Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: bill.rea AT canterbury.ac.nz
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:31:52 +0100

On 25/03/2007 23:42, Bill Rea wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:-

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.

Perhaps you don't understand what's involved in getting a Ph.D.,
although I suspect from past postings you do. Let me outline the
process which applies here.

It is indeed a great achievement to complete a PhD and I repeat my congratulations to Rolf for achieving this. I hope I have given to Rolf the personal respect due to him.

However, it is undoubtedly true that a significant number of scholars have been awarded PhDs for work which has later been shown to be seriously flawed. This implies that no PhD thesis, or person, should be accepted as an infallible authority, rather all such work needs careful assessment by others. And this is what some of us have been giving to Rolf's work. David, Yitzhak and I have identified several significant deficiencies in the work. I consider that we have not only a right but a duty to bring these deficiencies to public notice. Of course in doing so we allow Rolf to reply and, if he can, to argue that his detractors have misunderstood him. He is not obliged to do so. But if, as his approach often is, he simply restates his points without interacting properly with the criticisms, he is in danger of being discredited.

... Thus its not unreasonable to find ``many'' scholars who
do not accept the documentary hypothesis and for them to be
outside the consensus view. A consensus view is simply a
majority opinion.

OK, but in this case no one should claim that their personal view is the consensus unless there really is a majority, and in my understanding it needs to be a large majority. This applies not only to the documentary hypothesis (on which I would hold that there is no consensus) but also to Rolf's view of the Hebrew verbal system, which certainly cannot be described as the consensus.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page