Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for your useful contribution.
Da Vinci Code.
Here's an interesting debate with a few respected scholars in the field:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html
A salient point is that Mary Magdalene's identity is very much in play--she can be appropriated to a variety of viewpoints, one of which is that she was a prostitute--although the New Testament does not state this explicitly.
Here's the Gospel of Mary, from, which Dan Brown borrowed in a most unscholarly way: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html
Originally posted by Bosse de NageRespected? Or media darlings?
Thanks for your useful contribution.
Here's an interesting debate with a few respected scholars in the field:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week712/feature.html
A salient point is that Mary Magdalene's identity is very much in play--she can be appropriated to a variety of viewpoints, one of which is that she was a prostitute--altho ...[text shortened]... own borrowed in a most unscholarly way: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerA bit snippy, aren't you? Elaine Pagels is Professor of Religion at Princeton. She must command some respect! Besides, who cares whether they are media darlings or not--it's what they say that counts. Now, I didn't know that Mary Magdalene was first painted as a harlot by Pope Gregory, did you? Or is that a false claim?
Respected? Or media darlings?
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, ivanhoe, I was completely unaware of the Gnostics and their writings until Dan Brown showed up...Proof of his mastery over my intellect is the fact that I acquired the knowledge by osmosis after looking at the cover in a bookshop--or so I assume, since I haven't read the Da Vinci Code.
That's where our "rational" and "enlightened" .... oh brother đ ..... friends get their "facts" and ideas .....
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre 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?
Respected? Or media darlings?
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.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBdN: " .... since I haven't read the Da Vinci Code."
Yes, ivanhoe, I was completely unaware of the Gnostics and their writings until Dan Brown showed up...Proof of his mastery over my intellect is the fact that I acquired the knowledge by osmosis after looking at the cover in a bookshop--or so I assume, since I haven't read the Da Vinci Code.
Keep it that way .....
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI don't know about that. Falsifying your data is a serious offence for an academic:
I guess Elaine Pagels is respected in the field of Gnostic scholarship.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736
She may have once been respected for her work on the Nag Hammadi texts. Perhaps that will be her positive legacy to the field. However, it is one thing for a Dawkins to leave the domain of biology and enter into theology and philosophy; quite another for a Hwang Woo-suk to fabricate data ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4554422.stm ). And that is what Pagels has done.
From personal witness, I agree with Mankowski's comment in the article above:
At the post-graduate institute where I teach, and at any university with which I am familiar, for a professor or a grad student intentionally to falsify a source is a career-ending offense. Among professional scholars, witness tampering is no joke: once the charge is proven, the miscreant is dismissed from the guild and not re-admitted.