tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post6683942159578698739..comments2024-03-21T14:59:20.729-04:00Comments on NT Blog: Confessional vs. historical-critical? The problem with labelsMark Goodacrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-43349246892856514182009-09-25T10:29:57.399-04:002009-09-25T10:29:57.399-04:00Geoff: agree with you -- and that "more conse...Geoff: agree with you -- and that "more conservative" is quite different from "conservative".<br /><br />Thanks, Gail, for those very helpful thoughts.Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-34220515374997017612009-09-18T14:45:23.082-04:002009-09-18T14:45:23.082-04:00Mark, a few additional thoughts:
"Agenda&quo...Mark, a few additional thoughts:<br /><br />"Agenda" has become a rather loaded term these days. It implies some kind of imposed-from-outside collective guidance that I personally don't see among scholars of most disciplines (you've no doubt heard the joke about how trying to get scholars to agree on <i>anything</i> is like trying to herd cats). I don't see how playing by the rules of the historical discipline constitutes promoting a secularizing agenda. (This is where it might be interesting to hear from your colleagues in the history department at Duke.) The concern about a perceived 'secularizing agenda' appears to be an internal concern of some within the field of biblical scholarship. <br /><br />You asked, "Perhaps our unique identity, with this alliance between scholars of such differing perspectives, is a healthy one?" <br /><br />I agree that it can be, but with a caveat. To be "scholarly," conversation must be two-way (or more!) in nature, and our ability to converse is based on our being able to understand others' language, viewpoints, and suppositions. On your recent "Online Office Hours," you would not have been able to respond so graciously to the question about whether or not the concept of "penal substitution" can be found in the Bible unless you understood the shorthand of the questioner (or put another way, his/her underlying ideological perspective). Not all recent discussion in our field (not just in the blogosphere; I'm also thinking of professional meetings) demonstrates that level of acceptance and appreciation of the perspective of the 'other.'Gail Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648477265589380282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-52426389270587412522009-09-18T08:35:33.931-04:002009-09-18T08:35:33.931-04:00Eisnman actually wrote 'more conservative'...Eisnman actually wrote 'more conservative', which, for example could put her in the liberal band.geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-66675956793128456762009-09-18T05:12:03.544-04:002009-09-18T05:12:03.544-04:00I can't pretend to be familiar with the ins an...I can't pretend to be familiar with the ins and outs of Biblical scholarship, but I would agree that labels like those you describe sound ultimately unhelpful. My field (ancient myth and religion) is dominated by people with no religion themselves, and I suspect our academic studies would benefit from a little insight from someone who actually practices a religion (like me) - but as a young scholar trying to build a reputation, I have so far hesitated to say so for fear of being dismissed out of hand!Juliettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00203399623895589924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-86624136051401244842009-09-17T20:52:17.261-04:002009-09-17T20:52:17.261-04:00I have to agree that labels, at least in my experi...I have to agree that labels, at least in my experience, have had a very negative side-affect. In the past I'd used them to exclude the other and negate their experience and understanding. In a karmic way, as I pursue more theological education that is now happening to against me.<br /><br />I think the confessional/historical-critical is a strange way to break it down. When it comes down to it, the early disciples (for the sake of argument) were confessional about a historical event. It takes us, removed in time, a critical approach to reconstruct that historical event. However, whether we confess in that historical event belongs to each of us.<br /><br />I am at the point where I am using the historical-critical method to inform my confession.<br /><br />(first year MTS student, btw)JohnOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961519860959298109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-89340566241955955362009-09-17T20:34:42.047-04:002009-09-17T20:34:42.047-04:00Thanks for the interesting comments, Greg, Doug an...Thanks for the interesting comments, Greg, Doug and Gail. <br /><br />The more I reflect on April's post, the more I wonder whether in fact what we have in our field is something we ought to celebrate. Confessional perspectives (for want of a better term) can challenge misunderstandings and distortions of the literature by those who have a self-consciously secularizing agenda. Likewise, to have those in the guild who do not have any kind of Christian affiliation is hugely helpful in keeping those with a faith perspective honest and accountable. Perhaps our unique identity, with this alliance between scholars of such differing perspectives, is a healthy one?Mark Goodacrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05115370166754797529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-37470641591492412382009-09-17T18:53:41.545-04:002009-09-17T18:53:41.545-04:00Mark, I’ve read April’s, Greg’s, and Doug’s commen...Mark, I’ve read April’s, Greg’s, and Doug’s comments, as well as your own, and understand your problem with labels. If we avoid using the kinds of labels that April proposes, since they could be misused, then we still have to deal with the problem inherent in the plasticity of the word ‘historian.’ <br /><br />Part of the reason that biblical scholarship is and remains a different discipline from strictly historical scholarship (in the general sense) is that professional historians generally might not be asking the same kinds of questions that biblical scholars do. Professional historians are certainly expected to deal with more evidence than just ancient texts and their transmission. I’m not saying that biblical scholarship can’t do its best to be historical in its methodologies, but because so much of it (including your example of Bultmann) arises out of specific theological backgrounds, the definition of what it means to 'do history' in religious studies has to be asked. <br /><br />Dr. Jan Shipps, a non-Mormon who is perhaps the leading scholar of U.S. Latter-day Saint history, makes it clear from her body of work that she brackets certain areas as being outside of her area of interest as an LDS historian. Openly making that kind of distinction might also be helpful in biblical studies.Gail Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04648477265589380282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-6559862483119025192009-09-17T16:59:02.305-04:002009-09-17T16:59:02.305-04:00Dare one suggest she is using it to marginalise th...Dare one suggest she is using it to marginalise those she disagrees with? <br /><br />Actually I've posted a rather different reflection and response to her myselfDoughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10326403777027937887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5759844.post-68831542660008694212009-09-17T14:26:28.805-04:002009-09-17T14:26:28.805-04:00Just posted similar sentiments in a reply to the &...Just posted similar sentiments in a reply to the "other" (i.e. confessional side) on my blog earlier today.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09591329104228249981noreply@blogger.com