Funny fact about me: I once lost my job because I put my name on a book. I was told (as I was being shown the door) that the ideas in the book wouldn't have created the problem if I had buried them in a dense tome laden with academic jargon. Thus it wasn't that I was openly invested in historical criticism, it was that I did so in an accessible book (so accessible now that you can buy it - within the saturated market of amazon.com - for less than $2). Shortly after I was forcibly uninvited from that institution Chris and I started this blog. Needless to say: we felt that greater accessibility was a virtue and not a vice.
For the last four years I have been a bit wary of allowing anonymous comments here. On occasion these comments have been very fruitful. More often than not, our policy to include anonymous comments has been an invitation to trolls (i.e. commenters who hijack the conversation for the sake of controversy). Sometimes folks just want to spread hate which, in this saturated market, is free. Luckily I have not needed to play the role of adjudicator most of the time. The internet is still something like the Wild West and us non-digital natives are still learning how to act with civility. I am now convinced that intellectual integrity involves functioning within a community committed to intellectual integrity. Most often, this requires the risk of using one's own name (there, of course, are exceptions).
After discussing the matter with the other contributors, The Jesus Blog will adopt an adjudication process that (almost always) requires commenters to use their names.
Now allow me to bring in a few caveats. If you want to simply place your name at the top of a post (Ã la St. Paul) you are welcome to do so. If you want to post with a pseudonym (cf. St. "Paul") you are welcome to do so. Also if your post requires anonymity for some reason and you state your reason at the top of your post, you might have some luck. If your post is just too good not to post, we will almost certainly post it.
Finally, this particular comments thread (below this post) will allow as many anonymous posts as you can throw at me (sans trolling comments). Feel free to make the opposite case or voice your dissent to the new policy. I cannot promise to read all of these posts because I will be thinking about baseball for most of the day (#evenyear). But I am am willing to be proven wrong.
Thank you for your continued participation within this virtual community.
I think this is necessary and understandable. I think part of the reason for sincere comments that are anonymous is twofold: (1) not completely confident in your comment and fearful that it might expose your ignorance or be debunked shamefully by others; and (2) not wanting to be publicly branded by your comment with your name permanently online.
ReplyDeleteJust curious, as a blog administrator, can you see who is making anonymous comments? Maybe their ISP address or geographical location or some other type of identification?
AA, I am sure that those who are better with advanced analytics can find out more about commenters. I leave the technical work of this blog to a specialist and do not think that s/he has anything of the like set up.
DeleteI do understand the fear of shaming. It is a good point.
-anthony
I feel that you will lose a whole series of useful critical commentators.
ReplyDeletePseudonyms historically are a very respectable way of voicing unpopular but potentially useful points of view. Like historically, say,Democracy, and Protestantism.
Regarding trolling? On the one hand we admire a blog or a school of thought for a single, consistent point of view. But when we hear one different from our own, often, on a blog, we call it trolling.
If you are attempting to define a point of view by the way, you will need to learn how to answer criticism. Weeding that out, will result in a too-protected point of view. One that is not used to answering hard or systematic questioning.
Religion especially has always relied far too much on the censorship and even the execution of opposing voices. The burning of opposing books. And burning their authors, as heretics and so forth.
For these and dozens of other reasons, I'd very strongly urge you not to institute your new policy against anonymity.
Anonymous, we agree that pseudonyms are sometimes necessary and beneficial. So, as I write above, we will allow them. I would prefer that folks used their own names. But this is not always beneficial for the larger good.
DeleteTrolling is a bit like reality television: it might be difficult to determine what is "real" about it but I know that when I see it, I want to throw up.
As someone who has been a heretic myself (sans the burning), I agree that a variety of perspectives, voices, ideologies (religious and other) should be welcomed. This is part of the reason why we expanded this blog's contributors from 2 to 6.
-anthony
Anonymous has a point here, though, Anthony. You really need to learn how to answer criticism.
DeleteJohn Adams and Ben Franklin used pseudonyms in their criticism of Parliament as they were gentlemen, and were in fact hoping a day would come when they could claim their words as their own, but more importantly wanted to keep their day jobs.
ReplyDeleteThomas Paine left his treasonous pamphlet, "Common Sense" unsigned inciting a witch hunt for the anonymous author, but Paine was completely unconcerned with what "gentlemen" did, or keeping a job, but was rightfully concerned in keeping his head. In fact he gave every dime of the best selling work to the Continental Army (and ultimately died penniless).
Both are important options for those who need to keep their day job. but as the risk of losing your head has been done away with thanks to the First Amendment, I'd say this would only be needed if your commenters are living in a country where free speech was still a dangerous activity (especially in places where women are subjugated).
I wish I were in the room with you today to talk baseball and listen to the premiere of Cueto! #evenyear!
More to your point, Jefferson decided not to publish his ideas about Jesus at all, but only wrote them in letters.
DeleteIndeed, there are cases where it is necessary to remain anonymous.
-anthony
As someone whose post appear with an odd moniker, I'll explain. I put this on my google profile as I sometimes post on the guardian and other sites where nu-atheists lurk. That format gets pretty hairy at times, and anonymity is useful (there have been cases of stalking and hate mail).
ReplyDeleteWhy did I use it here? Just lazily linked it to my google profile. No other reason. This new policy is fine by me - not that my input has been particularly helpful or erudite. But so as you know your not losing a regular lurker.
BF, your comments continue to be welcomed here as are any from your atheist friends (at what point do we stop calling them new)?
DeleteGlad to hear it, but if they arrive, you'll definitely be better off with the no pseudonym policy.
DeleteIts quite hard to shake the Jesus mythers belief. Real historical work is always a tonic. Thanks team for your all work and input to the blog.
In Christianity,interestingly, the Jesus of the Bible is widely thought, by many scholars, to have attempted to keep his possible identity as Christ, secret. (The "Messianic Secret"?). Jesus was asked over and over who he was, and whether he was the promised Christ. And his answers were equivocal, and evasive. And? The many other names that might have applied to him, are also varied and often hard to pin down.
ReplyDeleteWhy was Jesus himself, and then the Bible, so very vague about idetity? There are actually many possible answers.
The new pitcher for the Giants? Years ago I got to watch up close our local triple A pitcher go up to the major leagues. And within a month or two, win the world series. I think he won, because the major league opposition hadn't been watching him. And didn't know what to expect.
Sometimes being unknown is a distinct advantage. In a myriad of unexpected ways.
Re: messianic secret. See David F. Watson's _Honor among Christians_. Jesus' so-called (by Wrede) "secrecy" makes better sense within an honor and shame context. Moreover, Jesus is unable to keep his identity a secret. In short, Wrede was working with the wrong categories.
Delete-anthony
But in either case, he was attempting to remain somewhat unknown? And the failure to accomplish that, got him killed?
DeleteAs soon as they perceived the apparent enormity of his claims, they killed him. As it seems in at least one popular reading.
There are other readings to be sure.
May be Jesus didn't want the fancy terms applied to him, because he was humble. Watson's point on honor?
ReplyDeleteAnd he wanted to avoid all the attention?
They tell me that sometimes celebrities want nothing more than anonymity. So they can walk around unrecognized, and without being harassed.
Or as soon as the people didn't see Jesus as humble, but as pretending to be something great - whether he was claiming that, or was actually that or not - they killed him.
ReplyDeleteEither way, when certain names are bandied about, Jesus is dead.
Aside from all that, the question of transparency and directness of language is very interesting. In many different ways.
ReplyDelete1) Theologians have often been accused of deliberate obscurantism. Saying hard things in veiled language.
Personally I feel that we should not keep advanced criticism of the Bible or conservative theology veiled. But should make it quite plain, simple, and understandable to the masses.
To this end, even very simple and direct terms are sometimes useful. Especially in response to this kind of language.
2) Particularly when I am spoken to very simply, I often respond in kind. As a matter of policy, in fact.
In the past, I might comment anonymously because I'm lazy and don't want to sign in to anything.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you have created a space where people will feel that they can't object/disagree if they aren't anonymous.
On the positive side, lack of anonymity might help some take more time to think through and craft their ideas more.
I'll share more thoughts when I have a keyboard, but I applaud this change.
The whole question of what we are allowed to say, is an extremely important one. Interestingly, it surfaces as a subject in the New Testament. And for that matter, it seems to now and then surface in the matter of how we are allowed - or not allowed - to speak in a religious forum. Including not only a religion blog, but also a religion class in college.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, it is well known that "confessional" schools take the position that teachers in the classroom are expected to of course, support the teachings and certainly the existence, of Jesus. Though to be sure, there is often a sort of liberal exception to that: we can issue veiled criticisms of this or that dogma. As long as we don't phrase it in simple language, that is easily understood by everyday believers. Who would be disoriented and offended.
That's the unwritten rule in many churches, and schools, it seems. However, it's worth asking whether this rule should hold on an academic blog. Or for that matter, whether it should hold in popular writing too.
Don't the people have the right to know that many scholars feel there are many problems, false things, in their religion?
For this reason, I support the occasional use of rather simple, direct, and at times slightly confrontational language. Even on blogs like this one. Particularly in responses to obviously vulnerable positions. Whose currency seems to stand generally, even in academic circles, only thanks to a widespread extension of the confessionalists' gag rule.
After considering many sides to this difficult question, I think Anthony's proposed solution might work. Or: allowing people to post under the "anonymous" label; but requesting some kind of unique identifying name somewhere in the post. Like say, "Anonymous G," my own proposed moniker.
ReplyDeleteAs for controlling the tone and content? I'd like to request a little more leeway here. Jesus himself is supposed to return one day. And after having earlier flogged the currency exchange out of the temple, and calling our holy men a "brood of vipers," Jesus is supposed to speak rather "plain"ly at times.