SBL “pisses off” Jim Linville

    Jim Linville is a hoot. Anyone who dresses like he does is assured a spot in the kingdom of something. The latest: he is up in arms about the treatment the proposal to start a unit entitled “Secular Biblical Criticism” has received from the powers-that-be at SBL. I quote:

Our efforts have made little progress but only go to show how bad the situation really is.

I’m not sure how others on the steering committee would feel about me venting in public about the notice we received the other day from the SBL Program Committee but I’m pissed off.

    Those familiar with Linville’s online persona know he is often pissed off. Linville continues:

I should also admit to some level of sour grapes since the proposed session my paper was to be in has been rejected.

    Thanks for sharing. It’s nice to know all the reasons behind a venting exercise. A thousand words later in a 4,430 word post, Linville states:

I’m not happy with the “probationary” status of the Secular Biblical Criticism consultation. It is not a partial victory at all. It is a snub.

    By golly, that sounds serious. Who, pray tell, had the gall to snub the “anti-god camp”?¹ 

    That would be the SBL committee members who gave probationary status to the sec bib consult:

Francisco Lozada, Jr.,  Brite Divinity School
Tamara Eskenazi, Hebrew Union College
Robin Jensen, Divinity School, Vanderbilt University
Jeffrey K. Kuan, Theological School, Drew University
Halvor Moxnes, University of Oslo
Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Laura Nasrallah, Harvard Divinity School

    “Snub” used as a verb means, according to Merriam-Webster, “rebuff, ignore, or spurn disdainfully.” As in, “Hell hath no fury …” In other words, how dare the above committee be so insensitive?

    Linville is a drama queen. I love it. I enjoyed going back and forth with secularists Hector, Jim, and Zeba over at Scott Bailey’s place. Then there is Jim’s 2,325 word reply to a 214 word comment I posted on a James McGrath thread. Such love, Jim. Such love.

    Read my lips. I am overjoyed that there are SBL members who are “explicitly secular” (Zeba Crook’s diction). At SBL, they add color to what is, even without them, a wonderful parade. As I concluded on Scott’s thread:

I wish explicit secularists Irish luck as they become more “sectually explicit” about their viewpoint. Join the Fellini parade. Shake your boody. 

For what I mean by a "Fellini parade," go here. Brownie points if you can name w/o googling the article and scholar who gave us “sectually explicit.”

¹ I mimic Linville’s diction; he refers to believers who are members of SBL as belonging to the “pro-god camp.”

Comments

[Phillip]

Carol Newsom. Do I win a prize?

[JohnFH]

Email me and I will send you offprints of my articles. Now isn't that a fate worse than death?

[Carl Kinbar]

At last year's annual SBL conference, I rode in an elevator with members from the Disciples of Christ, the Methodist Church, and the American Atheists' Association. I'm a Messianic Jew. I'm sure there could be a more diverse group of elevator companions, but I can easily imagine (and fear) a less diverse one.

[Rick Wadholm Jr]

He is quite fun to rant and rave against the god-more. I know he had a few bloggings for me awhile back because I thought the notions he was raising for this particular section at SBL seemed a bit far-fetched and he would have none of that. Its good to know I keep such good company John. :-)

[JohnFH]

It is fun. If I had to invent a persona out of thin air to carry his point of view, it would be just like him.

But I don't sniff around his blog very often because then I would be guilty of confirmation bias: looking for evidence that supports my beliefs.

[Rick Wadholm Jr]

The only reason I know he ranted about me is because of statcounter telling me that there were an inordinate number of hits coming from his posts about me. I choose not to actually follow him, but prefer to spend time reading those whom (even when I disagree heartily with them) are reasonable and actually irenic in their discussions. I don't really care for those who seem to only want to rant. Which is actually why I quit following the likes of Jim West as well (among others).