Subject: Alternatives

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 21:29:59 +0100

While I respect Jimmy's fairness and open-mindedness, I would vote for a
closed list.  Only those who "play by the rules" would be allowed to
submit to the list. Those who do not wish to engage in scholarly
discussion can continue in a free-for-all format. I know it sounds
"elitist," but it is really intended to allow those who are interested
in discussing serious matters of textual criticism [and those of us with
enough formal training to benefit from listening in on the experts'
discussions] to do so without all the interference from those who simply
want an outlet for their peculiar views.  Nobody says that they cannot
have a list of their own.  I simply don't have time to wade through all
that static.

If we must continue in this format, I will continue to exercise my
democratic right to use the delete key!

-- 
H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D.			Assistant Professor of NT
3000 6th Avenue				Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem.
Fort Worth, Texas 76110			P. O. Box 22000
817-923-3008				Ft. Worth, TX 76122
817-922-9005 FAX			817-923-1921, ext. 6800
[email-masked]			817-921-8760 FAX
					[email-masked]

Visit My Home
Page-->http://pw1.netcom.com/~habrehm/professor.html									

"The highest reward for man's toil is not what he earns for it but what
he becomes by it"	--John Ruskin

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:54:42 -0500 (CDT)

>democratic right to use the delete key!

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to take both
ends of this argument. I really want the garbage off this list.
But on the other hand, I don't think closing the list is a good
solution. Yes, it keeps out the riff-raff -- but it can also keep
out those who want to learn, and those who have new ideas. It's not
easy to learn about textual criticism if you aren't at one of the
few schools that has an expert!

I'm also concerned about this academic qualifications rule. Partly
because I fail it, of course. And yet, while I know there are some
who do not welcome my participation on this list, I also know that
several other people on this list -- including "qualified" people --
have consulted me on the areas of expertise I do bring to the list
(mathematics, oral tradition). Blocking off the crazies will keep
the noise level on the list low -- but it also cuts off new ideas.
Is it worth it? Not to me....

Bob Waltz
[email-masked]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 12:05:33 -0400 (EDT)

The problem with a moderated list is that someone has to moderate it, and
I don't really have the time (or inclination) to do so, at least at
present.  A closed list is an option, but since my proclivity is toward
allowing free discussions, I wouldn't want to close membership to the list
unless it really got out of control.  I would make one recommendation to
the list, however.  The best way to kill an unproductive thread is to
ignore it, plain and simple.

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: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:45:55 +000

Perhaps the prior question is what a given e-list is designed to 
accomplish.  If we want an open forum where anything can be 
discussed, the relevant and irrelevant, the trivial and the serious, 
and where anyone can speak, the qualified and unqualified, and anyone 
can voice an opinion (whether informed or not), that is one option.
If some of us may want a list primarily concerned with the exchange 
of research-relevant information & opinions among various people with 
qualifications and competences to offer something, then obviously 
some restrictions are involved.
If Jimmy Adair and any others with some special rights to leadership 
on this list can let us know what the line is here, then the rest of 
us can decide whether it is for us or not.  I personally would prefer 
a list made up of people who for example can read biblical Greek, who 
have training (or demonstrated abilities) in critical historiography, 
in early Christian literature, and in textual criticism.  I accept 
opportunities to speak and discuss with the general public, but I 
also need other settings and occasions for exchange of scholarly 
expertise, where I can have a good chance of receiving something in 
the nature of resarch-related benefit as well as giving something.
In the same way as we require such things as passing an 
introductory-level course in order to enroll in a higher-level 
course, or Greek to take a given course, so it is not "elitist" to 
set requirements for participation in a colloquium or e-list . . . if 
the purpose of the event or list is scholarly interchange.

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: Jim Deardorff <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:48:40 -0700 (PDT)

> ignore it, plain and simple.

Since I may be mostly responsible for this discussion having been
initiated, perhaps I should submit my opinion.  As you might expect, it
agrees with that of Dr. Adair.  Just let the subject drop when it's no
longer of interest, and don't feel obligated to get in the last word. 
The offender will soon get the message and desist.

However, my reason for feeling this way, and that list requirements should
not be set up that could include, e.g., knowledge of Hebrew, is because
one can't always be sure from where and from whom important advancements
in understanding may come.  They can sometimes come from research that is,
for a few years, decades or longer, considered out of bounds by a majority
within the profession.  One modern example is the use of DNA analysis
within anthropology.  The initiators of this technique were not as skilled
in anatomical structure as were the established professionals within the
field.

Within the TC field, an example may be the reception received by the
diglot edited by Daniel Mace, around 1729, due to its use of readings
stemming from a critical apparatus and its departures from the TR.  I
may not need to quote from Metzger, but he wrote, "Like the work of many
other innovators, Mace's edition was either vehemently attacked or quietly
ignored. ...But most theologians assumed an ostrich-like pose, and Mace's
work was soon all but forgotten."  It was simply unacceptable by the
majority to think of departing from the TR.

Of course, it is the majority's wishes that have to be followed on how to
treat innovative material, yet I would urge this list to keep the above
consideration in mind.

Jim Deardorff

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:19:08 +0100

I think Larry Hurtado's comments may help with the problems associated
with "closing" the list.  One may *either* have formal training in the
various areas *or* sufficient expertise to profitably and appropriately
interact with the group.

I must confess I feel a bit ambiguous about keeping the requirements
low.  While a second-year Greek student could learn a great deal from
those who typically contribute to the list, I doubt that student would
have the background to be able to debate what are sometimes complicated
issues.  Asking questions is another matter--a question that is overly
simplistic may be ignored, but I have known plenty of second year Greek
students who have asked challenging questions.  These students could not
only learn from the experts on this list, but also all of us might learn
from their questions, as I frequently do.

The problem with simply ignoring extraneous material is that there has
been quite a significant volume of it coming over the list.

I simply wanted to raise the issue and add some additional comments. 
I'll listen to the group.
-- 
H. Alan Brehm, Ph. D.			Assistant Professor of NT
3000 6th Avenue				Southwestern Baptist Theol. Sem.
Fort Worth, Texas 76110			P. O. Box 22000
817-923-3008				Ft. Worth, TX 76122
817-922-9005 FAX			817-923-1921, ext. 6800
[email-masked]			817-921-8760 FAX
					[email-masked]

Visit My Home