Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 22/03/2007 04:08, B. M. Rocine wrote:
> ...
>
> I hate to think that b-hebrew would be a place where the members will 
> make a Ph.D. defend his dissertation in detail.  Quite simply, we will 
> attract very few scholars to the list if they must.  Any scholars the 
> list does attract will only lurk if the membership will treat the forum 
> like a fox hunt. 
>   

I take your point, but...
> To those who say a scholar becomes "open game" as soon as he publishes, 
> so he needs to take the heat or get out of the kitchen: I say, true, but 
> the academic will choose his kitchen, and it won't likely be the 
> b-hebrew e-mail forum.  A scholar doesn't need b-hebrew to make his 
> point or his reputation.  On the other hand, without the real scholars, 
> the quality of the list decreases for everyone.
>
>   
If a particular scholar, if by that you mean anyone with a PhD in 
Hebrew, chooses to use this list as a forum to promote their own 
opinions, they should expect to be questioned about those opinions. If 
they want to be questioned sparingly, surely they should promote their 
views sparingly. I don't see why possession of a PhD entitles someone to 
protection from discussion on this list. Maybe if they were really a 
well known scholar, published in a recognised (not more or less 
self-published) book, they would deserve some extra respect. But, if 
they chose to promote their theories on this list, they should still 
expect hard questioning.

The problem I see is when someone uses this list to promote their own 
views among those who are not scholars, presenting them as if they are 
the generally accepted scholarly position which "No one would deny" - 
and especially when those views seem to correspond with the views of a 
particular faith group with which that person is associated. (Thank you, 
Marjorie, for clarifying this.) Kirk reiterated the guidelines that 
"Debate that forces particular faith or doctrinal perspectives onto a 
reading of the text is not appropriate subject matter for this forum" 
and "each of us will share our own understanding from our own 
perspective, but this should not be done with the goal of changing other 
participants." It seems to me that certain people have been treading on 
the very brink of breaking these guidelines, and indeed have only been 
judged as not doing so because we have until today not been aware of the 
substance of a particular doctrinal perspective. It is to avert the 
danger of other participants being changed by dubious scholarship based 
on a doctrinal perspective that some of us have been careful to refute 
any weak parts of others' arguments. Perhaps in doing so we too are 
treading on the brink of the guidelines. But I think the moderators do 
need to make sure that controversial theories are put forward in a 
balanced manner, not from an undeclared doctrinal perspective, and not 
misrepresented as the scholarly consensus.

...
> Yes, I have had long discussions with Rolf over the years, but I think 
> we carried on in a friendly manner, and I tried to keep our exchanges 
> limited to two or three on a topic.  I personally don't want to force a 
> Ph.D. Hebraist into writing, "I don't want to continue this discussion 
> any more."  That embarrasses him because it seems like a dodge to a 
> membership of about 900 people.  Why would any of us want to do that to 
> someone?  Do we suppose the professional scholar's grapes are sour?
>
>   
Well, it should be clear to you why I am not concerned about 
embarrassing Rolf. But it is a dodge. I don't expect him to answer every 
point, but several times I have identified fundamental flaws in his 
arguments and he responds by ignoring me. Am I expected to back down and 
allow other list members to be led astray by his non sequiturs?

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/