[net.religion] reply to Paul Dubuc - Biblical "scholarship"

gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (06/13/85)

>  is Paul Dubuc   

>This is a response to Gary Buchholz and Dan Boskovich.  First Gary: It's
>always a little disturbing to me when anyone tries to wear the mantle of
>"biblical scholarship" in an agrument like this, as if they have the weight
>of all biblical scholars worth their salt behind them.  While I am in fair
>agreement with Gary (and Tim, but I have some questions about his work
>also, maybe later) on the intent and shoddiness of his presentation, there
>are definitely some things in Gary's remarks that don't seem much better. 

I've been attending a divinity school for 4 years - what does this qualify
me to say ?  If you do not allow me to say anything on my own at least
you ought to allow me the privilege of quoting those "scholars" (oops,
lets be careful who we call scholars) that I have studied under.  I would
wonder if Paul would admit any of the faculty that I have studied under here
at the U of Chicago into his circle of "scholarship" ?

Shoddiness ?  I didn't think postings on the net required the same preparation
as one would be required to go through for journal publication.  Sorry, I
don't have enough time for that - and for the net it ain't worth it.
If you want to see this scholarly erudition in the liberal line in which I
was educated then I suggest that you consult the obvious place - journal
publications from such societies as I have already mentioned (Society of 
Biblical Literature, American Academy of Religion).

>>  3) Dans (and/or McDowells) work is certainly NOT within the
>>historical tradition of academic biblical scholarship (if one
>>measures this by such learned societies such as Society of Biblical
>>Literature(SBL) or American Academy of Religion(AAR))

>Learned *liberal* societies, you mean.  They have a certain perspective on
>the issues being discussed here.  What makes their perspective more
>qualified than scholars of equal qualification who disagree with them?
>Would your have us assume they don't exist?  Why do you personify their
>views as "biblical scholarship".  The assumptions you make about your
>authorities (equating them with a personified "biblical scholarship") are
>just as gratuitous as Dan's.
  
I think I was quite clear as to the qualification "if one measures this
by such learned societies as ...".  I surely do not wish to imply that 
Evangelical or Fundamentalist theology does not exist.  I have read many
such texts and they are easily available.

Why do I personify their views as "biblical scholarship" ?  If not Bultmann
or Koester or Kummel then who are the scholars ?  Who are qualified in your
eyes to be called a scholar ?  If you do not admit Bultmann and his student
Koester then I would surely wonder what your criteria are. 

>Gary uses Helmut Koester's "History and Literature of Early Christianity" as
>his source.  By all means, people interested in this subject should read
>it.  But don't personify Koester's views as "biblical scholarship".

Who are the biblical scholars then - name them.

>One example of a source that I know McDowell uses is "A General Introduction
>to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix.  It is also a standard text.  You can
>also find works by Gleason Archer, Merril Tenney, J.I. Packer and many
>others with credentials on par with those of Koester who would contradict
>Koester's claims.  Look at Vol. 1 of the Expositor's Bible Commentary for a
>sampling.  Why don't these people count as part of "biblical scholarship"?

I would very much doubt if one would want to class Norman Geisler with
someone like Rudolf Bultmann.  They (Geisler, Tenny, Archer) do NOT have
similar credentials, they are for the most part apologists for (what they     call) orthodox Xianity (-a Xianty that never existed in history prior to
the Xian reaction to modernity at the turn of the century).

>>In Conclusion...
>> 
>>  If Dan really honestly wants to get involved in academic
>>biblical scholarship and concomitant with that, if he wishes
>>to pursue it to the bitter end as a discipline respectable in itself
>>and independent of churchly and dogmatic ends then I suggest he
>>join SBL and get a subscription to to JBL(Journal of Biblical
>>Literature) to find out whats going on in the context of these
>>matters which he writes.
>>  If on the other hand Dan wishes to be the author of merely
>>edifying religious tracts for those people who sit in church
>>and attend ice cream socials then let him publish what he has
>>written as it is written.
>>   Gary

>Plain snobbery, Gary.  I'd question whether any journal or society is
>independant" of dogmatic ends.  It's easy for scholars to look down their
>noses at those of another opinion and say others are only edifying their
>own views with their conclusions.  The best you can suggest is that those
>interested consider your sources for an alternate view.

Thank you.  I think I've earned some arrogance because I have put in
the time, I've done the work and I've paid the dues.  Can you say the
same ?

>My point is that I think the issue being discussed is too broad for us to
>reach any sound conclusions here.  We don't have any qualified Bible
>scholars on the net as far as I can tell.  All we end up with is people
>using the work of their favorite "scholar" to support the views they
>already hold.  It's fine if the works are being compared on the same level,
>but they're not (as I have tried to point out).

Sound conclusions ?  Surely if this is what you want then biblical
scholarship is not a field for you.  If all "we" do is quote "our"
favorite scholar who support the views "we" already hold, and you 
seem to want to be somehow above this then I suggest you provide us
these "sound conclusions" that you seek from a scholar (the null set -
who could possibly quality in your eyes) that you deem qualified to 
do so.

I think Paul, that your problem is that you are unable to decide. And the
reason you cannot decide is that you are not intimately involved with the
subject matter.  To you, it is an endless stream of rhetoric.  To say that
the bible is the Word of God in the sense that Dan uses (or Geisler) is just
as good as to say that is not as the liberal line would hold.  To you, it is
simply two opposed positions.  You stand there as spectator.

A good part of a theological education is rehearsing the history of
scholarship (oops - I best be careful with that word) to see just how one
got to the point at which we are now.  I think that is what you lack and
lacking this you are indeed a spectator - unable to decide in the onslaught
of what to you is simply and merely rhetoric from two opposing sides.

I have made my decisions and I think that I have made them within the
context of the ongoing theological conversation to the point at which the
dialogue is at present.  My views are open to revision but that revision
must be in the context of all that has come before.

The major difference between what passes for Evangelical Theology and the
liberal line is simply one of starting points and the inclusion or exclusion
of ancillary disciplines (and of course one of method).

The end-all of liberal theology is NOT to make the preceding church
tradition "right" as it is for Evangelicals.  Liberal theology does NOT
exclude any ancillary disciplines as does Evangelical theology (ie studies
in the theory of ideology, Marxist readings of history, literary criticism
drawn from the purely secular sphere, post-philosophical movements such as
Derridean Deconstruction as well as anything that could be classed under the
rubric of post-modernity)

I suggest that if you wish to criticize the liberal line of scholarship
(oops, there's that word again) then I suggest you first appropriate it and
having done so launch the criticism from the inside rather than being a
spectator throwing rocks from the outside.

Kummel - The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems
would be a good introduction to the history of biblical scholarship since
the Enlightenment.  No one need re-invent the wheel.  No one need be
ignorant of what has gone before.  He who cannot remember the past is
condemned to repeat it.


  Gary