If you look at the footnotes of books and articles written in, say, the 1950s, in the area of OT and NT scholarship, you will see many names of scholars who are no longer cited very often. From each generation, a very small number of scholars survive to be quoted in future generations but, by and large, it is the fate of most scholars to be a footnote in books and articles seldom consulted by future generations.
Certain books and key articles do survive and become historically important, and so the names of these scholars survive. But, in the main, scholars contribute to the “now” of their discipline, and regard their life as a profession. They retire and pass away and they are buried in footnotes and library storage. An important scholar now is more than likely to be unconsulted in future generations. If you cast your survey back to the 1900s very few indeed are read in biblical scholarship; such is the lesson of Ecclesiastes.
While new primary texts do come along, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example, it is mostly the case that each generation of scholars are talking about the same primary texts. Hopefully each new generation will bring new methodologies to the old texts and produce different insights, but there is also a large amount of repetition in subject-matter; the same issues are being turned around. This means that there is great value in going back to the older discussions of scholars. Older material tends to be less complex, less specialized, and more straightforward. Further, if the primary texts are the same textually, there is little danger of the older material being out of date. There is also the chance that older material will not be caught up in the fashion of the current moment and provide a different perspective.
New journals are born and many will die. In Philosophy a new journal is likely to be born if a new philosophical fashion takes root. For example, the journal Analysis was born in the aftermath of the Second World War as Anglo-Saxon philosophy turned to linguistic analysis as a philosophical method. It has evolved over the years but its trademark is short analytical pieces on very precise matters of detail. I mention this journal because it is an example of a good policy even if linguistic analysis is no longer a panacea. The EJournal of Biblical Interpretation particularly looks for short articles (max. 2500 words) on precise matters of detail. Comments have been made about the relatively few contributors; anyone thinking of writing a piece should not think that length is a factor. However, only a few contributors are inevitable as the community is a lay community of people holding down jobs and raising families; Christadelphians have no professional clergy or Bible College where ministers are trained. The EJournal does not seek to compete with established community magazines where there are broader groups of writers. The EJournal exists to provide a forum for more technical treatment of biblical matters.
In this issue we have added a supplement in the area of “Apologetics”. Noah’s Flood is a battleground for evangelical Christians, liberal Christians and scientists. Many websites proclaim a “young earth”, an “old earth”, a “global flood” and a “local flood”. This supplement develops the biblical case for a local flood.
Analysis of the eschatology in 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 and 2 Thess 1:5-2:12