Subject: Re: You must be kidding

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:07:13 -0500 (EST)

At 12:47 PM 4/23/97 +0000, you wrote:

>  Till a view has 
>been circulated in some accessible form, and till it has been 
>assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship.

Or, unless you can break through the lead ceiling of the academic club, you
might as well admit that your ideas are worthless, and certainly not worth
the time of the "established scholars'  (by the way- who "established" these
scholars?  I was of the opinion that since the Enlightenment Biblical
scholarship has done its best to break free of the fetters of dogma.  But
here we are preesented with a new dogma; i.e., you must have a position
before we will listen to you- and you cannot have a position unless we
listen to you first.)

>Nothing personal; it's just what we call scholarship instead of other 
>forms of communication, such as rumor, unsupported assertions, trial 
>balloons, whatever.

Please.  It is intentionally personal and quite intentionally demeaning.  It
is, in sum, "we have the power to present our views and you don't.
Therefore you are not worth the time of day".  Is anyone really convinced
that this is otherwise?
By the way, Luther had bloody well better be glad that he isn't alive today.
His 95 theses would have never made the news because they were not approved
by a journal of his peers before he nailed them on the Chapel door.  Lucky
Luther, he died before academics replaced ecclesiastics with the keys to the
kingdom of truth.

>  Is that any clearer to all those souls about 
>mean old scholars beating up on certain people?  No conspiracy.  Just 
>a demand for ordinary scholarly standards and procedures to be met.

Again, Barth is lucky that he didn't have to submit the first edition of
Romans to the Church officials before his friend could publish it (at an
obscure publishing house!!!).  Otherwise one of the most important movements
in modern theology would never have seen the light of day.
(and, again, this tone is quite demeaning).

On a personal note- it is this attitude of superiority and exclusivism which
has led me to leave my academic post and return to the pulpit.  There is
simply no use in arguing with the establishment- for it will not listen to
you unless you are a member of it; and you cannot be a member unless you are
listened to by it.  Talk about "conspiracy"!

>L. W. Hurtado

Jim

(with appropriate penance in advance for having upset, offended, offered any
politically incorrect statement, or otherwise disturbed the status quo (ante
bellum).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West
[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:22:09 +000

I patiently ask again that people read postings carefully before 
erupting into outrage: Thus, I wrote,

> politically incorrect statement, or otherwise disturbed the status quo (ante
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:39:36 +000

I request that people read postings carefully, and avoid reading 
*into* them their own fears or whatever.  Thus, in response to my 
simple statement of facts that scholarship does not grant recognition 
to views until they have established themselves through presentation 
> before we will listen to you- and you cannot have a position unless we
Pa-leese note!  I said nothing about being in any "position" (e.g., 
holding a formal academic appointment), just as I have said nothing 
about holding particular degrees.  Nor have I espoused any "dogma", 
certainly not the one West has falsely attributed to me.
I have called for all putting forth controversial views or 
revisionist views to provide support for them and to present the 
arguments sufficiently accessible and fully to promote scholarsly 
assessment of them.  That all.  Full stop.  

West also responds to my distinguishing of 
 
> Therefore you are not worth the time of day".  Is anyone really convinced
No intention to demean.  But it's simply a fact in any field that 
assertion = nothing without adequate evidence and argumentation.

West's invocation of Luther and Barth is so wide of the mark as to 
require no response.
 
> listened to by it.  Talk about "conspiracy"!

No, no, Mr. West.  The scholarly world insists precisely on 
*argument* and *evidence*, and is pretty rough on those who can't or 
won't provide this for their views.  But this is what makes the 
difference between scholarly views and  . . . but we've been through 
that.  Is it a conspiracy that courts of law will not enter as 
evidence unfounded testimony?  Please.  We're all fallen humans, of 
course, and not immune to peevishness and pettiness.  But it is 
unfair to portray as snobbishness the scholarly distinction between 
views that have been presented with proper evidence and argumentation 
and have won assent, from views that have not because they are (a) 
not presented before qualified scholars for their assessment, or (b) 
presented with inadequate supporting evidence or on the basis of 
unfounded premises, or (c) shown to be incorrect when they have been 
presented. 

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place

---

From: Hubert Bahr <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 08:26:04 -0700

Please Jim, This is a textual criticism list, not a academic 
injustice list. 

I personally hope that none of my questions ofended anyone 
on the list.  I am seeking to learn this field.  

Professor Hurtado, I realize my posts are not material for academic 
journals, I am not at that level yet.  I am hoping one day to be at that 
level, and those on this list have taught me much. Perhaps I should 
just be a silent lurker, but when I have a question, I have learned that
asking it is the best way to get an answer.  Thank you for your time.    

--Huey Bahr
home: [email-masked]
office: [email-masked]

---

From: ANDREW SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:44:47 -0400 (EDT)

> >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship.

****************************

Or 'til the farmers till their fields... (cf. 'til vs. till)

---

From: "Gregory J. Woodhouse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 06:48:03 -0700 (PDT)

I have a lot of sympathy with those that are concerned that detailed
arguments in the areas of textual criticism go through peer reviewed
journals. For one thing, I recognize that it is easy for people like me
without formal training in the field to *think* they know a lot more about
the subject than they actually do. This is something of a concern to me
because I recognize that I am very much a beginner in the field. (Indeed,
I did once consider studying it formally, but I took my degree in
mathematics and now work in the software industry.) Still, I am not
convinced that serious scholarly discussion is not feasible in an
electronic forum such as this. 

To take an example, I believe network engineering is as technically
demanding a field as textual criticism.  (Sure it's not that difficult to
learn to write basic programs using the socket API, or read a book and
learn how to configure BIND on a Unix system, but this is only a
beginning.) Nevertheless, the Internet Engineering Task force (IETF),
which is the body which specifies and standardizes the TCP/IP suite of
protocols, operates entirely through mailing lists and meetings held every
four months (plus less formal meeting held by individual working groups).
By charter, all meetings and working groups are open to anyone wishing to
participate. Does this mean that the TCP/IP protocol suite is an inferior
to other options like SPX/IPX or Banyan VINES? I think the easiest answer
to this question is that the Internet, by its sheer size, is the ultimate
stress test. The TCP/IP protocol suite has proven itself time and time
again (not that I mean to disparage any other product such as NetWare.
NetWare is a fine product.) My point should be obvious: At least in the
area of engineering, it is quite possible to produce work that meets a
high standard of quality through mailing lists and other public means.

---
[email-masked]    /    http://www.wnetc.com/home.html
If you're going to reinvent the wheel, at least try to come
up with a better one.

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:38:06 -0700

>> >assessed by scholarly peers, a view has no status in scholarship.

I was hoping to stay off this forum for a while till people decided
whether I belonged or not... but since we've descended into pedantry,
I guess it's time to make sure we get our pedantry right.

There is no word "'til." The correct contraction for "until," strange
as it may seem, is "till." Look it up!

(American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition, p. 1345, item till2.)

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

---

From: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:18:32 -0400 (EDT)

> Or 'til the farmers till their fields... (cf. 'til vs. till)

At first I thought we had a new textual variant here, but my unabridged
dictionary does say "'til" is ok, but only as an obsolete expression. 

Otherwise "till"  as equivalent to "until" is perfectly proper, and also
can be used for tilling fields as well.  As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice,
when a word does additional duty, we are bound to pay it extra. :-)

_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Professor of Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:00:54 -0500 (CDT)

Now lets see if I got this straight.  I pointed out that Aland's TEXT 
has one of his manuscripts backwards and he was a published scholar, so 
I am allowed to be a lurker on the TC list.  I read a TC paper at SBL so 
I am allowed to ask questions on the TC list.  If I ever get my book 
published, then I can post freely (providing of course I do not disagree 
with the established TC Creed).

Just kidding of course, but that is not far from the way prof Hurtado 
sounds.  To such folks, I say "cool your jets, I get enough flak from the 
KJVO movement and I don't need the same from TCers who should know better."  
Why don't we make a rule that unless one reads every publication from 
the Majority Text Society, he or she is not really a scholar.  Oooo, that 
was creedal.

OK, now I repent so I wont (is that a word?) get booted off the list.

In many ways, I am a learner, and I love to be corrected in anything I 
say concerning TC.  However, perhaps some of the scholars could correct 
more gently so as not to discourage.  

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803

---

From: Nichael Cramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:16:36 -0400 (EDT)

Ronald L. Minton wrote:
> sounds. [...]

This is (at least nominally) a list devoted to Textual Criticism, a
discipline in which close, detailed reading would seem to be sine qua non. 

Am I the only one who finds it more than a little ironic that on such a
list Prof Hurtado's perfectly reasonable[*] comments on scholarship could
be _repeatedly_ distorted and misread into the absurd positions which are
suggested here and have been suggested elsewhere in the last few days? 

  [* And here I use "reasonable" in the generous sense that in many
     similar forums one would expect to find it vaguely embarrassing that
     he would even have to make such comments, let alone defend himself
     for making them.]

Is the need for minimal scholarly standards --and the distinction between
such standards and the imposing of an overbearing orthodoxy-- really so
difficult to grasp as these letters would make it appear to be? 

Nichael Cramer
work: [email-masked]
home: [email-masked]
http://www.sover.net/~nichael/