Subject: Re: You must be kidding

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 07:18:05 -7000

> 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.  

Uh-huh.  And this sounds great in theory.  In practice, and 
especially in TC, there is no good forum for "putting forth" views 
that challenge the status quo, and "scholarsly [sic] assessment of 
them" tends to consist of "everybody knows this is wrong, so we won't 
even publish it or consider it."  The way that Maurice's evidence is 
consistently ignored or brushed aside on this list is plenty of 
evidence of that "lead ceiling" that Jim spoke of.

> West also responds to my distinguishing of 
> scholarly,critically-tested views and assertions by saying:
>  
> > 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?
> No intention to demean.  But it's simply a fact in any field that 
> assertion = nothing without adequate evidence and argumentation.

Trouble is, in TC at least, no amount of evidence and argumentation 
will ever be enough to convince the establishment.  The field has 
been set up in such a way that everything is judged by the currently 
accepted view, and the mere fact that a viewpoint doesn't conform to 
that is sufficient to brand it as useless.  I'm sorry, Larry, but 
that's not true scholarship.  The Alands consistently infuriate me in 
their book when they speak of which variants diverge from and relate 
to the "original" text.  Have they really established the original 
text so completely and adequately?  "I don't think so, Tim."  But 
the question has been posed in such a way that only a reply that 
conforms to the current trend will be considered to have "sufficient 
evidence."

> West's invocation of Luther and Barth is so wide of the mark as to 
> require no response.

Cop-out.

> > 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"!
> 
> 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 it is also that "scholarly world" that decides how much argument 
and evidence is needed to shake their collective tree.  And again, 
the only viewpoints that are thought to have sufficient argument and 
evidence are those that agree with what the consensus already 
believes.  Again, that's not scholarship.  It's arrogance.

[snip]
> 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. 

Okay, let's have you take one or two of Maurice's examples - he's 
certainly provided enough of them - and apply these principles to 
yourself.  Maurice has consistently done (a), by offering his 
materials here; no one has yet *shown* him to be guilty of (b), they 
merely assert it (by your own definition, this is inadequate and not 
scholarship, and thus should be treated "roughly"), and when someone 
recently made a blanket statment of type (c) about the Byzantine 
priority view, even the eclectics jumped down his throat.  So I take 
it that (c) has not been done wrt Maurice's materials.  If you don't 
have any of his posts to work from, let me know; I have a nice 
backlog of them that I will be glad to share.  I'm not that familiar 
with Jim's views (mea culpa entirely), but I would suggest you do the 
same with his and provide some "argumentation and evidence."

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/home.html
"You're so open-minded that your brain leaked out."
                                 -Steve Taylor

---

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 13:10:18 AST4ADT

I would like to interject here, with a mediating perspective on the 
nature of this "debate". I do not offer anything new, suggestion that 
both sides step back, take a breath and look at the dynamics at work 
here-in a scholarly sense.

Those on the inside of the dominant competing paradigms must be aware
of their own part in the systemic bias against ill-fitting evidence
and, even well reasoned arguments against the paradigms. Those on the
outside must realize that dominant theories do not just roll over and
play dead. "Outsiders" must argue their case piece of evidence by
piece of evidence; they must do it in a more rigourous way than will
be accepted for those working on the inside. This is, and will always
be the way in which knowledge moves forward due to human nature.

Scholarship is not an exercise that is devoid of subjectivity. It 
cannot be. I refer here, not to individual pieces of work, but to the 
way that fields of interest as a whole operate. Regardless of who we 
are, we all work with paradigms (Thomas Kuhn, _The Nature of 
Scientific Revolutions_.) It is this very fact that has given rise to 
the present, at times, nasty debate.

On the one hand, it is necessary to have predominant paradigms, or 
widely accepted models that guide ongoing research. Without 
such models it is impossible to organize data and speak about it 
intelligibly. It is the normal scholarly process of publication after
peer review that ensures that materials being published are, in some 
way, credible, that is, that accepted, well applied methodologies 
using accepted models and presenting the work in such a way that it 
can be understood and falsified or verified by rigourous 
examination and further research. Admittedly, this works better in 
the hard sciences than in the softer disciplines  (TC is a soft 
discipline).

But, such a system has systemic predjuice against the unconventional, 
or contra-paradigmatic. This is part of what Kuhn looked at in his 
work on scientific paradigms and how they change. What he discovered 
was that the dominant paradigms are replaced slowly. It takes time 
for evidence that does not fit within the accepted modes of thinking 
to be accepted; acceptance comes only after too many holes have been 
poked in a paradigm for it to stand any longer. This is natural; it 
is, I would argue, necessary, else chaos reigns. 

An interesting, non TC example of how difficult it can be to 
challenge a dominant theory is that of Golb and his theory of the 
Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. His book _Who wrote the dead Sea Scrolls?_ is 
interesting. And he has hold an academic position!

Enough said.

Humbly,
Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:25:51 -0400 (EDT)

I think we've had more than enough discussion (and bombast) on this
particular thread, so let's all agree to end it here.  If you feel
compelled to respond further, please do so off-list.  I will try to
summarize some thoughts that I believe all participants in the thread (and
most on the list) agree with, then I will offer some ideas for progress
(which people may of course respond to, but with a different subject line
in the e-mail post).

First, a general thought, in my role as listowner of the tc-list.  I feel
the need to remind members of the list that ad hominem attacks are NOT
welcome, and responses to posts should be carefully considered.  Posts
should only be made that contribute positively to a discussion. 
Spleen-venting can be done off-list.  Before posting anything to the list,
ask yourself this question, "Does my post in any way further the goal of
working together as a community of scholars and students of textual
criticism in order to advance our understanding of the biblical text?"  If
not, don't post it. 

Now on to more substantive matters.  All agree that rhetoric without data
is useless, as is argument based _primarily_ on one's doctrinal stance.  I
have not seen any arguments by participants in this thread that rely
primarily on a particular doctrinal position (e.g., no one favors the TR
or KJV), so this issue is moot.  Everyone also agrees that no particular
degree or academic affiliation is a prerequisite for having one's ideas
heard.  How we address one another (Mr., Dr., first name, or whatever) is
a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned, and nothing should be read into the
use (or lack thereof) of titles.  If we all agree on these matters, then
let's move on to a discussion of evidence.  Assured results and
authorities are no substitute for the evidence itself.

Having said that, let me point out that the tc-list is a unique forum for
discussing issues.  The ideas expressed here are not peer-reviewed, and
many are simply trial balloons, but that's what the list is for.  Even so,
people contributing to the list should provide the evidence that they
believe supports their case.  Web pages can also be used to provide
data for discussion.  The TC-Links page provides links to many examples of
such data (online articles, etc.), and people on the list are welcome to
submit their data to me to add to this page.  Any material linked to from
this page should be considered "pre-pub" (similar to "pre-print"), and
contributors should expect to have their ideas challenged if others feel
they don't pass scholarly muster.  Finally, let me remind everyone,
particularly those who have complained about the lack of a forum for
publishing non-mainstream ideas, that you do have a forum.  The e-journal
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism is a peer-reviewed journal,
and it is not devoted to promoting the "scholarly orthodoxy" of the
moment.  Does that mean that everything submitted to it will be published?
No.  Everything will be reviewed by competent scholars in the field.  I
should note, however, that I raised the issue of "scholarly orthodoxy"
with the editorial board more than a year ago, and we all agree that we
will try to give all articles that are submitted a fair shake.  As general
editor, I make the final decisions regarding publication, and if I were to
think that a paper was rejected on the grounds of its unorthodox views,
rather than on the basis of weak argumentation and so forth, I would
override the recommendation of the reviewer.  Let me hasten to add,
however, that to date this has not been a problem, nor do I anticipate
that it will be.

Now let's get back to the discussion of data and ideas.

Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------

---

From: "GLENN WOODEN" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:10:40 AST4ADT

In my recent post, I did not give the correct title for Kuhn's book. 
It shold have been _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_, rather 
than _The Nature ..._.  My apologies to the list.

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville N.S.
Canada

[email-masked]