Jeffrey Gibson

You labeled him as someone who should not have to "jumps through the right hoops to get the right attention" from "real scholars". Whether you intended it or not, you drew a contrast between him and "real scholars".


Oh, Please! Do you really want to play this game?

Do you or do you not have any evidence that Earl has ever acted as real scholars do with respect to getting their work known by and in front of real scholars by taking the actual steps that lead to scholars (and reviewers) seeing it?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Whether I am or not -- you do know, don't you, that Toto has no facility in Biblical languages? And since many of Earl's conclusions rest upon claims about Greek syntax and grammar and what the original text of the NT actually says (or doesn't say), how would she be admirably suited to the task of reviewing Earl's work?

Jeffrey

Vorkosigan

Wow...what a sucky, shitty thread.

I really got get my ideas on Mark's chiastic structures published....

ApostateAbe

Maybe you should. It may be one of those things that would give the case for MJ something firmer to stand on.

Toto

You're right, there were those discussions. I think I've been in this too long.

Doherty thinks that the silence of the 2nd century apologists reflects the lack of a historical Jesus. I'm not sure how this is different from his explanation of the silence of sources from earlier, or what the stake in the sand is.

GakuseiDon

:blush: Oops! "Stake in the sand" -- Holy mixed metaphors! I meant that Doherty has made definite claims about the implications of lack of references to a historical Jesus in Second Century writings. IMHO it is the weak underbelly of his thesis (well, apart from the complete lack of evidence for his "fleshly sub-lunar realm" idea).

Tell me Toto, if there were a historical Jesus, would you be surprised that "there is a silence in the second century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is almost the equal to that in the first century letter writers"?

2-J

What hoops would Doherty need to jump through to get a peer-reviewed review, and why has he not jumped through them?

Are we talking gaining a phd here, or something more straightforward?


One thing I am sure of is that if Richard Carrier's forthcoming book does not provoke such reviews and scholarly discussion, that will be a damning indictment of the state of current scholarship on the historical Jesus.

youngalexander

Hmmm, I am beginning to think not. Frankly, I don't think that the Gospel Jesus was all that important to the ruck of christians until about the mid 3rd C. Scripture, what came to be known as the OT was where it was at with some sort of godman wonderworker as the fulfilment of prophecy. Doherty may well be correct re 2nd C apologists, without any sub-lunar spirits.

In any event, it is clear that the gospels & acts are substantially fiction, that Paul knows bugger all about a HJ, and external evidence is absent, so there is no way of telling what happened.

Jeffrey Gibson

Making sure that copies of his book get sent to the book review editors of the standard journals -- i.e., New Testament Studies, Journal of Biblical Literature, Expository Times, Australian Biblical Review, Bible Review, Biblica, Biblical Interpretation, Biblical Theology Bulletin, Bibliotheca Sacra, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Currents in Biblical Research, Filología Neotestamentaria, Harvard Theological Review, Heythrop Journal , Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Irish Biblical Studies, Journal of Early Christian Studies, Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Journal of Theological Studies, Neotestamentica, Journal of the New Testament Society of South Africa, Novum Testamentum, Religion and Theology. Revue Biblique, Scottish Journal of Theology, Scripture Bulletin, Theologische Zeitschrift, Theologische Literaturzeitung, Theologische Revue, Theology Today, Tyndale Bulletin, and Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche.

(For submission information, go here.)

As far as I know -- and I'd be grateful to be corrected on this point -- Earl never sent his book to the book review editors of any, let alone all, of these journals. Nor did his (vanity) press.

You are of course assuming not only that the book, if it ever sees the light of day, will be worthy of discussion, but, more importantly, that Carrier sees to it (by not publishing his book through a vanity press) that his book comes to the attention of those professionally engaged in HJ studies.

What reason do you have to believe that either or both of these assumptions are warranted? Are his other books that good? Have they been published by recognized academic presses? Have they been sent to the book review editors of the journals which deal with the fields in which his previous work is grounded?

Jeffrey

avi

Absolutely, yes. Thank you for suggesting that possibility. I will try to catch up with you, by reading Carrier's review this weekend....
Thank you Jeffrey, for your reply. Umm, to be very candid, and not intending to sound negative, I have learned during the past year, ALMOST DAILY, something useful, new, important, constructive, and provocative, while reading Toto's comments, regardless of his/her gender, ability to read/write/think in foreign languages, or status at any academic institution.....

Jeffrey, I repeat that I would profit, greatly from reading, by your hand, a comment, a sentence, or a paragraph or more, about Earl Doherty's most recent book. Conversely, I don't really gain much, reading your personal criticisms, which Vorkosigan noted, with a succinct rejoinder, above, that requires no further amplification.

"the proof's in the pudding". Write something about Doherty's new book, please, Jeffrey. It need not be long. It need not be complimentary. It can be a scathing attack. No problem. Just focus that great skill of yours on elucidating potential or actual shortcomings in Doherty's modus, or interpretations, or references or lack thereof. I am utterly disinterested in learning more about whether or not Doherty is responsible, i.e. to be blamed, for the relative paucity of reviews of his work thus far. I really don't care about academic political matters. I am keen to understand the concepts, not the personalities of those who argue the concepts.

I reiterate my absolute faith in Toto's skill, and believe that he/she would be excellent as a reviewer of ANY book. I do share your conviction Jeffrey, that an intimate knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew is a decided advantage in attempting to understand the literature, archaeology, and history of the first five centuries, CE, in the lands within 200 kilometers of the Mediterranean Sea. On the other hand, must we reject, a priori, as useless, a review of DaoDeJing, written by someone who cannot fathom ancient Chinese characters? Is Goethe's famous poem Selige Sehnsucht off limits to those who have not yet studied German? Should I cease listening to Ich Habe Genug, BWV 82, since I cannot read a musical score, nor play a musical instrument? I cannot touch the rim, let alone dunk the basketball, Jeffrey, should I stop playing every day?

Academic qualifications are, in my opinion, overrated.