During my fun-filled visit to Wikipedia I encountered a curious phrase: "mainstream scholarship." The author of this particular page uses this label several times. Sometimes a variation is used: "mainstream Christian scholarship." Examples include Marcus Borg, Dom Crossan, etc. Interestingly, this umbrella category also covers Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen. I doubt very seriously that either of these fine scholars would welcome the label "Christian." Moreover, I wonder if the late Dr. Borg would have counted himself as "mainstream" in his final years.
But I have a bigger problem in mind. Does the phrase "mainstream scholars" assume the existence of disenfranchised scholars? One thinks of the standard disaster-movie cliché where a lone-wolf Ivy Leaguer predicts the end of the world but nobody listens until it's too late. Is this what the author has in mind? Or consider Dan Brown's sexpot symbolist (itself a fictional field of study) who jumps out of airplanes when he's not lecturing at Harvard. Because in my experience, the folks who get the most headlines, documentaries, and magazine covers are the ones with the theories that don't hold up to historical scrutiny. I.e. the Hollywood cliché is [...drum roll...] a fiction. There is no better way to get published than to come up with an idea that departs from the "mainstream." But - simply put - these folks who discover the Lost Ark or the secret history of Jesus as the Prince of Siam, etc. are not scholars. So I see very little value to the qualifier "mainstream"; indeed, it may be misleading.
-anthony
Well, History DOES tell us that as thought progresses, often prevailing schools are found to have been wrong. By an at-first small group of dissidents.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Delete-anthony
Absolutely. But such dissidents tend to be deeply immersed in the discipline. That seems worlds apart from what we find in the "secret life of Jesus" genre. Ultimately, if there is any distinction between "mainstream" and non-mainstream scholarship it is between people who know the discipline and those who do not, which is not far off from Anthony's point that there are scholars and what I would call dilettantes.
DeleteIf you think it's the scholars who depart from the mainstream that are getting the most press/publicity, then please tell me which of Bart Ehrman's views departs from the mainstream.
ReplyDeleteMitchell, Bart is certainly a scholar. There is no doubt about that. It should be said that the folks who are marketing his books frame them as if he is departing from the mainstream: E.g. consider this title: "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" - This book basically takes the scholarly consensus on a number of authorship issues and makes them accessible for lay people. But few scholars would use the word "forged" to frame this topic. But my point - which perhaps I could have stated more clearly - is that folks who are not scholars can and do get press with crackpot theories.
Delete-anthony
Perhaps. But the Ehrmann example means that writings that at first appear sensationalistic, may have some considerable truth behind them, ultimately.
DeleteSome social theory might suggest that possibly the more honest word is forged. In that view, the scholarly description is obscurantist whitewash; our religious elite disguising deceptions in the system. The religious elite cooperating with a deceptive political leadership, to maintain meek obedience among exploited peoples.
DeleteAnonymous, you should come to AAR sometime. That's where we religious elites conspire with our deceptive political leaders in order (1) whitewash things, (2) deceive people, and/or (3) maintain the meek obedience among exploited peoples. It's really a hoot!
Delete-anthony
So what's wrong with the word" forged"? To suggest that such things were regular practice, is only to say that dishonesty, or an inadequate sense of honesty and accuracy, was in force.
DeleteFor that reason, "forged" actually seems highly accurate and useful. It conveys the crucial problem with these old writings, in clear, understandable terms. Why avoid such clarity?
I am not sure I like adjectives anyway, but here's my take on what is a scholar, mainstream or otherwise. 1. Scholar asks questions, especially about s's own assumptions. 2. S seeks clarity rather than seeking to be obscure. 3. S admits changes of mind, aka mistakes maybe. 4. S recognizes that S does not know everything. 5. S does S's homework at least some of the time.
ReplyDeleteThese 5 are off the top of my head - there maybe more rules of thumb (rots) where these came from.
My sources are: for 1, Northrope Fry (The Great Code introduction), for 2. the principles of system design, press where there is lack of clarity - there's where the errors lie. 3. The Bible, turn, return, etc (Psalm 80 or Lamentations Ierusalem, convertere ad Dominum Deum tuum) 4. This one is hard - I don't want to recognize it or allow that I have a source for such knowledge. 5. I have finally gotten this far at least once in my life. The lesson can only be learned, not taught.
Bob, I could get on board with most of this.
DeleteBut please tell me: how can an ardent student of Hebrew Poetry be uncertain about his/her appreciation of adjectives?
-anthony
ps. I apologize if my use of "ardent" above offends you in any way.
Not offended. I probably am ardent. I like your question. It seems to me that the psalms work less through modifiers and more through concrete interaction of the text on the reader. My domains do not divide grammatical role from semantics, so for instance of the 107 verses with כבד, glory, I see only 5 that I have rendered as glorious. I do have some few words classified only as modifiers, but only about 1% at the moment. All this may change of course. In short I don't at present see a heavy use of adjectives in the Scripture.
DeleteNoun juxtaposition (esp. parallelism) renders words that are not normally adjectival as modifiers. Such words, when set together, become mutually informative. Thus we're back to Frye's notion of metaphorical foundations. Or to paraphrase Forrest Gump: adjectives are what adjectives do.
DeleteI've been thinking of the adjective mainstream - just where is the stream going, meandering on a plain, or heading to a precipice? What does this adjective do? give confidence?
DeleteMaybe it should be "prominent" rather than glorious. In which case, Jesus does not impress us by his officially recognized authority. But by his close to-the-ground, almost popular wisdom, about farming and such.
DeleteWhy not edit that Wikipedia article so that your point reaches a wider audience and the conceptual confusion you speak of is corrected for the benefit of other readers? You can even leave the reasons for your edits and do the public a great service. (Wikipedia has long been more than a "fun-filled" diversion -- See Nature's research article.)
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteAs a general rule I only edit another person's writing if I'm asked explicitly by the author.
-anthony
Since in this case the "author" is a voluntary collective perhaps the very nature of the enterprise and the way it is conducted is your invitation? Or are you waiting to be nominated personally?
DeleteTim, thank you for placing the word author in quotations.
Delete-anthony
Jesus, vs. the Pharisees?
ReplyDeleteYou mean none of you jump out of planes wearing leather bomber jackets?
ReplyDeleteOh.
Sometimes popular movements become law. E.g. common law, and democracy.. The glorious revolution. Late in the process, scholars belatedly acknowledged these pop arts.
ReplyDelete