Subject: Re: You must be kidding

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 09:18:31 -0500 (EST)

A final thought on the thread.  Note, if you will, that Professor Hurtado
refuses to address me as Dr., even though he does address Dr. Robinson this
way.  This means, that since I do not hold an academic position, that I am
not due the honor which others are who likewise posess an earned doctorate.
His suggestion (not so subtle) that I have no academic position because my
scholarship is faulty is a red herring.  It may be quite true that I am an
ignorant dolt, a fact I freely admit!  :-)  But this does not invalidate my
comments.
Finally, his suggestion that my "invocation" of Luther and Barth is
irrelevant is simply wrong.  He is the one who suggested that one must have
a peer review before one can be taken seriously!  I simply offered what I
believe to be 2 excellent examples to the contrary.  If Professor Hurtado
(notice my respectful tone!)  wishes to discuss peer review as a
pre-requirement to publication then is it not correct to examine EVERY
document which has come into public view and if it has not been reviewed,
then must we not dismiss it?

I now slink into the dark wasteland of oblivion and silence, where me and my
kind belong.... so that I may listen and learn- as I clearly am too stupid
to have anything worthwhile to listen to.....

Jim

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

Jim West
[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:54:09 +000

As Dr. (I didn't know) West has accused me now of deliberately 
refusing him his due courtesy, I hope it is permitted on this list to 
assure him and all that neither I nor (surely) anyone else on the 
list seeks deliberately to do so, to him or anyone else.  As Dr. West 
signs his posts simply "Jim West", and as I do not otherwise know of 
him, I did not know that he carries a doctorate.  No offense 
intended, and, now I hope, none taken by him.

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: Maurice Robinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 18:37:29 -0400 (EDT)

> not due the honor which others are who likewise posess an earned doctorate.

I suspect this is reading more into the matter than is there, Jim.
Basically all of us in academia don't even use "Dr." among ourselves, but
are usually on a first name basis in our institutions and generally refer
to other scholars on a last name basis without titles attached, even in
scholarly articles.

I suspect the biggest problem in this whole thread is the notion that
somehow peer review and acceptance into refereed journals makes a
scholarly work valid or accepted by all academics.  This certainly is not
the case. As Hurtado has pointed out, it may only be the approval of one
or two scholars on such boards which allows an article to become
published, and I certainly would not read into this a blanket approval or
at least "scholarly acceptance" for any given theory by the entire
academic community, nor even by the peer reviewers.

But also I would _not_ consider rejection and non-publication of any
article an assessment that its premise or conclusions are automatically
invalid either, and I think this is the key problem intimated by the
postings on this subject, viz. that only published articles in the
"approved" refereed journals have any merit whatsoever.  That this is
_not_ true is evidenced by the _many_ fine papers which never see the
light of print such as are presented at scholarly meetings like ETS, SBL,
SNTS etc. 

The real problem (and the original reason for the rise of "refereed
journals") is the cost and space requirement faced by academic publishing. 
Simply put, the journals _cannot_ possibly accept any and all submissions,
even if only those which were genuinely meritorious were sifted from the
incompetent and erroneous.  The journals _have_ to make decisions among
_many excellent_ submissions, most of which _never_ become published due
to the space/cost factor. 

In the 19th century, when there were few writing scholars who submitted to
the few scholarly journals that were out there (most scholars then simply
wrote or contributed to books -- many of which were published and sold on
a subscription basis), the journals had a tendency to accept almost
anything submitted, since they _needed_ articles.  Today things have
reversed themselves, and now we have more journals but even more scholars
wishing to contribute, and many if not most of them are going to be
greatly disappointed if they think that their wonderful theory or idea is
going to be accepted into a refereed journal and be published (regardless
of the merits of the theory or idea or field of study in question). 

I long ago discovered that some of the most important and significant
research was being reported on in circles _outside_ of the journals, and
this is why for myself I have been quite content to present my own
text-critical views within the national and regional ETS meetings.

Certainly I have on occasion submitted some of these papers to the
refereed journals, and was _not_ shocked or greatly disappointed when the
rejection slips came (my first article -- not on textual criticism -- was
rejected by JBL because [as one of the blind referees stated] "Robinson
obviously thinks the book of Acts is historical", which, though true, was
not acceptable to JBL, but for whatever reason caused _no_ problem with
Biblica, where it was accepted and appeared in 1975). 

That I have had text-critical articles rejected by some refereed journals
certainly does not deter me nor make me think my own theories are either
worthless or indefensible; but it _does_ make me more interested in
pursuing truth wherever it may lead and wherever it may be listened to.

If the refereed journals do not happen to offer me a forum, I find the
tc-list to be a reasonable sounding board, just as I do the ETS meetings.
Someday perhaps I will have a book on the subject, but even that will not
meet any refereed muster, but will probably be considered just another one
of those publish-for-profit items which "flood the market" and have
already been complained about by those from the "referees club". 

In any case, I am probably the _least_ worried about popular acceptance by
list members regarding _any_ of my text-critical theories, and certainly
do _not_ think that only refereed acceptance will suddenly make my views
any more legitimate merely because a few editors think them sufficiently
worthy to override space and cost factors in publishing decisions.

_________________________________________________________________________
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 21:25:32 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Jim West wrote:
> way.

Do not feel too bad Jim.  In England I found that real scholars (as Dept. 
heads) are Mr. while low life profs are only Dr.    :)

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

---

From: ray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 19:39:08 -0700

Excuse me folks .. uuhhmm ..  if it's OK to ask .. I know it's not the
"forum" of this site but why not "change the decorum a little"! :-)

Since it appears you gentleman are "knowledgable of such things" ...
could one please address the subject of .."where Cain got his wife?"
And, as well,  who was "Lilith" .. was she in the "picture"???

                      A Humble Laymen :-) 
           (Who dare not address this to his "mentors"!)
                                    
                            Ray