Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Jason Hare" <parousia_occ AT yahoo.com>]

Interesting take... I have not been following this discussion, but will go 
back through the posts now.  I prefer linguistic studies (at 20 years-old, 
I know [at least in basic form] English, American Sign Language, Spanish, 
Greek, and Hebrew.  I plan to add as time goes on.).  But this does not 
rule out the fact that I must become more acquainted with other areas of 
study.  One of the Hebrew professors at my college regularly goes to Israel 
for excavation trips.  Perhaps I should join him and add another level to 
my scholarship (which INDEED needs additions!).

Great post, both of you!

jason hare
ozark christian college

On 02/24/00, ""Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>" wrote:
> Fair enough. Actually the need for a cross-disciplinary approach 
> applies to synchronic as well as diachronic linguistics; neither 
> should not be studied apart from the sociolinguistic environment. As 
> many have pointed out, "sociolinguistics" is not really linguistics at 
> all but is a branch of sociology. And of course sociology of an 
> ancient society can be approached only through archaeology, epigraphy 
> etc as you mention.
> 
> But this approach, if followed to its logical conclusion, tends to 
> make scholarship impossible. It is just not possible for every scholar 
> of the past to become an expert in all the fields which you mention. 
> While cross-disciplinary study is necessary, it is also close to 
> impossible. As I see it, the best way out of this impasse is for 
> scholars in one discipline to be allowed to present their case in 
> scholarly journals from one side (with explicit recognition that they 
> have not dealt with every side of the matter) and then engage in 
> constructive dialogue with experts in the other fields involved. I 
> hope that a forum like this list is a suitable place for such 
> constructive dialogue. But for this to happen, we have to resist the 
> temptation to write off as unscholarly those who have (consciously and 
> explicitly) approached a matter from one direction only.
> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re[3]: Diachronic study (was Purpose for discussion)
> Author:  <mc2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
> Date:    22/02/2000 17:03
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If we are dealing with synchronic linguistics, a linguist may present 
> linguistic only arguments. Yet, if we are dealing with diachronic 
> linguistics, we need a manner to anchor the information into a historical
> space. To deal with the various sources needed for a linguistic study one
> needs the historical component.
> 
> The necessity to deal with aspects of history in this day and age requires
> cross-discinplinary expertise: linguistic, iconographic, 
> epigraphic/philological, economic, archaeological, and whatever else is
> seen as relevant. We can no longer afford single disciplinary analyses of
> most matters from the past.
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> <snip>