Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
I know very little about the Gospel of Judas, and she could be right for all I know, but she is kind of setting herself up in this persona of a lone voice in the wilderness.

The Gospel of Judas not a settled field, and I doubt that anyone in the field would say that there is a firm consensus on the question.

I think you are missing an important point about how a consensus is arrived at and what it means.

That could be so. I have made the judgment based largely on that blurb, because it reads like she is challenging the authority of the consensus, but maybe she is just exaggerating.

maryhelena · 03-02-2010, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

WOW! That says it all. I applaud April DeConnick for that. (Thanks, Toto.)

Abe and many others on this board, please take note.

Earl Doherty

Well, I'll second that :clapping:

I think there comes a moment for everyone engaged in seeking 'truth' when they have to go beyond what the accepted norm is. Never an easy road - so I'll wish her well on her journey.

And what a way to end this McGrath debacle - thanks Toto...a moment of crystal clear reality...

Steven Carr · 03-02-2010, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I have heard variations of the same complaint many times already, but thank you. Advocates of weird propositions in any field typically believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the intellectual establishment. They may believe that the wagons are circled in order to hide the real truth that would destroy the system if only people knew, or they simply claim that the establishment has an irrational dogma that precludes discussion of a more reasonable theory. Maybe it is true (anything is possible), but I think it requires evidence, not just the typical bluster.

So mythicists have to prove that there is something fundamentally wrong with the intellectual establishment behind historicist Jesus theories....

And when they do, A Abe will then immediately post that what mythicists are doing is picking holes in historicist Jesus theories.

You lose again, atheist suckers! And no whining that the game is rigged!

DCHindley · 03-02-2010, 06:01 AM

Toto,

I tried to get a feel for what DeConick was getting at, and it seems to be related to entrenched academic and church attitudes toward the origin and composition of the gospel of John. DeConick thinks that this gospel was formed in the midst of the struggle between Alexandrian gnostic and proto-orthodox Christians over the legacy Jesus should have endowed upon him.

She seems to think that both church and academia have invested interests in the result of analysis, interests that color their analysis. This is a post-modern approach, and her references to power relationships exerting control by means of these consensus understandings of the book's significance, is clearly influenced by Michel Foucault:

Foucault's later, less structuralist work sought to create a genealogy of power, a type of historical analysis that does not seek invariable laws of social change, but rather recognizes the contingency of history. Substantively, Foucault's genealogy questioned the ways in which knowledge and power interpenetrate in certain types of practices, such as the regulation of the body, governing bodies, and the formation of the self. Thus, it asks how people govern themselves and others through the production of knowledge. Foucault pays particular attention to the techniques that are developed from knowledge and to how they are used to control people. For Foucault, history is punctuated with changing forms of domination.

My own exposure to these kinds of "rationalizations ... tortured exegesis ... side-stepping" in academia happened when I was studying for a Seminar with John Dominic Crossan on his then recent book Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1998). Now I'm a fairly "liberal" person myself, and have some familiarity with sociology (Crossan calls it by the alternate name "cross-cultural anthropology"), so I was interested in his "Lenski-Kautsky" model. I read the books by those author's which had been cited by Crossan (G. Lenski, K. Kautky and G. E. M. de ste Croix), plus a couple by these same authors that were not cited, and realized that Crossan had cobbled his model together from ideas presented by those authors that had been taken completely out of context, and quite selectively to exclude their conclusions that contradict conclusions reached by Crossan. As a result, I ended up having no confidence in Crossan's Lenski-Kautsky Model. The Seminar link above will bring up a summary of the the seminar exchanges compiled by Crossan himself (my question was #18).

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

April DeConick on her Forbidden Gospels blog has not been part of this discussion, but her a post on a different subject seems applicable to this entire discouraging piece of mockery by McGrath.

Quote:

I have known for a long time that traditions are conservative and self-interested, but what is coming home for me in a very real way is just how much the traditions are safe-guarded by the dominant group - be it the mainstream churches or the academy - and how far the dominant group will go to protect them. The interests and preservation of those interests often become the end-all, even at the expense of historical truth. The rationalizations, the apologies, the 'buts', the tortured exegesis, the negative labeling, the side-stepping, the illogical claims accumulate until they create an insurmountable wall that preserves both church and academy, which remain (uncomfortably so for me) symbiotic.

The entrenchment of the academy is particularly worrisome for me. Scholars' works are often spun by other scholars, not to really engage in authentic critical debate or review, but to cast the works in such a way that they can be dismissed (if they don't support the entrenchment) or engaged (if they do). In other words, fair reproduction of the author's position and engagement with it does not seem to me to be the top priority. The quest for historical knowledge does not appear to me to be the major concern. It usually plays back seat to other issues including the self-preservation of the ideas and traditions of the dominant parties - those who control the churches, and the academy with its long history of alliance with the churches.

andrewcriddle · 03-02-2010, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is her interpretation of the Gospel of Judas. She has this blurb on her website:

DeConick contends that the Gospel of Judas is not about a “good” Judas, or even a “poor old” Judas. It is a gospel parody about a “demon” Judas written by a particular group of Gnostic Christians – the Sethians. Whilst many other leading scholars have toed the National Geographic line, Professor DeConick is the first leading scholar to challenge this ‘official’ version. In doing so, she is sure to inspire the fresh debate around this most infamous of biblical figures.

I know very little about the Gospel of Judas, and she could be right for all I know, but she is kind of setting herself up in this persona of a lone voice in the wilderness.

There is an increasing agreement among scholars studying the Gospel of Judas, that on several specific and important points DeConick's rendering of the text of the Gospel of Judas is right and the original National Geographic version was wrong.

Andrew Criddle

ApostateAbe · 03-02-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

It is her interpretation of the Gospel of Judas. She has this blurb on her website:

DeConick contends that the Gospel of Judas is not about a “good” Judas, or even a “poor old” Judas. It is a gospel parody about a “demon” Judas written by a particular group of Gnostic Christians – the Sethians. Whilst many other leading scholars have toed the National Geographic line, Professor DeConick is the first leading scholar to challenge this ‘official’ version. In doing so, she is sure to inspire the fresh debate around this most infamous of biblical figures.

I know very little about the Gospel of Judas, and she could be right for all I know, but she is kind of setting herself up in this persona of a lone voice in the wilderness.

There is an increasing agreement among scholars studying the Gospel of Judas, that on several specific and important points DeConick's rendering of the text of the Gospel of Judas is right and the original National Geographic version was wrong.

Andrew Criddle

If so, then that would be great. It wouldn't disqualify my claim that she is setting herself up as a lone voice in the wilderness, but it would disqualify her claim that the establishment is entrenched in a pro-religious bias.

Toto · 03-02-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is an increasing agreement among scholars studying the Gospel of Judas, that on several specific and important points DeConick's rendering of the text of the Gospel of Judas is right and the original National Geographic version was wrong.

Andrew Criddle

If so, then that would be great. It wouldn't disqualify my claim that she is setting herself up as a lone voice in the wilderness,

based on misreading her...

Quote:

but it would disqualify her claim that the establishment is entrenched in a pro-religious bias.

In this case, DeConick's reading is probably more in tune with the standard religious view than the National Geographic reading, which was rather sensationalistic.

Toto · 03-05-2010, 10:36 AM

McGrath has a post here More on Mythicism which reaches the bottom of the barrel. He links to Metacrock, then reveals that he cannot follow Neil Godfrey's arguments, then asks for some reference to basic historiography.

What part of your brain do you have to disable to get a PhD in NT studies?

maryhelena · 03-05-2010, 10:59 AM

Thanks, Toto, for the new link. Looks as though this debate is not over yet....
I've just noticed the debate has got a mention in the comments on Hoffman's blog (albeit giving a misrepresentation re Neil - but another poster there quickly set the matter straight.....)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...pect/#comments

JoeWallack · 03-05-2010, 11:11 AM

JW:
After writing more on the subject than Jesus is alleged to have said and done in his entire career, we now have one Associate Professor of Religion who is now asking what are proper criteria for determining historicity, so I can't help but feel that we are making progress.

I advise Professor McGrath to be cautious with this Skepticism stuff. It can be addicting.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

03-05-2010, 11:11 AM	#470
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Now we are getting somewhere! JW: After writing more on the subject than Jesus is alleged to have said and done in his entire career, we now have one Associate Professor of Religion who is now asking what are proper criteria for determining historicity, so I can't help but feel that we are making progress. I advise Professor McGrath to be cautious with this Skepticism stuff. It can be addicting. Joseph ErrancyWiki

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2010, 10:36 AM	#468
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	McGrath has a post here More on Mythicism which reaches the bottom of the barrel. He links to Metacrock, then reveals that he cannot follow Neil Godfrey's arguments, then asks for some reference to basic historiography. What part of your brain do you have to disable to get a PhD in NT studies?

03-05-2010, 10:59 AM	#469
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Thanks, Toto, for the new link. Looks as though this debate is not over yet.... I've just noticed the debate has got a mention in the comments on Hoffman's blog (albeit giving a misrepresentation re Neil - but another poster there quickly set the matter straight.....) http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...pect/#comments

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.