Should We Throw Out Biblical Studies?

[newenglandsun]

Considering:

From Princeton Theological Seminary’s Ph.D. program as my main source (and feel free to throw in other programs from other universities as well), the Biblical Studies program includes topics on Old Testament Theology, New Testament Theology, Exegesis, and…

“Near Eastern Backgrounds to Israelite Religion
Literary Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation
Biblical History in its Ancient Near Eastern Context
History of Biblical Interpretation”

I’m not saying this is bad and all but it seems like Biblical Studies could just be thrown into a trash-compactor entirely. If you study literary approaches to to Biblical interpretation, that’s just as good as saying “I received a degree from Princeton University with a Ph.D. in Harry Potter studies!” Whoo-hoo! Big whoop. You just threw how many years down the toilet exploring literary approaches to Harry Potter, Chamber of Secrets “Harry Potter-ology”, The Goblet of Fire “Harry Potter-ology” [etc.], Harry Potter history in its modern Great Britain context, history of Harry Potter interpretation, and United Kingdom backgrounds to Harry Potter?

Of course you study languages that you can also get tutors to instruct you in and in most areas of study, you would have to learn them any way but let’s put most of this in perspective.

How do you exactly understand the Bible fully from a Biblical Studies Ph.D. program considering that the vast majority of modern Bible scholars cannot even agree with each other. For instance, Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman disagree about the resurrection, John Dominic Crossan doesn’t agree with the concept of Jesus as an historical, eschatological prophet. This is all in concurrence with the historical critical method of hermeneutics taught in most modern Biblical Studies degree programs.

But then that’s just one method of Biblical criticism any way and since history in itself is debatable, wouldn’t it just be better to go after education in some field like ancient archaeology, ancient history of religion, or Ancient Near East studies in general? Because then you wouldn’t just have the Harry Potter books to brag about.

If you want to understand hermeneutics, it could just be better to go after a degree in historical theology because at least you get to see the history of the Church in there as well which would be more fulfilling then just studying a single book. Patristics would be intermingled in there, Ecumenical Councils, schisms, philosophical developments, etc. Or at least go after education in something like systematic theology.

At least you’d be looking at multiple theologians and not just a single book or set of books. As well as developing philosophical skills in the field as well. This is what Princeton Theological Seminary offers in terms of systematic theology.

And if you want to look at the Bible as literature, you could easily do that with a degree in literature or as a literary critic being able to explore a lot more than just the Bible.

In other words, everything you could be doing in a field such as Biblical Studies, you could also learn in another area of study as well. So should we just get rid of it entirely?

Thanks and feel free to throw in more programs on Biblical Studies that differ from Princeton Theological Seminary!

 

[edward_george]

I think any approach that seeks to completely “throw something into the garbage compactor” runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Popes Leo XIII (Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus), Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu), John Paul II (Pontifical Biblical Commission during his Pontificate released On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church) and Benedict XVI (who is no slouch as a Biblical scholar–read the Jesus of Nazareth books for evidence of such) would all disagree with you on this. There is a value to Biblical study, or else the Popes would not have formed the Pontifical Biblical Commission and encouraged the kind of work that it and so many the world over do. Do I think Biblical scholars are above criticism? Of course not. There are some misuses of certain methods which lead to significant problems, of this no one is in doubt. This sort of thing is even addressed in the PBC document I named above, as well as in the work of Benedict XVI (and countless others).

Sure, Biblical scholars don’t agree. Does that mean that Biblical scholarship is a bad thing? If you think so, you need to throw out all the natural sciences as well–there’s a diversity of hotly contested theories across all the sciences. As well as philosophy. And even literature and language which you throw out there as useful tools for studying the Bible, there are a variety of approaches and theories about both. Making sweeping statements about “The majority of Biblical scholars” doesn’t make the case for throwing out Biblical studies, but rather strengthens it–if there is such variance, clearly more work needs to be done so we better understand things. At least this is what is thought about every other discipline.

So if you want to throw out Biblical studies entirely, you’re going to have to make the case to the Magisterium of the Church and to the entire community of Biblical scholars who do good work which helps to enrich the life of the Church. I recommend you read that PBC document on Interpretation and learn about how the things you suggest are addressed. But tossing Biblical study isn’t going to do any good.

-ACEGC

 

[edward_george]

I call your attention to the document I mentioned above, as it gives the answer to your overall question–all of those various areas of study are to be integrated in Biblical studies.

ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm

-ACEGC

 

[newenglandsun]

I think any approach that seeks to completely “throw something into the garbage compactor” runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Popes Leo XIII (Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus), Pius XII (Divino Afflante Spiritu), John Paul II (Pontifical Biblical Commission during his Pontificate released On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church) and Benedict XVI (who is no slouch as a Biblical scholar–read the Jesus of Nazareth books for evidence of such) would all disagree with you on this. There is a value to Biblical study, or else the Popes would not have formed the Pontifical Biblical Commission and encouraged the kind of work that it and so many the world over do. Do I think Biblical scholars are above criticism? Of course not. There are some misuses of certain methods which lead to significant problems, of this no one is in doubt. This sort of thing is even addressed in the PBC document I named above, as well as in the work of Benedict XVI (and countless others).

Sure, Biblical scholars don’t agree. Does that mean that Biblical scholarship is a bad thing? If you think so, you need to throw out all the natural sciences as well–there’s a diversity of hotly contested theories across all the sciences. As well as philosophy. And even literature and language which you throw out there as useful tools for studying the Bible, there are a variety of approaches and theories about both. Making sweeping statements about “The majority of Biblical scholars” doesn’t make the case for throwing out Biblical studies, but rather strengthens it–if there is such variance, clearly more work needs to be done so we better understand things. At least this is what is thought about every other discipline.

So if you want to throw out Biblical studies entirely, you’re going to have to make the case to the Magisterium of the Church and to the entire community of Biblical scholars who do good work which helps to enrich the life of the Church. I recommend you read that PBC document on Interpretation and learn about how the things you suggest are addressed. But tossing Biblical study isn’t going to do any good.

-ACEGC

Interesting points. I should mention though that in 1988, Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t too happy about Biblical scholarship.

Of course, I guess this could be the call of Raymond Brown to get more Catholics involved in this. Most of my points though were relating to it as a field of study which I apparently not clear on and whether it should be taught in education. Still skeptical on this although I think the Bible should definitely be studied. Not throwing that out. Whether or not it should have a separate education program I think is debatable.

 

[edward_george]

Interesting points. I should mention though that in 1988, Pope Benedict XVI wasn’t too happy about Biblical scholarship.

Of course, I guess this could be the call of Raymond Brown to get more Catholics involved in this. Most of my points though were relating to it as a field of study which I apparently not clear on and whether it should be taught in education. Still skeptical on this although I think the Bible should definitely be studied. Not throwing that out. Whether or not it should have a separate education program I think is debatable.

I deleted my post because I didn’t feel it was rightly directed, and to be honest I was a little hostile. I take umbrage at suggesting that my field of study isn’t worth something, as most people might

That said, Benedict XVI is offering a criticism of the way in which Biblical study is done, but he’s obviously not against the enterprise as a whole, and still less would he advocate getting rid of it. Were that the case, he’d not have signed off on the PBC document (which fell under his jurisdiction as CDF prefect at the time) nor would he have engaged in those kinds of studies in most of his more recent work, namely Jesus of Nazareth.

-ACEGC

 

[newenglandsun]

I deleted my post because I didn’t feel it was rightly directed, and to be honest I was a little hostile. I take umbrage at suggesting that my field of study isn’t worth something, as most people might

-ACEGC

I think we can all get a little hostile from time to time though I also think it has more to do with how tensions in such fields of education like history, philosophy, religious studies, theology, and what-not are created in us than it does with our person and nature. Amnesty granted and guaranteed.

 

[edward_george]

I think we can all get a little hostile from time to time though I also think it has more to do with how tensions in such fields of education like history, philosophy, religious studies, theology, and what-not are created in us than it does with our person and nature. Amnesty granted and guaranteed.

When I originally read your post my first thought was “here’s another one of those anti-education folks,” because I’ve run into that a lot among certain strains of Christianity and even within Catholicism. It’s compounded by the fact that I’m young. People tell you that you’ll never be old enough or educated enough to understand what you’re talking about and it sort of sticks with you. Mea culpa.

-ACEGC

 

[newenglandsun]

When I originally read your post my first thought was “here’s another one of those anti-education folks,” because I’ve run into that a lot among certain strains of Christianity and even within Catholicism. It’s compounded by the fact that I’m young. People tell you that you’ll never be old enough or educated enough to understand what you’re talking about and it sort of sticks with you. Mea culpa.

-ACEGC

Haha, yeah, I can see how it comes out that way. I have a lot of respect for something like Biblical Studies being taught within given fields such as literature, theology, religious studies, history, archaeology, philosophy, morals, and ethics. I took a New Testament class last year and we learned a lot about the historical critical method and it seemed like going to church except for hearing the professor’s secular doctrines about the Bible. Learned a lot about the historical-critical method though. I take Biblical Hebrew as my language requirement.

Whether it should be taught as a separate field in any field of education and not as only apart of the field is my issue.

 

[Beryllos]

NewEnglandSun, you’ve stood on your soapbox and delivered your rant. Feel better now?

It sounds like you do not value or appreciate Biblical Studies. Therefore you conclude that the entire endeavor is a load of trash. Is that all you’ve got? Then why bother to post? I suggest you either inform yourself better, or have a little more humility (like me ) and admit that it might have value to other people.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your original post. Feel free to clarify.

 

[newenglandsun]

To clarify, it’s about Biblical Studies as an individual field of education. I have no problem with Biblical Studies as a side dish in another related field of education such as literature, archaeology, classics, Ancient Near East studies, theology, history of religion, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin and think it should serve a major role in that area.

I’m not a student enrolled in something like Biblical Studies. I’m a history and religious studies student, however, I have been able to pick up just as much on the side in a New Testament class and Biblical Hebrew as it seems most Biblical Studies Ph.D.'s hold to.

Do I feel that Biblical studies is valuable? Yes. But only as a part of another field of study and not on a separate category of its own.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I’m not student material, and am a self learner. I don’t like a one size fits all course that’s been structured by someone. Some people flourish that way but I personally hate it. As a Catholic I would spend lots of time in prayer and research to find the best Catholic program before I actually committed to one.

I don’t like a lot of the going against the grain of tradition that I see with a lot of modern scholarship. I am always open to facts, but to exalt theories as if they are so superior to the traditional views really gets under my skin!

 

[edward_george]

I think there’s a value to Biblical studies as its own discipline when it’s being practiced as the Church would envision it, i.e. that the Scriptures are to be read in light of the tradition, and that the other areas you mention serve as tools for engaging in this study. Perhaps this would be better labelled “Biblical Theology.” In any event, you wouldn’t propose breaking up, say, Shakespeare studies or Medieval studies into all those separate disciplines, would you? Specialization allows one fairly complex area to be studied more intensely. Thus, I’d say there’s no good reason to toss Biblical studies as a discipline (not that anyone is seriously thinking of doing this, nor would it really be possible).

-ACEGC

 

[newenglandsun]

I think there’s a value to Biblical studies as its own discipline when it’s being practiced as the Church would envision it, i.e. that the Scriptures are to be read in light of the tradition, and that the other areas you mention serve as tools for engaging in this study.

-ACEGC

Wouldn’t that just be historical theology?

 

[David_Zampino]

Wouldn’t that just be historical theology?

Biblical Theology is an important course of study in and of itself. The fact that scholars don’t necessarily agree seems immaterial.

I will freely admit that higher-critical tools of interpretation have been misused – but just because a tool can be misused does not diminish its value.

I have graduate degrees in both historical and systematic theology (and the hours for another one in Biblical theology, should I want to pursue it) and I find all three areas of study to be of great value, albeit in different ways.

 

[annem]

newenglandsun

I’m not saying this is bad and all but it seems like Biblical Studies could just be thrown into a trash-compactor entirely. If you study literary approaches to to Biblical interpretation, that’s just as good as saying “I received a degree from Princeton University with a Ph.D. in Harry Potter studies!”

I agree. The problem with most biblical studies programs is that the professors are anti Christians. Their entire aim is to destroy the faith of believers.

As for Princeton, studying under Elaine Pagels would be a truly major mistake. Yes, every so often she coughs out another book, and yes, the book will be reviewed by the New York Times to glad cries and hosannas. But as anyone who has read much biblical studies knows, Pagels is a vicious anti Christian who distorts the truth.She constantly conflates 2nd century Gnostic material to far earlier Christian (or, as I would argue, Catholic) material.

Pagels argues that Augustine invented the idea of original sin. I am not kidding. Go ahead and laugh if you want to. Apparently she has yet to read St Paul, not to mention the Psalms. She thinks that the Gnostics were in charge and that was why Ignatius was being hauled away in chains to be fed to the lions. Again, I am not kidding.’

But there are decent biblical scholars who are trustworthy. Scott Hahn, for example.

God bless, Annem

 

[newenglandsun]

newenglandsun

I agree. The problem with most biblical studies programs is that the professors are anti Christians. Their entire aim is to destroy the faith of believers.

As for Princeton, studying under Elaine Pagels would be a truly major mistake. Yes, every so often she coughs out another book, and yes, the book will be reviewed by the New York Times to glad cries and hosannas. But as anyone who has read much biblical studies knows, Pagels is a vicious anti Christian who distorts the truth.She constantly conflates 2nd century Gnostic material to far earlier Christian (or, as I would argue, Catholic) material.

Pagels argues that Augustine invented the idea of original sin. I am not kidding. Go ahead and laugh if you want to. Apparently she has yet to read St Paul, not to mention the Psalms. She thinks that the Gnostics were in charge and that was why Ignatius was being hauled away in chains to be fed to the lions. Again, I am not kidding.’

But there are decent biblical scholars who are trustworthy. Scott Hahn, for example.

God bless, Annem

Lots of people argue Augustine invented the idea. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox consider him a heretic and they don’t reject Original Sin. And it was St. Irenaeus who invented it if I’m not mistaken.

 

[David_Zampino]

newenglandsun

I agree. The problem with most biblical studies programs is that the professors are anti Christians. Their entire aim is to destroy the faith of believers.

I think that you are tarring with far too broad a brush here. Are there some professors (even many) like you describe? Without a doubt. But to suggest that "THE PROFESSORS (all of them?) in “MOST” biblical studies programs is grossly unfair.

At the seminary I attended, the OT professor was a good deal more “liberal” than I was – but he was a believer – and he taught me how to do sound exegesis. The NT professor was considerably more centrist – and his understanding of inspiration and church authority was profound.

At the university where I teach (and where I took an additional degree) there is a member of the biblical faculty who served on the “Jesus Seminar” (boo!) There is another member of the faculty – a VERY conservative Jesuit – who is just the opposite (and who has written about 25 books to boot!)

One can learn even from those with whom one disagrees. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[edward_george]

Lots of people argue Augustine invented the idea. The problem is that the Eastern Orthodox consider him a heretic and they don’t reject Original Sin. And it was St. Irenaeus who invented it if I’m not mistaken.

No one “invented the doctrine,” just the formulation and definition of it, and this was accomplished over several centuries. And Augustine is not held to be a heretic by the East, not in the slightest. His work is not always regarded by the East to be the most theologically accurate, but he is still highly regarded himself as a significant thinker and a Saint.

-ACEGC

 

[hadulzo]

I am taking a diocease scripture study program. I struggle with the reliance on the historcal critical method (jepd) when the catechism barely mentions it. I supplement my study with some faithful interptretation. Benedict said youth can’t study the bible without a faith component.

 

[hadulzo]

I am taking a diocease scripture study program. I struggle with the reliance on the historcal critical method (jepd) when the catechism barely mentions it. I supplement my study with some faithful interptretation. Benedict said youth can’t study the bible without a faith component.