Posted by: Peje Iesous | September 7, 2009

DeConick and female bibliobloggers

I was just at April DeConick’s ”Forbidden Gospels” site following up on her recent discussion of the largely male-dominated blogosphere. I must say that I was more than a little surprised by her reports of the kind of response her blogs on this topic have received.  For my part, I have gained a tremendous amount from April’s publications and blogging. May her tribe increase!

Posted in April DeConick, Biblioblogging community, Female biblioblogging

«
»

Responses

  1. [...]  This is where I really begin to run into major problems, and this is where the issue of methodology comes in once again. Why do these need to be regarded as “polemics” at all? In the Gospel of Mark we see a very similar presentation of the disciples. The twelve whom the Markan Jesus appoints to be “with him” (met’autou) are meant to be the ultimate insiders but continue to be on the outside looking in while marginalized characters like the Syrophoenician woman and the hemorrhaging woman, become the ultimate insiders (i.e., those who understand Jesus’ kingdom mission according to Mark’s presentation). If we apply the criterion of multiple attestation to this discussion, we could look at the Gospels of Mark and John and argue that there is a high degree of historicity in the intellectual and/or spiritual failing of the disciples. We might also appeal to the criterion of embarrassment and argue that, if there has been little attempt in the development of the tradition between 70 CE (when Mark was being composed) to 95 CE (when John was being composed) to explain away the incomprehension, we again have a high likelihood that these intellectual failures have some degree of historicity. So I ask again, why must these presentations of the twelve be polemics at all? Couldn’t we be dealing with genuine kernels of historical material that are being shaped during the compositional process to fit the literary and theological needs of the storyteller and/or the community? Again, methodology seems to predetermine (or at least highly taint) the exegetical process. I am more than willing to admit this on my end but DeConick seems to take it as a slight. I do not intend it as such. In fact, I highly regard DeConick’s work (as I say at the end of the first question in the interview) and also here (a post from 9/7). [...]

    By: My reply to DeConick « PEJE IESOUS on September 14, 2009
    at 7:54 pm

    Reply


Leave a response






Your response:

Categories