Subject: "non-experts"

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 02:40:58 -0700

Jimmy Adair wrote:

"And non-experts: don´t presume to know more than those who have spent years in 
the field; you´ll just highlight your ignorance".

While it certainly is true that experts *generally* know more than non-experts 
(at least they have a great advantage), the latter can very well know enough to 
even rightly _question_ the validity of the claims of the experts. After all, 
from where do non-experts receive their knowledge of TC if not from the experts 
themselves. Besides, the *possibility* of obtaining a working knowledge of TC 
and MSS is open to *anybody* who will investigate and study! If a non-expert 
will base his arguments on *the truth* (or the *facts*) of a matter, then even 
the *expert* must answer that argument in a _worthy_ manner, though the 
argument comes from a non-expert. Also, I believe that some times TC experts 
may have some "blinders" which well-read non-experts can help remove. It would 
be a strange idea indeed to suggest that experts *cannot* be corrected by 
non-experts. That would be next to popery! But please understand that I am not 
*in any way* degrading academic training. Far from it!

Jimmy, since this list is also intended for *non-experts* in the field of TC, I 
suppose that my above comments will not be very far off the track.

I, for my part, greatly appreciate being on this list and to read the many 
interesting messages on the different aspects of TC. But I must confess that it 
is not only the *experts* that make this list interesting! For instance, Bob 
Waltz is not a textual scholar in an academic sense, but he certainly masters 
TC very well! Here one question arises: Shall he be regarded as an "expert" or 
a "non-expert"? It depends on the meaning and use of the term.

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 19:55:37 -0700

On Sun, 11 May 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]> wrote, in part:

>For instance, Bob 
>a "non-expert"?

In my case, I am clearly a non-expert in the field in general. I have
(to invert Johnson) little Greek and less Latin, and know nothing at
all of the other Biblical languages. I've read almost nothing of the
Fathers, and what I have read I've read in translation. I am not affiliated
with a seminary, so my access to the latest works in the field is limited.
Nor do I have access to Tischendorf.

What I am is a *generalist.* I know, at least at an elementary level,
TC, mathematics, folklorics, and history. All of them, I maintain,
useful tools. 

If you ask me to discuss the theological significance of an aorist
optative versus a future passive in some passage, I'd be completely
stuck. If I have any merit at all, it is my ability to bring outside
knowledge to the discussion. Sometimes it means I am woefully
ignorant. Other times, perhaps, it gives me the prespective to see
that the traditional way is not the best way (witness, e.g., the
ongoing and rather nasty discussion of sampling methods).

The key is knowing what is relevant and what isn't. Obviously there
are those on this list who disagree with me on that subject -- and
almost all others. :-)

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                     [email-masked]

Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
(A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)

---

From: "Mr. Helge Evensen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 19:19:36 -0700

> Nor do I have access to Tischendorf.

Ok, let me instead ask a related question: Is Mr. Waltz *competent*, 
then, to engage in TC-discussion. (Certainly he is, according to *my* 
standards! But, again, I´m not an expert.....)

-- 
- Mr. Helge Evensen