by SPCK of London captures many of her research themes.
When I first heard the name “Margaret Barker” (several years ago) I knew the name had a ring of familiarity to it, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. I like to think that I am well read, but that really is just a convenient delusion. I cannot be familiar with every prominent scholar, especially in the field of religion. Then my ego was shattered when I realized that I must have been thinking of the infamous “Ma Barker,” supposed head of the Barker-Karpis gang of murders and thieves of the 1930s. The contrast could not be starker. This “Margaret Barker” of concern here is a motherly and saintly Bible scholar who has recently turned the religious world topsy-turvey with her dozen-plus books and dozens of articles on the ancient beliefs of the first temple period (Solomon’s Temple).
Now, this “Barker” has set the scholarly world afire again. The following is an excerpt of some comments she made at a relatively recent Library of Congress symposium on Joseph Smith:
From Margaret Barker: The “Worlds of Joseph Smith Symposium,” at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. on May 6-7, 2005
In the time of Josiah [and his Deuteronomists], the tree, the Asherah, the menorah, was finally removed from the temple, and not only removed, it was burnt, beaten to dust, and cast upon the common graves. It was utterly desecrated. Why such hatred? Hostility to wisdom was a hallmark of the Deuteronomists. And, due to their influence the mother and her tree have been almost forgotten. Her son was the Lord. We can deduce this from the Dead Sea Scroll’s version of Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy (Isaiah Ch. 7). “Ask a sign, said the prophet, from the mother of the Lord your God. Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel.” And, she was attended by angels, the host of heaven who the Deuteronomists tried to obscure. Each time the lady was driven from the temple so too were the angels, the holy ones, a word very similar in Hebrew to the word for prostitutes, which is often how it is translated. The divine son, the priest of the order of Melchizedek, was born in the glory of these holy ones, or so it seems. Psalms 110 is an enigmatic text, but it seems to describe the birth of an angel priest in the holy of holies of the temple, which represented heaven.
The tree of life made one happy according to the book of Proverbs [Prov. 3:18]. For other details of the tree we have to rely on the non-canonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed with fruits like grapes. But a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruits like white grapes. I don’t know of any other source which describes the fruit as white grapes. So, you can imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruits made one happy, and the interpretation of the vision that the virgin in Nazareth was “the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh” [1 Ne. 11:18]. This is the heavenly mother represented by the tree of life, and then Mary and her Son on earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient wisdom symbolism in tact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 B.C.E.
IMPORTANT: To clarify, Barker was referring to the ancient Egyptian texts (probably dating to the 2nd century C.E.) discovered in 1945 and now known as the Nag Hammadi papers. Specifically, she was thinking of the following quote from those texts:
The color of the tree of life is like the sun, and its branches are beautiful. Its leaves are like those of the cypress, its fruit is like a bunch of white grapes.
(See: "On the Origin of the World" (Codices II.5, and XIII. 2) in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. James M. Robinson, 2nd ed., San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988).
The Book of Mormon further clarifies (1 Nephi 8:11; 11:8) that both the fruit (grapes) and the tree were an intense white. So, Barker was surprised indeed to learn that there was a second text describing the fruit as white – the Book of Mormon. She admitted it to a national audience. One must appreciate her academic bravery!! (One should note, however, that the cited texts in the Book of Mormon and Nag Hammadi papers do differ by centuries, and there may be other problems with the "white fruit" correlation as well).
Comments like the one quoted above make LDS scholars wonder why Margaret Barker is not “Mormon” herself. Actually, she is a devout Methodist, a minority in her native land of England where the Anglican Church dominates. Apparently, she got her undergraduate degree at Cambridge and then went no further. However, her academic accomplishments were quite well acknowledged when she was made President in 1998 of the Society for Old Testament Study, a prestigious academic society of Bible scholars.
Why are the LDS interested in her? The reason is that she has come to many conclusions in her scholarly work that correlate well with LDS doctrine. For example, in her book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God London, SPCK, 1992, p. 10) she teaches that in early Judaism, around the time of Abraham to Solomon’s temple, that Yahweh (Jehovah) was considered the son of the Most High God (Elohim or El Elyon). She seems to recognize that revelation is an on-going process. She does not immediately dismiss non-canonical books like Enoch (see her The Lost Prophet: The Book of Enoch and its Influence on Christianity. 1988). She understands the importance of feminine concepts of deity. She recognizes the central importance of the temple.
Although the LDS center their teachings of the apostasy around the deaths of the Apostles, Barker also believes there was a great apostasy in Judaism around the Old Testament time of king Josiah. During this time, in an effort to make Judaism more monotheistic, the so-called Deuteronomists combined Yahweh and Elohim into one god. They dismissed the angels, resurrection, continuing revelation, prophecy, any notion of female gods and sons of gods, and they purged the temple of its rites and practices. She also seems to recognize the importance of the role of the Melchizedek priesthood, a topic of some of her current research.
She was introduced to Mormonism around 2003 and took it seriously as an academic topic. Below is a portion of her BYU devotional talk (which I transcribed):
Excerpt from: Margaret Barker, “What Did Josiah Reform? The Earlier Religion of Israel.” BYU Devotional, May 6, 2003. [This talk was in conjunction with a week-long visit to BYU in which she instructed BYU faculty on the Old Testament. Transcription by S.Faux.]
He [King Josiah] changed the religion of Israel in 623 B.C. According to the Old Testament account in 2 Kings 23, he removed all manner of idolatrous items from the temple, and he purified his kingdom of Canaanite practices. Temple vessels made for Ba’al, Asherah, and the host of Heaven were removed. Idolatrous priests were deposed. The Asherah, itself, was taken from the temple and burned, and much more besides. A law book had been discovered in the temple, and this had prompted the king to bring the religion of his kingdom into line with the requirements of that book. There could be only one temple, it stated, and so all other places of worship had to be destroyed. The law book is easily recognizable as Deuteronomy, and so king Josiah’s purge is usually known as the Deuteronomic reform of the temple.
Twenty-five years after the work of king Josiah, Jerusalem was attacked by the Babylonians under king Nebuchadnezzar. And, eleven years after the first attack, they returned to destroy the city of the temple. Refugees fled south, and we read in the book of Jeremiah how they would not accept the prophet’s interpretation of the disaster. The prophet insisted Jerusalem had fallen because of the sins of her people, but the refugees said it had fallen because of king Josiah. …
They [the people] had worshipped the Queen of Heaven by offering incense, libations [liquid sacrifices], and special loaves to represent her [see Jeremiah 44: 17-22]. Now the Queen of Heaven is not mentioned in the account of King Josiah’s purge, but the major item removed from the temple was the Asherah, which was dragged out and burned. Later Jewish texts described the Asherah as a stylized tree. And, Deuteronomy had forbidden any such tree or any pillar to stand beside an altar of the Lord.
… By surveying the texts which still survive we can begin to piece together what it was that Josiah destroyed. Most of those texts imply that Josiah’s work was a disaster. …
In this way by piecing together fragments of tradition and folk memory, we can begin to glimpse what Josiah must have removed from the temple. The Asherah must have been the stylized tree of life, the symbol of wisdom, the tree with white fruit. When Moses was told to make the seven branch lamp for the tabernacle, the menorah, he was told to make it like an almond tree. And so, it was probably the original menorah that Josiah removed and destroyed.
Just because someone has reached a number of correct fundamental conclusions, does not imply that every important premise behind those conclusions is correct. The reactions of Terrence Szink, an LDS theologian, are a reminder of this very point. I am sure his comments put Margaret Barker into a larger perspective:
Terrence L. Szink (2004). Jerusalem in Lehi’s day, The Farms Review, 16/2, 149 – 159.
There is no doubt that the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah brought changes in the beliefs and rituals of Judah. We must, however, ask whether or not these changes were approved of God. Barker addresses this issue by citing the refugees from Jerusalem (Jeremiah 44:16–19), who blamed the destruction of Jerusalem on the fact that they had stopped burning incense and worshipping the queen of heaven. …
It seems to me that Jeremiah supported the changes Josiah had made. Should we follow the prophet Jeremiah’s view on this matter or that of the exiles? …
Although Josiah is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, I believe we can obtain an idea of how its authors may have felt about those reforms. We should first start by pointing out that Nephi quoted approvingly from the book of Deuteronomy … [1 Nephi 22:20].
This same passage (Deuteronomy 18:15) is also quoted at a later time in the Book of Mormon, this time by the resurrected Christ who identified himself as the prophet of whom Moses was speaking (3 Nephi 20:23). Certainly Nephi and the other authors of the Book of Mormon regarded Deuteronomy as authoritative scripture. … Lehi was born in Jerusalem and had dwelt there “all his days” (1 Nephi 1:4). He was likely a husband and father of young children during Josiah’s reforms. If we are to believe 2 Kings 23:2, he was present at the reading of the book of the law that formed the basis of those reforms. I believe that Lehi would have taken these reforms to heart and done his best to teach them to his children. ...
But how can we explain, as Barker has pointed out, that some rituals and objects approved among the patriarchs were later prohibited in Josiah’s reforms? …
This change in the way the Israelites viewed the brass serpent and other objects and rituals most likely came about because of their contact with the religious practices of surrounding peoples, as warned of in Deuteronomy (see, for example, Deuteronomy 12:29–32). This inclination of the later Israelites to extend worship to objects or beings other than God may also explain the tendency noted by Barker of the Deuteronomist to downplay the role of angelic messengers. The Deuteronomist may have been worried that angels could have become the objects of adoration by the Israelites. In short, I believe the evidence that Barker cites to support her position on Josiah’s reforms can be explained using a different model in which those reforms can be seen in a positive light, and I think that the Book of Mormon supports this model.
In other words, it is possible to take objects of righteousness and turn them into something profane. This may be one reason that the LDS Church is so sensitive about the topic of “Mother in Heaven.” This personage is well established in our doctrine. For example, President Lorenzo Snow said, “We are the offspring of God. He is our Father, and we have a Mother in the other life as well” (9 October 1898, CR, p. 56). The concern appears to be that the sacred concept should NOT be a part of our vernacular, our everyday language. (Controversial author Janice Allred has taken an alternate perspective in her 1997 book of essays entitled God the Mother).
In any case, NOT all LDS scholars would agree with Szink's arguments, quoted above. Barker has argued that the current Deuteronomy of the Bible was altered by Josiah's Deuteronomists. Kevin Christensen puts the argument into LDS terms:
Kevin Christensen, "Plain and Precious Things Restored: Margaret Barker and Josiah’s Reform," Meridian Magazine
Both Lehi and Jeremiah show familiarity and approval of a version of Deuteronomy, but this clearly [was] not the same version of Deuteronomy that we have now. For example, the Book of Mormon cites the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18 about a prophet like unto Moses, and frequently refers to the promise that if the people obey they will prosper in the land. However, both Jeremiah and Lehi contradict our current version Deuteronomy on key issues that Barker identifies as defining the reform … .
Christensen indicates that Barker's argument is that "the wickedness in Jerusalem that Lehi preached against was [Josiah's] reform." Thus, according to Barker, there could have been a Deuteronomistic apostasy by Josiah and his reformers that preceded the post-Apostolic apostasy. This scholarly debate is sure to continue for some time.
As a sidenote, an article written by Barker (2004) entitled, "The Second Person," argues that Jesus was a distinct second person of the trinity (The Way, 43: 109-128). The end of the article identifies her as "a Methodist Local Preacher." Her scholarly courage in deviating from the Nicene Creed and its cousins must be appreciated. (For the only photograph I could find of her on the Internet, see here).
In conclusion, Margaret Barker is an extraordinary theologian, who has given us a goldmine of important ideas, many of which correspond well with LDS theology. However, she may be overly critical of Josiah’s reforms. Is it possible that Josiah was merely trying to protect sensitive and sacred concepts and objects from being misused by the people? Perhaps, Josiah went too far, even with high motives. Important truths did seem to get lost, such as Yahweh being the son of the Most High. There is much left to sort out. This being the case, the LDS will continue to appreciate Margaret Barker for years to come.
Copyright 2008 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
23 comments:
Fascinating post -- thanks for such a solid sample, enough to convince me that I need to read more.
And thanks, too, for 'fessing up to your confusing Margaret Barker with Ma Barker -- you give me the courage to admit I had exactly the same confusion while reading the first few lines of your post!
Thanks, Ardis, for reading this. The issues are a bit complex, but Barker is worth the effort.
Any luck on the Lehi article I sent you? I am really just wondering whether the ideas in the article are worth the effort of extending into something worthy of publishing in something like the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Otherwise, I will just blog it.
By the way I love your new blog..
Good post on Barker. I think she's essential reading these days. When I wrote "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies" in 2001, I assumed that Josiah's reform was a good thing, and postulated more discontinuity between Josiah's changes and those of the Exile. However, after she spoke on the Reform at BYU in 2003, I went through Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 1 Enoch, Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob more carefully to see what was going on. Some of that made it into my essay on "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament" that appeared in the same issue of the FARMS Review as Szinc's criticisms. I hadn't read his essay when I provided mine, so the disagreements and different bodies of evidence considered, I find serendipitous.
I also noticed that Jeremiah's criticism of "baking cakes" in Jer. 45 (as cited by Szinc in his review) were equivalent to Jeremiah's criticisms of those who presumed that the existence of the temple was enough. That is, in both cases he speaks against those who presume that ritual, rather than moral reform, is the issue. More to the point, Jeremiah 1 describes how that prophet was called against the very people and institutions that installed Josiah into power. Jeremiah is called against them a year after the reform begins. None of the commentaries on Jeremiah that I have read have discussed either the timing, or the relationship of Jeremiah's call to Josiah's backers. And chapter 2, he accuses the nation of "changing their Gods," of "forsaking me, the fountain of living waters," which his contemporary Lehi observes, is symbolically equivalent to the tree of life. Josiah had the tree removed from the temple, burned, and desecrated. So to find the tree, Lehi had to go into the wilderness. Jacob 4 like Lehi, like Nephi, like Jeremiah, 1 Enoch, and Ezekiel, refers to those in Jerusalem before the exile as "blind."
Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA
Kevin:
Thank you very much for the clarifications!
If I understand correctly, you are arguing that one line of evidence usually not discussed is that Jeremiah was called as prophet shortly after the installation of Josiah and his reforms. This is most interesting.
Also, it is fascinating that Lehi had to go to the wilderness to discover the Tree of Life, as it had been literally and figuratively destroyed in the Temple.
I hope you get a chance to read and comment on some of the other essays on this blog.
Something deep and meaningful is going on in the Book of Mormon that requires thorough scholarly analysis, and NOT mere dismissal as frontier literature.
In any case, thank you again!
Very interesting post. I reviewed Barker's BYU talk here. Kevin and I disagree strongly on her merits, and we have a fruitful discussion in the comments section of my post.
I essentially accuse her of gross anachronism, of the sort that you approvingly offer above when you suggest that a 2nd century CE Christian text in Nag Hammadi serves as evidence for 6th century BCE Israelite religion. I could not more forcefully disagree.
http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2007/11/09/my-margaret-barker-experience/
Faithpromotingrumor:
I think your concern about anachronism is legitimate. The correlation on white fruit is fascinating, and I think it needs to be mentioned, but it needs to be mentioned with the dating problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I have expressed the same general concern in my essay on The danger of preconceived truths.
Thanks for reading the essay, and please return.
See the comments above. To acknowledge Faithpromotingrumor's point, I made some minor changes in the text about the date problem.
Scholarship without feedback really isn't.
s.faux,
Thanks for the reference to your other post. It is excellent advice.
For S. Faux, yes, I do find it significant that Jeremiah is called in the 13th year of Josiah's reign, the year after the reform begins. After the assassination of his father Amon (a Book of Mormon name, I notice) Josiah was installed as King at age eight by the "people of the land" (which seems to mean the land owners in this context). The year after the reform begins, Jeremiah is called against the kings, the priests, the princes (sarim, government officals officials, and the people of the land. That is, it is expressly not Jeremiah's reform, but Josiah's. And Jeremiah is called against those who installed Josiah, and those who were violently implimenting his reform. And, as I argue various essays, Jeremiah and Lehi contradict the current form of Deuteronomy on exactly the issues that Margaret sees as key to the reform. None of those who have argued that Jeremiah favored Josiah have mentioned these issues. All agree that Jeremiah considered the reform a failure.
The one favorable comment about Josiah in Jeremiah refers to him being just to the poor compared to Jehoaikim. I see this as a mater of credit where it is due, rather than whole hearted endorsement. It's interesting that Ezekiel 22 (or 23) contains a detailed diatribe against the same group of people that Jeremiah 1 mentions.
Relative to fpr's concern about one of Margaret's references and Pre-Exilic Israelite religion, I recommend taking a look at at Alyson Von Feldt's FARMS essays. In her review of Dever's Did God Have a Wife?, she looks an unquestionably Pre-Exilic terra cotta offering stand in light of Barker's reading of Ezekiel and 1Enoch.
Our paradigms are defined by the examples we choose to generalize from. Personally, I don't think Barker's case is built upon the Nag Hammadi reference. Rather that the Nag Hammadi and 1 Nephi references are illuminated by her extensive case regarding the First Temple and Christian origins, which she begins building in The Older Testament, and continues through a dozen other books and numerous essays.
She continues to attract interesting notice. The Archbishop of Canterbury wrote the blurb for her latest book, and is presenting her with an honorary doctrate this month. Jack Welch was among a group of six scholars of various persuations who spoke at a London reception for her latest book on Temple Themes in Christian Worship. I find everything she has written to be highly relevant to LDS studies. The Christian scholars who champion her seem to like her because she gives them a Jesus that they can not only believe in, but can have faith in.
Kevin:
You are correct that Barker's argument is not built upon the Nag Hammadi correlation. In fact, I find her papers and books to be programmatic in their nature. The validity of her arguments are built upon multiple lines of evidence, some weaker but most stronger. Given the grand architecture of her theological studies, I am glad to hear she is being given an honorary PhD.
Great stuff Faux and Christensen! Can either of you provide any links to Mormon responses to Barker, and what would you suggest one begins reading?
Also, what book does she write concerning the ancient Melchizedek Priesthood?
cadams:
I would recommend the following link to get a start on the LDS perspectives on Barker.
Thank you and a great link!
For cadams, Barker discusses the relationship of the Mechizedek Priesthood to the first temple in various places, including The Older Testament, and various places in The Risen Lord, and The Great High Priest. There is an essay in The Hidden Tradition of the Kingdom of God specifically on the High Priesthood. She presented a very similar essay as part of the LDS focus session at the SBL Meeting in San Diego in November of 2007.
The ThinlyVeiled site is run by Howard Hopkins and has many interesting links.
Does anyone know of anyone with a PhD in Biblical Studies (or getting a PhD in such) that champions Barker? All of the people I hear defending her are not trained in the field (Kevin Christensen, Jack Welch, Noel Reynolds, etc.). I hear from a friend in the SOTS that she is currently marginal even within that society of which she was once President.
If this is the case, then issues of center/periphery, mainstream/margin are raised. I'm *not* saying that her ideas are invalid because she hasn't garnered the support of PhDs, but rather that one wants to know whether the lack of support indicates a freedom to pose questions outside the normative lines, whether she hasn't mastered the rules of discourse normally utilized in mainstream scholarship, or whether she's just plain off her rocker. I myself suspect it's a combination of the three, and I have to admit I lean toward the latter, much as I think her calling attention to the temple is an important directive. But too much hinges on the date of 1 Enoch for me to take it seriously--I think TT's comment on the anachronisms is crucial here.
Jupiters:
Check this link. In it you will find a long list of professional reviews of Barker's books by professional (non-LDS) PhD theologians published in top-rated theology journals.
I am not going to do all your homework for you, but here is a sample review by Robert M. Price, Ph.D. in theology.
I think the evidence is that scholars take her seriously. Agreement or disagreement is entirely a different issue. Scholars seldom agree.
I wasn't saying no PhD "takes her seriously." I said "champions", in the way that FARMS-o-philes seem to be responding (Szink excepted). A long list of reviews (which I am certainly aware of, no homework needs to be done for me...) does not constitute support, at least not in the way I intend. I've not read all of the reviews, but those by the biggest names in the field (i.e. Collins, Williamson, Nickelsburg) are at best "intrigued" by her "provocative" thesis.
I think Collins said it best: "Extreme and oversimplified arguments [such as Barker's] sometimes have the advantage of attracting attention where more balanced presentations do not. If this book stirs some interest in the mythological aspects of Israelite religion, it will have served a useful purpose." My question was, had she a PhD in the field [or of any kind, for that matter], would her argument have been too reasoned and balanced to have attracted attention? Probably, because Barker's argumentation is well without the lines of normal scholarly discourse. And I don't think it's accidental that her biggest support comes from people without PhDs in the field (Welch, Christensen, Reynolds, etc.) at a rather marginal university when it comes to biblical studies. Those that do have PhDs (Collins et al., even Szink and others at BYU like Seely and Pike, and members of the SOTS) are much more measured in their assessment. My desire is not to beat her down or to use this as a forum to debate her merits, but rather to ask the mainstream/margin question, because I think she's an interesting litmus test.
One other thing: A list of reviews is much less indicative of influence than is the creation of a "school" of thought, in which someone like Barker is the genesis of a new way of analysis resulting in second- and third-generation studies. Does anyone know of (non-LDS) studies for which Barker's work is the launchpad? This contributes to the marginality question, since the fact that she's not advising students (afaIk) makes it harder for her ideas to have durative impact.
While there is room for disagreement about Barker, I rather think that serious disagreement should be based on more than gossip ("I hear from a friend..."), innuendo("she hasn't mastered the rules of discourse normally utilized in mainstream scholarship...", that offered despite her wide range of publications in academic Journals--has she fooled all the editors?--and honors), and outright slander ("she's just plain off her rocker...").
In my reading and her open declaration, not everything depends on the date of 1 Enoch. Thanks to the DSS, everyone agrees 1 Enoch is pre-Christian. No one dates Old Testament writings by the date of the oldest extant copies. In the Older Testament, she points out that she began by following 1 Enoch to its source (the First Temple), and then looking to find what else flowed from that source. Much more than Enoch came from the same source.
She sees Enoch as a repository of 1 Temple Teachings. Not much depends on when 1 Enoch was written down. Her case is that the tradions that flow into 1 Enoch have a source much much older than that written text. I think Nibley's chapter on The Enoch Figure and Alyson Von Feldt's review of Dever's Did God Have a Wife in FR 19:1 provide other evidence that the ideas that show up in Enoch have a deep ancestry.
Her section on Isaiah for the Eerdman's Bible Commentary shows the close affinity between Enoch and First Isaiah, who all agree was a first temple priest. Some discussion her her evidence and arguements would demonstrate committment and awareness of the standards of academic discourse.
From my perspective, the completely unexpected convergence of her work and the Book of Mormon is far too elaborate, deep, and fruitful to ignore.
That June 5 anonymous comment was me. My appologies for putting it up witout attribution.
Also, FYI, Barker does advise students. I know because she put one of them in touch me with me.
For a realistic view of how Big Names committed to their own approaches are going to react to a new competing paradigm, see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I expect her views to attract more champions and more students over time, perhaps over generation or more. I don't expect a sudden massive conversion as the Clear Light of Reason Shines on the Great and Spaceous Rational Consensus.
I want to thank EVERYONE for their comments. I enjoy reading diverse views, and I am glad there are DIVERSE views.
Part of my attraction to Barker is that her writing style reminds me of Nibley's style. I do NOT regard either Nibley or Barker as flawless. They have both made their share of mistakes. On the other hand, I have benefited greatly from their insights.
The nice thing about honest scholarship is that it is conducted out in the open and can be subjected to critical debate. I think Barker's work has staying power, but in time we will see if I am right. (I have been known to be wrong).
Kevin, as I thought I said clearly, I'm not interested here in debating the merits of Barker's thesis, even though I did admit that I don't find it to be sound. I agree with almost every reviewer I've read, that her thesis is "provocative" and will yield good discussion. And I might be mistaken, but saying someone is academically off her rocker hardly constitutes "outright slander". Frankly, I don't see a detailed rebuttal of her rather wild claims as being worth my time at the moment.
What I am interested in asking, however, is to what extent the structures of the academy are at work. That's all.
As for your comment that she shows there to be "close affinity between Enoch and First Isaiah, who all agree was a first temple priest," this is precisely an example of the kind of thing that just doesn't fly. An affinity? Could this be due perhaps to the fact that I Isaiah was available to the author of I Enoch? Affinity does not prove anything. And, while we're on the topic of acceptable discourse, for me it's not the same as "sufficient to get published in a major journal". I mean presenting one's argument according to the normal rules (admittedly nebulous) of evidence admission. Demonstrating an affinity between I Enoch and Isaiah proves nothing except affinity. These are the kinds of things ferreted out during the writing of a dissertation under an advisor trained in the discipline. And my question is how her existence outside the lines affects her argumentation and its reception.
And I think you and I have different definitions for advising. I meant the oversight given by a PhD holding an academic post to a PhD candidate, who will then mature as a scholar and in turn advise other PhD students. It's a tricky problem, because PhD students often don't see those without PhDs as having a grasp of the pragmatic value of training, but I wonder whether this is a bad thing...
Post a Comment