[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

the state of orion-list (a personal view)

I publically thank our moderator Avital Pinnick for her work, including
removing Ian Hutchesson from the list. In my opinion, a diversity of
views on orion is indeed healthy, and I am confident that Ian was not
removed for criticizing some perceived "consensus." (Where is that
elusive consensus, anyway? :-)) It is my hope that orion can move beyond
disproven theories and focus on the wealth of new data and interesting
new interpretations. I recently denied the view held by many (including
myself, until a few days ago!) that Pliny revised his source after 70.
At the same time, it appears impossible--and ungrateful, really--to
imagine that older scholars got everything wrong. I value orion as a
potential means for news and scholarly feedback, but views on a par with
the Star tabloid, especially when aggressively delivered, have chased
away some scholars. (To Jimmy Adair: not all spam is commercial.)
	On a personal note, please let me mention that I have nothing against
amateurs. Though I have a Ph.D.--contrary to what Jim West wrote about
me--from Duke, when my first article was published in a scholarly
journal (in Revue de Qumran in 1978), the day the journal arrived, my
mail was brought to me at the job site. I was one happy amateur. Since
then, I hope I've learned a thing or two (and could revise that article
	I have looked at the list of subscribers, and, from the names I
recognize, and, no doubt, from others which I don't, there is a great
wealth of potential for orion. Those who persist in hurting orion, and
ignore repeated requests, do belong off list, IMHO, because orion is
worth preserving and cultivating.
Stephen Goranson       goranson@duke.edu