Dear Friends, I'm pleased to share the news that my paper was accepted for presentation at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the SBL in Boston. I'll be presenting in the Performance Criticism section (by the way, I am co-leading the "Teaching the Bible Through Performance" pre-conference section on Friday - you should sign up!). The title and abstract are below. I'm looking forward to this as it'll be my 66th conference presentation and, I believe, the 7th year in a row presenting at the annual meeting. I also look forward to seeing you there.
The Silence of the Lamb (and Others): The Performance of Quietness in the Markan Drama
Mark's account, if nothing else, fits the description of "loud"! Indeed, from a statistical perspective, 1 out of every 3 verses contains some sort of scream or acoustic intrusion. Most certainly, one function of these dramatic devices was that they served to grab the attention of ancient Markan audiences. These increases in volume, however, are often staggered with jarring but critical moments of silence embedded in and throughout the text. Identifiable by both implicit and explicit oral-textual cues, silence in this work becomes golden and pays rich dividends to observers who tune into it. In this paper, I aim to help readers do just that as I explore the pragmatic effects of quietness in Mark. I show how they aid in structuring the performative ebb and flow of this intense antique drama.
I'm pleased to share the news today that, in Feb 2017, a new session/section will appear at the annual Midwest SBL meeting. This section, co-created and co-chaired by me and Dr. Fredrick Long, is appropriately titled "New Testament Language & Linguistics." Our initial description is as follows: "Advances in linguistics continue to have relevance and implications for NT Greek studies. Likewise, given that NT scholars work with ancient texts and languages, NT studies are uniquely situated to offer insights to those in the field of linguistics and language study. As such, this session highlights studies focused on the linguistic dimensions and/or language-based features of NT texts. Topics related to phonology, morphology, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics, among related topics, are welcome for submission." In this seminal year we will be meeting at St. Mary's College (Notre Dame) and, I, along with Dr. Long, will offer a paper. In addition, three others will be presenting, too. I have included all five abstracts below. For those attending, we'd love to meet you. For those interested in participating next year, please stay in touch so you will receive the "Call for Papers."
Shawn Craigmiles
Paper Title: Uses of ἀλλά and metalinguistic negation in Gospel of John
Proposal Abstract: This is an overview of the use of the conjunction ἀλλά within the Gospel of John, including a brief treatment of, and an appeal to, the linguistic phenomenon known as “metalinguistic negation” to explain the unusual occurrences in John 7:16 and 12:44. The aims are to identify the various constructions in which ἀλλά appears, the functions of these constructions, and the features most commonly observed, such as negation, ellipsis, and the presence of contrast pairs. It will be demonstrated that most occurrences of ἀλλά are in the context of a previous negation, such that either something from a previous utterance is being corrected, or two utterances are being contrasted in some way.
T. Michael W. Halcomb
Paper Title: Iota & the Pronunciation of Koine Greek: A Historical & Phonological Analysis
Proposal Abstract: In this paper I offer both synchronic and diachronic analyses of the pronunciation of the letter iota (i) up to the fourth century CE. I argue that itacism (iotacism), that is, the process whereby six Greek vowels (h( u) or vowel pairs (hi( ei( oi( and ui) underwent changes with the result that they were all pronounced the same as iota (i), began prior to the Classical Era. Moreover, I aim to illustrate that during this time, three stages of Compensatory Lengthening were largely responsible for setting the process of itacism in motion. Understanding these phonological details not only has implications for understanding the pronunciation of Koine but also engaging in text-critical analyses.
Fredrick J. Long
Paper Title: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Ἀποκρίνομαι (“I answer”) in the Greek New Testament
Proposal Abstract: The “deponent” verb ἀποκρίνομαι (glossed “I answer”) occurs in the Gospels and Acts, mostly in the passive voice. Sometimes the verb is not translated, especially after some action or circumstance. The ancient grammarians Ammonius and Phrynichus distinguished the verb’s meaning by its verbal voice: “ἀποκριθῆναι has to do with making distinctions, ἀποκρίνασθαι with making a reply” (BDAG s.v.); so also LSJ. Somewhat consistent with this ancient distinction, Stephen Levinsohn maintains that as a speech orienter ἀποκρίνομαι indicates taking “control of the conversation with an objection or new initiative.” This paper explores the semantics and pragmatics of ἀποκρίνομαι in the GNT.
Troy W. Martin
Paper Title: Christ’s Healing Sore (1 Pet 2:24)
Proposal Abstract: Sores are disgusting and especially those oozing bodily fluids. Sores are a pathological problem in need of healing. These modern perceptions make the interpretation of the term μώλωπι (“sore”) in 1 Pet 2:24 quite difficult. The Petrine author asserts that Christ’s sore heals others, and this notion of a sore that heals strikes moderns as quite odd. This oddity arises in part from a lack of understanding about the ancient source domain of Peter’s salvific-hygenic metaphor according to which a μώλωψ is part of a restorative process. This paper seeks to remedy this lack of understanding as a way of overhearing this metaphor once again in an ancient context.
Benjamin J. Snyder
Paper Title: Technical Term or Technical Foul? —βαπτίζω and the Problem of Transliteration as Translation
Proposal Abstract: Modern scholarship strives to use proper terminology and define terms carefully to avoid anachronism or mischaracterization of ancient concepts. However, pitfalls inherent to the practice of transliteration as translation are largely ignored. This practice is a perfect Trojan horse since it espouses to accurately reflect original meaning by using an anglicized version of the original language. Paradoxically, however, transliteration wrongly leads to treating transliterated terms as terminī technicī and decontextualizes such terms which leads interpreters to imbue them with meaning from the interpreter's context. I use βαπτίζω as a case study to argue that transliteration should be abandoned.
I'm happy to share the news that another paper of mine has been accepted for SBL 2016 in San Antonio, Texas. I'll be presenting in the Global Education and Resource Technology section or, as some of you may know it, GERT. Just below are the title and abstract. I look forward to seeing folks at the conference in November!
A Network Morphology Approach to Koine: Using DATR to Model Adjective Paradigms
In this paper, I use DATR to model network morphology at the paradigm level in Koine Greek. In particular, I focus my attention on adjectives in order to demonstrate how this form of computing can create a host of paradigms in a relatively short amount of time. Along the way, I discuss concepts central to DATR such as hierarchy, inheritance (default and multiple), generalizations, classes, and overrides. I show that DATR has the potential to not only to save time, but to also reveal morphological connections that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Hi Friends, I just wanted to share that my paper for the 2016 SBL Annual Meeting (San Antonio, TX) was accepted. I'm excited to be part of the prestigious Synoptic Gospels section. Here's the title and abstract:
Can I Get an "Amen"?:
The Rhetorical Function of "Amen" in the Synoptics
Although "Amen" appears more than 50 times in the Synoptics, it often receives little exegetical attention. Indeed, interpreters have long followed and relied upon BDAG, which asserts that "αμεν λεγω" is a construction unique to Jesus. On the surface, this appears sensible enough to simply adopt and move forward with. This paper, however, aims to chart new territory in Synoptic studies by giving some much needed attention to overlooked features of this ancient affirmative. Here I challenge the consensus position on "Amen" and show that a rhetorical analysis sensitive to both linguistic- and context-based cues and clues yields a harvest of new insights and understandings about this word and its use in the Synoptics. In short, as a rhetorical device, there is more to this term, especially with regard to how it contributes to the shape and formation of Gospel narratives and discourses, than initially meets the eye!
I just got word that my second paper (which is the limit for presenters) was accepted for the 2014 annual Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Diego. This paper will be presented in the "Applied Linguistics for Biblical Studies" section and is titled "Setting Students Up To Fail Biblical Languages: An Assessment of Assessment." My other paper, which was accepted in the Global Education & Resource Technology section, is titled "ἡ καινὴ σχολή· Communicating Ancient Greek Via Modern Technologies." The Greek here (ἡ καινὴ σχολή) means "The New School," which is actually how it will appear in the SBL program because their platform, interestingly enough, is not able to handle Greek characters. Anyway, this is good news and I look forward to participating in both of these fine sections!
This year I submitted one abstract for the annual meeting of the SBL and fortunately, that abstract was accepted. I submitted to the Performance Criticism of Biblical and Other Ancient Texts section, which I have been attending the last few years when possible. Below is the title and abstract:
Title: Come On Feel the Noise: The Function of Screams in Mark and Ancient Performance
Abstract: A topic that continues to scream for scholarly attention from Markan exegetes is none other than the role of screams throughout the narrative. Heeding the call, in this paper I seek to show how screaming, when situated within the context of ancient performance, sheds light on this fascinating feature of Mark. In particular, I will focus on screaming from the standpoint of the ancient performer and how it might have caused him or her to be viewed. Additionally, I will address the intended effects of screaming in relation to other aural devices. In the end, the hope is that we will not only hear these nuances of Mark’s story loud and clear but also feel their intended effects.
I just got word that my paper titled From Ancient Apocalypse to Modern Tongue-Twists: Mixing-Down Hip Hop & Christian Scripture was just accepted for the 2012 annual meeting of the Midwest Society of Biblical Literature. Very cool. With other stuff I have going on, this means that I'm on track to make my 40th conference appearance/paper presentation this spring!
For me, this year's Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco was one of the best I've ever been to. While I had to attend a lot of meetings, I also got to sit in on a number of very interesting sections and hear some intriguing papers. Unfortunately, I did not have time to blog (or really even upload pictures for that matter), which was unfortunate. Regardless, there was one presentation that I would like to comment briefly on. I'm speaking here of Bart Ehrman's paper, which he gave on Friday night.
Ehrman sat on a panel with Dom Crossan, Amy-Jill Levine and N.T. Wright. The session was supposed to be on biblical scholarship within the last 200 years and the influence that certain exegetes have had on the guild/discipline. While Crossan veered somewhat off topic, ultimately, his paper was still relevant to the subject. Levine and Wright both gave excellent lectures. However, I cannot say the same for Mr. Ehrman. In so many words, I must say that I was completely underwhelmed with his presentation. Not only was he completely off topic, his paper was quite out-of-line.
I have posted the video of the complete session just below. Ehrman gives the second speech, which comes just after Crossan. It is 20-25 minutes in length if you care to watch it. However, if you do so, you may well just be wasting your time. In a nutshell, the thesis of Ehrman's paper was this: Until you publish a dissertation and 2-3 monographs, you are not a biblical expert and therefore, cannot speak to the wider public about biblical matters or issues.
From my vantage point, this is just absurd. By the way, I must say that the entire time I was listening to Ehrman's paper, I thought that he must have been, in a veiled way, addressing a certain person but I did not know who. I heard the next morning that this presentation was likely an attack against Nicholas Perrin, who has written a book critiquing Ehrman. My view is that if Ehrman had a bone to pick with Perrin, he should have done that elsewhere and stayed on the topic assigned. Either way, Ehrman's paper was incredibly weak in its thesis.
So, here's my beef with Ehrman's thesis: 1) The fact that Ehrman set himself up as A) The one who gets to define who is and isn't a "biblical expert" and B) His own criteria for deciding this, is very problematic. Since he is the one who gets to do this, of course, he is using himself as the measuring mark. He sets himself up as the "expert" who gets to speak to the wider public and uses his own resume to base his judgments on. Anyone with a brain can see the problem in this. It, in fact, flies in the face of A) Democracy within biblical studies, and B) The entire concept of peer-review. This brings me to my second point.
2) Within the world of biblical studies, it is NOT enough or even proper to judge a person's work based on a person's name. Those who publish should have their work reviewed on the basis of content. This is why, within the scholarly world, we have the process of peer-review anyway. This is also why we have editors and readers at publishing houses. With reputable publishing houses it is not as if just anything gets by. Ehrman, of course, knows this. Yet, he needed to belabor the point and so, he seemed to conveniently ignore it.
3) Ehrman's work to the wider public, which he uses as the standard for speaking to the wider publich and which he said takes a lot of skill and talent compose (of course he would say this right, because these are traits, which again, he himself believes he has!), has a ton of flaws in it. In fact, a great number of his books were questioned and challenged by scholars before ever going into print. However, he ignored those comments and published anyway. Essentially, he ignored the peer-review process. So, the question must be raised, how can this "expert" (by his own terms) who has written for the wider public and whose work has been so wrong and/or misleading at many points, pass as real, sound scholarship and expertise? By the opinions of many reputable scholars, much of Ehrman's work is dubious and not to be taken seriously. The contradiction in terms, then, is that his own work is incredibly flawed, yet he still submits it to the wider public! Perhaps it is the fact that at HarperCollins, once you reach a certain threshold of sales, you receive an extra $100,000 check. This seems like a fine enough reason to keep publishing the same type of work all the while ignoring what peers in the guild are suggesting!
4) What about the whole notion of growth in thought and scholarship? Inevitably, every scholar will have theological changes over the course of their careers. Here's a scenario then: If a scholar writes an initial work to the wider public at age 30 and then publishes a decade later, at age 40, but has changed his/her mind within that time span, does that negate the "expertise" of his or her earlier work? Ehrman's criteria simply cannot account for this fact. Therefore, this is but another reason I cannot take it seriously.
5) In his paper, Ehrman did not really distinguish between the "wider public" or the "Barnes & Noble crowd" and those who are church-goers. The fact is, the Barnes & Noble crowd is NOT one and the same as the church crowd! Many scholars do not have as their target audience the B&N crowd but rather, those within the church. Therefore, Ehrman is misguided in this area; he needs to make that distinction. Just because he is writing for the B&N audience does not mean everyone else is. Perhaps this not only shows Ehrman's ideological biases but his out-of-touch state with the church. Of course, it is his right to not write for church-goers. But it is NOT his right to deem who is and who is not allowed to write for the church or the wider public, nor to unwittingly conflate the two. Again, this is another reason I think Ehrman's paper was completely unfounded and impossible to take seriously.
While I do think that Ehrman should be taken seriously on other matters, this paper he gave should not be taken with any amount of seriousness whatsoever. I was highly disappointed that I wasted 20 or so minutes of my life hearing such a weak presentation from someone who has received so much acclaim. Yet, I am glad I got to hear Levine and Wright and for that matter, Crossan. Ultimately, these are just a handful of thoughts I wanted to scribble down and share. In the end, even several of the editors of reputable publishing houses that I talked to also thought the speech was incredibly vain and empty. Having said all that, the video is below, if you'd like to watch. Yet, if you want to make the best use of your time, watch Crossan, Levine and Wright; you'll enjoy it!
Okay, so for a minute there, I thought that us Android users were going to be left behind when it came to the SBL/AAR app, however, I'm glad that we haven't been. SBL has just released the annual meeting app for android users, which you can get by simply scanning the barcode to the left. You can also see more about the app HERE. I must say, it is pretty sweet. You can set your schedule, review the program, contact others, follow live tweets, etc. Pretty rad! Get it!
This year's SBL Annual Meeting Program is now live (HERE). Really quickly, I just wanted to draw attention to a couple of sessions that I'll be participating in. I have added 2 snapshots of these sessions below. However, I do want to emphasize the lineup for the "Tipping Points" session I'm hosting. The panelists are:
Michael Bird (Bible College of Queensland)
Daniel Block (Wheaton College)
Ben Witherington, III (Asbury Theological Seminary)
Lynn Cohick (Wheaton College)
Sandra Richter (Wesley Biblical Seminary)
Marie Sabin (Bristol, ME)
Like I said, you can read more about both by clicking the images below. Hope to see you there!
I just wanted to remind everyone that this week is the FINAL week to get the 1st Tier, Super-Saver registration discount for the 2011 Annual SBL meeting in San Francisco (Saturday, April 30th is the last day!). You can access the online discount registration form HERE.
So, I just did a whirlwind tour to Cleveland and back today for a regional SBL meeting, leaving at 5am, presenting at 1:30pm and 3pm, and then, driving all the way back and getting home around 10pm. Long day for SBL stuff to say the least!!! However, I just checked my email and got some more good, SBL news, here's what one email said: "Dear Michael, Congratulations, your paper, 'Decoded: Exploring Rap's Use of Biblical-Apocalyptic Rhetoric,' was accepted for the 2011 Annual Meeting program unity Bible and American Popular Culture." So, in addition to creating and hosting the session titled "Tipping Points" that has a list of stellar scholars, I now have confirmation that I'll be presenting some of my research. I'm super excited because this paper is a bit different from the types of things I usually do; I think it's going to be quite fun!!!
I just received word that my paper for the annual 2011 Central States Society of Biblical Literature conference was accepted. I believe this will be my 20th paper at a scholarly conference, which is pretty cool! Anyway, it was welcomed into the "Paul" section and is titled "'The Vacillation' as the Occasion: 2 Corinthians, Epistle of a Two-Faced Apostle?" Here's the abstract: The occasion of 2 Corinthians has been a matter of scholarly debate for centuries. Certainly, the epistle itself reveals Paul as defending himself against numerous charges, one of which is "the vacillation" (1:17). This paper argues that by situating the concepts of consistency-inconsistency in their ancient contexts, using the sociological tenets of "facework" and taking into consideration the theme of "face" throughout the letter, new light can be shed on the circumstances surrounding the occasion of 2 Corinthians."
As many of you may know, there has been considerable conversation about new policies regarding students and student paper presentations at the SBL Annual Meetings. The Student Advisory Board (SAB) has been collecting feedback for a response to be sent to the SBL Executive Council. As part of this response, we would like to include the results of a short survey gauging your responses to these new policies. This will allow us who are on the SAB to present hard data alongside written feedback. If you can, please take just a couple of minutes and fill out this survey. (Click the image-link to the left and the survey will open in a new window.)
This year looks like it will be a good conference. I'm excited for the large student group from Asbury that's headed down and the many from our institution who are presenting, presiding or paneling. If you see me around and you know me, be sure to say hello. If you see me around and don't know me, feel free to introduce yourself. Hope everyone's conferencing goes well. Safe travels to the A-T-L.
With the annual meeting of the SBL fast approaching (it starts next weekend!), the Society has decided to give away its hot-off-the-press Greek New Testament for FREE. Conveniently dubbed the SBLGNT, here are a couple of snapshots of the .xml and .txt versions:
(click to zoom-in on images)
You can download the SBLGNT and its apparatus as .txt, .xml, .osis, .sword and logos 4 files HERE.
Here's the list (so far...I have two more opportunities lined up but which have not been solidified just yet) of papers, presentations, etc. I'm giving or participating in this year:
02.13.10: Valparaiso University - Midwest Region SBL: “All Things to All People: Rethinking the Social Context of a Pauline Axiom”
03.22.10: Asbury Theological Seminary – Biblical Studies Seminar: “1 Cor. 9.19-23: A Different Point-of-View”
04.08.10: Richfield, OH – Eastern Great Lakes Bible Society:
1) “A Martyr’s Praise: A Socio-Rhetorical Reading of Ignatius’ Letter to the Philadelphians”
2) “Getting Your First Publication: From One Student to Another” (Also chairing the panel for this session)
04.09 - 10.10: Cincinnati Christian University – Stone-Campbell Journal Conference:
1) “Rethinking Jesus' Death: Mark's Narrative in Mediterranean Context” (Also chairing the panel for this session)
2) “An Exploration into the Aramaisms of Mark's 'Strange' Gospel"
06.30.10 - 07.24.10: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
1)
Evangelical Theological College: “Exegesis of the Gospel of Mark” (Teaching a 1-month long intensive course)
2)
Mekanisa Addis Kidan Church: "A Survey of Mark's Gospel"
10.08.10: Manhattan, KS - 5th Annual Western Fellowship of Professors & Scholars:
1)
“Was Mark Framed?: Killing the Messenger in Mark's Tragedy"
2)
Also a judge for the undergraduate paper competition
11.10.10: Lexington, KY - Embrace Church, Alpha Meeting: “About the Bible"
11.20-23: Atlanta, GA – Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature: “Things I Wish I Knew Before Getting a Ph.D.” (Simply chairing the panel for this session)
I just got word that my paper proposal for the 2010 Midwest Region SBL was accepted. The conference is February 12-14, 2010 at Valparaiso University in (of course) Valparaiso, Indiana. The paper was accepted in the "Paul Section". This is my 2nd SBL presentation and I plan on presenting also at the EGL Regional in April, which will be my 3rd (and maybe 4th SBL presentations). The email says this: "Congratulations! I am happy to inform you that your paper has been accepted for presentation at the Midwest SBL. Time allotted for each paper is 30 minutes, which include the discussion time. Please allow at least 5 minutes of discussion time at the end of your paper. You must register to be able to present your paper."
The title of my paper is:
“All Things To All People”: Rethinking the Social Context of a Pauline Axiom"
Here's a portion of my abstract:
"Traditionally, Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor. 9.20-27 have been interpreted 1) From Paul’s
point-of-view, and 2) through a positive, homophilial lens. As a result, evangelical exegetes have tended to place themselves in Paul’s shoes when they read this passage and have even developed entire missiological systems based on the Apostle’s declaration that he becomes like those that he is attempting to win. Though Paul’s statements concerning his evangelistic endeavors are usually seen by modern Westerners as admirable and taken as a touchstone for approaches to outreach, this paper argues that in Paul’s first-century context, Mediterranean audiences would have had quite the opposite reaction..."
I just registered for the 2010 SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta and since it was under the student & super saver rates, I only had to pay $65. My hotel room was rather inexpensive too. In other words, if you plan on attending next year's meeting, NOW is the time to register. If you can front the pay right now, why not ask for it as a Christmas gift? Or, consider it a gift to yourself! Either way, get registered before the end of December so you can save yourself a chunk of money!
Here are a handful of links to bloggers I ran into at SBL, whose company (even if only for a few moments in some cases) I quite enjoyed keeping. Click the image-links to go to their websites! If we met and you're not on here, let me know (it's tough remembering EVERYONE you run into at those things).
