20220215 š§ āfeedbackā from The Century
Iāve got some substantial feedback from other editors. The main question seems to be about the framing of your argument. The editors feel like you need to define more clearly and more fully where your intervention is in the conversation, which means defining more clearly and more fully who you are arguing with. They point out that it canāt really be every biblical scholar who never served in the military and even some who have. In order for your argument to be effective, it has to really thread a needle here. To add to that difficulty, editors see Hays and Kalantzis as ensconced in evangelical circles, so they are not that inclined to entertain arguments against them on this particular point since they probably already disagree with them on any number of other points.
You really have a tricky rhetorical situation, and I am sympathetic to it. The short-term, practical situation seems to be to set yourself up in conversation with a biblical scholar you basically trust and then press that scholar on these specific points. By setting yourself up in relation to a biblical scholar whose work you trust, you can modify or adjust your tone so that you create the conditions through which someone who is not engaged in the conversation can hear you and trust you. But you may not be interested in this and would prefer a different direction or a different rhetorical setting.
That's what I have for now.
@ 1108 to The Christian Century
The last sentence of your first paragraph is confusing; I donāt understand how or why Hays and Kalantzis are (or are not?) of any particular interest to CC editorsā¦
@ 1116 from The Christian Century
I think what I understood is that the other editors didn't perceive them to be the right interlocutors because they were too associated with evangelicalism (which honestly I didn't know. Biblical scholarship isn't my field.) So because the editors have already said to themselves, "I already disagree with those guys" they aren't as interested in the particular ways they might disagree.
Here's an interview we did recently with Luke Timothy Johnson:
I don't know if he has anything to say on this subject, but he would be positioned correctly, I think. I can ask [redacted'] (NT scholar) if he has any other ideas. But the whole thing might be better predicated on who you trust and how you want to associate yourself with that.
@ 1151 to The Christian Century
ā¦letās assume they basically donāt really see eye to eye with Hays and Kalantzis.
To use the analogy of āthe enemy of my enemy is my enemy,ā why am I not seen in distinction from them, in terms of the trust you mentioned? Like, why am I also on the outside, as it were; where is the distrust of my argument coming from?
@ 1216 from The Christian Century
In general, the Century likes to base its work on self-criticism. If you can show me how I am wrong, in a way that I can hear, that's more interesting to me than why they are wrong. I think you are seen in distinction from them. That's not the problem. The problem is creating a foundation from which you can make your argument that allows the reader to say, "Oh, I hadn't seen it from that perspective before. That's interesting." That's why I was thinking that we might need another scholar or two to create a set up where the reader sees the stage and basically understands what's happening on it.
