I am not a scholar, and I have not understood anything in the argument about
Rolf's dissertation or whatever the discussion has been about. I am just
curious about how scholars debate normally. Is the debate that you've been
doing on B-Hebrew the normal way that scholars discuss controversial
subjects or is this somehow different? Also, when someone has a
controversial opinion like Rolf, don't scholars analyze the ideas right away
because it sounds like his ideas have been around for a while and no one has
analyzed them. Maybe I did not understand the discussion, but it sounds like
this to me.
Kenneth Greifer
USA
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.