On 13/11/2003 13:08, Karl Randolph wrote:What I just said is true? Then it’s not a wild guess.
>Peter:
>
>Didn’t you just libel me? Or is it just your opinion, which makes it not
libel?
> >
My defence is that I wrote what was true, or what you had just said was true.
>As for BDB, they were students of Gesenius, and Gesenius was a member of the
German rationalist school of the early 19th century. From what I have seen of
that philosophical school, particularly as it pertains to their treatment of the
Bible and ancient Israel, I don’t see how it is not anti-Semitic. However, this
is a “platonic” anti-Semitism that does not advocate violence. Is there anything
in this paragraph that is not accurate?
> >
The individual statements may be true, or maybe not. Actually probably not, as Gesenius died in 1842 and Brown, Driver and Briggs were still active in 1906. But the logic "A was B's student. B believed X. Therefore A believed X." is not valid. This is attaching guilt by association.
>As I wrote earlier, I do not have access to BDB’s dictionary, so I was
relying on previous posts to this list as a basis for my response. If previous
posts are accurate, and I have no reason to doubt them unless shown otherwise,
then how is my response inaccurate? It fits the philosophic pattern.
> >
Perhaps you should look at the book (which is widely available and inexpensive) before accusing it in generalised terms ("When a word is found in both Biblical Hebrew and another language, they seem to make the presupposition that the word is a loan word into Hebrew.") on the basis of reports of a small and unrepresentative sample of its contents. Anyway, which particular posts concerning which BDB entries led you to this conclusion? I don't recall anything on the list which could justify it.
--
Peter Kirk
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.