Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DrJim · 11-30-2009, 08:10 AM

Hi folks.
Some of you might know that there was an informal meeting of some folks interested in championing secular approaches to the Bible at the SBL. There are some interesting developments, and the official report on the meeting (by Hector Avalos) is now circulating. I've posted it on my blog.

http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/1...eeting-report/

There will be a session next year in Atlanta on Secular Criticism of the Bible and Introductions to the Bible!

Toto · 11-30-2009, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Attendance: Kenneth Atkinson, Hector Avalos (moderator of meeting), Zeba Crook, Stephanie Fisher, Jim Linville, John Loftus, Ken Pulliam, Frank Zindler.

The meeting began with introductions, and a description of the goals that such a group should have. Two basic positions were identified: (1) an activist position that would focus on direct challenges to religion and/or the Bible; (2) a non-activist position that would focus on scholarship from a non-religious approach. A compromise of sorts was reached by focusing on scholarship that could both challenge religionist biases and ideas in biblical studies in a scholarly and non-hostile manner, and also contribute original scholarship that would be distinctive of a non-religious approach.

. . .

The final main item of discussion was a proposed session for next year within the Ideological Criticism Section. The group agreed to have a session, titled tentatively “Secular Biblical Criticism and Introductions to the Bible.” The session would examine and critique the current textbooks used in introductory courses to the Bible, and invite a respondent, preferably an author of one of those introductions. Participants agreed to work on ideas for individual papers that would then form a coherent set for a session. The session would also address the question of what a secular Introduction to the Bible would look like.

Interesting group of people. Robert M. Price was not there?

DrJim · 11-30-2009, 10:40 AM

No, he didn't show up. It was a Saturday night, however, and that might explain a lot.

There were a good number of other people interested who couldn't make it either, and I'm getting a good email list.

Jim

Toto · 11-30-2009, 11:10 AM

April DeConick says there are too many sections

manwithdream · 12-01-2009, 07:34 AM

All Bible scholars say they are unbiased and their work has to pass peer review, so why do you need a separate section for secular Bible scholars? Do you think they are actually biased and still able to pass peer review by other religious Bible scholars?

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-01-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

All Bible scholars say they are unbiased and their work has to pass peer review, so why do you need a separate section for secular Bible scholars? Do you think they are actually biased and still able to pass peer review by other religious Bible scholars?

Joel,

May I ask what the nature and extent of your familiarity with what Biblical scholars "say" actually is?

Jeffrey

manwithdream · 12-01-2009, 05:45 PM

Jeffrey,

My name is Kenneth Greifer not Joel, and I have been reading blogs by many Bible scholars for a long time. I am not sure how long exactly, but I have read their comments about their religious beliefs not interfering with their work many times. I have not read any scholarly research about bias affecting Bible scholars if that is what you are looking for.

Kenneth Greifer

squiz · 12-02-2009, 12:08 AM

N.T. Wright, for example, admits readily to bias, but also claims that everyone is biased and that he is just openly declaring his. (This is from memory, I hope I am not misrepresenting him here).

Here is what N.T. Wrong has to say about this:

Quote:

http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=1143
Many scholars who engage in heavily theological interpretations of the Bible will, at some stage, come up with a tu quoque defence for defending their theological bias. The tu quoque defence begins by pointing out that all rational argumentation is ultimately ungrounded, and that all arguers have presuppositions which must be based on their (biased) preferences. This is true. But the apologetic use of the tu quoque defence involves the additional step of arguing that the theological bias is therefore as warranted as any other. This is more than highly questionable. By far the most developed exposé of the “But you’re biased, too!” defence of theological interpretation is by William Bartley, in The Retreat to Commitment (rev. edn. 1984)....

I wish I knew who N.T. Wrong was, or had access to his old blog posts. It's not you is it Jeffrey?

squiz · 12-02-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

Here is what N.T. Wrong has to say about this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by N.T. Wrong

http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/?p=1143
.... William Bartley, in The Retreat to Commitment (rev. edn. 1984)....

And no, I haven't read it myself(yet).

DrJim · 12-09-2009, 04:22 PM

UPDATE:
There is a Secular Criticism of the Bible Steering Committee looking into starting a formal group within the SBL. On the committee are:

William Arnal (University of Regina)
Hector Avalos (Iowa State University)
Zeba Crook (Carleton University)
Jim Linville (University of Lethbridge)
Randy Reed (Appalachian State University)
Johanna Stiebert (University of Leeds)

11-30-2009, 08:10 AM	#1
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	Secular Criticism of the Bible: S.B.L. meeting report. Hi folks. Some of you might know that there was an informal meeting of some folks interested in championing secular approaches to the Bible at the SBL. There are some interesting developments, and the official report on the meeting (by Hector Avalos) is now circulating. I've posted it on my blog. http://drjimsthinkingshop.com/2009/1...eeting-report/ There will be a session next year in Atlanta on Secular Criticism of the Bible and Introductions to the Bible!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2009, 10:40 AM	#3
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	No, he didn't show up. It was a Saturday night, however, and that might explain a lot. There were a good number of other people interested who couldn't make it either, and I'm getting a good email list. Jim

11-30-2009, 11:10 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	April DeConick says there are too many sections

12-01-2009, 07:34 AM	#5
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	All Bible scholars say they are unbiased and their work has to pass peer review, so why do you need a separate section for secular Bible scholars? Do you think they are actually biased and still able to pass peer review by other religious Bible scholars?

12-01-2009, 05:45 PM	#7
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	Jeffrey, My name is Kenneth Greifer not Joel, and I have been reading blogs by many Bible scholars for a long time. I am not sure how long exactly, but I have read their comments about their religious beliefs not interfering with their work many times. I have not read any scholarly research about bias affecting Bible scholars if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Greifer

12-09-2009, 04:22 PM	#10
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	UPDATE: There is a Secular Criticism of the Bible Steering Committee looking into starting a formal group within the SBL. On the committee are: William Arnal (University of Regina) Hector Avalos (Iowa State University) Zeba Crook (Carleton University) Jim Linville (University of Lethbridge) Randy Reed (Appalachian State University) Johanna Stiebert (University of Leeds)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.