FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_dartagnan]

Blixa and Chap have made excellent points here.

Trapped in the land of Oz over at MAD I was surrounded by people who felt PhD's were above reproach. Like they were appointed by the President of the Einstein Society. The fact is, most people with half a brain are capable of receiving a doctorate. I know too many mediocre minds from High School, who have gone through the required motions to earn a doctorate, to think otherwise.

No matter how many times I pointed to errors by LDS scholars, people like Dan Peterson would throw up their resume as if to say, "Obviously you're wrong because Yale/Brandeis/Harvard thought he was worthy enough to receive a PhD."

This isn't a valid response. It is borderline stupid. it is pretty much the same thing Scott Gordon advocates when he suggests ex-Mormons cannot say they left Mormonism for historical reasons, since there are many intelligent Historians in the Church.

Personally, I thought about going back for a doctorate, but I could never decide on the subject. Every few years my interests drift to something else. I wasn't sure it would be worth the time and money one must invest in it, and though I like teaching at the University level here in Brazil, it really isn't something I want to do for the rest of my life.

So why do it? I think some LDS apologists do it because they know they'll be worshipped by TBMs.

[_harmony]

So why do it? I think some LDS apologists do it because they know they'll be worshipped by TBMs.

It's as close to being a GA as the average member can attain?

[_Mister Scratch]

I have two very simple questions, Charity:

1) What "big book" did Ritner overlook?
2) What is the source of Gee's "scroll-measuring formula"?

I will be anxiously awaiting your answers.

[_dartagnan]

charity is on a duck hunt. She is probably over at FAIR right now trying to get references to support what she is saying.

I'd be highly impressed if she finds the source for Gee's papyri length formula.


I always get a kick out of these apologists who think they have a stranglehold on what scholarship is.

So Ritner's critique of his former student is out of place?

Says who? You see stuff like happens in scolarship occassionally; being published even in academic journals.

Take for instance Jacob Neusner, who is perhaps the most published and celebrated rabbinic scholar today. Several of his professors criticized his methodology back in the early 80's and he has been looking for payback ever since. In a tasteless maneuver, after one of his professors, Morton Smith, dies in the early 90's, Neusner retaliated by calling him a fraud. Out of place for the scholarly arena? Apparently not. Sarcasm and harsh criticism, and even belligerence, is not alien to scholarship. Take for example two of Neusner's professors, Lieberman and Poirier. They both wrote critiques that ridiculed Neusner as incompetent. Just check out the names of these articles, and notice the publication venue.

Saul Lieberman, "A Tragedy or a Comedy" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.104(2) April/June 1984 p. 315-319

John C. Poirier, "Jacob Neusner, the Mishnah and Ventriloquism," The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXXVII Nos.1-2, July-October 1996, p. 61-78

This spat between scholars is discussed even today:

"Jacob Neusner set out to demolish Smith's reputation in retaliation for Smith's public denunciation of his error-ridden scholarship at the SBL meeting in 1984. Dubbing Smith's discovery 'the forgery of the century,' Neusner asserted that Smith created the 'secret' gospel to prove that Jesus was a homosexual." – Scott Brown, Harvard Theological Review, July 2006.

Here is another eeference from the BAR website (emphasis mine):

...in a book published in 1993, the well-known scholar of Judaica Jacob Neusner simply declared Smith’s discovery “the forgery of the century” and dismissed Smith’s report that he left the book in Mar Saba as “Smith’s quaint explanation of the ‘disappearance’ of the ‘original documents.’” Neusner’s repeated assertion that Smith was “a charlatan and a fraud” who forged the letter as evidence that Jesus was a homosexual is truly remarkable given the fact that Neusner also penned the radiant endorsement on the back cover of Smith’s The Secret Gospel. There he proclaimed that “The discovery itself ranks with Qumran and Nag Hammadi, Masada and the Cairo Geniza, but required more learning and sheer erudition than all of these together.” No doubt Neusner’s “post-Morton” opinion has something to do with the fact that Smith had publicly proclaimed Neusner incompetent as a translator in 1984.

http://www.bib-arch.org/hoax/bswbHoaxsu ... 9&UserID=2

This scholar (however despicable his methods might seem) has been published by BYU studies.

The point here is that people like charity, who imply that Ritner's criticism of Gee proves he is out of bounds of scholarship and must be engaging in a personal anti-Mormon crusade, is just showing us how out of touch she is with scholarship. All she knows is FARMS.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I agree that many people are too impressed with the credentials of academia, but that's partly because I'm too poor and slightly too lazy to go for a doctorate. ;)