Ron Hendel’s Proposals for SBL do not go far enough

Ron Hendel’s BAR piece has created a stir. James McGrath provides a first set of links. Other recent examples: Doug Chaplin, Chris Heard, and Phil Sumpter (here and here). The Society itself and a number of SBL members on various threads have taken the time to correct and supplement a number of Hendel’s supporting observations. I was surprised by the tameness of Hendel’s constructive proposals in comment #18 on the SBL thread. They do not go far enough. Not by a long shot.

Here are Hendel’s proposals:

1. Put the word “critical” back into the SBL mission statement, yielding the phrase: “to foster critical scholarship.”

2. Move the RBL back into the oversight of the JBL editors. The decline in quality arguably began with its autonomy.

3. Outside groups should be allowed to operate their own sections at SBL only if they endorse the principle of academic freedom, i.e. the free exercise of critical scholarship.

Re #1. The diction of a previous formulation of SBL’s purpose was preferable: “to stimulate the critical investigation of the classical biblical literatures.” Regardless, “critical scholarship” or “critical investigation” without further qualification cannot be anything other than scholarship that is critical over against a given of some kind, be it a text, the presumed genre of a text, the presumed author and date of a text, but also, over against methods of investigation of biblical literature new and old. Critical scholarship is what Wellhausen did, mixed in with what Solomon Schechter famously called “higher Anti-Semitism.” Critical scholarship is what feminists do, when they critique the model of reason Hendel upholds. Critical scholarship is what John Piper does when he writes a book-length rebuttal to N. T. Wright’s take on aspects of New Testament theology (both scholars understand their work to be descriptive, not merely prescriptive, in nature).

There is plenty of “critical scholarship” going on inside and outside of SBL. But, as I just exemplified, it is unworkable to propose that “lower” and “higher” criticism of the Bible fall within the bounds of politically correct discourse in academic biblical scholarship whereas "higher" criticism of the methods of historical-critical investigation applied to the Bible, or attempts at description of biblical theology, do not. It is essential to the wellbeing of SBL that it embrace the critical scholarship of the likes of Ron Hendel, Michael Fox, and John Collins, but no less essential that it embrace the meta-critical contributions of the likes of Brevard Childs, Jon D. Levenson, and Carleen Mandolfo.

Above and beyond the reinsertion of the word “critical” in the mission statement, a revision of the strategic vision statements and core values of SBL (all here) is worth considering. To the core values, one might add “critical thought,” “free inquiry,” and “cross-disciplinary research,” with “leadership in biblical scholarship” tightened up to read “leadership in fully informed and carefully documented biblical scholarship.” The idea that SBL ought to develop “resources for . . . religious communities” should be scrapped. “Students, scholars, and the general public” are the diverse audiences for whom SBL as such ought to develop resources, however often individual SBL scholars may teach, write, and engage in research on behalf of particular religious communities.

SBL would do better not to set itself the goal of collaborating with “educational institutions and other appropriate organizations” with a view to fulfilling its mission. The diction does not adequately ground “accountability,” another value affirmed by SBL. Rather, it ought to partner with “educational institutions and other societies and organizations that share SBL’s core values and commitment to teaching the controversy that follows from the conflict of interpretations the biblical and cognate literatures engender.” Let me defend this wording however briefly. It remains the prerogative of individual institutions with which SBL collaborates to promote some interpretations rather than others of biblical literature. Academic freedom cannot be defined so as to favor the individual scholar alone, as Hendel seems to suggest, but must be negotiated in relation to the priorities and values of the individual scholar’s host institution. Since the conflict of interpretations which invest biblical literature cuts along and across institutional boundaries in a variety of diverse and legitimate ways, it is all the more important that “critical thought,” “free inquiry,” and “cross-disciplinary research” be seen to presuppose an attitude of tolerance toward interpretations of biblical literature and its cultural contexts which stand in contradiction to one’s own interpretation and/or preferred range of interpretations of one’s host institution. Tolerance is based on the ability to see oneself as others see you. The pedagogic consequences of tolerance in the strong sense are enormous and have yet to be fully modeled in the guild. The honesty of the debate Hendel stirred up is a step in the right direction.

Re #2. RBL is a precious resource of uneven quality. It would be unfair to suggest that RBL reviews are on average more self-indulgent than those of other scholarly venues. That RBL is being held to a higher standard is a back-handed compliment. Informed, lengthy reviews which critique and meta-critique recently published scholarship are always welcome. There are many examples of such in RBL. But there are others reviews that are adulatory rather than critical. The reading of adulation is an apocalyptic waste of time. It is not enough and probably unhelpful to suggest that RBL needs to be under JBL oversight. It would be more effective to move in the direction of stipulating a strong set of guidelines requiring reviews to be thorough, critical, and appropriately tailored to RBL’s international, interconfessional, and secular readerships.

Re #3. Outside groups should not be allowed to operate “their own sections” at SBL. I didn’t know that they were, except in perfectly understandable cases like NAPH and the Nida Institute. For the rest, SBL needs to take its own core value of accountability with greater seriousness. For accountability to have teeth, the steering committee of every section of SBL and ISBL needs to schedule and announce an annual business meeting (above and beyond whatever conversation and planning takes place during the year between steering committee members) as a component of one of its public sessions. A designated member of the leadership structure of SBL ought to be in attendance at business meetings as a matter of routine. The purpose of that member’s presence would be to serve as a resource and as a cheerleader for the SBL’s mission statement, core values, and strategic vision. Should the need for conflict resolution arise, I assume a separate set of procedures is already in place. But I don’t really know. If the Constitution of the SBL is available online, a first attempt on my part to locate it turned up empty.

For further discussion, check out Michael Helfield's comments here.

Comments

[Christopher Heard]

John, you wrote:

Outside groups should not be allowed to operate “their own sections” at SBL. I didn’t know that they were, except in perfectly understandable cases like NAPH and the Nida Institute.

There have been "affiliated organization meetings" and "additional meetings" at the SBL for many years. It's this system that allows "Bibliobloggers" to hold their own session at SBL. It's this system that allows various Christian denominational groups to hold worship services or social gatherings at 7 AM on Sunday morning of SBL. It's this system that allows publishers and schools to hold receptions nightly. Nerfing the additional meetings would have a pretty big ripple effect.

[JohnFH]

Hi Chris,

"Additional" and non-affiliated meetings of publishers and schools and societies of various kinds are one thing. "Affiliated organization meetings" are another. "Sections," which are part and parcel of the aconfessional framework of SBL as such, are still another thing. I meant my comments to refer to the latter and the latter alone. SBL's core value of accountability still needs to come into play in the other examples, but in diluted form.