In the current issue of the Biblical Archeological Review, Professor Ronald S. Hendel announces his departure from the venerable scholarly organization that publishes the journal, The Society of Biblical Literature.
The reason? Basically, he thinks that the SBL is being taken over by fundamentalists. Apparently, it was a review by Bruce Waltke in the online journal, Review of Biblical Literature, that pushed him over the end. Walkte criticized some of the assumptions that guide modern critical scholarship.
In my experience, the one thing critical scholars can’t tolerate is criticism, which seems borne out by Hendel’s cri de coeur. I seems to me obvious that, for a believer, modern critical scholarship does not have final authority over biblical interpretation. This is intolerable for many biblical scholars, akin to fundamentalism in their minds. Sigh.
I’ve got an essay on the question of biblical interpretation in the forthcoming issue of First Things that tries to explain why church teaching must be relevant to biblical interpretation, at least for believers—and why biblical scholars bristle at the thought of reading with eyes of faith.
June 25th, 2010 | 2:19 pm
This is an important issue and I look forward to your essay.
Perhaps out of fairness for the accused you might’ve excerpted part of the journal article?
June 25th, 2010 | 3:45 pm
“Basically, he thinks that the SBL is being taken over by fundamentalists.”
He’s kidding, right? The SBL, favorite home of religious feminists like Cathie Kroeger is “fundamentalist”?
That’s funny, but he probably should quit his day job.
June 25th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
ACK!
“Shouldn’t” quit his day job.
June 25th, 2010 | 5:04 pm
Dear Kamilla: ACK?
I hadn’t thought of Bill the Cat (“Bloom County”) in a long time, but at this I had a sudden flashback.
I’m generally sympathetic to the idea that “church teaching must be relevant to biblical interpretation,” but how do you avoid “stretching” the interpretation to fit the teaching? Or should I wait for the article to come out to see if this is already covered?
June 25th, 2010 | 7:34 pm
Mongo: Yes, I was hoping for an excerpt, too. So I went to the original article, and here’s what I found: “[I]n 2004 the SBL revised its mission statement and removed the phrase ‘critical investigation’ from its official standards. Now the mission statement is simply to ‘foster biblical scholarship.’ So critical inquiry—that is to say, reason—has been deliberately deleted as a criterion for the SBL. The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers now count among the kinds of Biblical scholarship that the society seeks to foster.”
In other words, Hendel is arguing that
(1) The SBL removed the phrase “critical investigation” from its mission statement,
and
(2) The SBL replaced that phrase with “foster Biblical scholarship.”
Therefore,
(3) The SBL no longer endorses reason as a criterion of Biblical studies,
and
(4) The SBL now seeks to foster the “views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers.”
It seems to me that if this is an example of the kind of reasoning that Hendel is accusing the SBL of abandoning, it’s hard to see what his objection to that decision could possibly be.
June 25th, 2010 | 10:34 pm
Dear JB in CA: Thanks for looking that up.
In academic circles, it always seems true that the smaller the argument, the more bitter the anger.
June 26th, 2010 | 9:20 am
I was chatting up a post-doc about his work in Theology, asking him about his alma mater. I asked what denomination (if any) it was associated with. He said “None, technically.” As we talked further, he lamented that more and more of the professors were “confessing.” I asked him what that meant in this context. He said, “They belong to particular churches.” Call me naive, but why would that be considered a hindrance to the study of Theology? Yeah, there’s a “line” but the people who think that only atheists or agnostics can interpret the Bible “objectively” are the same ones who think that Christians can’t be intellectually honest. It’s an invidious calumny.
June 26th, 2010 | 10:30 am
The historical-critical crowd are getting nervous.
They know that:
1) There are now compelling arguments that their methods are methodologically suspect and can be challenged on philosophical, literary and theological grounds. The historical-critical method is now one option among many, at best.
2) In many respects their scholarship has ceased being a part of humanistic study, with the result that few people outside of their tiny guild are even interested in what’s happening.
3) Most frustratingly, even people in Theology departments–their presumed allies–often don’t care what the Bible scholars are up to.
June 27th, 2010 | 10:00 am
Here is another way to read Hendel’s “cri de coeur”: precisely the thing that R.R. Reno constantly suggests is lacking from biblical scholarship, the lens of faith, theology itself, is very much present in the SBL. This, however, is too obvious a reading and does not fit with his predetermined narrative. He says, “biblical scholars bristle at the thought of reading with eyes of faith.” It is quite obvious that this should be amended: “some” biblical scholars bristle at the thought of reading with eyes of faith, but many do not.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact