So a few notes:Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:19 pmChris Hansen wrote:
In my work on the Testimonium Flavianum, I want to cite Richard Pervo on Gamaliel's speech in Acts. Against Serge Bardet, who takes the speech as supporting the authenticity of the Testimonium because it shows that first century Jews were concerned about the growth of Christianity after Jesus, Pervo takes the speech to be a Lukan creation and that Luke intends it to show that the growth of Christianity in the face of adversity is proof of its divine origin. I think Pervo is correct (and that this is a theme Eusebius picks up from Luke and uses in several of his works and is present in the Testimonium) and I don't see how Pervo's pedophilia or criminal conviction affects that particular issue. If you do, please explain how.I don't think it is necessary to burn their books. But if they get cited, they get cited ethically: with full awareness and statements of what they did.
I cited Pervo like this:
Richard I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009) 148.
What would I need to add to my citation for it to qualify as an ethical citation, with full awareness of what Pervo did, in your view?
It sounds like you are compiling a list of undesirables.Also, I will make sure to take note that you white knight pedophile books. I'm glad to see your care about your fellow humans ends for the sake of some person's book.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I admit that I once served on an SBL panel with Richard Pervo, and that this was after I had been informed of his conviction at the e-listers meeting at an earlier SBL.
https://www.sbl-site.org/meetings/Congr ... tingId=23
We all shook hands and introduced ourselves and neither I nor anyone else there mentioned his conviction. (He had, of course, already lost his job at that point). Does this make me an enabler? Am I so tainted that people citing me have to mention this? How about Charles Hedrick, who was on the same panel? Is his work on Secret Mark tainted by his presence on the panel?
I had not heard that about Helmut Koester. He once made an unfavorable comment after hearing my paper on Luke's dependence on Matthew in the double tradition at a panel on Q at another SBL. Should I now quote him as “known rapist Helmut Koester” when I refer to it?
On a related topic, pedophilia is psychological condition and, if you care about your fellow humans, you should distinguish between it and possession of child pornography, which is the crime of which I believe Pervo and Joosten were guilty. Many people with pedophilia never act on their desires and you ought to distinguish between the condition and criminal activity.
1) I would personally add something to the affect of, after the citation of the book and page number, a bracketed note akin to this "[I wish to place a caveat in that I use this work out of necessity for my argumentation, but in full awareness and condemnation the author, Richard Pervo, for his possession of child porn.]" You use the work, but make it explicit as to why you use it and that you distance yourself from the author. Maia Kotrosis has also written on this in light of the Joosten situation in threads here: https://twitter.com/maiakotro/status/12 ... 9664996353
2) I would argue sex offenders and abusers are undesirable for any academic society, group, university, or to associate with. While you make dislike this, it is necessary and frankly my work doing this has been heralded by numerous academics for bringing awareness to the systemic sex abuse in Biblical studies.
3) No, I don't think we are to condemn anyone yet, except those that would continue defending the legacy of these figures any longer. Personally, as long as people are willing to take up fighting against this now, I'm fine. We can't undo our actions of the past, but we can at least try to do what is right by fighting against this in the future. That being said, I won't say I'm not a little upset at the very least. I personally ended my membership with SBL over their inept handling of Joosten's case and hiding of Pervo's crimes (also of Hayward and Coleman Baker's). It is enabling, unfortunately, but I see no reason to condemn anyone (except the perpetrators) as long as they thoroughly stand against it in the future.
4) I don't think anyone can be really condemned for associating with Koester in the past. His exploits were, in wider academia, largely unknown until Pagels came forward. Citing him, I would cite his work and in the first footnote in the main text writing something that amounts to (as Kotrosis wrote):
"I’ve found X’s work enlivening and enabling, even as his own relationships have been full of difficult [sexual] abuses of power."
5) On pedophilia, I think that those who are non-offenders should seek psychological help and be given aid. Ostracizing them before they've done anything wrong will only make it harder for them to do anything. So, I will definitely take your note here. But, if they actually commit crimes which result in the abuse and exploitation of children (as with Pervo, Hayward, Baker, Joosten, etc), then their legacy in academia, imo, is to be permanently tainted forever in all public discourse of their work. They should not be allowed a pristine academic legacy, because that is wholly at the expense of their victims as it hides their crimes.
6) I understand I've come across very crass in this discussion of sex abuse, but it is something that I, as a survivor (and given that roughly 1-5 or worse of all women in academia, as things become worse in hierarchical social systems) it is something I am just unrelentingly unable to let up on. This is a systemic problem in academia, and preserving the scholarly legacy of someone absent of their crimes provides abusers with a level of protection and a shield by which they are able to maintain a cloak of professional innocence. In that, when we do not refuse to interact with them (as I have done with Carrier, despite requests to debate him), host them, or to cite them with caveats we protect their legacy and therefore enable that cloak to persist. I won't permanently condemn those who have done so in the past. We make mistakes, we make errors, and also the full implications for what this means in academia have only recently been seriously researched and investigated. But I will condemn those who continue to do so after being called out, because that becomes inexcusable, in my opinion.