The Digital Humanities as Cultural Capital: Implications for Biblical and Religious Studies

Caroline T. Schroeder


Although the study of the Bible was central to early Humanities Computing efforts, now Biblical Studies and Religious Studies are marginal disciplines in the emerging field known as Digital Humanities (English, History, Library Science, for example, are much more influential in DH.) This paper explores two questions:  First, what does it mean for Biblical Studies to be marginal to the Digital Humanities when DH is increasingly seen as the locus of as transformation in the humanities?  Second, how can our expertise in Biblical Studies influence and shape Digital Humanities for the better?  Digital Humanities, I argue, constitutes a powerful emerging field with which Biblical Studies and Religious Studies must engage as critical participants or analysts.  Moreover, our own field’s expertise on the history of canon, orthodoxy, and commentary can contribute to shaping a more inclusive and self-critical Digital Humanities.


digital humanities; bible; biblical studies; orthodoxy; canon; marginalia; cultural capital

Full Text:



Aland, K. et al. eds., 1994. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: zweite, neubearbeitete und ergänzte Auflage 2nd ed., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Bath, J. et al., 2000. Marginalia. Architectures, Ideologies & Materials of the Page. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 24, 2015].

Berzon, T., 2014. Heresiology as Ethnography: Theorising Christian Difference. In J. D. Rosenblum, N. DesRosiers, & L. Vuong, eds. Religious Competition in the Third Century CE: Jews, Christians, and the Greco-Roman World. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 179–191.

Bianco, J. “Skye,” 2012. This Digital Humanities Which Is Not One. In M. K. Gold, ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 96–112. [online] Available at: [Accessed November 19, 2014].

Bobley, B., 2014. RRCHNM20 - Brett Bobley. [online video] Available at: [Accessed June 25, 2015].

Bogost, I., 2015. The Cathedral of Computation. The Atlantic. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Bogost, I., 2010. The Turtlenecked Hairshirt: Fetid and Fragrant Futures for the Humanities. Ian Bogost. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 2, 2015].

Bourdieu, P., 1973. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. In R. K. Brown, ed. Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education. London: Tavistock, pp. 71–84. [online] Available at: [Accessed April 14, 2012].

Cohoon, J.M. & Aspray, W., 2008. Women and Information Technology: Research on Underrepresentation, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Cordell, R., 2014. On Ignoring Encoding. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Cordell, R., 2013. Taken Possession of: The Reprinting and Reauthorship of Hawthorne’s Celestial Railroad in the Antebellum Religious Press. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 007(1).

Cottom, T.M., 2014. Reparations: What the Education Gospel Cannot Fix. tressiemc: some of us are brave. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 25, 2015].

DeRose, S.J. et al., 1990. What Is Text, Really? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1(2), pp. 3–26.

Derrida, J., 1998. Of Grammatology Corrected edition., Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Derrida, J., 1991. This Is Not an Oral Footnote. In S. A. Barney, ed. Annotation and Its Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 192–205.

Dué, C. et al., About the project. The Homer Multitext Project. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 24, 2015].

Ebbott, M. & Smith, N., 2010. The Scholia to the Iliad. The Homer Multitext. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 24, 2015].

Eve, E., 2007. All Hope Abandon: Biblical Text and Interactive Fiction. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 001(2).

Foucault, M., 1977. What Is an Author? In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by Michel

Foucault. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, pp. 113–138.

Jongkind, D., 2013. Evangelical Textual Criticism: When is a Manuscript a Minuscule? Evangelical Textual Criticism. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 24, 2015].

Kalvesmaki, J., 2014. Canonical References in Electronic Texts: Rationale and Best Practices. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 8(2). [online] Available at: [Accessed October 19, 2014].

Koh, A., 2015. A Letter to the Humanities: DH Will Not Save You. Hybrid Pedagogy. [online] Available at: [Accessed July 9, 2015].

Lieu, J.M., 2015. Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Losh, E., 2014. The War on Learning: Gaining Ground in the Digital University, Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

Margolis, J. & Fisher, A., 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

McPherson, T., 2012. Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. In M. K. Gold, ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press, pp. 139–60.

Munroe, R., 2011. xkcd: Standards. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Mylonas, E. & Renear, A., 1999. The Text Encoding Initiative at 10: Not Just an Interchange Format Anymore – But a New Research Community. Computers and the Humanities, 33(1-2), pp. 1–9.

Pasini, C., The Prefetto Message. Vatican Library Digitization Project. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 22, 2015].

Poswick, R.F., 1989. Full-Text Retrieval on Microcomputers. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 4(2), pp. 108–114.

Ramsay, S., 2011a. On Building. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Ramsay, S., 2011b. Who’s In and Who’s Out. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Renear, A.H., 2008. Text Encoding. In A Companion to Digital Humanities. Blackwell, pp. 218–239.

Rockwell, G., 2003. What is Text Analysis, Really? Literary and Linguistic Computing, 18(2), pp. 209–219.

Royalty, R.M., 2012. The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity, New York: Routledge.

Schroeder, C.T., A. Zeldes, et al. Coptic SCRIPTORIUM. 2013-2016. [online] Available at:

Schroeder, C.T. et al., 2015. Text Encoding Initiative / Feature Requests / #505 Redefine . Source Fourge: Text Encoding Initiative. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 25, 2015].

Schroeder, C.T. et al., Text Encoding Initiative / Feature Requests / #556 Allow to be contained by . [online] Available at: [Accessed June 25, 2015].

Sinclair, S. & Rockwell, G., 2009. Voyant. Corpus. [online] Available at: Corpus available at: [Accessed April 22, 2016].

Smith, M.W.A., 1987. Hapax Legomena in Prescribed Positions: An Investigation of Recent Proposals to Resolve Problems of Authorship. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 2(3), pp. 145–152.

Stommel, J., 2013. The Digital Humanities is About Breaking Stuff. Hybrid Pedagogy. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 29, 2015].

Svensson, P., 2012. Envisioning the Digital Humanities. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 006(1).

TEI Consortium, 2008. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and Interchange: 10 Manuscript Description. Text Encoding Initiative. [online] Available at: [Accessed June 25, 2015].

Wernimont, J., 2013. Whence Feminism? Assessing Feminist Interventions in Digital Literary Archives. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 7(1).


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.