Peter Kirby

Spin, I've never seen the situation portrayed in a way so poignant.

Is it even worthwhile for me to pursue a teaching career related to religious studies? That is, without being a 'religionist'. Or should I, as you say others do, try to stick to 'serious' history?

best,
Peter Kirby

NOGO

Getting a PHD in order to sell an idea! Wow!

Some ideas sell themselves and other don't.
Doherty's theories of Jesus will never sell themselves.

Many people who no longer believe put a lot of credibility in the Bible.
What would a PHD do against this? Nothing!

Bede has a much better chance of convincing people that science came from Christianity even if all the evidence is against it.

In other words Doherty has an uphill battle even if what he says turns out to be the truth.

Although I have defended Doherty on this forum I remain unconvinced.
If I were an expert in the field I would probably ignore Doherty as well.

Vorkosigan

Yes, I think so too and later this summer I intend to take a crack at that (I have published in other academic journals outside my academic field). However, that has nothing to do with my conclusions about Mark, Andrew. That's a perfectly safe and doesn't threaten the historicity of Jesus. But a paper demonstrating that Mark was a fiction from a writer who knew nothing about Jesus would never make it, period. No matter how ironclad the argument.

The reality is that the assumptions about Jesus which Farmer listed above govern the field. spin put it nicely: "There is simply a bias which the infidel cannot extract from the tools. This is why the infidel has to reinvent the wheel."

Yep. What we need to do is create a whole alternate scholarship, Andrew. One in which those axioms of Farmer have to be deduced as a conclusion based on the information from the text. That is scholarship. All other positions are religious.

Exactly. And there is no other field of scholarship where the participants are committed religious believers in its conclusions. That as why I always say that if the TF were any other passage in any other document, it would have been dismissed as a forgery ages ago.

Bibleinterp has an article today about how Allegro's book on the Essenes was ignored. That's the pattern. Bill Arnal has a great review of Price's Incredible Shrinking at Findarticles. Did JBL do one? Arnal predicts:

• It is likely enough, however, that not only P.'s arguments but his whole approach will be dismissed out of the theological presupposition that the Gospels must be "true." This would be unfortunate, since P.'s book really does show us how the standard NT tools of form, redaction, and rhetorical criticism, properly applied, as well as comparison with other religious texts, result in a much less credulous historical reconstruction of Jesus than is the norm in our field, even among such "skeptics" as the scholars of the Jesus Seminar.

That's the pattern, Andrew. So I think mythicists will have to go off an establish an alternative and competing scholarship.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I don't know, Vork. Is that what the "minimalists" have done? Gone off and formed their own club because they couldn't get published?

Without making any comparison on any other level, this is the tactic that Creation Science has taken: unable to break into regular science, they formed their own society. Does this truly increase credibility...especially in the eyes of scientists?

I would say that a first goal would just be to get the average scholar to read the article or book, whether she is convinced or not. (Part of the problem for those challenging Q, rapidly fading, is that other positions are not even understood well enough to compete; the problem is quite similar here.) That's why it's important to get published in one of the mainstream journals: they are read. Secondary importance goes to getting books out under an academic imprint: libraries buy them. Popular books? We will always have popular books with us, but when there is the opportunity to turn around academic heads, the effort of a fine mind such as Doherty or Price is best applied to that.

Speaking of Price, does anyone know what the current status of The Journal of Higher Criticism is? As far as I am concerned, it could be a fine place for high-quality 'mythicist' or 'radical' scholarship to be published. I have several of the issues myself. The articles published so far therein are good and academic, even if it isn't a 100 year old publishing apparatus. I hope that journal doesn't die. It's a good idea for me to contact Price.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Minimalism threatens only conservatives, Peter. It does not threaten the mainstream. And it doesn't threaten Jesus.

No, but it is not the act of forming an alternative scholarship that has decreased credibility, it is that the alternative scholarship has no scholarly basis. The whole point is that NT scholarship is currently not on a scholarly basis -- the foundational assumptions are unscholarly although the work itself is extremely scholarly (paradox, that). Essentially NT scholarship is the scholarly wing of a liberal apologetic for Jesus' historical existence. By calling for an alternative, I call for a scholarship based on the same skeptical assumptions that undergird scholarship in every other historical discipline.

To flip this analogy back at you, the problem is that it is the Creationists who are in charge in the NT hen house. Now there are two responses. First, we can attempt to clean out that hen house. Ha! How, with the seminaries pushing out thousands of drones grinding out defenses of the HJ every year, as Price noted? Or second, we can establish a new scholarly path. It would be nice to publish in the field and perhaps push it in new directions and Alternativists in your generation should strive to do that. But I don't see it as a real possibility that discussion on Jesus' historical existence will ever be permitted, or if permitted, bear fruit.

Yes. There's a widespread smear campaign on the moderate-to-conservative and conservative side of scholarship against people with different ideas.

I agree. That's why I am going route 2, the academic imprint. Route 1 is not possible unless you know Greek. And then there are limits on what you can publish. In any case the mythicist case demands several book length treatments. You can't kill the HJ in a single 250 page volume; ya gotta have a whole series of comprehensive works, and you need to focus on historical methodology, the massive abyss in the heart of NT scholarship. Someday I'd like to put together a group of people willing to write historically-focused, skeptical commentaries on each and every book in the NT. Skeptics need resources. Especially now that we confront a growing facist movement organized around historicist Christianity.

I think route 2, the serious imprint route, has another advantage. Once we have the books out there, and established a thoroughgoing and productive critique, route 1 will have no choice but to occur. As long as there is no alternative route 2 out there to give route 1 weight, nothing can happen. So the first move is to publish comprehensive works on the NT that can establish the Alternativist Foundation, then use that as the basis for a movement into the NT journals. Sooner or later we'll break in -- we are right, after all -- but we need to establish credibility.

I cannot think of even a single historical analogy for such a thing however. There is simply nothing like NT studies anywhere else in western scholarship.

Hell yes. JHC is great. I know scholars do read it. But is it mainstream?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Another thing we should do is have an Alternativist NT Conference. Invite people like Price and Bill Arnal to speak, and have budding Skeptics give papers on something or other, so we can get to know each other and get experience doing and presenting serious work in building up an NT alternative. That's your job for this fall, Peter!

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

No, Vorkosigan, the JHC is meant to facilitate the non-mainstream, although big-name scholars such as Neusner have published in it (but then, where hasn't Neusner published?). Doherty has an article published in the JHC, as have I (the one to be in The Empty Tomb, ed. Price and Lowder).

Why not take as an analogue the situation with philosophers, particularly those who work with philosophy of religion? Atheist philosophers are in the minority, but they are often among the most highly respected in the field. Why? Because they are thoroughly conversant with the scholarly literature and produce work that interacts with it in an intelligent, rational, and meticulous way.

By contrast, most Alternative or Mythicist 'scholarship' is crap. I'd give 1000 Carrota's and Acharya's in order to have just one David Friedrich Strauss or Earl J. Doherty.

Think of the resources that apologists have available to them. For example, you can get a Master's degree with an emphasis in Apologetics. I am in dialogue with a person who was pursuing such a degree under Gary Habermas at a Christian university. Oh yes, there are Christian universities. There are even Christian libraries. Ever hear of Tyndale House? A place where scholars can go and write their books and monographs with one of the largest collections of theological literature in the world at their fingertips. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world for those who would promote skepticism.

Anyways, I'm wondering, what should I do? What can I do? My skepticism is a matter of public record. My first publication is an essay against the Empty Tomb doctrine. I am considering getting a Masters of Religion or a Ph.D. in History (not sure which). Any suggestions here? (I have confidence that I will not want for money; I mean, what's the best thing to do to make things happen kind of like you suggest, Vork?)

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

On a personal note, Michael, I won't be going to Germany this summer--though likely next summer. This means that I will have more time this summer to devote to, well, whatever I decide.

Actually, your idea sounds like a lot of fun. I have two ideas for its venue:

1. Get a university to allow us a lecture hall (more gravitas). Maybe Drew or Claremont?
2. Vegas, baby! How much does it cost to use one of the convention rooms for a while?

I would place it no sooner than January 2006 in order to allow people time to decide and to compose their papers. One would have to charge at least a nominal fee (say $50) in order to ensure that people show up.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Interesting analogy.....

Damn right. Keeping out the crap is a serious problem. It's a consequence of mythicist work being done in the spare time by people who are not scholars in the field. So -- multiple priorities -- get out the pioneering works, and get skeptics into NT studies and related fields -- build the resources and so on.

Exactly! That's what we have to establish. And they have massive funding.

The history PHD, definitely. Even better, a dual PHD like Price. Maybe they'll name a "school" after you, the Kirbyian school of NT analysis.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I like the idea of a commentary series written by skeptics or radicals. To my knowledge it has never been done. I would like to write a commentary on the Gospel of John. My idea, and it is not new, is that the Gospel of John is ahistorical and allegorical, a "spiritual gospel," drawing upon the Gospel of Mark for its common material. Demonstrating its ahistorical nature and its dependence on Mark would, I imagine, be huge steps forward. You may have the resources to write a commentary on the Gospel of Mark. To have commentaries on the four Gospels would, I think, be a wonderful start to such a series, or just stand alone as an accomplishment. I have said before that there is a need for a detailed dissection of the Four Gospels in order to undermine the assumption of the historical Jesus, if that's a goal. And I mean detailed and exegetical, not the summary dismissal or mongering of parallels that one often finds from mythicists.

best,
Peter Kirby