Good luck then.... You've more fire in your belly than I've got..... Of course changing the system is a worthwhile aim. But methinks, in the case of NT scholarship, system change might require more than ideas. New Testament ideas have themselves multiplied as the sands on the seashore. Another new idea just adds more diversity. Christianity has well been called the 'mother of heretics'. All well and good. Thinking any new idea will cause systen change... In effect to win the New Testament lottery.... is hoping that lady luck will favor one's idea rather than the merits of the idea changed the system.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:46 amHear hear Maryhelena, and I fully agree. I don't consider myself a scholar or academic even though I formally am qualified to call myself an academic; I hold a Masters degree even, but expecting anything from the biblical academic cesspool but meek bleating from within its echo chamber is possibly even more naive than the vast majority of its occupantsmaryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 21, 2022 12:46 amWhich raises the question - has any research by non-academics, non professionals in a particular field, ever been accepted - not just by an individual academic, but by their guild. ? Has any non-academic research moved the dial, so to speak, of an academic consensus position ?
Of course, individual academics can raise issues of their own, suggesting non-consensus positions, and get negative critique from their collogues. Thinking about Rachael Elior on the Essenes. Also of course, Ken Olson's Eusebius theory has not received overall academic acclaim. Probably a lot more academics research does not achieve total acceptance.
In a field like New Testament studies, a field in which theology and church history are able to cloud the waters, a consensus as to what lies at the root of christian origins remains a very subjective enterprise. For those of us prepared to undertake the task of unravelling the past - unravelling the past for our own satisfaction, our answers are our reward. Seeking academic interest might be welcome but our satisfaction rests in our own answers not any academic clapping of hands.
Over the years I sent some ideas to academics - and got much the same response as Martijn has got. I may do so again as I think I have something interesting to say. (and no, it's not anything I've posted on this forum). But my aim won't be to get an academic accolade - one offers something up and that is all one can do. If rejection hurts one then maybe one needs to question what it is one is trying to do. Trying to change the system is a difficult exercise if the system is not ready for change. What's that old saying - an idea whose time has come (don't know who said it or where it's from..) Research is an individual pursuit - and an individual is in it for it's own end - not for any academic say so.
Mind you, I will change the system, and all of it and entirely - and turn it into a blaze of fire of Apocalyptic proportions
Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions yet again...
Another aspect of the NT academic problem is that NT ideas are not confined to academia. NT ideas have infiltrated western political thought. Consequently, what NT academics say about the NT and what non academics say about their consensus ideas. - is like riding a merry-go-round while Rome burns.
Which is simply to say there are bigger fish to fry than NT academics...