Subject: List Participation

From: Jim West <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:39:43 -0500 (EST)

With all due respect to Professor Hurtado, who asks us if we wish this list
to be a substantive discussion group or an electronic chat room, I must
protest what I perceive to be an imperialistic attitude.  "I am willing to
admit that truth can come from any corner" we are told and then we are
informed that, in essence, unless truth comes from the academy, in
standardized academic form, then the "experts" will simply not have time to
bother with it!
Indeed, truth may come from upper Slobovia, but we "experts" won't bother
listening to it unless you state it the way we would.  I cannot help but
believe that the academic imperialism voiced here is as unfortunate as the
male imperialism of past ages in academia.
If Bob Waltz states a truth, then it behooves any genuine scholar to listen
to it.  If Maurice Robinson suggests an idea and supports it with reason, it
simply makes no difference if it has already been published in the Journal
of Biblical Literature.  (and may I add, on this point, that the suggestion
that editors will publish truth no matter where it comes from is utterly
laughable!  And anyone who has submitted any essay knows it!  If your name
is not known, you will not be published, no matter how brilliant your idea).  
That, in short, is why this very serious and useful forum is so important.
For it, and it alone, offers the opportunity for those with real ideas and
not merely repeated, heavily footnoted ideas to be heard (at least by those
"with an ear to hear").
But I suspect that Professor Hurtado would prefer that only those who are in
high visibility academic positions would speak here.

Jim

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
[email-masked]

---

From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 15:38:14 +000

Mr West expresses himself with considerable alarm to my posting 
urging that scholarly standards and procedures of assessing 
academi "truth" be followed.  I hasten to assure him & all that I 
intend no "academic imperialism", I think.  But it's not quite clear 
what that would be.  Is is "imperialistic" to ask that those who wish 
to be taken seriously in academic discussion present their findings 
in fora and forms that scholars have found most useful for such 
things?  I have also criticized the Jesus Seminar for its 
scholarship-by-press-conference approach, and I dislike C. Thiede's 
sensationalist-book and newspaper-article approach too, presenting as 
sure things claims that have not been mooted before scholars, whose 
critical judgement is the only indication of the academic value of 
claims (the only indication open to us till the eschaton reveals 
all!).
Yes, it *is* very difficult to get published in academic journals 
(I've been rejected by some of the best myself, but then, as a more 
celebrated scholar than I has said, " the path to scholarly greatness 
is paved with rejection slips!").  But there is no conspiracy out 
there to prevent certain views from being presented . . . unless the 
presenters can't supply warrants that scholars in the field can 
recognize. 
I am very pleased that this list has among its contributors several 
who are not published in the field, among whom are several with 
impressive commitments of time and effort to learning something of 
the field.  But my point is that learning the field (or any field) 
also means includes learning that scholarship is *critical* endeavor, 
not a town hall meeting in which anyone can speak and every view be 
treated as of equal value.  So, when someone wants to make a major 
critique of views in a field, attempt a re-orientation, condemn 
widely held views as naive or poorly based, is it too much to ask 
that such voices should submit their views for critical appraisal to 
scholars in the field and in fora and forms by which the field 
conducts its business?  One can say and think what one wishes (no 
imperialism please!).  But if one wishes to have one's views have an 
impact on the field, then one must pay the price of becoming a 
scholar, including the procedures of scholarship.
This list (I thought) was originally devised to discuss the articles 
and issues surfacing in the journal TC.  It has done precious little 
of that.  In part this is because few things have as yet appeared in 
TC.  While we're waiting for more, there is plenty out there that 
*has* been vetted by peers as worthy of scholarly consideration that 
we could deal with on this list--I've mentioned Gamble's recent books 
'n readers book; there is Ehrman's recent book with oodles of 
variants & his proposals about the theological tendencies behind them 
(many of which are certainly debatable); our Hebrew Bible folk have 
scarcely been heard from, etc. etc.
Honestly, folks, I'm not a mean guy, and don't mean anything mean 
here.  But all should know that the patience of many NT text critics 
is sometimes tried on this list.  

L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place 
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail:  [email-masked]