meow

What you are leaving out is the whole class of those of orthodox religious persuasions who, without taking the position that the Bible is inerrant, nonetheless appear to take the position that particular hypotheses, i.e., beliefs, are essentially inerrant, and are not willing to operate under the rules of secular scholarship (which include free and open debate, critical examination of evidence to support those hypotheses, opportunity to respond, a rejection of hit-and-run scholarship, adherence to criteria of verifiability, accuracy in representing other people's views, proper footnoting so that others can reconstruct the specific path through which ideas are developed, etc.).

Judging from the statements quoted above, the borders between these two "faith-based" forms of discourse are blurred at SBL, which makes the question I asked relevant and appropriate. Read Weber, on the secularization of "sectarian" religious forms. His argument that American associations play the same function as religious sects seems to be strikingly confirmed by social and intellectual practices at a place like SBL. I don't think that one can simply weed out one form of non-critical intolerance from the other, and insist that for purposes of "this discussion" we need to ignore the other.

meow

Professor Hendel has now called for SBL to resign from the American Council of Learned Societies. Here (see comment # 59) is his statement:

Reviewing the "Charles Gadda" articles in my file, I see that the question of "groups and scholarship that are antithetical or hostile to the humanities" is almost precisely the issue raised in several of them three years ago with respect to DSS science museum exhibits. Thus, an article dated October 6, 2007, pointed out that the platform of Trinity University's "Dead Sea Scrolls Institute" states that "Evangelical Christian scholars should play a significant role in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls," and that the director of this institute was involved in creating at least one of the disputed exhibits, at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle. It would be interesting to know if Trinity University faculty members play a significant role at SBL meetings.

Mars Man

I must admit that I was slightly taken aback, at first, when I received that mail from SBL, informing me of the situation, and their response; but soon rebounded with a inner-speeched, 'I shouldn't be...considering what has been going on State side over the past 26 years.'

Yeah, I'll give credit where it appears to be due, and make every attempt to be as honest as I can, and for that reason tend much more than not to think that Prof. Hendel is generally correct in his account of what had happened at certain venues (group sessons at the annual meetings) [also see some of the responses on the SBL page for that], and in his general drive about a certain degree of 'lack of oversight' in things like RBL, and such.

While I agree that perhaps some degree of standard would more likely be good for the 'full member' (see Patrick J. Madden; #15), that required for 'student' membership, or 'associate,' should have more margin. However, what goes public, or goes out in a way which would tend to represent the society, should be more fully open to peer review, by all means !

Prof. Hendel was (and I'll say, unfortunately) a bit too emotional about it, though (and some of the responses by membership were too). Being of the 'Jewish' frame of mind (degree and details not specified), I kind of wonder if the Adventist Society for Religious Studies (ASRS) isn't what got him (and maybe a few others [cf. Jeffery Stackert; #25] ) ticked off with their Sabbath agenda. However, I would fully back him, and any others who would have been 'projects' for such attitudes.

The Society of Biblical Literature, as far as I have been concerned, and have experienced (in dealing with the society and a number of publishers in JBL), is a learned society. I additionally hold, by such definition, that the utmost care should be taken in being as objective and thorough as possible, and with the application of critical, logical, and pragmatic investigation into the subject matter--biblical texts of the ancient Near and Middle east. That said, I would never deny that those of various belief system leanings, should be allowed to hold full membership (under the conditions pointed to above)--but only that the peer review system should be better set up. (I am very appreciative of the open discussion about this, there too, though.)

Joan of Bark

As opposed to Christians' belief that "critical investigation" should always show that the Bible is true.

meow

Interesting. Before commenting, allow me to say a few words in praise of any American author who has the courage to use double dashes as in the above-quoted paragraph. It's a style I admire. I've seen it used in some excellent articles about DSS museum exhibits.

Did you notice that SBL's capable website response team cut off the comments after posting 61 of them? And that only "members" were allowed to submit comments? It would be interesting to see what's in all of the hundreds of other comments they have presumably received, and it would also be interesting to hear from the many people who have chosen not to be members of SBL--and who also have opinions about the issue raised by Dr. Hendel. Then SBL might actually have--and not simply pretend to have--a free and open discussion.

Is SBL's little website-comments problem perhaps part of a larger "peer review" problem involve elitism, resentment at being criticized, abuse of power, and academic ethics in general? It's quite interesting to see a policy of inclusion being invoked to justify the significant role fundamentalists are playing at SBL, by the same organization of noble humanists that has, it appears, favored a policy of exclusion when it comes to certain other matters--including DSS museum exhibits.

meow

Oh my, they have added 16 more comments. (16, that's the reverse of 61). Still, it's hard to believe that only 77 people have something to say about such a controversy. Why not publish all the comments?

Another question: Why haven't scholars like Jodi Magness commented? In an ASOR blog item of Jan. 19, 2009, Dr. Magness stated: "For me archaeology is not a means of validating (or negating) personal faith and beliefs." So does she also plan on resigning from SBL? Does she agree with Dr. Hendel that SBL should leave the ACLS?

meow

I spoke too soon. They have now added 6 more comments, bringing it (so far) to a grand total of 83.

Of interest is James Linville's comment (# 80):

meow

What, still only 83 comments? Surely they can select 38 more from the hundreds they have received.

It takes a while to digest all of this stuff, but some of it is very interesting. See for example, John Byron's statement:

I wonder how many of the other comments contain evidence of anti-Semitism at SBL? I wonder how many other anti-Semitic lectures may have been given there? But the policy of inclusion justifies giving a venue to such perspectives, and we must all be very polite and delicate about the matter, mustn't we.

DrJim

Meow,
Thanks for picking up on my comment. Notice that post #81 actually implies that secular biblical scholarship is virtually impossible!

meow

Yes, the eloquent comment #81, submitted by Daniel Darko, certainly merits analysis:

(Oh-oh, is that a double dash?) How critical indeed! Let us congratulate the American Council of Learned Societies on the status it has granted to an organization like SBL, whose members have the opportunity to engage in critical debate on the Holy Spirit!

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