Your argument has issues. And so, for that reason, does Kenneth Atkinson’s new piece in Bible and Interpretation. In it, towards the end, Atkinson opines
SBL as an academic society must adopt a thoroughly historical-critical perspective and not accept Scripture as the infallible word of God nor the word of God as mediated by mortals, but as a humanistic document analogous to the rich worldwide body of ancient historical and religious writings. Confessional or faith-based scholarship has no role at SBL and belongs elsewhere. What this may mean for SBL’s future is uncertain, but it will likely create a great loss in numbers and a dwindling of its financial revenues.
He apparently hasn’t heard – but here’s the thing: the ‘historical-critical’ method is dying and in most academic biblical study it’s dead. Why would we, why should we want to return to the cul-de-sac of historical criticism with its circular reasoning and fruitlessness when we can instead invest our time in more promising ‘Reception-Historical’ studies and ‘Cultural-Memory’ studies? Why would we want to, like a dog, return to the vomit that we (well most of us) left by the wayside years ago?
The issue isn’t the irreligiousness which Hendel (evidently) desires or Avalos or Atkinson; the issue is to apply the best methodologies at hand in order to bring to light what lies hidden (and not all that hidden). It has nothing to do with faith or unbelief, it has to do with intention and purpose.
Historical-criticism got us no where except trapped in a bubble from which we have just now escaped. Atkinson can re-enter it if he wishes (under the pretense of wanting to avoid those dreadful faith people) – but I prefer the fresh air. Besides, who wants to listen to the advice of a syphilitic like Troeltsch? The only thing he can tell you is where to pick up the rankest disorders.
Zwinglius Redivivus 