It has come to my attention that the following motion is going to be proposed for consideration at SBL this year, a response to recent dust-ups over what constitutes appropriate standards of scholarly activity in a religious-studies oriented context.
As I understand it, this is going to be recommended as one 4-part motion.
1. That the mission statement of SBL be emended to read “fostering critical biblical scholarship.”
2. That only students who have been admitted to a doctoral program be permitted to read papers at the annual meeting, and that those students should have the approval of their doctoral advisers.
3. That the “core values” of SBL be emended to include the following statement: “Public discourse in SBL should not be based on confessional norms, but we welcome the participation of people of all persuasions.”
4. That groups that have doctrinal requirements shall not be eligible for Affiliate status, but may participate in the “Additional Meetings” category of the Annual Meeting.
As I understand it, there is a growing list of endorsers, some of whom with positions such as President or Former President of the Society.
What are the implications of # 4? I am new to SBL (student member) so I am not sure what groups this refers to.
This is troubling. I am in favor of raising scholarly standards. I would fully support 1 & 2. 3 has some good parts–the SBL should not be a confessional society and should be open to all Biblical scholars. But the wording of 3 is troubling–nonconfession as a “core value?” And 4 is completely wrong. It makes confessing Christians (or confessing Jews, for that matter) second class members who will be allowed segregated meetings. If this were to pass as written, the SBL would go the route of the AAR–and become dominated by the “religious studies” crowd. That would be tragic.
Daniel, what is your source for this?
Emory has had at least two master’s students apply to its Ph.D. program in the past few years who had already published in major journals (e.g. CBQ, JSOT). So #2 would mean that such students couldn’t even present a paper?
Number 2 is absurd. It should be emended to allow master’s students to submit completed papers for consideration.
Daniel,
My concerns are the same as Christopher’s. It strikes me as backwards that such students would not even be permitted to present a paper when their samples of their work had been vindicated in a double-blinded review.
I had heard about this and was looking forward to the response it would receive. I agree with the reinstatement of the term “critical” in the mission statement (I read the letter Ron Hendel published in BAR criticizing is removal) and I must say that overall it promotes a high standard of presentation within the Annual Meetings of SBL. Yes, it means that those who wish to present at Annual Meetings must be admitted PhD students with approval, but the approval is the only thing that I see as a negative. Already within the SBL to present at the Annual Meeting, as fa as I know, you have to have presented at a Regional Meeting or have letters of recommendation to present. So, to require acceptance in a Doctoral program is not a huge step (merely another hoop that must be jumped).
I’m chiming in with those concerned about restrictions on student submissions. I presented at SBL during my master’s program. It was a great experience and I got some good feedback. That work was one of the things that helped me get into a doctoral program. First time presenters are already required to submit a copy of their paper. I don’t see a need for a change here.
Folks, I’d kindly and respectfully request that this post be taken down, or radically modified. I encourage the conversation, but the opening remarks and list at the top are not accurate. The SBL Council, as indicated in my letter to members, will evaluate all the motions and concerns, and bring those to the business meeting. This posting presents the matter as fait accompli, but it is not. As the letter indicated, the discussion will be thoughtful, and it will fully engage the SBLmembership to achieve consensus.
Thanks,
John
John, I did not intend it as an indication of a done deal, but as a motion that was going to be proposed. I have altered some of the language accordingly and hope it is more clear.
We are both hoping for the same thing: a fulsome conversation about the future of the society and consensus of the SBL community. I hope the conversation here and on other blogs helps that process.
Best,
Daniel
No. 2 is misworded and ambiguous. Another way to read it is that it even forbids professors from reading papers at SBL, because they aren’t actually students enrolled in a doctoral program.
Also, there’s a loophole in no. 2. You can quit school but retain (full) membership. Then the restriction doesn’t apply to you.
I joined before I was a student and even gave papers. Then I got into Duke, which, according to rule 2, gives me restrictions even though I’ve actually become a better scholar!
That’s why we need lawyers in the guild.
Stephen, these are good points to make now. Hopefully they will be word-smithed before November. Yet another reason for lots of communication ahead of time.
Hello Daniel,
This is an interesting discussion. As a hobby enthusiast of Biblical Studies…I find myself of course as an outsider to the guild. While I am not planning to contribute anything to the scholarly study…I find it a bit disturbing for the concern to set parameters about who is eligible to submit material. It seems to me that the need for maintaining quality research is achieved in the review and acceptance process. The list of significant contributors to the field of Biblical Studies over the years is filled with “non-professionals”. I think it is worth at least considering that some of these non-professionals may have something to offer.
I was going to make the same point Stephen did. Having those who are no longer PhD students (which is presumably most professors) excluded from the possibility of presenting papers would radically redefine the nature of SBL, as well as whether those professors would be able to attend having been thus barred from presenting!