As many readers will no doubt be aware, the last couple days have been hard ones in the biblical studies world. Jan Joosten--Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford--has confessed to and been convicted in France of possessing child pornography. This has led to open discussions about how to address such matters. It's also reopened discussions around the legacy of Richard I. Pervo, who was convicted in 2001 of much the same crime as Joosten, and subsequently published several monographs and a commentary in a major series; had a Festschrift dedicated to him; and received a glowing obituary from the Society of Biblical Literature lauding his character and ignoring his conviction. Much attention has centred upon the legacy of these men, and how to handle their work in publications, teaching, and supervision. Here I would humbly like to give my own take.
As I do so, I want to make clear that I wholly understand the argument for never again citing the scholarship of a person credibly accused (or in the cases enumerated above, convicted) of such offenses, or assigning their work to students. Indeed, I am deeply sympathetic to such a practice as part of cultivating zero tolerance for abuse. I do not believe that we owe men who abuse or exploit the vulnerable anything, not least of all academic citation and recognition. That being said, I also recognize that there are practical issues. I'll illustrate this with my own situation. In 2018, Joosten co-authored a book entitled How Old is the Hebrew Bible? with Ronald Hendel. (Incidentally, Prof. Hendel has released a statement on Joosten's arrest). As someone working on a monograph on the compositional dates of the New Testament, I found this monograph very useful for thinking especially about methodological issues. Indeed, what Joosten and Hendel describe as a "cultural historical" method is very close to what I describe as "contextualization." As such, I duly cite their work in not only the manuscript of this upcoming monograph but also in a forthcoming article. It's probably too late to remove it from the forthcoming article, but not from the monograph. In so doing however, do I penalize Hendel for Joosten's crimes? In this case it's perhaps not a significant concern: Hendel is just as well-established a scholar as Joosten, and this will hardly hurt his career. But what if Hendel were a junior scholar fighting for recognition and employment in a tough jobs market? In such a case, would the potential injury outweigh the potential good?
Turning to Pervo, I find the issue to personally be more pressing. Pervo worked on Acts; I work on Acts. He (several years after being convicted) published a monograph entitled Dating Acts, focused upon when Acts was composed; I'm writing a monograph focused upon when the books of the New Testament were composed. Moreover, I hold to positions regarding Acts that are diametrically opposed to Pervo's own. Given his prominence within Acts scholarship, if I fail to cite his work in my forthcoming monograph, then it could easily lead to suspicion that I'm ignoring scholars with whom I disagree. That however is a relatively minor concern; I could easily respond to such suspicions by stating explicitly that I do not cite him because of his criminal history and frankly if that's not good enough for people than I'm not the problem (although, again, a graduate student or less-established scholar might not feel or really be as free to take such a stance, coming as it will be against more senior people in the field). My greater concern is teaching and supervising at the graduate level. Let's say someone works on a doctoral thesis with me, focusing upon Acts. Am I doing that person a disservice if I do not ensure that they know the work of a Acts scholar as prominent as Pervo? If they don't know the content of his Hermeneia commentary on Acts, are they at a disadvantage to others? Am I doing my job in a conscientious fashion if I fail to ensure that they do know that content?
I've not reached definitive answers with regard to much of the above. I find that the situation resists easy answers, because it is one of competing goods. That is to say, it is good for us to cultivate zero tolerance practice towards abuse and exploitation; it is also good for us to ensure that our students are familiar with the literature regularly cited in the field they're studying, and that remains the case even if we don't think that particular literature should be cited. I honestly don't know how to best realize both these goods, and certainly not in the particular case of Pervo.
As I do so, I want to make clear that I wholly understand the argument for never again citing the scholarship of a person credibly accused (or in the cases enumerated above, convicted) of such offenses, or assigning their work to students. Indeed, I am deeply sympathetic to such a practice as part of cultivating zero tolerance for abuse. I do not believe that we owe men who abuse or exploit the vulnerable anything, not least of all academic citation and recognition. That being said, I also recognize that there are practical issues. I'll illustrate this with my own situation. In 2018, Joosten co-authored a book entitled How Old is the Hebrew Bible? with Ronald Hendel. (Incidentally, Prof. Hendel has released a statement on Joosten's arrest). As someone working on a monograph on the compositional dates of the New Testament, I found this monograph very useful for thinking especially about methodological issues. Indeed, what Joosten and Hendel describe as a "cultural historical" method is very close to what I describe as "contextualization." As such, I duly cite their work in not only the manuscript of this upcoming monograph but also in a forthcoming article. It's probably too late to remove it from the forthcoming article, but not from the monograph. In so doing however, do I penalize Hendel for Joosten's crimes? In this case it's perhaps not a significant concern: Hendel is just as well-established a scholar as Joosten, and this will hardly hurt his career. But what if Hendel were a junior scholar fighting for recognition and employment in a tough jobs market? In such a case, would the potential injury outweigh the potential good?
Turning to Pervo, I find the issue to personally be more pressing. Pervo worked on Acts; I work on Acts. He (several years after being convicted) published a monograph entitled Dating Acts, focused upon when Acts was composed; I'm writing a monograph focused upon when the books of the New Testament were composed. Moreover, I hold to positions regarding Acts that are diametrically opposed to Pervo's own. Given his prominence within Acts scholarship, if I fail to cite his work in my forthcoming monograph, then it could easily lead to suspicion that I'm ignoring scholars with whom I disagree. That however is a relatively minor concern; I could easily respond to such suspicions by stating explicitly that I do not cite him because of his criminal history and frankly if that's not good enough for people than I'm not the problem (although, again, a graduate student or less-established scholar might not feel or really be as free to take such a stance, coming as it will be against more senior people in the field). My greater concern is teaching and supervising at the graduate level. Let's say someone works on a doctoral thesis with me, focusing upon Acts. Am I doing that person a disservice if I do not ensure that they know the work of a Acts scholar as prominent as Pervo? If they don't know the content of his Hermeneia commentary on Acts, are they at a disadvantage to others? Am I doing my job in a conscientious fashion if I fail to ensure that they do know that content?
I've not reached definitive answers with regard to much of the above. I find that the situation resists easy answers, because it is one of competing goods. That is to say, it is good for us to cultivate zero tolerance practice towards abuse and exploitation; it is also good for us to ensure that our students are familiar with the literature regularly cited in the field they're studying, and that remains the case even if we don't think that particular literature should be cited. I honestly don't know how to best realize both these goods, and certainly not in the particular case of Pervo.
Comments
Post a Comment