Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-01-2010, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meow

All of this leads me to wonder if someone like the infamous Renan, who apparently left the Catholic church in 1845, would have eagerly participated in SBL meetings. If he had gone to them, would he have been snubbed? I read on Wikipedia that his argument

Quote:

that the life of Jesus should be written like the life of any other man, and that the Bible could be subject to the same critical scrutiny as other historical documents caused much controversy, and enraged many Christians.

This is almost exactly what the orthodox canon following christians said about the heretical Gnostic and Arian sects who preserved the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc". Whoever these authors of the "Gnostic Gospels etc" were, they most certainly plaguerised the greek texts of the orthodox books of the bible, and subjected jesus and all the apostles to a very public critical scrutiny which verged upon docetism -- causing much controversy, and enraging many Christians of at least the 4th and 5th centuries.

If you are looking for an up and coming SBL analog from 1845 I'd put forward de Rossi, the really excellent Papal archaeologist who found so many christian inscriptions around the catacombs of Rome, Pope Pius IX moved beyond collecting by appointing in 1852 a commission (Commissione de archaelogia sacra) that would be responsible for all early Christian remains.

Does the SBL report upon the almost certainly christian Dura-Europos "house church" shipped to Yale amost a century ago?

DrJim · 07-01-2010, 06:05 AM

I am so sick of hearing rubbish like Darko's and Jim West's about the need for faith. How the hell do they propose to study any other religion other than their own?

The next SBL meeting in November (Atlanta) will have a session under the Ideological Criticism banner on Secular Criticism and Introductions to the Bible. I will be doing a paper called "How is this mythology different from other mythologies?". Don't worry, there will be some good scholars in the session too, so it might be worth your while to take it in if you are at the meeting.

Mars Man · 07-01-2010, 06:49 AM

Thanks for the comments and notes, meow (and others too). Yeah, I use the double dash in place of a longer single dash. If the function of the longer single dash were possible in this medium (or if I knew about it, if it were, actually, possible here), I would use it. I have seen the double dash used, however in a few publications of various nature.
I have not gotten a chance to get back to SBL yet, so can't comment on that (other pressures at the moment) but will try to do so by tomorrow afternoon, before leaving the office.

I really feel that some ill-natured stuff may well be at play, to whatever degree, too (as per post #15 above, 3rd par.) I do agree on some other concerns of yours, meow. I'll check that out tomorrow.

Toto · 07-01-2010, 01:20 PM

Dr Jim's Secular Bible Criticism section at SBL

Quote:

11/20/2010
4:00 PM to 7:00 PM
Room: Room TBD – Hotel TBD

Theme: Secular Biblical Criticism and Introductions to the Bible

Johanna Stiebert, University of Leeds, Presiding

Hector Avalos, Iowa State University
What’s Not So Secular about Introductions to the Hebrew Bible? (20 min)

James Linville, University of Lethbridge
Why is this mythology different from all other mythologies? (20 min)

Esther Fuchs, University of Arizona
Christian Bias in Feminist Introductions to the Bible (20 min)

Zeba Crook, Carleton University
A Course in Miracles, or a Secular Introduction to the New Testament? (20 min)
Barry Bandstra, Hope College, Respondent (30 min)
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Harvard University, Respondent (30 min)

meow · 07-01-2010, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJim

I am so sick of hearing rubbish like Darko's and Jim West's about the need for faith. How the hell do they propose to study any other religion other than their own?

The least that can be said is that this little matter has exposed what appears to be a severe educational problem in this country. The statement submitted by Ernst Axel Knauf, a distinguished scholar at the University of Bern, is significant:

Quote:

Reviewing the first 77 responses, I noticed that all scholars whom I happen to know personally (and respect) join Hendel's side of the debate. So do I. Statements of evangelical beliefs in SBL publications (and the inclusion of books which solely address an evangelical audience in RBL) are inappropriate and detrimental to the reputation of a society with academic ambitions. It is one thing to have religious convictions (as does, I suppose, everybody participating in this debate, including me), but quite another to utter them at inappropriate places and to audiences who would prefer not to be preached, or confessed, at.

Judging from the comments submitted so far, the following individuals (and no doubt many others, including, e.g., Jacques Berlinerblau) seem to have deep reservations about SBL:

Ron Hendel
Ernst Axel Knauf
Philip Davies
Richard C. Miller
William J. Fulco, S.J.
Rob Abramovitz
Jeffrey Stackert
James Linville
Ron Troxel
Stephen Young
Jonathan Bernier
Oliver Carter
Alan Lenzi
Adela Yarbro Collins
Rebecca Raphael
John Van Seters
William H. C. Propp !!
Leo Perdue
Jonathan D. Safren
Mark S. Smith
Royce M. Victor
William Settles
Ed Greenstein
Peter Giancana
Robert Imperato
T. M. Lemos
Tom Thatcher
John Byron
Andrew Tobolowsky
Richard Wood
Michael V. Fox

I have also noticed that some of the comments supporting SBL are filled with barely cogent sentences. I mean, do these people speak English? Have they been spending too much time bible-blogging on the internet? Perhaps SBL should sponsor elementary writing classes at its meetings, so the evangelicals can learn to debate their opponents in language that we can at least comprehend?

meow · 07-01-2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars Man

Thanks for the comments and notes, meow (and others too). Yeah, I use the double dash in place of a longer single dash. If the function of the longer single dash were possible in this medium (or if I knew about it, if it were, actually, possible here), I would use it. I have seen the double dash used, however in a few publications of various nature.

Mars Man--I'm all for double dashes.

Toto · 07-01-2010, 08:33 PM

From the SBL section:

Quote:

What's Not So Secular about Introductions to the Hebrew Bible?

Despite the claim that historical-critical methods are being employed in introductory textbooks to the Hebrew Bible, we still find many theological and apologetic features in most such textbooks. These range from suggesting the superior ethics of monotheism, to the mitigation of slavery in the Bible. The paper will explore some of the main theological and apologetic features of these introductory textbooks, and it will discuss the ecclesial-academic complex that still plays a significant role in publishing and marketing.

Quote:

Why is this mythology different from all other mythologies?

One of the recurring themes in biblical studies is the issue of myth in the Hebrew Bible. Of course, the term itself is notoriously difficult to define, but its application to any of the materials in the Hebrew Bible is still often influenced by modern theological conceptions of the uniqueness of the Israelite world-view and not solely on academic principles and methods of comparison. This has led to unjustifiable claims that the Hebrew Bible only retains “fragments” of myths. Moreover, the predominance of the “historical” approaches to the Hebrew Bible has also served to marginalize mythic studies. Fortunately, this state of affairs has been changing in key areas but has it impacted the way the Hebrew Bible is presented in introductory texts? In many ways it has not and this raises further questions about the relationship between Biblical Research and confessional Biblical Studies on the one hand and, on the other, the secular field of Religious Studies. Introductions are generally pitched either towards overt confessional class room environments or the “grey” area between the confessional and the secular. The conclusion of the paper is a recognition of the need for a fully secular, critical introduction that is designed as a component in a comprehensive study of world and/or ancient religions and is built upon conceptions and methods taught in secular Religious Studies

Quote:

Christian Bias in Feminist Introductions to the Bible

In this paper I explore a postcolonial Jewish perspective on feminist biblical studies. There are several feminist 'textbooks' on biblical literature, as well as several introductions, anthologies, commentaries, and companions. In the 1990s these publications began to include so called “postcolonial” voices, and interpretations that sought to globalize feminist biblical studies. Feminist biblical theory did not define the meanings and diverse agendas of postcolonial criticism. The prevalent understanding is essentialist. What is missing from these new frames is an awareness of discourse as colonial practice. While feminist introductions to the Hebrew Bible are oblivious to the concept of nation, feminist introductions to the Greek Bible are oblivious to the discursive colonizing of the Jewish Bible. The paper will focus specifically on Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza's “introduction” to a feminist study of the Bible, her hermeneutic theory, her Christian bias, and her limited definition of the postcolonial.

Quote:

A Course in Miracles, or a Secular Introduction to the New Testament?

Miracles -- from insignificant ones such as walking on water to significant ones such as Jesus raising and being raised from the dead -- are such a key feature of Christianity's self-understanding, it is perhaps not surprising to find that their treatment in introductions to the New Testament is complicated. In this paper, I shall compare how several such text books, ranging from the explicitly evangelical to the allegedly secular, deal with the question of miracles. In order to draw broader conclusions, I shall compare these to introductory textbooks on other religions.

More SBL session at http://sbl-site.org/meetings/Congres...x?MeetingId=17

Toto · 07-01-2010, 08:47 PM

There is also this from the Historical Jesus section:

Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary

Quote:

Faith and the Historical Jesus: Does A Confessional Position and Respect for the Jesus Tradition Preclude Serious Historical Engagement?

The issue of possessing a hermeneutical point of view is a given in literary studies today. Questions about such a point of view and how it impacts historical work are significant, especially when the topic is the much discussed historical Jesus. My essay shall look at how evangelicals approach this topic, examine the strengths and weaknesses of this way of historical Jesus engagement, and what it offers to historical Jesus studies in general. Examples will come from the recently completed IBR Jesus project volume, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. WUNT (Mohr/Siebeck, 2009), an international collaborative effort that has been at work over the last decade.

Robert Webb, McMaster University

Quote:

The Rules of the Game: History and Historical Method in the Context of Faith

Numerous scholars who engage in historical Jesus research have some type of faith perspective with respect to the subject of their inquiry--including myself. This may be one of the factors motivating our personal interest in the subject. But the question arises, should this presupposition affect or alter our understanding of either the concept of history or our application of historical method? This paper will respond to this question in the negative. The “rules of the game” of history should preclude historians who have a faith perspective altering either the concept of history and or historical method.

And then there is this from the Historical Jesus/John, Jesus, and History section

Richard A. Horsley, University of Massachusetts Boston

Quote:

Rethinking How We Understand the Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus-in-Context

A call for a serious change in the way we understand the Gospels as sources, one that includes John along with text-fragments from the Synoptics and non-canonical Gospels: For several years the John, Jesus, and History Group has been asking hard questions about the use and disuse of the Gospel of John for investigation/ construction of the historical Jesus, significantly broadening the continuing debates about what sources are to be used, how they are to and how. “Jesus-scholars” working from the different perspectives in these debates, however, have so far not taken into account recent research that is calling into question some of the most fundamental assumptions of the study of the Gospels and of Jesus. Literary criticism has shown that the Gospels are whole stories with plots and agendas, not mere containers of individual sayings and mini-stories. (Moreover, to have become a significant figure historically, Jesus must have communicated with people; but people do not communicate in individual sayings.) Leading text-critics are saying that because of the considerable diversity of Gospel MSS until the 4th-5th centuries, it is probably impossible to “construct” an early (much less original) text of any of the canonical Gospels. Extensive research has shown that, with literacy quite limited in the ancient world, communication was predominantly oral. Thus the Gospel stories were almost certainly orally performed, even after they existed in written form. Investigation of long orally performed texts has shown that particular lines and stanzas vary from performance to performance, while the overall story or plot of a given text remains basically stable. Recent research on all these interrelated matters indicates that individual sayings and stories isolated from literary context are unstable and unreliable as “data” for historical reconstruction, and that the Gospels are usable as historical sources only as whole stories. The first and ground-laying step in historical investigation of the historical Jesus, rather, would be careful investigation of the various Gospels’ portrayals of the key activities and aspects of his mission, which would start from the main plot and agenda of each Gospel. The implication of this conclusion, moreover, is that John and the Synoptic Gospels are on (more or less) the same footing as whole stories about Jesus’ mission. The plot/ agenda of Mark is Jesus leading a renewal of Israel over against the rulers of Israel. Matthew and Luke both expand on Jesus’ renewal of Israel (from the Q speeches) and sharpen the opposition to and by the Jerusalem and Roman rulers. The plot/agenda of John also happens to be Jesus’ renewal of Israel in opposition to and by the Judean and Roman rulers. John presents a Jesus with many of the same features as in the Synoptics, such as opposition to and by the Pharisees and a demonstrative entry into Jerusalem and a prophecy against the Temple in context of a forcible demonstration against Temple. But John has some different emphases from the Synoptics: e.g., Jesus active in all three districts of Israel; and frequent confrontations with Judean rulers at festivals in Jerusalem. In contrast to Mark, moreover, John (like Matt and Lk) views Jesus as the Messiah and even has the people want to make him king (similar to Josephus’ accounts of popularly acclaimed kings). Finally, by comparison of the somewhat different portrayals of Jesus’ interaction with followers and opponents in the Gospels, in further comparison with other literary and archaeological sources, it may be possible to reason our way historically to Jesus in relation to others in historical context.

meow · 07-01-2010, 11:19 PM

This is all very interesting, and there's no denying that SBL meetings include sessions that meet humanistic standards (even if these sessions, given the context, oddly still seem to have a slightly daring or provocative aspect, as if humanism itself were something that needed to be defended).

But that isn't the issue, is it? The issue, as explained by Hendel and others, is the presence of fundamentalism within the Society, the scorn for humanistic principles of free, open, and critical research that is associated with that fundamentalism, and the nature of the research practices (as manifested in SBL meetings and, apparently, in museum exhibits created by prominent SBL members) that tend to result when that type of scorn is tolerated within the academy.

And yes, I have again used the word "fundamentalism." One can substitute the term "faith-based research," and the issue would still be the same.

dog-on · 07-02-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is also this from the Historical Jesus section:

Darrell L. Bock, Dallas Theological Seminary

Quote:

Faith and the Historical Jesus: Does A Confessional Position and Respect for the Jesus Tradition Preclude Serious Historical Engagement?

The issue of possessing a hermeneutical point of view is a given in literary studies today. Questions about such a point of view and how it impacts historical work are significant, especially when the topic is the much discussed historical Jesus. My essay shall look at how evangelicals approach this topic, examine the strengths and weaknesses of this way of historical Jesus engagement, and what it offers to historical Jesus studies in general. Examples will come from the recently completed IBR Jesus project volume, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. WUNT (Mohr/Siebeck, 2009), an international collaborative effort that has been at work over the last decade.

Robert Webb, McMaster University

And then there is this from the Historical Jesus/John, Jesus, and History section

Richard A. Horsley, University of Massachusetts Boston

Quote:

Rethinking How We Understand the Gospels as Historical Sources for Jesus-in-Context

A call for a serious change in the way we understand the Gospels as sources, one that includes John along with text-fragments from the Synoptics and non-canonical Gospels: For several years the John, Jesus, and History Group has been asking hard questions about the use and disuse of the Gospel of John for investigation/ construction of the historical Jesus, significantly broadening the continuing debates about what sources are to be used, how they are to and how. “Jesus-scholars” working from the different perspectives in these debates, however, have so far not taken into account recent research that is calling into question some of the most fundamental assumptions of the study of the Gospels and of Jesus. Literary criticism has shown that the Gospels are whole stories with plots and agendas, not mere containers of individual sayings and mini-stories. (Moreover, to have become a significant figure historically, Jesus must have communicated with people; but people do not communicate in individual sayings.) Leading text-critics are saying that because of the considerable diversity of Gospel MSS until the 4th-5th centuries, it is probably impossible to “construct” an early (much less original) text of any of the canonical Gospels. Extensive research has shown that, with literacy quite limited in the ancient world, communication was predominantly oral. Thus the Gospel stories were almost certainly orally performed, even after they existed in written form. Investigation of long orally performed texts has shown that particular lines and stanzas vary from performance to performance, while the overall story or plot of a given text remains basically stable. Recent research on all these interrelated matters indicates that individual sayings and stories isolated from literary context are unstable and unreliable as “data” for historical reconstruction, and that the Gospels are usable as historical sources only as whole stories. The first and ground-laying step in historical investigation of the historical Jesus, rather, would be careful investigation of the various Gospels’ portrayals of the key activities and aspects of his mission, which would start from the main plot and agenda of each Gospel. The implication of this conclusion, moreover, is that John and the Synoptic Gospels are on (more or less) the same footing as whole stories about Jesus’ mission. The plot/ agenda of Mark is Jesus leading a renewal of Israel over against the rulers of Israel. Matthew and Luke both expand on Jesus’ renewal of Israel (from the Q speeches) and sharpen the opposition to and by the Jerusalem and Roman rulers. The plot/agenda of John also happens to be Jesus’ renewal of Israel in opposition to and by the Judean and Roman rulers. John presents a Jesus with many of the same features as in the Synoptics, such as opposition to and by the Pharisees and a demonstrative entry into Jerusalem and a prophecy against the Temple in context of a forcible demonstration against Temple. But John has some different emphases from the Synoptics: e.g., Jesus active in all three districts of Israel; and frequent confrontations with Judean rulers at festivals in Jerusalem. In contrast to Mark, moreover, John (like Matt and Lk) views Jesus as the Messiah and even has the people want to make him king (similar to Josephus’ accounts of popularly acclaimed kings). Finally, by comparison of the somewhat different portrayals of Jesus’ interaction with followers and opponents in the Gospels, in further comparison with other literary and archaeological sources, it may be possible to reason our way historically to Jesus in relation to others in historical context.

If only some archeologist could locate those blasted stage directions...

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

07-01-2010, 06:05 AM	#22
DrJim Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Lethbridge AB Canada Posts: 445	I am so sick of hearing rubbish like Darko's and Jim West's about the need for faith. How the hell do they propose to study any other religion other than their own? The next SBL meeting in November (Atlanta) will have a session under the Ideological Criticism banner on Secular Criticism and Introductions to the Bible. I will be doing a paper called "How is this mythology different from other mythologies?". Don't worry, there will be some good scholars in the session too, so it might be worth your while to take it in if you are at the meeting.

07-01-2010, 06:49 AM	#23
Mars Man Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Aida, Matsumoto, Japan Posts: 129	Thanks for the comments and notes, meow (and others too). Yeah, I use the double dash in place of a longer single dash. If the function of the longer single dash were possible in this medium (or if I knew about it, if it were, actually, possible here), I would use it. I have seen the double dash used, however in a few publications of various nature. I have not gotten a chance to get back to SBL yet, so can't comment on that (other pressures at the moment) but will try to do so by tomorrow afternoon, before leaving the office. I really feel that some ill-natured stuff may well be at play, to whatever degree, too (as per post #15 above, 3rd par.) I do agree on some other concerns of yours, meow. I'll check that out tomorrow.

07-01-2010, 11:19 PM	#29
meow Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Under a Rainbow Posts: 48	This is all very interesting, and there's no denying that SBL meetings include sessions that meet humanistic standards (even if these sessions, given the context, oddly still seem to have a slightly daring or provocative aspect, as if humanism itself were something that needed to be defended). But that isn't the issue, is it? The issue, as explained by Hendel and others, is the presence of fundamentalism within the Society, the scorn for humanistic principles of free, open, and critical research that is associated with that fundamentalism, and the nature of the research practices (as manifested in SBL meetings and, apparently, in museum exhibits created by prominent SBL members) that tend to result when that type of scorn is tolerated within the academy. And yes, I have again used the word "fundamentalism." One can substitute the term "faith-based research," and the issue would still be the same.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.