Saturday, November 24, 2007
SBL Assorted Reflections
A few thoughts about the SBL Annual Meeting:
(1) It's nice to see Duane Smith joining my campaign to have more people making presentations rather than reading out manuscripts (see Abnormal Interests). As some readers may remember, this has been something of a theme here. I am still baffled by the academic habit of reading out papers at conferences. If one is going to read out a paper, one may as well distribute it in advance. I realize that there is some risk and some additional nerves inevitable in a presentation as opposed to reading-a-paper-out-loud, but the risks are worth taking, not least given the fact that one's audience will usually be forgiving if one makes a mistake. I made a much better job of my first presentation (in CARG) than my second (in the Q Section) this year and I think the difference was down to two things: (a) the nature of the audience and (b) the nature of the presentation. My Q section presentation was somewhat thick with facts and figures, and in retrospect, I think I should have added a powerpoint, or at least made my handout more detailed. I suspect, too, that I was overprepared for the Q section -- I had spent so much time on it that I was brim full of things I wanted to share and did not have time for.
(2) The chairing of sessions: this is another standard complaint. While many sessions are chaired very well indeed, there are always sessions where the chair does not seem to understand about how to organise timing. Timing at SBL meetings is particularly important because there are usually several speakers in a limited time slot. If one goes over by 10 minutes, that is 10 minutes less for everyone else; if the second person goes over by 10 minutes, that is 20 minutes less for the remainder , and so on. It's a very straightforward principle and once again, I can't understand why people allow this to happen because it is unfair on some of the speakers. Perhaps one should add that it is also the speakers' responsibility to time themselves properly. If you know that you have 20 minutes, speak for 20 minutes, not 25, or 30. It is selfish to use someone else's time, and no one will be pleased with you.
The relationship between (1) and (2) is an interesting one too. If one has written out a paper that one intends to read out loud, why would one not practise the paper to see how long it takes to read out loud?
(3) Another paper-reading issue: please avoid speed-reading. Take a long, deep breath at regular intervals and take your time. If you are conscious that you have too much material, don't try to squeeze 30 minutes of material into 20 minutes by reading quickly. Cut 10 minutes of material out. This is a particular concern for international attendees. It is much harder to understand a speed-read paper in a second language.
(4) On Blue Cord, Kevin Wilson has several excellent pieces of advice about reading a paper, including avoiding "air quotes", avoiding using abbreviations out loud, avoiding apologizing for your paper by insisting that it is part of a larger research project and so on. On the latter I would always be inclined to avoid "Time does not permit me to . . ." comments. Of course you don't have time to say everything relevant to the topic, so avoid apologizing for the obvious.
(5) I think there are too many sessions, and far too many overlapping sessions. Do we really need to have a Synoptics section as well as a Mark Group, a Matthew section, Luke-Acts consultation, an Acts section, a Q section, a Historical Jesus section, Johannine Literature, John, Jesus and History and so on? Perhaps the single biggest problem in the guild at the moment is over-specialisation and the failure to think across boundaries and at the SBL we are encouraging a high degree of specialisation. I would like to see the SBL organisation taking some time to think through these issues. If the quality of the papers at each of these were overwhelming, then well and good. But as we all know, the quality tends to be mixed.
(6) In relation to the previous point, I think the conference is too long, and it appears to be getting longer. I don't think we need sessions on Saturday morning at 9, when we are just beginning to orientate ourselves, and have multiple early morning meetings that make it impossible to get to them. And the Tuesday morning sessions are so badly attended that there is little point continuing with these, is there? One might add that there appear to be ever more evening sessions now. On several occasions at the meeting, I suggested meeting someone at an evening reception, and heard, "Oh, I'm going to the John and History section at that time", and so on.
(7) This one is the most important of all, and if I could make only one comment, this would be it. A massive thank you to the organisers of the SBL Annual Meeting, who do a fantastic job. The conference always goes incredibly smoothly, the organisers are on top of all the issues, they are unfailingly polite and helpful and I am lost in wonder at how they manage to pull it all together. Very many thanks.
(1) It's nice to see Duane Smith joining my campaign to have more people making presentations rather than reading out manuscripts (see Abnormal Interests). As some readers may remember, this has been something of a theme here. I am still baffled by the academic habit of reading out papers at conferences. If one is going to read out a paper, one may as well distribute it in advance. I realize that there is some risk and some additional nerves inevitable in a presentation as opposed to reading-a-paper-out-loud, but the risks are worth taking, not least given the fact that one's audience will usually be forgiving if one makes a mistake. I made a much better job of my first presentation (in CARG) than my second (in the Q Section) this year and I think the difference was down to two things: (a) the nature of the audience and (b) the nature of the presentation. My Q section presentation was somewhat thick with facts and figures, and in retrospect, I think I should have added a powerpoint, or at least made my handout more detailed. I suspect, too, that I was overprepared for the Q section -- I had spent so much time on it that I was brim full of things I wanted to share and did not have time for.
(2) The chairing of sessions: this is another standard complaint. While many sessions are chaired very well indeed, there are always sessions where the chair does not seem to understand about how to organise timing. Timing at SBL meetings is particularly important because there are usually several speakers in a limited time slot. If one goes over by 10 minutes, that is 10 minutes less for everyone else; if the second person goes over by 10 minutes, that is 20 minutes less for the remainder , and so on. It's a very straightforward principle and once again, I can't understand why people allow this to happen because it is unfair on some of the speakers. Perhaps one should add that it is also the speakers' responsibility to time themselves properly. If you know that you have 20 minutes, speak for 20 minutes, not 25, or 30. It is selfish to use someone else's time, and no one will be pleased with you.
The relationship between (1) and (2) is an interesting one too. If one has written out a paper that one intends to read out loud, why would one not practise the paper to see how long it takes to read out loud?
(3) Another paper-reading issue: please avoid speed-reading. Take a long, deep breath at regular intervals and take your time. If you are conscious that you have too much material, don't try to squeeze 30 minutes of material into 20 minutes by reading quickly. Cut 10 minutes of material out. This is a particular concern for international attendees. It is much harder to understand a speed-read paper in a second language.
(4) On Blue Cord, Kevin Wilson has several excellent pieces of advice about reading a paper, including avoiding "air quotes", avoiding using abbreviations out loud, avoiding apologizing for your paper by insisting that it is part of a larger research project and so on. On the latter I would always be inclined to avoid "Time does not permit me to . . ." comments. Of course you don't have time to say everything relevant to the topic, so avoid apologizing for the obvious.
(5) I think there are too many sessions, and far too many overlapping sessions. Do we really need to have a Synoptics section as well as a Mark Group, a Matthew section, Luke-Acts consultation, an Acts section, a Q section, a Historical Jesus section, Johannine Literature, John, Jesus and History and so on? Perhaps the single biggest problem in the guild at the moment is over-specialisation and the failure to think across boundaries and at the SBL we are encouraging a high degree of specialisation. I would like to see the SBL organisation taking some time to think through these issues. If the quality of the papers at each of these were overwhelming, then well and good. But as we all know, the quality tends to be mixed.
(6) In relation to the previous point, I think the conference is too long, and it appears to be getting longer. I don't think we need sessions on Saturday morning at 9, when we are just beginning to orientate ourselves, and have multiple early morning meetings that make it impossible to get to them. And the Tuesday morning sessions are so badly attended that there is little point continuing with these, is there? One might add that there appear to be ever more evening sessions now. On several occasions at the meeting, I suggested meeting someone at an evening reception, and heard, "Oh, I'm going to the John and History section at that time", and so on.
(7) This one is the most important of all, and if I could make only one comment, this would be it. A massive thank you to the organisers of the SBL Annual Meeting, who do a fantastic job. The conference always goes incredibly smoothly, the organisers are on top of all the issues, they are unfailingly polite and helpful and I am lost in wonder at how they manage to pull it all together. Very many thanks.
Labels: SBL, SBL San Diego
Thursday, August 23, 2007
SBL Annual Meeting: My Papers
Several have noted that the SBL Annual Meeting 2007 Program Book is now online. I have two papers this year, and it's a case of out with the new and in with the old for me, with some internet stuff and some Synoptic problem stuff, but I was delighted to receive an invitation to speak in the Q section, not something that happens every year. First, in Computer Assisted Research (18 November 2007, 1pm, "Pedagogical Resources for Teaching the Bible"):
The Future of the New Testament GatewayThe Q section I am speaking in is dealing with "The Mark Q overlaps" (19 November, 4-6.30pm):When academic subject gateway sites began to emerge in the mid 1990s, it was possible for every major internet resource on the site’s subject area to be covered. It was also possible for one enthusiastic and energetic individual to do all the work, designing the site, researching content, adding links, writing annotations and correcting ever-changing URLs. The massive growth of the internet has now made it impossible for one individual to do all the necessary work and gateway sites are beginning to suffer. While newer technologies like blogging have opened up new possibilities, and dealt with some of the difficulties of maintaining a gateway site, the larger questions of effort and workload remain. It is now essential for gateway sites to embrace new technologies and different models that aid collaboration if they are to avoid becoming moribund. This presentation explores the future for subject gateways by focusing on The New Testament Gateway (http://NTGateway.com), which is now ten years old, and demonstrates a new collaborative model which will enable it to build on existing strengths and to adapt to the future.
Taking Leave of Mark-Q Overlaps: Major Agreements in Matthew 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17Matt. 3.7-12 // Mark 1.7-8 // Luke 3.7-9, 15-17 (John's Preaching) features substantial agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. The Two-Source Theory explains this by appeal to the overlapping of Mark and Q while the Farrer Theory suggests that Luke was dependent on Matthew as well as Mark. This paper argues that Luke's use of Matthew is the preferable option because (1) the degree of verbatim agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark is too high for it to have been mediated by a shared source; (2) the agreement here represents a mid point in a continuum of influence of Matthew on Luke, which spans triple tradition to Mark-Q overlap passages to double tradition; and (3) the theory of Mark-Q overlap necessitates major contacts between the structure and thought of Mark and Q, which causes problems for the architecture of the Two-Source Theory.
Labels: CARG, Mark-Q overlaps, NT Gateway future, Q, SBL
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
SBL Forum latest
The April edition of the SBL Forum is now available. It covers several things that have been mentioned here in the past. In particular, it is good to see a prompt obituary of Reginald Fuller. I must admit that I have been surprised at how little other bibliobloggers have commented on the sad death of such a major New Testament scholar (mentioned here last Friday). Also, Mark Chancey has an article called Bible Courses in Public Schools: SBL's Response to a Growing Trend. I have often mentioned Mark's interesting work in this area here and it is good to see him carrying that work forward now with the SBL in a new consultation.
Labels: Mark Chancey, obituaries, Reginald Fuller, SBL, SBL Forum
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Review of Biblical Literature latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading:
Stephen S. Carver
The UnGospel: The Life and Teachings of the Historical Jesus
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, eds.
The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine
Reviewed by Everett Ferguson
Eva Schönemann
Bund und Tora: Kategorien einer im christlich-jüdischen Dialog verantworteten Christologie
Reviewed by Judith Lieu
Manuel Vogel
Commentatio mortis: 2Kor 5,1-10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
James Ware
The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism
Reviewed by Torrey Seland
Mark W. Waterman
The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona
Ben Witherington III
1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild
Reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg
I've not actually blogged the previous two email messages because of a build up of correspondence at the time, so I will get to those too in due course.
Stephen S. Carver
The UnGospel: The Life and Teachings of the Historical Jesus
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young, eds.
The Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine
Reviewed by Everett Ferguson
Eva Schönemann
Bund und Tora: Kategorien einer im christlich-jüdischen Dialog verantworteten Christologie
Reviewed by Judith Lieu
Manuel Vogel
Commentatio mortis: 2Kor 5,1-10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
James Ware
The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism
Reviewed by Torrey Seland
Mark W. Waterman
The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona
Ben Witherington III
1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary
Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild
Reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg
I've not actually blogged the previous two email messages because of a build up of correspondence at the time, so I will get to those too in due course.
Labels: Review of Biblical Literature, SBL
Thursday, March 29, 2007
SBL / Logos Technology Paper Awards deadline fast approaching
Michael Heiser emails to ask that I (and other bloggers) post a reminder about the SBL / Logos Technology Paper Awards. The deadline of 1 May 2007 is fast approaching. Details are available here:
Logos Bible Software and Society of Biblical Literature Technology Paper Awards
The link explains the awards as follows, and provides all the other relevant information:
Logos Bible Software and Society of Biblical Literature Technology Paper Awards
The link explains the awards as follows, and provides all the other relevant information:
Logos Bible Software and the Society of Biblical Literature announce two sets of awards for papers that creatively use technology in exploring questions of grammar and syntax in biblical studies: one focusing on the Hebrew Bible, the other on the Greek New Testament. The contests are open to all those engaged in the study of those disciplines, and prizes will be awarded in both areas for student and faculty/professional categories. A total of twelve awards will be given.
Labels: Awards, Logos, SBL, Technology
Friday, March 02, 2007
Travel Diary 3: Return from Baltimore
I arrived back from the Mid-Atlantic Region SBL Meeting in the early hours of this morning with jumpy flights which were running on time, and teaming rain when I got back, but happily no tornadoes. (The tornado warning for our area ended at 8 am).
I enjoyed getting the chance to go to an SBL regional meeting for the first time. This one was remarkably low key compared to the SBL Annual Meeting. I would guess that there were only 150 or so people there, and not many of what Michael Goulder always used to call the "top brass". The seminars were fairly laid back affairs with only ten or so people in each one that I went to. It reminded me much more of the British New Testament Conference than of the SBL Annual Meeting, though it was considerably smaller than the BNTC, with a much smaller book display, and without the communal, scheduled meals.
My paper, "The Devil is in the Detail: Dispelling Doubts about Dispensing with Q" was the plenary paper in the late afternoon. (Handout available here). There were fifty or sixty present and it was a friendly audience and there were some useful an interesting questions. I enjoyed getting the chance to revisit Q again, having been invited to do so by Kathy Grieb who is the president of the MAR-SBL but not having had much in the way of fresh thoughts about Q in the last five years. After my talk, which I gave as a presentation rather than as a read paper, as is my habit on these occasions, there was a smaller, informal gathering with fewer people (ten or so) for further discussion. All in all, I was grateful for the invitation.
I enjoyed getting the chance to go to an SBL regional meeting for the first time. This one was remarkably low key compared to the SBL Annual Meeting. I would guess that there were only 150 or so people there, and not many of what Michael Goulder always used to call the "top brass". The seminars were fairly laid back affairs with only ten or so people in each one that I went to. It reminded me much more of the British New Testament Conference than of the SBL Annual Meeting, though it was considerably smaller than the BNTC, with a much smaller book display, and without the communal, scheduled meals.
My paper, "The Devil is in the Detail: Dispelling Doubts about Dispensing with Q" was the plenary paper in the late afternoon. (Handout available here). There were fifty or sixty present and it was a friendly audience and there were some useful an interesting questions. I enjoyed getting the chance to revisit Q again, having been invited to do so by Kathy Grieb who is the president of the MAR-SBL but not having had much in the way of fresh thoughts about Q in the last five years. After my talk, which I gave as a presentation rather than as a read paper, as is my habit on these occasions, there was a smaller, informal gathering with fewer people (ten or so) for further discussion. All in all, I was grateful for the invitation.
Labels: conferences, SBL, Travel diaries
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Travel Diary 2: Arrival in Baltimore
I had a most enjoyable flight, that ideal combination of reading, thinking and sleeping. I sketched out the plan for my next book and had that great (if unrealistic) feeling of, "Well, that's half the work done". I feel a little bad about flying now that the Bishop of London has declared it a sin. But I couldn't face driving 300 miles alone, especially since it's a big battle to stay awake, and I'm not sure that it's so much better for global warming to have a single person in a car driving 600 miles. You can't get the train or the bus between cities here in the US, at least not where I live. While waiting at Charlotte airport, I decided that since I was sinning by flying, I may as well compound the sin by having one of those delicious brownies they do at Starbucks, and the pint of coffee washed it down splendidly.
I arrived at the hotel after midnight and after a particularly enjoyable thirty minute chat with my cab driver who, it turned out, was an immigrant from Eritrea. He'd come here twenty-six years ago, after eighteen months in Rome, and now one of his kids is a doctor and another is a successful businessman.
This is my first regional SBL meeting and it is interesting that these too, like the enormous Annual Meeting, seem to take place in hotels and conference centres. It will be interesting to see how it differs from the big meeting.
I arrived at the hotel after midnight and after a particularly enjoyable thirty minute chat with my cab driver who, it turned out, was an immigrant from Eritrea. He'd come here twenty-six years ago, after eighteen months in Rome, and now one of his kids is a doctor and another is a successful businessman.
This is my first regional SBL meeting and it is interesting that these too, like the enormous Annual Meeting, seem to take place in hotels and conference centres. It will be interesting to see how it differs from the big meeting.
Labels: conferences, SBL, Travel diaries
Travel Diary 1: On the way to Baltimore
It's a while since I have had a travel diary on the blog, but I have a brief one over the next day or so because I am on the way to the SBL Mid-Atlantic Region Meeting in Baltimore, Maryland where I have been invited to speak on the topic, "The Devil is in the Detail: Dispelling Doubts about Dispensing with Q". I know, it's horribly alliterative but I just couldn't resist it once I started with "the Devil is in the detail". The occasion for that was Christopher Tuckett's review of my Case Against Q in Novum Testamentum a couple of years ago, which ended with the point that "the devil is in the detail", i.e. there are lots of natty little details among the Synoptic data that my case does not deal with. I am not going to use the occasion tomorrow, except briefly, to respond to critics, however, but will instead focus on why the details matter for my case too, and how a careful look at them can encourage us to dispense with Q.
The conference gets underway tomorrow morning, but I am flying in tonight and am currently enjoying a Sam Adams and a "Seattle Chicken Club" sandwich at the sports bar in Raleigh Durham International Airport. I am one of those people who generally fills one's day so full that I love travelling to give me a chance to take it a little easier, to catch some time to read, think, relax, sleep, oh, and blog. It is particularly welcome that I have this time now since I have been recently been deep in another paper, on Thomas's use of the Synoptics, which I gave at our New Testament Colloquium last night.
The conference gets underway tomorrow morning, but I am flying in tonight and am currently enjoying a Sam Adams and a "Seattle Chicken Club" sandwich at the sports bar in Raleigh Durham International Airport. I am one of those people who generally fills one's day so full that I love travelling to give me a chance to take it a little easier, to catch some time to read, think, relax, sleep, oh, and blog. It is particularly welcome that I have this time now since I have been recently been deep in another paper, on Thomas's use of the Synoptics, which I gave at our New Testament Colloquium last night.
Labels: conferences, Q, SBL, Travel diaries
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Review of Biblical Literature latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading:
Youngmo Cho
Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts
Reviewed by John T. Squires
Donald Jackson
Pentateuch: The Saint John's Bible
Reviewed by Walter A. Vogels
Luke Timothy Johnson
Hebrews: A Commentary
Reviewed by Craig R. Koester
Judith E. McKinlay
Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus
Reviewed by Valerie Bridgeman Davis
Daniel Patte and Cristina Grenholm, eds.
Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders
Reviewed by Veronica Koperski
Marie Sabin
The Gospel According to Mark
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Antonius Siew
The War between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnessess: A Chiastic Reading of Revelation 11.1-14.5
Reviewed by Pieter G. R. de Villiers
Leif E. Vaage, ed.
Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden
Youngmo Cho
Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts
Reviewed by John T. Squires
Donald Jackson
Pentateuch: The Saint John's Bible
Reviewed by Walter A. Vogels
Luke Timothy Johnson
Hebrews: A Commentary
Reviewed by Craig R. Koester
Judith E. McKinlay
Reframing Her: Biblical Women in Postcolonial Focus
Reviewed by Valerie Bridgeman Davis
Daniel Patte and Cristina Grenholm, eds.
Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders
Reviewed by Veronica Koperski
Marie Sabin
The Gospel According to Mark
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha
Antonius Siew
The War between the Two Beasts and the Two Witnessess: A Chiastic Reading of Revelation 11.1-14.5
Reviewed by Pieter G. R. de Villiers
Leif E. Vaage, ed.
Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden
Labels: Review of Biblical Literature, SBL
![[Valid Atom]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed"){kind=small}
