Subject: Acadmeic imperialism, etc., etc., etc.

From: "William L. Petersen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 12:06:23 -0400

I have watched this discussion unfold with amusement.  It is, in many ways,
a perfect example of the wild charges and half-cocked ideas which end up on
the list, bereft of fact..

First, the "bereft of fact."
(1) It has been asserted that you "can't get published unless you are
already published."  This is so patently nonsensical that it hardly bears
comment.  *Every* published author was, at one time, *unpublished*!  If the
assertion that you "can't get published unless you are already published"
were true, then *no one* would be published:  it is simple logic.

Case in point--and to the matter of minority opinions getting heard in the
academy:
(2) My first article in a refereed journal (Novum Testamentum) appeared in
1981 when I was an *unpublished* graduate student.  It introduced a new
idea--which is obviously a *minority,* *non-accepted* argument--and yet it
was accepted for publication.  It argued (on the basis of rabbinic parallels
and--with a nod to a thread recently on the list--differing theologies
between Gentile and Judaic Christianity) that the version of the Parable of
the Lost Sheep in the Gospel of Thomas was more ancient than *either* of the
(contradictory) synoptic versions...  Gee, I wonder how I "slipped" through???

As for the claim that only stuff "acceptable" to some amorphous "academic"
cabal gets published, and concerning the evil standards they use to weed out
"brilliant" contributions with which they don't agree:
(3) Bart Ehrman recently drew attention on the list to my review (in *JBL*
113 [1994], 529-531) of Philip Comfort's *The Quest for the Original Text of
the New Testament* (Baker Book House 1992). The book has been positively
cited on the list from time to time, as a useful contribution (some list
participants have differed...)

In his book, Comfort states:  "In a recent study (1989) Barbara Aland dates
the manuscript [Comfort is talking about P75] closer to 175.  I agree with
this date--and urge that it is probably near 175." (Comfort, p. 98).

My comment in the review:  "Aland, however, makes no such assertion in the
article;  Comfort is inventing evidence."  Nor does she redate P75 anywhere
else in her oeuvre--so it is not just an incorrect citation (= should have
been some *other* article of hers...).

Now, list members, this is *precisely* what scholars object to:  claims--in
this case, attributed to one of the leading figures in the discipline--which
are (1) untrue, and (2) unsubstantiated (it was substantiated by a reference
which is wrong--and attributes something to Aland which she has never said
anywhere!).  *Yet it got published!*

Another example:  Comfort states: "...textual scholars have determined that
the New Testament text used by Clement of Alexandria and Origen aligns with
those Alexandrian manuscripts that are considered the best witnesses to the
text."  (Comfort, p. 52).

My comment in the review:  "This is simply not true.  M. Mees' definitive
study (1970) of Clement's NT citations examined each pericope individually:
his conclusions directly contradict Comfort's unsubstantiated assertion."

Mees' book is *Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von
Alexandrien*;  he lists his results individually for *each* book--lest he
mischaracterize his findings.  The results are extremely nuanced (not a
strength of this list...) and detailed (the book is over 250 pages long
[while posts may be long on the list, they are usually weak on detail...]).
For Matthew:  "Clemens Mth.-Zitate koennen nicht einfachin (sic) der
neutrale Text sein, noch gehoeren sie einer B besonders nahestehenden Gruppe
an.  Dazu sind sie viel zu eigenwillig.  Zudem lassen sie zuweilen Absichten
ersichtlich werden, die B fremd sind...  Der Clemenstext kann aber auch
nicht der Volkstext des 2. Jahrhunderts sein.  Dazu ist er viel zu
detailiert und traegt ein viel zu persoenliches Gepraege an sich....  Damit
kann man aber nicht einfach Clemens als einen Zeugen des westlichen Textes
(D, vet. lat. syr. vet) abstempeln..." (p. 53 in Mees).

Who are these unnamed "textual scholars" which Comfort says "have
determined" the character of Clement's text??? He does not tell us. Why have
they not--and why does Comfort not--interact with the most extensive,
detailed, and recent study of Clement's text, namely that of Mees???  This
again is *exactly* what scholars object to:  Mees has done the work.  It is
competent.  His views are authoritative, until bested.  It is *your*
responsibility to master the literature of the area in which you wish to
publish, lest you make blunders like this, and mislead people.

Another example, this time of logic (important, as it is apparent that not
all on the list understand what an *e silentio* argument is...):  Comfort
states that the Alands' dating of the papyri is "too conservative, inasmuch
as they date only one manuscript (P52) in the second century" (Comfort, p.
30).  The logic here is absurd:  *because* you date only one MS to the
second century, your dating is *too conservative*???  The grounds on which
papyri are dated (and by their editors, *not* by the Alands...) rests on
*standardized* tests:  papyrology, paleography, text-type, etc., etc.
Comfort doesn't seem to understand this, for he never produces a single
argument on the basis of paleography, text-type, paprology, etc., to redate
*any* papyri to the second century.  Yet he criticizes the Alands for being
"too conservative"...  Hunh???

I will end here, for Ehrman's merely *naming* my review on the list brought
howls of protest (from Baker Book House, nota bene!) that Comfort was "being
trashed again on the list" (as I recall the words:  I will not take the time
to look them up).  Wrong.  It is the truth which is being trashed--and not
by me.

Read the review.  The book was published.  Each and every criticism I
directed against the book turns on a point of fact:  *Does* Aland redate
P75?  No.  *Do* scholars say Clement's text "aligns" with the "Alexandrian
manuscripts that are considered the best witnesses to the text"?  No.  The
points directed against Comfort's book are *not* "interpretation" or
prejudice, they are simply honesty and competence:  can you footnote
correctly?  can you read German adequately?  can you command the relevant
literature correctly?  If not, you can *still* get published (and this book
is evidence of it), but you may *not* get into the best refereed journals,
or published by the best houses!

The reason scholars get concerned about this--and try *not* to give
"loud-mouthed opinions"--is for the reason I gave in the last paragraph of
the review:  "This book...serves as an example of a particular genre of
pseudo-scholarship, which finds its way into certain schools and churches
and then into students.  This is unfortunate, for the *un*learning of this
volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for
the student and an unwarranted waste of time for the professor."

In conclusion:  (1) Anyone *can* get published.  To claim otherwise is
simply nonsense--vanity presses *always* publish!  (2) Minority positions
are heard in the academy, in refereed journals. My debut aritcle proves it,
as do many other of my own and other scholars' articles and books.  (3) The
criteria for getting into the best journals and presses are competence, the
ability to be *self*-critical, and to offer sharp, new insights, supported
by convincing evidence.

The problem, of course, is that we *all* imagine ourselves to be "competent"
and "self-critical."  And, of course, all our insights are "sharp, new."
In academe, as in any other discipline in life, those judgements are best
made by others, not ourselves.  Any you may not be happy with the judgement
rendered.

--Petersen, Penn State University.

---

From: "Ronald L. Minton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:12:02 -0500 (CDT)

William, that was a good post that made me think.  Thank you.

--
Prof. Ron Minton: [email-masked]   W (417)268-6053  H 833-9581
Baptist Bible Graduate School 628 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803