Peter Kirby

This is my proposed thesis:

"We who study the New Testament as literature in history are like fish. Our enemies, even as they greatly fascinate us, are the 'fishers of myth', those who would hook us with clever argument and get us to believe as they do about the lake in which we swim, at which point we cease to wonder about it and indeed die intellectually. I propose a look at the New Testament with a fish-eye view as student, to point out the grottos that I have discovered, the ways of being in the water that keep us alive and thinking, and generally help you to keep yourself from rising to the bait."

The first part should be on literary criticism and ways of reading the text as it is.

The second part should be on textual criticism and ways of restoring the text as it was.

The third part should be on historical criticism and ways of imagining the past as it would have been.

The fourth part will look at some of the 'fishers of myth' on the side of radical historicity.

The fifth part will look at some of the 'fishers of myth' on the side of radical non-historicity.

The sixth part will look at some of the most deceptively attractive 'fishers of myth', those whose overarching theories lie between the poles, yet would still threaten to shut down a wondering mind.

I would include an annotated bibliography to help other fishes keep on swimming.

Thoughts?

Chris Weimer

I disagree with your "parts" as if they were separate and linear. They're not. They're very much intertwined, which is why it sometimes seems circular. While textual criticism is mainly concerned with the manuscripts, many an emendation have been suggested because of a particular literary understanding of the text. Ego mulier in Catullus is an important one.

S.C.Carlson

Agreed on the (potentially circular) role of literary criticism in emendation, but, as a practical matter, there's hardly any emendation in NT textual criticsm.

Stephen

Peter Kirby

And who would ignore that historical criticism can be brought to bear on the way we read a text? The categories of method are there; strict division between them is not.

Peter Kirby

Here's some of what would go into the work.

1. Literary Criticism, or How to Say Something about What is Written

Nothing really new here, a rundown of the ways in which we interpret texts.

The examples for this chapter would be the Gospel of Thomas, which is choppy at best in structure, and the Apocalypse of John, which has definite structure yet has engendered fascinating misunderstanding for centuries.

2. Text Criticism, or the Task of an Erasmus and the Bane of Marcion

Again, nothing really new, except to note that I will take a balance between a staunch empiricism in text criticism (if it ain't witnessed, there's nothing to it) and "emendation gone wild" ... I am partial to footnoting Yuri here.

The examples for this chapter would be the Gospel of John, which almost surely has had some prehistory before attaining published form, and the strange case of the 'Gospel of the Lord' from Marcion, where (against Knox) I side with those who do not see this as a faithful reproduction or original Luke.

3. Historical Criticism, or How not to Assume in a World without Proofs

This should really be interesting! How to make good assumptions knowing that there is going to be no solid proof of them? I will rely on the works of secular historians and contrast that with the 'criteria' developed in the hothouse of NT criticism.

The examples for this chapter will be (tentatively) the supposed 'Jerusalem Council' in Acts and Galatians, and the supposed brother relationship between James and Jesus in Galatians, the Gospels, and Josephus (and archaeology?).

4. "Fishers of Myth" Case Studies: Craig L. Blomberg & someone else (suggestions?)

Blomberg has been the thinking man's defense of not thinking too much about whether any story in the Gospels is true (because it is!), for far too long. I will take suggestions on who else to recruit from the ultra-historicist school for a spanking.

5. "Fishers of Myth" Case Studies: Earl Doherty and G. A. Wells

They aren't radical enough for some, but they demonstrate a knowledge of the scholarship in the NT world to a degree that others in the vein don't, so it's obvious which two to pick in my mind.

6. "Fishers of Myth" Case Studies: J. P. Meier, J. D. Crossan, N. T. Wright, and James Dunn

Picking out a representative sample of those scholars attempting a grand view of Christian origins proved a difficult idea. I'd welcome criticism of this short list of 'grand theorists' who lie between the poles.

The point I will make is that their methods are not adequate to their conclusions; that they've gotten far too fine-grained (Meier, Crossan especially) or just too gab-nabbed gullible (Wright, Dunn).

I might add in Robert Eisenman; actually, that's a really good idea, since his book did make a splash back in the 90s.

7. On Solving Little Problems: In Praise of Great Nitpickers

Here I will feature the works of people such as S. C. Carlson and Mark Goodacre to pick at the marble that is NT studies with a loving, patient chisel. :notworthy:

Further thoughts?

Chris Weimer

Also, please do not neglect the rôle of other historical timelines apart from the NT and how it bears upon the New Testament. New Testament studies deserves no special status over the Puranas, over the works of Vergil (including Pseudo-Vergil), etc...

mountainman

Fish have their peculiar environment ...

"To discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions
would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean
without the slightest mention of the many tributaries
that keep it flowing."

"The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity"
[29 November 1949-15 February 1950] [Chester, Pa.]
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/p...ristianity.htm

Peter Kirby

I've been thinking about my metaphors. Perhaps the best way to describe the scholars are as hawks rather than fishermen, in that they claim a birds-eye view of the subject...hmmm.

I don't want to make it sound like the bird's eye is impossible to achieve, only that we should be like flying fish: most of our lives spent in the water, looking at details, and every once in a while flinging our soul upon the chance of getting a better overall view. But never getting too attached to that glimpse, for it is likely not to be as accurate as that which is being pieced together under the surface as a topography of the subject. The bird misses the lake for the surface, when the actual map is going to be a shared reality of the interlocking of many pieces from domain experts: the bottom feeding text critic, the frolicking dolphin literary critic, and the more agile of the squids trying to make historical connections here or there. The generalist is generally wrong.

For the most part, we can only take a fish-eye view of our subject. The purpose of the work is to introduce the reader to that reality, and to awaken in him or her an interest in going beyond the broad brush strokes of a Crossan, a Doherty, or a Blomberg.

Peter Kirby

A chapter on integrating the knowledge of other disciplines--including the history of other periods, the comparison of other religion, and the sociology and anthropology of human nature generally--seems appropriate. Taking a fish-eye view most of the time, does not mean that one never swims in another lake, or ignores the data from other schools of fish.

So, Chris, thanks for your feedback. Probably I will work this in to the introductory chapter.

Chris Weimer

I cannot agree any more on integration. It's one of the truthisms of historical studies that everything is related in some way, that no field can be completely left alone with integrating what other fields have accomplished, and anyone who fails to take in the "big" picture while at the same time perfecting their own little corner is surely not going to fail somewhere on their end. It's inevitable.