To paraphrase Richard Dawkins,
Biblical scholar is an oxymoron. By definition a scholar has read more than one book.
Amusing. Mundane. Pointless. Shared.
I would assume that a biblical scholar, one with an advanced degree, would have read many books on the Bible. Take Wayne Grudem, for example. He literally wrote the book on biblical scholarship and has read(well, I assume) hundreds of books on the bible.
Scholars love chasing citations…
Biblical scholar 1 cites the bible **
Biblical scholar 2 cites {**} and publishes [B1].
Biblical scholar 3 cites a subset of {**,[B1]} and publishes [B2]
etc.
Of course at each step there are many such scholars. There are millions of biblical scholars today. They cite either ** or … ?
Moved MPSIMS --> Great Debates.
I wonder how long we’ve got until the first Courtier’s Reply shows up.
Does the OP have the actual quote of Dawkins’ that he’s paraphrasing? I have a hard time believing Dawkins would have actually said something that silly.
There are scholars who study works like Gilgamesh or Beowulf or the Iliad. A scholar reads the work itself and then reads other books about the work.
They don’t even need to confine their reading to books directly about the Bible; someone who is interested in disentangling the myths from the reality could easily spend at least as much time reading about archaeological findings than about the Bible. Or be an archaeologist himself.
It’s almost exactly what he said:
But the OP seems to have misunderstood the topic. Later the same day he said he wasn’t talking about Biblical scholars. I can’t find the whole conversation but this later tweet might clear it up:
Yeah, the quote is just silly. There are many, many atheist/agnostic/non-Christian/non-Jewish biblical scholars. To really have produced that quote, Dawkins would have to believe that a) biblical scholars ONLY study the bible as some kind of literal history and b) you can’t be a non-Christian/Jew and be a biblical scholar.
As many faults as Diogenes the Cynic’s argumentation style may have had, he knew the field of Biblical scholarship backwards, forwards and sideways, and he’s hardly a believer.
ETA: Ah…that makes more sense. Yeah, theology is almost entirely mental masturbation and I can understand Dawkins’s contempt for that.
(The difference between Tolkien nuts or Trekkies and theologists is that the former don’t REALLY think their field of study is connected to actual reality, generally.)
Dawkins is a biologist. Like many in the hard sciences, he doesn’t have much respect for the arts and humanities.
Biblical scholars (a term, incidentally, that carries no implication whatsoever that the scholars in question have read no other book than the Bible) have probably done more to advance the cause of atheism over the last couple of centuries, than anyone else apart from Charles Darwin himself.
This reminds me of an old quote (I was going to call it a “joke,” but that’s being mighty charitable…)
The great thing about you Brights is that you have no Pope whose pronouncements must be preserved at all costs.
No, he just can’t help himself when religion is involved.
I thought “The God Delusion” was a work of theology.
Atheism is pretty much universal among biologists I understand. And it’s rather unrealistic to expect him to respect a blatantly wrong institution that spends an immense amount of effort calling him and his entire profession liars and monsters.
I have no idea whether that’s true or not, but I don’t think Dawkins’ contempt for religion is a sign that he doesn’t appreciate the arts or the humanities. That is all.
Lol. As if the C of E has ever done anything (this or anything else) so full-throated…
No, but that’s the vibe I get from reading his books. Maybe I’m wrong, but he’s always seemed a bit too dour and focused to care much for “frivolities” like literature and poetry. Compare him to a non-scientist atheist like Stephen Fry - I doubt *he *would denigrate biblical scholarship.
Both parts of your statement are painting with a broad brush. There are two members of faculty in the dept. of Biology who attend my church.
Then again, my church has no issue with evolution. As a matter of fact, many of the largest faiths support evolution:
http://www.pewforum.org/science-and-bioethics/religious-groups-views-on-evolution.aspx
I’ve read many of his books, but only the ones dealing with Biology, so I wouldn’t know. But I would be surprised if he treated all the arts and humanities in the way he treats religion.
Besides, where did you get the idea that Biology is a “hard science”? 