[XTalk] Re: HMt and the scientific method
- Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
Dear Jeffrey,Bias? I was simply setting the record straight with respect to your claim about WHAT I had said to you off list.
I think this post of yours commenting about what I wrote betrays a certain
bias on your part.
On Thu, 30 Dec 1999, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> What I said was (a) that I (and others) were distressed by his
> retrogression in his posts to Jack Kilmon to a style of engagement
> that I thought he had abandoned, namely, personal aspersion and
> assertion without argument in place of reasoned response
You claimed, did you not?, (and I quote) that
Apparently, as I've been informed privately by the moderator [my emphasis], there are quite a few on Crosstalk who would not like me to say things that I'm saying now. They like the current dogma to remain what it is -- life is easier this way.All I did was to note that, contrary to your claim, I never said any such thing and that what I did say was quite different from what you claimed I said. So the real issue is not whether my remark quoted above that you argue by assertion is true or shows a bias, but whether what I claimed I said to you in the private post to which your onlist post refers, namely, was or was not what I had privately "informed you of".
So, Yuri. Three questions: Did you or did you not make the claim on list what I have quoted above from your onlist message, namely, that you were informed by me that I told you that there are quite a few on Crosstalk who would not like me to say things that you had been saying with respect to HMt?
Is it true that I actually said any such thing? Quote me, please, any part of my recent correspondence with you that shows that I actually said what you represented me as having said. Where and when did I (as you claim) say that " there are quite a few on Crosstalk who would not like me to say things that I'm saying now. They like the current dogma to remain what it is."?
Isn't it true that what I actually said in my correspondence with you -- the very correspondence you referred in your onlist claim about what I had privately informed you of -- was what I claimed to have said? In other words, when I wrote the message you referred to as the private communication, isn't it true that what I said was that I (and others) were distressed by what I claimed (rightly or wrongly) was your retrogression in his posts to Jack Kilmon to a style of engagement that I thought he had abandoned, namely, personal aspersion and assertion without argument in place of reasoned response?
I claim that you misrepresented me wholly. This is not bias. It is a matter of fact. Did you or did you not misrepresent what I said to you in the private correspondence to which you referred?
To help you answer this, I have enclosed below the full text of our correspondence on HMt up to the point where you made your on list claim regarding what I had communicated to you.
And I'm **still** awaiting the answer to my question regarding the nature and extent of your training as an historian.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- Esteemed Crosstalkers,
I refuse to communicate with Jeffrey B. Gibson any further until such time
as when I receive his apology for publishing my private email without my
permission. Prof. Gibson has been on the Net long enough to know that such
an act constitutes a severe breach of Netiquette. I feel we have to
maintain some sort of ethical standards on this list. It seems like
because of monstrous and ritualistic lying by the likes of Clinton and
Jamie Shea we're seeing a substantial deterioration of ethical standards
in our society.
Also, I certainly refuse to accept that I misrepresented what Prof. Gibson
said in his email. This was simply my interpretation of what he said. He
has his interpretation of my comments, and I have my interpretation of
his. Really. Such petty accusations are not worth commenting about. One
would think we're still in high school.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
You never need think you can turn over any old falsehoods without a
terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under
it -=O=- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Doubts have been expressed by Jack and others as to what extent Hebrew was
used in Israel in the 1 c. These doubts seem to be misplaced. Hebrew was
certainly both spoken and written in Israel in the 1 c. Much religious
literature was written at that time in Hebrew. Here's some info from the
Palestinian literature [Hellenistic period]
During this period literature was composed in Palestine in Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek, with the exact language still a subject of
dispute among scholars in many cases and with the works often
apparently composed by more than one author over a considerable
period of time. Most of the works composed in Hebrew, many of them
existing only in Greek--Ecclesiasticus, I Maccabees, Judith,
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Baruch, Psalms of Solomon,
Prayer of Manasseh--and many of the Dead Sea Scrolls are generally
conscious imitations of biblical books, often reflecting the
dramatic events of the Maccabean struggle and often with an
apocalyptic tinge (involving the dramatic intervention of God in
[Book of] Enoch (perhaps originally written in Hebrew)
_Jubilees, Book of_ also called THE LITTLE GENESIS, pseudepigraphal
work (not included in any canon of scripture)...
Jubilees is preserved in its entirety only in an Ethiopic
translation, which was derived from a Greek translation made from
the Hebrew. Fragments of the Greek and Hebrew texts are also extant.
... Book of Jubilees (now known to have been
composed in Hebrew, as seen by its appearance among the Dead Sea
Scrolls), and Biblical Antiquities, falsely attributed to Philo
(originally written in Hebrew, then translated into Greek, but now
extant only in Latin) ...
And here's some more very strong support for the currency of Hebrew in 1
The sacred language: Hebrew and the vernacular tongues
The transformation of Hebrew into a sacred language is, of course,
bound up with the political fate of the people. In the period
following the return from the Babylonian Exile, Aramaic, a
cognate of Hebrew, functioned as the international or imperial
language in official life and certainly gained a foothold as a
vernacular. It did not, despite claims made by some scholars,
displace the everyday Hebrew of the people. The language of the
Mishna, far from being a scholar's dialect, seems to reflect--in the
same way as the Koine (common) Greek of the New Testament--popular
speech. Displacement of Hebrew--both in its literary form in
Scriptures and in its popular usage--did take place in the
Diaspora, however, as evidenced by the need to translate
Scriptures into Greek in some communities and into Aramaic in
All this indicates very clearly that there can be no serious objections to
HMt being at home in Israel in the 1 c. or later.
As far as the inscriptional evidence is concerned, as Joseph A. Fitzmyer
notes in his "The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.", often
it is impossible to say in which language the funeral inscription is made,
"There are, of course, ossuaries with Semitic names that could have been
inscribed by Hebrew-speaking Jews as well as by Aramaic-speaking Jews. The
use of ben instead of bar in the patronymics is not sure indication of a
Hebrew proper name, even though it is often used to distinguish Hebrew
from Aramaic inscriptions on the ossuaries." (1997 reprint, p. 44)
Fitzmyer, himself, is certainly persuaded of the use of Hebrew in this
"That Hebrew was being used in first-century Palestine is beyond doubt, as
we have been saying..." (ibid, p. 45)
Also, we have numerous Patristic sources indicating the existence of a
Hebrew Mt in the early centuries of Christianity. Were all those Fathers
of the Church imagining all those things? After all, they consistently
report contacts with Jewish Christian groups of all sorts, all having some
sorts of Hebrew gospels of Mt, most likely different versions and
It would certainly appear as rather presumptious for any historian to
dismiss all that evidence out of hand.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The world is made up, for the most part, of fools or knaves, both
irreconcilable foes to truth; the first being slaves to a blind credulity,
which we may properly call bigotry, the last too jealous of that power
they have usurped over the folly and ignorance of the others -- which the
establishment of the empire of reason would destroy -- George Villiers