DR. JIM JUST SAID “NO” TO THE OPIUM OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

YUP, THAT’S RIGHT! I SAID NO TO CONTRIBUTING TO A SURE-FIRE SUCCESSFUL PUBLICATION THAT WOULD HAVE GOT ME READ FAR AND WIDE FOR YEARS TO COME.

SHIT, I’M STUPID.

No, I’m not. I just have principles, dammit.

Ok, here is what happened… Its the truth, the unholy truth, and nothing but whatever I want to claim the truth is.

A week or so ago I recieved an email from InterVarsity Press. Someone had recommended me as a contributor to the new four volume Dictionary of the Old Testament. For the uninitiated, in Biblical Studies, the word “encyclopedia” does not exist. I do not know why. It just doesn’t. The word “dictionary”, however, does, and it is used for multi-volume encyclopedias. For example, the “Anchor Bible Dictionary” has six huge volumes (IIRC, ca. 1200 pages each). The InterVarsity would be small at 4 x 1000 pages. Anyway,three of the volumes have been published (Penteteuch, Historical Books, Wisdom and Poety & Writings) they asked if I would be interested in writing 7500 word on literary approaches to the Prophets. They would actually give me money. I said no.

What the hell was I thinking?

Here is what I was thinking. InterVarsity is one of the biggest publisher of evangelical crap on the planet. That being said, they do have some useful books and some interesting ones. Their series on early Christian interpretation of scripture is very good. I have the volume on Genesis 1-11, edited by Andrew Louth.

It is a nice selection of how the early church fathers interpreted the primal myths of Genesis’ opening chapters (they were hardly very interested in a ‘literal’ interpretation!). The one volume of the Dictionary of the Old Testament that I skimmed (Historical Books) didn’t seem that bad (at least the bits I thumbed through). The entry on Kings even mentioned my published thesis in a very non-mocking manner (ok, that’s a point against the DOT).

Of course, the assignment was not to offer my own interpretation but to present the main lines of thought that characterizes academic work on the Bible’s prophetic books. So why should I have a problem with that? My own views would not be compromised by reporting what other folks think. But here is what IVP said their target audience of the DOT.

Articles should be written with the following range of readers in mind: the educated lay person, the student of the Old Testament, the teacher and the minister. A large percentage of the anticipated audience will consist of persons who engage with OT texts as Scripture in order to understand and communicate its message to contemporary audiences.

Just the fact that they wrote “Scripture” (note the uppercase S) was damn near a deal breaker. But more seriously, why the hell should it matter what the religious views and ambitions of the audience are? Is that supposed to change the academic landscape of literary analysis of the Old Testament prophetic corpus? Am I only to report on the academic work that supports theological readings of the Bible? (o.k., that’s about 95% of it, but still…).

I teach Old Testament and other Religious Studies courses to a mixed bag of students whose own religious views I neither know or care to know. It makes no difference and I would get into a hell of a lot of trouble if I asked. If I’m honest to the scholarship in the field, whether a student is a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or raving fanatical atheist is totally irrelevant. So why should the religious background of a reference book’s intended audience matter?

THEOLOGY IS THE OPIUM OF BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP

Playing the theology game promises a paradise of a bazzillion bible schools, seminaries, etc. that will use your work and possibly think you are great and so insightful. But it is an addiction that must be resisted. Secular scholars play its game and I’m becoming increasingly aware of how it compromises serious academic work.

A great read is Hector Avalos’ “The End of   Biblical Studies” (Prometheus Press, 2007)

Avalos argues that Biblical Studies as it has been practiced for ages honestly must end: it serves only to legitimize the continued misperception that the Bible is relevant to the modern world. Biblical Studies is essentially bibliolatrous, and even secular  schoalrship is engaged in defending the bible to preserve its own right to exist as an industry.

Avalos is right. Secular scholarship does play into the hand of the theological crowd and thrives parasitically on them. But at what cost? I suppose my own work up to this point can be criticized in this regard too. Well, I’m going to change that.

Of course, since Biblical Studies is so closely intertwined with theology that simply walking away is not possible. A lot of work on the Bible has been done by the confessionally minded and a good bit of this work is very good. Boycotting the religious scholars would be absurd, arrogant and generally not acceptable. Neither is boycotting publishing houses that also produce theological work: one would simply run out of places to publish. But it is practical to simply refuse to take part in projects that require granting a special status to religious sensibilities or to religion in general, and that is what I am going to do. I’m also going to stop turning the other cheek when it comes to overt or crypto-theology at confereces or in academic work. I should also add that secularist serving the Church may not really be fair to the churches, either, at least in some cases.  Where does a secular Biblical Studies belong? It belongs with secular religious studies. For example, my own work has a lot more in common with historical and literary analysis of the Upanishads than it does with Christian theology.

Dammit, it is about time someone started a Society for Secular Biblical Research. Wanna join?

EDITED TO ADD: Gratuitous sexist picture of a total babe actress to boost  my hit count (Dr. Jim’s new plan for world domination)

Jacqueline Logan: “Mary Magdelene” in Cicil B. De Mille’s “King of Kings”