Bible scholarship and POV
editIt has recently come to my attention that there is an effort on Wikipedia to suppress minority (read: traditional) points of view on Bible authorship (Noticeboard). I have yet to determine whether this is by community consensus, or is merely the effort of a militant few.
To be clear, I am not a Bible scholar. I don't read Bible journals, let alone write for them. I am not prepared to debate theories on Bible authorship, nor do I particularly desire to. I certainly wouldn't claim to know the authoritative interpretation of the Book of Daniel, as some appear to. But I've been around enough to know that there are at least a significant minority of Biblical scholars with doctoral degrees from respected universities (does Oxford qualify?), who regularly produce scholarly works on the Bible, yet who disagree with the prevailing view on some of these issues.[1]
I ask nothing radical, only that people respect established policy and guidelines.
- Do not make exaggerated statements about scholarly consensus, e.g., "Today scholars are virtually unanimous in rejecting Mosaic authorship of the Torah" (Composition of the Torah).[2]
- Do not make original assertions unsupported by (or contradicting) sources, e.g., "The idea [of original sin] ... was introduced by the Apostle Paul..." (Adam).[3]
- Do not assert as fact statements that are contested by a significant minority, or may plausibly be refuted by future evidence, e.g., "The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse...", where the notional evidence could be a 3rd-century BC manuscript (Book of Daniel).[4][5]
I recognize that the community consensus may not support me on this. If not, I'll let it drop. I have no interest in fighting a lost cause.[6][7]
Notes
edit- ^ Why their voice is not more evident on Wikipedia is uncertain, but I expect it has to do with the observations expressed in the essay WP:Systemic bias.
- ^ One of the cited sources in fact says, "There is a consensus among modern biblical scholars that the present text of the Bible is the final product in a long evolution." This is a much more modest statement in terms of both acceptance ("consensus" vs. "virtually unanimous") and content (it does not reject the possibility that Moses was part of that evolution). I do not have access to the other source.
- ^ This directly contradicts one of the cited sources, "Paul is not constructing an original argument that sin and death were released into the world through Adam, but presupposes that this understanding of sin is known to his readers in the Roman church." The other cited source has no bearing.
- ^ The example is given, among others, of continental drift, which was once considered a fringe theory, but later became mainstream after new evidence surfaced.
- ^ Some claim that any earlier date for Daniel is impossible since it appears to include a prophecy that was fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. This argument relies on two assumptions, that (a) the intent and interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel can be understood with confidence, and (b) no prophecy ever comes true, not even by chance. I don't need to be a Bible scholar to recognize the fallacy in both these assumptions.
To be fair, the article on Daniel describes other evidence from 2nd century sources that I personally find more compelling. However, I don't have access to the sources; and other articles, notably Hebrew Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls, appear to cast doubt on their assertions, based on my hasty, non-scholarly reading.
But I digress. Whether I, or any other individual, is convinced by these arguments is immaterial to the central point. - ^ Alas, I share this trait in common with one of the more respectable political figures I know of.
- ^ I had a section in here on conduct standards, but deleted it. Most users (one glaring exception) seem to take these principles for granted (which I find remarkable, given my less savory experience in other Internet environments).