I spent the last week attending the annual conferences of ETS and SBL. Most of my interest is focused on biblical languages, particularly grammar and linguistics. These conference are the primary time during the year that I have to interact with he handful of other folks that share similar interests. My wife does not believe they exist, just like Mr. Snufalufogous of Sesame Street fame.  This year I attended fewer papers than in the past, but I was struck by some recurring themes. I will break them into several posts. This first one will focus on the presentation of papers.

In 2005 I submitted two paper proposals, one to the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew section, and the other to the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section. I was somewhat horrified when BOTH were accepted, not what I was expecting. I worked diligently on the papers to ensure that they were precise and yet practical and accessible. Thankfully I received some great criticism from the BH steering committee that helped in this process. The BH paper was the last one in the section where Randall Buth and Rob Holmstedt did their smack down on word order in Jonah. It was standing room only. I successfully delivered the paper without throwing up or wetting my pants, and there was even some interaction about it at the conclusion. By and larger, it went over well, and was later published in JNSL.

In listening to Buth and Holmstedt, I was barely keeping my head above water. I was new to information structure, and they both knew their stuff. Each was using a different theoretical framework to describe the same phenomenon in Jonah: word order variation. Though they were different, their analyses ended up fairly similar. They were careful to describe the differences in the methods and to correlate the terminology to the other’s approach. The result was that most attendees were able to clearly understand the similarities and differences, and to be able to make judgments about the merits of each paper. They not only presented original research, but they facilitated intellectual development by allowing listeners to understand the differences in the approaches. They accomplished exactly what the Societies were founded to accomplish. Unfortunately, I feel as though such interaction is becoming the exception rather than the norm these days, particularly at SBL.

The purpose of the SBL, as I understand it, it to promote scholarly interaction and development through the presentation of original research in the form of papers and presentations. However, in the past two years I have felt as though the grammar papers are becoming more myopic in nature, will little regard for interacting with the larger world.

The hallmark that made the Buth/Holmstedt presentations work was each of them understanding the other’s theoretical framework. For grad students presenting their first paper, this may be asking a bit much. But for seasoned scholars, this should be the norm, not the exception. More and more I see presenters using their framework without taking the time to describe how its ideas and concepts fit into the larger field. Many fail to explain where terminology correlates and where it deviates with other approaches in the field. Without this kind of mapping for the listener, there is little hope of fostering meaningful dialogue about the issues. People will continue to talk past each other and there will be little productive interaction. This myopic focus seems to be on the rise.

At times there is interaction with other methodologies, but with the purpose of creating a strawman and dismissing the other approaches. This is not interaction. It may  sound impressive to the novice, but it absolutely kills the kind of scholarly interaction that the Societies are to be fostering.

Here is my challenge (forward-pointing reference to significant proposition, for you analysts at home): move beyond your own system to understand how it fits into the bigger picture. Then take the time in your introduction to map the differences. If your system is really as great as you think, there is no need to strawman, your arguments will stand or fall on their own merits. If you want to win hearts and minds, pave the way for others to follow you into the ultimate solution to all things that your theory provides by having the scholarly courtesy of defining your terms in light of the larger field. They may still disagree in the end, but at least they can understand why. Take the time to integrate your claims into the broader field, and thus do your part in stimulating scholarly discussion. He who attendeth to such issues in this way, behold, he will be called blessed (left-dislocation to activate and promote a salient topic).

Here endeth part one of my rant. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. Is it just me? Is it prevalent in the exegetical and theological sections?