127 Comments


  1. I’d just like to point out that a few words in your post aren’t linked to anything ;-).

    Reply

  2. I woulld rather be called pastor, shepherd and “Father”. And I could be called “Doctor” too (was as a professor), but I am certainly myself no blogger. Perhaps, I like to think of myself as a ‘rebel with a cause’? lol But no, I am just an Anglican “Churchman”, catholic & reformed. But, I love to follow and yes comment on Polycarp’s Blog!
    Fr. Robert

    Reply
  3. steph

    and what exactly is that certain narrow view point?! I’ve already suggested you offer your good self to Jim – I for one would certainly be delighted :-)

    Reply

  4. i think he’s intimating that he will bring along his japanese tradition of life ending-ness

    Reply

  5. Joel,

    The post seems to read that the purpose of my post was to unseat Jim as the rep for SBL. That’s actually opposite of my intention. I say in my post that I think he should be the rep, nonetheless the purpose of the vote was to make way for people to share their opinions.

    I’m not sure if you meant your post to read that way, but I wanted to clarify because I don’t want people to think I’m doing that.

    Nonetheless, thanks for the mention.

    Reply

  6. Here, Here for Masters, Hemingway, Goliath, and Princess.. my they live long and prosper!

    Reply

  7. well since i didnt ask any of the people involved their view of anything and since i dont intend on some sort of litmus test i think ill have to reject your kind suggestion.

    but- if heard in semiotics or anyone else on any other program unit does what youve asked us to do, i’ll think about it.

    Reply

  8. well thanks for the suggestions but rod isnt a member of the sbl (unless i have misunderstood him) and neither is nick (i dont think- but you can check the membership list for yourself if you like.), and anyway, we have quite enough on the good committee now.

    Reply

  9. Rod,
    This is one of the problems with theology at the academic level at present, the exegetical tools should always go along with, etc. If we cannot unpack the text, then we are in real trouble. I see this all the time really, people with plenty of theology, but sometimes little biblical textual ability.
    Fr. R.

    Reply

  10. PS…Also Christian people should be reading the whole biblical text..i.e. the Bible, and reading it often. I can remember when the biblical literacy was much higher. Now, many seminary students appear to be in great need with just scripture reading and knowledge. Strange really. Perhaps there really are too many translations to read?
    Fr. R.

    Reply

  11. i dont know if the good fr is talking about me or linville- but i think if he means me he hasnt been paying attention at all. which is not surprising, given his inability to so much as pay attention to his own typing. i mean really, what the heck is ‘esslesiastical’? or ‘ecclesical’? it’s hard to take him seriously at all. except of course as some sort of suck up sycophant to our dear joel.

    Reply

  12. Dr. Jim,
    I don’t think you want to tangle with me! And really, you don’t know what is “ecclesiastical” or “ecclesial”? Again, let’s not go ad hom here, okay? And as to Joel, he is a friend, and we have mutual respect, though we too often don’t agree. I was talking about the nature and lasting use of the Blog or Blogdom.
    Fr. R.

    Reply

  13. come now fr- we all know that that’s not how you spelled them above. and ‘tangle’ with you? is that irish for dance? because i don’t dance.

    Reply

  14. Jim, etc.
    I have a book in hands, you might want to read? It is called, (and I speak the truth here!) “On B***s***”, by Harry G. Frankfurt. (Princeton University Press, Princeton & Oxford, 2005). It is a philosophical analysis of the theoretical ideas of how we in the English world just simply BS each other in almost every area of modern life! Check it out!
    Fr. R.

    Reply
  15. Jordan wilson

    In church this morning we discussed Paul’s letter to the Philippians and how he preached inclusiveness. I couldn’t help but see the parallels to this subject. We have this new committee, acting as the Pharisee’s, enforcing the rule of the law as they see it. If your blog doesn’t match their critical interpretations, you’re deemed unfit and left out. Maybe it’s just the christian in me, but I prefer things that don’t classify one as either an insider or an outsider.

    Reply

  16. well joel one things for sure- this post sure has gotten a lot of traction.

    Reply

  17. chili’s is oppressing you Rod! you MUST protest!!!!!! their failure to provide you with your beloved food item is just another bit of evidence that they are acting like an empire unconcerned with their citizens wants and needs!!!!!

    ;-p

    Reply
  18. steph

    oh i dunno :-) – it was the way I received notice in my mail box of Ben’s comment in that personalised way – it confused me: I thought he was ambiguously wafflingly suggesting I might have thought I had done a good deed…

    Reply

  19. So, I’ve noticed, Ben. Do you think I’ll be flogged, with salt in the wounds or just sat in a corner at the Biblioblogger Dinner?

    Reply

  20. And when I offer myself, should I 叩頭 or should I bring a sword first, sharp knife on the palm?

    Reply

  21. Rob, I had hoped that the call to affiliate with a group centered on non-affiliation, or a threat to call in a giant cat, and the tone in which the post was written, would have signaled that while their were problems out there, sometimes humor is needed.

    Reply
  22. steph

    hahaha you know what I mean join the round table.

    Reply
  23. steph

    You can be Invited, or you can volunteer. But you’re such a cheeky young rascal I think my cat would eat you.

    Reply

  24. Steph, like you, I am controlled by cats (3 – (in order of appearance and age, Hemingway, Goliath, and Princess) I would image that your feline would have trouble eating me without a good fight from my only beloved masters.

    Reply
  25. steph

    hahaha. Delilah isn’t fierce at all :-)

    Reply
  26. steph

    By the way, dear Joel, you did very well to avoid my original question 😉

    Reply

  27. Nope, I didn’t avoid it – I ignored it until the conversation progressed.

    Frankly, the Steering Committee should have someone who does not engage in ‘higher criticism.’ Perhaps someone with an ‘anti-intellectual’ bias, which is far from the truth.

    Arrogance is believe that because someone doesn’t arrive at the same conclusions as you, they are unlearned, anti-intellectual or just plain stupid. (This is not directed at you, Steph).

    I believe in the Inspiration of the Scriptures, and Traditional Scholarship. Where are those with my views on the steering committee?

    Someone like Nick or Rodney, for that matter.

    Reply

  28. I am. I am suggesting that a more conservative scholar, such as yourself, be on the steering committee.

    Reply
  29. steph

    I don’t know what anyone else’s theological views are. And higher criticism? I always imagine my work as fairly down to earth and practical stuff. :-) I don’t know who Nick or Rodney but perhaps they’d like to talk to Jim..

    Reply

  30. Joel,

    i do not think that an “anti-intellectual” is what they would need at the SBL steering committee.

    See, here is how I see things: as of now, the academy and the church are two separate institutions. Academic societies such as the SBL and AAR keep those in the ivory tower split from laity and clergy. There is a major disconnect.

    Now, some academic associations are open to pastors and laypersons with DMins or Masters presenting, societies such as the Society of Pentecostal Scholars or the Wesleyan Theological Society. But other than a few other examples, for the most part, “church people” serve as tokens in these groups.

    I see the biblioblogs as a way for scholars and the public to engage. I am suspicious of the SBL/biblioblog alliance not because it directly effects me, but because of its potential to drag out the division between church and academy rather than strive towards reconciliation.

    Reply

  31. Nor was the original Delilah, but she managed to control her man, and I’m sure she could deliver Joel to the biblioblogger Philistines if she wanted.

    Reply

  32. You are correct, not a member of SBL. My professors keep asking me to go into biblical studies; I have too much to say for that field. I’ll stick to theology and ethics. :)

    I am a member of the American Academy of Religion though!

    Reply

  33. I’d like to talk to Jim if I was into biblical studies.

    But I am not, alas.

    Only a theology student who as a Christian enjoys studying the bible.,

    Reply

  34. Peter, in the most famous words of a generation hopefully to be forgotten, ‘Bring it.’

    Reply
  35. steph

    indeed – she’s very persuasive. But apart from devouring book covers, chewing manuscripts and occasionally chasing the mouse round the computer, she’s not very bothered about who wants to come to the party or not :-)

    Reply

  36. By ‘anti-intellectional’ I mean those that consider the divine source of the Scriptures, along the lines of Pope Leo XIII.

    We can bandy about ‘anti-intellectual’ about those who do not agree with us – it is obvious they are the unlearned ones. What I was hoping is that the Steering Committee would allow for one who did not employ higher/historical criticism.

    Reply

  37. Sorry, but I have not seen Dr Jim unpack one verse here. But then I don’t read his blog much. This is really not a negative toward Jim, but just an observation. And I am certainly no hard blogger! For myself, I am not sure about the ecclesiastical nature of the Blog? I mean for the lasting aspect of the ecclesical community? But then I am sure both my age and background has much to do with my feelings.
    Fr. R.

    Reply

  38. I’ve noticed a few ‘spelling errors’ from you as well, good Dr. West.

    Reply

  39. Jim,
    I will be 60 next month, so my type and spelling is not perfect. But, I am still 155lbs at 5’11, one time Royal Marine officer, and yeah perhaps (or really no doubt) I still have some pride there. And I don’t thing you want to dance with me mate, as I have just a second degree black belt. But my lowly second degree would sufficient I am sure, in “the dance”, lol. But really as to the “tangle” I was speaking more along the lines of history theology and exegesis! As I said, this whole BS with blogdom, and often the lack of real decorum is just not my style! One of the very reasons that I like and follow Joel’s blog, is that he does not go for the blog BS!
    Well there ya have my thoughts at least!
    Fr. R.

    Reply

  40. And you are correct, I reject the historic-critical method. It has been a tool for building of empire sin the Enlightenment. Oh, I could blog about it for days.

    Reply

  41. The Spirit of God told me someone here was rejecting HC method? Do my ears and eyes deceive me Rodney?!?! I now have to take you off my prayer list, because God has answered it! 😀

    Reply

  42. Rob, don’t know why it moderated you. Sorry about that.

    Indeed, I believe given enough time and prayer, even the good Dr. West might reject the HC method.

    Reply

  43. Rob,

    We have been through this before in person, probably at a local Chilli’s. :)

    But we have not made the connection: post-colonial interpretation comes from narrative theory as well.

    how bout them apples?

    Reply

  44. Did someone say Chili’s?

    That’s what we need, a quarterly meeting for the Associated of Unaffiliated Bibliobloggers.

    Baby-back ribs….

    Reply

  45. Or how about some awesome blossom, extra awesome!

    Oh, the chilli’s waiters can’t stand me when I say that because they no longer make awesome blossom. lolz.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!