Could any academic field be worse than Bible studies/theo in general?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

While I'm not an expert in the subject, I get the distinct impression from some reading and discussion with those who are that the field of biblical scholarship, and really theology in general, is riddled with the shoddiest of work due mainly to what we might call the "ideological" imperatives of believers. There is, for example, little evidence for a "town of Nazereth" at the supposed time of the Jesus Christ figure (at best, it was a single farm), and the devastating problems with the Exodus story are well known if little mentioned by the "faithful". There are numerous other problems apparently.

Of course arrayed against scholastic honesty are the bald realities that hundreds of millions of tourist dollars depend on these fanciful stories for the continued fruition, not to mention the social/psychological implications. But this should never be an excuse for intellectual dishonesty.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Could any academic field be worse than Bible studies/theo in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past it had the saving grace of keeping them off in the corner where they couldn't hamper intellectual progress. These days they are aiding and abetting some pretty radical wingnuts and should be challenged on the scholastic honesty of their output .. outted.

luckyme

[Duals21]

What the hell. Have you ever taken a class in biblical studies? The purpose of an academic class on the bible is not to try and justify anything it says, it is to analyze it in a historical, political, archaelogical, or theological context.
For example, your belief that Nazareth did not exist is the result of someone in the field that you are disparaging EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE and coming to a reasonable conclusion. How can you come to rational conclusions about the bible without trying to analyze it?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] The purpose of an academic class on the bible is not to try and justify anything it says, it is to analyze it in a historical, political, archaelogical, or theological context.

I agree with the scholarliness of the above endeavors, except within the theological context which is pure obscurantism. It could really be replaced by an anthropological study.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell. Have you ever taken a class in biblical studies? The purpose of an academic class on the bible is not to try and justify anything it says, it is to analyze it in a historical, political, archaelogical, or theological context.
For example, your belief that Nazareth did not exist is the result of someone in the field that you are disparaging EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE and coming to a reasonable conclusion. How can you come to rational conclusions about the bible without trying to analyze it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I don't have an opinion on the existence of Nazareth so I don't know why you're all excited about it. Now that you bring it up, why would it matter. The fact London exists doesn't increase the actuality of Sherlock Holmes.

I think you are wrong on the purpose of academic bible class, what you describe is what they do, not why they do it. So, you haven't stated WHY you think they do it... what's your take? You've said it's not to justify stuff in the bible ( as in prove/disprove?) ... is it to... uhmmm... ok, I give up.

luckyme

[Duals21]

Well the academic field of biblical studies INCLUDES interpretations within theology, but the vast majority deals with harder sciences. It is not necessary for someone who does not have a faith stake in the study of the bible to analyze it from the standpoint of theology.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the academic field of biblical studies INCLUDES interpretations within theology, but the vast majority deals with harder sciences. It is not necessary for someone who does not have a faith stake in the study of the bible to analyze it from the standpoint of theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is theology itself that is obscurantist. It is only worth studying in an anthropological context. Hey, you may study the impact of alchemy on literature. It doesn't make alchemy less obscurantist or more valid.

[Duals21]

Mide: I don't understand what you are getting at. Biblical Studies is not equal to theology. You can study the bible without delving into theology.

EDIT: At first I was not going to address the repeated unsupported claim that theology is "obscurantist". But I thought about it and it bugged me.

What is fundamentally obscurantist about reasoned discourse about Gods or the Soul? The term comes from the Greek theologike which Aristotle equated with metaphysics. Was Descartes being "obscurantist" when he wrote that he reasoned that humans were more than just a body. It sure seeeeeeeeeemed sincere. Etc.

[MidGe]

As I said (see my second last post above) it is theology that I am objecting to in academia, not bible studies per se, but bible studies within a theological context. I thought that was clear enough!

I don't at all object to studying the bible as part of a literature fiction course, for instance, neither do I object to it as part of anthropological studies.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact London exists doesn't increase the actuality of Sherlock Holmes.


[/ QUOTE ]
If Sherlock Holmes were presented to the world as an actual person, the fact that he is said to have come from London, may actually shed some light on his histriocity. People could check London records, etc. If he were said to have come from Atlantis, historians may dismiss his story, or at least that part of it. I've read that no one knows anything about Nazereth. Here's my first google of "historical nazereth"
link