Re: SV: [ANE-2] Re: remarks on Dr. Freedman etc.
- Dear All,
why wouldn't people work together when treating
complicated problems? What one pair of eyes misses, a second
one sees. This is not automatically a matter of "the party has thousand
to quote a well-known DDR poem, but the advantage of scholarly
cooperation, well-known and well-accepted in paleographic,
epigraphic and other studies.
As to peer reviews, this system may have its disadvantages,
but it also has its controls. The disadvantages of, for instance,
politicking, nepotism, sectarianism are far greater. In Qumran studies
the scholars reviewing works for publication are highly regarded
professional specialists. As such they accept paerts that are
well-argued, even if they disagree
(at least, that is the norm).
If they don't accept a certain theory,
there probably are reasons for that. For instance, a well-known and
respected archeologist like Magen Broshi rejected the notion of
a military fortress, since he considered the walls of the Qumran
too thin. I find that a very serious argument, but I am a text person,
not an archeologist.
Other serious arguments have been adduced by, for instance, Hanan Eshel.
By the way, neither Ada Yardeni nor Hanan Eshel were graduate students
when they participated in the work on 4Q448 (a text that already had
been published by
Strugnell), but PhD students. Maybe Esther Eshel was, but her extremely
MA thesis was accepted (and published) in the same year as their common
on the Jonathan text.
Personally I am conducting a lot of heavy polemics with colleagues on
certain matters in my
chosen field, and even heated debates. Most of them also are
personal friends, and I would not dream of thinking that they are
less sincere in their views of the matters at stake than I am.
Nor would I deny their arguments all merit. Nobody has the truth in his
hands (and even if he had, he wouldn't know), all data are at best
and all applications of logic, if not mathematival, have their flaws,
so all may be wrong,
and must be tolerant toward other views, and
at times even toward intolerance and politicking, however objectionable
that may be,
on all sides.
On 3 Jan, 2008, at 21:23, kessler_paul wrote:
> In natural sciences, yes, but in the humanities, i.e., historical
> and textual studies? There are methodological problems with copying
> the natural sciences tradition and applying it in such domains.
> I tend to agree with you about the "peer review" mania (my only
> excuse here is that I was referring to the general reception and
> evaluation of research in the academic community). I have even
> heard the term used recently as a justification for not inviting
> various scholars to partipate in one or another international
> conference: "they have the right to publish books and articles which
> are then subject to peer review in appropriate journals, so there's
> certainly no reason why they should be invited to a conference." In
> this sense, I think you are certainly right about Kuhn and the ruling
> paradigm. In Qumran studies, with so many opposing views, one has to
> ask who are the "peers" who will be doing the review.
> Paul Kessler (NY)
> --- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
> > Paul,
> > Such approaches involving more than one scholar are especially
> favored by people who pay, i.e. politicians and their likes. I see no
> reason why it should create more respect than other kinds of studies.
> However, in natural science, you often see four or five or more
> authors to the same article. Maybe some are copying that tradition.
> > As to peer reviews, I have no respect for this mania. Peer reviews
> easily mean that nothing new comes out (old Thomas Kuhn would
> probably have agreed). The ruling paradigm can suppress all criticism.
> > Freedman and Cross made a lot together also in other fields than
> DSS studies.
> > Niels Peter Lemche
Prof. Frank Polak
Dept Hebrew Culture
Tel Aviv University
69978 Tel Aviv
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- The material culture in ancient Judaism was not group-specific !!!
Herein I have to agree with Zangenberg et al. In so far Joe has an
inspired dream, but that's already all.
Whether or not a KhQ skeleton once belonged to an ancient terrorist
(and that is what is actually behind the idealizing "Essene" legend)
or not, we cannot extract simply from the bones, neither by means of
logic nor with all my heart.
NB to reach primary school, myself had to cross the local WW-I
cemetery first, though this doesn't make me Wilheminic, isn't
Dierk v/d Berg
--- In ANEemail@example.com, Joe Zias <joezias@...> wrote:
> Paul Smith asks the following :
> What do the Qumran cemetery facts
tell us about the origin and the
> provenance of the scrolls?
> The answer is very little but the cemetery tells us an enormous amt
of info about the people living there who were IMHO , Essenes, who
fished ,herded, potted ...and in order to get to three scroll caves
on the plateau one had to cross into their site whether one liked it
> Joe Zias
> Joe Zias www.joezias.com
> Science and Antiquity Group - Jerusalem
> Jerusalem, Israel
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]