S.C.Carlson

I originally intended my case on Secret Mark to be an article for JBL, but I was advised before I even sent it in that it was too long and needed special treatment (for the illustrations) so the book route would be better.

If the paper is of the right length, it is OK if the idea is controversial (and may even help get noticed), as long as the treatment is scholarly. This generally means not going beyond the strength of what your evidence can bear.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson

Practitioners of "religious studies" and even "biblical studies" view their field as distinct from "theology." For articles involving religious/biblical studies, the most important thing is the paper's adherence to the historical-critical methods, which is intended to be independent of one's faith stance.

An introductory statement up front to the effect that "I am an atheist" (or "I am an evangelical/charismatic/etc.") is troubling not for its precise content, but the fact that it was made at all. The historical-critical enterprise is an attempt to reduce the effect of one's faith stance and reach defensible conclusions that a large spectrum of critical scholars can agree with. Such an introductory statement injects that issue into a context where historical-critical scholars don't think it belongs.

Stephen

Clivedurdle

But wouldn't a major criticism possibly be that historical - criticism is like the allied view of history, a pretence at objectivity, of neutrality about faith that is just not possible?

I would prefer clarity about where someone is coming from and then be able to judge their arguments in their context.

Has not post modernism hit theology and religious bible studies?

A professor used the word "spiritual" on the radio yesterday - I hadn't a clue what he meant!

hallq

My understanding of Einstein's story is that his lack of footnotes didn't go over too well. Lack of footnotes may not make for a bad paper, but if you're looking for acceptance, it won't help.

S.C.Carlson

Well, there are a couple of issues there. In terms of how to get your stuff published now, putting in a faith stance is not expected and, in fact, not appreciated.

Post-modernism is hitting biblical studies, but, while it's easy to say that people are influenced by "where they're coming from," it is harder to come up with effective ways of dealing with it. In fact, even post-modernism needs some notion of objectivity for its critiques to be accepted among historical critics. So, the fact that objectivity is an unreachable ideal does not mean that we should not be trying to reach for it. Quite the opposite--it means that we should never give up, thinking that we have completely succeeded at being "objective."

Historical criticism is a set of practices that scholars developed in light of the long experience to reduce the fallacious, irrational, or non-critical effects of it. As a general matter, depersonalizing the argument has been more effective at making the argument stand on its own than injecting personal issues into the discussion. (For example, one cannot make an ad hominem if one does not know much about the person. In fact, there is a controvery going on right now at the Yale Law Journal about whether they should or should not publish a professor's paper because he used a racial epithet when he was 17.)

Stephen

Clivedurdle

Possibly a very good example! Seventy times seventy, forgive thine enemies, he who is without sin cast the first stone and similar sayings come to mind!

Clivedurdle

I'm not sure objectivity is an unreachable ideal - it is something else. Do platonic ideals exist?

It is a technique of looking at something "from outside".

It is very useful to attempt to describe something in detail, from all perspectives - the perspectives of the person doing the describing has to be central!

Archaeology, sociology, social anthropology, ecology, all do this. Isn't pragmatism, Dewey and James about this approach?

Clivedurdle

From Giddens Sociology p 434

"religion is found in all known human societies. The earliest societies on record, of which we have evidence only through archaeological remains, show clear traces of religious symbols and ceremonials."

"St Bernard, abbot of a large monastery at Clairvaux, France, was one of the most fervent advocates of the crusades. "How blessed are the martyrs who die in the battle!"

"Rejoice, stout champion, if you live and conquer in the Lord, but exult and glory even more if you die and join the Lord!"

Neutral study of religion? Methinks there is an elephant behind the sofa!

Doug Shaver

Maybe people who are way, way smarter than the average scholar can get away with ignoring some conventions?

Vorkosigan

Can I add?

5. Proofread, proofread, proofread. Have it read by friends before you send it out for reading by a scholar.