godfry n. glad

So... You're telling us that Oxford U., Cambridge U., U. of Edinburgh and the like are state-supported institutions?

That Oxford University Press is a state-supported press?

If so, that's news to me.... but then, mayhaps I'm not clear on that Anglican Church/United Kingdom connection.

Anyway, in the United States, most of the big-name universities are _private_ institutions. The likes of Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Chicago, University of Southern California...etc. (most of them originally founded by some sectarian religious organization from which they have subsequently separated), are private institutions. Presses associated with these institutions are usually privately-owned and operated. They may take advantage of private, non-profit tax status, but that does not make them state organs. Private universities and colleges may take grants from the U.S. or state governments, but if they do, they are delimited in what those funds can used for and such grant monies can be used as a "whip" by the state to force compliance with public initiatives, so many of the better endowed private institutions have a tendency to stay away from government funding.

Yes, there _are_ a _lot_ of public institutions, some of them fairly prestigious (such as UC Berkeley and the University of California system) but, by and large they don't tend to field large or well-paid religious studies schools or departments...that tends to be left to the private colleges and universities. (Yeah... I know... there _are_ exceptions). So, when it comes to something like JECS, if it were to be published in the U.S., it would probably be by some entity that was privately-owned scholastic press, rather than a public institution.

Yes, public institutions do subscribe to such journals, but in the U.S., the overwhelming financial support for such presses come from private endowments and private university subscriptions. The taxpayer's money might be there, but I suspect that it is a verrrrry small proportion of the total...in the U.S., at least.

Best,

godfry

Toto

Journal of Early Christian Studies, the official publication of the North American Patristics Society (NAPS), is published by Johns Hopkins Press. I don't think either of those are government institutions. NAPS probably supports itself with membership fees, and the primary benefit of membership is a subscription to the journal.

godfry n. glad

Thank you, Toto.

Thus, JECS is a the official organ of a private, non-profit organization and is printed by another private, non-profit organization that is, most likely, owned and operated by yet another private, non-profit entity known as Johns Hopkins University. I'd bet as well that Johns Hopkins University Press owns the copyright on all material published within the journal.

I'd bet that most of the institutional subscribers to this journal are the libraries associated with private, non-profit scholastic institutions. Again, there may be a few public colleges or universities which subscribe to it, but that number would be exceedingly small compared to the private support provided.

godfry

Bede

Just to clear it up:

All UK universities (except the University of Buckingham) are funded almost exclusively by the state. However, none of them have any official affiliation with religious organisations even though many, like the in the US, have historic links.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

godfry n. glad

Okay... But I guess I'm still a little unsure as to the relationship of the Anglican Church with the state of the United Kingdom. It was my understanding that the Queen is the titular head of both. That being the case, how has the separation of state and church been accomplished in the UK? Or...has it? Did "disestablishmentarianism" die without issue?

Sorry about derailing this thread...but I'm curious about this relationship. Hopefully we can get back to drubbing Smith or his opponents fairly quickly.

godfry

Yuri Kuchinsky

Like I've already said, Roger, "real discussion" had already taken place many years ago, and it's been over for some time. Clementine scholars have accepted the authenticity of the letter. Professional palaeographers also.

The reason why some NT scholars still prefer to pretend otherwise is because they are lazy and incompetent. They don't want to study any new evidence because of laziness. They can't make head or tail of this new MS because of their incompetence.

And I guess some of them still try to spin some weird conspiracy theories about this MS because they might be just a bit paranoid?

And, yes, religious bigotry would be an additional factor for many of them...

Regards,

Yuri.

Toto

Separation of church and state has not been accomplished in the UK, AFAIK. Freedom of conscience may be guaranteed, but the government funds a lot of religious activity that could not be funded under the First Amendment in the US

Roger Pearse

Each and every one. The revenue stream of most is entirely state-controlled, right down to how much they can charge in fees ($5000 a year), and to whom. (Tuition fees, and indeed living expenses, used to be met by the state until a very few years ago, but increasingly the state is transferring the cost to the students. Not reducing the taxes raised on the pretext of paying for the universities, tho, naturally).

Oxford and Cambridge colleges do have substantial property, of course; on the other hand, they are constantly threatened with 'reform' as 'elitist' by our socialist politicians, which constrains their room for action; and in what sense their endowments are really private property might be questioned. Then again these same politicans went to Oxford and Cambridge and dine on high table at intervals...

It was not always thus, of course. In 1945 the new (first-ever) Labour government brought in a socialist-style state in many respects, and it has affected everything here since. Not positively, in most respects. It also funded a huge expansion of universities in the 1960's, which altered the whole structure of university life.

It's owned by Oxford University. It does do commercial printing as well, I believe, and no doubt makes money on that. The privilege of printing there is quite old -- Dr. Johnson refers to it.

I am astonished. How do they raise the money, then?

But then, your tax structure is much different to ours, which of course means you have much more freedom than we do, and means people actually *have* much more money at their disposal than we do (because the state isn't taking it all).

That of course would put quite a different complexion on the question, of course. I was unaware of this funding difference, and of course working from a UK perspective. Thank you for explaining it to me -- most useful.

Oh well. In the US you'll have to think up another reason to get access, then!

The downside of the US model, I suppose, is that they really do have to worry about the revenue stream. Not sure how that can be made to work.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Ah... no. People often think this, but it is not so and has not been so for centuries.

In theory the Queen is head of the CofE. This has evolved so that the Prime Minister appoints the bishops, and a government minister has control of the Church Commissioners, who hold the investments. In practise both roles are delegated to the civil service, which reflects the views of the political establishment of the day -- liberal-left in our day, of course.

This is why today CofE bishops are today often unbelievers and lefties, unsurprisingly; that is the general outlook of our establishment. From time to time I see a clergy obituary in the Times and Telegraph, which frankly avows that so-and-so was a splendid dean, or whatever, but was passed over for a bishopric which he would otherwise have got as it was 'policy not to appoint evangelicals at that period'.

The government does not fund any CofE activity whatever -- never has since Georgian times. The last Prime Minister to attempt to give funds to the church, if my memory serves me correctly, was Gladstone, in the 19th century -- and he didn't get his way. Some money is given from various lottery or charitable funds for historic building restoration -- dribbles, mostly, and with ferocious strings attached which effectively prevent the congregation from moving things around inside the building.

There *is* one chunk of money which the church received in the 1930s. Historically, the church was entitled to the tithes from farming. This caused a lot of resentment in rural areas, and was commuted at that time into a lump sum. Financially it was a dreadful bargain, but I gather most rural clergy were relieved, as it was down to them to enforce collection. It's probably worth about 200 million, GBP, IIUC. If the church were disestablished, this money would be forfeited, as it was in Wales when the Church of Wales was disestablished (in 1911).

But the political establishment seems to quite like the current setup. It allows them to meddle in church affairs, which they are quite willing to do whenever it suits them. Likewise they seem very happy to appoint persons of very dubious integrity, who can then be used as establishment spokesmen, and to resist claims for higher moral standards by claiming 'his holiness the bishop of x sees no problem with this.'

In my opinion, the CofE tends to operate a little like the Soviet system did with the Russian orthodox; to control, and restrict, not to promote. In both cases, the state appointed senior clergy, and rather expected them to harass lower clergy who were too successful, or expressed views unpopular with the state.

Again in my opinion, the system amounts to an abuse of the human rights of Anglicans to freedom of religion. State control of clergy appointments cannot be justified, in my view.

So the boot is rather on the other foot, in England anyway. Christians certainly have little power in the CofE; the secular establishment loads.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I am honestly doubtful. I don't mean to be awkward, but without going through l'Annee Philologique and reading back, I can't say for sure but I do not get this impression. Do you have a reference for this consensus? (NB: I'm not trying to score debating points -- I'm trying to find out how you got to this; it may be that we both are working from 'general impressions of the literature', of course).

The impression I get from a quick read of Graham Stanton, 'Gospel Truth' is a general suspension of belief, with a sceptical tinge, a fair number of people outright disbelieving, and a few believers. He ought to know, I'd have thought, at least what the guys he goes to conferences believe. (I would not regard him as an authority on Clementine literature per se, tho).

I'm off to a patristics conference in a couple of weeks. If you can give me some names, and they are there, I might try to buttonhole a scholar or two and ask them. Would that be helpful? (Do say if that is too short a timescale to gather a bibliography in -- again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but to take advantage of an opportunity if it arises. I'm only an amateur, tho, so can't really press too much).

I have no brief for what the great patristic scholar, W.H.C.Frend called 'the sterility of NT studies'. But I wonder whether the problem with this discipline is not laziness, but unacknowledged assumptions which rule out the right answer before they begin? (Of course that might be the same thing, if you like).

All the best,

Roger Pearse