Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

778Re: Schonfield, sales, and scholarship

Expand Messages
  • Tom Simms
    Jul 3, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 22:13:18 +0900, anneq@... writes:
      >At 22:15 1/07/98 -0700, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      >>> THEY had not sold over 3 Million
      >>> copies of just one on his books and over a million for several others...
      >>You make this point frequently, and presumably in order to show that
      >>Schonfield was a scholarly force to be reckoned with.

      [... snip ... this gun nicely spiked by Mike Grondin ...]

      >>... All multiple sales show in
      >>this (and possibly Shonfield's) instance is that there's a gullible
      >>public out there and that sensationalism sells.
      >>Jeffrey Gibson
      >Am I alone in feeling that Schonfield is the progentitor of a type of
      >popular thinking within 'theological' ranks? I've discovered that I can
      >almost determine the type of book by reading the bibliography. If it lists
      >Schonfield's 'The Passover Plot', it will be full of non-othodox
      >statements. Books falling into this catagory include 'The Holy Blood and
      >the Holy Grail' or the 'Dead Sea Scrolls Deception'

      You must admit HBHG & DSSD did more to acquaint the public with
      Religious Issues, particularly Cardinal Ratzinger's lockup of the
      Dead Sea Scrolls, than all the mewlings of academics who like sheep
      let that imprisonment take place. Moreover, the Baigent, Leigh &
      Lincoln books have been for many people from other disciplines a
      fast way to get up to speed on modern research. To quote Mike,
      "Carl Sagan was another writer who performed a valuable service to
      his field of study by popularizing the state of knowledge therein.
      When one does this, one inevitably arouses a certain amount of
      professional jealousy." I am sure this is correct. The putting
      down of such books rather than dealing with the issues they raise
      or scoffing at them is academic snobbery.

      and then there is
      >Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus the Man' and its sequels. Any book not listing
      >one of these books in its bibliography tends to have more conservative

      Well, of course! Why else write them?

      >Perhaps it is the idea that there is something hidden or to
      >quote logium 17 GTH, "Jesus said, 'I shall give you what no eye has seen
      >and what no ear has heard and what no hand has touched and what has never
      >occurred to the human mind.'" People like the idea of exclusivity or
      >scandal. This is what sells books.

      Are you against book sales? Something has to carry the freight of
      all the academic "on the record" stuff that Glazes Eyes Over. Most
      presses do academic publishing as fill-in. Crosstalk has become a
      morass of views of text analyses. Yet the same crowd can't even do
      their own researching the Archives. Deliver me!

      >As you write of the dependence or independence of Thomas, how do you
      >classify logium 102? Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like
      >a dog sleeping the mager of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let
      >the oxen eat." This is a fable usually attributed to Aesop! Who wrote it
      >first? A number of the fables we attribute to Aesop are said to have been
      >written during the first half of the first century ACE.

      Now THAT"S the best thing in your post. We tried to dig into these
      correspondences but never did. I keep mentioning how and when
      Petronius knew of the teachings of Jesus, a point allowing early
      datings of all the accounts. What's the use?

      Tom Simms
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic