Should We Throw Out Biblical Studies?

[Barbara_Ann_Bau]

My question is Who should throw out Biblical Studies? Do you mean Biblcal Studies as an undergraduate major or graduate major? I checked my State Listing the four State and five private Colleges. In the four State Universities the Study of the Bible was distributed as you suggested. Of the five Private Colleges three were affiliated with specific denominations (Brigham Young University Idaho, Northwest Nazarine and Boise Bible college.) Of the remaining two, one was a private Liberal Arts College. There was a Department of Religious studies however not a major in Religious Studies. The other one was a non-demoninational Christian College and did offer a major in Biblical Studies. The discription went on to mention that the graduates went on to careers in teaching, law, publishing, and the ministry
For the most part it seems that higher education has its purpose in preparing young people for careers. Therefore I feel that Academic Biblical studies (as a major) should stay in Private and Church Affliated Institutions.
That being said education should not end with graduation (nor does it) We all continue learning in all aspects of our life. Our Diocease is very active in Adult Formation.

 

[newenglandsun]

Of the remaining two, one was a private Liberal Arts College. There was a Department of Religious studies however not a major in Religious Studies.

If you ask me, religious studies in and of itself shouldn’t be a major, there should be divisions of religious studies focusing on things like religious texts, religious culture, religious development, religion in modernity, history of religion, and philosophy of religion. So any of these would definitely qualify as religious studies.

By the way, put Boise State just now on my schools I’m looking into after having examined what they have to offer.

 

[edward_george]

If you ask me, religious studies in and of itself shouldn’t be a major, there should be divisions of religious studies focusing on things like religious texts, religious culture, religious development, religion in modernity, history of religion, and philosophy of religion. So any of these would definitely qualify as religious studies.

By the way, put Boise State just now on my schools I’m looking into after having examined what they have to offer.

Just bear in mind first off that an undergrad program is going to be more general, while graduate work is more specialized. My BA was in Theology and Philosophy, but my MA in Theology will concentrate on Biblical Studies. Also, realize there is a big difference between “Religious Studies” and “Theology.” Theology necessarily begins with and depends upon a standpoint of faith–Anselm says it is “Faith seeking understanding.” Religious studies could be undertaken by anyone, as it purports to study history, sociological, anthropological, and cultural issues related to religion from a more exterior standpoint. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, of course, depending upon what one is studying and why.

-ACEGC

 

[newenglandsun]

Just bear in mind first off that an undergrad program is going to be more general, while graduate work is more specialized. My BA was in Theology and Philosophy, but my MA in Theology will concentrate on Biblical Studies. Also, realize there is a big difference between “Religious Studies” and “Theology.” Theology necessarily begins with and depends upon a standpoint of faith–Anselm says it is “Faith seeking understanding.” Religious studies could be undertaken by anyone, as it purports to study history, sociological, anthropological, and cultural issues related to religion from a more exterior standpoint. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, of course, depending upon what one is studying and why.

-ACEGC

That is true. However, even in the undergrad programs, we’re still centralizing in a specific area of religious studies. For instance, I’m centralizing in Christianity (which, one of my professors was explaining to us why Christianities such as Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy were so very little studied and Catholicism is generally made a bad guy - it’s because Protestant ministers invented it).

If you ask me, no matter what field of religious studies you go into, one should always hold a basic knowledge of philosophy of religion since that’s where religious studies emerged out of.

 

[fnr]

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.

I think it’s been widely acknowledged among scholars that reliance on the historical-critical method by itself has not resulted in a “consensus” view of the historical Jesus or the early Church. Crossan’s view of Jesus as a stoic, Ehrman’s view of him as a failed eschatological prophet, Morton Smith’s view of him as a magician, Wright’s (quite orthodox) view of Jesus at the Jewish messiah, and even Reza Aslan’s rehash of Jesus as radical nationalist revolutionary clearly underscore the point that a consensus view of Jesus by historians is elusive. That being said, I think there is a degree of consensus on the parts of Jesus life that are historically reliable. Those include, to my knowledge:

• His death by crucifixion (sorry Muslims).
• The accusation “INRI” – Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, upon the cross.
• His baptism by John the Baptist.
• His upbringing in Nazareth, 4 km outside Sepphoris.
• His spending of his ministry in rural and small town Galilee.
• The presence of women in his inner circle of followers.
• His strict opposition to divorce.
• His breaking of bread with followers as a significant ceremony.
• His ejection of money lenders from the Temple.
• His extensive (oral) preaching ministry, including the use of parables.
• The competition between his “movement” and the Pharisees.
• His acknowledgement of an Old Testament canon beyond the Torah.
• His habit of sharing meals with social outcasts.
• His use of “Amen” as an introduction to his proclamations.
• His use of “Abba” as a title for the Hebrew God.
• His celibacy (sorry Dan Brown fans).

To me, even in this pared-down list of things that most scholars agreed about the historical Jesus, there is a lot of grist for the mill.

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?

Fundamentally, all these points have to agree at some point. Not only that, but in many ways the Bible is the best historical guide available. For example, the Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine points out that the Gospels provide a valuable insight into the households and domestic life of first-century Jewish life.

Archaeology is an extremely valuable science, but it also has its biases. For example, if archaeology doesn’t find physical evidence of a historical event, it frequently assumes that that historical event didn’t happen. Professional history, more broadly, has embraced other ways to piece together the past… for example, looking at climatological records (in tree rings, etc.) as a way to ascertain when periods of cold weather occurred… this can provide evidence of famine. One non-Biblical use of this science is the recent understanding that much of the Crusades took place when Europe was going through a warm period, while the Middle East was going through a cold period. Using such methods to analyze the Bible is an unfolding set of inquiries.

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.

To me, the history of theology is as much a part of Biblical understanding as is text-criticism or other historical-critical methods. For example, in the beginning of Romans 1, Paul makes use of what is probably a pre-Pauline hymn that is suggestive of adoptionism, that is that Jesus was not the pre-existent son of God, but made the son of God during his resurrection. There are other parts of Paul in which Jesus is portrayed as eternal (e.g., Philippians 2). But understanding the development of doctrine is actually a useful way to help interpret the Bible. Another interesting contrast is the speech of St. Stephen in Acts 7, which makes the Temple seem to have never had any value, in contrast to the ritual Temple observance of Jesus and his family… again, this reflects a historical development of doctrine that is important in reading the Bible.

To me, part of being a Christian is to take this critical analysis of the Bible on the chin. Without an attempt to be objective, and faithful to the historical text and context of the Bible, we are like a tree that’s missing at least half of its roots. This understanding has direct and practical implications in how we worship and live our lives as Catholic. For example, the history of the earliest Church (then available) was informative in the Second Vatican Council’s deliberations on the liturgy, for example, in comparing the most ancient liturgies of the Eastern Catholic churches with the Tridentine and pre-Tridentine liturgies from Europe.

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?

Obviously, my answer to that is no.

 

[newenglandsun]

To me, the history of theology is as much a part of Biblical understanding as is text-criticism or other historical-critical methods. For example, in the beginning of Romans 1, Paul makes use of what is probably a pre-Pauline hymn that is suggestive of adoptionism, that is that Jesus was not the pre-existent son of God, but made the son of God during his resurrection. There are other parts of Paul in which Jesus is portrayed as eternal (e.g., Philippians 2). But understanding the development of doctrine is actually a useful way to help interpret the Bible. Another interesting contrast is the speech of St. Stephen in Acts 7, which makes the Temple seem to have never had any value, in contrast to the ritual Temple observance of Jesus and his family… again, this reflects a historical development of doctrine that is important in reading the Bible.

To me, part of being a Christian is to take this critical analysis of the Bible on the chin. Without an attempt to be objective, and faithful to the historical text and context of the Bible, we are like a tree that’s missing at least half of its roots. This understanding has direct and practical implications in how we worship and live our lives as Catholic. For example, the history of the earliest Church (then available) was informative in the Second Vatican Council’s deliberations on the liturgy, for example, in comparing the most ancient liturgies of the Eastern Catholic churches with the Tridentine and pre-Tridentine liturgies from Europe.

Obviously, my answer to that is no.

I guess it depends on the Biblical scholar as well. For instance, a Raymond Brown or an N.T. Wright is much more valuable than someone like a Bart Ehrman.

What I find funny is how the liberal scholars assert “you can make the Bible say anything!” and they’re the ones that do this the most.

 

[newenglandsun]

I think it’s been widely acknowledged among scholars that reliance on the historical-critical method by itself has not resulted in a “consensus” view of the historical Jesus or the early Church. Crossan’s view of Jesus as a stoic, Ehrman’s view of him as a failed eschatological prophet, Morton Smith’s view of him as a magician, Wright’s (quite orthodox) view of Jesus at the Jewish messiah, and even Reza Aslan’s rehash of Jesus as radical nationalist revolutionary clearly underscore the point that a consensus view of Jesus by historians is elusive. That being said, I think there is a degree of consensus on the parts of Jesus life that are historically reliable. Those include, to my knowledge:

• His death by crucifixion (sorry Muslims).
• The accusation “INRI” – Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, upon the cross.
• His baptism by John the Baptist.
• His upbringing in Nazareth, 4 km outside Sepphoris.
• His spending of his ministry in rural and small town Galilee.
• The presence of women in his inner circle of followers.
• His strict opposition to divorce.
• His breaking of bread with followers as a significant ceremony.
• His ejection of money lenders from the Temple.
• His extensive (oral) preaching ministry, including the use of parables.
• The competition between his “movement” and the Pharisees.
• His acknowledgement of an Old Testament canon beyond the Torah.
• His habit of sharing meals with social outcasts.
• His use of “Amen” as an introduction to his proclamations.
• His use of “Abba” as a title for the Hebrew God.
• His celibacy (sorry Dan Brown fans).

To me, even in this pared-down list of things that most scholars agreed about the historical Jesus, there is a lot of grist for the mill.

Sorry, meant to comment on the historical Jesus. My instructor for a Ritual, Symbol, and Myth class I had to take was very anti-Dan Brown. Could never figure out how another graduate student he knew could handle him (Dan Brown) and critique him in her class.

Personally, I prefer an historical Jesus scholar who is an actual historian and isn’t trying to hide something about their peer-reviewedness (sorry David Fitzgerald fans (and possibly Richard Carrier fans)). I would prefer Paula Fredriksen any day on the historical Jesus issue.

 

[fnr]

I guess it depends on the Biblical scholar as well. For instance, a Raymond Brown or an N.T. Wright is much more valuable than someone like a Bart Ehrman.

I don’t know here. I think it’s easy for confirmation bias (tendency of our fallen nature to prioritize information that agrees with our preconceptions over that which does not ) to creep into our assessment of the merits of a particular scholar.

The writings of Brown and Wright both comport well with what I’d consider to be post-Chalcedonian orthodoxy. I think they both generally use good methodologies.

However, from the perspective of an objective view of history, any historian that uses valid historiographical methods should be given a fair hearing. Ehrman’s academic writings are very different from, for example, his popular writings and his for-hire debates. As a text critic, he’s pretty rigorous and points out textual variations that most every orthodox critical historian also accepts. For example, that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is missing from all the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel is evidence that it was inserted later is one such issue that’s even cited in the official footnotes of the New American Bible, the translation we hear at mass. Another such observation is in Luke’s account of the Last Supper. Here’s the NAB’s footnote for Luke 22:19c-20:
Which will be given…do this in memory of me: these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. The Lucan account of the words of institution of the Eucharist bears a close resemblance to the words of institution in the Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 11:23–26). See also notes on Mt 26:26–29; 26:27–28; and Mk 14:22–24.

Ehrman makes the assumption that it’s more likely that an orthodox scribe would insert Pauline-style words into this verse than the opposite. Though I’m not convinced myself, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation of textual variation between manuscripts. I don’t like that it’s a reasonable interpretation, but I can’t say that tuning it out is really honest either.

What I find funny is how the liberal scholars assert “you can make the Bible say anything!” and they’re the ones that do this the most.

Well, being a liberal scholarly type (though a scientist and not a Bible scholar), I would simply point to the splintering of Protestant denominations, even among conservatives. Without the teaching authority of the Church, the Bible itself does not lend itself to easy interpretation. The Church itself itself acknowledges the historical-critical method as vital to Biblical interpretations (through the publications of such bodies as the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the International Theological Commission, both under the CDF and in the writings of Pope BXVI).

To me, the myriad scholarly narratives of “the historical Jesus” – from magician to Stoic – convince me that even rigorous Biblical historical research is not sufficient to point one to the truth. In many ways, the grand-sounding “quest for the historical Jesus,” a product of late 19th century Modernist thinking, has fallen victim to the “Jesus for every perspective,” which is itself a form of Post-modernism. That being said, we as Catholics must not close our eyes to scholarship.

 

[newenglandsun]

However, from the perspective of an objective view of history, any historian that uses valid historiographical methods should be given a fair hearing. Ehrman’s academic writings are very different from, for example, his popular writings and his for-hire debates. As a text critic, he’s pretty rigorous and points out textual variations that most every orthodox critical historian also accepts. For example, that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is missing from all the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel is evidence that it was inserted later is one such issue that’s even cited in the official footnotes of the New American Bible, the translation we hear at mass. Another such observation is in Luke’s account of the Last Supper. Here’s the NAB’s footnote for Luke 22:19c-20:
Which will be given…do this in memory of me: these words are omitted in some important Western text manuscripts and a few Syriac manuscripts. Other ancient text types, including the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke dating from the late second or early third century, contain the longer reading presented here. The Lucan account of the words of institution of the Eucharist bears a close resemblance to the words of institution in the Pauline tradition (see 1 Cor 11:23–26). See also notes on Mt 26:26–29; 26:27–28; and Mk 14:22–24.

Ehrman makes the assumption that it’s more likely that an orthodox scribe would insert Pauline-style words into this verse than the opposite. Though I’m not convinced myself, I think that’s a perfectly reasonable interpretation of textual variation between manuscripts. I don’t like that it’s a reasonable interpretation, but I can’t say that tuning it out is really honest either.

That is true. A lot of what Ehrman says is devastating toward a Conservative Protestant but ends up confirming a lot of things Catholics already know. That, and he provides good challenges to the problem of evil.