Some quick reflections after SBL:
1. Think long and hard about doing a PhD right now.
I hate to say it, but the job market is a real bear right now. I'm watching the best and brightest from the best schools around the country struggle to find jobs. Many universities and seminaries have hiring freezes right now because of the economic crisis. Some colleges have closed or let go solid faculty and those individuals are entering the market too.
If you're the best and the brightest, you might go on. If you're not, you may find yourself going back into that pastorate post-PhD or off to a used car lot.
2. Postmodernism is changing the guild.
The Philo session was SBL as it used to be--individuals who are highly competent in their field who know everything published on Philo, know all the texts of Philo in Greek, and are doing a great service for knowledge by producing commentaries on Philo that do not exist.
Much of the rest is the faciful "what if" exploration, often by grad students who don't yet have their PhD's and whose papers are easily dismissed. No doubt some of my papers these last few years have fallen into this category. Of course major players can give ridiculous papers too, and they do.
I think there is a growing sense of randomness to the papers given at SBL and I think it's a symptom of broader things going on in our culture. Sure, it is the democratization of truth too, where we are losing perspective on what an expert is.
All in all, I think the general quality of papers at SBL is probably going down, and they are given from such widely contradictory perspectives that there is no hope for moving toward consensus. SBL is a bunch of individual tribes doing their own thing, not moving toward any overall consensus but toward well defined tribes and clans.
3. Something's going on with the books.
AAR wasn't with us this year, and the book hall was a lot smaller. The publishers seemed to have fewer books. Most years I salivate over the stalls and feel discouraged that I couldn't buy more. This year I bought five or six and felt pretty good about it.
4. I need to read much, much more.
Nough said.
5. I need to focus.
I have a lot of good publishable ideas and marketable projects. I need to set aside sleep time (like now at 3:23am) not to blog but to write, unless of course I am blogging a snippet of something I am writing. It's been fun to see my blog readership increase over the election season, but I need to get down to business, which may mean drier, less interesting posts here, but ones that work toward more important goals.
Those were some of my thoughts on SBL. What were yours?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I found there were fewer sessions I was actually interested in. But the ones I went to did that difficult, grubby textual work. Or asked larger questions that would lead to or already relied upon such work.
I heard an interesting paper, for example, on textual transmissions of 2 Enoch in Slavonic and how muddled it is to raise a point about the relationships between the text-types of 2 Enoch.
But for the most part, I didn't go to a panel I wasn't on. And all those panels had thematic coherence.
I am glad to hear about the Philo commentaries. I have one or two that have been done by Runia. Still haven't opened them up. But it is important and neglected work, I think.
I am also much more worried about jobs now than I was before the conference. Having bumped into hiring committees and so forth and picking their brains, I am a bit discouraged.
Although all three of my papers were received very positively, so that was encouraging. For ME personally, it was the best SBL I have had.
And I bought like three books. One was a reprint of an older book on Temples in Ancient Israel edited by Day. If you are interested in temple symbolism and want to know where it comes from, I think it is a sin qua non.
I think these small high level investigations do make contributions, but I inevitably am connected to the broader Bible ones where, in keeping with the "priesthood of all believers," it doesn't take the same level of expertise to be able to read a paper. Some stones hit myself, of course.
Yes, for me personally it was one of the most enjoyable ever, my other comments notwithstanding. Great to get to meet you in person!
Ken..so serving as a pastor is equal to selling used cars? I know I am reading you wrong, but don't you think a little bit of arrogance is obvious here? Also, why is writing books that only a few people read and debating questions that no one really cares about in the real world so important? Maybe it is your calling. I find it much more valuable building the saints, reaching out to the unsaved & hurting, feeding the homeless and caring for the poor in my community. But what do I know, I am only a pastor who settled for this work instead of selling used cars. The real important stuff is for guys like you. See, someone has to keep you humble:)
Maybe your comment is fair Craig. I don't think I meant it the way you're taking it. The person I'm addressing is not someone like you, who recognizes that the pastorate is a higher calling than teaching. I'll affirm that at least in comparison to me as a teacher. I think I would put Wilbur Williams as a teacher with as great spiritual impact as any pastor.
But the person I am addressing (and there are a lot) who dream one day of leaving the pastorate to teach. They see teaching as a higher calling than pastoring and long to get out of the local church. The same applies to those who long to climb up the "corporate ladder" of the church, to be a district superintendent or bishop.
So point taken if your critique correctly addresses something in my heart.
As the Church is dying in the north, education must address those issues, which are because of scholarship's knowledge, which is the responsibility of the teacher/scholar. Ignorance is not bliss, and causes much harm in churches.....And since church leaders are interested in church growth (success in their denominations), then church leaders are not interested in scholarship, because scholarship chllenges the status quo, as scholarship is on the 'cutting edge" of understanding what really happened and why. There is a "reformation" of types that is happening these days. So, scholarship is necessary and important.
Didn't you say AAR was not at the SBL this year? Why? They represent a global view, which would seem important these days of globalization. Does the ETS have a 'interest" in the AAR not being there, as it would undermine ETS's importance? I find this horrendously small minded, if so...maybe the evangelicals don't want change in their theological understanding as this would challenge the way they do "business" in "church work"...
I thought being a part of a Wesleyan church, you would be more "high church" than "priesthood of all believers"...
Many questions, but I would be interested most in why AAR was not represented, or there in groves as in the past...
In fact, I'm angered in just thinking about AAR being discrimnated against...as it is okay to perpetuate a mythological understanding of faith, so that people "feel good", but remain in ignorance???? I can't stand control like that...as it means that others are controlled by those who know, but want to keep that knowledge to themselves...
My understanding Angie is that it is quite the other way around. It was the leadership of AAR that didn't want to be associated with us narrow biblicists. They removed themselves to the chagrin of many of their members, so much so that they will be once again meeting at the same time and place as SBL in a couple years--separate but nearby.
You and I have issues with our past, Angie, so we focus on the excluding that conservatives do. But the other end of the spectrum is quite the same, looking down the nose on those not as enlightened as they. There is a liberal fundamentalism that is every bit as narrow and close-minded as the kind you and I associate with much conservatism.
Thanks for responding. I know that there is a wide divide between the understanding of the liberal or conservative, but that divide is insignificant in attitude. I know this to be so, but, I agree with AAR. When I read Paul Kurtz of CFI on morality I am refreshed, as it becomes evident that man develops morally across many "divides", not just according to some religious understanding... The presentation does not hold any "bite" and it is true and not dependent on religious sectarianism. Surely, you agree that liberals don't have to have attitudes, as I believe liberals are more open to truth where-ever it leads. And following that mentality has caused me pain, just as much as conservative exclusivism and judmentalism.
Liberalism is freeing from a narrow focused, cultural conformity, and frame of reference. I don't think academic freedom should be limited, as that ceases to be education and becomes indoctrination. Of course, that is fine for the Church as it is about dogmatic understandings of "truth". I don't want anything to do with that, because "truth" should not be a commodity, it should be a lifestyle and journey, not a destination.
I have no problem with true liberalism, which you speak of. But where is it to be found in academia?
or the Church!?
In a Christian University, there should be an understanding that there will be differences of opinion and conviction. There should not be a mentality that breeds a culture of exclusivity. And there should be an open dialogue of faculty, students and others. This is why Wim and I have supported strongly the Honors College and will continue to do so. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, so I want to see these young people become all they were meant to become. And it excites me to see how they develop and grow. It is faith seeking understanding...
Ken:
I took away from SBL the great joy of watching you eat a whole lobster for the first time!
It was good to see you and have some time together.
Thanks Al, good to see you too! Just for the record, I didn't eat the shell. :-)
What struck me most about this years SBL, was something I started to notice with the help of a session review Michael Fishbane's new book. In his response to the other four scholars input was that he did not want to hide his voice in his latest book, Sacred Attunement: A Jewish Theology. The way he put was he did not want to become a ventriloquist of other scholars, but stand on his own while being informed by others. After that I could see how many scholars do hide behind other scholar's skirts, and yet the best do not. One answered a question I had about his use of Umberto Eco's categories developed from a post-gutenberg world to a text written in pre-gutenberg world of scrolls, which in turn were meant for oral performance. He answered by invoking, "Eco would probably create a category of a model hearer." What I came away with was theology life for that matter and has to done on my own two feet inform by the word and in dialog with others.
Could you elaborate on what 'faciful "what if" exploration' is? This isn't my primary field, and perhaps I'm missing something that is peculiar to SBL presentations.
misspelling--"fanciful"
What I meant was "what if this comment is thinking of so and so like this obscure parallel then it would mean such and such..."
Oh. Well, that's certainly not limited to SBL, then.
Post a Comment