Theorizing ancient texts (and thus problematizing traditional scholarly narratives given for explaining such texts) seems to divide a lot of scholars. There are quite a few who just don’t want to bother with all this theory stuff, and its unnecessary jargon (so they perceive), and just continue along in the exegetical search of an author’s intention with little sprinkles of “historical background” for good measure. One may even find this to be the dominant perspective at SBL conferences, and not just by those working from an explicitly confessional perspective. At the same time, there is an ever-growing group of scholars of ancient texts (including biblical ones) who see various theoretical approaches and methodological considerations as essential for explaining the social functions of ancient texts.

Theory is not mere jargon, or at least it shouldn’t be, but rather more like a toolbox that assists us in deconstructing the rhetoric of ancient texts. In my initial post about Portier-Young’s recent book, Michael Helfield wondered aloud in the comments about the role of theory and what it might have to do with authorial intention, among other things. In her recent book, just reviewed in RBL, Ross Shepard Kraemer captures a sentiment that I have been trying to articulate for some of my friends still struggling with the idea of using theory in biblical and/or classical studies.

Alternative reading strategies, although not denying that authors have intentions and purposes, refuse to privilege authorial intentions and purposes. Instead, they attend to other things: to seeing the ways in which texts function regardless of authorial intention. One of these alternative practices, poststructuralism, explains narratives, texts, myths, and so forth in terms of structures that are inherent in human thinking but not consciously present (although perceptible to trained observers). The binary oppositions (e.g., good and evil, light and dark, right and left, soul and body, rationality and emotion, activity and passivity, masculine and feminine) that occur in many of the texts I treat in this study are aspects of these structures. This in turn is a theory of human activity that claims we do things without being fully conscious of them; that we utilize symbols, for instance, without a conscious awareness of what they are or how they work. Some theorists, particularly but not only the influential French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, have further argued for the centrality of “misrecognition,” to which I return in the last chapter. Humans engage in various practices that we explain in one set of terms even while they are clearly, at least to observers (and sometimes perhaps even to us), doing something else. For Bourdieu, misrecognition is specifically the “misrecognizing” of one’s interests in competitions for cultural and symbolic capital in diverse fields. [Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, page 9; emphases mine]

It is not that these ancient authors do not have intentions worth considering, but their apparent intentions (even if identifiable) may belie the complexity of their social and cultural anchors. “Alternative reading strategies,” as Kraemer calls them, help us to reconsider the often simplistic and narrow lenses with which traditional scholarship views ancient texts.

Update: A conversation with Jim West and Jason Staples on Google+ has me realizing that I should clarify and highlight something: theory remains a servant, not a master, to the task of doing history. Theory helps us do better history. The author’s intention is part of that history. Theory can help us peal back the layers of both explicit and implicit social/cultural assumptions in the author’s rhetoric. So, I’m not declaring the “death” of authorial intention here. I’m just saying that the way it traditionally has been done is problematic, and “well-applied theory” (Jason’s phrase) helps us sift through the confusion.

One of my professors—who interacts with biblical literature, but is not primarily a biblical scholar—recently told me that he thought “biblical scholar” sounded funny. I was talking generally about “biblical scholars” and their interaction with social theory, or lack thereof. He suggested “Bible scholar” or “biblical studies scholar.” Both of those sound less desirable to me, but he’s right about the funniness about “biblical scholar.” The apparently adjectival use of the term “biblical” would seem to imbue such scholars with biblical characteristics—whatever those might be.

I have been trying to think of another field that labels their scholars in this sort of way and have come up empty. You wouldn’t say “religious scholar” for a scholar of religious studies, or “classical scholar” for a classicist, or “historical scholar” for historian. All of these would seem to describe a characteristic about the scholar, not an indication of her field.

So, what are the options? Based on an unscientific search through my Google reader posts (lots of scholars-of-biblical-texts bloggers in there), Google at large, and the SBL website, I have found the following terms used (in order of frequency):

1. biblical scholar (by FAR) [SBL site: 596x]
2. Bible scholar [SBL site: 85x]
3. biblicist (although, this is also often used to refer to those who read the Bible “literally”) [SBL site: 26x]
4. biblical studies scholar (VERY rare) [SBL site: 2x]

I hadn’t really thought about this previously, but the term “biblical scholar” (let alone “biblical scholarship”) appears confessional. The term by itself describes a scholar who is (or scholarship that is) “biblical.” I suppose other uses of the term “biblical” could apply: as in, knowing a scholar in the “biblical sense”; or a scholar of “biblical proportions.” Any way you slice it, though, our field’s preferred designator feels quite problematic.

Out of the four options above (did I miss any?), I think I would prefer “biblical studies scholar” over “Bible scholar.” The latter feels very isolated and narrow–as if just the texts of the biblical documents. It also lends some weight to the idea that the Bible is one monolithic entity. If we say “biblical studies,” that feels to me like the biblical documents are the focus but are subject to a variety of “studies” (however those are conceived). Perhaps even better would simply be “scholars of biblical texts” (or “documents” or “literature”), which does occasionally make an appearance. We do tend to be a rather isolated group on the whole, detached from other disciplines. But should we reinforce that? As I see it, this is quite connected to many of the conversations we “biblical scholars” have been having lately regarding the ideological foundations of our field.

What say you? Have you given thought to this business of academic labels? What’s your preferred titular identity? Does it matter?

Apocalypses as resistance against the empire, cryptic representations of marginalized groups, is an old story. In her recent book, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, Anathea Portier-Young seeks to breathe new life into this anti-imperial approach with a robust methodology. I recently received my complimentary copy, which I will be using to prepare a review for Arc: The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University. Thus far, I have only read the intro and conclusion and other bits and pieces here and there. I have also chatted with a few scholars who have read the book already. My first impression is that this will be a very important contribution to the conversation on apocalyptic literature. It probably represents the most methodologically sophisticated attempt thus far to depict apocalypses as resistance literature. As one who is currently shaping his methodology in the study of apocalyptic discourse, I look forward to learning from her approach. I’m excited to see what she does with it all.

At the same time, I have some opening questions that I will have as I take further steps into the book. My specific research has been on early Christian documents, a couple hundred years out from Portier-Young’s scope (i.e., Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks [1 Enoch 93:1-10 + 91:11-17], and the Apocalypse of Dreams [1 Enoch 83-90]). For my research, I have found that too strong an emphasis on anti-imperial resistance can be problematic. So, even with my excitement about her work, I will admit that am also a bit of a skeptic coming in. Some things I’ll be looking for:

• What does Portier-Young do with the relationship between apocalypse and wisdom? This is one of the dominant discussions regarding apocalyptic literature for the last three decades or so, yet some scholars still neglect the fruits of the labor seen in the Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism and Early Christianity program unit at SBL, for instance. Does she engage these scholars in an explicit manner? From a quick search through the book, I can’t tell. There’s a lot of talk about wisdom. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what she does with it.
• How much does Portier-Young engage with postcolonial theory? It doesn’t have an entry in the subject index and a Google book search seems to confirm that it is not a dominant theme. The aspect that interests me most in postcolonial theory for this discussion is its recognition not only of potential resistance toward empire, but also the appropriation of the basic tools of empire. Hegemony appears to be an important concept for Portier-Young’s book: Is there an adoption of hegemonic rhetoric within the apocalypses themselves? Or are they simply contesting it?
• How complex is her depiction of Jewish identity in this time period? It appears that the book tackles notions of “hybridity” a little bit, but my gut tells me that I might emphasize the fluidity of multiple collective identities more than Portier-Young does. We shall see.
• How broad are are the book’s claims? Does the argument “stay put” in the Seleucid period, or does it reach beyond itself towards all apocalyptic literature? Is there a sense that apocalyptic literature is in general to be identified as resistance literature? Does it extend to apocalyptic discourse found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? In early Christian documents? Etc.
• Is this monograph trying to have its nuanced cake and revolt against it too? In other words, will the methodological sophistication represent true innovation and complexity, or will it merely serve to offer a very fancy way of supporting a traditional anti-imperial theology? For those who don’t know, I’m an Anabaptist. Anabaptists generally have a very anti-imperial theology, or at least they have since John Howard Yoder popularized it. I think it is because I lean this way that I am skeptical of approaches that find anti-imperial theologies in the texts. I’d like to have a very high bar for finding biblical (and even extrabiblical) theologies that support my own perspective. Maybe Portier-Young will provide me with that bar–we’ll see!

In the end, I suspect that I will appreciate Portier-Young’s sophistication. I expect that I will learn a good deal of history that I hadn’t considered from her “thick description” of the Seleucid period. I’m guessing I will probably come to agree with her to some extent that there is some level of some form of resistance in these apocalypses. But I also imagine that I will remain hesitant about her conclusions. Whatever the case, I do know that this book will push me to be a better scholar by considering new questions about relevant texts. Now that I have some of those preconceptions out of the way, time to read a bit more . . .

By the way, Thea Portier-Young will be a member of my panel this fall, so it is with amplified interest that I approach this important new book.

What do you think? Will you be reading this one? Have you read it already? What are your impressions?

I’m excited to announce the scholars who will be coming together this fall to share thoughts on where the field is going. Part of my role as a member of the Student Advisory Board is to gather together a panel each year that addresses concerns that students in our field might have. This year, I invited scholars whom I felt could have a significant contribution regarding several related questions: What problems do you see in the field? What topics or approaches no longer need to be rehashed? What are issues that you have encountered that you don’t plan on pursuing yourself, but believe needs to be explored in the field? Are there certain methodologies or approaches that you believe are particularly ripe for exploration?

As the description states, “We plan to have a candid conversation, based upon the panelists’ own experiences, in which graduate students who feel stuck might find a glimmer of hope, a new path they might pursue, and/or a new set of questions to ask about their research.” Naturally, a grad student’s first resource is her own professors. But “outside the box” thinking often provides us with the sparks we need to realize a new question or insight for our research.

The panel is astounding and they have expressed excitement about the discussion and its importance. I can’t wait to see what they have to share on the topic. Included are a variety of perspectives coming from a range of specialties. See for yourself!

The panel I organized last year (“Finding Your ‘Niche’ in Biblical Studies”) was a huge success. I heard from more than one panelist that it was their most fulfilling experience in a session for some years. Students there told me that it was one of the most helpful sessions they attended. As one of the panelists, Mark Goodacre, remarked:

Pat McCullough organized a session entitled “Finding your ‘niche’ in Biblical Studies”.  There were five panelists, Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen and me. I have shared here in the blog the substance of my short presentation. I was hugely impressed with the other speakers, all of whom were witty, engaging, compelling. We had ten minutes or so each. The room was packed. There must have been two or three hundred people there, and there were people standing at the side. After we had finished speaking, the room emptied out a good deal, but then there was time for discussion of the topic and many of the contributions from the floor were excellent too.

I think the panel this year has the potential to be even more fulfilling than last year. Are there any questions or issues that you would like to see addressed by the panel (even if you won’t be able to be there)?

Update (6/24/2011): The discussion has already received some attention on the blogs, including a bit of satire from Deane Galbraith (see parts one, two, and three). Jim Davila offers his thoughts on what still needs to be done, namely reception history and bunches of textual criticism. Matt Dowling also spreads the news and shares his excitement–he was at the “niche” panel last year.

I noticed today that the preliminary program book is now available for searching online. Of course, my first instinct is to look up my own name and see my slots. As it stands now, it appears that Saturday will be a busy day for me! In the morning, I will present on a panel with the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude group and in the afternoon I will be presiding over a very impressive panel of scholars for the Student Advisory Board (I’ll announce that in a separate post). The Student Advisory Board will meet on Monday morning–with lots to discuss!

Do you see any sessions in the schedule that you can’t wait to attend? Are you presenting? If so, what are you presenting on and how does your slot look?

The panel I’m presenting on includes three papers on James and two on 1 Peter (including my own). From what I gather in the abstracts, it appears the James papers on the panel will host a discussion of the communal meal with plenty of exegetical parallels, a (postcolonial?) exploration of the “wisdom of the world” as Roman cultural features, and an intertextual examination of the use of Elijah in James. See the titles and presenters below.

I’m especially excited about Steve Black’s paper on the category of “social deviants” in 1 Peter. Like my abstract, Steve also mentions the Balch-Elliott debate. We are addressing very similar issues. I get the sense that his use of social theory might lead him towards a different emphasis than mine. I’m actually downplaying the “social deviancy” aspect and emphasizing more the Roman-ness of the author (and addressees?), even as a strong ingroup is reinforced. I’ll be interested to see if Steve interacts with some of David Horrell’s recent work (e.g., his “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch–Elliott Debate towards a Postcolonial Reading of First Peter”). I should note that while my abstract marginally mentions Balch and Elliott, the debate takes a more prominent role in the paper itself.

On the whole, the session looks to be a very robust conversation, offering case studies on a variety of approaches.

S19-127

Letters of James, Peter, and Jude
11/19/2011
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD – Hotel TBD

Peter Davids, St. Stephen’s University, Presiding
Daniel R. Streett, Criswell College
Food, Fellowship and Favoritism: Early Christian Meals as the Setting for James 2:1–9 (30 min)
Jason Coker, Albertus Magnus College
Wisdom Two Ways: Identifying the Imperial Presence in James 3:13-18 (30 min)
Mariam Kamell, Regent College
The Prayer of Elijah in the Epistle of James (30 min)
Steve D. Black, Toronto School of Theology
Is 1 Peter’s Attempt of Casting off the Mechanisms of Social Control in a Responsible Manner Successful? (30 min)
Patrick George McCullough, University of California, Los Angeles
“What Does the Haustafel Have to Do with the Eschaton? An Exploration of Apocalyptic Identity Formation in First Peter” (30 min)

I know that the preliminary schedule is probably in flux, so I will not assume this time slot is its final home.

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.

This post is the first of my contributions to the communal blog for the California Humanities Scholars. We’re focusing on digital humanities happenings on our UC campuses. It’s just getting rolling, but it should be interesting to see what comes out of it.

Using the resources of UCLA, my home institution, I have recently digitized two books. But before I get ahead of myself, I should probably tell you why I would care to do such a thing.

Since childhood, I have loved books—even if I didn’t read them. I have enjoyed owning books simply as objects to admire and fill a room with an air of intellectualism and cultural superiority. As a child of the digital age, though, I have a growing impatience with the old “manual” way of using books. This is especially true when it comes to scholarship.

First, books are heavy. Books as objects are not very portable, particularly in bulk. Second, books are slow. In my field, I study biblical texts and I have a software program in which I have most of the major academic biblical commentary series available on my laptop. With a few strokes of my keyboard, I can search tens of thousands of pages of academic writing in my field for key terms related to my research. Oftentimes, the terms I care about never make it into an old-fashioned subject index, if a book even has one. Finally, books are inconvenient. Not only are they difficult to carry around and slow, but they have a limited use: reading words and mark them with a writing utensil. With a digital copy of a book, however, I can copy large sections of text relevant to my research and plop it into my digital research organizer of choice (be it OneNote, Word, EverNote, etc.). Old-fashioned books simply aren’t dynamic enough for research in the digital age.

I suppose I blame my biblical studies software for my fomenting frustration with the limited usefulness of tree-born books. I purchased my first version of the software over a decade ago and it is a leader in digital library building in my field. But the culture of the ebook is, of course, heating up—especially with various ebook stores duking it out and the use of tablet devices taking off. Libraries are making partnerships with book-scanning companies in order to offer less popular books digitally on demand. We are clearly on the cusp of a total publishing revolution in which everything will be available digitally in the not-too-distant future.

But we’re not there yet and I have pressing needs. I have a dissertation proposal to write and exams to prepare for. Most of the top priority books on my bibliographies are not available in digital form. Being able to digitally organize relevant information for exams and research has become an essential wheel in my academic gears. So, what’s a digital-age grad student in digitization limbo to do?

To answer this, I’m trying an experiment. I’m digitizing my own books, at least a few of the ones that are most important for my research. For this project, I need to scan them, of course. But traditional photo scanners are slow, could possibly damage book bindings, and their image quality is often not good enough for accurate OCR results. Solution? Commercial grade book scanners are too expensive to purchase for myself and, at present, I don’t have the time to build my own DIY book scanner. Guess what . . .  UCLA has one I can use!

Hidden away in the basement of UCLA’s off-campus, mid-1920’s William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, and mentioned only on a single now-defunct link from the CDH website, you will find a book scanner. You need to call ahead to make sure no one else is using it. When there, you need to walk down the stairs to the side-door, ring the buzzer, be let in, sign in, and lock all of your bags in a locker. The friendly library staff will joke with you about their antiquated, but beloved building as they bring you to the back office where the scanner lives. They’ve had it for a couple years now and they tell me that I’m the first graduate student ever to come use it.

How well does it work and how much time does it take? With a few hiccups and it is more time consuming than I’d hoped, but those are things to take up in a future post. To be continued . . .

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.