Comments will no longer be approved and new material will not be posted on this site.  All of the content from this site has been brought over to a new url (www.mishlei-adam.com).  Please add this new site into you feeder or favorites list.

I look forward to seeing you there.

Adam

Come visit by going to my new site.

p.s. Soon this site will be deleted, but you can still get your fix over at my new site.

If you haven’t stopped by the new site, what are you waiting for?  Consider this your invitation

New post is up!

This site will only be around for a few more weeks, but all of the posts, comments, and pages have been brought over to www.mishlei-adam.com

See here: www.mishlei-adam.com

History:

Back when I started this site, it had a rather long pretentious name (Thoughts from a young, slightly cantankerous, aspiring theologian).  The name didn’t work; because this blog wasn’t really theologically driven (it was theological in a looser sense).  I also realized I stopped being cantankerous long before this blog ever began (some might even suggest that I stopped being young a while ago, as well.  However, age is relative).  So the name of this blog changed.

This url (parkersmood@wordpress.com) reflects my interest in jazz (esp. of the bop variety of the late 40’s early 50’s), and my love for the one of the greatest architects of the aforementioned movement – Charlie Parker.  However, the name has virtually nothing to do with biblical studies (although I am sure an abstract thinker could provide some correlations).  I wanted to get a url that reflects the content of this site for a while now.

I also picked this url, because I initially wanted to maintain an anonymous profile.  So I posted things under “Parker’s Mood” for at least a year.  That too changed.  My name stands behind my ideas now.

New Beginnings

So after 3 years, I am leaving thus url and this site behind.  I hope that you follow me over to the new site, and that you are willing to change your readers and blog rolls to reflect this change.

Thanks for reading and interacting with my thoughts over these years!  I look forward to seeing you over at www.mishlei-adam.com, my new home.

I am passing on this piece of sad news that I read this morning at PaleoJudaica:

SAD NEWS: Joseph I. Lauer posts on his list:

Dr. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz asked me to forward the sad news that Professor Moshe Greenberg of the Hebrew University Bible Department passed away on Shabbat morning and that his funeral will take place today, Sunday, May 16, at 5:00 PM at Jerusalem’s Har Hamenuhot Cemetery, the funeral leaving from the Qehillat Yerushalayim funeral hall.
May we only hear good news!

May his memory be for a blessing.

I haven’t posted much in a while, partially because finals and final projects were in full swing.  The other reason is that this blog will be transforming quite a bit in the near future.   Details to follow in the next couple of days.

Coming soon. . .

This is a small rant directed towards conference presenters.  I don’t rant often, but this really drives me nuts (Note: Yesterday, I went to the North East Regional Meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature).  However, I hope that this rant comes across as constructive.

The Time LIMIT is not a suggestion

It is likely that the paper that you handed in for a grade is not the appropriate length for a presentation.  A 30 page paper (heck, a 20 page paper) can not be read well in 15 minutes.  A presenter is allotted 10-15 minutes to speak.  That means that you can only talk for 10-15 minutes.  That means you are not allowed to speak for 16, 17 or even 18 minutes!  You were made aware of this constraint well in advance.  Heed it!

I am hammering this point, because the limit is too often treated as a suggestion.  One presenter spoke for 15 minutes and was cut off by the moderator, only to then spend another 3.5 minutes summarizing his conclusion before leaving the table (actually, he read his conclusion word for word.  He did not bother with a summary).  This behavior is not fair for the presenters that are following your over loquacious monologue.

I don’t know you, why should I trust you?

Don’t tell your audience that an integral piece of your argument is too lengthy and confusing to summarize it, and that you must skip over it in order to finish within 15 minutes.  Along with this point don’t tell us to “trust you” because your argument is cogent and airtight.  I don’t trust you enough to take your word for it (I likely don’t even know you).  I also feel like I am missing out on something.  I feel cheated.  Don’t make me feel cheated.

If you can’t lead me through your argument in the allotted time, then this is not the venue for your particular paper.  If you can’t do this, then I am assuming two things.  Firstly, you have not thought enough about your presentation, because you are trying to squeeze too much information into it.  Secondly, you are likely not thinking about your audience.  I am glad that you are convinced of your argument, but we have not put the same amount of time into this topic as you have.  If your argument is too involved that you can’t lead your listeners through it in the allotted time, please don’t present.  If you can’t narrow the scope of your discussion to fit the allotted time, then turn your paper into an article or wait until nationals for a longer speaking time.

Think about your presentation, not just your paper.

Papers are not presentations.  Let me repeat, papers are not presentations.  You may have received a wonderful grade or feedback on the paper you are preparing to read, but that does mean that it is presentation ready.  Think about how you want to present your paper.

Some advice on this last point:

• • Eye contact is important.
  • Rehearse your presentation in the mirror.
  • Know how to pronounce the words in your own paper.  Everyone flubs up from time to time, that is part of presenting.  However, I should not get the impression that this was your first time reading your paper out loud.
  • Handouts make most everything better.  They allow your listener the opportunity to follow your argument.  And if for no other reason, handouts provide us with a place to make notes and comments about the content of your presentation.
  • Try to relax!  Getting up in front of a crowd can be nerve racking.  You could always think of them naked if that helps.  However, that can get pretty creepy, and could induce nausea.  So forget that last tip.  However, take a couple of deep breaths and begin; it is likely you have thought about this topic more than anyone else in the room.

Presentations are an opportunity for you to share what you are passionate about, your research.  By not thinking of these areas, mentioned above, you are telling your audience that you don’t care enough about your ideas to present them with clarity.  You are also telling your audience that you don’t care about them.

I hope that this rant was helpful.  I know I feel better for sharing it.

(Adam gets off soapbox and goes back to his Aramaic)

It is rare when CBD’s weekly sales have something of substantial academic value.  Most of their weekly sales feature Max Lucado, Prayer of Jabez and books of that ilk; however, this mid-week sale has a great deal!   CBD is selling John Barton’s volume on Joel and Obidiah in the Old Testament Library Series (hardcover) for $3.99.  This is a very nice commentary, and well worth the price.  It is geared towards scholars and educated clergy.  Here is the link to the deal.

Below is Tremper Longman’s perspective on this volume.

A very well-executed historical-critical commentary on these two Minor Prophets.  Barton refuses to focus on the final form and wants to find the original setting, which will make this commentary less interesting to most, though he is an engaging writer.  Dates the first part of Obidiah to the exile, but states that the second half is an eschatological addition.”

Longman than gives this a 4 out of 5 stars.

Longman III., Tremper. Old Testament Commentary Survey. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2003. p. 121.

For those who follow this blog, you might remember a fairly long series of posts (I think 8 or 9 posts worth) relating to Isaiah 5:1-7, the Song of the Vineyard.  One particular post that I wrote suggests that Jesus’ use of Isaiah 5:1-7 in his Parable of the Tenants may have been a rhetorical trick.  In the first footnote in that post, I suggest that the additions and changes that Jesus makes in his re-telling may have been good rhetoric.  The purpose of this trick was to keep the material “fresh, thus allowing the parable to do what parables to best – reveal truth by concealing the intent until the last possible moment.”  While this may be true, there may be a more natural reason for the transformation of imagery dating back to agricultural practices occurring before the Exile.

It is interesting to note that following the reign of Jeroboam II many sociologists suggest a shift in agricultural policy from patrimonial inheritance to an “advanced agrarian society.”[1] Essentially this shift means that families that worked the same plot of lands for generations were losing their fields, as officials in the king’s court gobbled up more and more land.  A domino effect would then take place wherein the smaller landholders are competing with larger landholders.  These larger landholders are then empowered to drive the smaller landholders out of business.  A similar phenomenon can be seen today in our local economies in which the larger “box stores” are able to eliminate smaller retail businesses.

Edward Campbell suggests that another change related to the above shift would be “a system of rent capitalism.”[2] Essentially rent capitalism is when farmers sell off a portion of their property in a down year (often caused by drought, disease, or pests), to be able to purchase seed to plant in their remaining field in the following year.[3] This behavior would be cyclical, until only a few powerful individuals are left in control of all the land.

This model of landownership appears to be operative within the 1^st Century C.E.  So it is possible that Jesus’ was not trying to keep the material fresh, in the sense that I previously suggested (although, I suppose that is still a plausible option or bi-product of his re-telling).  Jesus may have been trying to update the story so that it would resonate better with his modern audience.  This updating would save the parable from appearing dated.  As Isaiah 5:1-7, stands it wouldn’t reflect the realities of Jesus’ contemporary socio-agricultural context, thus providing a reason to re-cast its message.

What do you think?

---

[1] Edward F. Campbell Jr., “A Land Divided: Judah and Israel from the Death of Solomon to the Fall of Samaria,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (ed. Michael D. Coogan; New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 1998), 310-311.

[2] Ibid., 311.

[3] Ibid.