Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kdlitwak <kdlitwak AT concentric.net>]

   I am shocked and appalled at NPL's response to this post from
Jonathan.  I haven't been participating in the discussion of these
issues, but to assert that Peter Kirk's views are outside normal
scholarly approaches.  In my not so humble opinion, this is inexcusable
and unforgivable.

   When we were in the earlier thread on historiography, I really wanted
to see what Niels had to say about various issues, because when I first
encountered the minimalist positron, I felt that they at the very least,
even if I disagreed with them, deserved a fair hearing and should have
their arguments taken seriously.  In fact, I was for some time trying to
figure out how to reconcile their arguments with my views.

   The discussion here has changed all that.  What I got from those who
hold to a Persian or Hellenistic dating and setting of the Hebrew Bible
was
1.  Arrogant claims to be better scholars or real scholars as opposed to
others. Until there is a licensing program, there's no way to divide
between "real" scholar and a mere "student" of the text, and it is pure
arrogance to attempt to do otherwise.
2.  Inconsistency.  None of hem could give me a real, quantifiable
statement about the relationship of the earliest known MS of a text to
its autograph that was applicable and reasonable everywhere, but instead
merely made assertions that, in spite of their arguments, their views
were okay, even though most mainline scholarly groups I know, the
Int'l Org. for the Study of the LXX would laugh at what their views
regarding regarding the dates of he LXX, and classicists would laugh at
what their views required for the dating of classical literature.
3.  They nowhere provided a schema for evaluating all written texts,
including inscriptions, but did in effect special pleading for all
non-biblical texts.
4.  They provided no real method for how to approach a given region and
completely reconstruct its history without any written data at all and
when challenged, ran to non-biblical texts to reconstruct that history,
showing obvious, anti-scholarly prejudice with a capital P against
biblical texts.
5.  The posts I saw were full of personal attacks and mocking of views
they didn't agree with, rather than sustained argumentation based on
data.

    In fact, I can say, much to the chagrin of these individuals no
doubt, that they did such a good job of representing their view as
nothing but special pleading with no sustainable methodological rules
that their ad hominem attacks have increased m confidence in a very
early dating for the Pentateuch.  They never came up with ay arguments
that I view as at all convincing nor based on solid data.  All they did
was a) make major assertions based on the absence of data (arguments
from silence are illogical, as any freshman logic book would show) and
b) jump horses in mid-stream.  FOr example, I raised the subject of
historiography.  Niels made a statement about Hellenistic historiography
that is patently incorrect, and nay student of classical historiography
who has read more than one work in that regard (primary sources), or any
work in the field by a specialists in the filed (which van Seeters is
not!!!!!!!!!!!) would know better.  When I attempted to correct a
clearly false impression, then I was told that van Seeters studied
Herodotus and that held the answer to everything.  WHen I argued that
Herodotus alone did not represent al of Hellenistic historiography and
that no one had yet shown that Herodotus was relevant, I was personally
attacked for continuing Hellenistic historiography nonsense.  So when
the facts that anyone can read contradict your view, cry foul, attack
the person who corrected your false view, and go on your way as though
nothing had happened.

   I have never seen this kind of jivegeschichte go on anywhere else in
"real" scholarly literature outside representatives of the minimalist
school.  I've never heard this kind of argumentation at an SBL meeting,
I don't read this kind of argumentation in Novum Testamentum, JSNT,
JSOT, NTS, Vetus Testamentum, etc.  None of the other mailing lists I'm
on have this kind of illogical argumentation on them.  In my own area of
specialization, no one in Luke-Acts studies comes up with this kind of
stuff.  If we're going to compare and decide who is and who is not a
scholar, than no one here who has presented a minimalist view
constitutes a scholar by comparison to the NT specialists I deal with
most of the time.    I agree with Jonathan.  A real scholar
1. uses data
2.  Uses arguments, not name calling or labeling (see Bruce Malina on
labeling theory).
3.  Attempts to develop theories which account for all the data all the
time. When every ANE inscription which might run counter to the
minimalist position is obviously worthless or the like, the approach is
much like that attacked by Popper, viz., a real scientific theory is
falsifiable.  When you have an auxiliary hypothesis for each piece of
data that doesn't work for you, your view is non-falsifiable and
therefore not worthy of consideration.

So how about it?  Real scholarship doesn't require a Ph.D.  It does
require a certain approach.

Ken Litwak