Though it may be some while before comments on Biblical Studies or Ancient World blogs descend to that level, it does point to the possibility of greater quality control as a "desirable feature" of academic conversations (note how many blogs have comment moderation now ;) though, of course this is a two edged sword, potentially shutting down dissent, as well as protecting us from the Lolcats and spammers!
[to Del.icio.us]
Here's one I prepared earlier:
The two tools I used to make it are (excluding Firefox):
- Capture Fox the screencasting add on for Firefox
- Miksoft's Mobile Media Converter "free fast and easy" it converts most audio formats and many video formats into many others, for this job it will render the big fat AVI file Capture Fox produces as small lean MP4 or WMV video
PS: As anonymous comments below there is a Beta version available here which compresses the AVI file better. Using Miksoft's converter will still give much smaller file sizes, but for people who don't like technology the new version would make it a one step process instead of two. And probably many of you have less students on dialup still or poor "broadband" than we have in NZ ;) So a great tool is getting better.
Labels: culture, digital, teaching, video
¶ 2:48 PM
[to Del.icio.us]
New version includes compression. It's experimental but you can download it.
By 
, at
May 30, 2009 7:11 PM
"Being produced" because the material is a wiki, being refined continually by members of the MLA's Committee on Information Technology, though the guidelines are already very useful.
Note to Jim: Wiki technology, far from being the necessary haunt of flagrant dilletants, can be a really easy way for a group like this to publish ongoing work - Judge the product not the technology (a useful motto for this conversation ;) :End note to Jim
The site: The Evaluation of Digital Work contains a very useful annotated listing of Types of Digital Work, and a Short Guide to Evaluation of Digital Work that would be really useful to members of committees called upon to evaluate digital scholarship, as well as illustrative material and an (unfinished) section assisting applicants with Documenting a New Media Case.
NB. This post follows on from the following earlier discussion:
Stephen's Academic Blogging: Publication or Service?
Mark's Academic Blogging: Publication, Service or Teaching
My rant Should blogging count for academics?
(see also Jim's Blogging: To What End? and Mark's Why blog? and - though you may need to scroll to see the connection - Media Literacy: Making Sense Of New Technologies And Media by George Siemens - Apr 25 09
Labels: biblical.studies.online, blogging, digital, review, scholarship, teaching
¶ 7:50 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Evaluations of academics' performance are traditionally, and probably globally, thought of under three headings:
- teaching: fairly obvious, includes preparing, marking, talking to students...
- research: usually requires publication in a peer-reviewed form of actual research, so writing a Bible Dictionary article usually counts as service or teaching not research
- service: a rag bag for anything else the academic and their evaluators think of as "work", committees, consulting, speaking to non-professional groups etc.
Jim in a typically forthright reply poses the question differently in Blogging: To What End? and Mark offered a typically reflective answer in Why blog? I'll answer Jim's question briefly, and then return to the original one. I blog because I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of reading other people's posts, and I hope that (by blogging myself) I can add a different voice and perspective to the mix. In short I blog for the same reason that I do not (despite being a raving introvert) sit silent in a corner during conversations in the Carey staffroom, or the church coffee room after the service, because I feel part of the community.
So, back to the question should blogging count as work for academics?
Professional scholars have long enjoyed a privileged elite status in society, not least in the freedom to choose how to spend time. As long as certain requirements of teaching and committees are fulfilled, we get to select which interests to research. To a large extent too we get to choose when to work, late into the evening for some, early mornings for others... and if the plumber can only call on Tuesday afternoon there is a good chance that the family academic can arrange to be home at that time :)
And yet, these freedoms, and especially the freedom to research, have been restricted over the years.
When I began at Carey in 1993 we taught typically 4-5 courses a year, 2 larger courses (maybe 25-35 students) in one semester and 3 smaller ones with 7-20 students in the other. This left plenty of time for research and service, and these activities were not rigorously assessed. If my research produced no publications some years, but I wrote a series for the denominational paper, that was fine.
Now we teach 5 courses a year, and few of them have less than 30 students while the largest have 70-80. About a third of these are distance students, so a whole extra layer of preparation and interactivity online has been added. My guess is that overall these changes double the time taken each year by teaching, take out committee meetings and the like... research and service become spare time activities. Yet research is now subject to a government sponsored evaluation process, it is not enough to produce an article for a local (= Australasian) journal, at least some of my publications must be in top international journals...
Should blogging "count"? I do hope not, because if it does, I'll need to produce "n" posts a year, and remove from Sansblogue any posts I fear will not meet the approval of some committee. If blogging starts to "count" then the biblical blogsphere will become a mass of turgid, safely academic, posts full of language designed to impress rather than to communicate, relieved only by the amateurs - used in it's deep sense of someone who undertakes an activity for love rather than payment - and the outsiders.
Labels: biblical.studies.online, blogging, scholarship, teaching
¶ 11:44 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
I think that blogging should "count" only in the sense and to the extent that things like radio interviews, books with trade publishers, and other such activities do. It should be appreciated as drawing attention to our work and the institutions we're affiliated, but not expected in the same way peer reviewed publications or teaching a certain number of classes are.
Thanks for keeping this conversation going - it is an important one!
By 
James F. McGrath, at
May 28, 2009 1:44 PM
James, the post above was a rant, deliberately overstating a case to make a different point, as my next post above hopefully shows ;) Actually I think blogging, subject to the sort of evaluation the MLA team suggest, should count both as you suggest in the service area, but often also rather like papers to academic conferences. That is as a sort of quasi- or preliminary publication that services the research community.
But I could not write that above or I'd have spoilt the fun ;)
By Tim, at
May 29, 2009 7:38 AM
I can't help wondering if (even for Western cultures and languages) "eternal life" is the best translation of ζωή αἰώνιος? Might αἰώνιος not suggest more life of the age that's coming, so be suggesting something like the dreams of a new age in texts like Rev 21:1ff. or Is 11:1ff.; 61:1ff.? Can any of you Greek/NT scholars help clarify this for me?
I am an INFP so I work most easily with intuitions, and my intuition is that ζωή αἰώνιος sounds like "life of the age to come" especially if I back translate to something like עוֹלָם...
Labels: bible, greek, hebrew, mission
¶ 8:42 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
No comments - sorry about that Tim. The reality is breaking in on us sometimes in spite of liturgical practice - sometime because of it. I like your jumping of the Hebrew-Greek divide. I am planning a new blog on Matthew as a Hebrew book as my reintroduction to the NT. I think I will look at several Hebrew NT translations and see what comes of the parallelisms on retranslation.
But serious work will begin when I have to take all my books on Job back to the library:) and I hope to find a good commentary on Matthew from his Jewish point of view.
[to Del.icio.us]
So, I found his post Theological vs. “Plain-Sense” Exegesis of Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5 with respect to the Marriage Covenant stimulating, especially since we only partly agree about some of the key issues. In the course of his argument John wrote:
This [monogamous] take on Genesis 2 is possible if and only if it is read against the grain of its proximate context - the book of Genesis, in which polygamy is taken for granted - and with the grain of its macro-context – inclusive of the New Testament, in which the ideal of monogamy is upheld by Jesus and Paul. This kind of exegesis is convincing if and only if one has a high view of scripture according to which, in classical terms, it is verbally inspired. On this view, each and every word of scripture is there for a reason that goes beyond what its human author could possibly have imagined.A fun argument, with stirring rhetoric, but is John right? Must I swallow the camel of verbal inspiration, imagining e.g. God putting on funny voices to "do" Jeremiah and Isaiah differently, if I want to read Gen 2 in the light of the rest of, and the trajectory of, Scripture as a whole. I do hope not, because a God with "mouth" squinched to make Mark sound different from John, though possessing a fine sense of humour can hardly be taken more seriously than one who assiduously plants fossil animals in order to confuse 19-20th century natural philosophers!
Surely the simple fact that Genesis 2 is found, read and used as part of a canon - a collection of literature that I perceive as related and (at least somewhat) coherent is sufficient to enable me to read Gen 2 in a way that is like the way Jesus does in the Gospels?
Fun rhetoric, but I submit no score!
Labels: bible, biblical.studies, canon
¶ 10:40 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
doesn't God's provision of Adam with a woman rather than many (e.g. one for each rib) argue for a monogomous reading? Surely providing Adam with numerous wives would have been a better way to jumpstart the human race (as well as affirm polygamny)? And does OT narrative ever portray polygamy as a good idea? isn't it usually a mistake, a sign of a lack of faith, and/or a source of strife? In the case of David and Solomon polygamy is the cause of many terrible outcomes. or is that me doing eisegesis?
By Jonathan Robinson, at
May 18, 2009 4:02 PM
Hi Tim,
Thanks for interacting with my post. So I take it the problem is "verbal inspiration." Have you read James Barr's defense of the concept of verbal inspiration? I read the defense a long time ago in some obscure place, but he repeated it in his famous book, "Fundamentalism." Basically, I remember him arguing that for scripture to be inspired in any meaningful sense, it has to be verbally inspired; that is, in terms of the words it contains, its linguistic reality. If instead inspiration is located in events or thoughts behind the text, the result is that speculation on our part is elevated to the status of God's word. That cure is worse than the supposed disease.
Verbal inspiration, of course, is attributed to scripture on the assumption that it is prophetic in its entirety, or in any case is to be read in that sense. The assumption underlies 1 Peter 1:10-12 and much Jewish and Christian exegesis (Qumran, NT, Talmud, Church Fathers, etc.).
What is interesting is that constitutional interpretation is premised on a similar assumption (see Jaroslav Pelikan's work I reference). That is, old words whose reference was circumscribed in ways appropriate to the time are interpreted all over again in the light of later developments. The interpretation is not arbitrary but proceeds in reference to a canon, a set of precedents, and an overarching meta-narrative.
The advantage of distinguishing between a historical-critical reading of a biblical passage or the Constitution, and a paradigmatic reading of the same in light of a larger whole is that eisegesis pure and simple is avoided.
Perhaps, however, I am misidentifying your beef with the concept of verbal inspiration. It could be that you equate it with the dictation theory of composition. Phenomenologically, poets and prophets sometimes receive their words by dictation in some sense. Even the dictation theory is not completely off base. But verbal inspiration is a claim about the strength of God's providence, not about the means by which God made sure that the words we have in Scripture, and no others, are found there.
By John Hobbins, at
May 19, 2009 1:53 PM
John, I am afraid I am not going to get time to look at Barr any time soon :( nor even time to put my thoughts together with the care your response deserves :( so I'll settle for a brief comment...
I guess at bottom my beef with both "verbal inspiration" (which, yes, does sound to me like dictation) and with "inerrancy" language about Scripture is that they seem to diminish the wonder of Scripture as at one and the same time human and divine, by making it merely a magic book. If the words are God's like some more complex version of the tablets of stone from Mt Sinai, then they are indeed perfect. But it seems to me then human freedom is diminished, and the wonderful variety of Scriptural expression merely suggests a god with a bad case of schizophrenia ;)
I'm expressing this badly, and lapsing into rhetorical flourishes :( but I hope I give you an idea of my concern...
By Tim, at
May 23, 2009 10:49 AM
Jonathan,
I think there are better ways than counting ribs to see Gen 2 as fitting with the overall thrust of Scripture (which I take to be towards marriage that unites one woman and one man). I'd notice the corresponding to him in 2:18 and the conclusion of the chapter in v.24 to say that whatever its historical context this text does teach monogamy - in the context of Scripture.
By Tim, at
May 23, 2009 10:52 AM
Hi Tim,
I getcha now a bit better.
But if the options are:
(1) that the Bible is God's word and its teaching perfect and infallible, just what God intended,
or
(2) the Bible is imperfect and fallible - except for the parts we like based on some external criterion,
I will go with (1) every time.
But it's not that simple, at least for those who consider Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana
- a treatise on the scriptural interpretation - to be of fundamental importance.
In De Doctrina, Augustine first deals with "discerning the subject-matter of Scripture, defining it as the love of God, expounding it in terms of the rule of faith, Trinity and incarnation" (Frances Young, p 473 in the volume she edited, Early Christian Literature (CUP), which I recommend).
From an Augustinian perspective (see further blogger Cynthia Nielsen, whom I interviewed this month for biblioblogs.com), "in the context of Scripture" within a hermeneutic of love allows for the possibility of reading an individual passage against its own grain, as Jesus did when he relativized Moses' teaching on divorce, in light of the whole counsel of God contained in Scripture more generally.
Augustine goes on to discuss language, tropes, and allegory, the need for grammatical analysis and inference, the difficulties of reading a text in translation, and so on.
But the really important thing is that Augustine sees Scripture as norma normans (a norm that norms all other norms) which nevertheless gives rise to norma normata (norms normed by it and derived from it) which in turn serve to focus and provide criteria for the interpretation of the norm.
Is the traditional way of reading scripture a virtuous or a vicious circle of interpretation? With exceptions, I would say that the circle has been virtuous.
It's also possible to enrich the traditional circle by allowing, if only provisorily, an external criterion to stand in judgment of scripture: that might be Marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, queer theory, etc. I believe in this kind of enrichment, so long as Scripture is also allowed to stand in judgment of these external criteria, and have the last word.
If it is not given the last word, then its authority has been evacuated. Which is fine for a non-believer. But I don't see how a believer can make this move - though it happens all the time, empirically - without compromising his or her faith in the one who died and rose according to the scriptures.
By John Hobbins, at
May 24, 2009 4:47 AM
Once again, John, a less thorough and complete reply than you deserve :(
Is it true that "the options are:
(1) that the Bible is God's word and its teaching perfect and infallible, just what God intended,
or
(2) the Bible is imperfect and fallible - except for the parts we like based on some external criterion,Can't the Bible be imperfect and fallible, a human document that like human lives bears the marks of Sin, yet at the same time we can say of it something like Joseph's conclusion on his life experience "but God intended it for good and for the salvation of many".
As a Baptist, I trust that God is at work, revealing the divine purposes, in and through our "church meetings" - which are not (despite the claims of some Baptists) democratic gatherings (or ought not to be!) - so that out of the human debate, discussion and prayer God's will is understood. In a similar way out of the discussion, debate and poetry and (often tendentious) history etc. of Scripture God's saving purposes are known.
Scripture as a whole is perspicuous and sufficient, while its parts are falible and human! But only if and when God is at work in, through and under the frailty and even sin of Scripture's humanity.
So it seems to me we are very close to agreement, but that we each have "shibboleths" that the other cannot speak ;)
By Tim, at
May 24, 2009 4:01 PM
PS and if I am honest also, there are those who loudly claim your shibboleths not only as standards of communal belonging, but also at the same time afirm them about all the parts of the Bible and not (as I think you do) only of Scripture as a whole.
I see a greater need to deny the truthfulness of proof-texting fundamentalists, than I do to protect the soveriegn grace of God (in Scripture)!
By Tim, at
May 24, 2009 4:07 PM
Tim,
We are very close on the substance. Nor am I surprised.
Since I serve in a denomination in which proof-texting fundamentalists are hard to find, but admirers of John Shelby Spong abound, my priorities and rhetorical strategies, however, are a little different.
Thanks for the conversation.
By John Hobbins, at
May 24, 2009 4:16 PM
her!
Basically, an American got into the place she lived under house arrest and refused to leave. The terms of her house arrest do not permit "visitors", so though she is ill she has been thrown into jail.
So, for my birthday wish this year I'd love to get 2,000 people (not dollars this time ;) to write to either their foreign minister or the UN general secretary. So please:
- Put a message about this on your blog, Facebook page... encourage others to write, if you encourage them to post a comment here saying they have written I can keep track of numbers. (But that is not the most important thing!)
- Write an email to:
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
UK:
Foreign Secretary: David Miliband
milibandd@parliament.uk
NZ:
Hon Murray McCully Minister of Foreign Affairs
M.McCully@ministers.govt.nz
Australia:
Minister for Foreign Affairs: Hon Stephen Smith
Stephen.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au
If someone can give me email addresses for other countries' foreign ministers I will add them here.
[to Del.icio.us]
Happy Birthday!
By Jonathan Robinson, at
May 15, 2009 2:20 PM
It's always good intentioned Americans causing these problems... I'll try to put up a post.
By David Ker, at
May 15, 2009 4:52 PM
Thanks both, so far it's been a great day, signing up for the house, lunch with Barbara, Nathan and Sarah (all the family that's actually in NZ... now if we can just get a bit more traction going on people writing emails...
By Tim, at
May 15, 2009 5:21 PM
UK foreign secretary: David Miliband
milibandd@parliament.uk
Happy Birthday
By Graham Doel, at
May 15, 2009 8:53 PM
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs:
Hon Stephen Smith:
Email: Stephen.Smith.MP@aph.gov.au
I've just sent him an email. Hope you had a happy birthday.
By Judy Redman, at
May 16, 2009 11:36 AM
Thanks Judy! Had a great day, signed the papers for the new house, and had lunch with Barbara, Nathan and Sarah (all the family who are in NZ :)
If you could make a post on your blog so we get more people writing that would really "make my day" even if except in America the day is over now ;)
By Tim, at
May 16, 2009 11:53 AM
This morning Burma¹s democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi was arrested by the regime and moved to Burma¹s notorious Insein prison. It appears she will face trial for breaking the terms of her house arrest which forbids visitors, after an American man, John Yettaw, swam across Inya Lake and refused to leave her house.
Aung San Suu Kyi has committed no crime, she is the victim of a crime. There was an intruder in her house who refused to leave, yet she is the one being mprisoned.
HELP AUNG SAN SUU KYI - TAKE ACTION NOW
The United Nations and ASEAN must dispatch envoys to Burma to demand the immediate release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all Burma¹s political prisoners.
Please go to this page where you can email the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon and ASEAN leaders to urge them to send envoys immediately.
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/ASSK_action.html
As you know Burma¹s generals will use any excuse to keep Aung San Suu Kyi detained. If strong action isn¹t taken, Aung San Suu Kyi could face the rest of her life in jail.
Please take action now. Aung San Suu Kyi could now spend the rest of her
life in jail. http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/ASSK_action.html
REPUTATION OF UN AND ASEAN IS AT STAKE
It is not acceptable that the UN and ASEAN only speak out they must take action. In the past their expressions of concern and statements have been ignored and defied by the Burmese regime. Words alone are not enough. The UN and ASEAN must immediately take real action and send high level envoys to Burma to ensure that Suu Kyi does not spend the rest of her life in jail.
HER DETENTION IS ILLEGAL UNDER BURMESE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Today Aung San Suu Kyi will have spent a total of 13 years and 202 days in detention. The United Nations has ruled that Aung San Suu Kyi¹s detention is illegal under international law, and also under Burmese law. The United Nations Security Council has also told the dictatorship that they must release Aung San Suu Kyi.
Please take action now and ensure that Aung San Suu Kyi does not spend the rest of her life under arrest.
http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/ASSK_action.html.
Labels: hermeneutics
¶ 5:58 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he said he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news.Yes, famous newspapers published a fake (and rather "purple") quote in their obituaries for Michael Jarre, while Wikipedia (the public encyclopedia) tested the quote, found it wanting and removed it.
His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked.
Motto trust Wikipedia over a professional journalist any day, diletantism rocks ;)
Maybe...
Labels: encyclopedia, internet, wikipedia
¶ 7:26 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
Even if I can't spell ;)
By Tim, at
May 13, 2009 7:28 AM
tim, tim, tim. no one has to tell me. i read your every post.
as to wiki- well even a blind ape can put a stick in a hole from time to time.
By Jim, at
May 13, 2009 8:16 AM
Yes, I realise that you see everything that goes on beneath the sun ;) what ammuses me is that this particular blind ape seems to hit the hole regularly, and even more often than the highly costly commercial rivals - perhaps the blind ape is simply less greedy and so less stupid?
By Tim, at
May 13, 2009 8:22 AM
Labels: commentary, hebrew, hebrew.bible
¶ 7:25 AM
[to Del.icio.us]
