Should I feel bad for using scholars with shady pasts?

Finding out Kittel was a literal Nazi prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials, or that Archibald Robertson was an enthusiastic segregationist kind of spoils using them as reference materials. And it's not like you can wave them off as "men of their time" either. They had plenty of opposing viewpoints in their own time.

At the very least, it'd be nice if some authors weren't "default" packages in Fundamental/Starter deals.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I go for the best scholarship not the best scholars -- my experience with professors taught me that the nice guys and the great teachers didn't coincide.

Ken

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186548#Comment_1186548

I go for the best scholarship not the best scholars -- my experience with professors taught me that the nice guys and the great teachers didn't coincide.

Both aforementioned have been replaced with better scholarship, thankfully. And I got their materials in base packages (I think the Academic starter). I don't have the money to replace them yet though $:\$

Kiyah

Being aware of who a scholar is and where they're coming from is part of engaging their work. Our professors taught us to engage critically with that awareness and learn to sift what's good and helpful (from a scholarship perspective) from the bad, and certainly don't put these scholars on pedestals as such "great men of God" as we often hear them described. Sometimes people hail such scholars in a way that actually lends them undue authority.

I think your comment is valid, when their scholarship has been updated and improved upon, or if there are other quality options that aren't so problematic it's better to go with them when you're deciding where to spend your money.

Also, know your audience and be careful who you cite to whom, because the message may not be as well-received if it comes from a disreputable source. It may be okay to cite Kittel in an academic work, but maybe not if you're invited to speak in a synagogue.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

In answering the question “Should I feel bad for using scholars with shady pasts?", I’ve found the distinction between 1) why, 2) who and 3) what of tremendous help.

Isn’t it so, that most of the time our communication fails when we focus on the who-part: Who (that is: what kind of a person) is this, the one saying whatever he/she is saying? I guess you could call it an ad hominem -argument? When you’ve got nothing else, can't you always ignore what somebody says or doesn’t say by appealing to his/her character?

Maybe the why-part is of help a bit more: Why does somebody say whatever he/she is saying? But that can get us on a sidetrack, as well. Speculating someone’s (other than yourself) motives is a risky business, to say the least. So maybe caution is in order here, too? But if you can find the motives accurately, that can help. If only it wasn't so difficult a task!

Isn’t that why we should focus and concentrate primarily on the what-part: what is it that he/she is saying, regardless of what his/her motives and/or character is?

What I mean is, if God could use a donkey (Numbers 22: 28) to speak to Balaam, why could he not use scholars with shady pasts? If Caiaphas – one of the judges of Christ!- himself could prophesy accurately (John 11: 50), at least this once, why could not scholars with shady pasts sometimes come up with gems? Why did Jesus Jesus instruct the people to listen to the scribes and pharisees and follow their teaching when they sit in Moses’ seat (Matthew 23: 2-3)? So why could not scholars with shady pasts be benefited from, also? (Just don’t follow their deeds, only their teachings, as Jesus instructs!)

So maybe it’s the what-part that matters, not the who or why?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186557#Comment_1186557

Olli-Pekka ... you're rationalizing. Smiling. God shouldn't be used as a lowest common denominator for supporting horrendous human behavior. If the late 1930s German leader wrote a really good lexicon, it wouldn't matter? Versus a more modern commentary writer that didn't credit his sources?

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186559#Comment_1186559

you're rationalizing.

My pet peeve... [:)]

Ken

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186557#Comment_1186557

.

More food for thought. I can't think of how it reflects on their work itself, or shapes the "what" of their point, so maybe these two are still useful (although I've hardly examined all of Kittel, either the full or condensed versions). In some cases, I do think the who and what may coincide. For example, Julius Wellhausen's famous documentary hypothesis was partly motivated (if not shaped) by antisemitism. He thought Jews corrupted the Torah and so he sought a "pristine" form of their early religion, stripped of (what he saw as) Levitical/Priestly anachronism and forgery. In some senses, he was simply a sincere Lutheran, who wanted to be free of "Law", but he went full gusto and blamed all Judaism as being nothing but "Law", and that part of Jesus' ministry was restoring the purity of the original religion. It almost sounds like Marcion 2.0.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186560#Comment_1186560

The Apostle Paul had a shady past and I love his material (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

👍😁👌

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186562#Comment_1186562

More food for thought.

I'm glad!

...blamed all Judaism as being nothing but "Law"...

Doesn't sound very Lutheran to me! (But that's a sidetrack, so let's leave it at that...)

...was partly motivated (if not shaped) by...

That's the quest for motives, a hard and diligent expedition! I take my hat off to those succeeding in it (and I'm not talking about Wellhausen, but generally...)

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186562#Comment_1186562

[For example, Julius Wellhausen's famous documentary hypothesis was partly motivated (if not shaped) by antisemitism. He thought Jews corrupted the Torah and so he sought a "pristine" form of their early religion, stripped of (what he saw as) Levitical/Priestly anachronism and forgery. In some senses, he was simply a sincere Lutheran, who wanted to be free of "Law", but he went full gusto and blamed all Judaism as being nothing but "Law", and that part of Jesus' ministry was restoring the purity of the original religion. It almost sounds like Marcion 2.0.

Text-critical activity is not definitionally antisemitic .... unless you've located racial animus (much of Christianity until fairly recent).

Ken

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186563#Comment_1186563

The Apostle Paul had a shady past and I love his material (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

👍😁👌

The difference is he was reborn with the Spirit of God, and his works as we have them are after that event. In these other cases, these are presumably men who were Christians, claimed the Spirit of God, but still fell back to some of the most awful ideas that even non-Christians found appalling. Paul never said something like Archibald Robertson, denied black kids from attending Southern Baptist Seminary (report by Albert Mohler here: https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/sbts/uploads/2018/12/Racism-and-the-Legacy-of-Slavery-Report-v3.pdf), who thought blacks were an inferior species that needed to be controlled, or like Kittel, literally joined Hitler as resident biblical scholar for the Third Reich.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186563#Comment_1186563

The Apostle Paul had a shady past and I love his material (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

👍😁👌

Well put! While we're at it, I might add that the Jews in Berea "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17: 11). Once again: the what (it is that is being said)? Noble they were, as st. Luke tells.

Ken

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186569#Comment_1186569

The Apostle Paul had a shady past and I love his material (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

👍😁👌

Well put! While we're at it, I might add that the Jews in Berea "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17: 11). Once again: the what (it is that is being said)? Noble they were, as st. Luke tells.

I don't follow. I don't know how they even resemble Paul or the Bereans. To use myself as an example, I was a former delinquent who ran with gangs in my teens. Like Paul, I was violent myself. My sins are many (and that lifestyle isn't the whole of it. I had many problems in addition to that). But I didn't stay in that mindset when Christ found me. I had my own Road to Damascus experience, if you will. Not to say we're perfect after coming to Christ, but one can't put the scales back on their eyes either. It's hard to understand how someone still follows thugs and dehumanizes others AFTER finding Christ. Or at least, isn't haunted by guilt for doing so. I hope they were saved somehow, but I honestly don't understand how they could do it. Or how it relates to Paul. As far as views on race relations go, you can't be more exemplary. He saw one Kingdom, of Jew and Gentile - and didn't even exclude barbarians. Which is possibly even more radical than the issues of strictly race.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186572#Comment_1186572

I don't follow. I don't know how they even resemble Paul or the Bereans.

What I mean, the Bereans could have easily believed the rumors about what kind of a person st. Paul was (whether true or not). In fact, after that slanderers did come to Berea to discredit st. Paul (Acts 17: 13) (the who). Instead, the Bereans concentrated on his message (the what), comparing it to the Scriptures they knew. Hence noble, open minded, willing to learn.

No resemblances, rather principles. As Denise said, I'm rationalizing, making generalizations. But that's just me... [:D]

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186572#Comment_1186572

John Calvin said: ALL truth is from God.

Thomas Aquinas said: ALL that is true, by whomsoever it has been said has its origin in the Spirit.

Truths include scientific truths (famous Einstein equation: E=m.c-square) and theological truths. God is the ultimate source of ALL truths.

You're the loser if you don't read the truths that a sovereign God has allowed flawed people to reveal to the world.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186576#Comment_1186576

You're the loser if you don't read the truths that a sovereign God has allowed flawed people to reveal to the world.

Amen to that!

Puddin’

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186577#Comment_1186577

What about Luther’s anti-semitiscism & disdain over RC priests?

Or, Calvin’s heinous part in the torture & murder of Servetus?

(*Note: It will not do to parrot the usual “exonerations” marshaled by contemporary scholars. We actually have their [i.e. Luther & Calvin] own literature & direct quotations to this end.)

In fact, numerous academics have observed that Hitler was known to read & quote Luther’s material—and that it’s clear that he (Hitler) was influenced by Luther’s strident disdain for the Jews. I—and many others—have always found the ramifications & this backdrop to W.W. II stunning.

What about Solomon’s corpus—who died in his defiance to God if my recollection is accurate?

David’s Psalms? He was not living righteously or repentant for *ALL* of his writings.

Moses—who didn’t even enter the promised land that he had been lauding for decades to Israel due to his rebellion to Yahweh (?)!

Paul—who, aside from the exegetical debates of this pericope, explicitly stated that he desired to live out God’s laws—but instead he practiced “evil” (Romans 7).

And on & on & on we could all go. I was not aware of Robertson & Kittel’s issues, but I am sure glad to now be informed. Interesting thread👍.

Sam Henderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186622#Comment_1186622

Ain't it such jolly fun to go trampling through the Logos section of the Kingdom wheat fields, looking for tares to rip out. And it's always so easy to do because anachronistic judgements are the simplest, funnest and least self-reflexive judgments to deliver!

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186623#Comment_1186623

Shady past?

"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil."

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186623#Comment_1186623

Ain't it such jolly fun to go trampling through the Logos section of the Kingdom wheat fields, looking for tares to rip out. And it's always so easy to do because anachronistic judgements are the simplest, funnest and least self-reflexive judgments to deliver!

Trample away, Sam. I get so tired of people judging, using the Bible from what, thousands of years ago?!. So anachronistic

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186623#Comment_1186623

anachronistic judgements are the simplest, funnest and least self-reflexive judgments to deliver!

Well put. Reminds me distantly of this so called "woke culture" phenomenom, Getting nervous, shocked, offended about different phenomenons. Somehow I find it acceptable if you talk about your contemporaries, but not so much when you talk about people in the distant past. We all know how to be post-wise...

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186659#Comment_1186659

anachronistic judgements are the simplest, funnest and least self-reflexive judgments to deliver!

Well put. Reminds me distantly of this so called "woke culture" phenomenom, Getting nervous, shocked, offended about different phenomenons. Somehow I find it acceptable if you talk about your contemporaries, but not so much when you talk about people in the distant past. We all know how to be post-wise...

I've always felt Nero was misunderstood. Those were the times.

Actually, I like 'woke' ... pastors use it routinely. And 'culture' too. For thousands of years. Woke is good.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186664#Comment_1186664

...Nero was misunderstood.

Too bad we can't ask Nero himself! I guess that would give us a stroke of genius or a flash of wit! (In finnish the word 'genius' is 'nero') [;)]

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186622#Comment_1186622

..what about Luther’s anti-semitiscism...

The mentor of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther, has been accused (also in this thread) of being an antisemite. I wholeheartedly... agree. That’s what makes my antennae so sensible in this area.

Rather than rejecting everything that some scholar said or did, I realize I must do a lot of cherry-picking while reading him. This I must do with all the authors and scholars.

“We all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.” (James 3: 2).

...Hitler was known to read & quote Luther’s material... (Hitler) was influenced by Luther’s strident disdain for the Jews...

Abusus non tollit usum, abuse or misuse (of someone’s writings) doesn’t abrogate the right use (of their writings).

What about Solomon’s corpus... David’s Psalms?... Moses...Paul...And on & on & on we could all go...

Good point! If I weren't a Christian, I could say with my militant opponents of Christianity: "Oh my, what a violent book the Bible is! How horrible stories! How can you read that?" We all can see the shallowness of this view, can't we?

What I mean: “Never judge a book by it’s cover.” Talk about “shady pasts” being the cover. It’s the content that counts. Or so I would like to think.

Sam Henderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186664#Comment_1186664

anachronistic judgements are the simplest, funnest and least self-reflexive judgments to deliver!

Well put. Reminds me distantly of this so called "woke culture" phenomenom, Getting nervous, shocked, offended about different phenomenons. Somehow I find it acceptable if you talk about your contemporaries, but not so much when you talk about people in the distant past. We all know how to be post-wise...

I've always felt Nero was misunderstood. Those were the times.

Actually, I like 'woke' ... pastors use it routinely. And 'culture' too. For thousands of years. Woke is good.

Hey, just urging a little caution about being over-ready to dump really useful cultural, social and theological contributions based on global moral judgments about an author’s character from a 21^st century perspective. Do we avoid visiting Nero’s gardens because that’s where he chose to use chose to use Christians as burning torches for his dinner guests? Oh hang on, we can’t because Vespasian built the Colosseum on top of them. Do we avoid visiting the Colosseum because…?

Or closer to home: Martin Luther King Jr and his colleagues regularly had sex with prostitutes and other women on out-of-town visits, and there’s evidence that the sex wasn’t always consensual or non-abusive. Should we keep calling him “Reverend”? Should we stop quoting the speeches? Anyone want to shut down the holiday?

I’m not going to stop using my Logos copy of TDNT, even though I’m aware that Gerhard Kittel held and proclaimed some really abhorrent ideas about Jews and Judaism. I don’t think anyone else should stop using it either.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186744#Comment_1186744

Hey, just urging a little caution about being over-ready to dump really useful cultural, social and theological contributions based on global moral judgments about an author’s character from a 21^st century perspective.

A good caution that we must keep in mind.

... Should we keep calling him “Reverend”?

We Lutherans have another distinction that might be of help here: Separate the person holding the office from the office he/she holds. The person in his/her personal life may be a rascal, but always respect the office he/she holds. So yes, you should definitely keep calling him "Reverend."

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1186744#Comment_1186744

I’m not going to stop using my Logos copy of TDNT, even though I’m aware that Gerhard Kittel held and proclaimed some really abhorrent ideas about Jews and Judaism. I don’t think anyone else should stop using it either.

Well, I don't use TDNT simply because of the 'T' on the front (theology/guy-guesses). But if I did, given pretty much 100% of the Bible is jewish, I be a bit suspicious of anything the gentleman wrote.

Ok, now about Nero ... I'd always admired ...