Toto

But there is no one on this board who invokes his alleged expertise, so I don't see any point in discussing it here.

Antipope Innocent II

And there are several good critiques of his line of argument on this matter in the Dawkins Forum thread Toto already linked to. In the broadest sense of the word he's a "historian", as is anyone at all who does a bit of reading or perhaps writes some essays on historical topics. In the sense of someone with solid training, genuine expertise and who is worthy of any attention when it comes to the academic study of history, he's a "historian" as much as I'm a brain surgeon or astronaut.

And as for "Ancient Texts Expert"; all of the genuine experts I've ever come across would blush at the mere thought of declaring themselves as much. Yet this kid has that self-declared title emblazoned across his My Space page.

That says it all really.

The original poster seemed to think we'd know who this hobbyist was. He was right. We've told him and answered his question about his (total lack of) credentials, expertise and credibility. And that's probably the end of the discussion.

Diogenes the Cynic

If I am incompetent in understanding the argument, then I will endeavor to become competent. Arguments from pure authority do not hold much water with me. I would give a credentialled person the benefit of the doubt, but I don't assume that an uncredentialled person can't make a reasonable point (or else what would most of us be doing here?).

Zeichman

Indeed. Isn't that the BARE MINIMUM for almost every credible NT or HB PhD program in the world? Many schools require either Coptic, Syriac, or Aramaic, too. Not to mention at least two modern, non-English, research languages.

Solitary Man

The research languages are usually German and French, although some places, like Princeton, Italian can be substituted. It's helpful to know all three at the research level (i.e., you should be able to read all three by the time you have a Ph.D. in hand, and at least one by the time you have a M.A. in hand). April DeConick argues that Coptic ought to be mandatory, and I'm of the opinion (and I'm not alone) that Classics should be fully integrated with the New Testament program, i.e. one should competently read Latin and Greek works unrelated to the New Testament. For Old Testament, knowing languages like Ugaritic, Akkadian (and it's later spin-off's), Hittite, Egyptian (in any of its pre-Coptic forms), Greek, and Sumerian are desired as well. Not saying one ought to be competent in all of them, but depending on where your field is, they are helpful.

For NT programs, minimal necessary should be Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Depending on where you go with that, add Coptic, Aramaic (and its relatives like Reichsaramaisch, Syriac, Biblical Aramaic, Palestinian Christian, etc.), Armenian, Old Church Slavonic, or Arabic.

Solitary Man

I never said an uncredentialed person couldn't make a reasonable point, but if you were unable to understand the argument, who would you rather believe? On a point of Latin grammar, ask the guy who has no credentials but read Cicero or ask a guy who's done all the major research and received his degree in the topic? Are you an expert on Latin grammar? Would you be able to distinguish?

I wish everyone had 10000 lifetimes to learn everything, but we come to a point where we have to just give up (usually at death). One lifetime is not enough to learn everything.

youngalexander

I'll say one thing for young Rook, he certainly does not lack confidence!

PhilVaz

Let Rook go back to college, get his 4-year, then his Masters, then his Ph.D. in something historical or philosophical or both. Just as J.J. Lowder, and Richard Carrier are doing. Publish a few articles in scholarly journals, maybe a book or two. We'll see you in 2015 at the earliest Rook. Good luck.

I don't claim to be an expert in anything. I'm an apologist, I don't need a degree for that. :wave:

Phil P

Roger Pearse

I may be a cynic, but I wonder if we detect this level of linguistic knowledge in even very eminent NT scholars? A patristics scholar once told me that he didn't know of a single scholar who could read Latin like English. I wonder if there is rather a lot of bluffing and dictionary-hacking going on?

Not that I decry languages, far from it. But I do decry creating bogus barriers to learning. Not the point of this thread, I know, but... let's not disappear into the stratosphere, hey?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

I think the question in the OP has been answered. If anyone wishes to discuss anything that Rook Hawkes has written or the substance of his work, without relying on his expert or non-expert status, feel free to start a new thread.