Well, I survived another challenging quarter. This was my first one as a Teaching Assistant at UCLA and it took some getting used to balancing teaching responsibilities, my own research, and family life. Teaching took the bulk of my time this quarter. Though I know this is a life long struggle for academics, I will be trying some tricks as time goes by for better balancing.

Aside from the time management challenge, teaching Western Civ this quarter was a fulfilling experience. I had a great bunch of students who asked interesting questions and offered creative insights when reading ancient texts. And it was, of course, a great learning experience for me to think synthetically about a vast span of history. Puts things in perspective. I’m looking forward to doing the same class with a different professor next quarter, since it will have some continuity but also allow for filling in a few gaps that the other class didn’t cover.

I finished up a paper for the end of the quarter in Bartchy’s Paul of Tarsus seminar. I decided to do Paul and empire, then I narrowed down into First Thessalonians. I did some work with social identity in First Thessalonians, as well as imperialism and eschatology. That, too, was a learning experience. I feel like I’m an archaeologist on a long, tedious dig. Each paper reveals a little tiny bit more that I hadn’t noticed before. I really appreciate the way Douglas Campbell put it in his recent tome: “And as I began to try to write, a frustrating experience began to unfold — repeatedly. I would begin to articulate my concerns as best I could, painfully compose a chapter or two of prose, and then the argument would break down. It was as if a wave would run each time a little further up the beach before it would break — which it always did — and run back to sea” (xxv). Not that I presume to be writing something something of the magnitude of Campbell’s work, but the dissertation I have in mind has to deal with some very nebulous concepts and methods. It’s a very slow process trying to get a handle on them.

Next quarter, I’ll be doing a graduate seminar with Ronald Mellor on Roman Religion. That should be a fun class with all my colleagues in the ancient field at UCLA (many of us are TAing together) and a couple other Bartchy students. I’ve been getting interested in exploring voluntary associations, so I think I might do a paper in that area for Mellor’s seminar. I’m gearing up for it by reading Philip Harland‘s new book, kindly sent along to me by T & T Clark for review (Thanks, Abby!!).

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?

Dramatic movie preview voice: “Just when you thought all the dust had been settled, one man has come to shake it off. The writing was on the wall, and he decided to reread it. He enters the arena where two groups battle over the true meaning of identity. He searches through every city in the Empire to find the truth. Diving down into the well of time, Phil Harland discovers the hidden mysteries of the eternal question: ‘Who Are We?’ The general who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an emperor. Read it here. Read it now.”

T & T Clark should totally hire me on their marketing team. I’m feeling a little sensational today (blame it on the imagery behind Phil’s recent post: Pompeii 2). But seriously, Phil Harland’s new book, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians, looks very exciting! Here’s the description:

Drawing on insights from the social sciences, including social identity theory and migration theory, this study suggests that we can better understand certain dynamics of identity among groups of Judeans (Jews) and Christians by looking at archeological evidence (especially inscriptions) for other contemporary associations, immigrants, and cultural minorities. Ancient Judean and Christian answers to the question ‘Who are we?’ come into sharper focus through close attention to the cultural environments and real-life settings of associations in the cities of the Roman empire. Despite the peculiarities of both Judean gatherings and Christian congregations, there were significant overlaps in how associations of various kinds communicated their identities and in how members of such groups expressed notions of belonging internally. The work is particularly well suited as a course text or book for review in courses that aim to understand early Christian groups and literature, including the New Testament, in relation to their Greek, Roman, and Judean cultural contexts.

It’s available for preorder on Amazon and Phil has his own information page up, with the promise of a companion webpage coming.

The Biblioblog Top 50 blog points out a new blogger on the scene, Brian Tucker. Here’s what they say:

New Testament Professor Brian Tucker of Michigan Theological Seminary has recently started a blog by the name of Identity Formation in the New Testament. Much of Brian’s work looks at the imperial context of the New Testament, in particular in relation to Paul’s letters. Thanks for getting in touch with us, Brian!

Brian recently earned his Ph.D. at the University of Wales. And check this out, he also holds a M.A.R., M.Div., and D.Min. (in Expository Communications). His faculty profile at Michigan Theological Seminary notes that he has “19 years experience as a youth pastor, worship leader, and senior pastor.” So, though he just recently finished his Ph.D. requirements, Brian’s got some heavy-duty experience to share with the blogging world.

Brian describes his blog as providing “a forum for discussion of the emergence of Christ-movement social identity with an emphasis on Paul’s writings.” Most of Brian’s posts thus far have gotten into the nitty-gritty of interacting with various books from his to-be-published or recently published book reviews. As I am getting into social identity myself–my SBL presentation this fall will be in the program unit “Construction of Christian Identities”–I am excited to learn from Brian’s expertise in this area.

I would love to see some posts on the basics of social identity on Brian’s blog. Such as the best books to get started, summarizing the dominant theories in the field, key biblical texts modeling social identity, what distinguishes social identity from other sorts of identity, etc. I think those sorts of posts are tremendously helpful, particularly when not many folks in the biblioblogging world specifically address social identity.

Welcome, Brian!!