Joan of Bark

What I am about to say obviously applies to all works of non-fiction, but for the sake of this forum I want to restrict the dialogue to the works of Biblical scholars.

When reading a scholar's work the question of where the scholar's prejudices lie is obviously very important. Before I read a book or paper, I always check the "about the author" blurb, to see if I can ascertain any prejudices. Sometimes I will go online to research the author's biography. Still, this is usually not very helpful. I believe that ALL writers of non-fiction should have a short passage at the beginning of their books that defines, in the writer's words, exactly where the writer's biases lie, e.g. I consider myself a liberal Christian who generally follows the beliefs of the Englican Anglican church. I believe the Bible can never be taken literally and all passages must be interpreted in light of other passages and new discoveries. I believe ... etc.

I can't see this happening soon, so I ask the members of this forum the following questions:

1) How important is it for you to know beforehand a writer's biases?

2) Do you check for such biases before reading? If so, what resources do you use?

3) Is there any good online resource for checking an author's background and beliefs? (I don't trust Wikipedia, and I don't want to spend hours in research).

4) Do you have any other thoughts on this issue?

youngalexander

Extremely! As a card carrying skeptic Australian Skeptics it is part of the kit & caboodle of research!
Absolutely! Very often when reading on DBs I know 'wat sort of nut' I am encountering. Otherwise I take it from the subject matter and tone of the spiel. Otherwise Google or such, but initial impressions are not that important - experience will out!
I believe that the People's Republic of China is developing such a service - regrettably we may have to wait several decades for its maturity.
Experience, experience, experience ...

Roger Pearse

Not at all. If the book is a work of genuine scholarship, driven by the data in the historical record, presenting all that data and cautiously drawing conclusions directly from it, every statement referenced to the primary sources, etc, then it cannot matter.

However, in fact, there is a vast quantity of sloppy rubbish around masquerading as scholarship, and particularly in the broad field known as 'biblical studies'. Visit any academic bookshop and grab some of the books in English on sale, and you will quickly see several that fail the above tests, where speculation is treated as fact, where the opinions of other scholars are balanced, medieval-style, as if scholastic authorities, and so forth. We need to be clear that this is not a problem with scholarship, but rather a case of **bad scholarship**; the cure, of course, is good scholarship. This problem seems to be much less common in French and German texts, tho.

The worst biases, of course, are those we know nothing about. But if a book presents all the primary data, it must be of utility.

Well, I don't (although I would if I thought it useful. A political or religious bias is usually obvious in a bad work anyway; it is the *work* that matters, not the author.

There is an instrinsic problem with me rejecting works, unread, for bias, you know. The problem is *my* biases. If I reject for bias, am I not liable to reject them because they annoy me or insult my politics or religion?

The web is the tool that I would use. The titles of the books he has published, the institution he belongs to, excerpts appearing online... that would all work, surely?

I wouldn't want you to go away with the impression that I endorse biblical studies; I don't. I have long felt that it is a pseudo-discipline, as sociology was and as economics was during the 70's. This is probably why I spend my time in patristics instead.

But we can't spend our time running around compiling indexes of assholes; that would be morbid. (Mind you, you might be able to get a grant...!)

Let's follow our enthusiasms, and work in fields where we can be reasonably confident that people won't try to lie to us because ... <deep breath> e.g. they hated Sunday school, or because they drink, or they lust after choirboys, or they sodomise every weekend, or they get high on incense, or because they are just really boring sad people, or because they feel that they must fight to preserve a world in which it is safe to be sanctimonious, or because they really wanted to be Bill Clinton, or were in the next dungeon to Max Mosley the other weekend, or <insert your own negative stereotype here>, or all of the above at once.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo

I don't think it is important to know the scholar's religious affiliation. Biases, if there are any, will usually manifest themselves in handling disconfirming evidence to the scholar's favourite theory, or in defective reasoning.
The problem is that most people think of "objectivity" in a rather naive fashion. They believe there is some fool-proof methodological toolset which cannot be disputed and that by applying such a toolset one may not arrive but at a given conclusion. If a scholar they read does not arrive at this (their preferred) conclusion then, it is held, he/she is not following the right methodology and is guilty of bias. That bias is then imputed in a general fashion to their presumed religious beliefs.

I usually try to follow the precept for reading someone's point of view set out by Bertrand Russell. He said he always first read the philosopher trying to imagine being that philosopher in feeling out the thoughtways of that person. Then he compared the "imaginary self" with his own point of view to net out the differences.

When I read Jesus of Nazareth by Benedict XVI. it is not to look for the pope biases. It is to get a sense how things around Jesus hang together for the pontiff, how far he would allow his intellect challenge his faith.

Jiri

PhilosopherJay

Hi Joan,

These are excellent questions.

I generally do not care about the biases of the authors I read. I only care that their arguments are sound or at least reasonable and fit with the known facts.

I often find that a writer whom I generally strongly disagree with will present an interesting fact or make an interesting point that causes me to reevaluate my position on a subject. Conversely, I often find a writer that I generally agree with on her/his overall view of an issue will present an argument that is silly or filled with factual mistakes.

Naturally I am more drawn to writers whom I suspect share my general views of issues. Still, I find it is important to read and consider the views of others, if they are presented in a reasonable and intelligible manner.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

paarsurrey

Hi

I read the book, I am interestd in, and form my own opinion from the internal evidence.

Thanks

manwithdream

I think biased scholars come up with more imaginative and creative explanations than unbiased scholars because biased scholars have to make everything fit their beliefs. Unbiased scholars can be satisfied by easy answers that are unbiased but are not necessarily right either. Since necessity is the mother of invention, people who need explanations to fit their beliefs are going to come up with wilder ideas than unbiased people. I think you should read books by both kinds of scholars so you can compare their ideas.

Gamera

Since all authors are inherently biased (if they weren't they wouldn't be interested in the matters they write about), I really don't care about the author. I read the text that is in front of me and evaluate its scholarship based on various standards of evidence and reasoning that I deem appropriate.

Authors and their psychology are always irrelevant (though usually an interesting topic)

Roger Pearse

This is an interesting point, and I agree to some extent. I have an example, even.

R.J.Hoffmann produced 'translations' of the fragments of the anti-Christian works of Celsus, Porphyry and Julian. It's pretty clear from his intro to the Porphyry that Hoffmann is a Christian hater. This both helped and hindered him.

In the Celsus, he started 'improving' Celsus's answers to Origen's comments, and made Celsus sound like a modern atheist professor of religious studies rather than an epicurean (as was remarked in an academic review).

But in the Porphyry his sympathy led him to produce a very crisp and punchy translation, which really did give a serious impression of the impact of Porphyry's book. (The Julian I have not seen).

In both cases the animosity that he shared with the ancient authors allowed him to produce a far more vivid version than any other translator has done, and this was undoubtedly a significant benefit.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Fodaoson

Almost everyone has a bias to some degree in any academic /scholarly area. Gamera said in a previous post “Since all authors are inherently biased (if they weren't they wouldn't be interested in the matters they write about), “ and that is good statement. Some scholars will change their bias as then learn ne2 ideas, facts factors about a subject. I was once a Christian minister but after years of Bible study, historical study, studies of religions and Psychology, I know longer could I could not longer identify with basic tenants of Christianity. I no longer call myself Christian. I do not hate Christians or attempt to changed other Christians mind about Jesus, the bible or the value of faith. I do ask that they not try to convince me or to force any of their beliefs on to the public . A scholars bias may change because they learn something Faith is not factual, it is “… faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1.