What I am not, apparently, is a historian.  There is no truth behind this jocularity, but there is a serious accusation that needs to be addressed.  In a recent thread, posted by somebody who exhibits a severe naivety to logical discourse, I have been called out, as it were.  In any case, this is a response, although concise as it may be, to the presupposition of this little nimrod (used in the Biblical sense, of course) for everything abrasive.
 

Three headers, or points, are situated throughout the post.  They are so called “What is Research?”, “What is a Historian?”, and “What is peer review?”.  In all three of these categories, the author has listed examples of the criteria that need to be met in order to be sufficiently considered an expert.  In my examination of the three topics, I have not found a single criterion that would somehow invalidate my position as a Historian.    

Under his “Research” category, he lists the need to be proficient at “several semitic languages, Koine Greek, and Latin. (sic!)”  I don’t know many scholars who hold so many proficiency certificates in all of those languages.  With the exception of Bart Ehrman, who is a textual critic (so his job is to specifically deal with all these languages), I can not think of many scholars who would fit this criteria.  Perhaps he meant that the historian needs to be proficient in some of these languages?  In any case, I am proficient in translating Koine Greek and Coptic.  I defer to other experts, as do many historians, in languages outside of their focus.  I would also agree with his conclusion that a broad understanding of archaeological methodologies is required, and anybody who has taken my online course can verify that I have always made sure they understood its importance.  Any cursory reading of the articles I write will validate this further. 

This person, who continues to show his ignorance, asks “What is a Historian?” By which he quotes from wikipedia (there are other, more valid sources for information and definitions; an Oxford Dictionary would hold more weight here), that an expert historian should have a “thorough and broad understanding” of a period some 1200 years, spanning the composition of Homer’s epics to fall of the Roman Empire.  I would agree, and again I do not see how this would invalidate my position.  Not only do I have a library of information throughout the course of these generations, but I also am more than knowledgeable about new scholarship on about 600 years of this span.  Specifically, my focus starts from the conquest of the ancient Near East by Alexander the Great and ends at the Council of Nicea in 325.  

Finally, he gets the definition of peer review right, and then says that I cannot be in the process of this.  This is a claim, like the others he makes, that he does not back up but rather he presupposes they are incorrect.  A scan of the forum topics on the RRS message boards will reveal the thread in which Thomas L. Thompson, a leading scholar of the Old Testament and editor of a peer reviewed journal, admits that he is indeed peer reviewing my book in light of similar criticisms I have received from others with the same amount of ignorance displayed by the author of this new thread. 

Since no real criticism has been brought up against me, I see no reason to disagree with at least a majority of what this original poster defines as an expert.  I also see no reason why this author feels that these criteria do not reflect me in any accurate fashion—that is, unless he is so completely ignorant of any work I have posted or any research I have done.  But this original poster has shown ignorance to a multitude of other positions concerning the RRS and topics that the RRS deals with.  Being it is slowly becoming apparent that these tactics are the original posters modus operandi, I don’t expect many people to take him seriously.  At least, the people who matter will not take him seriously.
 

A post on the message boards alerted me to this topic, and some friends had informed me through private messaging that they thought I should reply.  Under the circumstances, I really didn’t have to as no claim was supported for me to have to defend myself against.  In any event, I decided to reply out of concern that my e-mail and private message boxes would be flooded with supporters who would be asking me to just that.