Academia in Paralysis: Trapped in Outdated Modes of Thinking

Academia faces a crisis. It is trapped in outdated modes of thinking that no longer serve the needs of society and the changing world. Over the past four decades, the digital revolution and information integration into social networks have profoundly transformed the world. 

Some professions have nearly disappeared or undergone significant mutations. However, these changes have largely unaffected crucial areas of our existence. This primarily includes academic knowledge, the future of warfare and the military, and the machinery of state governance through the voting system. 

These fields have benefited from technological progress, but they seem increasingly trapped in outdated modes of thinking that no longer serve the needs of society. They struggle to break free from the chains of the past and the biases that influence these powerful institutions.

For example, we observe knowledge moving away from academia year after year. The academic system has failed to adapt to this revolution despite us currently living in the most egalitarian period in history, thanks to the democratization of knowledge and information.

In the past, research was often buried in specialized libraries and hard-to-access journals, but digital technology and online information have changed everything. Access to knowledge has strengthened the ties between a knowledge-thirsty public outside of academia and scientific research. 

Increasingly, universities find themselves forced to close or merge humanities and social sciences departments due to declining enrollment. Instead of anticipating these changes, academia has simply sounded the alarm about deteriorating conditions. This demonstrates that reality is evolving faster than our ability to grasp it. 

Academia may boast of its historical reputation, but a gap has formed between it and the educated public over time. Young people have found more suitable ways to acquire professional skills outside of university. The success of digital knowledge-based projects, such as high-tech startups, is proof of this.

The structure of disciplines, faculties, and university departments no longer meets scientific needs. The current system of classifying fields of knowledge needs to be rethought. The method of knowledge transmission and evaluation must also evolve. Are current degrees, based on research quality and university roles, still suitable for academic requirements?

Let’s dive deep into “Jewish Studies” 

Let’s consider the paralysis academia faces in “Jewish studies” in Israel. The universities created a department for Hebrew literature while ignoring world literature. I wonder why teach the history of the Jewish people in a separate department from world history? Is it reasonable to teach Jewish philosophy without linking it to general philosophy? 

Why treat the Bible as a separate discipline, as if all its texts belonged to a single literary genre and scientific discipline? Did a single author write all these texts at the same time?

Today, few biblical studies researchers dare to openly assert that there is no monotheism in all the books of the Bible. And that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah worshiped multiple deities, not just one god. 

No researcher dares to say that idols of deities were present in the Temple of Jerusalem. Some still avoid pronouncing the tetragrammaton “YHWH,” instead using substitutes like “Adonai,” “Elohim,” “Hashem,” and others that distort the original meaning.

Israeli historians continue to divide the history of the two kingdoms into the “First Temple period” and the “Second Temple period,” ignoring the fact that there was not a single Temple – the one in Jerusalem – but many sanctuaries worshiping many gods and goddesses in places like Bethel, Shiloh, Shechem, Samaria, Megiddo, Hazor, Beersheba, and Jericho. 

In reality, wherever there were people, there were sanctuaries. Jerusalem had always had a sanctuary, hundreds of years before King David and even after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. It’s time to abandon these distinctions based on theological terminology in favor of historical terms.

Research still needs to eliminate inappropriate terminology that hinders its development. Some researchers still cling to imaginary legends or mythical narratives, naively taking them for historical realities.

Ironically, many religious researchers manage to separate their faith from their historical research. A religious researcher may believe in divine revelation, but they must recognize historical truth in their scientific work. Likewise, a secular researcher may be devoted to the Bible, but they must impartially examine its legendary texts with historical texts.

Israeli academics are not the only ones facing pressures and avoiding questioning well-established beliefs, sometimes remaining trapped in traditional narratives. However, research must remain free and based on logical arguments, even if it involves challenging widely accepted religious beliefs. Despite the obstacles, it is essential to adapt to the advances of science and free oneself from the burden of inadequate traditions in research.

The author Yigal Bin-Nun, published two books. The bestseller “A Brief History of Yahweh.” His new book “When We Became Jews” shatters some basic facts on Judaism