Blogging has been slow recently.  The semester ended, which means teaching ended for me.  I will be posting up my reflections on teaching in due course.

At present, however, my wife, son, and I are home with our families (both are families live in the same town) in South Dakota.  It was an uneventful trip here, save for the fact my son got sick the first night of the trip in the car, about 30 minutes outside Waco, and continued throwing up nearly 10 times in the car and hotel room later that night.  The diagnosis is a bit anomalous to us still, but I am glad to report that aside from a little cold, he seems fine now.  But let me tell you, sick cards are one thing, but sick kids in the car is another.  I felt so bad for him; we stopped at a gas station outside Fort Worth to clean him up after one of his episodes (and he was acting FINE, which was bizarre), and he said to me and my wife, “I’m all wet . . . I sorry.”  Coming from a 2 yr old, that was too precious.  We told him there was no reason to apologize, but it was too adorable.  Things like that are both funny and heartwarming.

Thus far, being home is as wonderful as always.  My parents have done their usual onslaught of Christmas baking: special K bars, fudge, Christmas cookies, 12 gallons of chex mix (the best thing ever!), croissant rolls, garlic seasoned oyster crackers . . . . and more to come! 

We did Christmas with my wife’s family this evening.  My son made out like a bandit . . . a Mickey Mouse book, an accessory pack for his new toy train we are getting him, a memory game, SpongeBob pajamas, the Elefun board game, a cd of kid’s songs, a play tool set, and more I can’t even remember.  And he still has the stuff from my wife and I, as well as my parents and sister to open!  He also helped pass out the gifts.  Two-year olds are hardwired to be helpful.  And what did I get, you ask?  $50 Amazon gift cards from the in-laws, and a pack of wrestling trading cards (still sealed, and it will remain that way!) from my sisters-in-law.  And, again, we still have my side of the family to do Christmas with yet. 

I hope you all are enjoying this time of year, and I wish you all safe and sane travels!

Blessings!

About a month ago I posted HERE that I had been allowed, by my wife and parents (both of whom are footing the bill for this) to purchase my Christmas gift early: an iPod Touch. 

I very much enjoyed the touch, and it made me want an iPhone desperately.  A few glitches, though: 1) We are loyal Verizon customers, unwilling to switch to AT&T . . . Verizon has always gone above and beyond for us; 2) I deeply lamented the fact that the Touch did not have internet access at all times, but only when I could find an open connection, which was rarely, or when at a ‘hot spot’; 3) Price . . . it was a hunk of change for no phone, camera, and unlimited internet capabilities.  I was, however, still very happy with it, and was on it every day and night religiously.

Then, my wife received a text message from Verizon saying we qualified for an early upgrade.  Curious, I called and asked precisely what the discount would be.  Long story short, I returned the iPod touch to Best Buy earlier this week, went to my local Verizon store and got . . . the new DROID.  It’s only been out about a month, but this thing is incredible.  I love having email anywhere.  And internet anywhere.  There are some great apps, and I trust many more to come.  My favorites are the barcode scanners so far, which use the camera to either take a picture of a book cover or scan the barcode and then find it online.  I know these aren’t anything new to iPhone users, but to a loyal Verizon customer, this is pretty sweet.  Loving the DROID.

Never fear, loyal readers.  All is well.  Things are just busy, as you might expect at this time of the year.  Yes, the holidays draw nigh.  But so does the end of the semester.  At present, I am finishing up a stack of my student’s final essays; they also have their final exams tomorrow (wish them luck!), so the next few days will go to grading those and then reporting final grades.  Add to that dissertation work and writing, preparing a trip home for Christmas, and a host of other things, and I haven’t had much time to blog productively about things recently.  That will, though, change soon.  No worries.

In the meantime, check out my SBL posts below, and do comment.

I hope you all are well!

As my series of SBL posts indicate (see below), I was fortunate enough to meet and speak with a number of fellow bloggers at SBL in New Orleans.  For some reason, I am always intrigued by how a person looks, especially when I have long known them only by name, perhaps having my own construct of what they look like floating numinously in my mind.  Oftentimes I will google a scholar, such as von Rad or Gunkel or Wellhausen or even Childs or Barr, to see what they look like.  Similarly, meeting people always offers surprises . . . take, for instance, Rob Kashow’s utter surprise (shared by Mike Whitenton), at the deepness of my voice (see HERE).  So, in an unthoughtful though reflective moment, I submit to you my list of “knee-jerk first impressions” of the bloggers I met (and my apologies if I mistakenly left you off this list; if I did, let me know and I’ll be glad to share my thoughts).  But first, two ‘extended’ examples:

Jim West: I start with JW first for no particular reason (just to get that out of the way first, for our #1 biblioblogger, wink).  I had already heard from a trusted friend and mentor that JW was quite different than his online persona.  And I find myself wondering right now whether it is just that . . . a persona.  There is a discontinuity (and perhaps others–I’m looking at you, Joseph Kelly–can attest to this) between the abrasive, name-calling individual I read on screen and the quiet, dare I say meek individual I encountered in person.  Let me clarify: Jim was a delight in person.  I enjoyed razzing him (asking him to call me a git or dilletante, which he sheepishly and nervously refused to do, and which I think says a lot).  He seems to be a genuine, kind, gentle man, but the man I met does not match the rhetoric I often see coming from his blog.  That is fine, we all have ways of expressing ourselves.  This, however, was quite unexpected.  I now have a very different sense of JW.  Quite the long knee-jerk, eh?

Chris Heard: I was glad to meet Chris for the Pepperdine/SBL recording series.  Having recently followed his youtube videos, I had a better sense of things.  My only regret is that we were unable to talk in any sort of depth; both our schedules were insanely busy.  But Chris ended up being quite what I expected: a kind and thoughtful scholar out to help younger scholars such as myself.  Many thanks!
I must admit also (and I trust Chris will call me a geek for this) that meeting him was quite exciting for me.  Readers of this blog will know of my deep appreciation for his Dynamics of Diselection (see HERE), so I confess to a bit of nerves before meeting him.  He simply has been quite formative for my own work on Genesis.

(Ok, now I can begin to get to providing a bit of the internal monologue, near as I can recall, about meeting my fellow bloggers; this is what went through my head):

Jim West: “Really?  That’s Jim West?  The man in person and the man on the screen do NOT synch up, at all.”

Chris Heard: “Omigosh omigosh omigosh!  It’s Chris Heard.  This is too cool!  Hey, he’s shorter than I expected.”

Mike Whitenton: “Wow, I think I met someone whiter than me!  Surely he’s related to Conan O’  Brien.  He’s a tall fella, too.”

Rob Kashow: “Hey, this guy is way better looking in person than his blog picture would lead you to believe.”

Doug Mangum: “Those are some seriously wicked awesome chops!  Why can’t I grow facial hair?!”

Joseph Kelly: “You look familiar but I have no idea why. I swear I’ve met you before.”

Brandon Wason: “In that suit, with that hair greased and spiked like that, this guy totally looks like an Italian mob boss.  ‘Hey, you talkin’ ta me?!  Fahgettaboutit!!’

Kevin Scull: “Love the hair.” (Unfortunately I can’t explain this one, but it is what I recall).

Chris Tilling: “Oh look, it’s Chris Tilling, someone who’s never read my blog I’m sure.  I bet he has no idea who I am.”

Pat McCullough: “Lordy that guy is huge.  I did not expect that . . . he could totally take me!”

Art Boulet: “I’m jealous; I wish I could totally rock the bald head look.  But my wife tells me I probably have a lumpy head.”

Brian Bibb: “Hmmmm, he looks younger in his pictures” (my sincerest apologies, Brian!).

Claude Mariottini: “I love the way this guy says his name!  I wish I had a cool accent.”

Brooke Lester: “You look remarkably like one of our ethics profs at Baylor.”

Daniel and Tonya: “Master linguists in my presence; don’t mention Hebrew.  Oooo, he’s going to come to my paper, and it’s making a translation argument.  Uh oh!”

Ken Brown: “Really?  I thought this guy was older than me.”

Mike Kok: “This guy looks super young!  I’m only 28 and I’m feeling old . . . “

Inside my head . . . it’s a scary place sometimes.

And now . . . dear reader, I extend the same question to you.  If you met me at SBL, what was the narrative running through your mind?  Levity and  honesty, all in good fun!

I am glad to announce that I learned, while in New Orleans last week, that my paper proposal for the 2010 Southwest Commission on Religious Studies (regional meeting of the SBL) has been accepted.  John Vassar of LSU-Shreveport was kind enough to email me personally and suggest I submit a proposal, and I was glad to do it.  This will be my third year in a row, and 4th paper, read at the SWCRS.  Now I just need to write the thing (which shouldn’t be a problem, given it is the penultimate chapter in the dissertation, and I will be done with the whole dissertation come Spring).

The proposal I submitted was entitled “Replaying the Fool: Esau vs Jacob and YHWH in Gen 32-33.”  Here is the abstract I submitted:

            The Jacob narratives in Genesis are among the most troubling texts in the Hebrew Bible for the way in which they portray characters actively engaging in deception, often of one’s own family.  Esau arguably suffers most, losing not only the right of the firstborn (Gen 25:27-34) but also the paternal blessing (Gen 27:1-45) to Jacob’s clever and calculating ways.  The response of Esau is clear: he plots to kill his scheming brother.  Later in the narrative, however, in the reconciliation scene between the two brothers, Esau’s murderous anger is conspicuously absent and instead replaced with a seemingly affable, forgiving demeanor.  Scholarship has traditionally noted that Jacob’s worry at the impending reunion is in vain and highlights all the more his problematic character, especially in light of the nocturnal wrestling match he has with God.  It is this contest with the divine that traditional readings of the Jacob cycle will argue leads to a change for the better in Jacob’s character.  Such a reading, however, cannot be sustained against a close scrutiny of the text.

This study is part of a larger project looking at the role and function of God in Jacob’s deceptions.  Here specifically I will argue that Jacob by no means repents of his deceptive ways but rather continues with them, at the expense of his brother yet again.  Jacob’s encounter with his besmirched brother will be read in parallel with 25:27-34.  Esau again plays the fool, just as he did with the right of the firstborn, on a variety of levels: he accepts Jacob’s ambiguous offer of the “blessing” (33:11, cf. 32:29) and he ends up separated from his brother yet again by means of Jacob’s trickery (33:15-20).  God is deeply connected with these deceptions (Gen 32:22-32), and a close literary reading of the text will offer new interpretive possibilities for understanding not only the Jacob and Esau dynamic but also the Jacob and God dynamic.

Thoughts?

This concludes my series of posts from last week’s 2009 meeting of the SBL in New Orleans (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE for the other posts).

My paper was slotted in the coveted 9 am slot on Tuesday morning.  It was delivered in the “Bible Translation” section, and was entitled “A Trickster Oracle in Gen 25:23: Reading Jacob and Esau between Beten and Bethel” (abstract HERE).  This was my second year in a row presenting at the national meeting, and my third paper at the national meeting (I did two last year, one in the Book of Psalms section and one in the Matthew section).  Upon arriving at the session, the other presents and I were informed we would have 25 minutes TOTAL, not 25 to read and then 5 for Q & A, so if we wanted questions we had to stop reading at 20 minutes.  Needless to say I had already chopped my paper down from about 35 pages to 12, and time was an issue, so I didn’t cut any further; my reading came in just at 25 minutes.

Given the time and day, I fully expected to have maybe a handful of folk present.  I was more than pleased, however, to have a room of about 35 people, including my Baylor colleague Roy Garton, former professor Richard Swanson from my undergrad Augustana College, my professor and dissertation advisor Bill Bellinger, and fellow bloggers Joseph Kelly and Daniel (btw, I’m still waiting for them to blog their thoughts on my paper–wink!). 

Typically when I have read papers in the past, nerves creep up.  This is to be expected, perhaps.  It was wonderful, though, this time, to have no nerves at all.  My throat didn’t go dry, I read at a good, audible pace, and most importantly, I was relaxed . . . throughout.  Even my buddy Roy and Dr. Bellinger noted as much.  I attribute that confidence to teaching.

Despite not having time for questions (although I did have some discussions during the break with people), the paper was very well received.  Many in the audience were clearly in agreement or pleased throughout, as regular head-nodding and “mmm hmmm’s” became visible and audible.  At the end of my paper, as I sat down, I was greeted by a thumbs up from Dr. Swanson, and several comments by people sitting near me (we all sat in the audience, per the convener’s request) that they “really enjoyed your paper” and it was “interesting” or “very good” or “well done.”  Given this is a vital component of my dissertation, I am pleased for the encouraging feedback.

The rest of the session was diverse and intriguing, and I especially found the paper about infinitive absolutes in Hebrew to be intriguing (how geeky does that sound of me?).  As the session ended I talked with a few in the audience, briefly, but had to run to the hotel for my colleagues who were waiting for me . . . for a 10 hour drive back to Waco.

Monday was a late start for me.  I had intended to go see Herb Hain’s presentation, “Genesis on Stage: The Story of Isaac as a ‘Divine’ (Greek) Comedy” in the Performance Criticism section, though I did not make it.  I did, however, go hear Brian Jones of Wartburg College give a paper on Job’s “Hunter-Warrior God,” but it was not what I expected.  This is not a critique of his paper as much as it is a critique of my expectations! 

From there I grabbed lunch at the Sheraton with two Baylor colleagues and then headed to the Book of Psalms section at 1:00, where one of my colleagues, Roy Garton, was presenting his paper entitled “The Death of a Psalmist: A Structural Analysis and Literary Reading of Psalm 88.”  The paper has intrigued me since I first read it some two years ago, and I have heard it now 2 or 3 times since.  Roy is a master of handouts, always making very colorful and fancy charts.  I often razz him by saying one of two things, both of which I think are hilarious (but probably more so if you actually know him): 1) that his first publishing venture should be a collected volume of only his handouts; 2) that if he ever has a festschrift, I will gladly submit a colorful handout for it!  Roy is a proponent of the historical-critical method in Hebrew Bible studies, but don’t worry . . . I still consider him a dear friend!!  Seriously, though, this is a very fine paper, and he has only strengthened it as time has passed.  I stayed for this entire session, hearing a paper also by fellow blogger Art Boulet.  Truth be told, I was a bit puzzled at Boulet’s devoting of the early bulk of his presentation to refuting Davidic authorship of certain Psalms/the Psalter.  I suspect for many (most?) in the audience this was unnecessary.  There was also a paper on Ethics in the Psalms, and I was intrigued to hear that the topic for the Book of Psalms section for the 2010 SBL meeting in Atlanta is the Psalms and Ethics.  I’m not so sure I know how that will turn out, but I am curious . . .

I was also glad to be able to talk with Joseph Kelly, who blogs at kol ha-adam, at length before the session on various matters, including having children while in a Ph.D. program, my paper the following day, applying to Baylor, etc.  We also had some good discussion afterwards, and I (re-)introduced him to my teacher Bill Bellinger.  I don’t know if that helps or hurts his chances to be associated with me (wink!).

The next session I attended was the Pentateuch session at 4.  Again, I was running late, but I really wanted to hear the papers by Bruce Wells on ‘The Story of the Hated Wife in Genesis and in Deuteronomy,” and by Calum Carmichael entitled “Jacob’s ‘Red, Red Dish’ and the Ritual of the Red Heifer.”  Wells argued that the Hebrew “hate” (sanah) here most likely means the demotion of a wife or banishment from the household, which the male could do without grounding the demotion in any sort of misconduct of the wife.  During the Q & A session, one audience member asked a question I also had: is it not possible that Leah was demoted by Jacob because of the deception occurring on the wedding night?  Certainly Laban is the one ‘blamed,’ but Leah hardly seems to be an unwitting participant.  Wells replied he would have to give that some thought.  A very fine question in my view.  And the final paper by Carmichael was a delight.  For those unfamiliar with Carmichael’s work, he is quite creative in trying to tether specific biblical laws to specific biblical narratives.  His central argument is that the narratives come first, and the laws arise from them.  His paper specifically looked at the odd text in Num 18-19 about the red heifer and how it is informed by the birthright episode in Gen 25:27-34. Carmichael argued that the “red” (edom) stew Jacob is cooking up was interpreted by Esau to be blood, given that Esau had returned from the field famished, unable to find any “meat with blood.”  This is hardly a new argument, and I remain unconvinced the text supplies any warrant to speculate or psychologize as to Esau’s train of thought at the moment.  Carmichael did, however, highlight an interesting connection immediatley after the red heifer text in Num 20, noting the text concerns Moses and Edom, and the text records something to the effect of “Thus says your brother Esau.”  Where I did agree with Carmichael, though, was on a few points of general interpretation of the passage: 1) Esau is portrayed unflatteringly as an animal with prey when he returns from the field; 2) the birthright can’t be undone because of the oath Esau swears; 3) Jacob (deceptively?) fails to name the true contents of the dish of red until the very end, revealing it is merely a pot of lentils. 

All in all, another good day of papers.  But I am always surprised at how physically and mentally draining it is to sit and listen to papers all day.  I now have a greater respect for my students!

After supper with colleagues again we headed to the oldest bar in the US (and no, I didn’t drink, because I don’t ever drink . . . for those who are curious).  It was a very cool atmosphere; no lights, just candles.  I, however, took off early and headed back to the hotel room around 9 or 9;30 so I could review my paper for the following morning.  After reading through it and making a few simple edits, I also read through some of my dissertation to insure I would be fresh on the topic.  Then, off to bed . . .

This continues my week-late blogging series on my time at SBL.  On Sunday morning I attended the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures session, the topic of which was a review of Marvin Sweeney’s 2008 Fortress Press volume Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah: Engaging Holocaust Theology.  The panel consisted of Walter Brueggemann, Frederick Greenspahn, Dennis Olson, and Patricia Tull, with a final response by Marvin Sweeney.  It was a very fine set of reviews.  Brueggemann offered a judicious review, but pressed Sweeney on not looking at the dialogical character of God in these matters; vintage Brueggemann!  In a tongue-in-cheek moment I am certain, Brueggemann concluded his reflections by praising Sweeney’s volume, but noting that it in no way offers a “final solution to the problem” (get it?).  Greenspahn’s paper took a bit of a different knack, doing less review and more of his own constructive work, looking at how it is that this discussion informs the contemporary Israeli/Palestinian conflict (his comments were reminiscent of Marc Ellis, if you are familiar with his work, though Greenspahn had more of a biblical grounding).  One powerful moment was when he cited Jon Levenson’s statement that the Hebrew Bible does not possess anything akin to Christian anti-Judaism because, fortunately, the Canaanites and Amalekites are no longer in existence.  This drew a chuckle from the crowd, but then he noted that contemporary Israelis–even seminal, not just militant, ones–have and do refer to Palestinians as “Amalek,” thus attempting to advance a biblical legitimation of mass destruction and death.  It was a powerful image, and one worthy of a great deal of thought and reflection.

From there I met with a Genesis scholar from the UK, Laurence Turner.  For those that are unfamiliar with Turner’s work, I have noted my deep appreciation for it several times (see HERE and HERE, as well as the comments to this latter post w here Turner responds).  It was a very fine time discussing these texts with someone who has thought about them as much–perhaps even more–than I have done.  I look forward to continuing to dialogue with Turner; I even gave him a copy of my initial dissertation chapter.

At 4:00 I went and heard Rolf Jacobson’s paper on “Theological Implications of Creation’s Praise of the LORD.”  Jacobson is a very fine presenter with a stellar and quick wit and very fine sense of humor.  It was a fine paper, and I understand he has a volume forthcoming on the Psalms he is editing that will contain a series of essays.  I look forward to that (perhaps if Dr. Jacobson is reading this he can respond and clarify the project a bit?). 

I left the session early and headed to Cafe Giovanni for the bibliobloggers dinner.  I was only there for a short time, because at 6:30 I had dinner with other Baylor OT folk lined up, but more importantly, with Bill Bellinger, my dissertation advisor.  So I was only at the blogging dinner for about 20 minutes.  I had hoped to speak with some in more depth, but there’s always next year.  I chatted with Mike Whitenton and Rob Kashow at first, then Bryan Bibb and Brooke Lester.  It was great also to meet Claude Mariottini, Ken Brown, and a few others I trust I am forgetting (mea culpa!).  Again it was good to talk with Jim West briefly; he walked past me and I dared him to call me a “git” or a “dilletante.”  He just laughed sheepishly (yes, sheepishly) and moved on. 

The dinner with Bellinger and other Baylor folk OT folk was a good time.  We went a ways from the conference hotel to a place called Mulattes.  We enjoyed good company, some Zydeco music, and watching people dance.  It was a bit loud, though, with the band, so we had to yell to speak to one another.  Between there, the trip to NO and the general amount of talking I did at the conference, my voice is still recuping.

These are the books I came away from SBL 2009 with:

Purchased:

Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (Yale)

Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16-50. Word Biblical Commentary.

Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (Mercer). (I got this for $15!!!  It sells for upwards of $60 new.  Thanks Mercer!).

 

Freebies (from publishers, professors, and friends):

Brian Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (Thanks Mike W!).

Laurence Turner, Genesis. Readings Commentary (Sheffield Phoenix; thanks Dr. Turner!).

Mike Bird, Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period (Hendrickson; thanks Bobby K!).

 

In the Mail:

I also returned home from SBL to find I had received my copy of James Barr’s The Concept of Biblical Theology.  So far Barr is quite the deconstructionist . . . it is a shame he passed away before he could finish his more constructive piece.

Here are some of the pictures I took at SBL New Orleans 2009:

Walter Brueggemann and I

Jim West at the blogging dinner

The Blogging Dinner

New Orleans from the 41st floor of the Marriott

New Orleans from 41st floor of Marriott