Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin Riley" <klriley AT alphalink.com.au>]

 The main problem facing researchers in many areas is the sheer volume of
data available.  Somewhere out there there are probably a few papers that,
while not having 'the' answer, do hold the key/s to solving this problem. 
The question is whether anyone will read the papers needed to find the
answer.  I once thought research would be filled mainly with exciting
discoveries - I now know that mostly you spend your time looking for
information and being disappointed becasue 90% of it doesn't answer the
question you are researching.  It is great when you find something that
really helps, especially if it is in an out-of-the-way place where you didn
t expect to find anything, but that doesn't happen every day.  Do we have
anyone today with the encyclopedic knowledge of Hebrew and related languages
that was once possible?  I suspect it is no longer possible to know even
most of what is available in the academic field of Semitic languages because
it is simply too broad.

Kevin Riley
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Bill Rea
Date: 08/24/05 12:07:22
 
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 \_