Making the Most of the SBL Conference

Several bloggers have addressed how to get the most out of SBL, but a commenter of a recent post asked me to pitch in, so here I am.

First of all, your ‘conference goals’ are largely determined by your place in the chain (student versus scholar) and your ambitions. But, I think I itch most students where they scratch with a few general statements.

1. ALWAYS TRY TO PRESENT A PAPER – from early on in your PHD, think through what you might like to present on. Don’t try to do it on your WHOLE thesis/dissertation topic – you only have 20 minutes! Pick a passage to work in. Or interact with one recent theory or article in an interesting way. Some scholars will tell you – you need something really earth-shattering to present at SBL because you don’t want to make a fool of yourself. OK, don’t do anything stupid. But, (1) I presented once to an audience at SBL of about 8 -not exactly an intimidating group of peers and scholars. (2) conferences are there for ‘testing’ ideas before they go to articles and books and theses. (3) the SBL bar has been set low in terms of very interesting papers. For every one show-stopping paper, I sit through 6 dull ones.

2. PAPERS ARE ONLY A SMALL PART OF SBL LIFE – given that you should try to present a paper, remember that hearing papers is only a very small part of SBL conferences. Honestly, after the third or fourth paper (on the first day), I am burnt out already! Also, if you really think a paper sounds interesting, most of the time you can email the scholar and he/she will send you a copy of it – so don’t freak out if you miss a paper.

3. PRE-CONTACT A SCHOLAR OR TWO – OK, don’t phone up Joseph Fitzmyer or Richard Hays, but it is tolerable to most scholars to have a grad student ask to meet with them at SBL. They might say no, but they won’t be overly-annoyed. Try to have some kind of point of contact – ‘I am studying with a former doctoral student of yours’ or ‘I recently heard you speak at such and such an event’. That way you don’t seem like just a groupie. This year I am happy to be visiting with three scholars who are generous enough the spare a meal time.

4. PRE-CONSIDER BOOK PURCHASES – Peruse the the SBL hardcopy program and pre-decide which books you are going to need for your research. Commit yourself beforehand to buying the books you need, and not giving into temptation when you see the selection (unless things are really discounted the last morning). You may want to do this pre-vetting in order to be on the look out for an important new book that might not be easily visible when you are browsing.

5. GO TO SOME OF THE GRADUATE WORKSHOPS – academic papers are OK and many are worthwhile, but it can get dull and tedious. At some of the graduate workshops this year they are discussing tips on publishing, how to get hired, and things that every PHD student should know. I will try to get to the publishing one.

6. DON’T BE AFRAID TO APPROACH A SCHOLAR WHO IS JUST SITTING AND WAITING FOR THE NEXT THING TO START – if a scholar is just taking a rest, its not a bad time to introduce yourself and strike up a conversation. Once again, you seem less weird if you have some connection- ‘were you at the last paper on XYZ? What did you think?’ – first impressions are important! Now if the scholar really seems like they need a rest (and some peace), be discerning!

7. EXPECT TO GET LONELY IF YOU ARE NEW TO SBL – it is very hard for new people – you don’t know anyone and you have nothing to do for meals and at night. Expect it to be a bit lonely. Hopefully you will run into some acquaintances. But, not always. Hopefully you were able to go to SBL with others from your institution. Sometimes not. Just be prepared for the loneliness of it – its normal and happens to everyone the first couple of years. Maybe not to Mike Bird. But that’s just because he talks so much and when he is talking to himself it makes him feel like the voices in his head are listening.

8. DON’T JUST GO TO PAPERS ON YOUR THESIS TOPIC – BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS – I am a Pauline guy. I love Paul. I will teach Paul. At SBL, I don’t go to very many Paul papers. I try to get a little bit of John, some NT theology, some Philo, some subject groups on identity, ritual, sacrifice, resurrection, ethics, etc… You can sometimes stumble upon some really amazing things by stepping out of your ‘normal’ circles.

9. NEVER EVER STAY AT A YMCA (I am speaking from experience).

10. TRY TO RE-CONNECT WITH OLD PROFS – contact ahead of time profs from a previous institution (BA or Masters). They are usually happy to do it. It is, of course, to reminisce and hear about what’s going on in your alma mater. But, it may also pay in the long run to keep up a relationship with your past institutions. Many institutions have receptions or breakfasts where alum and profs from a certain seminary or university gather and catch-up. This is a great time to meet new people and sometime enjoy some yummy food!

NB: Making the most of your paper: If you present a paper, you may get a couple of interesting and probing questions. Good. That’s not very common for me. What I have done in the past is scan the audience and see if I recognize someone. Later, if I am sure they stayed for me paper (!), if I see her I ask her opinion. This direct, face to face, approach can yield great results.

So, best wishes to those who are new. I might even bump into you – I am the Indian with his shirt untucked and ketchup on his tie – the ketchup may not be from this year. Sorry.

Richard Hays on the identity of Jesus and the theology of Mark

Last night in Durham’s weekly New Testament seminar we were delighted to have Richard Hays speaking on the topic of Mark’s distinctive ‘echoes’ of Scripture and how he comments on and draws a picture of the divine identity of Jesus.  Hays actually didn’t use the word ‘echoes’, though.  As you might already know, Hays has nearly phased himself out of Pauline studies and has concentrated his attention now on the use of Scripture in the Gospels.  But, he is not doing what is the usual practice, finding all the citations and comparing them and the like.  He is interested in how Scriptural intertexts are determinative for understanding the story of Jesus.

In the first part of his paper he did what Hays does – he showed how, in several passages, Mark alludes to Scripture to show that Jesus does what only God can do (like forgive sins).  This was not anything really show stopping, though Markan expert Bill Telford had some rebuttals and disagreements during Q & A time.

The second part of the paper was the real gem.  After explaining why Jesus spoke in parables, Mark goes on to recount the ‘lamp’ teaching:

Mark 4:21-23   21 He said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand?  22 For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.  23 Let anyone with ears to hear listen!”

Hays argued that this passage is about the identity of Jesus: Jesus is the lamp (the Greek has the def. article, as Hays pointed out) and comes (the Greek has ‘come’ not ‘is’).  The key for Hays is that in 4:22 we have a purpose clause (which does not appear in Matt/Luke’s versions): nothing is hidden except in order to be disclosed.  Somehow the hiddenness is necessary for the revelation (whereas Matt/Luke seem to make it temporal where the hiddenness is first, and then the disclosure).  Hays applies this overall to the character of Mark’s way of discussing the identity of Jesus.  Mark does not just say: here is Jesus, he is included within the divine identity of God, worship him!  Mark is more circumspect and subtle for the very reason, according to Hays, that he wants to maintain the mystery of Jesus’ identity and the incomprehensibility of it.  That is why the disciples are so dull and slow to understand.  It captures the idea that we aren’t just meant to ‘get’ the punch line.  That would be too easy and irreverent in a way.  We are meant to ponder the mystery and be reverently fearful of God’s revelation of himself in Christ.

It was fundamental for Hays that Mark intentional maintains this hiddeness motif on purpose – it is not the by-product of a poor editor.  Matthew chooses to clarify, concretize, and elaborate, but that does not necessarily mean that Mark would see these things as ‘improvements’.  Such an evolutionary attitude towards the gospels has largely been set aside and Hays is advocating a thorough-going literary approach to Mark which presupposes Mark is a reasonably intelligent and clever story-teller.  Hays is working on what appears to be a lengthy book on the use of Scripture (i.e. intertextuality) in the Gospels detecting how each Evangelist has a particular hermeneutic that is at work in their story-telling.  If I remember correctly, Hays entitles his Mark chapter: Mark, herald of mysteries.

We look forward to Hays speaking again on Wednesday for the first annual CK Barrett lecture in New Testament on the use of Scripture in Luke.

Incidentally, it was a bit surreal to be in seminar yesterday with Hays speaking, Francis Watson chairing the paper, Dr. Bill Telford chiming in on problems with ascribing a divine-identity perspective to Mark’s Jesus, questions from Walter Moberly and Jimmy Dunn, and John Barclay pondering all these things, but not getting a chance to pitch in on this subject – and Richard’s wife Judy knitted during the seminar.