As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead. The post-lecture discussions are often spirited, and occasionally get downright nasty.
The annual SBL conference is a place where young scholars can present their papers, meet senior scholars, and talk to publishers about book projects. Great opportunities are at SBL! Master’s students meet with professors whom they’d like to study with for their PhDs. They make appointments, go out for coffee, or just happen to bump into them at the conference.
He goes to relate a story about treatment levied against one of his students by a scholar because of the student’s education at Dallas Seminary. Read the whole thing:
via Parchment and Pen » Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism.
November 28th, 2009 12:13 pm
The truth is: that any Christian religious studies scholar may come under attack if they believe in the bodily resurrection or Christ, or the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, or traditional marriage of one man and one woman. Especially in theological circles, being for gay rights, doing the queer perspective is the hottest thing right now. This movement is seen as the new civil rights frontier. And on the other hand, many conservatives just avoid intellectual life because of fear of persecution and conflict. Liberals are left in the ivory tower to argue among themselves, with arguments like, who is the most progress, who is fighting the most fights in liberal politics. This exclusion by American liberals is just another form of tribalism,
November 28th, 2009 3:52 pm
Rod, anybody can come “under attack” for anything. It’s called “the marketplace of ideas.”
Joel, I found Dan Wallace’s post disheartening for a different reason. In the course of complaining about the “victimization” of evangelical students by biased liberal scholars, Dan writes off anyone who does not agree with his particular understanding of atonement (“Jesus paid for our sins”) as a non-Christian! Could it be that some of the “liberal bias” against evangelicals is self-inflicted by evangelicals’ tendency to define Christianity by reference to specific doctrines rather than by allegiance to Christ?
November 28th, 2009 5:14 pm
Dan Wallace sarcastically chewed me out for claiming that dominari was the infinitive form of this Latin verb. When someone else later pointed out that I was right about this, he grumbled about his surgery and effects of the drugs. No apology. No graciousness on his part in a real debate.
I have rarely met any man that is so willing to call women rebellious for the simple reason that they don’t agree with him.
Consider this. In the NET Bible notes for Romans 16:7 he is cited as writing,
“Although ἐν plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in collocation with words of perception, (ἐν plus) dative personal nouns are often used to show the recipients.”
But think about the fact that there is absolutely no word of perception in the Greek at all. This occurs only in Wallace’s non-literal translation of episemos as “well-known.”
My opinion is that this kind of writing is pure chicanery. One reason why I dropped out of the bibliosphere is that few are willing to take a stand against Dan Wallace and men like him and declare that his exegesis on women’s issues sometimes contains pure nonsense.
As long as he has the respect of the community and he and his like are not censured for writing about biblical gynecology and other off colour notions about women as receivers and responders, then I am out. It is a dirty sexual atmosphere of submission, not unlike the pornosphere or whatever it is called. Christianity of this sort is not fit for women.
November 28th, 2009 11:52 pm
Sue, it sure seems that you are misremembering our discussions quite a bit. And when you say, “I have rarely met any man that is so willing to call women rebellious for the simple reason that they don’t agree with him” that is, frankly, ridiculous. I have had several female interns at DTS, and I don’t ask them what they believe about the role of women in the church when I interview them. Some are egalitarians, some are complementarians, as I found out later. And I continue to give strong recommendations for those women who are going into an academic or pastoral setting. On what basis can you say that that I would regard a woman to be rebellious simply because she disagreed with me?
November 29th, 2009 1:25 am
Christopher you may be right in that some of the victimization is self-inflicted, but surely you’ve noticed the prejudice he speaks of? I’m a totally an unbiased outsider in all of this, yet seeing that this bigotry is so widely accepted in the biblical studies field, has been the biggest disappointment for me to realize.
November 29th, 2009 1:32 am
Goodness gracious, the accusations in this article remind me of Ben Witherington. Where is the evidence for these outrageous if true claims? Can he read minds? And I would have thought, ignoring Dan’s definition of a “Christian”, that at least 60-80% of the members of the SBL would identify themselves as Christian. Not that it should matter anyway.
November 29th, 2009 1:51 am
Sorry for the lack of response from the host of this blog. I’ve been illified.
It seems to me that bigotry can be, and has been, leveled as a matter of course of human nature. Liberals view conservatives – here, I mean those who believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ – as anachronistic while conservatives view liberals as well, rather soon to be burned. (Not always, mind you, but a great deal.) The SBL, unlike the ETS, is not doctrine specific, which explains why so many, myself included, have joined it. I don’t expect to find in the SBL a closer connection to Christ, or a deepening of my faith – although from some of the scholars and members associated with it, my faith has greatly deepened – but I also don’t want to judge others based on my own doctrines.
I do have a fellowship line, however, but that is for corporate worship, not for biblical discussions.
Not to say that bigotry on any level should be accepted or excused.
November 29th, 2009 2:33 pm
I know for a fact that there are independent British and New Zealand universities where phd candidates are chosen for academic merit regardless of religious or non religious affiliation and previous institutional experience.
Just who does Dan classify as liberal anyway? Does he include all american universities who don’t identify themselves with a denominational epithet (I doubt he includes any theological colleges – which I don’t regard as educational institutions anyway as they don’t allow any academic freedom at all). Does he include all British and European universities in which the academic staff have various beliefs and non beliefs?
Dan Wallace’s accusations are utterly outrageous and his claims to know what people are thinking are ludicrous. He should either withdraw his post or provide proper evidence to support his claims.
Joel, I’m very sorry you have been illified. I hope you are now well curified. And as far as your statements go, I have no argument at all!
November 29th, 2009 2:36 pm
I am almost tempted to write my second blog post on him now but it is such a shame to devote any blogging I ever to to such nonsense. His accusations are nothing more than libel without proper evidence.
November 29th, 2009 2:58 am
Dan,
I am sure you are aware that Mike Burer does not think that he has time to respond to the articles on your joint work on Junia. It appears that you also will not respond to those who question your article on Junia.
I apologize – I believe that other men have used the word “rebellious” but you said “arrogant.” Once you asked me this question,
“Here it is: If you are so against complementarian men, then why is it that you want to teach men so badly?”
Let me explain. I do NOT want to teach men. I don’t want to teach men ANYTHING at all. You knew, and said that you knew, that I had escaped something terrible. That is what I wanted – to get out from under a filthy dirty Christian submission. I never said that I wanted to teach men. I have said that men are not equipped by God to have authority over women. That is what I want to say.
Why did you taunt me with that question? It seemed so disrespectful. You were talking to a woman who basically wanted the right to pee when she needed to and you ask her why she wants to teach men.
I had the books given to us from a minister who trained in DTS, but I threw them in the garbage. I know he is the one who taught the “truth” of the submission of women to our family.
It is not only me, but now more and more women are blogging on the singular resemblance between the submission of women doctrine and the porn scene. I am glad to see that other women are expressing their torment at the hands of Christianity in similar terms.
I suppose for some reason your use of the word “gynecological” always brings a certain concrete image to mind. Combine that with the teaching that childbearing is submission to male leadership and the circle is closed. Submission, sex, childbearing, suffering, – the woman’s role.
Visit the blog called Submission Tyranny and read a few posts there to find another woman, totally unconnected from me, who is pouring out the same grief.
Back to Junia. Why did you do your exegesis of episemos based on the English word “well-known” when the Greek word has no connection to words of perception?
PS I am not against all complementarians, or even most, but specifically those who teach women submission and subordination.
November 29th, 2009 3:20 am
Sue, you certainly are reading a lot into what others say. I apologize about doing the same with you: I thought you wanted to teach men. I can understand your pain, but your viewpoint is so narrowly construed that you interpret all people who believe in some sort of functional subordination as the enemy. As for Junia, I didn’t do that. Read the article in NTS again. Mike will be working on a response but he has truly been busy with his Historical Jesus group. Please try not to read between the lines. And please quit projecting onto me and others who are complementarian all the ills and sin that you have seen. It really is not fair or honest to do so.
November 29th, 2009 3:17 am
Here is another irritating thing. I am a teacher and an experienced tech trainer in my workplace. I was invited, in the past, to meet with people from two Bible software companies. But then I found out that each of them believed that women are saved by childbearing.
Now you can see that this arena is dominated by men. This is NOT because women don’t like technology, but because women don’t want to work in technology with men who think that women are all about childbearing. It is a loss of fellowship and true sharing. I was at one time looking forward to playing with Bible software and seeing what it would do. But now it seems dirtied by the views of those who work with it. It seems sexualized.
November 29th, 2009 3:40 am
“I thought you wanted to teach men.”
Your comment sounded curiously out of place in the conversation. It is true that after learning five languages, I was barred from a PHD program by my ex. But, in fact, I didn’t want to teach but rather work with scripts and and concepts of digital formats – unicode etc.
“but your viewpoint is so narrowly construed that you interpret all people who believe in some sort of functional subordination as the enemy.”
Yes, I believe that functional subordination in marriage opens the door to great evil. The teaching of the submission of women appeals to the same urges in men that makes them view violent porn. This teaching comes from and activates the lowest and most animal impulses in the male. It alienates male and female.
“As for Junia, I didn’t do that.”
I will check the article in JBMW. What is NTS?
I understand that you were one of the authors of the Junia article. Since several Bible translations say “well-known” to the apostles, someone needs to take responsibility for this. I have to say that this kind of exegesis has given me the impression that perhaps all exegesis is of this quality. It was a true eye opener.
In some sense, you along with Grudem, have opened my eyes to the fallibility of evangelical exegesis.
One thing that puzzles me is why you so often refer to the fact that you think egalitarian women just want to teach men. You come back to that often as if you resented it. Do you ever think that women just want to be free of the enormous burden that subordination puts on them. It is not only the women that suffer, but the children too. It is a tragedy for all involved.
November 29th, 2009 3:55 am
Dan,
It appears that the article in JBMW is that same article as in NTS. So, yes, I read it. I find in this article this statement,
“Thus, although evn plus a personal dative does not indicate agency, in
collocation with words of perception, the construction (evn plus)
dative personal nouns is often used to show the recipients. In this
instance, the idea would then be “well known to the apostles.”
You are an author of this article, and I suppose of this statment.
So, my question is simply to ask where the word of perception is in Greek.
This is now in the NET BIble notes, and in several other Bibles. If this point is indefensible, then why isn’t the translation changed back to Andronicus and Junia, outstanding among the apostles?
I can’t help but feel that there is a certain lack of attention to fairness to women. If men are in charge of women, is it to bring them down or to protect their rightful position?
November 29th, 2009 4:43 pm
Joel,
Thanks again for being such a good hearted host.
November 29th, 2009 5:21 pm
No problem, Sue. Wish I could do more to be involved.
November 29th, 2009 6:20 pm
He says “fair and honest”. Hmmm. Is he being “fair and honest”? No.
On another note, do “liberal” universities include those who have female teaching staff?
December 2nd, 2009 3:39 pm
If so, then Dr. Wallace’s own Dallas Theological Seminary would be liberal, as it includes women on the teaching staff.
December 2nd, 2009 5:14 pm
Heavens above no – not a dirty liberal. I suppose the women teach men then?
December 2nd, 2009 6:48 pm
Yes, of course they do.
December 2nd, 2009 8:57 pm
OK. I was just curious why Dan said to Sue ‘I thought you wanted to teach men’. But I wasn’t really involved with their debate.
November 29th, 2009 11:28 pm
I remarked on ths difficulty on the Parchment and Pen blog and was immediately deleted. Dan Wallace will not defend his exegesis in his article on Junia and he will not have the NET Bible changed to reflect the fact that his article is indefensible.
He mourns that DTS students cannot get into the best schools, but he seems unaware that his articles on Junia, as well as his eloquent paper on “Biblical gynecology” bring evangelical Chrisianity into disrepute at any institution which treats women as equals rather than receivers and responders.
I am personally astounded that Dr. Wallace would publish an article that would put the reputation of his institution in jeopardy and therefore harm his student’s chances of being accepted elsewhere.
I also remember that a former DTS grad hounded me on the issue of authentein, by email for some time, since he refused at first to believe that the Baldwin study included a non-existent example of authentein in order to establish the meaing of “to have authority.” FInally he, whoever he was, emailed Kostenberger for verification and that was the end of that.
The animus against women is hard to believe. I can’t understand that someone would risk their reputation just to lower the status of women.
December 3rd, 2009 6:00 pm
[...] against conservative/evangelical students in academia – see various reactions here, here, here, here. Now I respect Daniel Wallace as a great textual critic and his Greek Grammar Beyond [...]
December 3rd, 2009 9:05 pm
Thanks, Joel,
I appreciate your friendship and I know what you are saying about other kinds of abuse in the church. I have seen that too. In some ways, women are not as likely to get into that kind of situation, since they are under their “husband’s authority.” Sheesh. I’ll get over it some day.
December 2nd, 2009 11:13 pm
Dan made that remark in a debate we had a while ago. I have indicated my concerns with his Junia study, that he was working from the English and not the Greek. There are several statements in the study that are less than accurate. However, he refuses to defend it or remove this study from the NET Bible. Therefore the NET Bible has an indefensible position for Romans 16:7.
So he knows I have expressed this concern and I am indignant that there is no response from him or the NET Bible folks.
However, when he made that remark to me, we were arguing about 1 Tim. 2:12. I had pointed out that there is no lexical evidence whatsoever that authentein means “to have authority” in the sense of church leadership. He insisted that there was but refused to provide any. Of course, this is impossible because there isn’t any.
So, he must have felt that he had to attack my motives, so he asked me why I wanted to teach men so much. It was in the context quite a sarcastic remark and uncalled for.A friend of my husband trained at Dallas and taught my husband that a wife had to be obedient. I lived a hellish life until less than three years ago I escaped. Dan knows this.
December 2nd, 2009 11:48 pm
That makes sense and I’m sorry. That was very cruel of Dan Wallace.
December 3rd, 2009 1:51 am
Of course, it wasn’t intentionally cruel. It really seems that most men who write these things don’t actually think about what life would be like if they had been born a woman. They just don’t seem aware of the impact of their words.
December 3rd, 2009 9:23 am
Sue, sorry for the moderation. It wasn’t my doing, but hopefully is fixed now. (IP’s)
December 3rd, 2009 10:22 am
It did seem rather sarcastic. I wouldn’t be sure that it’s just a matter of not thinking what it’s like to be born a woman. I think it’s more a matter of common sense, human compassion and sensitivity. Luckily, other that my ex husband who constantly said cruel things, I don’t know any man as insensitive as this. All my male friends, colleagues and relatives think before they speak, and they’re all rather nice.
December 3rd, 2009 11:06 am
Apart from my ex, a committed Christian, who beat the s**t out of me, my brother told me I would go to hell if I was not an obedient wife, and my minister told me that the husband was the head, that is the authority in the family. Its true that they did not know what was going on, but I was too ashamed to admit what was happening. Then I also went to the same church as Dr. Packer who signed the statement against the TNIV, cause he agreed that it was a concession to worldly culture to use inclusive language.
I know lots of non-Christian men in my workplace who are good buddies, but I am pretty leary of Christian men. Except Joel, who is the model of discretion on these matters and a handful of other blog buddies, like Peter Kirk who are declared egalitarians.
Bible.org, which is the home of the NET bible, from DTS, has a webpage on marriage vows that are all about the obedience and followership of the wife, and the leadership of the husband. I wish that the vow of obedience for a wife could be made illegal. My ex taunted me for years, that I had vowed to obey.
So in my view DTS produces marriage materials which ought to be illegal.
December 3rd, 2009 11:20 am
Coming from an overtly egalitarian country which was the world’s leader in women’s liberation, where for nine years until last year, the three most powerful positions in the country were filled by women, and which is not overtly ‘Christian’, men like that wouldn’t last very long – Destiny Church probably has them all. I’ve been blessed with good men in my life I suppose – no Christian family but plenty of Christian friends and colleagues. The ex was an anti society, ex Buddhist, ex druggy, still partly anarchist – just an angry man in alot of pain … Personally I don’t think there is any excuse to speak to you the way Dan did about ‘teaching men’.
December 6th, 2009 2:48 am
Steph and Joel,
Thanks for a good discussion on the topic. I’ve actually experienced it from both sides.
Steph,
As you know from our discussions over the past couple of years, I’m a pretty standard evangelical. I went to a “liberal” school of religion in the US, where I was a top student. I was top of the class in all of my biblical studies courses (I had a “D” that messed up my perfect GPA overall…but it was in the nasty, dreaded, dare I say evil…biology, haha). Whenever I began looking at grad schools, I had professors who suggested McGill, Harvard, Virginia and other schools where they had friends and assured me that I would get into a top program without issue. They were more than willing to talk to professors and use their friendships to get me into these programs. They knew I was an evangelical, but they also knew I listened to everything they said, understood it, dealt with it and expressed my own thoughts.
Then I suggested that I wanted to go to an evangelical seminary and asked them about their contacts at these schools…their tone literally changed and they backed off promoting me in this area, but were still willing to do whatever to support a “seminary” as long as I choose Claremont or Illiff (neither of which were on my radar).
Then I suggested that I wanted to go to a seminary where one of my professors had formerly taught before becoming “liberal” and had somewhat been asked to move on as he progressed along the spectrum.
Their support turned to opposition. This is the school I ended up attending. I was told that I could not use their names as references and that they would not support me in this decision in anyway. Just to clarify, this school was more moderate than DTS, but still confessing and conservative. Despite having three years of Hebrew, a year of Aramaic and two years of Greek, I had to retake all of the basic classes in these topics because the seminary required two letters from former professors to “test out” of classes. I didn’t have those…and had to waste my time taking these courses when I could have been teaching them.
After seminary, things went back the other way whenever I started applying for MA programs elsewhere. I was now a fundamentalist by some standards…although as anyone who knows me could vouch…I’m FAR from being a fundy. But even if I was a fundy, what does that matter if I’m able to do the research and write at the necessary level?
American schools are truly biased from both sides of this issue and it causes problems for those seeking entrance into programs.
December 3rd, 2009 12:06 pm
Sue, I’ve not really be apart of this conversation, having focused more on that disastrous Manhattan Declaration; however, that ‘obey’ bit is used by pastors as well for congregants, as I have posted on before, in which while the pastor does not physically abuse the parishioners, it generally involves emotional and mental, spiritual, abuse.
I cannot add to or address your situation, except for as a son who saw the abuses of a man who had ‘obey’ wrong and thus destroyed numerous lives.
We loose so much when we refuse to study in the context of the writers.
December 3rd, 2009 9:15 pm
Okay … That seems to be out of order. Oh well.
December 6th, 2009 2:25 pm
Dunno where in the thread this comment will appear but it’s to Ranger. I don’t envy your experience in america. I know how biased institutions are over there. In america scholarship tends to divide into social subgroups which stand in opposition to each other. Hence the fundy atheists and Christian apologists wasting time attacking each other rather than pursuing independent, critical scholarship with the aim to advance knowledge and learning. I am truly grateful to be born where I was and to have a state education in New Zealand and UK, which was neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘conservative’.
December 6th, 2009 2:47 pm
Ranger again: I have enjoyed our conversations and always appreciated your side of things always. I hope to meet you one day – that would be fun.