Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bill Rea <bsr15 AT cantsl.it.canterbury.ac.nz>]

Peter wrote:-

>I accept that scholars will only accept a new theory if it has been
>scrutinised by fellow scholars. That does not imply that all theories
>which have not been so scrutinised and accepted are untrue. There are
>other famous examples of theories, such as Wegener's continental drift,
>which have been rejected as crank ideas for decades before becoming
>accepted as scientific truth.

To me this just shows science working as it should. The problem with
continental drift was much the same as it is with the many theories
various list members have proposed about the workings of
the Hebrew verbal system, the evidence was insufficient to warrant
accepting it. As evidence grew the theory became compelling. One
always hopes one of the theories put forward on this list will
become the basis of a new consensus. The old consensus, if that's
the right term, seems to have fallen apart. I learned about
waw-consecutives with Weingreen when I started. Few would defend that
understanding today.

We're dabbling the the philosophers' pond now. How do we know something
is true? I'll leave that to the philosophers.


Bill Rea, IT Services, University of Canterbury \_
E-Mail bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz               </   New
Phone 64-3-364-2331, Fax  64-3-364-2332       /)  Zealand
Unix Systems Administrator                   (/'