Ted Hoffman

Zeichman,
It seems you use "established" to mean "not been running long enough." Is that the case?
Ok.
Not Ok. JHC was open to all. How may articles do you know of that were rejected because they were of maximalist or orthodox bent?
Like which articles in JHC?
You know about it. So does Jacob Neusner, Jeff Gibson and Roger Pearse. Nobody gives a fuck about those who dont look beyond their parochial interests.
This is meaningless. What does moderately-sized mean? In any case, we have Price, Doughty, Eisenmann and Dennis R Macdonald. And this is the authorship. The readership is doublessly huge.
You need statistics for this.
Passed.
Passed.

Zeichman

I wouldn't say that I mean that, but you can interpret it as you like.
I think its safe to assume that a journal aimed at breaking down "cherished assumptions" would not print non-responses in favor of these traditional views. We'd need Price or someone else to comment on this. I think my assumption is fairly well founded. If no traditional items were submitted, I think it would be favor of my point about relative un-knowness.
The introduction to the JHC lays out fairly clearly an agenda which the whole publication followed.

Okay, how about this: if I cited/quoted it in a paper, would my critically-minded professor tell me that I ought to use a different source because JHC's contents have been deemed dubious or insignificant within the realm of NT scholarship?

Is that why it's no longer being published and only printed twice a year? I know that the journal was in the red in its later days, which hardly speaks well for your conjecture. One representative told me that "The journal does not break even..." I was going to try to avoid rubbing dirt in the wound, but if you insist...

I remember Mack favorably cited a then-forthcoming article, and Allison cited it unfavorably. I'm sure I'm missing several, but if you're able to count the citations within scholarly publications on your fingers and toes... things don't bode well. I have no idea how I could get the statistics for this when it's not even on ATLA.

Toto

The Journal of Higher Criticism is no longer published by Drew University, but is not defunct as far as I know.

The conservapedia entry is incorrect.

Amaleq13

Which of the scholars who have authored reviews in JHC represent the HJ position?

Also, I can't find a critical review of Doherty's thesis. Is there one?

Zeichman

Toto: Darrell Doughty in an e-mail informed me that it is no longer around a month or two ago. I can forward it to you if you pm me your e-mail addy.

Ameleq, if you'd like to read my response to Doherty use of Q, you can go here: http://neonostalgia.com/resources/bi...dloathing.html . He has since responded, and I'm working a rejoinder. It's not comprehensive and I'm not credentialed beyond a BA in Theology and Classics. As for the reviews in JHC by HJers:
Roberts, Paul W.
In Search of the Birth of Jesus. The Real Journey of the Magi (New York: Riverhead Books, 1995). Reviewed by Barbara Thiering. JHC 5/2 (Fall 1998), 313-315.
Sheres, Ita, and Anne Kohn Blau
The Truth about the Virgin: Sex and Ritual in the Dead Sea Scrools (New York: Continum, 1995). Reviewed by Barbara Thiering, JHC 3/1 (Spring 1996), 155-157.
Wilkins, Michael J., and J. P. Moreland (eds.)
Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994). Reviewed by Roy W. Hoover, JHC 3/2 (Fall, 1996), 315-318.

Also, if anyone could get me a copy of Price's review of "Drudgery Divine" (JHC 3/1 (Spring 1996), 137-145), I would be appreciative.

Toto

That review is online: Drudgery Divine reviewed by Robert Price

Zeichman

*cough*

I knew that.

Thanks, Toto.

Amaleq13

I've been following it already. Your efforts, as well as those by Ben and Don, have been quite enlightening.

Am I correct in thinking that none of those books can be said to be representatives of the mythicist position?

Has Doherty's thesis been subjected to critical review by JHC?

Has anybody's mythicist position been subjected to critical review by JHC?

Zeichman

Doherty reviewed at least one of Price's books for JHC, which was pretty similar to the version that was on his site.

No HJer has reviewed a MJer book, though MJers have reviewed HJ books.

I will also rescind my earlier statement about JHC publishing other works. I was completely wrong about their openness to traditional views.

Also, I was totally incorrect in regards to the JHC's publication status. Price just informed me that a new issue is in the works.

jjramsey

That's not quite true: RBL review of Deconstructing Jesus

Not too surprisingly, it was negative.