but lacks
any kind of logical substance of relevance to a discussion of this sort. The
only people that are swayed by such statements are the student types versus
the objective researcher types. And yes I have no doubt that the first
category is greater but no I am not involved in a popularity contest and no
I am not trying to gain proselytes because no I don't even have an organised
religion which I could convert them to.

What I am interested in is discussion. Free, open discussion where we can
consider together the data and come (by painful course of various
disagreements) to an eventual common understanding or reach a better
understanding in the process. Referring people to papers that lack
foundation is not good discussion technique. It is good request for
literature technique. If a person is unable to provide a summary and
interpretation of the primary data it shows one of two things:

a) they have not understood the foundation they rely on to a point where
they can defend it against critique in public
b) they just can't be bothered

Neither of these is good discussion technique. People have been discussing
things in public forums since the days of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and
beyond. If ever Aristotle appeared in the public arena and announced to his
fellow philosophers 'I am right because Socrates says so' he would have
unanimously been laughed of the stage by his philosophical peers but have
been welcomed in open arms by followers of the school of Socrates. And so
James Spinti the question I ask you is this:

In this public arena which kind of philosopher would you like to best
resemble? Would you like to be the Aristotle who says 'I am right because
Socrates says so' and be laughed off the stage by your peers who do not
accept Socrates to be an authority? Or would you rather be the Aristotle who
says here is my line of logic, show me where it is wrong with acceptable
sequences of logic without appealing to people you consider to be an
authority?

Are you more concerned with some kind of internet popularity contest? Or are
you more concerned with digging and digging until you find out the truth?
Are you more concerned with being considered in line with mainstream (if you
can't beat em join em)? Or are you more concerned with objectively putting
every assumption to the test to see if it will stand after being burned with
the hottest of fires?

I promise you this James. If you studied the assumptions you rely on to the
point where you could present and defend them in a public forum of this
calibre without having to make recourse to arguments like 'this must be true
because the experts say so' then your understanding would only be better for
it and you would see that making the effort to participate in the discussion
would not have been a waste of time and maybe, just maybe, in the process
you could show me where I am wrong and my understanding would be the better
for it.

A good measure for how convinced a person is of holding a truth which he can
share is the amount of effort he will put into defending it. The apostles
were willing to die for their faith. How strongly do you treasure yours?

James Christian

2010/1/25 James Spinti <JSpinti AT eisenbrauns.com>

> You know, that is an uncalled for ad hominem. The tone you are taking
> unfortunately sounds like you know it all and everybody else doesn't
> have a clue.
>
> The weight of evidence in published works heavily leans towards
> Randall's statements; the last 150 years of work on the Semitic
> languages backs him up. The only places you find people disagreeing with
> the weight of evidence is on e-lists such as this one. Usually the
> people disagreeing have not done extensive study in linguistics, but
> have a predetermined understanding and are seeking to get proselytes.
>
> For those who haven't studied Hebrew or linguistics formally, please be
> aware that Randall's views are the generally accepted ones by those who
> have devoted many years of their lives to the study of ancient
> languages.
>
> If the moderators would care to weigh in here, it would probably be
> beneficial to the many on this list who are confused at this point.
>
> James
>
> ________________________________
> James Spinti
> Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
> Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 30 years
> Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
> jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
> Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
> Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
> Fax: 574-269-6788
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of James Christian
> Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:28 AM
> To: Randall Buth
> Cc: Hebrew
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Reflection on Randall's Statement
>
> For the benefit of the layman who may read this and think Randall
> actually
> knows what he's talking about I would present this question to Randall
> so
> that the layman can see how and if he can even answer it:
>
> Akkadian being a dead language on what transliteration evidence are you
> basing your 'knowledge' of Akkadian pronunciation?
>
> James Christian
> <snip>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>