|
< Back to the Current Issue of BAR  Talkback Add Your Comment
Biblical Views: Farewell to SBL
Faith and Reason in Biblical Studies
 “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.” This famous line from Pascal’s Pensées draws a wise distinction between religious faith and intellectual inquiry. The two have different motivations and pertain to different domains of experience. They are like oil and water, things that do not mix and should not be confused. Pascal was a brilliant mathematician, and he did not allow his Catholic beliefs to interfere with his scholarly investigations. He regarded the authority of the church to be meaningless in such matters. He argued that “all the powers in the world can by their authority no more persuade people of a point of fact than they can change it.”1 That is to say, facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts. Faith resides in the heart and in one’s way of living in the world.
Hendel's Army of Straw MenPlease see a complete refutation of Hendel's Army of Straw Men here: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/08/16/An-Army-of-Straw-Men-Responding-to-Ronald-Hendel.aspx • • • • • • • Checking the dataDr. Hendel quotes one sentence from the beginning of a 12-page review by Bruce Waltke. Consulting the review as cited in fn. 2, I find that Waltke proceeds to argue in a fully rational and critical manner (even if in too much detail, and whether successfully or not). Hendel's use of this "proof text" does a disservice both to Waltke and to the critical dialogue of which the review is a part. As for SBL book reviews that suggest Hendel is "going to hell," an exact citation would be appreciated. • • • • • • • Logical GapsFaith and facts must go together. Remove the historicity of Judaism and Christianity and what they stand for collapses. Consider: does it matter if Jesus lived, died and rose as the NT claims? If the Torah came from God or men? It does. To believe in Jesus if the historical facts are wrong is delusion. To die for the Torah (as many Jews did) if it is just human tradition is vain. Hendel’s assertion that faith and reason belong to distinct, unconnected spheres is unreasonable acrobatics. • • • • • • • Factual errorsDr. Hendel makes several factual errors. AAR initiated separate meetings, due to its leaders' desires for less crowding. That has now been rescinded. ASOR's meetings have been separate for years; and SBL's partnership with the Adventist Society goes back decades. As for associating with the dreaded "evangelicals and fundamentalists," AAR has an Evangelical Theology group. The imputation of financial motives for including partner groups is unsupported opinion. More facts, less bias, please! • • • • • • • JS SmithRon, As our recent President of SBL said a few years ago, speaking from the AAR side to the SBL plenary session--Don't leave us, please, we want to "study you." And he meant it in no condescending way at all, knowing Smith as I do. Biblical Studies have always had this crazy mix of the pious with the technical and the academic. We can sort it out and I rather like browsing the crazy book display, what a mixture of all the Bible has meant in our culture but at the "high end" of varied scholarship • • • • • • • Hendel: Farewell to SBLAs a scholar who's also an evangelical and a charismatic, I'm puzzled by Dr. Hendel's attack on Dr. Waltke. He accuses Waltke of asserting religious dogma,then cites as counter-evidence (that certain Biblical passages are "post-Mosaic" and "post-Solomonic") conclusions are simply judgments about the same evidence based on a different set of religious assumptions. This is the way a Pharisee would argue. Doesn't Hendel understand the difference between a supposition and a presupposition? • • • • • • • I grieve with HendelI am an evangelical, but I disagree with those who behave in the manner that Hendel describes. All of us, regardless of our theological persuasion, needs to approach the text honestly. Most of all, we need to respect the values and beliefs of everyone. I learn most from the free exchange of ideas. If there are those in SBL who cannot respect this, then there are other organizations out there who will welcome them to their fold. • • • • • • • Civil Rightsthey have the right to conduct scholarship through that prism if they so wish. Why should you only have the right to do research through an atheistic, materialistic, secular lens and not through a theistic one? • • • • • • • Civil Rights"This is a quaintly stated position, which directly attacks the applicability of human reason to the study of the Bible. Instead of reason, “faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”—as interpreted by evangelical scholars—should be the rule in Biblical scholarship. Waltke dismisses critical inquiry as an annoying nuisance, like the scratchy sound of an old LP. " Hi, you are so wrong about this. They are not abdicating reason, but simply holding their faith to God while using reason. They h • • • • • • • Hendel is wrongHendel is wrong saying: "That is to say, facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts." Faith have a lot to do with FACTS God's existence is a fact Religions are facts Miracolous healings are facts Eucharistic miracles are facts Religious scientist are facts Scientific contributions in physics and astronomy by priests are facts. Please Mr. Hendel Think before type in the computer. Our way of living are facts. FAITH HAS A LOT TO DO WITH FACTS • • • • • • • Farewell to SBLIf I were to go to a scholarly/scientific meeting to discuss, debate my research and the research of others, it is my expectation that my faith and those of others would be left at the door. Certainly it would be obvious what your beliefs might be by your arguments. But if you come with the intent of converting then you have subverted the purpose of the meeting and have insulted me if not others. The meeting should remain scholarly/scientific, not religious. • • • • • • • Hendel is spot onProfessor Hendel's concerns and criticisms are apposite. An a priori religious commitment to the Bible - or any other text - is inimical to true scholarship. • • • • • • • Farewell to SBLSBL has breached the Dutch Universities Reform Act of 1884 which chartered the careful distinction between the study of religion as a human science vs. the study of religion as dogma: "We do not wish to see the cultivation of polemics, but of critical research. We wish to see the examination of texts not the discussion of dogmas." American Universities appropriated the act in 1967. Is SBL's commitment academic or religious? For its own credibility, SBL needs to clarify its ideological stance. • • • • • • • Ronald Hendel's 'Farewell to SBL'Excellent column. Everywhere, it seems, the voice of reason is under assault. The issue is not only greed, but that those with strong religious feelings are full of a Yeatsian passionate intensity, while scholars such as Professor Hendel politely choose the better part of valor. • • • • • • • Hendels FarewellI think this article is a little dated in that AAR and SBL have recently announced that their meetings will once again be held collaboratively until 2014. This seems to be due to a change in leadership at SBL. The other thing to note about SBL is that at it's annual meetings, there are a multitude of sessions one can choose to attend. SBL gives a student the opportunity to experience a conference, network, and even present. For scholars, education, networking and mentoring opps are abundant • • • • • • • Pascal againI was pleased to read a column beginning with a quote from Pascal. Unfortunately Prof. Hendel rather misrepresented him. Pascal believed that reason has to base all its arguments on "heart and instinct." He went even farther to say that, "apart from faith, no one can be sure he is sleeping or waking." Pascal sorrowfully mused that if Augustine (one of his teachers) were living in his day, no one would listen to him. One wonders if the same would be true for Pascal if he lived today. • • • • • • • Hendel and ReasonScholarship has reason, which Hendel does not know. • • • • • • • Hendel's unreasoning bigotryI wish Mr. Hendel served reason more by reasoning and less by posturing about it. Then he would have developed some scholarly robustness to study and think through the nature and relationship of reason and faith--which are quite different from what he supposes them to be. As it is, Hendel displays only the intellectual shallowness, scholarly laziness, and pretensions to reason characteristic of bigots. Only unreasoning bigots see reason as exclusively theirs. C'mon, be reasonable! • • • • • • • SBL and Evangelicals...I share Columninst Hendels feelings about the Evangelical influence on scholarship. I And I'm also outraged that the mission statement has been changed. I feel that in cases where evidence contradicts dogma, that sound evidnece should prevail. If a persons dogma contradicts reason and evidence, the dogma needs revision. • • • • • • • fare well SBLProselytizing has no place in scholarly discussion, yet everyone pushes their point of view. Informed, and we can take it into consideration. When the books of the Bible are read and studied in the languages of their writing with an open responsive heart, faith and reason work hand in hand. Reason alone can 'clip the angels' wings'; faith can be blind - especially when it is based on English translations - make that approximations. Time for the SBL to die to make room for revitalization? • • • • • • • Hendel's Essay and the SBLAt 11years of age I was asked to leave a class on religious studies because I questioned a teaching on God and creation. At 61years I was physically threatened because I challenged a biblical teaching put forth by a lay bible teacher, how wonderful it must be to have a forum where you can use faith and reason to express yourself. Dr Hendel stay and challenge the people you disagree with, if for no other reason that to give lay people like me a voice. • • • • • • • SubtleWhat concerns me only in the article is that issues of reason and faith factors include more complex and subtle than just the binary opposition between the extremes that he pointed out, and this may serve to mask them • • • • • • • science and faithThe Bible describes supernatural experiences with angelic and strict warnings against negative entities. These kinds of paranormal events can be and have been studied scientifically. It's a very contemporary topic today. Books on afterlife abound. I agree that we should never disregard analytical thinking to blindly accept biblical claims, but a scientific investigaton of such claims will not demonstrate that the Bible is a book of myth and fable. • • • • • • • Faith vs Reasoni am a retired 77 year old Pastor who has always felt it is not an either or but a both and in the relationship between the two. I believe God exist by faith (Heb. 11:6), reason kicks in from there on. I define Faith as "a comittment to God on the basis of His mighty acts." By studying Scriptures and other related disciplines, with all the research tools available, including an open mind) I see no faulty disjunction between Faith and Reason. For me, reason gives validity to Heb. 11:6 • • • • • • • on the statement on PascalI believe You are Correct on the Ideas of Pascal for the above Reasons, He Knew God. Christianity Mr Pascal & Children I who were unusually able to achieve. His ability to Understand Religion came from what I believe is Discursive Meditation. Another Person allegedly using Discursive Meditation was a Doctor of the Church St. John of the Cross. He was also investigated. One of the methods of Study Prescribed I believe by Moses was Discursive Meditation, studied as the Hebrew study, the Shema. • • • • • • • Biblical Views: Farewell to SBL"some of them proselytize" Organizations and people that condemn my ideas and insist that only their way is correct stops me cold during a discussion. I enjoy sharing ideas but do not tell me that I am wrong merely because you can quote a line from a man-written book. The Crusdades, Spanish Inquisition and Spain's conquest of the Americas started out this way and look at the results. Your freedom to speak ends at my front door. Sociology taught me to study and accept other groups. • • • • • • • faith and reason applied to examination of scriptures per your articleSir, you face a very difficult discussion: reasons are 1.Christianity Today is Fragmented regarding that 1st Presented by Jesus. Hebrew Ideas also have Been Fragmented. Almost No One Agrees on Scriptural meaning as believed originally. Even Centuries ago when Unused Scrolls were Rediscovered, Read again they brought tears and Repentance to Hebrew People as they were read. What you need in order to have what you wish is Revival, in Hebraic Society and Christianity. • • • • • • • Farewell to SBLI was shocked when I read Hendel's article on the change of SBL's policy on including other groups. I believe that the academic approach does not mean "liberal" or "fundamentalist" but an approach that uses more than just opinion in the formulation of thought. Lets be honest, there are just as many opinions in religious circles that contain both the liberal and fundamentalist views and not research. In my presentations at SBL meetings my papers have been obviously conservative but were accepted. • • • • • • • SBLI am a conservative Christian. However, I did not check my intellect at the door when I accepted Jesus as my Savior and Lord. I study the scriptures and commentaries. I read many different sources to obtain all the facts and then I form my own conclusions. I believe we can all listen to each other and choose our own path. When asked, do I tell about my personal faith? Yes. If you don't like it don't ask. If you ask, be open to hear my side as I also am open to hear your side. • • • • • • • Hendel's articleHendel objects to the inclusion of faith-based folks in an organization that purports to be fact-based. I see his point. But I see the value of including wackos in the same organization as genuine scholars and "unlettered" folks who are seeking facts, not fantasy. That is, the wackos (those who pretend to "know God's Will" ... even though there is -- fasten your seatbelts, folks -- no unanimity as to what that MEANS, lol) serve the valuable function of forcing us to stay grounded IN facts:GOOD • • • • • • • Biblical ViewsThanks for this information. It seems this is one part of a disturbing trend; a war against reason is being waged in a variety of disciplines. • • • • • • • Faith vs factsFaith is spiritual and facts are worldly. Faith without works is dead. Facts believe because they see(Doubting Thomas)and faith believes before it see's.(Other Apostles)You should have a room full of these in all of your meetings as it balances everything out. • • • • • • • Switching from authority to faithHendel uses a quote from Pascal to the effect that mere authority cannot persuade people of a point of fact, then switches from "authority" to "faith" to make Pascal say, "faith has no business dealing in the world of facts." That's disingenuous at best. If we stick with "authority," then we can more readily apply Pascal's quote to Hendel, since so much of what he says in this article is of the flavor, "I said it, so that's the way it is, no supporting facts needed." • • • • • • • Farewell to SBLAs a ChristianOneness and having been a Pentecostal. I do agree much with this article. Fundamentalists do not listen to reason & lest to God for that matter, since they are too busy been right. The author views are correct and well based. But if only he would have left his bias and prejudiced towards Christians locked in a drawer; But when he threw out his fear of been "converted" by those people & "The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers" he blew it! • • • • • • • SBLThere should always be a place for both faith & reason in scripture study. Ther is a place for seeking the "God message" as it applies to my life as well as seeking the historical-critical meaning of the text in order to understand the writer's intent. Both are valid and for one to demonize the other is to do a disservice to both. • • • • • • • farewell SBLI thought "In order to keep up its numbers" was an unfounded conjecture of motivation without any support. I think dialogue with such groups might be considered a good thing by some serious critical scholars. I think the scratched record metaphor was poor but doesn't amount to "condemnation." Nevertheless, those who have listened to Biblical Criticism from their faith base since Spinoza are entitled to be bored by the sound of it by now. • • • • • • • Biblical Views: Farewell to SBLPeople of all faiths or of no faith would do well to read Dei Verbum, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html • • • • • • • Faith vs. ReasonI'm a commited Christian, and I have never been able to see a conflict between faith and reason. I object to anyone who wants to take either from me. In one of the Eucharistic prayers in the Book of Common Prayer, we say "You have blessed us with memory, reason and skill." For me that closes the case... and the "conflict". • • • • • • • SBL and HendelIt is lamentable that Mr. Hendel continues the fallacious argument that religious views and scientific views rest in two discrete domains with no intersection. Many religious views emerge out of what is seen in the scientific world and many views of science rest on faith, faith in processes and originations for which no absolute evidence exists and for which scientific "faith" must be invested. He needs to abandon this view which sits more on flair than on fact. Hal Flemings,author • • • • • • • responseHendel's piece reflects the liberal tendency to polemicize about those who polemicize without seeing the hypocrisy. • • • • • • • Sharing IdeasI hope Mr. Hendel & those who are commenting here also take time to read responses at the SBL web site. I tend to believe that the truth lies somewhere between the two sides. I also believe it's important to see both sides. Personally I continue to listen to many ways of interpreting the Bible. I think all should be allowed to speak. OTOH, I'm glad SBL's policy is against proselytizing at its events. I'll listen to other ideas, but not when they claim to be the only correct ones. • • • • • • • Fare Well SBLThis issue cuts both ways. Several years ago, before AAR and SBL parted ways, AAR sent to all its members its raionale for going its own way without SBL. At the time, I was both a publisher and a professor. After unsatisfactory responses from AAR, I let my AAR membership lapse. Why? Not because I advocate proselytizing at SBL meetings or damning people in book reviews, but because in my view it hindered the scholarly exchange I so valued at the annual meetings. Tolerance can be costly. • • • • • • • Hendel's Essay and the SBLMy own view is that next to the Koran our Western Bible is the most overrated, misused book in human history. Of course, this does not mean it shouldn't be studied for what it is -- a collection of unique writings by mostly unknown men in distinct historical contexts. Given the antisemitism that runs rampant throughout history (and the Christian scriptures) Hendel's concerns are understandable. We should guard against the temptation of letting religious faith dictate what is true, especially now • • • • • • • Decline of scholarshipAs a layman who enjoys reading the classic Interpreters Bible commentary, and other modern works, it is disheartening to hear that fundamentalism is encroaching into a society that is supposed to be involved in authentic scholarship, not fideism. As others have said, it's part of the West's general intellectual decline. Thank God for my old books and commentaries. • • • • • • • PascalI would like to correct Ronald Huggin's impression that I misquoted Pascal. The context of the quote is whether church authority can overrule the reasonable apprehension of facts. He gives as an example the papal condemnation of Galileo for saying that the earth moves. He avers: "the efforts and arguments of all mankind put together will not hinder our planet from revolving." Pascal was very clear on the distinction between reason in science and the primacy of faith (or "the heart") in theology • • • • • • • proselytisationSBL's ban on proselytisation is wrong and self-contradictory. If they believe in free thought, exchange of ideas, debate & discussion (all of which ought to be among their core values), how can they ban the v. strong possibility that people might, re some topics, come to the provisional conclusion that a certain point of view was not only true but urgent? Are they saying we can just assume, fundamentalistically and sans argument, that nothing at all is both true and urgent? Clarification needed • • • • • • • Is the tent too wide?One of the beauties of SBL is its heterogeneity. Conservative critical scholars like Craig Evans, Tom Wright, Ben Witherington, and Bill Craig are members as well as those on the theological left such as Dom Crossan, other fellows of the Jesus Seminar, and Elaine Pagels. Would Hendel want a committee formed that monitors every SBL member to ensure they meet a certain pre-determined academic standard in every published statement? • • • • • • • Response to Dr. HendelDr. Hendel makes some good points. Certainly there is no room at SBL meetings for proselytizing. I feel the fact that this would occur is outright insulting to the entire mission of the SBL. I do however feel that each person in attendance is entitled to their own opinions and backgrounds, whether that is one purely of faith, entirely of reason, or some mixture of the two. That point is to be both challenged by and exposed to the expressed viewpoints. Whether you agree or not is up to you. • • • • • • • Good bye to SBLI find that people like the author are more intolerant than those christians they accuse. ALl people have a right to their opinion and not censorship because a few do not like what is said (save for violent abusive rhetoric). Christians have a perspectve that needs to be heard and they have the same rights as non-believers and they should not have thattaken away simply because they disagree with others. Research will help prove them right or wrong as long as it is done honestly. • • • • • • • Reponse to HendelHendel is, probably unwittingly, contradicting himself. He wants critical scholarship, but critical scholarship refers to methodology, not beliefs itself. However, in criticizing faith commitments, he has made the all too frequent mistake of equating critical scholarship with the rejection of certain beliefs. Now, he has made a committment himself that excludes and moved away from truly supporting critical scholarship. • • • • • • • Bruce WaltkePoor old Bruce Waltke! He just lost his job at RTS for his openness to evolution and now gets slammed for his fundamentalism! Hendel is wrong on Pascal - Pascal was not a fideist but against Cartesian foundationalism (arguing your way to heaven) as it devalued the role of the will. Pascal wouldn't have written the Pense - an apology for his faith - if he were a fideist. Pascal argued faith could co-exist with reason. Hendel's his departure is our loss. SBL needs to police itself better. • • • • • • • Hendel on SBLSurely Hendel is aware of the recent significant movement in biblical studies known as the theological interpretation of Scripture. Those identifying with this movement are not all evangelicals (and certainly not fundamentalists). Many are outstanding biblical scholars who are professors at leading institutions: Richard Hays, Anthony Thiselton, Christopher Seitz, Stephen Fowl, etc. This movement acknowledges that all biblical interpreters have assumptions that they bring to the text even Hendel • • • • • • • Intellectual Profiling?I happen to know a number of internationally respected scholars from the Pentecostal and SDA tradition who are neither fundamentalists nor proselytizers. If the ethos of SBL is what is at stake I find it very disappointing that Hendel so readily resorts to such gross, and sadly even insulting, generalizations. • • • • • • • One problemOne problem that leads to these sorts of issues is how often secular scholars conveniently forget that the only reason they are employed and the only reason such a prosperous professional society as SBL exists is because the Bible is believed to be (yes by faith!), by millions of people, more than mere critical investigation can prove it to be. You don't agree with that view, fine, but this snobbery is completely without basis. M.A. student, Asbury Theological Seminary • • • • • • • Reply to Hendel 'Farewell to SBL'I appreciate Hendel's struggle with SBL's granting privileges to religious faith in the academy, and his concern for academic integrity when faith trumps reason. Yet Hendel's position appears to be philosophically naive, since every system of reason has faith pre-commitments of some kind. Hendel champions Spinoza as a forefather of 'reason' triumphing over faith, but he's missed Spinoza's own faith precommitment to the naturalism he believed Newtonian physics implied. We've moved past Newton. • • • • • • • Farewell to SBLSorry to hear, but your judgement seems to flow from a forced dichotomy between reason and faith. Your criticism of Waltke shows unspoken prepositions that elevates your paradigm in a pretty intolerant fashion. It seems to have a (non-)faith basis rather than firm scientific data. The NT is one of the primary objects of study of the SBL. Most of its books are about Jews trying to convert other Jews. Why take offence now? The historic christian faith position should be welcomed by SBL. • • • • • • • Hendel Misquotes PascalHendel gets Pascal wrong on the relation between faith and reason, quoting a line of his (from a secondary source) badly out of context. Pascal didn’t believe that “facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts.” The “fact” Pascal refers to in context was a point doctrine, not science, namely did Jansenists believe in irresistible grace (Provincial Letter 18)? Hendel could have broadened his perspecitve on his subject had he wrestled with Pascal's actual views. • • • • • • • SBLThis is a beautifully written article by an excellent scholar definitely in some pain over the situation. I understand why Dr. Hendel has let his membership in SBL lapse, but I wish he would reconsider and stay. The Society needs fine scholars like himself, willing to challenge others who see things differently and who do not respect his right to be who he is. Perhaps it is time for the SBL to provide sensitivity training for all who attend its meetings. All members can benefit. • • • • • • • Glad to see you go, Dr. Hendel“all the powers in the world can by their authority no more persuade people of a point of fact than they can change it.” Brilliant as he was, Pascal was wrong. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you sure can fool most of the people most of the time. And therein lies the danger. • • • • • • • ArticleIn Response to your quote: "The views of creationists, snake-handlers and faith-healers now count among the kinds of Biblical scholarship that the society seeks to foster." Remarkable...I am a creationist that believes God was solely responsible for the created world sans evolution. You have already judged that opinion without hearing my thought or research. Doesn't that put you in the same camp as those with whom you disagree? I thought the SBL was for debate not singularity of position. • • • • • • • SBL's responseThe SBL has responded to this article here, asking members to get involved in the discussion. So much for discretion: http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/farewell.aspx • • • • • • • Ronald Hendel succeeds Hershel ShanksHershel Shanks may one day decide to retire or, as did William F. Buckley Jr., pass on at his typewriter. BAR will need a successor who continues to stir the pot(tery). Perhaps Professor Rendel is just the person to stir things up if the clarifying response by SBL to Professor Hendel's Shanks-like op-ed piece is a sign of his potential effectiveness as the future BAR editor-in-chief? • • • • • • • Faith & Reason ?I am not a scholar. I am a pastor and a scholar-wannabe. For the past five years, I have sat in sessions at the annual SBL mtg and listened to various speakers, some who think my faith is at best sophomoric. I have been pleasantly surprised by the life giving nature of some and grieved by others. I continue to endure the (ridiculous) expense because I am impressed by the honor the SBL members afford one another. They think we are hell worthy-so what? Relationship trumps exagerated dualism-be wel • • • • • • • History of Israel, Biblical TheologyI agree with the protest of the Jewish colleague. My own background is German Pietism, but real faith is not the object of my research. The last meeting in Rome 2009 was on very low niveau. Learn to differentiate between humanities and a scholarly expression of pure faith • • • • • • • Religious fundamentalism at SBLDr. Hendel is not the first person to raise this concern. At any rate, now that he has raised it, hopefully people will begin to wake up to the reality of the problem. I have posted some remarks on his interesting article, together with links to a couple of relevant items, at http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6425400#post6425400 • • • • • • • Hendel commentaryAny system of belief should hold up to critical scholastic evaluation, if it is a valid system--and not a false one. • • • • • • • ASRSI think that ASRS (Adventist Society for Religious Studies) would not define themselves as "fundamentalists." In fact, ATS (Adventist Theological Society), broke away from ASRS because they viewed the latter as too "liberal." It is ATS which should be labeled as "fundamentalist." My understanding is that one need not even be an Adventist to join ASRS. I personally know several of the members who are committed to higher historical critical thinking. • • • • • • • ResponseI believe I understand Prof Hendel's grievance with the SBL. I also believe, however, that Prof Hendel goes overboard in how he expresses the certainty of his own understanding of the Bible (or is he just that certain?). It seems as though what he really means to say is that any group who doesn't agree with his conclusions -and, therefore, with the conclusions of higher-criticism- is wrong. Can evangelicals not be critical? Can one not be critical and hold creationist views? I believe so. • • • • • • • Thank you for ringing.Critical study of the Bible is key for the progress of our society. When the line between beliefs and faith starts burring, someone needs to ring the bell because there was a time when people were not allowed to question beliefs: the Dark Ages... • • • • • • • Re: Farewell ro SBLIt's sad to see how the promising scientific attitude towards "biblical" scholarship is being hampered, if not pushed back, by a growing tide of superstitious agitation. I guess it's part of the downhill path the West is going through (nothing to be happy about! the West is where individual's freedoms were acknowledged... :( ), but it's also terribly sad... • • • • • • • Reply to HendelIs Prof. Hendel arguing that nobody is allowed to say anything that Hendel thinks is foolish? Instead of boycotting the SBL, he should answer Waltke, who has, after all, a Ph.D. from Harvard. The problem with old-fashioned liberal higher criticism is that it so often is not willing to tolerate views it disagrees with and insists that its views are the only views that are "reasonable." Postmodernism is much more "reasonable" and open. Prof. Rendel should learn from it. • • • • • • • seldom the twain should meetAs a student, I have only attended two regional meetings. My experience of SBL has been one of welcome relief - there, I can listen to critical lectures that do not even hold as a secondary goal extracting an hermeneutic or a consistent theology from the biblical text. There is a time and place to self-consciously discuss the tensions between these two realms, the classroom and the religious community, but the latter should not be given pride of place at any SBL meeting. • • • • • • • Biblical Views: Farewell to SBLI would encourage your readers to visit http://www.sbl-site.org/membership/farewell.aspx where the SBL challenges a number of points made by Mr Hendel. I was raised as what Mr Hendel would call a "fundamentalist" and I would hate to be excluded from SBL simply for that reason (which seems to be Mr Hendel's main objection). Perhaps SBL could make us wear a yellow cross on our clothes so everyone would know who we are? No. Wait a minute. Didn't some other dictator make peple do something similar? • • • • • • • Biblical Views: Farewell to SBLThat is to say, facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts. Faith resides in the heart and in one’s way of living in the world. Unfortunately, Dr. Hendel forgets that faith/belief/trust is also required when dealing with "facts." Faith and facts (knowledge) are both intuitive, intellectual and experiential. Both are used in historical/archaeological research. What is forgotten is that faith is required when the facts are limited. Faith is NOT blind. • • • • • • • Ronald S. Hendel's Claim to Reason is UnreasonableFirst, the Adventists and the Pentecostals, whom he picks on are not fundamentalists. If Hendel were actually informed, he would know they don't fall into this group at all. Also, they don't support SBL financially, since they have no money. Second, Hendel seems to forget that many non-Evangelical biblical scholars are not convinced about his "reasonable" arguments regarding who wrote what in the Bible. It appears Hendel wants to keep his opinion status quo and not do critical scholarship. • • • • • • • CorrectionCorrection: AAR stands for the American Academy of Religion. My mistake. (It happens at my age.) • • • • • • • Biblical Views: Farewell to SBL"As a scholar of the humanities—and I might add, as a Jew—I do not feel at home in such a place." Where would you, a Jew, feel at home? • • • • • • • HendelDr. Hendel, You said,That is to say, facts are facts, and faith has no business dealing in the world of facts. Faith resides in the heart and in one’s way of living in the world. [Bryant] Here is an instance where you are confused. Faith and Facts go hand in hand. Both faith and knowledge go hand in hand. They are both intuitive, intellectual and experiential. The difference lies in that knowledge and facts will only take you so far, but faith picks up where the facts leave off. • • • • • • • SBLI agree entirely with Ron. As an academic and non-sectarian organization, SBL should pursue a path of critical humanistic inquiry. I hope that the new SBL leadership will bring a renewed dedication to critical scholarship. That JBL appears largely untouched by the new SBL mission is telling. Yet one might ask, under the new mission, should JBL now publish pieces that are openly hostile to critical scholarship and instead advocate fundamentalist dogma? If we won't publish it, should we foster it? • • • • • • • |
 BAR VoicesDorothy D. ResigLetter from the BAR Managing Editor Hershel ShanksTemple Mount Repairs Leave Eyesores Julia M. O’BrienThe Economics of Family: Changing Biblical Norms Elizabeth Shanks AlexanderThe Mystery Remains: Who Leaked the Scroll Pictures to BAS? Leonard J. GreenspoonThe Bible in the News: Turn, Turn, Turn FREE Downloadable E-BooksThe Holy Bible: A Buyer’s Guide
Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus
I Volunteered for This?! Life on an Archaeological Dig
The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Legend
Israel: An Archaeological Journey
From Babylon to Baghdad: Ancient Iraq and the Modern West
Exploring Jordan: The Other Biblical Land
Island Jewels: Understanding Ancient Cyprus and Crete
The Olympic Games: How They All Began
The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say
Real or Fake? Forgery Conference Report |
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
