Bible Scholar on an Airplane

The article on the SBL's Forum, Bible Scholar on an Airplane, is right on target for any academic in the humanities who travels - but seems more apt for those of us in biblical studies. As I travel to the Annual Meeting, I am on a plane with people reading devotional books. I have not taken out a book I am reviewing or any of my materials for the meeting. It is not that I am afraid of what others might think, but it is early and today is a travel and rest day. I don't have the energy to get involved in a discussion of this or that book, pratice, or belief system. While I doubt that those in the so-called hard sciences have this problem, I suspect that medical doctors have this problem. I know from experience that most have the "a doctor? Well I have this symptom.." experience when meeting those in the general population. I suspect that this 'on-the-spot-diagnosis' discussion gets as old as the 'my-beliefs' discussion for biblical scholars.

On the other hand, the fact that the 'scholar on the plane' phenomonon occurs may point to a larger need for biblical scholars to make their work known in the wider public. For example, would Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" have been as big a blockbuster if biblical scholars were publishng more for the general public on this subject? Or educating clergy and laity better? One may never know, but at the very least the discipline has not sold itelf well beyond the classroom and library walls. Yes there is a lot of what passes for scholarship out there - but it is not the latest or the best or even close to the scholarly consensus on the majority of issues. From what I have learned from family and friends who are not academics, and gracefully tolerate my rantings at times, most of what is being used and promoted is about 75 to 100 years behind. It is largely pre-critical or at best nascently critical scholarship.

Introductions to the Bible

How does one "introduce" something like the Bible or the New Testament to a student? A thoroughly complicated history, a complex document, and a further troubled history of transmission and interpretation all conspire to make the task impossible at best. To introduce such a text is at the outset an interpretive act that is fully biased by the interpreter. Even a reading of the text itself presupposes not only the interpretive step of translation, but also imposes the reading traditions of the faith community (or lack thereof) of the reader.

It seems that the best introductory texts on the New Testament or the Bible dive into historyfirst and then the text. History seems to provide some of the necessary background and information to avoid a completely biased understanding of the communities contained in and partially reflected by the text. This critical approach is not without its limits, as history is always written for a purpose. But when combined with archaeology and a nuanced understanding of text production, it seems perhaps the best way to begin.

After the dust and chads have settled...

In the aftermath of the election, what can one say? At the very least we are all relieved to have the rancor of political advertising and the annoying phone calls over - at least for a while. If the results are anything as predicted, we are "in a new political landscape" according to the pundits.

Or are we really?

Personally I find it hard to believe that much of the landscape will really change in Washington. There is too much at stake for either party or for the monied forces that pull most of the strings to make real lasting changes in the way funds are allocated, the environment is considered, or the way "justice" is carried out. At best we can hope for a stalemate between the two parties at level of Congress vs. the White House or something similar. Perhaps we will get out of Iraq sooner and perhaps we will see a few cosmetic changes.

I know this seems callous and cynical, but what can you expect from a child of Watergate, Abscam, and the Iran-Contra affair?

The Bible and Elections

I was recently asked what the Bible says about elections. The answer is - not much. Elections or the casting of ballots to determine leadership is foreign to the Bible. In the few instances where leaders are chosen, it is most often by God. The people of God do not have a role chosing their own leaders. Certainly in the New Testament, which is written in a time entirely under Roman political rule, the concept of a democratically elected leader is not remotely considered. We do have instances where leaders are chosen or recommended in the New Testament. But even in the Book of Acts, when a "replacement Apostle" is chosen for the 12, it is a choice by God, not by an election.

So given this lack of a biblical basis for elections, what is the Bible believing Christian to do? My suggestion - vote your conscience and with good information on the issues. I think I would also go by the suggestion in Matthew 7:20 for determining if one is a "true prophet" or not - "you will know them by their fruits." Do the actions and results of a particular office holder or candidate produce good fruits (peace, mercy and justice) or do they produce the opposite. Of course, I think this holds true for any person across the board - are they producing good fruits or bad. This becomes a litmus test of sorts for any person or any issue, be it teaching, preaching or public office.

Pre-Meeting

As in years past, we are just prior to the big meeting of the year for biblical scholars. The Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, will be the usual gathering of tweed and elbow patches, with plenty of books, discussions, and scotch to go around. But I wonder what the real impact will be for the long term prospects of the discipline?

Recent articles have decried the health of the sponsoring organizations and of the discipline as a whole, calling both irrelevant and out of touch. Of course, these articles have in large part been written by those outside the field and generally out of touch with where biblical scholars find themselves. More and more scholars are being asked about the politics of biblical usage. The recent laws and controversy over the teaching of the Bible in public schools raises yet another level of involvement for scholars beyond the academy.

Teaching the Bible in the public schools is not without its problems. Many parents are either afraid their children will be evanglized and indoctrinated - or that they will be taught non-orthodox lies about the Bible and its contents. The debate has become entirely politicized and polarized. The reality is that most school districts do not teach courses on the Bible. Those that do, do it poorly and with substandard text books. In most cases, teachers aren't trained and are only selected on the basis of their current church connections. This leads, of course, to the inevitable faith oriented bias in the classroom - something specifically prohibited by the Supreme Court and the US Constitution. Good scholarship and good resources are either unknown or ignored in such classrooms.

The recent spate of religiously oriented media, from Gibsons Passion of the Christ, to the da Vinci Code, have provided further avenues for the public presence of biblical scholars. But like the public school issue, the comments of these academics are made in an increasingly polarized context. It is as if there is no moderation or middle ground in any of these issues. One is either 100% for the issue at hand, or one is demonized.

Apparently civilized debate is not an option any longer.... except perhaps at the Annual Meeting.