
July 10, 2017
What’s Next for Biblical Studies
By Joshua BermanSource criticism has failed, and a systemic bias pervades academic biblical studies. But computational linguistics promises to open up the Bible in new and reliable ways.
It’s been an honor to read and think about the responses to my essay, “The Corruption of Biblical Studies.” Jon Levenson, David Carr, Craig Bartholomew, and Benjamin Sommer are fellow scholars from whose insights I have greatly benefited over the years. With the aid of their comments I’ve come away understanding my own positions more thoroughly, and with deeper appreciation for the positions of those with whom I disagree. No one could wish for more.
For the purposes of this reply, I’ve focused on a limited number of key points and arguments made by one or more of my respondents, in hopes of clarifying the issues between us and, if possible, advancing the discussion.
I’ll begin at the beginning, with my contention that source criticism, the dominant sub-field in the academic discipline of biblical studies, is in a state of “confusion and professional crisis.” Both David Carr and Benjamin Sommer believe that, despite the corroborating judgments I cited from the mouths of prominent source critics, I’ve overstated the paralysis and impasse currently gripping the field.
Subscribe to Continue Reading
Get the best Jewish ideas and conversations. Subscribe to Tikvah Ideas All Access for $12/month
Login or SubscribeResponses to July 's Essay
July 2017
Deeper Reasons for the Bias in Biblical Studies
By Jon D. LevensonJuly 2017
Academic Biblical Criticism Is Not Corrupt
By David M. CarrJuly 2017
Why Biblical Scholars Should Declare Their Worldviews
By Craig BartholomewJuly 2017
Biblical Scholars Are Open to Self-Correction, and They Listen to Conservatives, Too
By Benjamin D. SommerJuly 2017
What’s Next for Biblical Studies
By Joshua Berman