stephan huller

I have two passions right now - Biblical scholarship and the Presidential election. I have been noticing that most discussions of Presidential polling will bring up the 'house effect' of the poll - i.e. that Republican pollsters tend to show better results for Republican candidates (= Rasmussen) and Democratic pollsters (= PPP) tend to show better results for Democrats (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...s-become-bias/). Why isn't this factored into newspaper articles of Biblical controversies. For instance I have noticed over the last couple of days that the scholars who think that the Jesus Wife Gospel is a forgery not only think Secret Mark is a fake but for the same (silly) reasons.

This doesn't mean that I 'know' the fragment is authentic. It's just that these same group of scholars seem to always position themselves against any discovery that challenges the established faith of Christians. Which leads me to the point of this thread. I saw Stephen Carlson (doubter of this heterosexual gospel and the homosexual Secret Mark gospel) is now working at Uppsala (presumably because of a job opening secured for him by like-minded evangelical Tommy Wassermann). I also just saw Alin Suciu post a photo of him and a female colleague posing in front of a picture of the Pope in Rome with the caption "Two orthodoxes with the Pope in the conference Hall of the Apostolic Vatican Library."

My point is - shouldn't newspaper articles make reference to the 'house effect' of scholars and their presumed biases? I mean is there really any proof that the Jesus Wife Gospel is a 'forgery'? I don't believe that Jesus was married. I think that Christianity was developed from the homoerotic ideal of Platonic literature. That's my bias. But I don't see any evidence yet that we should accuse a Harvard scholar (Karen King) and two Columbia scholars (Roger Bagnall and Morton Smith) of being involved with illegal and immoral activity merely because we don't like what they discovered. At most these are discoveries which would bother self-described 'evangelicals' and 'orthodoxes.' Should that be mentioned in articles about these documents front and center?

sotto voce

But this bit of papyrus and 'Secret Mark' are damn silly artefacts, frivolities, anyway. Neither is worth mention on a front page of even a religious publication. Even if these works are early, it doesn't stop them being complete trash, along with a truckload of other stuff. It's quite extraordinary how something that tells people that they really have to be good is picked to bits in the most frenzied, irrational fashion, whereas anything that might tell them that they can be bad with impunity is treated as holy writ, even though its provenance is contemptible. Or maybe it isn't.

The intelligent computer user who reads the appropriate sites may perhaps be uncertain that Christianity is the truth, but he or she sure knows that one hell of a lot of people are certain that it is. There is disease rampant on the internet, with trolls inevitably invading sensible, constructive discussions, rudely, gratuitously shoving the KJV, or papism, or how the gospel is 'homophobic', whatever that means. You see posters who pursue one agenda, or another; 'atheist', or fake believer. In some cases, you see 'flip-flops', trolls who are unsure; they try on atheism, find it doesn't work, so flip to fake Christianity, supporting Romanism, or Orthodoxy, or, less commonly, the supposedly Protestant factions or organisations. And back again.

And it's the same in the media, except that flip-flops are rare. But for the intelligent observer, the significance is that important people are certain that Christianity is the truth. Though one need only to be reasonably well-read to be aware of that. Western literature of any age in the last two millennia witnesses to complete conviction that Christianity is loved, hated and feared, because it is true. Many capitalists choke on the idea of real Christianity, just as feudal masters did, and as the corrupt patricians of slavery-based 'classical' economies did. Many parts of the media are owned by Catholics, who are the 'offspring' of those corrupt patricians. So just about everything the media report that impinges on Christianity is designed either to discredit it, or to bolster false representations of it. The left wing press, such as it is, supports scepticism and atheism, and promotes any bit of news, or 'news', that works up its readers into a lather. The right wing press tends to support Christianity because 'Christianity' must be supported, particularly the authoritarian organisations. The right wing are really telling the atheists and skeptics that, much as they sympathise, they haven't a hope of winning their argument. Of course, the left retort with the observation that the right's papacy and other episcopalian outfits are not doing so brilliantly, either.

Vorkosigan

No one is accusing Bagnall et al of illegal activities. But nothing can be said about the authenticity of this text, which appears to have a various obvious alteration, until chemical and carbon testing is performed.

stephan huller

go to suciu's fb page. its carefully worded, veiled but there

stephan huller

Here's the comment:

"I am still hoping that Bagnall got involved accidentally." What's the alternative that is being left open?

stephan huller

And then there is everyone's favorite example about how to 'make it' in academia through tabloid scholarship - not accusing of Bagnall of being involved in 'the conspiracy' (as if there ever is one) but referencing his 'naivete.' Commenting on this statement of Bagnal's in a Boston Globe article:

The risen star of evangelical textual criticism notes:

Yuck!

sotto voce

Maybe. But much ado about nothing.

stephan huller

i have always been fascinated by the inner workings of a partisan

sotto voce

One can analyse the self with affection, then.

stephan huller

i am not certain about anything on early christian except that jesus was not and never claimed to be the jewish messiah