Posted: Jul 07, 2010 6:00 pm
TimONeill wrote:
Scholars – Hold teaching or research positions at accredited universities.
Amateurs/kooks – Don’t.
Scholars – Hold post-graduate degrees and honours in relevant fields from accredited universities and detail precisely what they hold, where they got them and when in easily accessible public domain sites and publications (eg their personal page on their university or faculty’s website or simply on Wikipedia)
Amateurs/kooks – Either hold no relevant degrees at all or have undergraduate degrees or simply degrees in areas that aren’t relevant (eg “Dr Matt Kooksville has a Phd in Engineering and is one of the leading scholars on Jesus and his links to the Druids”). Alternatively, they make vague references to having degrees in a range of disciplines but never seem to give any details. Or they say the “attended” such and such an institution, trying to give the impression this meant they got some kind of qualification there (see “Acharya S” under Wiki for an example of this one).
Scholars – Have a track record of publishing articles in esteemed peer-reviewed academic journals, delivering papers at leading conferences and forums and having books put out by rigorous academic presses after a process of careful peer review and informed editorial analysis.
Amateurs/kooks – Have never published anything in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal or publication and never will. Tend to publish their books themselves (eg “Stellar House” which published “Acharya S” is her own imprint run from her home office). Otherwise they are published by small presses, ones that cater to the New Age market or ones that like to cash in on the “amazing mysteries revealed! The biggest conspiracy ever!’ market aimed at ill-educated gullible morons.
Scholars – Weigh evidence carefully, look at alternative views and take account of them, work from up to date information and current research perspectives.
Amateurs/kooks – Ignore alternative views, use evidence selectively, cast around for anything or everything that supports their thesis while ignoring or rejecting anything that doesn’t, reach back to Nineteenth Century amateur nonsense that no-one accepts anymore if it suits them and dismisses academic rejection as “a big conspiracy”. They also tend to hold more than one kooky view – “Acharya S” is also a big believer not only in Atlantis but also in an ancient civilization of primordial pygmies. And no, I am not kidding.
Getting the picture?
The kooks also often have a small online coterie of mindlessly fanatical acolytes who will leap to their guru’s defence at the first sign of criticism. As virphen has already noticed, criticism of “Acharya S” usually results in some of her minions descending on the thread in question like a shrieking flock of winged monkeys.
If you really want to understand the origins of Christianity try using real scholars like Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen and Bart Ehrman. None of them are Christians but all of them are leading academics in the relevant fields.
Yes I got it now, thanks for that reply Tim. It's really helpful. Pretty much what I thought but it's good to have it confirmed.
I actually have a book by Geza Vermes and I've watched and read stuff about Ehrman.
But just to make the point, I think it is entirely possible for a non-credited individual to have an excellent scholarly knowledge, and have an impressive wealth of information. All the person need do is the necessary research.
To give one example, I have a good friend who just spent 30 years researching a particular subject. No academic credentials, but his work, when he showed it to the hierarchy at our nearby University, offered him a PHD after they read it, if he'd let them change a few minor things. He refused telling them this was half a lifetime's work here, and that he was pretty sure none of it needed changing.