GakuseiDon

Recently someone posted:
The idea that Jesus is a myth is too radical for most people and just sets up walls of resistance.

I suggested to Doherty on another forum that he should publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed journal. He replied:
I'm not sure how AC [GDon] expects that I will "see fit to give my thesis further academic scrutiny." Such a thing is hardly within my control. If I were to submit an article to a more ‘orthodox’ Journal, they would no doubt refuse it and hardly on the basis that it was honestly ‘peer-reviewed’ without prejudice... At the Journal of Biblical Literature, The Jesus Puzzle sat for months in the pool of available books to review, and no scholar undertook to do so. What were they afraid of? If the case is so flimsy and error-ridden, why not take the opportunity to demonstrate this? The abysmal comments by Dr. Paula Fredriksen (which AC fails to note were addressed by me in detailed fashion on my site) show how little understanding there is among scholars and how knee-jerk and shallow is their response to the mythicist position.

Neither Carotta nor Doherty have published articles in a peer-reviewed journal. Both seem to (at least) suggest that their ideas aren't examined by the mainstream out of fear/ignorance.

Yet surely there are atheist scholars who wouldn't be afraid to broach this topic (Carrier for one)? So: why doesn't the mainstream look into Doherty and Carotta? Is it fair to criticize the mainstream for ignoring an author, if the author hasn't attempted to publish in a peer-reviewed journal, and only published in a popular format?

Finally, what exactly IS "the mainstream" when it comes to biblical research? Is it possible to say that a particular journal/college/something else represents the mainstream?

Vorkosigan

I think it is fair to say that JBL, the journal of the SBL, represents the mainstream. Doherty has a valid point. There's no reason why any scholar can't take a few moments and review it. Same with Carotta. It didn't take me much time to show how bad it was. I've heard some harrowing tales of people with alternative ideas getting frozen out of the mainstream. On the other hand, Bill Arnal did present a paper on mythicism a couple of years ago at one of the SBL meetings, as I recall him saying on XTALK.

Vorkosigan

Julian

Is it worth being a member of SBL? Is the JBL any good? Worth getting?

Julian

Amaleq13

The status quo doesn't tend to go looking for ways to change. It usually has to be forced to change or at least compelled to consider the potential for change. Taking the popular route, rather than the scholarly route, can succeed, I think, but it requires an enormous amount of public acceptance and/or publicity (eg The DaVinci Code).

IMO, no. I think Doherty is making a huge mistake not taking Carrier's advice and trying to develop a more scholarly treatment of his thesis.

Ebonmuse

I agree. Doherty should at least attempt to write up his ideas for publication - having them rejected would be one thing, but I don't see what the harm is in trying.

Toto

I made the comment that starts the OP, but I was referring to political discourse, not necessarily academic discourse.

Doherty has written his ideas in a book. Richard Carrier did review the book, and Robert Price of the Journal of Higher Criticism speaks highly of Doherty and has published a review by Doherty (although not a review of his book, AFAIK).

I don't know what "peer review" means exactly in the field of NT scholarship, as opposed to scientific research. From what I have read, there is no real guarantee of validity in scholarly journals, except for the scholars' concern for their reputations. Peer review can keep out new ideas as well as inaccurate ones.

Doherty's work is too broad and all-encompassing for most journals, and for most modern scholarship, which prefer to focus on narrow issues of textual interpretation and literary criticism. He would need to carve out a very focused part of his thesis (e.g. the meaning of some term in the Pauline epistles) and try to publish that. I don't think he has the time right now, since he earns his living doing other things.

GakuseiDon

If there is no reason why a scholar can't take a few moments to review those works, then, in your opinion, why haven't they done it? Is it because they are afraid of those ideas? Or deliberately ignoring them for some reason?

Juliana

Here's on for a laugh!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Toto

Why do you think anyone should review the book? What would it get them? Mythicism is not the road to professional advancement.

If they are a believer, they don't want to confront the evidence that Jesus never existed. If they are not, they still need to function in a professional world dominated by believers. They may be afraid of ridicule if they take mythicism seriously, or they might get the head of their department upset, or a state legislator who controls their funding.

It is much, much safer to just say that there was a person named Jesus, but we can't prove much about him from the historical record. This does not knock down anyone's personal belief system.

GakuseiDon

OK, apologies if I've misrepresented the comment.

True, but Doherty has said that there is no point in trying to submit an article to such a journal in the first place as "they would no doubt refuse it" given their "knee-jerk and shallow response to the mythicist position".

I wonder if the scholarly consensus in Biblical research is so strong that there isn't even any point for Doherty or Carotta to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals?

That's fair enough. Still, is it possible to engage the mainstream by just publishing a book in a popular format? Even if scholars become convinced by the books, I guess Doherty and Carotta are expecting those scholars to convince others through the academic process, e.g peer-reviewed journals.