Oh Snap! Society of Biblical Literature is lame all around
Anyone interested in the state of Biblical Studies in North America should read this article:
The Chronicle: 11/10/2006: What's Wrong With the Society of Biblical Literature?
It raises a lot of important questions about the kind of pedantic scholarship that biblical studies has cultivated. Clearly lay people are bored to tears by most of what biblical studies produces. It has carefully avoided anything interesting or truly controversal since the mid-ninetes. But what interests me is the critique that it has for religious education like that at BYU. Should the SBL intervene in BYU's biblical studies classes to make sure that they are taught by professionals? Should they lean on BYU to insist that more "secularly" trained scholars be hired by the faculty? If the SBL had to produce a scorecard for BYU, how would it do? Finally, is this article right to emphasize the need for "secular" biblical studies at universities across the country?
UPDATE: One of the main NT blogs has some interesting reactions here.
9 comments:
Quick thought -
"But if nearly all biblical scholarship takes place within an explicit or implicit theological framework, then the discipline itself will flounder. For under such circumstances, critical and heretical appraisals of the Bible emerge infrequently."
Hardly true. The problem with SBL is... it's not secular enough? Doesn't promote enough non-sectarian critical thought? Give me a break. There's little *but* critical and secular assumptions at work in the SBL conferences/journals. You could hardly identify someone's denominational/confessional beliefs from the work done there...
"Clearly lay people are bored to tears by most of what biblical studies produces."
I don't think so. I'd wager that no other academic field is read by as many non-academics as biblical studies. Take any SBL author and any physicist: which do you think was read by more dentists last month?
Julie M. Smith
Ben,
It's funny to hear you complain that SBL is too secular. There must be a great deal of suspicion in the SBL on both sides of the fence. I sit on the secular side so all I hear are complaints about how backward the SBL is. I guess it just shows that no one thinks the SBL has it right.
HP,
I agree with you on both counts. Biblical scholars should take more of a public role and that this is not likely to happen because conservatives see them as threatening. I'm not sure that I totally understand your point about hermeneutics. I think that you underestimate people's desires to escape from "certain" interpretations. Maybe it's just where I live, but people here breath freely when you tell them that the Bible doesn't have a fixed meaning.
Julie,
I hear what you are saying, but as I understand it, the critique is that the SBL has not fully embraced the fact that its books are read by more people than those of physicists. As for most biblical studies being boring, from someone who is pretty close to the field, most of it is excruciatingly dull.
I agree with Berlinerblau's premise - biblical scholars need to reach out to educate a wider audience. Berlinerblau is interesting because he has a PhD in Hebrew Bible (NYU) and a PhD in Sociology (New School). He is aware of how important these issues are and yet how little attention they receive.
As for BYU, I feel that any move towards implementing more secular methodologies is a step in the right direrction. Biblical scholarship has direct implications for LDS faith claims. How can we presume to be at ease with those implications if the scholars who address them are being fired by BYU rather than hired?
g.wesley,
Why would the SBL evaluate Book of Mormon classes? Wouldn't it be similar to the SBL evaluating how muslim schools teaching the Koran? It has nothing to do with the SBL, so I don't see them scoring BYU on this point.
hp,
If people only want to hear what they already believe, then how do you explain Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman, the Jesus Seminar, etc?
"It's funny to hear you complain that SBL is too secular."
I wasn't complaining. I just don't see evidence of devotional/faith-based arguments or topics there. But perhaps this is just a semantic misunderstanding...
I am one of those who likes to study Biblical textualization and history. However, I am also the kind of person who believes "hands off my faith!" If I want to read them I will. However, I am NOT going to let them tell me what I should or shouldn't do to study the Bible or any other religious text.
They must realize they are dealing not with one group of believers who seem to be those they are critical of, but many. In other words, what authority do they have to tell me how I should study my faith or who to teach it? I respect their research. That doesn't mean I share their conclusions or their "Priests."
By the way, my post is more about how he sees a more secular Biblical Society going, and how the original post asks about such a society intervening in religious instruction. In a word: It is no one's businesss what other people will or will not do with particular studies.
[... ] is another great source on this issue[...]
http://freeinternationalcall.info/
Post a Comment