Top tier, 2nd tier . . . according to who?

[Teluog]

As I've been looking into which schools are the best of the best in consideration of graduate programs in Bible/theology, I'm becoming more aware of which schools are worthy of consideration and which ones aren't. Especially thanks to Gupta's chart as seen here: http://cruxsolablog.com/phd-advice/

My question is this: who decides and ranks which schools belong in which tier? What factors are these schools ranked on (quantity of publications produced from their staff? Placement rate?)

My other question is where else besides that blog post can one find a list of divinity schools and seminaries according to rank? Gupta seems to have forgotten about Vanderbilt and Trinity Western/ACTS seminaries in western Canada.

[Lux Lex Pax]

The closest thing to an official ranking of graduate programs in religion is:

http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings/religion

It's based on data from the National Research Council. It's primary virtue is that it's based on concrete data collected from the departments themselves. The downside is that the information is old and, therefore, doesn't reflect changes in the field (like faculty departures). It also isn't broken down into subfields, which is probably more important than overall department rankings.

Despite some claims of objectivity, the rankings game is inevitably impressionistic and subjective. Rankings rely on criteria for what counts or ought to count as "the" best. Criteria, however, are 1) value-laden and 2)vary from person to person, depending on his or her interests (especially subfield interests). One's criteria for evaluating graduate programs are not going to be the same as anyone else's unless one has the same values and interests as others and one agrees with the various judgements others make as to how the criteria apply in specific instances. That's why anytime someone puts forward his rankings of religion/theology programs others will inevitably and vehemently disagree.

Perhaps it would be better, then, if rather than asking for a generic ranking of programs, you told us what you value in a graduate program and what interests you have. Then, we could help point you in the right direction. For instance, do you value prestige, mentoring, or funding or all three or some mix of them or something else? Are you interested in OT, NT, ethics, theology, history, or a non-Christian religion? What approach, methodology, thinker, or school of thought tickles your fancy? Once you've answered some of these questions, you (and we) will be in a better position to rank programs accordingly.

[Teluog]

So what is it that makes Harvard Divinity, for example, top tier? Is it simply because Harvard has been a staple school in America for years? Is it merely because it's always been a popular school, or is its faculty truly known as producing the best scholarship and best student satisfaction?

Perhaps it would be better, then, if rather than asking for a generic ranking of programs, you told us what you value in a graduate program and what interests you have. Then, we could help point you in the right direction. For instance, do you value prestige, mentoring, or funding or all three or some mix of them or something else? Are you interested in OT, NT, ethics, theology, history, or a non-Christian religion? What approach, methodology, thinker, or school of thought tickles your fancy? Once you've answered some of these questions, you (and we) will be in a better position to rank programs accordingly.

Fair enough. I guess my biggest worry is acquiring an actual teaching job upon graduation, preferably in a generic evangelical institution. But any school that isn't too left wing or too right wing would be fine, regardless of denomination (I realize I might be asking too much already!) Thus I would need a doctoral program that will allow for good networking and make your resume or vitae look really good.

I would also greatly appreciate a program that offers some pedagogical training aside from TAships. I don't just want to teach, I want to be a good teacher.

I am also going to need a school that offers as full funding as possible and/or the cheapest tuition.

As for subject matter, I'm interested in biblical studies and theology as a whole, but more biblical than theology. I'm interested in studying the Bible in a way that I call "inside and outside." Inside being exegesis and hermeneutics (biblical languages, historical background, archaeology, what a passage teaches theologically, etc.); outside being the higher and lower critical issues (form criticism, textual criticism, historical issues, etc.) In sum, I'd love to study everything from the interpretation of Genesis one to JEDP to historical Jesus to Johannine theology. I realize this is a broad outlook but I'm aware that no one really ends up teaching exclusively on their dissertation area of study, and thus interdisciplinary expertise is highly valued.

If I had to narrow it down, so far I'm thinking of majoring in OT and minoring in NT. So far it seems that Chicago Divinity is the best gig. But I need to mention that I have a bachelors in arts and biblical studies and need a good masters before a doctoral program, and I'm aware that one school's masters program doesn't necessarily entail that they have a good doctoral program . . . or does it?

I live about 45 minutes from both McMaster Divinity and Toronto School of Theology, and I hear good things about them. Gupta's blog post lists both as top tier so if anyone has experience with either of those let me know. It'd be ideal to not have to move away.

[Lux Lex Pax]

Harvard Divinity is top tier because of prestige, funding, and other institutional resources; it's loaded, when compared to other div schools or seminaries. The issue with HDS is that there aren't many resources for the study of Christianity (scriptures, history, theology, ethics, etc.) for people who care about, identify with, or work within the tradition. It has a pretty strong feminist, liberationist, post-colonialist, post-Christian, etc. vibe. The good news is that, I think, most conservative or evangelical schools would gladly hire someone from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or any other prestigious institution as long as one is willing to sign the statement of confession or go through any other hoops they want one to jump through.

Given your academic interests, I'd say you're a good fit for Notre Dame's Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity program. Check it out. I'm sure others will have other recommendations.

[Macrina]

I'm in end of semester essay madness, so no time to actually write a response, but here's another list that sometimes gets mentioned on here.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/11/ranking-theology-programs

[sacklunch]

As I've been looking into which schools are the best of the best in consideration of graduate programs in Bible/theology, I'm becoming more aware of which schools are worthy of consideration and which ones aren't. Especially thanks to Gupta's chart as seen here: http://cruxsolablog.com/phd-advice/

My question is this: who decides and ranks which schools belong in which tier? What factors are these schools ranked on (quantity of publications produced from their staff? Placement rate?)

My other question is where else besides that blog post can one find a list of divinity schools and seminaries according to rank? Gupta seems to have forgotten about Vanderbilt and Trinity Western/ACTS seminaries in western Canada.

 

 

Ugh. That blog is....uhh...questionable. I stopped reading after: "None of the programs in the US that I consider to be FT (first-tier) are seminaries.Are you willing to study somewhere that does not have respect for the inerrancy of Scripture?"

 

If you truly believe in the inerrancy of scripture, then you would likely hate your life while studying at any 'mainline', and especially any 'top', divinity/seminary in the US. I have been told countless times that one of the big reasons Americans go and study in Europe is because they can 1) maintain their conservative beliefs (it's just a dissertation) and 2) the conservative schools will hire them afterwards without worry that you have been 'tainted.' As one said above, the conservative schools may hire one with a PhD from Harvard, as is clearly the case browsing through some department websites.

 

But let's just step back and answer the very basic question: What do you think is the purpose of a PhD? If you answer this question as the author of the blog you linked, that one chooses a doctoral program based on "theological orientation," then, I think, you have 'missed the mark' (see what I did there...!?). Imagine we pose the same question to those considering getting a PhD in Egyptology, hell even English literature. What do you think their answer would be? And would an answer resembling "in order to validate the worship of Isis" sit right with you?

 

cheers

[newenglandshawn]

But let's just step back and answer the very basic question: What do you think is the purpose of a PhD? If you answer this question as the author of the blog you linked, that one chooses a doctoral program based on "theological orientation," then, I think, you have 'missed the mark' (see what I did there...!?). Imagine we pose the same question to those considering getting a PhD in Egyptology, hell even English literature. What do you think their answer would be? And would an answer resembling "in order to validate the worship of Isis" sit right with you?

 

cheers

 

This seems to be a very close-minded perspective. That a person might pursue a PhD for religious/theological reasons doesn't make his/her quest any less legitimate than a person who has more "secular" motives. The person who believes that there is a God who has revealed Himself through a Scriptural text has just as much right to approach doctoral studies from his/her agenda as a person who believes no such thing. We all come with our presuppositions and agendas.

 

So if a person wants to approach Egyptology trying to validate their worship of Isis, why should we care?

[Joseph45]

"So if a person wants to approach Egyptology trying to validate their worship of Isis, why should we care?"

 

But if that person wouldn't study anywhere that didn't agree that Isis is divine (and divine in very specific ways), would you really take that person's scholarship that seriously?

[newenglandshawn]

"So if a person wants to approach Egyptology trying to validate their worship of Isis, why should we care?"

 

But if that person wouldn't study anywhere that didn't agree that Isis is divine (and divine in very specific ways), would you really take that person's scholarship that seriously?

 

Again, who cares?

 

And it cuts both ways. For every "Egyptologist" who won't study at programs that don't think Isis is divine, there are plenty of others who won't study at programs that do think Isis is divine. Or, if it isn't already evident, there are plenty of persons who will not study at institutions that have an inerrant view of Scripture - which means they are also narrowing the field. To say a priori that these individuals are more sincere in their pursuit of a PhD (because that is what getting a PhD is all about, after all) is begging the question.

[sacklunch]

This seems to be a very close-minded perspective. That a person might pursue a PhD for religious/theological reasons doesn't make his/her quest any less legitimate than a person who has more "secular" motives. The person who believes that there is a God who has revealed Himself through a Scriptural text has just as much right to approach doctoral studies from his/her agenda as a person who believes no such thing. We all come with our presuppositions and agendas.

 

So if a person wants to approach Egyptology trying to validate their worship of Isis, why should we care?

 

My point was merely that if these are the kinds of considerations (e.g. if scripture is inerrant) when deciding where to attend graduate school (PhD!) then I think they have 'missed the mark', yes, in my own estimation. But my own judgement on this issue, I think, reflects the larger 'attitude' at pretty much any mainline school offering a doctorate (and thus such a person would not enjoy their time there). My answer would have been entirely different if we were talking about M* programs, of course.

 

As for why should I care if someone worships Isis and happens to study Isis-related texts (which are inerrant)? It doesn't bother in the least. Would I question a 'fundamentalist' Isis scholar? I suppose, in theory, I would never know one way or the other reading their work. Admittedly things get a bit complex when one studies the very crux of their faith. I also readily admit that one's biases are always peeking through and the rigors of the scientific method (and thus naturalism) have been thoroughly adopted by mainstream (secular) scholarship to suppress such 'issues', which by definition (should) exclude particular forms of evidence (for scholars to validate phenomena independently under rigorous methodologies, theoretically). Though in this case, I think I would be highly suspicious of a scholar's work if s(he) wrote on, for instance, the NT and believed it was inerrant. Again, it's nothing personal, but having such an opinion, for me, is just untenable.

 

Imagine if you were in a graduate seminar on Darwinism (let's say it's a course in literature, philosophy, and so on). If a student in the course happened to be a 'fundamentalist' Darwinist (stay with me now...!) and believed that anything Darwin wrote was the word of (some) god, would that bother you? It might not, actually. But if during a course assignment or paper students were required to discuss how Darwin acquired his theories and the student could only conclude that Darwin acquired them by divine means (or perhaps Darwin was a god), would that be problematic? Perhaps I am setting up a straw man. Perhaps the example sounds absurd. 

[Kuriakos]

If you want a guaranteed job, don't get a PhD in the Humanities. I know lots of Duke, Harvard, etc. PhDs who have struggled to find employment. Brilliant people, too. 

[sacklunch]

Also, to anyone out there:

How likely do you think it is that one studying some form of scripture would or would not allow their belief of innerant scripture to influence their scholarship? And if it would influence their scholarship, is that bad?

 

newenglish: I do not mean to upset anyone, for what it's worth. I welcome the diversity of opinions! 

[trinitymatthew]

Rankings are always subjective, but data is a little more objective. Auburn Theological Seminary in NY has studied which graduate programs in theology (broadly speaking) have contributed the most faculty to theological schools in North America. The linked document (from 2010) lists the top 20+ programs and notes which offer full funding and which don't, how that impacts admissions, denominational affiliation, etc. Included are the big names anyone would expect: Harvard, Chicago, Yale, Duke, Vanderbildt, Toronto School of Theology, GTU, Claremont, Union Seminary, Boston University. Several evangelical programs are also included. It's a good and useful read. It doesn't attempt to rank the programs but basically states that these are the programs that lead and have led to the most academic teaching positions (in theological schools). http://www.auburnseminary.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20a%20Study%20of%20Doctoral%20Programs_0.pdf  

[xypathos]

Also, to anyone out there:

How likely do you think it is that one studying some form of scripture would or would not allow their belief of innerant scripture to influence their scholarship? And if it would influence their scholarship, is that bad?

 

newenglish: I do not mean to upset anyone, for what it's worth. I welcome the diversity of opinions! 

 

Again, who cares? There are some people that come from top schools that have spotty scholarship. Graduating from Harvard doesn't save you from having a brain fart and writing something that you may regret or reconsider 20 years later. As scholars we won't 'mature' until a good decade or two until after we've completed our PhD.

 

We're all biased in how we approach our work. Un/fortunately the name of religious studies leaves so much of our work to conjecture and our well-meaning educated guesses. If you're doing historical approaches, then you can say X happened, though scholars may differ on X happening because of Y, Z, or some combination thereof. In other subfields it's much more so open to interpretation. If some scholar interprets the material and concludes "Jesus was divine" and another concludes differently - who cares? We need the differing opinions in the academy, even if we disagree with them - it's how we all grow.

 

While certainly not a hard and fast rule - generally those that hold an inerrant view of scripture don't go teaching at Harvard or other mainline schools. They're more likely to end up at a seminary and that's okay too. Those students attending that seminary, at that point of time in their life, need that scholar and s/he needs them.

 

So no, it's not bad - just different. If reading from scholars that interrupt scripture as inerrant is problematic for you, don't read them or work with them.

[Joseph45]

"If some scholar interprets the material and concludes "Jesus was divine" and another concludes differently - who cares?"

 

First, I'm kind of interested in how the "who cares" line is your primary rhetorical strategy for backing you position that starting out with a commitment to inerrancy doesn't affect one's scholarship more than any other bias that all of us hold in one way or the other. The answer, of course, is just about everybody in RELS cares. They know scholarship is dramatically affected by those types of commitments.

 

Secondly, the line I quote above is a very different type of thing that insisting from the start that "I won't go anywhere unless they hold inerrancy of Scripture." There's a difference between deciding something after study and deciding what a condition of your outcomes before you begin studying.

 

That doesn't mean I don't think we all have biases, but I do think there's a difference between self-consciously committing to a bias before one starts a PhD program and self-consciously being committed to listening to various arguments, even if one can never fully overcome one's own biases. The latter position may, at times, appear to be similar to the first position, for many holding the latter view won't entertain certain types of fundamentalist arguments. They won't entertain those views, however, not because of an a priori commiment, but because there has already been a lot of scholarship done on those questions.

 

For example, I don't really take people seriously who hold that Moses wrote the Penteteuch, but that's not because I'm really opposed to the idea. I don't care. I don't take those people seriously because there has already been a lot of scholarship on that question. And pretty much all of the scholar who aren't a priori committed to the position that Moses wrote the entire Penteteuch have shown (pretty decisively) that it's ridiculous to think Moses wrote the Penteteuch. The only people disagreeing with this are the people who refuse to study anywhere that doesn't make their faculty sign statements about exactly what type of conclusions their scholarship can come to. You can say "bias" "bias" "bias" all you want, but I don't take those people seriously, and nobody else does except for them.

[Joseph45]

Rankings are always subjective, but data is a little more objective. Auburn Theological Seminary in NY has studied which graduate programs in theology (broadly speaking) have contributed the most faculty to theological schools in North America. The linked document (from 2010) lists the top 20+ programs and notes which offer full funding and which don't, how that impacts admissions, denominational affiliation, etc. Included are the big names anyone would expect: Harvard, Chicago, Yale, Duke, Vanderbildt, Toronto School of Theology, GTU, Claremont, Union Seminary, Boston University. Several evangelical programs are also included. It's a good and useful read. It doesn't attempt to rank the programs but basically states that these are the programs that lead and have led to the most academic teaching positions (in theological schools). http://www.auburnseminary.org/sites/default/files/Report%20on%20a%20Study%20of%20Doctoral%20Programs_0.pdf  

Honest question, does the study take into account that some programs graduate more people than others? (i.e., a school's placement rate is much more important for a prospective student than the percentage of the scholars who came from that school).

[newenglandshawn]

For example, I don't really take people seriously who hold that Moses wrote the Penteteuch, but that's not because I'm really opposed to the idea. I don't care. I don't take those people seriously because there has already been a lot of scholarship on that question. And pretty much all of the scholar who aren't a priori committed to the position that Moses wrote the entire Penteteuch have shown (pretty decisively) that it's ridiculous to think Moses wrote the Penteteuch. The only people disagreeing with this are the people who refuse to study anywhere that doesn't make their faculty sign statements about exactly what type of conclusions their scholarship can come to. You can say "bias" "bias" "bias" all you want, but I don't take those people seriously, and nobody else does except for them.

 

This discussion is getting a little far afield, but this point is funny to me. It all depends on which biases you are committed to. There are plenty of people who have studied the question of Pentateuchal authorship who have come to the conclusion that it is "pretty decisive" that Moses wrote it. Now, again, that may seem absurd to those who think it's very decisive in the other direction; but, again, that speaks to a person's presuppositions more than anything else - in my opinion. It's very easy to say that the "preponderance" of evidence overwhelmingly favors one side, and then when presented with a whole lot of data that contradicts that conclusion to then say, "Well, those people who arrived at that conclusion have their biases and can't be taken seriously anyway." It's like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. 

 

I have had professors who believed in Mosaic authorship who were more than willing - and did - study in doctoral programs who vehemently opposed that perspective. So it's not the case of only people who won't study at programs that have faculty sign statements who maintain Mosaic authorship.

 

Again, this has gotten a little far afield, but thanks for the discussion.

Edited April 28, 2014 by newenglandshawn

[Joseph45]

"We're all biased in how we approach our work . . . We need the differing opinions in the academy, even if we disagree with them - it's how we all grow."

 

I also think there's a danger in the implicit assumption that, if we all have biases, then the bias towards inerrancy is just one bias among many. For one, there's probably a worthwhile difference between commitment to certain dogma and biases, but even if there's not, it's not as if by holding to inerrancy replaces another would-be bias, thus making us all equal in our quantity of biases. More importantly, places that hold to inerrancy are typically very opposed to a commitment to diversity. Not that sexual preference or gender are the only types of bias one can have, but those places are usually very straight male places.

 

All of which is to say, I think it's very disingenuous to claim that a commitment to inerrancy is just (a) one bias among many ( somehow offsets another would-be bias, and © that places that hold such views are otherwise very diverse and committed to multiple viewpoints.

[newenglandshawn]

"We're all biased in how we approach our work . . . We need the differing opinions in the academy, even if we disagree with them - it's how we all grow."

 

I also think there's a danger in the implicit assumption that, if we all have biases, then the bias towards inerrancy is just one bias among many. For one, there's probably a worthwhile difference between commitment to certain dogma and biases, but even if there's not, it's not as if by holding to inerrancy replaces another would-be bias, thus making us all equal in our quantity of biases. More importantly, places that hold to inerrancy are typically very opposed to a commitment to diversity. Not that sexual preference or gender are the only types of bias one can have, but those places are usually very straight male places.

 

All of which is to say, I think it's very disingenuous to claim that a commitment to inerrancy is just (a) one bias among many ( somehow offsets another would-be bias, and © that places that hold such views are otherwise very diverse and committed to multiple viewpoints.

 

I know this is going to sound crazy, but one of my OT professors, who did his doctoral work at a Top Tier program, said that in many regards he would have preferred to do his doctoral work at an evangelical school because it would have given him a broader education (admittedly, he was/is evangelical). This is because at the Top Tier program, they only considered one set of data, and did not even consider (nevermind take seriously) any other sets of data.

 

At many of the evangelical institutions he is familiar with, however (including the one at which he taught), they considered multiple sets of data and took them seriously. Thus, not only do they do serious work from an "inerrancy" perspective (though I hesitate to use the term because it means different things to different people), but they take seriously the work done by those who do not believe in inerrancy. This, again, makes for a "broader" education in his opinion.

 

I know this sounds laughable to those who find the evangelical approach absurdly untenable, and the "inerrancy" bias the chiefest among biases (which I disagree with), but his take was one I found enlightening.

[Joseph45]

I think you're using the "we all have biases" strategy to effectively render all scholarship just subjective opinions. It's starting to sound very similar to me to like the people who deny climate change, evolution, heck, even the moon-landing. At a certain point, you can always disavow all scholarship by saying that "those people have biases." Climate change science= they're all just liberals who hate America; evolution= all a bunch of atheist who hate the bible.

 

Yep, we all have biases, but there's a difference between rigorous scholarship and knowing what the answer is before even looking at the text.

 

One more example to show what I mean. If you're committed to inerrancy, you're committed to a whole lot of things when studying Luke-Acts. If you're not committed to inerrancy, you're really not committed to anything when studying Luke-Acts. You don't have to believe every historical detail is inaccurate, you don't have to believe it was written late, you don't have to believe anything. You can even be open to its theological claims being true. It's a much better model of scholarship, biases and all, than an a priori commitment to dogma (which again, is different than biases).

 

And really, since we're talking about doctoral programs, I think you've provided a very excellent argument for why those places shouldn't be taken seriously. If it's all just biases, why study the text? The anti-intellectualism prevalent throughout most inerrancy wings of the church is not coincidence. They have it right. They already know what they believe, and not amount of scholarship is going to change their minds.

[Joseph45]

I know this is going to sound crazy, but one of my OT professors, who did his doctoral work at a Top Tier program, said that in many regards he would have preferred to do his doctoral work at an evangelical school because it would have given him a broader education (admittedly, he was/is evangelical). This is because at the Top Tier program, they only considered one set of data, and did not even consider (nevermind take seriously) any other sets of data.

 

At many of the evangelical institutions he is familiar with, however (including the one at which he taught), they considered multiple sets of data and took them seriously. Thus, not only do they do serious work from an "inerrancy" perspective (though I hesitate to use the term because it means different things to different people), but they take seriously the work done by those who do not believe in inerrancy. This, again, makes for a "broader" education in his opinion.

 

I know this sounds laughable to those who find the evangelical approach absurdly untenable, and the "inerrancy" bias the chiefest among biases (which I disagree with), but his take was one I found enlightening.

You should probably know that I started my education at a school committed to inerrancy. I'm now at a "top tier" program. I disagree strongly.

[marXian]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Joseph45. Isn't asserting that an approach from inerrancy is just as valid as every other approach because absolute relativism a bit disingenuous since we all know that those taking that approach reject any form of relativism as part of the very definition of what it means for the text to be "inerrant?" Put differently, inerrancy necessarily rejects relativism; therefore, I don't see how an argument for its validity can be made by asserting the relativism of all approaches. Inerrancy is not a "bias." It's a dogmatic conviction.

 

There are plenty of evangelical institutions that completely reject inerrancy, Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch, etc. There are also non-evangelical, faith-based, or "open-to-faith" institutions that reject inerrancy as well. Why assume that evangelical institutions are the only places a practicing Christian could attend? Or that inerrancy is the only position a practicing Christian could hold? There are plenty of Christians outside of the walls of evangelicalism.

[sacklunch]

Again, the problem with an inerrant approach to scripture(s) is that it is outside the conventions used in modern scholarship in every single field in the humanities. This is a unique problem for religious studies/theology. What sort of work do we do in text-focused doctoral programs? We follow the same paradigms, however 'secular', that any scholar does in Classics, Philosophy, and so on. The point, I think, is for scholars to be able to come to similar conclusions independently. How many times have you heard a grad student say "I was working on X thesis and I just realized someone wrote a book arguing the very same thing....damn!" This would simply never happen, for example, with the authorship of the NT and/or Torah. If you had a dozen classicists who had never even heard of the NT, or some other supposed inerrant text, they would not conclude its divine authorship using the tools we all utilize in text-critical fields. If we did not we would have quite a large canon full of all sorts of divine Words of gods. 

 

I also think it's worth mentioning that the inerrancy of scripture not only stalemates biblical studies scholarship, in my opinion, but those of us who work in reception and early church/'rabbinics' are thoroughly stifled, too, by such an approach. Whatever one suggests by 'inerrant' it always entails some established body of literature comprising the authoritative "orthodox" corpus. Historically this has had no small part in how we understand the history of early Jews and Christians and finally scholars are starting to overturn that paradigm. At least for my own work, there was no "orthodox" Christianity, nor "orthodox" Judaism well into late antiquity, an argument that relies very much on challenging the traditional "orthodox" canonization of "inerrant" scripture(s). 

 

Hell, let's take it farther. What do we practically do with the pluriformity of scriptures? If an American argues for inerrancy it is generally the Hebrew HB/OT and the Greek NT. But which Hebrew and which Greek? Which codex are we following? How can text-critics then use the LXX (and its daughter versions) as an aid to understanding Leningrad? How do biblical manuscripts that differ from the Masoretic Text help us, if at all? Why should we prefer the MT over Codex Vaticanus (LXXB) when our manuscripts predate it by centuries? Is the Peshitta inerrant? When it differs markedly from the MT/LXX, what does that mean? What is scripture? 

 

And, as Joseph rightly asked: Why should we care to study all of this when we already have the truth?

[Lux Lex Pax]

Let's keep in mind that a text like the bible is read by different communities, readings informed by various traditions of interpretation (historical-critical, confessional, etc.) and with different aims (history, theology, etc). I don't want to suggest that scholarly readings are completely separate from confessional readings, but it is useful to acknowledge that the two don't completely overlap either. I think it's legitimate for theological readings to make claims that historical readings wouldn't (or couldn't). I also think, however, that it's legitimate for historians to challenge faulty historical claims made by theological interpreters and that both (historical and theological) ways of reading can be legitimate scholarly modes of reading. It strikes me that this discussion has completely overlooked the distinctions between different communities of interpretation with their own traditions, methods, and canons of reason that individuals in those communities find persuasive. Biblical interpretation and scholarship isn't a relativist enterprise, but it is one suffused with pluralism of methods, aims, and reasons that are at times convergent or divergent or sometimes have nothing to do with each other.

[newenglandshawn]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Joseph45. Isn't asserting that an approach from inerrancy is just as valid as every other approach because absolute relativism a bit disingenuous since we all know that those taking that approach reject any form of relativism as part of the very definition of what it means for the text to be "inerrant?" Put differently, inerrancy necessarily rejects relativism; therefore, I don't see how an argument for its validity can be made by asserting the relativism of all approaches. Inerrancy is not a "bias." It's a dogmatic conviction.

Not quite. While a person may think Scripture is inerrant, this doesn't necessarily mean he/she believes his/her interpretation of it is. I can readily posit that I believe the Bible is the word of God, while also maintaining that I come to it with my biases and presuppositions (seeking, of course, to ultimately arrive at its true meaning).

Again, as I hinted at before, there are different levels of inerrantists, so I would hesitate to paint with a broad brush.