Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

Dear Peter Kirk,

I can only say that if you introduce elements to a discussion among scholars
that cannot be controlled, such as the acts of God or your belief in the
acts of God, you have decided not to be part of a scholarly discussion. It
is not an attack on your beliefs, not at all. An idea about history as the
one you say you entertain is in itself a topic for a scholarly discussion
that should not be tainted by prejudices, but it has to be evaluated as
such, i.e. as a personal belief. Any idea of introducing God as a factor in
a scholarly argument would, however, be deemed as extraneous to the
discussion and left out of consideration. Otherwise we should allow us to in
a serious way to discuss matters like magic or astronomy as ways of
understanding, say nature. We can discuss astrology and magic in a
descriptive way, we can even discuss sentiments that are attached to such
things--otherwise it would be impossible to deal with, say Babylonian
omen-literature. But we cannot as scholars allow ourselves the luxus to
consider it true. This belongs to another category. I will not attack people
who believes in such things because of their personal beliefs, that is their
sake, but when they intrude on the field--battlefield if you like--of a
scholarly debate, I will attack it as foreign, extraneous to the discussion.
In order to make God a co-player in such matters you have at first to prove
the existence of God, and that is from a scholarly point of view rather
difficult, although scores if not hundreds or thousands of theologians have
tried so.

NPL



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peter_kirk AT sil.org [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 05 January, 2000 02:10
> To:   Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:      Re: SV: The appropiateness of the discussion thread
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.