Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

Dear Prof. Lemche,

I hope I have not been seen as trying to attack anyone's personal 
beliefs, and certainly not as trying to change them. If I have been 
seen as doing so, I apologise.

But surely it is a personal belief, whether religious or 
anti-religious, of many (including, if I understood you correctly, 
yourself) that God (even if he exists) does not intervene in human 
history or give to humans knowledge of future events - just as much as 
it is a personal religious belief of mine that God can do so and has 
done so. Now you are entitled to your personal beliefs and I am not 
trying to change them. On the other hand, I have read your postings as 
saying that those who hold the beliefs which I hold, and who use them 
in their essays, are necessarily unscholarly, and that you would fail 
their work. That can easily be understood as an attack on my personal 
beliefs. Now you may be within your rights in saying that in your 
scholarly world (as perhaps on this list) people should refrain from 
expressing their personal beliefs, though that has to cut equally both 
ways. But you go further than that in that you expect others to 
actively hold to your own personal beliefs, or at least to pretend to 
do so and express that in their essays, so that they can graduate. 
That is to me especially offensive in that intending ministers of the 
Danish church are required to accept or to pretend to accept beliefs 
contrary to the historic faith of that church in order to graduate 
from your university and be ordained.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: SV: The appropiateness of the discussion thread
Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    04/01/2000 14:27


Answer to Paul Zellmer,

a discussion about personal beliefs is out of bonds, as is an argument based 
on personal beliefs. I think that Ian H.'s position. Beliefs in scholarly 
ideas that can and should be changed according to evidence and general 
knowledge has nothing to do with personal beliefs. i aimed at a scholarly 
position that might chance, as I have over the last 30 years changed almost 
everything. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Just to insinuate 
this is to attack personal religious beliefs, and that is out of bonds. So 
if scholar X is the conviction that something is X1 and is attacking another 
scholar Y because of his beliefs that it is Y1, X is behaving according to 
protocol. If a conservative scholar--and I stress the word scholar, as I ask 
us to limit this to people who are au courant with the available evidence 
and are trained to interpret this--is maintaining something because of the 
person's religious convictions, this is offensible and should not be 
accepted, and when this person is attacked by other people because of the 
presuppositions that may be seen as a distortion of his analysis of the 
material, he can not defend his position by maintaining that it is his 
religious convictions that are under attack. If you on the other hand attack 
a scholar for having based his or hers ideas on a religious (or political 
for that matter) conviction, you have to prove your case or you are acting 
in an improper way. If we do not get these categories right, there will and 
can be no more conversation.

For Nashville in the fall of 2000 (SBL National Meeting) I and a 
conservative scholar try to set up a program unit discussing these matters: 
What is scholarship and appropriate for scholars to discuss and what is not. 
Charles and I may not agree on many things from a scholar's point of viewm 
but we agree on the so-called ROE, it is 'rules of engagement'.

NPL