What Is Scholarship?

[John of Japan]

On another thread, someone mentioned that the founder of the JWs, Charles Taze Russel, had translated the Bible for himself. Here's the thing. To come up with what this heretic did means that one is not seeking for truth, as per my definition of scholarship. If one is seeking for truth, one does not deny the deity of "The way, the truth, and the life."

I once interacted with a translator of the JW version of their Bible translation. The Japanese version translates πιστεύω (pisteuo, I believe) as 信仰を働かせる, "to make one's faith work." That flies in the face of all lexical evidence for the Greek word, and is nonsense. Later, I shared that rendering on a Bible translation email group, and a so-called scholar of the JWs defended that nonsense rendering.

Heresy and cultic religion deny truth, and can therefore not be scholarly.

 

[John of Japan]

The age of credentials should end.

When I read this, what I read was, "Spending many thousands of hours and dollars to get genuine grad degrees and learn to be accurate in one's research should end."

 

[Van]

When I read this, what I read was, "Spending many thousands of hours and dollars to get genuine grad degrees and learn to be accurate in one's research should end."

Nothing wrong with study to make yourself qualified. It is claiming to be qualified by virtue of a paper issued, rather than proven performance that results disaster.

 

[John of Japan]

Nothing wrong with study to make yourself qualified. It is claiming to be qualified by virtue of a paper issued, rather than proven performance that results disaster.

I think I've been saying something similar.

There are genuine scholars without the degrees, but I have to admit they are few.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are some things I tell my students about writing a research paper (and thus learning scholarship) that may be relevant here. I'll add relevant notes after what I post.

The paper must be on a subject relevant to the course. For example, a paper on prophecy that does not reference dispensationalism in the course “Dispensational Theology” would not fulfill the assignment. Note: So many posts on the BB are irrelevant to the OP.

Be careful of spelling, grammar, capitalization, paragraph breaks, pagination, and other format issues. These will all affect your grade. Note: The BB is full of bad grammar and wrong spelling. If you are trying to make a point in atrocious grammar, you distract from the point you are trying to make. It's not hard to proofread.... (I admit I sometimes fail here too.)

Include a bibliography and footnotes. Be sure to use proper Turabian format for your footnotes and bibliography, or you will lose points on your paper. Note: It is simply unethical (and against BB rules) to quote from someone and not source your quote.

Cite in the paper at least four sources in addition to your textbook. (The first edition of Ryrie’s textbook (Dispensationalism Today) may not be used.) That comes to five sources in your bibliography as a minimum. (Even with this minimum you are not guaranteed an “A.”) One source should be from a scholarly journal, preferably a peer-reviewed one. Note: One source does not prove much. Several sources (for example on premil by church fathers) can be persuasive, though.

The sources may only include an Internet source if it is written by a recognized scholar. Do not use an Internet article with no author listed! We aim for high standards in the area of academics. We do not seek accreditation since we are part of a local church. However, true scholarship is a search for truth. A Christian should be one who searches for truth not only from God’s revelation, but in other factual matters. Sloppiness in research does not glorify God.

Wikipedia and like sources are therefore not permissible, though they may be helpful in finding a direction. Since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and similar Internet sources, inaccurate information is often recorded there. (In an article on textual criticism on Wikipedia, I once saw the same manuscript listed twice with different content.) Also, on Wikipedia the work of a recognized scholar on the subject may be rewritten by a completely uneducated amateur.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Please quote my remark addressing the theological matters I described. Thanks

I was referring to your statement:

The age of credentials should end. With the pace of change now, the schools teach generation-old technology. Qualifications are eclipsed by current performance success.

 

[Van]

I was referring to your statement:

Thanks, I was referring to technological change brought on by the digital revolution. The impact on English translations using search engines should be beneficial. For example, with a few clicks, all the places the source language word appears in scripture can be found allowing discernment of the probable intended meaning.

Or when a poster says no one ever seeks God while unregenerate, verses where folks sought God can be presented in rebuttal.

OTOH, inconsistent translation of the same source language word meaning can be found to greater or lesser degrees in our translations. Tops in inconsistency would be NIV and at the other end, YLT.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Nothing wrong with study to make yourself qualified. It is claiming to be qualified by virtue of a paper issued, rather than proven performance that results disaster.

You meant "courts disaster."
But your point is invalid. Do you think higher degrees are handed out like candy? Hard work (performance) is necessary to accomplish getting the degree. Why must this simple fact be explained to you?

 

[Van]

You meant "courts disaster."
But your point is invalid. Do you think higher degrees are handed out like candy? Hard work (performance) is necessary to accomplish getting the degree. Why must this simple fact be explained to you?

LOL, now no one get a degree by having others prepare their papers and take their tests. There was no wide spread cheating at the Air Force Academy. How many credentialed people signed off on the 737 Max AOA design? Credentialism is the bane of scholarship.

 

[agedman]

Here are some things I tell my students about writing a research paper (and thus learning scholarship) that may be relevant here. I'll add relevant notes after what I post.

The paper must be on a subject relevant to the course. For example, a paper on prophecy that does not reference dispensationalism in the course “Dispensational Theology” would not fulfill the assignment. Note: So many posts on the BB are irrelevant to the OP.

Be careful of spelling, grammar, capitalization, paragraph breaks, pagination, and other format issues. These will all affect your grade. Note: The BB is full of bad grammar and wrong spelling. If you are trying to make a point in atrocious grammar, you distract from the point you are trying to make. It's not hard to proofread.... (I admit I sometimes fail here too.)

Include a bibliography and footnotes. Be sure to use proper Turabian format for your footnotes and bibliography, or you will lose points on your paper. Note: It is simply unethical (and against BB rules) to quote from someone and not source your quote.

Cite in the paper at least four sources in addition to your textbook. (The first edition of Ryrie’s textbook (Dispensationalism Today) may not be used.) That comes to five sources in your bibliography as a minimum. (Even with this minimum you are not guaranteed an “A.”) One source should be from a scholarly journal, preferably a peer-reviewed one. Note: One source does not prove much. Several sources (for example on premil by church fathers) can be persuasive, though.

The sources may only include an Internet source if it is written by a recognized scholar. Do not use an Internet article with no author listed! We aim for high standards in the area of academics. We do not seek accreditation since we are part of a local church. However, true scholarship is a search for truth. A Christian should be one who searches for truth not only from God’s revelation, but in other factual matters. Sloppiness in research does not glorify God.

Wikipedia and like sources are therefore not permissible, though they may be helpful in finding a direction. Since anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and similar Internet sources, inaccurate information is often recorded there. (In an article on textual criticism on Wikipedia, I once saw the same manuscript listed twice with different content.) Also, on Wikipedia the work of a recognized scholar on the subject may be rewritten by a completely uneducated amateur.

john, do you folks require first hand sources at the graduate level or is a second hand quoting a source sufficient?

At the masters level at TXA&M, long long ago BC (before computers), they allowed one second hand source only if the first hand was not available, which was rare, and a typical thesis topic had to be prior approved as well as regular progress documentation turned in to the professor.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Credentialism is the bane of scholarship.

Well then, you have no worries.

 

[George Antonios]

My opponent never fully answered my objections, but showed his ire by putting me on ignore.

Imagine that.

 

[George Antonios]

Well then, you have no worries.

That doesn't quite work; it reinforces his point.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Since no specific cases have been given of unscholarly screeds, I can't speak to individual cases. Perhaps there is some honest soul out there wo has gotten a bogus undergrad degree without knowing it was bogus. However, every single person who I know has gotten a bogus grad degree should have known better.

A few years ago, I wrote a review on Amazon about an unscholarly book on Bible translation by a guy with a bogus degree. He excoriated me on a website he belonged to, and a scholar friend suggested I answer him here on the BB, so I did. I have no patience for people who get a bogus degree, produce garbage, and then demand respect.

That seems to miss the point quite badly. Responding to ad hominem is a separate issue and should not be conflated with addressing specific arguments regarding an issue.

A lack of patience may well end up betraying the great patience and diligent effort expended on gaining the skills to exhibit true scholarship in confronting error.

Ad hominem, including guilt by association is a logical fallacy and has no place in deciding a matter. By the way, the same is true of personal incredulity.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

That doesn't quite work; it reinforces his point.

His point? His thrust is that having credentials is basically worthless when it comes to scholarship.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Here is an example of how the theological presuppositions of a liberal Bible translator affected his scholarship. The TEV (Good News for Modern Man) was originally a translation done by one man, a liberal SBC scholar named Robert Bratcher. (See more about him at: Good News Bible translator dies; opposed inerrantists: Robert Bratcher supported dynamic equivalence.) He had been asked by dynamic equivalence inventor Eugene Nida to do a dynamic equivalence version that could serve as a model for missionary translators; thus, the TEV was the first translation done with the DE methodology.

To continue, Bratcher had a presupposition that the blood of Christ didn't really save, wasn't efficacious. So in various passages he translated the Greek word for "blood" (haima, αἰμα): Acts 20:28, Col. 1:14, etc.). So, Bratcher proved his lack of scholarship by his obedience to his presupposition about the blood of Christ, and thus abandoned truth. There was such an outcry by Bible believers that the revisions, including the GNB, changed the rendering to the correct "blood." But I have a first edition of the NT, and it certainly has the original rendering. (I did a paper on this issue that I presented at the Bible Faculty Summit some years ago.)

Yeah, I encountered an old CofC guy who pointed that out to me—“The bloodless gospel.” It didn’t exactly positively promote SBC scholarship.

JofJ, I had hoped you would catch the broader (or sharper?) point in my comment here. The old CofC guy had it quite right while the prominent SBC scholar had it very wrong.

By your standard, that old guy would have been right to write off everyone associated with the SBC. Ad hominem, including guilt by association, is a logical fallacy, which has no place in deciding a matter.

And besides, what's wrong with translating the Greek word for "blood"? It would seem most translators do that.

 

[John of Japan]

john, do you folks require first hand sources at the graduate level or is a second hand quoting a source sufficient?

We don't have a specific rule about second hand sources, but I think they know that we want first hand sources.

At the masters level at TXA&M, long long ago BC (before computers), they allowed one second hand source only if the first hand was not available, which was rare, and a typical thesis topic had to be prior approved as well as regular progress documentation turned in to the professor.

We don't have theses for our MA degrees, but instead they have to do an internship and report on it. I reserve approval right for any research papers in undergrad or grad courses that I teach, though there is no set rule for that here.

 

[John of Japan]

JofJ, I had hoped you would catch the broader (or sharper?) point in my comment here. The old CofC guy had it quite right while the prominent SBC scholar had it very wrong.

Sorry I missed that.

By your standard, that old guy would have been right to write off everyone associated with the SBC. Ad hominem, including guilt by association, is a logical fallacy, which has no place in deciding a matter.

I certainly did not mean things this way.

And besides, what's wrong with translating the Greek word for "blood"? It would seem most translators do that.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it unless you are a liberal who rejects the blood atonement, like Bratcher was. In fact, the Greek word absolutely must be translated "blood" or an extremely important theological point is missed.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

…
And besides, what's wrong with translating the Greek word for "blood"? It would seem most translators do that.

…
Absolutely nothing wrong with it unless you are a liberal who rejects the blood atonement, like Bratcher was. In fact, the Greek word absolutely must be translated "blood" or an extremely important theological point is missed.

The point of that tongue in cheek mention was to draw attention to what looks very much like a typo. See if you didn't leave out an important word or two, which omitted leaves the statement sounding very much like a general criticism, e.g., he should have left it in Greek or transliterated it.

"So in various passages he translated the Greek word for 'blood' (haima, αἰμα): Acts 20:28, Col. 1:14, etc.)."
What Is Scholarship?

 

[kathleenmariekg]

I think this video is interesting. A college professor discusses scholarship as it applies to the writers of commentaries. He even defines the various types of doctorate degrees and gives his opinion on which degrees to look for in commentary authors.