manwithdream

Toto,

I think the point of letting Bible scholars be biased is to be honest about what they think. Their biases won't stop just because they pretend to be unbiased. Lawyers have to be honest and deal with the other side's arguments, but they are openly biased at the same time. There is no verdict at the end. People just decide for themselves what they think.

XKV8R

the fact of the matter is that a substantial portion (maybe a sizable minority) of credible scholars at 'christian' universities are actually critical scholars, who adhere to the doctrine of their institution because to do research or argue against it would result in the loss of their jobs (read: violation of confessional statement). for them, sbl is a place where they can actually interact with other critical scholars (and drink), which they cannot do back home. (then there are, of course, the confessional scholars, for whom much of what they do is apologetic.)

likewise, the xn book market is quite profitable. folks like ehrman who publicly renounce their faith have the dawkins audience to sell to, which has become fashionable as of late, but most scholars at xn schools hold tacitly to their faith (or the faith of their upbringing) (or the confessional statements of their xn university) and present critical scholarship because they can at least attempt to sell to both markets while keeping their jobs. no one admits it, but that's what going on.

methinks a secular session may have been/might be of value to them, because they could hear what critical scholars think without having to sift through all of the qualifying statements critical xn scholars use in other sections to protect themselves against claims of secularism.

Toto

This sounds like the Methodist house I grew up in (especially the part about drinking.)

DrJim

Toto, there is a lot of that going on! I know baptists who love to go to SBL because of they can do their jobs and drink at the same time!

I should say, however, that John Kutsko emailed me and the rest of the steering committee, and we will have a phone conversation when he is back from some European travel. From what I can divine from this and some other sources, there is more to the SBL story than first meets the eye. I think they have some concerns about devotionalism too, but in any organization the size of the SBL, institutional inertia must be tremendous. I'm willing to wait and see before writing the outfit off entirely.

Ideally, a program unit talking about secularity should not have to exist, but we don't live in an ideal world. What bugs me is the misreading many people have that the proposed group would be the ONLY one doing secular biblical criticism. Rather we would just talk openly about the secular nature of scholarship.

Anyway, there is a new post on my blog, in which go after one egregious example of someone who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground.

mountainman

Hi DrJim,

How much relevance do you see between the situation with the SBL and the following comments from one of the foremost ancient historians of the 20th century?

Best wishes,


Pete