Every year, thousands of religion and Bible scholars descend upon a city to hold their annual extravaganza of discussions, books, receptions, and reunions. It’s a lot of self-proclaimed dorks in one place, with many giving papers testing out their newest theories. But it would be a mistake to confuse these lectures for the latest and greatest, cutting-edge research on Bible or theology. The gears of academia turn slowly over years, with few genuine disruptions to the status quo. Papers become longer journal articles, which might one day become even longer books (or maybe not). In this process, there is surprisingly little sifting out of bad ideas — there is a great deal of worthless drivel that counts for “novel” scholarship. The best ideas find their supports or detractors, whose footnotes upvote a given scholar’s significance or impact.
I heard many papers in my time at SBLAAR conference (the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion), though fewer than I would have liked. I was unable, for example, to attend the review panel on David Ford’s commentary on the Gospel of John or a session devoted to Katherine Sonderegger’s two volume Systematic Theology. I’m told both were fantastic. One standout for me was Ben White’s paper on Martin Luther and Second Corinthians — a genuine model for how to navigate the reformer’s vast and occasional corpus with charity and acumen.
Gauging the papers I heard and the many conversations I had with friends and colleagues, a few distinct trends can be inferred on the current state of the ivory tower:
1. Studies that investigate the significance of human embodiment continue to be highly popular. Call it a corrective of the mind/body split, but debates over doctrines and ideas are far rarer compared to insights derived from the social sciences or psychology. So I shouldn’t have been as surprised as I was to hear several commendations of Simeon Zahl’s The Holy Spirit and Christian Experience, which looks at pneumatology and the emotional salience of doctrine. But the somatic emphasis, in a less capable or theologically disinterested hand, can easily lose sight of God altogether.
Along these lines, I attended a review of an impressive study on the apostle Paul’s joyfulness during his incarceration. And yet, for all its worthy contributions the book was far less interested in Paul’s ideas as much as the conditions of physical depravation and social isolation. The only panelist this absence bothered was John Barclay, who offered a complementary (and necessary) theological account of the source of Paul’s joy amid his suffering. Paul could rejoice in prison because he understood his present circumstances to be part of trajectory or narrative, a resurrection beyond the present degradation. This cognitive reappraisal of suffering somehow, paradoxically, elicits joy despite Paul’s humiliation.
2. Another noticeable trend: an emphasis on the material artifacts of history, whether this be archeology, the physical texts themselves, or ancient artistic depictions. These provide the historical study of religion additional data beyond the much debated and familiar witnesses. A codex containing many books was used differently by a local community than a scroll of a single text. Add some photos of iconography to supplement close textual analysis and a strong argument can become impregnable. The material turn parallels the above emphasis on somatic themes in point one. Together, they represent attempts to move analyses one step closer to the people and communities who actually lived the events described.
In theory, materiality is less prone to ideological distortion, promising to place history itself into the actual hands of the historian. One can debate the six possible understandings of a Greek genitive, but the epitaphs of ancient Christian catacombs are far more compelling. I’m not yet sure if this will prove to be a passing fad or a promising new direction. I happen to think that materiality is promising, but by no means can it serve as a substitute for compelling readings of primary texts.
3. Five years ago, fellow New Testament scholar Lorne Zelyck and I petitioned the powers that be to create a new section in SBL connecting canonical and non-canonical gospels in conversation with one another. To our surprise, our request was ultimately denied, despite the endorsements of several senior scholars. It was a good idea then and this year felt like a belated vindication. We were just a few years ahead of our time. Now it seems that everyone is placing canonical texts in conversation with later texts and/or theologians. Why was the Gospel of John written? Ask the third century theologian Origen. Fifth century hagiographies are deployed to understand Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. The intertextual field is wider than ever! The wider, the better, I guess. Bonus points if you highlight a writing no one in the audience has ever read.
4. This wider intertextual field does not, however, extend to Martin Luther. I counted precisely six papers engaging with the Wittenberg doctor.
5. Speaking of Luther, there is no end to the battles over Paul and the designation of new schools of thought. For those keeping score at home, the New Perspective consensus gave way to the challenge of the Post New Perspective or Apocalyptic Paul schools. And now a new contender has emerged and doesn’t seem to be going away — the “Paul Within Judaism” school. Such scholars broadly seek to reclaim the insights of the New Perspective, but without the supposedly Christian bias of James Dunn and N.T. Wright.
6. Not a trend, but something that became immediately apparent while perusing the countless book stalls: Eerdmans Publishing came away as the clear winners for the best new books in 2022 (more on that in my annual “Top Theology Books” list). Honorable mention to Lexham Press for markedly increasing the volume of its offerings … a publisher to keep an eye on in the future.
Passing judgments: There were too many essays on the pandemic to count, but zero required Covid precautions. Let the reader understand … Everyone can spot the paper written on the plane to the conference (I suffered through four this year) … What a joy it was to see my own book in the book stalls for the first time … Way too many beards. Guys, stop it already … Denver was lovely, but I do not understand why the organizers choose so many freezing cold host cities … I was delighted to meet several Mbird readers at the conference: easily more than previous years.
COMMENTS
2 responses to “View from the Ivory Tower”
Leave a Reply
Sounds like a great time. I’d love to go next year. I was unaware that there is a Post New Perspective on Paul. I’ll have to read up on that sometime
Someday you should gather a small cadre of local congregational leaders (lay and ordained, multiple denom’s) to accompany this sojourn and reflecting. I volunteer as tribute.