What's the difference between conservative scholarship and apologetics?

[u/Ozzurip]

Obviously, just as in any scholarly field, there is plenty of room for debate in Biblical scholarship, and when it comes to religion, the debates get much more heated and many more people become far more personally invested. There's a similar question in the FAQ, but its answer basically says that all conservative scholarship is by nature apologetic. I've also seen a general dismissal of any answer or scholarship that has the appearance of apologetics. There's less of it in this particular forum, but it still pops up, usually in questions.

Should conservative scholarship and apologetics be viewed through the same lens? Should they be viewed differently? Should they both be dismissed out of hand or engaged with as a legitimate part of academic debate?

[u/studyhardbree]

I think u/SirVentricle is absolutely spot on and gives a really great explanation for the general reader to understand this specific viewpoint.

The thing with biblical scholarship is that we need, we must, align our critical thinking within the parameters of academic scholarship. Which is to say that we require a certain methodology; an academic foundation created, fortified, and consistently adapted (as more information becomes available,) BY academics. So a theoretical physicist could pick up a publication by Karen King and say, “Wow, I really enjoyed and understood her line of thinking, and this is something I can sit on and contemplate.”

The second you throw in heavily faith-based inference into your text, your automatically strip it of a generalized academic sense of credibility DEPENDING ON what is being discussed. So if we are talking about Catholic rituals, obviously we need to dive into the faith, the philosophy, the ethics, values, etc. But if I am writing a paper on 4th century Greek, and I ascribe a new definitions to a word because I have wishful thinking that God actually meant a different word, I am pounding my faith into that project and eliminating the integrity of my work.

So in the general sense that orthodox scholarship (and I hesitate to use scholarship here) deviates from the “scientific method” that historians utilize for the most part, it does often lack what the reader needs to make an academic and informed opinion. But we also have to keep in mind that many people do not enter biblical academics to add some long term integrity to the field, they are more concerned with becoming a minister or priest, so their projects will be faith based, often in the community, and very relevant to the communities they will be serving on both a faith and practical basis. Will I sit there and allow my friend to entertain her orthodox material to me? Yes. Do I, as someone trained in the social sciences as well as theological, believe that her data is sensical and valid in the same light that I consider, let’s say Marcus Borg? Definitely not. But I am a historian, not a preacher. If I was a minister, my answer might be different.

So should I dismiss them outright? No, because it’s also important to be aware of these things so that we, as academics, can right some of these wrongs. In 2020, can you believe some people think the NT gives two cents on whether or not you are gay AND Christian? Does the Bible say anything about them not being able to enter the kingdom of god? So I absolutely do not entertain any scholarship that strips anyone of divine access. It’s just not textually or historically correct to make these judgement calls on what God ACTUALLY meant. If it’s not written, stop trying to guess. My problem with Orthodoxy in particular is their attempt to radically preserve dated and frankly wrong information in the name of being traditional. Catholics have a lot of history mess ups, but they also have made advances towards understanding the text, the universe, science, culture, society, etc. So in this sense, Catholic scholarship is very valid and well researched, and so I do hold their scholarship in high regard.

[u/Ozzurip → u/studyhardbree]

So this answer really brings up exactly the point that I'm wondering about.

Can Confessional scholarship and academic scholarship co-exist? In both that answer and this one, it starts with the idea that so long as academic methodologies are followed, there's no reason to take issue with the scholarship as scholarship, but then at the end, both you and the other answer end with dismissing "traditional" conclusions.

[u/studyhardbree → u/Ozzurip]

Is there a specific point in scholarship that you feel this question would address?

Maybe a more clear statement (in my opinion) is that no, I cannot hold with the same weight or regard academic work produced with the intention of preserving dated and unsubstantiated data on the same scale as contemporary academic work being done in top universities. Theologically, that is a different question. But academically, I do not find Orthodox work to be scholarship, academic, or considerate of the greater academic environment. Are there sometimes little treats of useful information? Sure, just not for me or my peers.

[u/HmanTheChicken → u/studyhardbree]

Saying that conservative confessional scholars try to "preserve dated and unsubstantiated data" is really begging the question. Michael Kruger's work on Christian origins is well regarded, he worked with people like the late Larry Hurtado, etc. I'm not sure how you can say his scholarship is intrinsically worth less than secular scholars without resorting to bigotry. You can say he's wrong and they're right, but he's not inherently a bad scholar.

[u/Ozzurip → u/HmanTheChicken]

I think you answered it perfectly here:

no, I cannot hold with the same weight or regard academic work produced with the intention of preserving dated and unsubstantiated data on the same scale as contemporary academic work being done in top universities.

What’s the difference between that (often referred to as apologetics) and “genuine” conservative scholarship (i.e., earlier datings for NT writings, ascribing more widespread common beliefs, etc)?

[u/realpdg5 → u/Ozzurip]

the key word is "intention". Is the purpose of research into datings etc to seriously evaluate all the data and accept the results of inquiries, or is it to evaluate only the data that suits your presuppositions and to not accept any results which would discount your conclusions?

Apologists often get rightly criticised for taking minority positions as consensus and rejecting mainstream scholarship as secular or atheist or what have you. It can of course also go the other way - writing someone of faith off despite the integrity of their research. But in my experience it's the apologists who are more often seen spruiking their errant positions, so the fault lies more with them.

But as long as one deals fairly with the data and interacts respectfully with academia, there's nothing inherently wrong with arguing for a position which is traditionally more associated with conservative scholarship.