Toto

Dr Jim on the SBL and Sharing the Academic Playground. (illustrated)

mountainman

http://www.archart.it/archart/mostre...istiana046.jpg

Plate 14: A Pre-Constantinian sarcophagus - Museo Pio chistiano, the Vatican, Item #119

Description is given thus:

"The center lower level consists primarily of a large, detailed Jonah cycle
with the boat to the left manned by three men, the middle of whom is casting
Jonah into the waiting mouth of the ketos. A second ketos to the right of center
spews out Jonah who then rests, Endymion-like and nude, under a large vine. To
the far right of the Jonah at rest is a pastoral fisher scene. To the far left
is a scene with two fishers and a basket. Between the right ketos and Jonah
resting there is a small Noah in the Ark with a dove bearing an olive branch.
On the upper thinner level to the left is a Resurrection of Lazarus with four
observers, including two women (Mary and Martha). To the right of this scene,
above the sail of the ship, is apparently a SOL INVICTUS. To the right
of that we find Moses striking the rock. In the center is placed the Harassment
of Moses, in which he is chased by two men and two other men are lying on the
ground. At the upper far right is a shepherd with a sheep looking out of a stall."

SOURCE: Ante pacem

DCHindley

The SBL has long been a non-confessional association, although the vast majority of members have religious affiliations. IMHO, that is because they had been promoting historical reconstruction without introducing value judgements as much as possible. In its heyday (late 19th and early 20th centuries), this was actually refreshing and liberating, allowing for individuals to decide for themselves what place Christian (or Jewish) tradition should take in their personal beliefs. In other words, their personal faith is reflected in the interpretation they apply to the unvarnished facts they establish by means of historical criticism.

Evangelical and other conservative Christians, who at first stood in opposition to this approach on principal, came to learn that it could also be useful to illuminate the times and culture that brought about early Christianity (or Judaism), if only for the edification of the faithful. However, they still hold the faith position dear. It seems to me, though, that those who harbor strong faith positions are much more prone to attach value judgements to the evidence. It is no longer faith affecting how one interprets facts, but the facts become dictated by faith.

I think that SBL has decided to take these folk under their wings, but I am afraid that by doing so they may actually be letting the fox into the henhouse.

DCH

mountainman

Well said DCHindley, but paraphrasing Momigliano we can add to this ....

the serious problems we all have to face is not just because of the
current devaluation of the notion of evidence but also the
corresponding overappreciation of rhetoric and ideology
as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources.

--- ON PAGANS, JEWS, and CHRISTIANS

--- Arnaldo Momigliano, 1987

I think Momigliano was referring specifically to the "overappreciation of Christian rhetoric and Christian ideology" as instruments for the analysis of the literary sources.

meow

An example of such "overappreciation of Christian rhetoric and Christian ideology" can apparently be found in the statement, in press releases announcing various Dead Sea Scrolls museum exhibits, that the “group” who (according to exhibitors associated with SBL) wrote the scrolls “saw themselves as the ‘true Israel’ and viewed those living in Jerusalem, including the priesthood at the Temple, as corrupt.”

See here the following comment:

meow

The comments seem to have dwindled to a virtual halt--we are now at 89. Meanwhile, Hendel has published a reply to comments by James Crossley, in which he focuses on "the difference between critical scholarship and apologetics masquerading as scholarship." This, again, is exactly the issue that appears to have been raised several years ago. There is a good deal of apologetics going around under the guise of scholarship. One way of recognizing it is when scholars casually refer to a "tradition" without explaining that there is no verifiable evidence that provides any historical basis for assigning any truth value to that tradition. Or when they selectively quote from secondary sources to make polemical claims about issues that have a religious aspect. One could put together a whole catalog of apologetic "techniques." And the most interesting phenomenon of all, is that those who specialize in such techniques do not seem to like the taste of their own medicine. They like to hit and run, ignoring criticism and moving on to other arguments as soon as they're exposed. But this is the nature of religiously grounded polemics. Feelings get offended and wounds fester. No wonder so many scholars are troubled by what's happening at SBL.

meow

In November 2006, Jacques Berlinerblau, director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University, published an article entitled “What’s Wrong With the Society of Biblical Literature?”, in The Chronicle of Higher Education (see vol. 53, Issue 12, p. B13) which at the time was still a decent publication (whether it continues to be one is subject to debate).

Berlinerblau expressed his dismay in face of the “persistent rumor” that the SBL had been “overrun by conservative Christians” who entertained “an overly reverent, uncritical attitude towards the Bible and religion in general.”

According to Berlinerblau, approximately 80% of the society’s membership “consists of believers who work in institutions that many in the secular academy do not see as even being part of academe... Of the remaining 20 percent employed in secular universities, [an estimated] 90 percent... are graduates of theological seminaries.”

In view of this alleged “evangelical tilt,” the SBL’s leadership had developed a “governing ethos … of reluctant pseudosecularism” that had degenerated into an “ethos of ecumenicism” which, according to Berlinerblau, was “more properly the purview of the National Conference of Christians and Jews.” Berlinerblau found this objectionable, because in a scheme “whose operating principle is ecumenical banter, there is little place, or tolerance, for the heretic,” because heretical ideas and dissent pose an “embarrassment that subverts the logic of confessional communities working in concert with one another for the greater good.”

Berlinerblau observed that the SBL had come to be “plagued by issues of academic freedom,” a “dirty little secret... rarely discussed publicly,” and generally involving scholars who had been “silenced, denied promotion, or run out of town precisely because [their] thought ran afoul of denominational dogma.”

Berlinerblau also suggested that secular universities were “outsourcing biblical instruction to either theological institutions or part-time clergymen,” strategies he described as “cost-saving measures [that] have the added advantage of minimizing the risk of unsightly campus controversies. After all, how critical of Scripture, how critical of dogma (their own or someone else’s) is a priest, rabbi, or minister likely to be?”

If that's the case, perhaps it's not surprising that, according to Berlinerblau, SBL was “allergic to even thinking clearly or critically about itself....”

How surprising is it, then, that after four more years of inaction, a prestigious biblical scholar should publicly resign from SBL and suggest that the organization step down from the American Council of Learned Societies?

meow

Then, in 2007, James Sanders, who is a former president of the SBL, raised his own concern about a departure from “critical methods of study of the Bible.” He indicated that there had been a

And he explained that

Sanders observed that many or even most SBL members

How interesting. "A fresh theological or philosophical stance," and SBL members living "split lives." Ring any bells?

Toto

Comment on evangelical scholarship

meow

This is why, for example, we hear at an SBL lecture that scholars like Magen and Peleg are doing "forensics" (sneeringly pronounced) and that even if the Dead Sea Scrolls had been found "under the Temple Mount," they would still be sectarian texts; and then National Geographic announces that "forensics" has determined, as a "fact," that hundreds of scrolls were produced at Qumran (putting to rest any foolish Jerusalem claims raised by Magen and Peleg). The word "forensics" has two entirely different connotations depending on the context.