Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-21-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

... When I learned of the new move to include fundamentalist groups within the SBL, I wrote to the director and cited the mission statement in the SBL’s official history: “The object of the Society is to stimulate the critical investigation of the classical biblical literatures.”³ The director informed me that in 2004 the SBL revised its mission statement and removed the phrase “critical investigation” from its official standards. Now the mission statement is simply to “foster biblical scholarship.” So critical inquiry—that is to say, reason—has been deliberately deleted as a criterion for the SBL. The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers now count among the kinds of Biblical scholarship that the society seeks to foster.

Quote:

What’s wrong with bringing in such groups? Well, some of them proselytize at the SBL meetings. One group invited some Jewish scholars to their session, asked them if they observed the Sabbath, and handed them materials intended to convert them. And recently the SBL online book review journal (Review of Biblical Literature) has featured explicit condemnations of the ordinary methods of critical scholarly inquiry, extolling instead the religious authority of orthodox Christian faith. Listen to this, from Bruce Waltke, widely regarded as the dean of evangelical Biblical studies:

By their faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, [evangelical scholars] … hear the voice of higher biblical criticism, which replaces faith in God’s revelation with faith in the sufficiency of human reason, as the grating of an old scratched record.²

This is a quaintly stated position, which directly attacks the applicability of human reason to the study of the Bible. Instead of reason, “faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”—as interpreted by evangelical scholars—should be the rule in Biblical scholarship. Waltke dismisses critical inquiry as an annoying nuisance, like the scratchy sound of an old LP. This is in the midst of a review of a brilliant scholarly commentary on the Book of Proverbs, written by a Jewish scholar, in the Anchor Yale Bible series.

...

endnote 2: Bruce K. Waltke, review of Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31 (Anchor Yale Bible), in Review of Biblical Literature.

manwithdream · 06-21-2010, 10:53 AM

It sounds like "critical investigation" has to mean any research that shows the Bible is not true.

Kenneth Greifer
http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

stephan huller · 06-21-2010, 02:28 PM

Very interesting article. Thanks!

meow · 06-22-2010, 09:55 PM

Dr. Hendel is not the first person to point out the "religion" problem at SBL. Some of us recall an article (dated December 16, 2007) that already touched on the topic. The article's author stated, among other things:

Quote:

In light of the religious fervor conveyed by so-called bible scholarship, the alarming possibility seems to have emerged that an effort to break down the wall separating religious and scientific discourse ... has spread into the milieu of scholarly research. Are the actions of the parties concerned grounded in unsettling ideological tendencies, in motives stemming from personal pride, a desire for financial profit, or in some combination of all of these factors?

Responding to Dr. Steve Mason in an exchange following the article, he states:

Quote:

As is well known, many important scholars have chosen not to be members of SBL, because they feel ill at ease with the "reigning ethos," or in some cases with what is perceived to be the quasi-religious atmosphere with which the society's membership and leaders seem to be imbued.

The author also discusses the links between what he calls the "reigning ethos" and the Qumran-Essene theory of the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls, pointing out that "many SBL presidents have been prominent defenders of that theory: e.g., David Noel Freedman, John Collins, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Frank Cross among others (the line goes all the way back to Millar Burrows in the 1950's)." And he adds:

Quote:

And let's not forget that David Noel Freedman's student Risa Levitt Kohn, who curated the biased and misleading Scrolls exhibit at the San Diego museum, is (or recently was) president of SBL's West Coast chapter. One can argue, of course, that presidents merely play an "honorary" role; but it is difficult to believe that such honor is utterly without consequence. Furthermore, James VanderKam, another well-known Qumran-Essene scholar, is the editor of SBL's Journal of Biblical Literature. Has a single article by any of the well-known scholars who have rejected VanderKam's favored view been published in that journal? Has the review published any issue in which the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is debated by scholars on both sides of the ongoing controversy?

Needless to say, the individual to whom the authorship of the article has been attributed is currently facing a criminal prosecution in New York, based on the charge that he engaged in a "fraudulent scheme to influence a debate" by using pseudonyms to blog about the Dead Sea Scrolls and by sending out a mock email parody of a New York University department chairman. Dr. Rabbi Tzvee Zahavy has issued a statement on this prosecution. A British blogger also has some interesting things to say about it. He includes a photograph taken at last year's annual SBL meeting.

All of this leads me to ask: to what extent are religious fundamentalists willing to go to ensure that their growing influence in the academy is not threatened by provocative, whistle-blowing criticism appearing on sites like NowPublic?

Toto · 06-23-2010, 12:45 AM

meow - I do not intent to rehash the long discussion I had with Charles Gadda about this. Suffice it to say that the individuals that you mention are not religious fundamentalists.

mountainman · 06-23-2010, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Farewell to SBL

Blogsite of James F. McGrath

Quote:

Professor Ronald S. Hendel posted a controversial article about why he allowed his Society of Biblical Literature membership to lapse. He is concerned that a certain religious outlook which allows faith to trump or circumvent scholarship is coming to predominate, and that this change in outlook in what is supposed to be a scholarly organization is reflected in a change made to its mission statement.

The Society of Biblical Literature has posted a response.

meow · 06-23-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Society of Biblical Literature has posted a response.

This "response" includes, for example, the following:

Quote:

Throughout its history, the SBL has seen no inherent contradiction between “critical investigation” and including in the conversation “all interested in biblical literature,” a perspective that is consistent with the SBL’s current mission statement: “to foster biblical scholarship.” In short, “critical inquiry—that is to say, reason” has not been “deliberately deleted” from the SBL mission. SBL has never “removed the phrase ‘critical investigation’” from any initiative.

Personally, I hardly find that to be an honest response, but it is certainly typical of the type of rhetoric coming out of this organization. Most enlightening, however, are the various reactions recorded beneath the "response," which predictably range from ones which heatedly deny what Hendel is saying, through ones which attempt to justify the inclusion of evangelical viewpoints, to ones which agree with his central point. Among the latter, the following are particularly worth citing:

Quote:

Richard Miller:
I see Hendel’s article as a more or less accurate diagnosis of the present state of SBL. I do not think that the so called “clarifications” that you offer provide a proper intelligent response to his critique. Instead of hearing the general spirit of his criticisms, you have effectively deflected and dismissed the core elements of his concerns. SBL has indeed become overgrown with “faith-based” scholarship. I find SBL, on principles of academic and intellectual honest, to have become utterly embarrassing. I brought a friend to the San Diego meeting and had to apologize afterward for countless experiences that we faced that demonstrated gross intellectual dishonesty and chicanery all with subtexts of “faith-based” sociology. I have gotten to the place where I find only perhaps 10-20 of the sessions to be of acceptable quality and integrity regarding the discipline as I have come to understand it. We live in a land that is still heavily under the proverbial spell of these ancient texts, and it is our duty to isolate ourselves sufficiently and to shed authentic philological light on their meaning of history. This task is daunting and nigh impossible without a society that has erected and enforced proper intellectual boundaries and academic standards of discourse.

While in some minor technical areas Hengel’s critique may seem mistaken, the core thrust of his diagnosis is spot on. I feel it is the moral duty of the present executive membership swiftly to remedy and rectify this horribly compromised situation.

Quote:

William Fulco, S.J.
I really am not satisfied with SBL’s “clarifications” to Hendel’s article. On some factual matters such as the simultaneous meetings with AAR and ASOR (of which I am an active member), the response deserves merit, but it really does not answer the underlying problem of atmospherics. I have long since stopped going to SBL meetings because every year the general level of scholarship seems lower and less “scholarly.” More and more of the papers presented are ideological or confessional or meant to persuade rather than inform. The social dimensions, such as conversations around the book tables, meeting folks over meals, etc., have also changed markedly in this direction as well. I do read many of the on-line SBL book reviews and enjoy them, but not the meetings and progressively, not the on-line Journal either. So despite many of the particularities of Hendel’s position, I think he’s touched on something that has genuinely eroded the usefulness of the SBL in the world of Biblical Scholarship.

Quote:

Ron Troxel:
In point of fact, Hendel is right: neither the mission statement nor the “Strategic Vision Statements” include any mention of “critical thought” or “critical investigation.” In fact, the “Strategic Vision Statements” speak broadly of “Facilitat[ing] broad and open discussion from a variety of perspectives” and “Offering members opportunities for mutual support, intellectual growth, and professional development as teachers and scholars.” These may be noble goals, but they are far different than demands for rigorous critical investigation of biblical literature. Consequently, Hendel is justified in his perception that the Society has relaxed its former insistence on this matter...

In sum, I found your “clarifications” gave short shrift to some serious and reasonable concerns from a respected scholar. As much as I endorse the acceptance of multiple voices and approaches within the SBL, I find your treatment of Hendel’s concerns an unfortunate whitewash.

Quote:

Ron Hendel:
... Outside groups should be allowed to operate their own sections at SBL only if they endorse the principle of academic freedom, i.e. the free exercise of critical scholarship. Implementing this rule would require some courage, but I think it is absolutely essential in order to ensure academic respectability.

Among those making snide little remarks about Hendel, it's interesting to read the comment submitted by L. Mark Bruffey:

Quote:

Now that the Dead Sea Scrolls have become a moot issue, perhaps they need something else with which to stir up trouble over at BAR. Is it a wise move to yield to Hendel so much attention?

Perhaps Dr. Bruffey should study the Charles Gadda articles before announcing that the Dead Sea Scrolls are a moot issue. Indeed, it can hardly be denied that the statements by Fulco, Troxel, Miller and Hendel confirm the views (quoted in my posting above) expressed by Charles Gadda in 2007 and 2008.

Toto replies that the individuals mentioned "are not religious fundamentalists," and suggests that this "suffices" to refute the claims made by Gadda. This is about as evasive as SBL's response; Toto may wish to read Richard Miller's comment again: "Instead of hearing the general spirit of his criticisms, you have effectively deflected and dismissed the core elements of [the] concerns. SBL has indeed become overgrown with 'faith-based' scholarship."

As for the term "fundamentalist," I used it in my earlier comment (posted above) simply to refer to the phenomenon described by Hendel: the recourse to dogmatic claims rather than critical argument. Some of those responding to Hendel (including SBL itself) take issue with his own use of the term. I see no reason to stop using the term loosely to refer to faith-based scholarship. In fact, with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls a good deal of research seems to treat the "sectarian" theory itself as a kind of religious dogma to which one must adhere, barring which one will be marginalized and excluded from participating in various forums. This hardly rises to the level of academic freedom and critical scholarship demanded by Hendel and others.

P.s. I did not realize that Toto had a "lengthy discussion" with Charles Gadda about these issues. I do recall reading a discussion on this site about SBL, replete with personal invective directed at Gadda and at a University of Chicago scholar, but I didn't recall Toto being part of that discussion.

XKV8R · 06-23-2010, 02:55 PM

logged and forwarded (6/23/2010).

Toto · 06-23-2010, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meow

...

As for the term "fundamentalist," I used it in my earlier comment (posted above) simply to refer to the phenomenon described by Hendel: the recourse to dogmatic claims rather than critical argument. Some of those responding to Hendel (including SBL itself) take issue with his own use of the term. I see no reason to stop using the term loosely to refer to faith-based scholarship. In fact, with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls a good deal of research seems to treat the "sectarian" theory itself as a kind of religious dogma to which one must adhere, barring which one will be marginalized and excluded from participating in various forums. This hardly rises to the level of academic freedom and critical scholarship demanded by Hendel and others.

"Fundamentalist" has a specific, well-defined meaning in this discussion. It refers to people who take the position that the Bible is inerrant, and that where reason or logic or history conflict with the Bible, the Bible is still correct and those other inquiries are flawed. This implies a rejection of the basis of the Enlightnment and of secular scholarship.

Aside from fundamentaism, there are those of various religious or political or dogmatic persuasions who still are willing to operate under the rules of secular scholarship. You may disgree with these people and think that their thinking is biased, but they still agee on what the standard of proof is.

It is a common insult these days to call people who are not persuaded by your logic "fundamentalist," but this is a misuse of the term, especially in this discussion.

Quote:

P.s. I did not realize that Toto had a "lengthy discussion" with Charles Gadda about these issues. I do recall reading a discussion on this site about SBL, replete with personal invective directed at Gadda and at a University of Chicago scholar, but I didn't recall Toto being part of that discussion.

Perhaps it was not as lengthy as I remember, but it was there.

mountainman · 06-23-2010, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XKV8R

logged and forwarded (6/23/2010).

Offtopic, but, to your knowledge does the Orante feature anywhere in Judaic archaeology?

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

06-21-2010, 10:53 AM	#2
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	It sounds like "critical investigation" has to mean any research that shows the Bible is not true. Kenneth Greifer http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

06-21-2010, 02:28 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Very interesting article. Thanks!

06-23-2010, 12:45 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	meow - I do not intent to rehash the long discussion I had with Charles Gadda about this. Suffice it to say that the individuals that you mention are not religious fundamentalists.

06-23-2010, 02:55 PM	#8
XKV8R Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ucla, southern california Posts: 140	logged and forwarded (6/23/2010).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.