Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-19-2007, 07:23 AM

An interestingly provocative essay called "Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View" by Michael Fox was posted on the SBL site some time back. It is a biblical scholar writing a criticism of the results of "faith-based study". I'm sure some of our frequent christian posters will find a certain rightness in Fox's views, but the rest will probably find the comments problematical and if you judge by some of the responses so did other biblical scholars. Non-christians should find the discussion relevant to their efforts as well.

Check out the scholarly reactions of Fox's peers here:

The second contains the following sad analysis, so all would-be non-christian biblical scholars please take note:

Now we can better identify what is not well with biblical scholarship. Composed almost entirely of faith-based researchers on one extreme and "secularists" on the other, the field itself is structurally preconditioned to make heretical insight difficult to generate and secular research nearly impossible. To the non-believing undergraduate who tells me that he or she wants to go into biblical studies, I respond (with Dante and Weber) lasciate ogni speranza. This is not so much because they will encounter discrimination. They might, but if my experiences are representative, they will more frequently be the beneficiaries of the kindness of pious strangers. There is a much more mundane reason for prospective non-theist Biblicists to abandon hope: there are no jobs for them.

Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words "Saint" and "Holy" and "Theological" and "Seminary" in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn — preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague — that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods.

The writer also points out the problems of christians doing secular studies where their beliefs are not appreciated, but I don't find that that convincingly counteracts the above. A christian will still be eligible for work in their chosen field.

spin

GakuseiDon · 04-19-2007, 07:43 AM

How has this situation affected academic consensus with regards to studies on Christianity, in your opinion? What conclusions have they got wrong?

Julian · 04-19-2007, 07:49 AM

Of course, we do see scholars like Bart D. Ehrman who starts out as a believer, gets a job, and then becomes an agnostic. His reputation is now such that he could probably achieve tenure anywhere despite his lack of belief which he is quite open and frank about.

Elaine Pagels is another interesting example. Although I am not sure what her personal beliefs are (or if she even has any), she certainly is far removed from mainstream christianity to judge by her emphasis on (and slight bias in favor of, some would say) gnosticism.

I am sure there are others who fit this mold.

Julian

spin · 04-19-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

How has this situation affected academic consensus with regards to studies on Christianity, in your opinion? What conclusions have they got wrong?

Sorry, Gak, but which "this" are you referring to what Fox talks about or what the piece I cited from another writer says? If it's the latter then Fox is more eloquent than I feel at the moment.

spin

Clivedurdle · 04-19-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

The Department of Theology and Religious Studies welcomes students irrespective of religious background. It has a tradition of intellectual innovation using all the available linguistic, historical, philosophical and theological methods, and is keen to explore the relationship between religion and contemporary society. Students study Christianity, Buddhism, Chinese Religion, Hinduism, and Judaism. There are currently nine full-time and seven part-time staff. We also draw on the teaching resources of the local theological colleges. The Department attracts a number of mature students, as well as students from overseas, all of whom add to the lively environment.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/thrs/

There do seem to be some institutions who understand the importance of context!

Gamera · 04-19-2007, 01:00 PM

A wonderful article by Fox, and I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of the distinction he makes.

But there is some cognitive dissonance in his complaint. One of the key reasons (if not the key reason) modern people, including scholars. are interested in bible studies, relates to the impact of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures on western history. And that impact was as a result of the particular relationship between these texts and "faith": people actually believed these particular texts were "true" in some sense, and many still do (including me).

This contrasts with say, the Shakespeare industry: Shakespeare also had an important impact on western history (according to Harold Bloom, Shakespeare "invented" the modern persona). But none of this has to do with any "truth" claims about Shakespeare's work. Indeed, the impact is a result of them not claiming to be "true," but being self-consciously fiction, art.

In short, if nobody took the Bible to be an inspired text, then it's unlikely scholars and modern people would have any interest in studying it at all. The literary/sociological/cultural significance would run dry pretty quickly, I suspect. Secular scholars thus have as much interest in the "faith" aspect of these texts as apologists. So, the institutions that engage in faith based discourse about these texts (which I agree is not scholarship in a meaningful sense), while not friendly toward secular scholars, sustain the context in which the discourse of secular scholars has relevance.

Apikorus · 04-19-2007, 02:55 PM

What Gamera calls a "cognitive dissonance" I would call irony. Were it not for the survival of Judaism and its scribal traditions, and for the singular importance of Christianity in world history, Hebrew Bible studies would likely be subsumed by Ancient Near Eastern studies, and given little more accord than the study of other ANE literature. Indeed, Judah and Israel were thoroughly minor kingdoms on the world stage. There would be fewer biblical scholars than Assyriologists.

It is hard to know at what point to begin the Gedanken experiment, though. Shall we pretend that Judaism did not survive beyond the Roman wars, and that Christianity fizzled out before the 4th century? It's hard to imagine what kind of world we'd live in under those conditions.

Still, it is indeed ironic that a scholar like Fox in large measure owes his own status, and the influence of his research, to the special status accorded Hebrew Bible and its dozens of generations of religious adherents. Surely Fox is well aware of this point. Then again, Fox's audience is not bible scholars at large, but rather the smaller academic community. The distinction he makes is eminently sensible and indeed crucial to recognize.

Ben C Smith · 04-19-2007, 03:58 PM

I used to ponder how many Christians there would be right now if our Christian texts had not survived Roman times, but were unearthed for the first time less than a century ago. How many would read about the birth, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus from the tattered textual remains and wind up believing in it all and reviving the faith after all those centuries?

I think I started to ponder this question before reading Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) (which is what introduced me to the new perspective on Paul), but I know that a comment he makes in that book has added something to my speculations since then; he says that we ought to approach the epistle to the Romans as if it had just recently been uncovered for the first time from the desert sands. That image has always stuck with me.

Ben.

gstafleu · 04-20-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In short, if nobody took the Bible to be an inspired text, then it's unlikely scholars and modern people would have any interest in studying it at all.

True enough, to some extent at least. The bible would then take its rightful place among other sacred texts. But doesn't that just mean that the valid objective of scholarship is figuring out what makes texts "sacred," why (some) people believe in them, etc? Rather than starting out with the presupposition that some particular sacred texts are "true" in a sense that others are not?

Gerard Stafleu

Gamera · 04-20-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I used to ponder how many Christians there would be right now if our Christian texts had not survived Roman times, but were unearthed for the first time less than a century ago. How many would read about the birth, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus from the tattered textual remains and wind up believing in it all and reviving the faith after all those centuries?

I think I started to ponder this question before reading Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) (which is what introduced me to the new perspective on Paul), but I know that a comment he makes in that book has added something to my speculations since then; he says that we ought to approach the epistle to the Romans as if it had just recently been uncovered for the first time from the desert sands. That image has always stuck with me.

Ben.

I look at Paul's epistles as "arts" addressed to Christians of the time to help them apply this new religion to their lifes. I consider them to a great extent culturally specific, as the Emerging Church movement does.

As to the Gospels, as Christians we don't need them. Christianity did quite well before they were drafted, and the gospel itself can be stated by a 14 year old in about two minutes. The gospel is a narrative and doesn't need to be committed to paper. It resides in our hearts. Destroy all the NT in the world and it shouldn't affect the gospel message in the slightest.

As to the patristic writings and creeds that followed upon the Gospels and epistles, it has caused nothing be trouble and harmed Christianity. Theology has no place in the gospel message. Interjecting such incoherent concepts as the trinity or original sin into the gospel message has done a great deal of harm to Christianity

04-19-2007, 07:23 AM	#1
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	What may be wrong with christian biblical scholarship? An interestingly provocative essay called "Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View" by Michael Fox was posted on the SBL site some time back. It is a biblical scholar writing a criticism of the results of "faith-based study". I'm sure some of our frequent christian posters will find a certain rightness in Fox's views, but the rest will probably find the comments problematical and if you judge by some of the responses so did other biblical scholars. Non-christians should find the discussion relevant to their efforts as well. Check out the scholarly reactions of Fox's peers here: http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=502 http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=503 http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=506 The second contains the following sad analysis, so all would-be non-christian biblical scholars please take note: Now we can better identify what is not well with biblical scholarship. Composed almost entirely of faith-based researchers on one extreme and "secularists" on the other, the field itself is structurally preconditioned to make heretical insight difficult to generate and secular research nearly impossible. To the non-believing undergraduate who tells me that he or she wants to go into biblical studies, I respond (with Dante and Weber) lasciate ogni speranza. This is not so much because they will encounter discrimination. They might, but if my experiences are representative, they will more frequently be the beneficiaries of the kindness of pious strangers. There is a much more mundane reason for prospective non-theist Biblicists to abandon hope: there are no jobs for them. Assume for a moment that you are an atheist exegete. Now please follow my instructions. Peruse the listings in Openings. Understand that your unique skills and talents are of no interest to those institutions listed there with the words "Saint" and "Holy" and "Theological" and "Seminary" in their names. This leaves, per year, about two or three advertised posts in biblical studies at religiously un-chartered institutions of higher learning. Apply for those jobs. Get rejected. A few months later learn — preferably while consuming donuts with a colleague — that the position was filled by a graduate of a theological seminary. Realize that those on the search committee who made this choice all graduated from seminaries themselves. Curse the gods. The writer also points out the problems of christians doing secular studies where their beliefs are not appreciated, but I don't find that that convincingly counteracts the above. A christian will still be eligible for work in their chosen field. spin

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

04-19-2007, 07:43 AM	#2
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	How has this situation affected academic consensus with regards to studies on Christianity, in your opinion? What conclusions have they got wrong?

04-19-2007, 07:49 AM	#3
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Of course, we do see scholars like Bart D. Ehrman who starts out as a believer, gets a job, and then becomes an agnostic. His reputation is now such that he could probably achieve tenure anywhere despite his lack of belief which he is quite open and frank about. Elaine Pagels is another interesting example. Although I am not sure what her personal beliefs are (or if she even has any), she certainly is far removed from mainstream christianity to judge by her emphasis on (and slight bias in favor of, some would say) gnosticism. I am sure there are others who fit this mold. Julian

04-19-2007, 01:00 PM	#6
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	A wonderful article by Fox, and I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of the distinction he makes. But there is some cognitive dissonance in his complaint. One of the key reasons (if not the key reason) modern people, including scholars. are interested in bible studies, relates to the impact of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures on western history. And that impact was as a result of the particular relationship between these texts and "faith": people actually believed these particular texts were "true" in some sense, and many still do (including me). This contrasts with say, the Shakespeare industry: Shakespeare also had an important impact on western history (according to Harold Bloom, Shakespeare "invented" the modern persona). But none of this has to do with any "truth" claims about Shakespeare's work. Indeed, the impact is a result of them not claiming to be "true," but being self-consciously fiction, art. In short, if nobody took the Bible to be an inspired text, then it's unlikely scholars and modern people would have any interest in studying it at all. The literary/sociological/cultural significance would run dry pretty quickly, I suspect. Secular scholars thus have as much interest in the "faith" aspect of these texts as apologists. So, the institutions that engage in faith based discourse about these texts (which I agree is not scholarship in a meaningful sense), while not friendly toward secular scholars, sustain the context in which the discourse of secular scholars has relevance.

04-19-2007, 02:55 PM	#7
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	What Gamera calls a "cognitive dissonance" I would call irony. Were it not for the survival of Judaism and its scribal traditions, and for the singular importance of Christianity in world history, Hebrew Bible studies would likely be subsumed by Ancient Near Eastern studies, and given little more accord than the study of other ANE literature. Indeed, Judah and Israel were thoroughly minor kingdoms on the world stage. There would be fewer biblical scholars than Assyriologists. It is hard to know at what point to begin the Gedanken experiment, though. Shall we pretend that Judaism did not survive beyond the Roman wars, and that Christianity fizzled out before the 4th century? It's hard to imagine what kind of world we'd live in under those conditions. Still, it is indeed ironic that a scholar like Fox in large measure owes his own status, and the influence of his research, to the special status accorded Hebrew Bible and its dozens of generations of religious adherents. Surely Fox is well aware of this point. Then again, Fox's audience is not bible scholars at large, but rather the smaller academic community. The distinction he makes is eminently sensible and indeed crucial to recognize.

04-19-2007, 03:58 PM	#8
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	I used to ponder how many Christians there would be right now if our Christian texts had not survived Roman times, but were unearthed for the first time less than a century ago. How many would read about the birth, the death, and the resurrection of Jesus from the tattered textual remains and wind up believing in it all and reviving the faith after all those centuries? I think I started to ponder this question before reading Stanley Stowers, A Rereading of Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) (which is what introduced me to the new perspective on Paul), but I know that a comment he makes in that book has added something to my speculations since then; he says that we ought to approach the epistle to the Romans as if it had just recently been uncovered for the first time from the desert sands. That image has always stuck with me. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.