DrJim

The SBL has decided not to approve a program unit on Secular Biblical Criticism chaired by Hector Avalos.

We originally applied well in time for the deadline of the 2010 meeting but were turned down for advocating "normative" interpretation and the claim that we were vague on what was meant by "secular". We reapplied answering their concerns in time to be considered but nothing happened. We reapplied for 2011 and were turned down. They did invite us to hold a single, one-off session to "gauge the extent to which a new unit is needed".

Anyway, I'm on the steering committee of the proposed group and I'm pretty pissed, given the amount of theology that goes on. The committee has not yet responded to the "invitation" to hold the special session, and I'm not speaking for all them! Anyway, I posted my full reaction on my blog.

I have no idea which other new program units the SBL approved, but if any one of them is confessional in orientation it may be time for me to consider just walking away from the SBL despite all the good it does in other regards. Would another shit-storm result in change?

manwithdream

I think it is outrageous and shocking that any people would want to mix religion with the Bible. I don't even see the connection at all. Hopefully, sensible people will put a stop to this craziness.

hjalti

I think it's a good idea to try put pressure on the SBL via its membership in the ACLS.

I can't believe that "scholarship" like this can be taken seriously:

manwithdream

How do you know if a discussion or paper about the Bible is academic or religious anyway? It seems impossible to even discuss some things without sounding religious. "Critical scholarship" seems to be something only secularists are allowed to do because only they know exactly how to say things about the Bible that are somehow not "religious", but everyone else is being "religious".

DrJim

Manwithdrdeam,
Have you ever studied anything you don't believe in? Ever told anyone about a belief (religious, political, etc) that you disagree with? Scholarship is the same. We can talk about, say, ancient Egyptian religion without believing that Osiris, Re and the other deities actually exist.
One can teach about the beliefs, history, ideology and cultural impact of ANY religion without subscribing to it.

manwithdream

DrJim,

I am sure that secularists can easily discuss the Bible in an academic way. I don't think it is possible for a religious person to discuss the same Biblical subject academically without people saying they are being religious in some way.

Sometimes it is obvious that people are saying religious things like if they say that something is true because the holy spirit told them it was true or if they say that something is true because a famous rabbi of the past said it. I have dealt with both kinds of religious people in the past, so I know what it is like to deal with them.

I just think that some Biblical subjects like Isaiah 53 can't be discussed by anyone who is "religious" (Jewish or Christian) without someone saying they are not being academic. Certain subjects are automatically "religious" even if you try to deal with them in a fair objective way.

I have heard many people say that they won't discuss certain Biblical subjects because they hate apologetics. They have already decided that any discussion of Isaiah 53, for example, is apologetics, so they won't even discuss the subject. This is why I think it is impossible to have a non-religious discussion of the Bible because certain subjects are so "religious" in the Bible that only secularists can discuss them (if you can find one willing to). If a secularist discusses Isaiah 53, then maybe people will listen, but if a religious person does this, it is more likely to be seen as apologetics.

DrJim

Of course it is possible for religious people to do secular work. It is done a lot. A lot can be said about Isaiah 53 that does not interfere with one's religious beliefs (except for out and out literalists). THe history of Jewish and Christian interpretations, linguistic issues, genre and poetics, that kind of thing.

Toto

This post by Neil Godfrey seems apropos

What do biblical scholars make of the resurrection?

Guest46854

I often wonder what Santa Claus scholars make of sleigh speed limits or the value of Rudolf's red nose?




this is serious stuf? :constern01:

fast

Some of us are quite capable of expounding on topics without espousing our personal views. It’s sad that so many people can’t seem to tell the difference though. Take me for example. I know more about atheism than many atheists do, but I would dare not expound on the topic with an audience that can’t tell the difference between a view and my position regarding it.