Charles Gadda

This issue is important, precisely because evangelical apologists often claim that those who teach in educational institutions like Westminster benefit from freedom of thought. Thus, for example, in a comment responding to my "Christian Fundamentalism and the Dead Sea Scrolls" article (where I cited the platforms of several such institutions), Dr. Pam Fox Kuhklen, who is the co-author of David Noel Freedman's latest popular book on the scrolls and herself the founder of an on-line Christian school, asserted that "schools grant scholars the freedom to think for themselves and not according to some unwritten dogma or platform." Notice how she casually lumps everything together with the plural "schools" and sneaks in the word "unwritten," as if I had not quoted from written platforms. So I responded:

Dr. Kuhlken declined to continue with the discussion (perhaps she, like Robert Cargill, came to the realization that there are certain things that must never be written down).

The platform issue also has bearing on the question we discussed in another thread, namely: does Martin Abegg (for example) acknowledge the importance of free and open debate with scholars who disagree with the platform of the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute of which he is the director? Whenever these issues arise, the evangelical scholars themselves are mysteriously silent. In general, there is a strange confluence between a demand for silence and an insistence on the legitimacy of such platforms.

Pastor and bible blogger Jim West, for example, defends the Westminster Theological Seminary decision with the peculiar argument that intellectual freedom exists even if its consequence is dismissal, and at the same time he suggests that no one discuss these issues with "Golbians" (his term), that those who "grind our teeth," as he puts it, about exclusion and secret I-never-write-it-down policies should be left to "stew in our own juices," as he again somewhat luridly puts it. As if following this don't-discuss program, Dr. West, just like other evangelicals, has (correct me if I'm wrong) decided to remain entirely silent about the outrageously antisemitic ad entitled "The Gospel and the Jews" that was recently published by the World Evangelical Alliance and signed by various biblical scholars. I certainly hope that Dr. West, who seems to have something to say about almost everything (including the failure to "engage" with Nadia Abu El-Haj, which he vigorously condemned) will ultimately give us his opinion on this issue of antisemitism in the world of biblical scholarship.

Similarly, Jeffrey Gibson (who, I believe, teaches in a Jesuit institution) receded into silence when I suggested that Dr. Abegg might show some intellectual courage by participating in this discussion in a free and open manner, rather than having me engage in a secret email exchange with him. The attitude, that these things should be handled by secretly approaching scholars rather than openly addressing the issues -- and that this issue itself should be discreetly passed over in silence -- is itself arguably a product of the entire institutional system that is in question here. It is the same attitude that led to the decision to rig lectures and exclude scholars who have rejected the Qumran-Essene theory from Dead Sea Scroll museum exhibits, rather than engage in a free and open debate with them.

Jeffrey Gibson

Similarly my foot. I didn't respond when you made it obvious that despite your big talk about how you wanted answers from Abegg, you'd keep finding flimsy excuses not to get what you wanted it that meant being responsible for what you were saying and writing to him. That you go on to claim from the fact that I didn't respond that I retreated (from what, BTW?) suggests that you like to spin "evidence" into unwarranted conclusions. If any one has retreated and not shown courage here, it's you.

[And your belief about where I presently teach is wrong. So much -- again -- for your knowledge of things].

Who said anything about secretly approaching anyone? And how are you going to get anyone who does nor reside on this forum to address any issue you raise unless you personally approach them. Do you have a penchant for false dichotomies?

Yep. I'm personally responsible for rigging these lectures.

In any case, the long and short of it is that if you want Abegg to answer the questions you've posed, notably, behind his back, you are going to have to contact him.

So are you going to do it or not?

Jeffrey

Charles Gadda

Look, most of this is just rhetorical thrashing around.

Forgive me for mistakenly believing you still taught at Loyola (I looked up your name several months ago when I realized some crackpot was saying I was one of your aliases, and that's what I found). Please accept my apologies.

I did not say you were personally responsible for rigging lectures, I merely suggested that the same attitude of silence and scorn that we see in the remarks of Jim West, and in your retreat (yes, I still think it was a retreat) from discussing this issue of open debate between scholars of radically opposing views, ultimately leads to that sort of conduct on an institutional level. Furthermore, even though you weren't responsible for rigging lectures, you and everybody else has a collective responsibility to speak out against that kind of thing when it happens, and all I've seen from you and various bible bloggers like Jim West is a casual acquiescence in what happened.

As for Martin Abegg, you know perfectly well that he is aware of this discussion, do you really expect me to believe he wouldn't have been informed of it by now? If your concern was that he might not know about it, you could easily have notified him yourself (in fact, I'll send him an email myself just to make sure). My basic point in responding to you yesterday was that I will not discuss Abegg's conduct with him in private; if he wants to respond it will have to be in an open forum like IIDB or Nowpublic.

You seem to be evading (or even trying to heap scorn on) the basic issue here -- hence your accusation that I'm "going behind Abegg's back" and twisting facts to suit my purposes. Who's doing the twisting here? My questions concerning Abegg were put forward in a perfectly open manner in a public forum. He can respond if he wants to, and I would welcome the exchange. Maybe he will reveal that he opposed the biased Seattle exhibit from the start; that he tried to use his position as consultant to change the museum's stance; that he is revolted by what occurred at the San Diego exhibit; that he is doing his best to change this outrageous policy of bias and exclusion. In that case I would be the first to thank him and to apologize for another one of my mistakes. If he remains silent, however, I for one will assume that he approves of the museum exhibits in which he participated, that he either does not believe in free and open debate or does not care about the issue, and that these attitudes on his part are related with the "evangelical" platform of the TWU Dead Sea Scrolls Institute of which he is the director.

Jeffrey Gibson

I didn't know I had been invited to do so, nor was this what I was focussing on.

You haven't seen anything at all from me one way or the other.

Yes, especially since I know no such thing. Nor do you. And in this "how could anyone not know what I've been saying" attitude of yours, you certainly have an exaggerated view of your own importance.

How on earth was this my job, even it it was my concern (where on earth do you get this?). You were the one who was asking questions of him (in a forum there's no reason to believe he's aware of), not I.

So ... invite him to do so. Why have you not done this already?

No. You asked question of Abegg here and seemed to take offense that you weren't getting any response from him. But since you know he's not here, and do not know for a fact that he's[ever seen anything you've written about him, you are indeed going behind his back when you do not address him directly.

If you want the answers from him that you say that you want from him, then you have to write to him. Are you going to do this or not?

But not to him

Of which he is most likely unaware.

Sorry, but all of this from you is just another excuse.

Jeffrey

mountainman

HJ

Big postulate.

Big business.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

Charles Gadda

Which is worse, (1) my terrible crime in not having the courtesy to immediately inform Dr. Abegg via email that I've raised some questions about his Institute's platform and his involvement in biased museum exhibits, or (2) his participation in the general, continuing lack of courtesy towards an entire group of scholars whose research has changed the basic nature of the questions asked about the Scrolls today, but who were rubbished in, and excluded from, these exhibits? What's worse, this little discussion "behind Abegg's back," or the attacks that were addressed against the research conclusions of those scholars in one lecture after another, without them being granted the opportunity to respond?

Is the preceding paragraph a "question directed towards Dr. Abegg"? I don't think so. It is rather a question that concerns him as well as others. He is welcome to respond, to interject a statement of his view on these matters. Beyond that I have no duty to go out of my way to show him a kind of courtesy that he doesn't show those who fundamentally disagree with his evangelical-oriented Dead Sea Scrolls theory and "platform."

You weren't "invited," but that's obviously the issue at the core of this entire conversation, and instead of addressing it, you took a few swipes at me and then retreated into silence.

Precisely. And this amounts either to a not-wanting-to-get-involved attitude, or to a silent acquiescence on your part in what's going on. I'm not blaming you personally any more than I would blame people for calmly standing by while all kinds of outrageous things are going on, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point it out.

We're not talking about "anyone," we're talking about a computer-literate individual who became the object of a discussion going on here. At any rate this is a moot question, because as I said before, I will indeed have him notified.

I didn't say it was your job, and I wasn't "asking questions of him," I was pointing to the kind of questions that necessarily arise when you have an evangelical "platform" and participate in a bunch of biased museum exhibits. You didn't say "why don't you let him know this discussion is taking place," you suggested rather that I "ask" him the questions directly, in a private email exchange. My point was that I had no interest whatsoever in doing that, but that you (given that you seem to be in touch with him by email) or anyone else was welcome to let him know the discussion is taking place.

Why hasn't he invited scholars of fundamentally opposing views to engage in a free and open debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why should I show him a courtesy he hasn't shown others?

No, I'm not asking questions of Abegg, and I certainly didn't take offense, I simply pointed out that the general failure to engage in a free and open debate, the rigging of lectures and the rubbishing of opposing views in museum exhibits, is offensive.

Exactly. They were questions concerning him, but they were not directed to him.

P.s. in case anyone happens to stumble across this conversation and doesn't know which thread Jeffrey and I are referring to, it's this one: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=240579