Is The Guild of Biblical Scholars a WASP Fraternity?

Charles Halton has an excellent blog. He got my goat, however, with his “Top Ten Old Testament Scholars since 1800” list.

 For starters, it is an all-WASPM all-the-time list. The only exception is Thomas L. Thompson (Catholic by background, I-don’t-know-what-anymore by choice).

 Is the field of OT Studies really a WASP fraternity? I can’t imagine that it was Halton’s intention to give that impression.

 Secondly, his top ten scholars, except for Wellhausen, belong to the twentieth and twenty first centuries, not to the nineteenth. This is skewed.

 Thirdly, with the exception of John Van Seters (a Canadian), everyone is either a German or an American. That’s pretty odd, too.

 Fourthly, since biblical studies makes progress in direct proportion to its ability to assimilate stimuli from adjacent fields of study, a list of all-Fachleute (guild members) all-the-time needs, at the least, supplementation. (Truth be told, Gunkel was a bit of an outsider, but that’s another story.) I like Halton’s idea of a “Top Ten Near Eastern Scholars Since 1800,” though it would be more helpful to have a list of Near Eastern Studies specialists whose work deserves to be better known by scholars of Hebrew Bible/OT. Charles might do that better than I.

 I am looking forward to Halton’s series on Stephen Kaufman. I never regret reading something Kaufman has written. It is always interesting.

 It’s not fair to leave it at that. See the next posts for alternative lists.

Comments

[foobar]

I thought William Dever converted to Judaism.

[John Hobbins]

True enough. Dever is WASPM by background, Jewish by choice.

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

This is a good critique and the follow up lists are excellent. I do have to defend Gottwald, though. His influence may have been a flash in the pan in Euro-America, but it has been a lasting influence on scholars in the Two-Thirds World. The work of Jorge Pixley, Otto Maduro, and other "liberation Alttestamentlers" all draw upon Gottwald.

[[email protected]]

i remember my baptism, it iwas a bin of dionisio silk's, is it? i love you GOD saviuor people of my world , a very well disciplined people of friends,children, and love. amen

[Hansen]

I'm not surprised that there are no Roman Catholic scholars included in the list. Although not a real scholar myself, I know how to read.

Take for example, the Anchor Bible on Daniel. Compare it with Keil and Delitsch. The Anchor Bible Daniel Comentary is poorly done. It is a bad reflection on the Anchor Bible as a whole, to include such a work in the series.

The skeptical, critical, condescending attitude of the writer of the Anchor Daniel was extremely distasteful. I study Scripture because I have already decided, after decades of study and personal experience, that it is the Word of God, divinely inspired. It's purpose is to show sinners the way of salvation.

Admittedly, I didn't read much of the
Anchor Daniel volume because the unbelief that emanated from the pages I did read, is not to my taste.

Perhaps I'm just not sophisticated to appreciate critical approaches to Scripture. I do, however, enjoy the spiritual rest I experience in Jesus Christ.