Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>]

Hi Yitzhak,

thanks for bringing this question up. It gives me a chance to clarify  
my position. As human beings we like to put things in boxes and attach  
labels to them. e.g. scholarlship versus not-scholarship.

For me, to see that you are against of for one box is a dangerous  
statement to make as the person you are communicating with will bundle  
everything they bundle into that one box and assume you are either or  
against everything they happen to store in that mental box.

I would prefer to say that I am neither for nor against scholarship.  
What I am for is scientific study in the purest sense of the word. A  
scientist looks at past work in past papers but not accept received  
wisdom unquestioningly. He puts everything to the test to make sure  
that when he stands on the shoulders of giants that that giant is not,  
in actual fact, a proverbial cripple with no real foundation to  
support your work on.

The problem, as I see it, in many scientific fields is that while we  
can generally agree that we are all working with the same data a  
common phenomenon arises in just about every field. While the data  
permits multiple interpretations one or more interpretations gain  
credence and every subsequent analysis of new data is influenced by  
the assumption that old 'mainstream' interpretations are the 'correct'  
ones. This, obviously, leads to an unnacceptable and unscientific  
situation. The second you dogmatise the interpretation of data you  
prevent yourself from learning something new. It is no longer possible  
to pour water into your cup because your cup is already full.

My general philosophy of study, therefore, is this:

To constantly consider the data as a whole without relying on  
assumptions from received wisdom in the hope that I will not be  
prevented from seeing something I would otherwise miss.

This is why I frequently request that people refer to the primary  
sources (i.e. the data) when building a case for something. Just  
because "some scholar said so" does not make an interpretation  
automatically correct. And when I see people dogmatically quoting such  
and such a scholar without providing some kind of evidence that they  
have objectively considered the primary sources it doesn't build much  
confidence that this person has adequately performed the research  
required to be able to defend their interpretation.

In general, the second we think we know something then knowledge has  
truly eluded us.

Searching through my past posts I am sure that you will find many  
statements that would seem to make everything I have just said to be  
the words of a total hypocrite. Alas! I am not perfect and make no  
claims to be. And my sincere request to all list members is that  
whenever I show myself to be hypocritical and to have strayed from the  
scientific path of objective discovery that with a mild and loving  
spirit they admonish me and help me to get back on it.

James Christian

Quoting Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:02 PM, James Read wrote:
>
> > A part of good rhetoric is realising who your
> > audience is and targetting your argument at them. Karl and I have made
> > it clear what our views are on what you keep calling 'secular history'
> > and on just how much value we attribute to 'scholarly opinion'. May I
> > suggest that if you wish your argument to be taken seriously by either
> > of us that you at least make an effort to acknowledge the problems
> > associated with the sources you are relying on for what you keep
> > insisting on calling 'secular history'. Karl has already made it clear
> > to you that most of Egyptian history derives from a 3rd century priest
> > whose main goal was proving that Egypt had a longer history than
> > Greece. And I have linked to information about the problems with the
> > transmission of that history. If you cannot acknowledge these problems
> > and start treating the sources a little more scientifically it will be
> > difficult to take your arguments seriously.
>
> James,
>
> You can make all kinds of requests of Jim, but "treating the sources a
> little more scientifically" is not one of them.  Egyptology is not derived
> from a 3rd century priest, (no matter how many times Karl repeats it
> and "makes it clear").  Karl's position is actually even more extreme --
> "science cannot study the past."  The fact is that Jim at least
> acknowledges modern scholarship whereas Karl (I'm not sure about
> you) renounce it.  Jim still could be a little more scientific (in that he
> simply ignores that part of modern scholarship that is at odds with
> his position), but at least it's more scientific than renouncing the
> applicability of modern scholarship the way Karl does (and which you
> seem to follow at least as far as Egyptology is concerned).  Jim is
> treating the sources a little more scientifically than you do.  Not
> entirely, but a little more.
>
> Incidentally, a long while ago you brought up Redford's book on the
> list.  Do you remember Redford ever using Manetho for evidence?
>
> Yitzhak Sapir
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.