User:Civilizededucation/stuffbox

The desperation to support an untenable position to which one is nonetheless committed has caused centuries of extreme mental gymnastics. - Laurie R. King.

[1] If you had read my previous agreement with Leadwind, you would find that I am not RomanHistorian nor do I share his view. I agree that academic standing matters. But academic standing does not mean that authors are always free from promotional POV. FF Bruce and Metzger both have high academic standing, as do Meier and Aune. Yet they all have views which are not mainstream, and all of them promote one non-mainstream view of another as you're well aware (your reference to Meier's miracles is a case in point). This does not stop you using them in the article, and nor should it. Ehrman is a scholar whose views are relevant, and can be cited here, but should be identified as minority views when they are actually minority views, and he should be identified as a promotional source when he's being blatantly promotional. Regardless of the fact that two of his works have been published by the OUP, he is explicitly promotional and a number of his claims are rejected by the entire scholarly consensus on text criticism. He makes claims of inauthenticity for certain texts which have a B rating in NA 27/UBS 4; how can you possibly expect me to take him seriously over the likes of Aland, Martini, Metzger, and Big Allen? He makes claims of conspiratorial textual editing for theological and ideological reasons which have received no support from the broader scholarly consensus. He does this specifically because he is writing to promote a personal POV; he's an ex-evangelical who's trying to convince religious people they shouldn't believe in the Bible. I am not saying he should not be included as a source. I haven't said the Jesus Seminar shouldn't be used a a source either. I'm simply pointing out that your claim that you want to exclude certain sources on the basis that they're "promotional" is simply not true. If you really believed that then the Jesus Seminar wouldn't be included in this article, and nor would Ehrman. You would at least identify Ehrman's conspiratorial text critical claims as a minority viewpoint, but you don't want to do that either. [2] Moving on, there's nothing you can tell me about the relevant literature that I don't know. I have a personal library worth over US$50,000 which rivals some seminaries. I own around 30 professional peer reviewed journals including JSOT, JSNT, ET, BibSac, Semeia, Lectio Difficilior, TBCT, CBR, CRBR, and JSP, and I own 112 of the JSOT/JSNT monographs published by Sheffield Academic Press. I have plenty of Crossan's works (yes that's right, he wrote more than one, there's a surprise for you), and I'm amused by your comment about Gerd Lüdemann since he was one of the key sources I used in my recent work on Gnosticism and the Early Church. If you can just get over your own ideas about which sources should and shouldn't be included in this article, and start keeping to Wiki policy, I'll be able to stop wasting my time posting in the Talk page and I'll be able to start reading my library for contributions to the article itself. [3] I came to this article making it totally clear that I want it to represent mainstream scholarly consensus, and that I was going to defend the representation of that consensus in this article. I also made it totally clear that I want the minority Christian view (as typically represented in Eerdmans, IVP, and College Press), to be included in the article only as a minority viewpoint, and identified as such. Ever since I did so I've met resistance from the very people I'm trying to help, who fail to read just about anything I write and who keep accusing me of being a virtual clone of RomanHistorian, even when I've opposed his edits and sided against him with Leadwind. Leadwind is the only one who has actually made an attempt to read what I've written (and thank you for that). [4] What I want is for you to stop fooling around, and (a) start telling the truth, (b) start adhering to Wiki policy. I haven't been asking you why sources are preferable while others are unpreferred. I know what Wiki policy says on that point, and I'm here to push for Wiki policy. I also know your personal view because you've made no attempt to conceal your personal view and the fact that you want your personal view to take priority over Wiki policy. But that's not what we're here for. What I want from you is a commitment to Wiki policy. Can I get that, or are you going to continue to be difficult? --Taiwanboi(talk) 10:10 pm, 21 November 2010, Sunday (11 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

HarperCollins is a mainstream publisher with no religious agenda. InterVarsity Press, Zondervan, College, Baker Academic, Thomas Nelson, et al, are explicitly Christian presses that present Christian-oriented scholarship that would not fly at a mainstream publisher. We should reject works from anti-Christian presses and from pro-Christian presses because we have plenty of RSs from mainstream presses. Leadwind 8:29 pm, 19 November 2010, Friday (13 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

That did not answer my question. All it proved is that Wiki policy is not being followed in this article, and ad hoc justifications are being made as to why. Not only have you provided no evidence that the scholarship I quoted 'would not fly at a mainstream publisher', not only have you ignored Yale University Press, but you have also ignored the fact that most of the quotations I provided are saying nothing more than what is found in mainstream secular commentary. Wikipedia has no policy with regard to what you call 'pro-Christian presses'. You are not following WP:RS.Taiwan boi 9:13 pm, 19 November 2010, Friday (13 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Taiwan you see the problem is that if they let certain publishers on the article, it would disrupt the POV they want to push. Thus they created a rule to protect it. You are wasting your time if you think you can convince them. If you want to do something about it, bring other editors here. That is the only way to undo their POV.RomanHistorian 9:02 pm, 19 November 2010, Friday (13 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

I actually came here to help them, ironically. Now I see that this is just another article being squabbled over by two POV parties.Taiwan boi 9:13 pm, 19 November 2010, Friday (13 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Yale, Eerdmans, Paulist Press, Fortress — those are OK. It's only the Christian sources that are outside the mainstream that need to be labeled as representing minority opinions. Leadwind 9:24 pm, 19 November 2010, Friday (13 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Looking through anthrosource to see if there were any actual peer reviewed stuff on Jesus I stumbled on this little gem: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16-18. Anthropology of Consciousness is clearly stated as being peer reviewed so that should shut down the nonsense about no challenge to a historical Jesus.