Originally posted by lucifershammer
Respected? Or media darlings?
Are the two mutually exclusive? If Pope Benedict, for example, becomes a “media darling” (by virtue of being Pope), does that suddenly negate his scholarly credentials? How about Stephen Hawking?
What does “respected in the field” (BdN’s phrase) mean? What is the “field?” In various disciplines, there are often schools of thought such that, if one is a “member” of one school, s/he is likely to be disrespect—even dismissed out-of-hand by members of other “school” others.
Example: analytic philosophers and continental philosophers sometimes dismiss the whole project of the other in scathing terms (John D. Caputo says that this is exactly what has happened with Jacques Derrida—who could perhaps be scorned as a “media darling?” One can agree or disagree with how Derrida approaches philosophy, of course, but he is perhaps unlikely to be seen as “respected in the field,” if the field is limited to analytic philosophy. This is just an example I happened on; I don’t want to argue about Derrida.)
Can any “string theorist” be respected in a field where at least one Nobel laureate has declared that it isn’t science at all?
Closer to home: Is John D. Crossan a respected scholar in his field? Is E.P. Sanders? Burton Mack? Luke Timothy Johnson? John D. Robinson? Geza Vermes? Jacob Neusner?
How should the Gospel writers be viewed? As reliable historian/biographers? As respected scholars in that field? As objective journalists? As theologians?
_______________________________________
Karen King is a professor of ecclesiastical history at Harvard Divinity School.
Bruce Malina, professor of biblical studies at Creighton University,
Elaine Pagels is Harrington Spear Paine professor of religion at Princeton.
Which of these, if any, is not respected in the field?
(I don’t know if Linda Pieczynski has any scholarly credentials.)
BTW, I didn’t think that Pagel’s notion (whether it was original with her or not) that early Christianity was a multifaceted affair was any longer controversial. It isn’t with respect to Judaism. But if one holds a controversial position, can one still be considered respected in the field?
________________________________________
With regard to the issue, I have no particular axe to grind—except that I don’t think the questions ought to be dismissed out-of-hand based on religious doctrine. Nor do I think the process ought to be kept behind closed doors until the (probably unlikely event of) scholarly consensus.
Academia is certainly not free from controversy. All the conspiracy theory stuff aside, should scholars publish their theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls when there is no consensus?
Therefore, I would suggest that, in the case where one cites a scholar for the purposes of establishing scholarly authority for a position (even if one does not agree with that position), while it is not improper for one to cogently challenge the authority of said scholar, such a challenge does not absolve one from also cogently examining the position put forth (and whatever supporting data/arguments go with it). After all, as the old saying goes: “Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.”
This does not mean that we all have to go out and do primary research. In the list of scholars tackling questions of the historical Jesus and early Judaism(s) that I listed above, I choose Vermes over Crossan on the first subject, not because I don’t think that Crossan’s scholarship is rigorous (I think it is), but because I think he leaps to weak (though not impossible) conclusions (i.e., Jesus the Cynic); Vermes takes a much more minimalist approach, and I think reaches a much more reasonable (and also more minimalist) conclusion: Jesus the Galilean
hasid and teacher. On the second subject, I take Neusner over Sanders because Sanders seems to assume a fairly monolithic Judaism of the period, whereas I think the evidence clearly warrants Neusner’s conclusion that it makes more sense to speak of “Judaisms.”
________________________________________
NOTE: With regard to seeking textual support for women being in positions of authority (and not just “household authority” ) in the early church,
and even held positions that today might be called “ecclesiastical,” some of that can be found within the canonical texts. That is certainly not say that it is a slam-dunk (but neither is the counter-position), nor that that is the singular reason why some churches do not ordain women. In arguments for ordination of women, it may be a brick in the wall, but it is hardly the wall.
Jesus' Tomb?
27 Feb '07 11:08
Back to Top