WishboneDawn

That's not an issue of biblical scholarship. That's an issue with the media's low standard. Go see who they site when talking evolution or climate change.

jjramsey

Although what happens in practice is that many Bible scholars, in what is an arguably contradictory approach, maintain their piety while nonetheless believing things that undermine the factual basis for their piety. As Jacques Berlinerbrau pointed out in the second link:

RPS

Nonsense. It's interesting that the Wiki article doesn't mention academia as a place where the stated conflict rule applies. More pertinently, by your interpretation, no Political Science professor can have views on politics, no Economics professor can have opinions on economics, etc. You've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.

Clivedurdle

From wiki above.

My point was to comment the conflict of interest is real. What anyone does about it is a second question. There are clear codes in audit, professions.

A rule of thumb is to declare it and then not be involved.

It does get more complex in the humanities, where there are many priests who are also lecturers for example. I have had sociology lecturers who were explicitly Marxist!

Yuri Kuchinsky

In my experience, there's not so much difference if a biblical scholar is a religious believer or not. I can name some excellent scholars who are religious, and some excellent scholars who are atheistic.

In fact, some of the major dogmas of modern NT scholarship have little to do with religion, as generally understood. For example, the claim that all 4 gospels were originally written in Greek. Almost all so-called "secularist" NT scholars subscribe to this, but there's never any proof.

Likewise, the belief in Westcott & Hort as great geniuses, and almost infallible... This is very common both among the "conservatives" and "liberals". In fact, I'm with the conservatives who oppose the Westcott & Hort wackiness.

Regards,

Yuri.

gstafleu

I don't think the comparison is valid. The point with religious convictions is that they are so deeply held. One's whole life can be built on it. That is not the case with most other convictions, although I'm sure there are exceptions. The Arthurian guy will probably feel strongly about whatever ideas he's come up with, after all they are his babies. But I don't think that his whole world view would be shattered if he had to revise them.

The difference between how strongly religious beliefs are held vs other types of belief may be a qualitative one, but the difference is so large that it approaches a quantitative difference. Just look at quantum mechanics, which topsy-turvies some classic beliefs. Sure, there is lots of debate, lots of strongly held opinions. But there is no quantum clergy preaching QM every Sunday, no Quantum Vatican, no Quantum Bible from which one reads every day...

Add to this that there is this enormous social structure to uphold religious beliefs. On your way home you might pass a few churches. How many buildings dedicated to quantum mechanics do you pass (maybe one if you work at a univesrsity). Howmany buildings for the promotion of the Arthurian legend?

All in all I think that the equation of religious beliefs with other beliefs is a fallacy. There are just too many differences between how the two types of belief are held and supported.

RPS

Imagine that. Unlike, say, politics?
You must be right. Nobody takes any significant, meaningful or dangerous actions on account of mere politics.

Apikorus

What Fox is saying -- and this seems completely correct to me -- is that scholars who bring their a priori commitments to the analysis of the text are pursuing a corrupt paradigm. People will be quick to point out that no scholar is completely objective. Indeed, scholarship is often motivated by religious, political, aesthetic etc. sympathies, and it should come as no surprise that it can be influenced by those sympathies as well. However, this is not what Fox is talking about. Fox recognizes that scholars' judgments can be influenced by their personal tastes, and that we must be cognizant of such aspects of human nature and try to avoid their corrupting influence on scholarship. What Fox thinks is unscholarly, though, is to let a priori religious commitments determine the outcome of one's scholarship. In Physics, we call this sort of game "answer analysis." In religion, it works this way: as an evangelical Christian (for the purposes of argument), I just know that Isaiah 7:14 must refer to the birth of Jesus. Indeed, the Holy Spirit revealed it to me. Therefore other interpretations must be wrong, and this in turn has a strong influence on my linguistic analysis of Isaiah.

Fox would not say that religious people cannot be good bible scholars. Indeed, he says just the opposite. So long as they compartmentalize their religious views vis-a-vis their scholarly research, they can and do produce top-notch work. Scholars like the late Raymond Brown (Catholic Priest), Walter Brueggemann (UCC Minister), and Jacob Milgrom (Conservative Jewish Rabbi) have made serious contributions to biblical studies. I suspect that each is influenced in some way by his religious convictions, but by and large they leave that stuff at home or in church/synagogue when it comes to their research. And it is important to note that a bible scholar who happens to be religious can write homiletic articles as well -- Brueggemann is a good example.

gstafleu

I wouldn't detect a slight note of sarcasm, would I ?
Good point, but the discussion wasn't about politics, more about academically held convictions. Even with politics I would say the convictions are held less strongly. I have seen many more people change political convictions (e.g. conservative->liberal->NDP, in Canadian terms, Conservatives->Greens in Dutch terms) than I have seen people change religions.

gstafleu

I agree, Biblical Studies is probably not the best place to learn about the bible. I would suggest something like a double major in Classical Studies and History.

And if you want to learn about religion, psychology/sociology would be the place. I was a bit surprised by a comment in the second link in the OP, that said that sociologists are often seen as "too religious." Speaking from Dutch experience that is certainly not true. Sociologists there are your typical red rabble rousers . But does it hold in the US perhaps?