This is from his conclusion:

This study has focused on what was common among many groups while also paying attention to certain distinctive features of ethnic groups and cultural minorities. The attention to shared modes of identity construction, negotiation, and communication is not meant to suggest that Christians were not unique. However, Christians were unique or distinctive insofar as every association, minority group, or ethnic group was unique or distinctive, each in its own way. Among the distinctive characteristics of Christians and Judeans that stood out to many insiders and outsiders was their attention to one, Judean God to the exclusion of other deities. This also entailed refraining from involvement in certain social settings where those other gods were honoured. This distinction was a potential source of tensions with many other groups and individuals within their contexts, and it could lead to social harassment and persecution on particular occasions.

When I read this, it hit me as extremely level-headed. This is the kind of balanced and nuanced scholarship that I aspire to in my own research. It also seems to be an excellent concise description of the identity formation of early Christian groups. I just had to pass it along!

I thought this paragraph, in particular, was a well-stated and well-balanced approach to the use of social-scientific methods in biblical studies:

Building on contributions from both of these scholarly areas [social history as (1) "from below" scholarship or (2) social scientific research], I approach the social sciences as heuristic devices, as things that help the social historian develop questions and find or notice things that might otherwise remain obscure. I tend to draw on social-scientific insights to develop a research framework for analysis, and I am less focused than some other scholars on testing models specifically. In this respect, I consider myself more a social historian than a social scientist. Throughout this interdisciplinary study, I explain and adapt social-scientific concepts and theories in order to further our understanding of specific historical cases in the ancient context. [5]

Though I am nowhere near as accomplished as Harland in the field social-scientific research, of course, I feel like he took the words right out of my mouth.

Tim points to my previous post where I am reaching out to the Emerging Women community (see the great comments coming in over there). He highlights something I have said, italicizing it in this way: “I’m not certain that any would qualify as focused upon “academic biblical studies” (I haven’t searched through all of them), but they are definitely a collection of blogs of interest to our field.” Thank you , Tim, for giving me the opportunity to clarify the statement. In response, I would emphasize the words “I’m not certain” and “I haven’t searched through all of them.” Please read on . . .

I had been thinking about the very question that Tim so eloquently states in his post (one of the best posts on this topic thus far). Given the freedom of blogging, I cannot imagine setting a solid boundary line. I think for any blog to be considered a biblioblog, though, a few questions should be pondered:

• How many posts are on biblical studies in a given time period? Say, a month.
• What is the ratio of biblical studies posts to other sorts of posts?
• How tangentially related are those “other sorts of posts” to biblical studies?
• What qualifies as a post about “biblical studies”? We are not including every person on the internet that sometimes says interesting things about the Bible. No, we need some academic interaction.
• What, then, do we consider “academic interaction”?

It’s a bit of a balancing act. The thing with Jim’s blog is that, yes, it’s eclectic. But buried in those posts about the evils of one news bit or another are some posts that do indeed “interact” with academic issues of biblical studies. Maybe Jim’s “interaction” is more ranting than measured dialogue, but apparently that’s acceptable for biblioblogging (since Jim’s blog is accepted as a biblioblog). The key, I think, is that Jim refers to scholars and scholarship and people doing stupid things with archaeology. He addresses issues that are of interest to the academic world.

What I was uncertain about in the quote highlighted by Tim was whether we could all be on the same page about what defines an appropriate focus on academic biblical studies.

I think that if we can find women who are interacting (or ranting or whatever) with academic issues of biblical studies at least a few times a month and those posts are not totally overshadowed by the rest of their other interests (any more than Jim’s academically-related posts are), then we have found new bibliobloggers! So, I am suggesting we place Jim’s blog on the “margins,” in a sense, defining him as a good boundary marker. We are saying, “Okay, we’ll let Jim be Jim, but that’s probably as academically diluted as we want to go.” I mean no offense to Jim when I say these things. He is certainly confident and comfortable with his own approach to blogging and academics!

So, let the hunt go on for new female bibliobloggers! I will suggest two places to begin looking. I have already mentioned the Emerging Women community. I will also highlight the RevGalBlogPals ring of blogs (see the “Our Blogs” section on the right sidebar).