Solitary Man

That doesn't make any sense. Geologists aren't devoid of religious claims. You can have Christian geologists, atheist geologists, Jewish geologists, Hindu geologists. You wouldn't mandate Christian geologists peer reviewing other Christian geologists, so why would you make the distinction in the humanities?

:huh:

Solitary Man

Peer review to Bible for scientific veracity? That's retarded. Is that what you think Biblical scholars do all day? If so, you are badly misinformed.

mountainman

The scientific and archaeologically based discipline
of ancient history subsumes "Biblical History".

We have had a raft of "Biblical Historians" who have peer-review
each other since at least the Council of Nicaea, and that raft is
getting smaller and smaller. In the open ocean of ancient history,
the discipline of "Biblical History", is a small island, and the tide
has been coming in for a few centuries.

In an 1863 essay the conservative scholar and Anglican Bishop Joseph B. Lightfoot remarked:

"if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote
to each other without any thought of being literary, we should
have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the
language of the New Testament generally."

This statement is said to have been prophetic, because shortly after it was made a number of "letters that ordinary people wrote" were discovered in ancient Egyptian rubbish-heaps, and these have indeed been a help for the understanding of the language of the New Testament. Over a century later, and we have online databases of papyri sourced from many locations, particularly Oxyrhynchus.

These archaeological developments were dramatically enhanced by two major discoveries during the twentieth century. The first is represented in what has been called The Dead Sea Scrolls, and the second is represented in what is known as The Nag Hammadi Codices. The Nag Hammadi haul consists of a stack of thirteen books, containing and binding a total of fifty-two separate texts.


The field of ancient history will peer review the field
of "Biblical History" and as more information comes to
light those who are independent of the data will see
a pattern emerging.

Having said that the whole process will be determined
in the field of ancient history, we may now turn to
this other question of "religion".

This word does not appear in the subject name
of this forum. What is religion? See below ...



Religion according to Whitehead, is what you
do with your spare time. If you are interested
in what options your spare time might address
have a look at this series of lectures.

Alfred North Whitehead, Harvard University, March 13, 1926
delivered a series of lectures entitled Religion in the Making

Best wishes,



Pete Brown


And...

Biblical scholars spend their time on the question
as to how they might differentiate their subject
matter from the subject matter of ancient history
scholars. It's getting to be a more and more
difficult question over the centuries.

GakuseiDon

Gerald Hawkins is a good example of the benefits of peer-review, and how a position can grip the public's imagination regardless of what scholars believe.

From this link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people...ticle36937.ece

"A solar element in Stonehenge's geometry had been known for many decades, but to the English-born and American-based astronomer Gerald Hawkins is due the stronger proposition: Stonehenge was built as an astronomical observatory-cum- computer. Its many upright stones and other features were placed to capture alignments to a host of solar and lunar events, set so as to record or to observe the many points around the horizon where sun and moon rise or set on significant days. This idea, first set out by Hawkins in two Nature papers in 1963 and 1964, was then stated at book length in his Stonehenge Decoded (co-authored with John B. White, 1965). Ever since, the million people a year who go to Stonehenge know what was the ancient purpose of the place they see...

By degrees, a profound problem of method emerged which to this day undermines, perhaps fatally, studies of prehistoric astronomy: the fact that a skilled and knowledgeable astronomer today, equipped with all elaborations of modern understanding, can devise a way to use Stonehenge as an observatory or calculator does not in itself prove that was its original use and purpose. Stonehenge, if you made the right observations or moved the stones about in the right way, could be used nowadays to predict the opening hours at Salisbury Museum, or of Sainsbury's in Swindon.

If one follows the evidence of ambiguous archaeological traces and of anthropological analogy, even the basic orientation of Stonehenge is falsely understood: the monument is not oriented north-east towards the midsummer sunrise but in the other direction, south-west towards the midwinter sunset - in the view of the present writer, an archaeologist unpersuaded by the more ambitious archaeo-astronomical schemes. The crowd ought to go on a December afternoon, not a June morning...

As technology forges ahead whilst respect for technology declines, it is not a coincidence that the other vision of Stonehenge and the one becoming more influential sees it once more as a sacred place of superhuman earth mysteries. It is a tribute to the ingenuity, imagination and persuasiveness of Gerald Hawkins (who died in May, stipulating that there should be no announcements or obituaries) that this more mysterious Stonehenge now sits alongside and secondary to his enduring perception of it as primarily an astronomical and scientific place."

Freethinkaluva

I'm not sure what your point was with that article GD.

The point I was trying to make with Gerald Hawkins was simply that he offered a new Idea which happen to challenge the status quo and he was attacked for it relentlessly for 20 years. Now, it is widely accepted not only that Stonehenge is an astronomical observatory of sorts but there are countless others worldwide.

GakuseiDon

Simply, that peer-review has its place whenever it comes to the discussion of data in any field, even religion.

Dlx2

The point of peer-review is to verify the accuracy of the data and the appropriateness of the analytical methods to the research topic and data analyzed. Peer review still permits unconventional interpretation of data to be published, but it generally requires that such unconventional interpetation is based on real data and appropriate analytical technique. As such, I can't see why peer-review wouldn't be encouraged in any scholarly pursuit, including Biblical Studies, Theology, Biblical History, etc.

Freethinkaluva

I understand the point of peer review and its importance in regard to sciences. We have entire departments devoted to geology and biology etc. The entire department can get involved in research and peer review.

However, when it comes to religion it is clearly not the same. I can't quite put my finger on all the distinctions yet. Folks still get bombarded with ridicule when they scrutinize the so-called "evidence" on Jesus for example. Even some "Freethinkers" will parrot a "historical Jesus" on the slimmest of "evidence".

When it comes to religion, peer review does not always seem honest. It is so subject to bias, subjectiveness and dishonesty etc and therefore cannot be held in the same level on pare with peer review in other sciences. I feel it's just time to be more honest and open about that. Maybe through this type of discussion we can create a more consistent type of peer review or at least be more realistic about its expectations.

DrJim

The problem with Religious Studies as a secular academic discipline is that it has not been fully successful in shaking off its roots in Christian theological discourses. Very many RS scholars see themselves as doing something completely removed from confessional biblical studies and yet the "great divorce" is not quite complete. A large number of scholars try to have a foot in both doors. I would suspect that there is not a university in the world that does not mix overtly theological material with secular research into the history, thought, practices etc. of various religions.

"Peer Review" in religious Studies, therefore, can be somewhat tenuous. The further one moves from theologically sensitive Judeo-Christian subjects (secular history of Israel vs. biblically inspired ones, uniqueness of the biblical world view vis-a-vis the wider anceint Near East), the more fully secularized the discipline is, and the less compromised Peer Review may be.

Religious Studies touches on many disciplines: history, philosophy, etc., but most of these are in the humanities, and therefore it would be unfair to judge appraise the secular study of religion by the same kind of standards applicable to the sciences.

Even so, peer reviewers can judge an author's awareness and evaluationof the current state of discourse on a particular issue, the methods of research employed, the kinds of data employed (or ignored), and even if no firm "scientific" conclusion can be reached, a peer reviewer may asses an article's conclusion for its explanatory power -- what problems does it solve, what problems does it raise?

I think peer review is a valuable part of the academic process in biblical studies even though it is not perfect (what is?). Sure, some good articles and ideas will not get published, but on the other hand, a lot of good research is sent back to the authors with suggestions for improvement etc. before seeing the light of day. Of course, a lot of crap is simply rejected (although a small fraction of it does get published).

Journal and publishers committed to the serious academic study of religion do not have unlimited resources to publish everything that comes their way nor do their audiences have unlimited time and money to digest all that is written. Peer review is a good way to economize for all concerned.

What the study of religion really needs is a fuller clarification of the differences between secular and confessional research and to impress upon librarians, publishers, conference organizers, the media and students to be aware of these differences.

andrewcriddle

Krup is a somewhat controversial figure with more expertise in Astronomy than in Ancient History see for example the critique http://home.maine.rr.com/imyunnut/Blinking.back.html

Andrew Criddle