MetaCatholic

There’s been a lot of reaction around the blogs to the announcement of the Jesus Project. In particular various people have been noting the number of scholars whose names have been taken in vain, it seems, as supposed fellows of the project. There are good posts from Chris Heard, Jim West and James McGrath among others that point to a layer of at best optimistic confusion about the project’s supporters, and at worst downright deception.

Among the listed fellows April DeConick is somewhat baffled but charitable about how she came to be listed, James Tabor professes himself mystified about the inclusion of his name, according to Chris Zeichman John Kloppenborg has expressed surprise at the inclusion of his name, and according to Mark Goodacre, quoted by Jim West in the above referenced post, Richard Bauckham denies having anything to do with it.

This is, to say the least, hardly an auspicious launch for the project, which claims to be the work of the rather self-importantly named Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion. This in turn is a branch of the Center for Inquiry, which describes itself as ”A Global Federation Committed to Science, Reason, Free Inquiry, Secularism, and Planetary Ethics.” In fact, its raison d’être is “If the naturalistic outlook is to supplant the ancient mythological narratives of the past, it needs a new institution devoted to its articulation and dramatization to the public. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.”

All this suggests that far from a free (and honest!) enquiry into the historicity of Jesus, which in most academic history of the first century hardly needs arguing for, this project is actually an attempt at “dramatization for the public” (i.e. self-seeking publicity). Perhaps, if they want to be taken seriously as arbiters of history, they should learn how to tell the truth about the present first, and not create a myth of widespread support from eyewitnesses who are around to deny their involvement.

Kevin Wilson announces an interesting book project. Jim West responds by suggesting some possible contributors. (Some good suggestions there, Jim!) The idea of bibliobloggers reflecting on how their blogging relates in various ways to their academic discipline is well worth the exploration.

BUT (and I think this is a fairly significantly-sized ”but”) he lists some criteria which are there “to ensure that the contributors are scholars who have significant experience with what it means to blog on the Bible.” Now, I have no problem with that per se, yet isn’t a significant part of blogging the fact that it takes place in a world of demotic anyone-can-play discourse? And doesn’t this contribute significantly to the ways in which scholars develop their arguments and interact with fellow scholars, serious students, interested parties, and occasionally very strange bedfellows indeed?

It seems to me that if this book is to be at its most fruitful, some way needs to be found to incorporate readers’ reflections on scholarly blogging, perhaps as chapter responses from among other, less qualified bloggers, who nonetheless participate in the same conversations.