I know that some people feel that they have to use the word “inerrancy” to describe the Bible in order to be part of their community of faith (generally, more conservative evangelical or even fundamentalist groups). I have friends who are graduate students in biblical studies and are in this boat. They are pushing the envelope in their research, willing to admit the Bible may not be 100% historically accurate, but they’d be willing to sign a statement of faith with the word “inerrancy” in it. They explain inerrancy in such a way that, as I see it, it really no longer is inerrancy.

I recently read this statement from one educational institution’s website. It is included in the statement of faith that any professor would have to sign. If you feel so inclined, you can google it. It’s not the institution itself that really concerns me right now, but the social phenomenon that it represents:

The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.

Really? No error or defect of any kind? I mean, there’s no getting around this one. You can’t explain it away. So, if Matthew and Luke seem to conflict in regards to the dating of Jesus’ birth (Herod versus the census), then what? That’s going to destroy the foundation of the faith? This sets us up for the contradiction game. The atheists tout all these contradictions in the Bible and then the evangelicals swoop in and “harmonize” the “apparent” contradictions because, “apparently” their faith depends on it. When did the Bible become a history textbook?

Heck, history textbooks are not even history textbooks. That is, history textbooks are not “just the facts, ma’am.” They also include analysis, some claim of meaning, cause and effect, in the midst of those facts, events, etc. I tell my students in Western Civ. that, yes, you need to learn some facts in this class, but that’s not what we’re about. It’s about learning to think critically and analyze historical texts and assumptions: struggling to figure out what it all means.

If history itself is not simply a string of facts, then why must the Bible be? Doctrinal statements like the one quoted above do a disservice to the Bible. When we make the Bible into a collection of accurate facts and events more than a witness to the story of God and God’s people, we demolish the power of the message in the text. The beauty of the Bible is not historical accuracy, but its mysterious and profound story.

When we make the Bible into some grand textbook, some unquestionable repository of facts, we use it as the authoritative weapon to crack people’s heads with “truth.” But truth is not about an absence of factual errors or “defects” but about what gives meaning.

Thus, for instance, even if there were an ark of Noah that were found in Turkey (which there isn’t) what good would that do for our understanding of the meaning of the story of Noah?

Teaching the Bible at a Christian college is one thing. And teaching the Bible at a non-confessional (“secular”) university is, of course, something else. But teaching the Bible for one class session during a ten-week course on the foundational history of Western civilization is another thing entirely. That’s what I’m doing this week.

I am responsible for teaching/facilitating two discussion sections (20 undergraduates each) of the aforementioned Western civ. course. Unlike the lecture, which is taught by the professor on record and covers the historical data, the discussions focus on the primary sources. Last week we looked at Gilgamesh and Hammurabi, and this week we covered three texts: portions from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Genesis (12-17), and Exodus (12-14 & 19-24).

The theme of our weekly investigation is to find out how we “do history” with our primary sources. What do these texts tell us about the social situation of the people in this society? We were able to do that kind of thing with Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and the Book of the Dead fabulously. These kids have some amazing insights! But when it came to analyzing these biblical texts which are so embedded in our own cultural knowledge, even for the those who aren’t devoutly religious, we hit some stumbling blocks.

The class had a hard time asking the same sort of questions and coming to the same sort of conclusions. Like, assessing the text as a human interpretation of divine action in history. Instead, many people talked about maybe God did such and such because God wanted to [fill in the blank]. I certainly could learn better how to assist the discussion, but it’s much bigger than any questions I could ask in this one session on the biblical texts, of course. This sort of “doing history” with biblical texts (and not just “historicity” per se) is the kind of mental exercise that could take up an entire quarter, were I teaching a class on biblical texts at UCLA.

It is my hope that maybe I can aim to take the same route as my esteemed colleague, Kevin Scull, who has TA’ed so many classes at UCLA that they have allowed him to design and teach his own courses. If I do reach that level, perhaps I will design a course on “doing history with the Bible” or “doing history with the New Testament” in order to take on these issues of hermeneutics and historiography with the students in a more in depth way.

For now, we march on to Homer and the Greeks for next week. Though I do have one more session on the biblical topics this week if you have any suggestions for hit-and-run biblical interpretation issues at a state school.

HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated – Student Edition

Editors: Harold W. Attridge (General Editor, Revised); Wayne A. Meeks (General Editor, Original)
Hardcover: 2128 pages
Publisher: HarperOne
Year: 2006
ISBN:9780060786830

Buy: HarperCollins; Amazon

Positives

• Excellent running commentary by world-class biblical scholars.
• More notes than other study Bibles based on critical research.
• The lack of a solidified confessional stance allows for less apologetically motivated notes than some other study Bibles on the market.
• Helpful essays added to the revised edition.
• Relatively thin for a study Bible of this magnitude.

Negatives

• Maps. The maps are terrible, looking like blurry photocopies from the previous edition. It’s not just my copy because this is a common criticism.
• General formatting: In order to get a thin feel, the font is quite small and cramped with very little margin space for note taking. The notes are not as clearly distinguished from the biblical text as in the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
• The “Student Edition” is nothing more than a cooler-looking cover and it lacks the concordance of the non-student edition, in order to have more blank “Notes” pages.
• More cross-referencing between topics found in various places would be helpful.
• Intermittent topical excurses, as found in many other study Bibles, would be helpful.

Revision. The back cover indicates the revised edition includes “completely new introductions and notes for select biblical books, plus a full revision and updating of all others–over 25 percent new or revised material.”  The Introduction to this volume has a paragraph on the differences between the original and this revised edition:

The present revised edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible has updated and expanded the annotations with the latest perspectives on the biblical text derived from historical, archaeological, and literary sources. The notes also provide more complete information on the ways in which various biblical books echo other parts of scripture. A series of introductory essays offer reflections about the contexts within which biblical books are currently read.

I find the decision to only give completely new introductions for select biblical books. Why were these books chosen over others? I suppose the research is moving faster regarding some books over others (or, perhaps in some cases the original work was not completely up-to-date in the first place?). The only books that we know for certain have been revised are those with two authors assigned (see my previous post on HCSB contributors). Here is a list of those books that have apparently been revised–to some extent–by a second author (for those books that have only one contributor, I can’t tell whether the original contributor revised his or her own content):

Genesis: originally done by Joel W. Rosenberg with apparently a completely new introduction (and notes?) by Ronald Hendel.

Joshua and Judges: originally done by Robert G. Boling (who died in a car accident doing research in Jordan in 1995) and revised by Richard D. Nelson.

Esther and the additions to Esther: originally done by W. Lee Humphreys and revised by Sidnie White Crawford.

Ecclesiastes: originally done by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen and revised by Kent Harold Richards.

Lamentations: originally done by Werner E. Lemke and revised by Kathleen O’Connor.

Daniel: originally done by Pamela J. Milne and revised by John J. Collins.

Hosea: originally done by James Luther Mays and revised by Stephen L. Cook.

Joel: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Marvin A. Sweeney.

Amos: originally done by Gene M. Tucker and revised by J. Andrew Dearman.

Obadiah: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Ehud Ben Zvi.

Micah: originally done by Philip J. King and revised by Carol J. Dempsey.

Wisdom of Solomon: originally done by David Winston and revised by Thomas H. Tobin.

Sirach: originally done by Burton L. Mack and revised by Benjamin G. Wright III.

Letter of Jeremiah: originally done by Richard J. Clifford and revised by Jeffrey C. Geoghegan.

Mark: originally done by C. Clifton Black and revised by Adela Yarbro Collins.

Luke: originally done by David L. Tiede and revised by Christopher R. Matthews.

John and the Johannine epistles: originally done by David K. Rensberger and revised by Harold W. Attridge.

James: originally done by Sophie Laws and revised by Walter T. Wilson.

1 Peter: originally done by David L. Balch and revised by Paul J. Achtemeier.

Comparison with New Oxford Annotated Bible. The back cover of the book boasts that there are “[t]wice as many notes as the leading study Bible.” Beyond sounding like a dish soap commercial, this comment has me wondering what precisely is the leading brand of detergent study Bible. Seeing as the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) weighs in at 15,200 on the Amazon rank, while the most popular edition of the HCSB ranks at 34,182, I suppose that’s the answer. Well, the note on the back cover invites us to compare the HCSB to the NOAB, so that’s what I’ll do. [I have just noticed that the New Interpreter's Study Bible actually slightly beats the NOAB on the Amazon sales rank at the moment, but I'm doubtful this would have been the "leading study Bible" in mind for Harper at the time of publication.]

Perhaps it is my predisposition (NOAB has been my standard hard copy Bible for some time), but I prefer the notes format in the NOAB to the HCSB. The HCSB goes for a two-column approach, which aligns with the two columns of biblical text. There are two things setting apart the notes from the biblical text in the HCSB: (1) smaller font and (2) a solid gray line. I actually appreciate this format within poetic portions of biblical text, such as the Psalms or parts of the prophets. But when combined with prose, there simply isn’t enough to distinguish the notes from the text of the Bible. It hurts the eyes a little bit. The NOAB, on the other hand, leaves the notes in a wide single column in contrast to the double column format of the biblical text. The NOAB has no need for a solid line to separate the text from the notes.

The typeface of the HCSB is about a point or two smaller than in the NOAB (for both the main biblical text and the notes), making it somewhat more difficult to read–but allowing for “twice as many notes.”

Content. The real reason why someone buys this study Bible is not format per se, but content. The book opens with five essays, which are new to this edition:

1. Strategies for Reading Scripture by John Barton. (This essay does a wonderful job of distinguishing and balancing the concepts of “critical” and “canonical” readings of Scripture.)
2. Israelite Religion by Ronald Hendel.
3. The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament by David E. Aune.
4. The Bible and Archaeology by Eric M. Meyers.
5. Archaeology and the New Testament by Jürgen Zangenberg.

All of the introductions to the biblical texts that I was able to read through were very well done, though they could have been a tad longer given the complexities they address. The running notes are really where this volume shines. The notes are what makes the study Bible worth buying, even with any other shortcomings. On average, I would say the notes take up about 20-25% of each page, though there are a few rare pages with no notes and a several that hit 50% or more of the page. I believe the prize for most notes on a single page goes to the Proverbs duo (Camp/Fontaine) for about 80% of a page taken up by notes within Proverbs 1. All notes that I have seen have been extremely helpful and even more detailed than what you might find in the NOAB (though, of course, having both in front of you is even more helpful).

Each book’s introduction and notes is a kind of mini-commentary. Given this reality, therefore, some conclusions by the contributors may not align quite perfectly. Or one contributor may have mentioned important concepts to which another contributor should refer (sort of like a Bible dictionary might point you to other relevant articles), but this reference does not always occur. It would have helped to have some cross-referencing between introductions, particularly when major issues have been touched on in other introductions (such as the documentary hypothesis, the synoptic problem, or pseudonymity).

Actually, it might have been nice to have “excurses” included within the books: little mini-essays on topics pertinent to the passage at hand. That way, the notes could reference the excurses as necessary (e.g., “see Imprecatory Psalms, page 810″; “see Emperor Worship, page 2093″).

Of course, the greatest portion of “content” within the HCSB is the biblical text itself, in the NRSV translation. The back cover claims the NRSV is “the most accurate English Bible translation.” I can understand the marketing impulse here, but such an unsubstantiated claim is questionable.

Charts and Maps. The HCSB has several helpful charts and tables. Some of these charts are in between books or sections of books (such as parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels), while others are embedded within the text of certain biblical books (such as suggested fulfillments of Acts 1:8 within the book of Acts). The first chart of the study Bible is a very helpful historical timeline. One of the handiest charts is found in the back: “Quotations of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.”

The maps, however, may be my least favorite part of the entire study Bible. HarperCollins was kind enough to also send along their newer HarperCollins Atlas of Bible History by James B. Pritchard. The maps embedded within the biblical texts of the HCSB are strangely out of focus–as if they had been photocopied from the first edition into this one. For the crisp and beautiful layout of their Atlas of Bible History, I would hope for more in the HCSB than blurry maps. The NOAB, by the way, has quite elegant maps. The maps at the back of the HCSB are in color and are not blurry, but still not quite as attractive as those found in HarperCollins’ atlas.

“Student Edition.” I do have one lingering question: What difference does the “student edition” make other than having (what I think is) a more attractive cover? I have the “college edition” of the NOAB and never figured out what that meant. Apparently, the only difference between the “student edition” of the HCSB and the normal revised edition is the lack of concordance in the “student edition.” The “student edition” trades the concordance for a little over ten additional blank “Notes” pages in the back — which are also an attempt to make up for the lack of margin space to take notes with the text. Don’t “students” appreciate concordances? It seems to me that a “student edition” should be more pleasing to the eyes, with helpful excurses, and perhaps even some color: something more akin to the study Bibles published by Zondervan perhaps.

The Bottom Line. As far as format goes, I personally prefer the wider single column notes and more elegant maps of the New Oxford Annotated Bible to the double column notes, smaller font, and blurry maps of the HarperCollins Study Bible. In my opinion, the trimmer size of the Bible in comparison to the NOAB is not worth the cramped font. What I would like to see out of a future edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible (particularly its “student edition”) is something more akin to what they have done in the revision of the HarperCollins Atlas of Bible Lands, which is light-years ahead of its original edition in its attractive and approachable presentation.

The primary reason a person should purchase the HCSB over the NOAB is in the extent of its notes. The NOAB excels in its maps, charts, and provides more extensive essays and introductions. But most readers, I imagine, will want to use a study Bible to actually . . . study the Bible. That is, study the biblical text itself. Thus, the mini-running-commentary proves more helpful in the day-by-day and longer term usage of a study Bible. Here the HCSB has an edge on the NOAB–two times more of an edge, if we take the back cover at its word. Both study Bibles have excellent scholars contributing (though the HCSB has a few more “household names” for those familiar with biblical scholarship) and the notes in both are well done for the most part. The HCSB just provides more notes, which helps the reader understand the text a little bit better.

Therefore, if you’re looking for the best running commentary notes in a study Bible, this is probably the best study Bible based on critical scholarship. If the presentation and format are important to you, then you may want to look into the NOAB. If you’d like a study Bible that holds a more confessional stance without neglecting critical scholarship, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible might be the one for you. Personally, I would recommend all three to round out your Bible study.

HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated – Student Edition
Editors: Harold W. Attridge (General Editor, Revised); Wayne A. Meeks (General Editor, Original)
Hardcover: 2128 pages
Publisher: HarperOne
Year: 2006
ISBN:9780060786830

Buy: HarperCollins; Amazon

Many thanks to Kayleigh at Harper Academic for forwarding this review copy! Reviewing the premier study Bible on the market is a bit of a daunting task. It seems fitting to begin simply with a list of the contributors (given in canonical order of the books they have worked on, rather than alphabetical). I provided the best links I could find for each contributor. This is the dream team of biblical scholarship and it pretty much speaks for itself.

That said, this “dream team” is generally of a certain persuasion. Generally speaking, this is not the dream team that, say, conservative Evangelicals might hope for. You won’t find Carson, Moo, Bock, Blomberg, Schreiner, Grudem, Wenham, Wallace, or even N. T. Wright or James D. G. Dunn. Of the contributor’s affiliated institutions at the time of publication, most are either research universities or seminaries/divinity schools in the “mainline” or Catholic (Boston College is well represented) traditions. This is the sort of collection of scholars that you might expect in a project like this. The hope is that the study notes are used more for unfettered historical-critical work, rather than for doctrinal apologetics. Most of those other folks can be found as contributors to the ESV Study Bible. [I'm not making any qualitative judgments at this point; just saying, if you're looking for Evangelical scholarship, don't come knocking at the HarperCollins Study Bible--but you already knew that.]

All scholars have their biases, however, and I appreciate where the editors have assigned two scholars to the same biblical book. If there are any weaknesses that I would point out in this post on contributors, it would be my desire that all books receive double coverage (though I can understand how that might be an editorial nightmare). I suppose when two scholars are listed for one book, it could mean that one wrote the notes for the original edition while the other wrote for the revised edition. I am uncertain of this, but it actually seems likely upon observing that many of the folks in this list are retired (and some of those retired quite some time ago).

In a second post, I will go into the format and features of the edition.

Update: I have discovered that the books that name two scholars are those that have been revised. It makes me wonder why some books were chosen for revision and others not. The back cover boasts “over 25 percent new or revised material.” For a study Bible, that actually seems on the low end to me.

List of Contributors in the Canonical Order found in the Study Bible:
General Editors: Wayne Meeks (Original); Harold Attridge (Revised)
Consulting Editor: James Luther Mays
Editorial Assistants: John Leinenweber; Lindsay A. Lingo
Consultant for Maps: Roger S. Boraas

Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Editors: Werner E. Lemke; Susan Niditch)
Genesis: Ronald Hendel; Joel W. Rosenberg [first edition]
Exodus: Edward L. Greenstein
Leviticus: Jacob Milgrom
Numbers: Jo Ann Hackett
Deuteronomy: S. Dean McBride Jr.
Joshua: Robert G. Boling [died in a car accident in 1995, taught at McCormick Theological Seminary]; Richard D. Nelson
Judges: Robert G. Boling [died in a car accident in 1995, taught at McCormick Theological Seminary]; Richard D. Nelson
Ruth: Adele Berlin
1 Samuel: P. Kyle McCarter Jr.
2 Samuel: P. Kyle McCarter Jr.
1 Kings: Robert R. Wilson
2 Kings: Robert R. Wilson
1 Chronicles: Ralph W. Klein
2 Chronicles: Ralph W. Klein
Ezra: David J. A. Clines
Nehemiah: David J. A. Clines
Esther: Sidnie White Crawford; W. Lee Humphreys
Job: James L. Crenshaw
Psalms: Patrick D. Miller
Proverbs: Claudia V. Camp; Carole R. Fontaine
Ecclesiastes: Kent Harold Richards; Raymond C. Van Leeuwen
Song of Solomon: Michael V. Fox
Isaiah: J. J. M. Roberts
Jeremiah: Leo G. Perdue; Robert R. Wilson
Lamentations: Werner E. Lemke; Kathleen O’Connor
Ezekiel: David L. Peterson
Daniel: John J. Collins; Pamela J. Milne
Hosea: Stephen L. Cook; James Luther Mays
Joel: Richard A. Henshaw; Marvin A. Sweeney
Amos: J. Andrew Dearman; Gene M. Tucker
Obadiah: Ehud Ben Zvi; Richard A. Henshaw
Jonah: James S. Ackerman
Micah: Carol J. Dempsey; Philip J. King
Nahum: Kent Harold Richards
Habakkuk: Kent Harold Richards
Zephaniah: Kent Harold Richards
Haggai: W. Sibley Towner
Zechariah: W. Sibley Towner
Malachi: W. Sibley Towner

Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (Associate Editor: Eileen M. Schuller)
Tobit: George W. E. Nickelsburg
Judith: John J. Collins; Toni Craven
Additions to Esther: Sidnie White Crawford; W. Lee Humphreys
Wisdom of Solomon: Thomas H. Tobin; David Winston
Sirach: Burton L. Mack; Benjamin G. Wright III
Baruch: Carol A. Newsom
Letter of Jeremiah: Richard J. Clifford; Jeffrey C. Geoghegan
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews: Lawrence Wills
Susanna: Lawrence Wills
Bel and the Dragon: Lawrence Wills
1 Maccabees: Daniel J. Harrington
2 Maccabees: Daniel J. Harrington
1 Esdras: David J. A. Clines
Prayer of Manasseh: James A. Sanders
Psalm 151: James A. Sanders
3 Maccabees: John J. Collins
2 Esdras: Michael E. Stone
4 Maccabees: Thomas H. Tobin

New Testament (Associate Editor: Jouette Bassler)
Matthew: Dennis C. Duling
Mark: C. Clifton Black; Adela Yarbro Collins
Luke: Christopher R. Matthews; David L. Tiede
John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
Acts: Beverly Roberts Gaventa
Romans: Leander E. Keck
1 Corinthians: Victor Paul Furnish
2 Corinthians: John T. Fitzgerald
Galatians: Richard B. Hays
Ephesians: J. Paul Sampley
Philippians: Ronald F. Hock
Colossians: J. Paul Sampley
1 Thessalonians: Edgar M. Krentz
2 Thessalonians: Jouette M. Bassler
1 Timothy: Jouette M. Bassler
2 Timothy: Jouette M. Bassler
Titus: Jouette M. Bassler
Philemon: Harold W. Attridge; Ronald F. Hock
Hebrews: Harold W. Attridge
James: Sophie Laws; Walter T. Wilson
1 Peter: Paul J. Achtemeier; David L. Balch
2 Peter: Richard J. Bauckham
1 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
2 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
3 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
Jude: Richard J. Bauckham
Revelation: David E. Aune

Articles
Strategies for Reading Scripture: John Barton
Israelite Religion: Ronald Hendel
The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament: David E. Aune
The Bible and Archaeology: Eric M. Meyers
Archaeology and the New Testament: Jürgen Zangenberg

I am pleased to announce that my article for my denomination‘s magazine, In Part, has been published. My little article is entitled, “The good (and bad) news about niche Bibles.” The entire issue, with a focus on the Bible (“In Pursuit of the Bible“), is fantastic. The main featured article is “What’s hermeneutics got to do with it?” by Bruxy Cavey (one of the stars of the Brethren in Christ church) followed up by a transcribed panel discussion by BIC pastors and others on the “role of Scripture in their everyday lives.” You can grab the whole issue as a PDF. I have made my two pages available as a separate PDF.

I enjoyed working with In Part’s wonderful editor, Kristine Frey, who recruited me for the piece. It’s fun to write for a wider audience that deeply cares about these issues.

Many may know about the discussion raised by Hector Avalos about the “end of biblical studies.” For those who don’t, I will catch you up a little bit. The issue is about whether we should teach biblical studies as an academic discipline and, if so, how we should go about it. The issue obviously hits close to home for me, since I’ll be looking for a job teaching biblical studies as an academic discipline in a few years.

Hector Avalos is a trained biblical scholar (receiving his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1991), now teaching as a professor at Iowa State University, who has become somewhat (in)famous for criticizing his own field. The book that has pushed this discussion forward is his The End of Biblical Studies, which I have to admit I have not yet read. As I understand it (and I may not), Avalos suggests that the Bible is irrelevant to contemporary culture. For Avalos, the guild of biblical scholars falsely maintains the illusion that the Bible is relevant in the interests of academic preservation. In short, we only say the Bible is relevant because we don’t want to lose our jobs.

Now, there are plenty of things that academia studies, writes about, and teaches that are not exactly thought of as relevant in contemporary culture. I believe Avalos’ major bone with biblical studies is that our study of Christian origins should not be confined to a religiously defined canon of texts. Why not also teach the Gnostic literature alongside the New Testament?

More recently, Helmut Koester (longtime professor of New Testament at the aforementioned Harvard) wrote a critique of Avalos in the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archeology Review (pages 11-12), the periodical of a society criticized in Avalos’ book. Koester (not surprisingly) defends the relevance of biblical studies, concluding, “The relationship of American religious life, Bible and scholarship is a vital and undeniable factor in our society—especially in the United States—however, controversial.” Avalos responds to Koester on the Debunking Christianity blog in a post entitled “Prof. Helmut Koester: A Reality Check for Him.” Avalos accuses Koester of being “short on facts and long on routine religionist apologetics for biblical studies.” Responding to this discussion, you can find an excellent treatment done by April DeConick, who attempts a kind of middle ground between Avalos and Koester.

I would like to zero in on one particular point: the relevance of the Bible to contemporary culture. Avalos suggests that people don’t actually read the Bible much and, hence, the Bible is irrelevant. On the blog post mentioned, he cites studies showing “that 21.9% of Mainline Protestants and 33.1% of Catholics ‘never’ read Scripture” and that “even those who read scripture more than ‘never,’ don’t read or apply much of it.” He says:

In fact, most Christians probably use a miniscule amount of the Bible in their lives because they do not find most of it relevant. This is not just my judgment, but that of many conservative evangelical scholars and sociologists.

[ . . . ]

1) The Bible has already lost much of its influence in American religion;

2) Any influence still left is partly the result of an ecclesial-academic complex, of which Dr. Koester is himself a part, which keeps promoting the illusion that the Bible is important. Without the constant effluence of “new translations,” among other marketing devices, the Bible would probably die.

First, I would like to ask, do people actually have to read the Bible for it to be a relevant field for academic discipline? How many people actually read the U.S. Constitution? Clearly, the Constitution is relevant. Does the mere fact that the Bible is a religious document while the Constitution is a secular legal document make the former irrelevant and the latter relevant? The Constitution is the foundation for our society’s legal system and must be constantly studied. The Bible (particularly the religiously defined “canon”) is the foundational “document” for the largest religious group in American society (people who call themselves “Christians”). Shouldn’t the fact that the Bible is little read but highly revered warrant academic investigation and education?

I can understand Avalos’ concern about jobs in academia and the “religionist” bias stronghold on biblical research. On the other hand, why do people even pursue this career if our job options are so bleak? Isn’t it because so many of us were so affected by people’s readings of the Bible (one way or another) that we became passionate about studying and teaching biblical studies? I know that’s my story. It’s the story of most every grad student I know in the field of biblical studies.

April hits the nail on the head:

Where does this leave me in terms of my thoughts on the subject? I understand Koester’s position on the reality of American religiosity and what this means for those of us who study and teach early Christianity. I understand Avalos’ position to rid the historical study of early Judaism and Christianity from its canonical limitations (including the name “Biblical Studies”), because these limitations support religious and theological interests. I personally have negotiated this front by breaking canonical boundaries in my own scholarship, creating sections at SBL which cross canonical boundaries, and teaching beyond these boundaries. But this doesn’t mean to me that the biblical texts aren’t essential to early Judaism and Christianity. In fact, their importance reverberates for centuries and centuries, and yes, they are still with us. In my opinion, teaching the bible is more important than ever in America. . . .

Amen. I may indeed be teaching at a school with a confessional stance in the future. But my hope is to help students with confessional understandings of the Bible to be awakened to the nuanced issues of history and interpretation. I hope to do my little part in aiding students with high views of the Bible to understand and apply that collection of texts in a more responsible manner.

There was a long stretch where Logos Bible Software was coming out with some powerhouse academic resources in their prepublication program. Bunches of stuff on Josephus, Philo, the Pseudepigrapha, Ancient Near Eastern books, great original language items. One of the most amazing offerings of this period was Hermeneia. More recently, they have offered the Anchor Yale Bible series (83 vols). That is definitely now at the top of my list (if Logos would like to send me a review copy once it’s done–I would be happy to oblige!).

However, the Anchor Yale series seems to be an exception for their most recent offerings. Lately, Logos has been offering items from a more “conservative” (and maybe less “academic”) interpretive angle. Consider the Holman Reference Collection (13 Vols.) (recently mentioned on Nick’s blog), a bunch of books from Baker, commentaries from Cornerstone, a little while ago they added the WallBuilders American Foundations Digital Library.

From a business perspective, these sorts of things are most likely better money makers than some of the hardcore academic stuff. I can’t say I blame ‘em. There are a LOT of conservative evangelicals out there who are very passionate about their Bible study. But it does feed into the stereotype that Logos is the less “serious” Bible software, academically speaking (compared to BibleWorks and Accordance). And believe me, that perception is there. Many people in my academic circles (professors, fellow grad students) are surprised that Logos is my software of choice. For me, though, I believe Logos simply has more to offer of everything: the “serious academic” stuff, the more “conservative evangelical” stuff, even the fluffy junk (which shall remain nameless). You just put together the pieces that make up your ideal electronic library.

So, I would like to offer a suggestion for an academic item that might have some broader appeal than just those stuffy elitists stuck in their ivory acadmic towers: Academic Study Bibles. Currently, Libronix offers (or is developing) the following study Bibles: The NLT Study Bible (the recent SBC banning of the NLT doesn’t help ), The Apologetics Study Bible, Concordia Self-Study Bible Notes (a revised version of the notes written for Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible, emphasizing Lutheran themes), The MacArthur Study Bible, The Ryrie Study Bible, The Reformation Study Bible, and a few others.

To balance these out a bit, I think that Logos really should offer all the notes and resources of standards like the HarperCollins Study Bible, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and perhaps also the New Interpreter’s Study Bible. I know plenty of layfolk who would love to have these perspectives so much more than all the currently Libronix offered study Bibles put together. Not only that, I think these could open a broad market for college and seminary students who are often required (or strongly encouraged) to buy HarperCollins or the New Oxford. So, Logos, have I convinced you yet?

So, a couple people already commented on this video by Pastor Steven Anderson (Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona). It’s so crazy, it’s hilarious. See posts about it by Tyler Williams, Loren Rosson, Paul Martin, and others.

Here are some of my favorite lines:

And God said a man is someone who pisses against a wall. . . No man in Germany pees standing up. That’s where we’re headed in this country, my friend. We got a bunch of pastors who pee sitting down. . . . We got a bunch of preachers, a bunch of leaders, who don’t stand up and piss against the wall like a man. And I’m gunna tell you something: that’s what’s wrong with America. . . . It’s because the editors of the NIV pee sitting down. . . . I’m gunna tell you something: I’m not gunna pee sitting down.

I knew there was a reason I didn’t like the NIV. Here’s the bit:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4]

I am grateful that he doesn’t end his sermon by going up to the wall and urinating in front of the congregation. Personally, I’d rather listen to the folks at the Big Brother house talk about the Bible, which they did in their latest episode (the scene happens after 24 minutes and it’s just after the third to last commercial break). Jim West, on the other hand, thinks that “when people on Big Brother discuss the Bible it makes me want to pull my ears off and gouge my eyes out with a sharpened cattle prod. They must find the most ill-informed people on the planet to be on that show.” I thought it could’ve been a lot worse. Namely, it could have been Pastor Steven Anderson. You can find clips from the 24 hour live feed of the show on YouTube and here’s a clip of some more BB Bible Study (contains some offensive language):

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=qa9ehznCPc8]

To me, this shows a guy who is really interested in the Bible and paying attention to it chatting with someone else who thinks it’s worthwhile to read the Bible. They’re taking a note from Stephen Prothero! They may not understand everything or have the best hermeneutic, but at least they’re reading it.

Brueggemann makes an interesting comment in his preface to The Message of the Psalms. He opens the book itself with two quotes, one from John Updike and another from Jose Miranda, Communism in the Bible, which goes like this:

It can surely be said that the Psalter presents a struggle of the just against the unjust.

Brueggemann identifies Miranda at the “extreme” but wants to point to the helpfulness of Miranda’s thought. For example, he says, “With force and regularity the questions of justice, righteousness, and equity are regularly [sic] brought to the throne, often to our surprise” (13). But what really caught my eye as I was reading was actually Brueggemann’s qualification in using Miranda’s quote:

I have not set out to do liberation theology, as Miranda might urge, for I have been committed to no goal but to hear the Psalms. [12-3]

This strikes me as a powerfully healthy perspective for a Bible scholar. As for myself, I am continually drawn to the ideas of liberation theology in its struggle for justice. So, when I read the Bible, I will certainly be informed by that perspective and be attentive to themes of justice, power, etc. On the other hand, as I am developing my scholarly tools at this stage of my career, I must find ways to “hear” the biblical texts without molding them to fit my ideological perspective (I realize I’m departing a bit from Brueggemann’s intention here).

Many folks are, of course, announcing the death of historical methods in studying the Bible. We live in postmodernism now (or “pomo” for the cool kids among us) . . . how can one presume that we can find the meaning to anything? Is it not arrogant to say that we might be able to reach the “intention” of a text? Is not our assumption of the meaning we find in any text a product of our social and cultural location as well as our ideological presuppositions?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps we need a balance here. I am going to go out on a limb and say that there are some things that history can tell us. I think most people would agree (Bruno Bauer excepted) that Jesus actually existed as a real human being. We can discover certain things about the social, political, and cultural world that Jesus and his followers may have inhabited. Sure, we can debate about the meaning of our findings (this is the work of scholarship), but should we just throw our hands up in the air and say that our debates get us nowhere, let’s all just read the texts from our own perspectives? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, postmodernism and ideological criticism gives us a helpful corrective: we can’t know everything. Like my friend, Matt, I’m inclined to say it is helpful to recognize our presuppositions in our research. I think that if we are honest with ourselves and know what we would like to see in the texts, we can become more productive scholars. So, I am an Anabaptist with affections for liberationist and feminist readings of the biblical texts. I then seek out texts that challenge those perspectives and try to, as Brueggemann states, “hear” them.

I suppose what I now have to be careful of is that I don’t go so far to the extreme of looking for texts that challenge my perspective that I am more predisposed to see challenges than otherwise.

There was a great story on NPR this evening about Huckabee’s rhetorical allusions to biblical stories (as he continues to run as the most Christian candidate). The story was put together by Barbara Bradley Hagerty, who interviews Stephen Prothero especially concerning the fact that so many people don’t understand what Huckabee is talking about. The story is fantastic to listen to, just to hear the responses people give, trying to guess what Huckabee means by things like “the widow’s mite has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world” or “one small smooth stone is even more effective than a whole lot of armor.”

It would be great to listen to in a classroom setting on biblical studies. The NPR page has the story in text as well as audio. [James at Old in the New also took note of the story and gives some analysis.]

Update (2/11/08): Did you hear Huckabee say this weekend that he didn’t major in math, he majored in miracles? Ugh.