tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8763814966152995259..comments2024-03-29T15:51:16.932+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Alex Joffe on Why (Some) Academics Don’t Like the Museum of the BibleP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-32203661160264613762018-09-18T00:22:55.083+01:002018-09-18T00:22:55.083+01:00Timothy,
Thanks for your response. Everyone in th...Timothy,<br /><br />Thanks for your response. Everyone in the fields of biblical studies and religious studies has skin in the game. To be fair, none of these scholars are neutral observers. This alone, however, doesn't negate the criticisms made by Baden, Moss, et.al. The question is whether their criticisms are justified. I maintain that many of them are justified based upon what I state above, for example that MOTB knowingly suppresses contemporary scholarship.<br /><br />Critiques of MOTB do not necessarily need to come from a bias against Evangelicalism. I agree with its critics on many points, yet I come from the Pentecostal movement, which few would claim has a bias against Evangelicalism. In terms of "beliefs," I don't know to what specific beliefs you are referring. But I do disagree with the way that MOTB presents information about the bible and its artifacts. I disagree with how it suppresses scholarship.<br /><br />I think that this is one of the major problems with MOTB - that is, this method of keeping its guests in the dark about consensus views and skewing the facts. This is one reason that I no longer work with MOTB. I have the suspicion that others who are still on the inside of MOTB may have similar critiques but cannot speak out because they have signed NDA's.<br /><br />I have read Appelbaum's article in Mosaic. Appbelbaum is misinformed/under-informed on several points, but especially when she writes, "critics, try as they might, have been unable to find actual examples of any such agenda in the museum’s core exhibits." This is an argument from silence. Simply because Appelbaum hasn't found any or doesn't know of any doesn't mean that no bias exists. In fact, I can and have pointed out many problems, including at a public lecture that I gave last week. Additionally, numerous other scholars have pointed out such issues.D. Bradnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-5904855905111049982018-09-17T23:54:38.182+01:002018-09-17T23:54:38.182+01:00Alex,
Although most of the information on their p...Alex,<br /><br />Although most of the information on their provenance website was already public knowledge. Almost nothing new there. MOTB has claimed that they will make a full provenance list available, and we have been waiting. . . for years. D. Bradnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54656162292619291872018-09-17T22:56:49.276+01:002018-09-17T22:56:49.276+01:00They did add a provenance website - a very minor s...They did add a provenance website - a very minor step, but one that MIGHT reflect some interest in doing better. One big test case will be the database documenting provenance of all their material, which they have promised before - but they don’t seen to be backing down from the claim that this will be made available. We wait and see.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00622052227284823135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-51982944449165166082018-09-17T22:07:45.828+01:002018-09-17T22:07:45.828+01:00DB,
Moss and Baden have ‘skin’ in the game and thu...DB,<br />Moss and Baden have ‘skin’ in the game and thus are no longer neutral observers. Again, your criticism is about their beliefs, which apparently you disagree with. Read the article from Muir Appelbaum, she addresses these type of arguments.<br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-31468412454385434012018-09-17T20:40:14.620+01:002018-09-17T20:40:14.620+01:00But let's also look at changes in addition to ...But let's also look at changes in addition to the return of some artifacts (most of which were only returned due to legal action and not voluntarily).<br /><br />Since opening, what changes, if any, has MOTB instituted due to to scholarly critiques? I'm having trouble thinking of any? Isn't this problematic? Does MOTB want to change? Does it want to get better?<br /><br />In all sincerity here, can anyone provide examples of changes they have made in response to scholarly critiques?D. Bradnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-54623569425588766102018-09-17T20:31:18.331+01:002018-09-17T20:31:18.331+01:00Is there a bias from some critics of MOTB? That...Is there a bias from some critics of MOTB? That's a possibility but not necessarily the case. There are underlying motivations that go beyond evangelicalism and are in addition to provenance. As Moss notes, MOTB also misinforms about the bible, and I agree. Their misrepresentation of the bible and its related artifacts is very problematic.<br /><br />Evangelicals, of all people (and I come from and Evangelical-friendly movement), should be concerned with the approach taken by MOTB. The Museum fails to put all of the cards on the table. They often shelter their guests from commonly held views within the scholarly community in order to push their agenda. This is a disingenuous approach. MOTB is willfully deceptive in its presentation of the artifacts. They take a win at all cost approach, which we are also seeing in American politics from the religious right.<br /><br />So, regardless of one's theological leanings, all scholars should be concerned when education about the bible and religion is conducted in this manner. I think that simply pointing to an underlying bias against Evangelicals misses the core of the critiques. In my opinion the core is that MOTB uses shifty methods and that some Evangelicals are complicit.D. Bradnicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24339605505942985812018-09-17T19:50:46.943+01:002018-09-17T19:50:46.943+01:00That would fall under “clear problems with provena...That would fall under “clear problems with provenance.” The issue is whether that’s the <em>only</em> problem some of the critics have. In Yates’s case, clearly not. In Baden’s case, maybe not. Absolutely none of that exonerates the museum for its faults. But the other question shouldn’t be dismissed as I see it, not least because the larger question is whether we want to see the museum improve and succeed or get worse and fail.Peter Gurryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10396444437216746412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-24277106038362059832018-09-17T19:37:12.186+01:002018-09-17T19:37:12.186+01:00ATF,
Your response to this article is exactly the ...ATF,<br />Your response to this article is exactly the reason this article was written. (Some) academics like to pretend that nothing has changed at the MOTB since the federal court ruling as a pretense for their dislike of the Greens. Even when writing about the return of artifacts that were discovered to have been obtained illegally by others prior to their purchase by the MOTB, (some) academics had to spend more space lamenting the past then acknowledging the present. <br />PG,<br />Diana Muir Appelbaum wrote a similar article, though much more detailed, back in January of 2018 in Mosiac.<br /><br />TimTimothy Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06641788186736340533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-30486876029685274882018-09-17T18:43:10.959+01:002018-09-17T18:43:10.959+01:00The Museum of the Bible / its founders have litera...The Museum of the Bible / its founders have literally been found guilty of smuggling antiquities. Their "fair hearing" wasn't done by public academics but by a US federal court. (Some) academics often don't like groups that have been found guilty of antiquities smuggling. Any attempt to make it anything else is a result of a persecution complex.Alan Taylor Farneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03921262331705982176noreply@blogger.com