I’m happy to share that my paper, “What Does the Haustafel Have to Do with the Eschaton? An Exploration of Apocalyptic Identity Formation in First Peter,” has been accepted to the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude section for the SBL Annual Meeting this November. I received the confirmation yesterday and I’m hoping it’s not a cruel April Fool’s joke.

This is the project that I have been working on with my Graduate Research Mentorship funding at UCLA under Ra’anan Boustan. The focus of the paper is the relationship between the household code and the heightened eschatological expectation of 1 Peter. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, M. Dibelius argued that the household codes of the NT were brought about by waning anticipation of the parousia (not unrelated to arguments about “early catholicism” [Frühkatholizismus]). The underlying assumption is that ethics and eschatology are somehow at odds–an assumption that has been effectively challenged by a number of folks (even if the assumption is not yet dead and feels quite happy with some).

Still, though, the conversation regarding household codes (ethical exhortation) and eschatology remains at the level of sequence or chronology. That is, Dibelius is wrong because the two ideas can clearly coexist sequentially (the Christ-confessing movement need not “move on” from one to the other), eschatology offering “comfort” in present suffering and/or lending “urgency” to ethical instruction. I’d like to shift the focus. This is not just about “ethics” and “eschatology” coexisting, but about the social function of two different types of discourse in an effort to construct a complex communal identity. I believe the apocalyptic discourse of the letter (including, but not limited to eschatology) is aimed at one aspect of identity formation, while the exhortation of the domestic code is aimed at another, complementary aspect of identity formation.

I add in my abstract: “This paper may be viewed more broadly as speaking to the Balch–Elliott debate as well. Rather than imagine an impassable conflict between sectarianism and acculturation, social identity studies offer us a means by which we begin to see a more nuanced scenario where multiple constructions of identity live in tension. Indeed, such dynamic identities constituted the nature of the early Christ-confessing movement.”

By the way, my apologies to those who follow my feed for the blog laying a little dormant for some time. Life has had a multitude of distractions lately. In the coming weeks, I will try to discuss some of the background info for the paper (e.g., the Balch–Elliott debate, the nature of dynamic identities) on the blog here. Also, this project has helped me find some interest in ancient letter writing, an area where I feel like I might “hang my hat” for a little while (as a contextual setting for discussing apocalyptic discourse and group identity construction). So, more may be coming on epistolography as well.

Since John Kutsko’s letter last week regarding the policy changes for student members, there has been much discussion on the blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere. From the discussions, it appears that students are overwhelmingly against the requirement for a full paper draft at the time of submission (even if reaction to the other point, limiting participation to one session, is not quite as strong). But we need quantifiable data in order to make any substantive case for students. We also need to know whether we truly are representing the vast majority of student views on the issue.

So, members of the Student Advisory Board have crafted a survey that is manageable and fair, one that we believe will get us reliable and usable data. The more data we have, the better sense we have of what people are really thinking. Gathering this data, the SAB will be able to represent students’ concerns with more confidence. Also, with that data, we are better able to argue a case on behalf of students. Please take the survey as soon as possible and spread the word in whatever way you can!

Also, please be drafting formal responses regarding the policy decision, addressed to the members of the Council, and send along to your SAB representative by January 10th. The survey data gives us some good numbers. The formal responses from students — and more established scholars — will collectively provide us with a picture of the best path forward.

If you’re a student member of SBL, you should have received a letter from our Executive Director in your email inbox just moments ago. For convenience sake, and to extend the conversation, I’m posting the letter below. The Student Advisory Board (of which I am a member) has been discussing these changes as well. We will be seeking your feedback very soon. I’ll have a post about that tomorrow. For now, let’s take a moment to soak in the official explanation for policy changes (and see the full summary document of the policy changes here). Be thinking about implications:

Dear Student Member:

The particular opportunities and challenges facing student members deserve focused attention. The Society of Biblical Literature is committed to this focused attention, and we will redouble efforts to develop programs and policies that provide students more opportunities and enable their interests to be represented in SBL governance. It is with this effort in mind that we are providing explanations of two policies recently adopted by Council regarding student participation in the Society’s Annual Meeting.

1. All students without a doctoral degree are required to submit to the Program Unit Chair the full text of the paper they will read. The paper will be submitted at the time of proposal.  Student proposers will submit the paper they intend to read, not a full-length article intended for written distribution.
2. The number of sessions students can participate in will be limited to one. This policy pertains to participation as panelist, presenter, and respondent.

Policies limiting an individual’s participation on the program have been in effect for much of the Annual Meeting’s recent history, and they are common among peer ACLS organizations. For a variety of reasons, in an increasingly pressurized academic market, SBL is reinstating these policies. Moreover, limitations apply not just to student members but to participants in general, and Council’s recent policy statement included actions concerning all members as well as Affiliate organizations.

Every member of Council was once in your position – a student member eager to contribute to the field and to engage with senior scholars. That remains a primary purpose of the Annual Meeting, and we encourage you to attend, submit a paper, and engage with colleagues. In addition, Council recognizes that the future of the field is in your hands, and that new ideas, fresh perspectives, and brilliant research are age-blind. Our student members push the profession forward and sustain it, not only through intellectual innovation but also exactitude, care, and hard work. We all know that there is much at stake for student members and that, as a result, you consistently produce work of a high caliber. These policies were made in part to mitigate those high stakes and to ensure that student presentations fit into a larger goal of fostering a diverse, moderated, and fair career path into academic life.

First: at every Annual Meeting we now schedule over 1,700 participants in ten timeslots. For the same reason that Council limits full members to two participations, students have the opportunity to participate once as panelist, presenter, or respondent at the Annual Meeting.  We are opening up the field to more student participants, and so more new voices. This allows for a more diverse SBL and Annual Meeting and provides more opportunity for student member participation.

Second: a traditional “guild” offers a pathway into its profession through a series of stages. For student members of SBL, that pathway is to submit and deliver a paper at a Regional Meeting, collect feedback from peers, and then to seek participation in the Annual Meeting after a process of mentoring, discussion, and informal peer review. The Annual Meeting does not replace Regional Meetings; indeed, the latter are an integral and rich testing ground for new ideas.

Third: because the stakes are so high for students and with the goal of modeling best practices for the field, Council agreed that a full-length paper submission is to the advantage of students and serves as preparation for that much-maligned academic master or mistress – the deadline. Limiting student members to one participation will facilitate their focus on one quality presentation in the midst of demanding thesis or dissertation work. It is also felt that the policies will increase the “currency” of student presentations at the Annual Meeting, making the notation of such presentation on a CV more valuable.

These policies will ensure more diverse representation of student work at the Annual Meeting, cultivate career path helps already in place for SBL student members, and model best practices that can serve as an example for all our members. Of course, all members should pursue the highest quality presentation, and student members present superb papers year to year, just as do independent scholars and tenured faculty. The intent behind these decisions, as I hope I have made clear, is to give students greater opportunity to achieve and display their important contributions to the field.

Students’ success at the meetings and in their careers, indeed, is Council’s main concern. As a Society, we will continue to develop and revise policies together, with the broadest interests in mind and in order to foster the future of biblical scholarship.

Sincerely,

John F. Kutsko

Executive Director

Society of Biblical Literature

Graduate students, pre-grad students, and newly minted Ph.D.’s on the job market need to view the “social aspect” of SBL not as mere holiday gladness. Rather, we have to grab a hold of every social opportunity we possibly can in order to develop a network of colleagues with whom we feel comfortable conversing (and, perhaps, request advice and/or help down the road). Here are a few thoughts that I’ve had about networking in my short run at SBL meetings thus far–challenging tasks I am very much still developing. Hopefully these reflections are not limited solely to SBL, but the Annual Meeting certainly brings these issues to the forefront.

1. Go to the meeting!

I know, I know. It’s expensive. But have you taken notice of the job market out there? It is a blood bath. I don’t care if your doctoral advisor is Rudolf Bultmann reincarnated, or that Moses himself is your outside reader, you can’t afford not to be in the game. Think of the cost of the membership, registration, flight, hotel, food, etc., as an investment in your future (and current) career development. If you are a grad student in biblical studies or any of the closely related fields and you’re not going to the meeting, you’re shooting yourself in the foot. I probably shouldn’t say anything until I have a tenure track position and I won’t have you as competition anymore, but we grad students need to stick together.

2. Dress the part. Even on the way there and back.

The idea is that we want people to take us more seriously. If we dress down, we risk looking unprofessional and as if we don’t really care. We risk looking sloppy. Also, if you dress down, your fellow grad students may view you as a liability when they want to wander around and meet scholars. Even when you’re traveling, I would at least try not to look like a slob. I can’t tell you how many scholars I have seen on flights, airport shuttles, subways, and trains. The year before enrolling at UCLA, I ran into my potential (and now current) advisor on the train from LA down to San Diego. Any moment of the entire journey could be one of the biggest breaks for you of the whole conference.

3. Getting to know other graduate students is not a waste of time.

It may feel as if going to the student reception or otherwise getting to know other grad students is not worth your efforts when there are bigger fish to fry. That’s a mistake, especially if you make that kind of attitude apparent. Networking with other grad students goes a long way. Other grad students know people that you don’t know, oftentimes very important people, perhaps even people that would have immediate importance for your own research. Never underestimate the power and potential of an introduction by another grad student. That’s besides the fact that most grad students are often just fun to be around and share your burdens with.

4. Networking works better with a “wingman” or “wingwoman,” so to speak.

For a number of reasons, it is helpful to team up with a fellow grad student for networking. Chief among them is the confidence that comes from shared determination. Now, if your teammate is not as interested as you in meeting and talking with new people, then that could actually work against you. Other reasons abound. As mentioned, your friends may know people that you don’t know. Further, they may actually have a better basis for conversation than you have. They may be closer to the specialty of this particular scholar and you can ride on their conversational coattails, letting them take the lead.

You can also make sacrifices for one another. In Atlanta, a good friend of mine really wanted to talk to one of his academic idols at a reception, but had gotten roped into a conversation with some random guy talking to him about things he didn’t really care about. He was being nice, but I could tell that he really wanted to break away somehow and talk to his idol. So, I struck up a conversation with this random guy. My friend excused himself to go grab a glass of wine and come back to position himself closer to his real conversational target. In the end, he had one of the most amazing conversations of his academic career. Sometimes you take one for the team. Others have done the same for me.

Finally, this concept is important for the simple reason that it is difficult to walk into a reception by yourself. If there is no current opportunity to jump into a conversation with some important scholar, then your default is to chat it up with one another. You don’t have to look like a dunce sipping wine, coke, or water as you awkwardly study the wallpaper pattern, waiting for the right moment to make a move–some move, any move. The risk here is that such peer to peer conversation can be so comfortable that you may take your eyes off the prize and lose your resolve to make a lot of quality connections beyond your close friends.

5. Don’t aim your sights too high.

Try not to aim to meet only huge names, especially those folks whose reputations earn them clouds of drooling followers at every annual meeting. My successful networking friends aim for those people who are generally either up-and-coming scholars and therefore ecstatic to have someone interested in their work, or people who are well-established but in a fairly specialized subfield that doesn’t typically pack a room. If you know something about that subfield, you have an opportunity for conversation. Headliners may be perfectly accessible in conversation, but by virtue of their popularity and limited free time, are difficult to get an audience with. Even if you do get an audience with a big-timer, just remember how many other people they talk to. Even if they’re super nice, it may be easy for them to forget you. I speak from experience!

6. Don’t let yourself get too intimidated.

On the other hand, big name scholars are human beings. They may be the stars of the show in our little world, but they typically enjoy a good conversation. Some headliners are more approachable than others, of course, and are happy to talk about pretty much anything of interest with you. Others may be less interested to spend their time talking to an unknown entity and would prefer to reserve their conversation for fellow elites . . . or, just people they know instead of people they don’t. Give it a shot. If it doesn’t work out, move on to someone else. Don’t beat yourself up and analyze every stupid thing you said or think about how you could have been so much wittier. Again, speaking from experience here.

7. Show humility and appropriate deference.

While it’s good to be confident, humility goes a long way. Even if you feel like you belong at the adults’ table and can mix it up with the best of the best, don’t let on how confident you are of yourself. Nobody likes an arrogant _____.  If you’re pretty sure that a big name person should know who you are because of some session in which you presented, or a conversation you had with them two years ago, it’s good form to open with something like, “You may not remember me, but . . .” instead of “Hey, what’s up? How’s the fam?” Also, even if you think their theory of such and such is total rubbish, try to flatter them and highlight the positives.

8. Don’t come off as desperate.

Perhaps the person you’re talking to could be instrumental in getting you into a graduate program. Perhaps they might be a connection at a journal or monograph series in which you hope to get published. Maybe someone you hope might be a future colleague. The rule is: humility/deference is good; desperation is bad. If you come off as needy and nervous, just looking to get something out of this person for your own benefit, they probably will have no interest in talking with you. Relax. Remember your shared humanity.

9. Make yourself seem relevant to the person you’re talking to.

“Your dissertation fundamentally transformed the direction of my own work.” “Your article on the ________ was exactly what I was looking for in my search for methodology.” Don’t just say “I love your stuff. It’s totally awesome.” Have some insight, and preferably, some personal connection to their work. Be prepared with intriguing questions that might get them thinking. Be specific, though not overly so. Talking about work can be boring at receptions, but if it is clear that you are engaging their ideas in an exciting way, that may draw them in.

On the flip side, if you feel like you can’t currently make yourself relevant or engage in an intelligent discussion with the person, it may be worth letting this possible connection slide for the moment. I have some people that are closely associated with my work that I haven’t sought out yet, in part because I’d like to get a better handle on their work. I would prefer not to look like an idiot. This is in part because of where I’m at in my research. I’m still pre-exams. After I get through my exams, I don’t think this flip side of the rule will apply anymore. This one is more of a personal judgment call.

10. Never eat alone.

There is actually a bestselling book on networking with this very title. While it is great to get those momentary connections in the hotel lobby, the book exhibition, or the Sheffield reception, building relationships requires the need to have longer conversations. Before the conference, I try to contact several people with whom I’d like to stay connected and don’t otherwise have much time to converse with. I also contact people that I have had some initial contact with and would like to build a stronger connection. If you frame the request as a desire to “touch base” on some issue or gain insight from their expertise (which is probably accurate), rather than just “hey, let’s party,” then you may have more success. These are often the best moments of the entire conference for me. Yes, it’s networking and intentional relationship-building, but it’s also a delight to share a meal or coffee/tea with someone whose company you enjoy.

11. Try to follow-up. Soon.

If you make a sufficient connection with someone, so that you believe you could contact them, then do it. At the bare minimum, email them and thank them for their time and let them know how much you appreciate their work and their conversation. Do it soon. Perhaps they invited you to share your work with them. If you feel comfortable sharing, you should do it as soon as you feel comfortable. Consider them as potential contacts for when you have questions or issues that come up. Don’t waste these resources on things you clearly could have looked up on your own, but for truly complicated matters for which they have expertise, consider contacting them when you’re in a pickle. You’ll have to gauge the level of connection you had with them, and their willingness to hear from some random grad student.

Final thoughts

Listen, this may all sound cold and calculating. Strategizing your networking often does, but many of us academic types are introverts at heart and strategy is required. It’s a jungle out there and we need to make ourselves known. Take risks. Last year, my friend invited a big name in biblical studies to have lunch with us as he was waiting around for his flight on Tuesday afternoon. It worked. In other moments, I have been both politely and rudely blown off. Those moments sting, and they stay with you. But the potential rewards are worth the potential rejection.

On the flip side, even if this does sound like overly-strategized calculation, it doesn’t have to be. Even when I’m trying to make new connections and even impress my new contacts, I’m having a lot of fun with them. This person isn’t just a piece of meat. They are a fellow sojourner in this crazy field, often with much wisdom to impart and camaraderie to share.

Finally, I’m no expert at this stuff, by any means. If you have any additional tidbits, please do share them! Or if you think I missed the mark, which is entirely plausible, then let it be known.

I love a great many things about our annual biblical scholarship geek fest and post-meeting blogged reflections have become a favorite tradition. As Deane Galbraith’s astoundingly awesome November biblical studies carnival attests, many others have beaten me to the punch, but there’s always room for one more.

First off: how my approach to the conference has evolved over the past several years. I began my SBL-goings not too long ago at the DC meeting, while I was still in my M.Div. program at Fuller. I was lucky enough to have a bunch of friends at the meeting (especially as it was combined with AAR at the time) and ran into professors, old and new. So, there was some social element to the experience, but my approach to the meeting at the time was still predominantly a solitary experience. I packed my days to see sessions featuring topics or scholars who interested me (“the SBL tart thing . . . flitting between several different sessions of interest“), perhaps those scholars with whom I might like to study in the future.

Also, I still remember having been invited via email by a scholar to come up and chat with him at a reception. Even though he had invited me to chat with him, I hovered outside outside the reception, watching the swarm of other grad students move around with him, drooling at the chance to get a word with him. I believe I was literally shaking with trepidation. I finally mustered up the courage to exchange a few words. I didn’t really know what to say or how to say it, so it wasn’t the most fruitful conversation, but at least I had it.

I found the solitary and wide-net approach interesting and enlightening, but ultimately, exhausting and perhaps not as helpful as I would have liked. Going to interesting-looking sessions did not really help me find my research niche, which was a big struggle for me while I was at Fuller–It took me quite some time to articulate or even realize that social historical work was my true passion. What this conference strategy did provide, however, was a broad perspective on what is out there. And I did find this one session that just blew my mind at how helpful it was for a prospective doctoral student, even though that wasn’t the intended audience.

Having narrowed my current scope of research since then, I now attend far fewer sessions. In planning my conference, I picked out basically five categories of attendable sessions (in a fairly accurate hierarchy):

1. those with which I was directly involved
2. those which directly related to my current research (apocalyptic discourse, group identity formation)
3. those with which my friends were involved as panelists or presiders
4. those connected to groups with which I am affiliated (Student Advisory Board, Mennonites, bloggers)
5. those that offered insights into more pragmatic concerns (pedagogy, publishing)

That’s now how I plan ahead of time. While at the conference, I let some of the sessions of lesser importance slide, in order to get some time to chat with friends or wander around the book exhibitions and lobbies, hoping to bump into people. In the end, this year I went to two and a half sessions, four individual papers (without staying for the rest of the sessions), one board meeting, and . . . at least ten receptions.

I also planned to have half or more of my meals blocked out for meetings with people with whom I’d like to stay connected or get more connected. These meals were some of the most important moments I have had at SBL. And no matter how exhausted I am, I always try to hit as many evening receptions as possible (hence, ten). That’s where the real networking/socializing happens. Thankfully, I have moved on past my days of cowardly hovering and trembling outside the receptions.

The ultimate highlight of the conference for me, as many others have noted, is found in the social connections. Not the books. Not the papers. I tried to write down all the names of people with whom I remembered having at least a five minute (often longer) conversation or otherwise made some significant social connection. The list came out to around 50-60 people: some really big names, some up-and-coming junior faculty, some old friends, some current peers, some prospective grad students looking for advice, etc. Some of these conversations were fairly easy, others I was trying my darnedest to sound intelligent and/or witty.

Apropos to this post, take a gander at Matthew Dowling’s “first-timer impressions“. A lot of great thoughts there–although the closest I have come to a worship service during SBL has been the Mennonite Scholars and Friends festivities. We Mennos like have a very communal understanding of worship anyway.

Up next: some thoughts on networking.

As a member of the Student Advisory Group, I am currently putting together a panel discussion for this fall’s annual meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature. The panel is aimed at both master’s and doctoral students who are a bit desperate and frustrated to find their own niche in biblical studies. The panel will include a star-studded cast of established scholars, which isn’t completely in its final form yet. The panelists will share in an autobiographical way about their own struggles to find that initial starting point in scholarship.

The idea is that many graduate students, myself included, often start off loving biblical studies or some related field in general. At some point, however, we hit a wall where we have to settle into one little area of research — at least for the first chunk of our scholarly careers. Frustration ensues. Given that we’re doing biblical studies and it’s really hard to say something that nobody’s said before, we may have more headaches than other fields. And then, add the fact that our field is fraught with passionate religious perspectives from all sorts of directions. What’s a budding scholar to do?

I’d like to ask what you think an appropriate title for this session might be. I’m tentatively calling it, “Finding Your Niche in Biblical Studies.” It’s descriptive enough, I think, but there could easily be a better title. Here are some random ideas:

• Finding Your Niche in Biblical Studies
• Frustrations in Becoming a Biblical Scholar
• How to Begin in Biblical Studies
• Finding the Starting Gate for Your Scholarship [sounds like an infomercial]
• Starting the Scholarly Path
• So, I Like Biblical Studies. Now What?

If you were flipping through the SBL program, what title would most grab your attention and interest? Not necessarily among these possibilities, which I just threw together, but anything you can think of. Thanks!

But I’m open to being surprised! I am responding here to Dan Wallace and his challenge that the academy of biblical scholars are hostile towards his kind. That is, the conservative evangelical kind as represented at Dallas Seminary.

A few years ago, I went to a session at SBL which reviewed the inner workings of a number of Ph.D. programs. It was great because I was on the market as an M.Div. student at the time, looking for a good program. I wasn’t considering Dallas Seminary as a prospective doctoral program, to say the least, but I was interested to see what they would say in this diverse group. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair, was representing DTS. Bingham came out and said explicitly that Dallas students must agree with the school’s doctrinal positions and research cannot “offend” their doctrinal base. I find that bothersome, from the perspective of scholarship. (See also this comment in response to James’ post, quoting this link at the DTS website.)

Another confession. I have a difficult time understanding how one can affirm inerrancy of the Bible while also being a biblical scholar. To me, the two seem mutually exclusive.

On both counts, however, I have been surprised. I have a good friend who is a solid scholar of Christian origins, with a very nuanced and complex understanding of the New Testament and other early Christian documents. He says that he could sign a document with an inerrancy statement if required by his place of employment. That blows me away. My interpretation of what he has told me, though, is that he doesn’t really believe in inerrancy. “Inerrancy” is so watered down that it’s something else entirely and is only used as a way to remain within the conservative evangelical community. Power to him. That community needs him!

I have interacted online and in person with a number of DTS students who have also shocked me in their complexity of perspective and sophistication of argument. I wonder how these students avoid “offending” the doctrinal base of the school. I heard about the story Wallace cites in his recent post while at SBL, talking with another DTS master’s student there. In fact, I even know the scholar in question who walked away at the mention of Dallas Seminary. I personally wouldn’t have taken the same action as this scholar (walking away), but I too would have been a bit surprised at a sophisticated student coming from a place like Dallas, which I view as rigid. This was a scholar of texts outside of the NT canon, though, and perhaps he had just been approached by too many conservatives who were trying to “hide out” from the difficult questions posed by biblical scholarship. Perhaps he should have asked some more probing questions rather than giving up on the student.

I don’t think Wallace helps his case, though, when he falsely states: “As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians.” [Doug also pointed this out in his carnival.] It is “remarkable” how incorrect Wallace’s statement is. Perhaps there are many who are not the same sort of Christian that he is. Actually, my experience is that SBL is wonderfully diverse. We also, of course, have many people calling out SBL as being too influenced by confessional stances. I have a number of friends who are on the job market and are having a very difficult time simply because they are not religious. The fact that it is more difficult for a person without faith commitments to get a job than someone with faith commitments should tell us something.

Others have weighed in. See James, Doug, James again, Rob, Mike, Nick. I like Doug’s post the most thus far: “It’s unclear to me, however, how ‘going where the evidence leads’ would work at a conservative evangelical college or seminary.” My feeling too.

Giving my first paper presentation at the national meeting for SBL, I felt a bit like Napoleon Dynamite trying to work out at Muscle Beach. After going through with the presentation, I now understand the shocked stares I got from some people when they heard I would be giving a paper at SBL as a mere second year Ph.D. student.

My paper was accepted into the Construction of Christian Identities program unit, which has been around for six years. I had never attended the group’s sessions in the past, but it seemed perhaps the most appropriate one for the paper I hoped to submit last winter. As it happens, my paper was good, but not exactly the sort of thing they usually do. I hadn’t engaged social identity theory in the paper at all. So, maybe not as appropriate for the group as I had first thought.

When I first discovered that I would be presenting on Tuesday morning (the last day of the conference), and competing with Hans Dieter Betz at that, I was disappointed. No one would be there. Upon reflection, however, I realized that this was the perfect opportunity for my first foray into presenting at the big show. I could get my feet wet without having to deal with the stormy waters of a room packed with highly experienced scholars.

There were seven people around for my presentation and five still there for the discussion time after three presentations. There were some clearly solid scholars who are rooted within identity theory. The explicit feedback I received from my paper was that I need to be more specific about the “other” to which I refer in my paper. My problem on that point is that my texts are not quite as specific about the “other” as I would like. But if a group is to construct an identity, the assumption seems to be that they must construct that identity contra some other group. In other words, identity construction apparently demands an “other.” The implicit vibe I got was that, for this group, I need to move beyond textual analysis and move more into the realm of social theory. This is something I was already feeling beforehand.

I left the session feeling very much the rookie in methodological theory. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Scholarship consists of baby steps, especially for a scholarly peon like me. The greatest motivator I could ever have is a reminder of my own inadequacies, a reminder that I have a looooong intellectual road ahead of me. This gives me something to strive for.

My objective, then, is to dive headfirst into my method. I find the rising field of social identity fascinating enough that I am now dedicated to immersing myself in identity theory. I will continue to pursue participation in this group of outstanding scholars and learn from my experience.

One positive note I should mention, though, is that introducing a paper with a Monty Python quote is a very good idea. I mean, really, what have the Romans ever done for us?

“It’s the most wonderful time of the year!” I sang this to a friend of mine, half-joking about how much I love attending SBL. Thus far, the conference has not disappointed. There are generally two major goals that I have at the conference each year. First, catch up with friends and meet new people. And second, be engaged by multiple angles of scholarship. The latter occurs for me in attending sessions and checking out books in the exhibition.

Both goals have been successful thus far. The fun typically begins at the airport of my departure, this year LAX. I saw one distinguished Old Testament scholar, in fact, on the FlyAway shuttle from Union Station to the airport. Waiting at the gate, you inevitably see several scholars who meet the expectations. A guy talking on the phone about rabbinic scholarship. Someone reading a book on the historical Jesus. I struck up a conversation with historical Jesus guy. Then, I saw one of my former professors from Fuller.

On the plane, I was tinkering with my upcoming presentation and the guy across the aisle from me asked me what program unit I would be presenting for. The fun continues in the destination airport as scholars find their baggage, bump into each other and decide how to get to their hotels. I met up with Kevin, who arrived at the airport around the same time as I did and we caught a taxi to the Marriott with another UCLA student and her colleague.

I gather that Friday night is generally a “down night” for a lot of people. My SBL weekend always gets off to a great start on Friday night, though, with the Mennonite Scholars and Friends reception. That reception thoroughly met my first goal of catching up and meeting new people. I love being part of such a tight and small group of biblical scholars with Anabaptist interests. The reception was much more subdued than past meetings. I wasn’t at the Boston meeting, but before that, AAR was with us and the reception used to be more than double what it was this year. That, and it seems none of the receptions can really afford much to offer people as they stand around and chat. But, even with fewer people and no food, it still felt like the best way to jump start the weekend.

More to come . . .

If you’re at or heading to SBL, and still checking your blog reader, I have a booth for you to check out in the book exhibition. Be on the lookout for Stony Run Publishing, who just came out with their first textbook, Interpreting Biblical Literature: an Introduction to Biblical Studies by Michael R. Cosby. For more on the book and on its author, take a look at the first part of my review and my interview with Mike.