What are biblical studies conferences for? Do they need a change?
Why do you go to SBL or British NT conference? I highly doubt that the answer will be: ‘I want to hear the papers.’ Don’t get me wrong – all day you attend papers, but is that really the main reason? Often you will be signing up for the conference before really knowing the paper titles. When you go home, do you really say: wow, I am so glad I went to all of those papers? No, usually one or two papers, often the ones you didn’t plan on going to, turned out to be interesting or helpful for your research. (On the other hand, small conferences on a focused topic, would be helpful specifically for the papers).
Why is this the case? To some degree it is a reflection of the times. First, biblical studies is, sadly, so fragmented that so many of the papers are on highly specialized subjects. Secondly, advancements in technology, information dissemination, and communication means that you don’t really need to be travelling to conferences to hear updates from scholars in your area. This happens through blogs and books and article are published much faster than they used to be. Let me give an example of how times have changed. I was working on a paper and John Barclay lent me a paper he gave on a similar subject. I tried to find out (on the internet) where this paper is going to be published so I would know how to cite it. I discovered that it formed part of a conference in Germany on Romans 9-11 that took place recently. I browsed the other papers in the program, all by top scholars. One, in particular, was very interesting to me, so I emailed the scholar (again, an amazing technological advancement!) and she sent me her paper and told me where it was going to be published. This kind of little activity that went on (from Barclay to me to this other scholar) would have been impossible thirty years ago.
If I read abstracts from a coming conference (like SBL) and I think a paper sounds interesting for my research, I can bet that if I email the person (esp. if they are a student or young scholar) they will send their paper to me or chat with me (on Facebook or something) to aid me. To be honest, SBL and BNTC are really not about the papers, though in a wider perspective they are significant for shaping scholarship.
I think the real value is discussion and interaction, which often happens best in an informal setting (like at the pub or during meals). How can we capitalize on this? Longer meals ? 
Seriously, though, we need to think about how we can change to suit the real needs of scholars. Suggestions were made that there be more book reviews sessions and less ‘open topic paper sessions’. I think having working groups devoted to a single topic (like SNTS or CBA) is helpful.
I would like to see workshops on things like publishing, using media and technology in the classroom, and, of course, discussions on things like the value of blogging (Howard Marshall told me he refuses to waste time reading blogs).
Instead of just lots of papers, we need to decide what the best use of our time is and in what areas scholars are in need of face-t0-face contact. I think a change is needed….soon…
September 7, 2009 at 6:58 am
This seems quite a change from a year ago, Nijay. After Durham, didn’t you say you liked the BNTC just as it is? (Perhaps I should admit that your post last year annoyed me just a bit, as someone who has been going for nearly 15 years now and thought it stale.)
There is a danger in putting too much emphasis on the “informal”. I agree that it is perhaps the most important aspect of what is happening, but it cannot be divorced from the format completely. For myself, the BNTC format has reached the end of its useful life, and that is enough for me to seek the “informal” elsewhere. It is the multitude of text-based seminars, attended by so few people – both to give papers and to hear them – that have made me despair of the BNTC. (When so many papers are given by chairs, you know the take up of the call for papers has been poor.) Since I don’t expect it to change to suit me, however, I have decided to move on and make EABS my summer conference. This is not because of the people – for the moment, many are the same – but it is because of the format (no real plenaries, 3.5 hour block sessions with a 30 minute break, and focused sessions.)
Best wishes,
John
September 7, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for an interesting post, Nijay. One of the things I like about the BNTC is the fact that everyone attends three plenaries, and these are regarded as the main showpieces of the conference. This gets us away from that rather narrow focus just on whatever we happen to be researching at the moment and keeps us a bit broader. The SNTS has the same thing. It’s where the SBL Annual Meeting falls down, inevitably, because of the sheer numbers. The SBL International is structured a bit like the SBL Annual, but the numbers are such that they could do something different. I haven’t been to the EABS that John mentions, though I was not that impressed with the idea of three-and-a-half hour sessions on one topic at the SBL International this summer. And in general the numbers of people attending those is pretty weak.
September 7, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Thanks, Nijay. For what it’s worth, I have noticed what seems to be an increase in book-review sessions, and perhaps also more open-ended panels, at SBL this fall. But I have not done any statistical analysis. A move toward more sustained actual interaction among scholars working in similar areas might be interesting.
September 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I agree with Mark that the SBL International has all the flaws of each system and the merits of virtually none; short papers, crammed in and no time for discussion. This is a system that that some EABS sessions replicated in Lincoln in the Summer, cramming lots of short papers in. At its best, however, what the EABS system offers is two 45 minute slots (25 mins paper and 20 mins questions), a 30 minute break, and two more 45 minute slots, plus loads of time around the sessions. The whole session is under a global title, but it doesn’t have to be that restrictive. Take the Biblical World and its Reception Seminar I co-run at EABS, for example.
Where we do disagree is on the value of plenary sessions. EABS has one opening plenary in a four night conference. BNTC has three in a two night conference, and SST has about 8 in a three night conference. Do they really keep us all together and in touch? That is what I think the informal time does best. Plenaries in my experience are quite poor fare, either being dumbed down or too technical for a general audience. Some can win on that one, but rarely three a year at BNTC.
But to be honest, it is the seminars where BNTC has its biggest problems. There are too many, they are too small, and yet they are also too restrictive for some. How long can chairs be found for them? I guess we will find out.
September 8, 2009 at 5:08 am
Not having experienced the British system, I enjoy the SBL’s formal format. Scholars all have a tendency to form alliances according to institution and gender. While we attend the sessions of our friends, we at least have to sit through the papers of three to four others in those sessions out of professional courtesy. I appreciate having my arguments refined by some of the prospective books/dissertations and methods of other institutions.