Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] MLK (LM: %DYM

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Read <J.Read-2 AT sms.ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] MLK (LM: %DYM
  • Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:30:33 +0100

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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page