Misunderstanding of the Fundamentals
There seems to be some misunderstanding amongst bibliobloggers as to what a fundamentalist is.
Jim West has once again started a stir among bibliobloggers. This time by his recent statement that “Fundamentalists contend that the Scriptures of the Bible are inerrant and infallible.”
Jim doesn’t claim that this is the only criteria for determining a fundamentalist, but John Hobbins seems to think Jim does. Into the fray, Chris Tilling has given a few more nuanced points on what he believes fundamentalism is, while Doug Chaplin has chimed in as well.
Through all of this, no one has really given a good definition of fundamentalism. While I hope to write on the errors of innerancy in the next few days, current grading and time constraints allow me only to make a comment on fundamentalism today.
So, here is my more nuanced definition of fundamentalism:
- Fundamentalists believe in the inerrant and infallible nature of their religious texts.
- Fundamentalists apply a simplistic, literal interpretation to the texts they believe to be inerrant and infallible.
- Fundamentalist understand that they and they alone have a true understanding of their religions, based upon their simplistic, literal interpretation of the texts they believe to be inerrant and infallible.
- Fundamentalists are certain that are being persecuted because they and they alone have a true understanding of their religions, based upon their simplistic, literal interpretation of the texts they believe to be inerrant and infallible.
- Fundamentalists hold that their deity will soon intervene in history to defend and exonerate their persecution because they and they alone have a true understanding of their religions, based upon their simplistic, literal interpretation of the texts they believe to be inerrant and infallible.
This definition is more nuanced than the ones I’ve been seeing in this debatet, while broad enough to define not only Christian fundamentalists (which, I conclude is what Jim West originally meant), but also those of other faith traditions as well (e.g. Muslims and Jews).
Yes, Virginia, there are fundamentalists, though I’m pretty sure that John Hobbins isn’t one…
My Problem with Luke-Acts
I am having a problem with Luke-Acts. While it is undoubtedly true that Luke-Acts is a single literary unit, the fact of the matter is that they were split canonically — Luke is sandwiched between the gospels of Mark and John, while Acts functions as a spearhead of narrative jutting into the epistles. One might almost be tempted to call Acts’ canonical location “liminal.” It is this transitional character I am having troubles with. Read more…
Philosophy and Jokes
After being informed by one of my colleagues that what we actually teach is philosophy not literature, I’m tempted to buy Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. I don’t imagine that it will help me teach NT at Eastern, but it might help teaching the amorphous Intellectual Heritage at Temple….
by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein. I don’t imagine that it will help me teach NT at Eastern, but it might help teaching the amorphous Intellectual Heritage at Temple….A Different Angle on the Hebrew Question
Duane Smith and I have both been interacting with Anson Rainey’s recent theory that Hebrew is not a Canaanite language. In short, Rainey holds that Hebrew and Moabite are closer to Aramaic than Phoenician and the Canaanite glosses in the Amarna Letters. That is to say, they really aren’t Canaanite languages. He seems to adopt this position as much for ideological (wanting to see ancient Israel coming from outside the land of Canaan) as much as linguistic reasons (see a short version of the article here).
As I’ve said before, I don’t find the evidence overwhelming and wonder if the differences inherent in the material remains available might explain many of the distinctives that Rainey points to. However, the other night a different angle on the question occurred to me.
Most of us are convinced that the Philistines were among the Aegean groups known collectively as the “Sea People” who causes much destruction at the end of the Bronze Age. However, one look at the Ekron inscription shows a group that has adopted a Northwest Semitic language. While I can’t tell say where Rainey would place this text or its language, the bigger issue seems clear: the Philistines adopt the language of their neighbors. Analogically then, would we not expect ancient Israel to have adopted the language of their neighbors as well?
Please don’t misunderstand, I am making no claim as to the ethnogenesis of ancient Israel. Rather, I’m questioning whether Rainey’s argument provides a valid datum to the issue at all.
A Succinct Introduction to NT Methods
In preparation for teaching a first-year survey of the New Testament, I’ve been looking at books and articles to require my students to read. Dwight Peterson over at Eastern University turned me on to the little book: Four Gospels, One Jesus: A Symbolic Reading by Richard Burridge. The book uses the traditional iconography of the gospels as a tool for teaching the distinctive features of each text.
While I would prefer that my students be guided inductively to the distinctive features in the four gospels, I have to say that he introduction that Burridge gives is wonderful. He goes over all the major critical methods and shows their importance for understanding the gospels. And he does it in thirty-two, easy-to-read pages.
So, my students will definitely be reading his introduction. It will allow me to spend more class time actually reading the gospels to get an understanding of what makes each unique — a process that is much more interesting than lecturing on the joys of redaction criticism as a disembodied concept.
SBL Day 3
Monday, Nov 19th wound up being my final day of SBL this year, due to scheduling conflicts. As such, I tried to pack as much into the day as possible. However, the vagrancies of paper times and the long distances worked against this to some extent, allowing me only to attend two sections. Sitting at Vegas international, awaiting a transfer flight back to Philly, here’s my summary of day three:
SBL Day Two
After a short night of little sleep, Sunday at SBL was fun in a surreal, Kubrick-like sense. Sunday always seems to be the tensest day of the conference, with the highest percentage of suits and ties; and this year was no exception. Heavily caffeinated, here are my highlights from day two:
SBL Day One
I haven’t slept in 23 hours, and I feel great! What with an early flight, a time change and an extroverted personality, I have been running strong for nearly a day straight. While some of this might come out as gibberish, here are my highlights so far:
Read more…
Ministerial Misunderstandings
While it is often par for the course to be considered a pastor/priest/rabbi because one studies the Hebrew Bible, I can’t remember a week in which I had people ask me if I were all three in the course of three days.
Why is it that folks assume that the only people studying the Bible are also of the cloth?
Conceptualizing Wisdom
John Hobbins has written an excellent post entitled Wisdom Literature: A Course of Study. In short, he holds that to study the biblical wisdom literature, one needs 1) to master the literature itself through in depth study of the primary texts, 2) to read other examples of wisdom from the ANE, and 3) to read the thoughts of scholars who have devoted themselves to the subject. While this is (of course) the way to study just about anything, the method in general crashes on the rocks of the survey course. How does one teach wisdom literature to a group of first-year undergrads in about one week?
Ketuvim: the Writings of James R. Getz Jr. 