As you my remember, not too long ago a person came roaring onto the BB, called himself a scholar, posted various erroneous (even heretical) views, and then was kicked off. I challenged him on being a self-proclaimed "scholar" and was rebuked by a certain BB member for "credentialism." The rebuker never defined that, but it got me thinking. What exactly is a scholar? What does it take to be considered one? Anyone can call themselves a scholar, but if everyone is a scholar then no one is a scholar.
This is actually something to be decided by the scholars themselves, IMO, not me or you. And they have actual criteria by which to determine who is and who is not an actual scholar in their fields.
1. Scholars never call themselves scholars. They don't have to! Their reputation and work does it for them.
2. Normally, a genuine PhD is required for other scholars to consider themselves to be actual scholars. For example, the Evangelical Theological Society requires a PhD to become a member. Scholarly journals and meetings usually require a doctorate, but sometimes great knowledge and ability is enough, such as with William G. Pierpont of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform Greek New Testament. Dr. Maurice Robinson is a well-recognized and very capable scholar with a PhD, highly respected among textual critics, but Pierpont (now deceased) had not a PhD to the best of my knowledge, yet did a capable job with Dr. Robinson.
3. Scholars share their views, so they are writers. There is an old saying among professors, "Publish or Perish." What this means is that others can look at their work and call it scholarly or not. A true scholar (my son included, with about 20 essays in theological journals) writes things that advance our knowledge and wisdom: helpful studies and books.
4. True scholars are not polemicists (debaters) but rather teachers, so most scholars are Bible college or seminary professors. For example, D. A. Waite had excellent credentials with a PhD and a ThD from reputable schools. However, when I examine his body of work, most of it is simply attacking others and not advancing our knowledge of the KJV: Heresies of Westcott and Hort, Fundamentalist Distortions on Bible Versions, Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, etc. All of that had its place in his world, but that is not how you gain the reputation of being a scholar. Another illustration is the output of John R. Rice, who was a theologian but not a scholar, but a polemicist. Some called him a scholar, and some of his work was scholarly (Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible had its moments), but he never considered himself to be scholar, nor did those who knew him best.
What say ye?
This is actually something to be decided by the scholars themselves, IMO, not me or you. And they have actual criteria by which to determine who is and who is not an actual scholar in their fields.
1. Scholars never call themselves scholars. They don't have to! Their reputation and work does it for them.
2. Normally, a genuine PhD is required for other scholars to consider themselves to be actual scholars. For example, the Evangelical Theological Society requires a PhD to become a member. Scholarly journals and meetings usually require a doctorate, but sometimes great knowledge and ability is enough, such as with William G. Pierpont of the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform Greek New Testament. Dr. Maurice Robinson is a well-recognized and very capable scholar with a PhD, highly respected among textual critics, but Pierpont (now deceased) had not a PhD to the best of my knowledge, yet did a capable job with Dr. Robinson.
3. Scholars share their views, so they are writers. There is an old saying among professors, "Publish or Perish." What this means is that others can look at their work and call it scholarly or not. A true scholar (my son included, with about 20 essays in theological journals) writes things that advance our knowledge and wisdom: helpful studies and books.
4. True scholars are not polemicists (debaters) but rather teachers, so most scholars are Bible college or seminary professors. For example, D. A. Waite had excellent credentials with a PhD and a ThD from reputable schools. However, when I examine his body of work, most of it is simply attacking others and not advancing our knowledge of the KJV: Heresies of Westcott and Hort, Fundamentalist Distortions on Bible Versions, Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions, etc. All of that had its place in his world, but that is not how you gain the reputation of being a scholar. Another illustration is the output of John R. Rice, who was a theologian but not a scholar, but a polemicist. Some called him a scholar, and some of his work was scholarly (Our God-Breathed Book, the Bible had its moments), but he never considered himself to be scholar, nor did those who knew him best.
What say ye?
