I just returned from the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in San Diego. I think that I appreciate going to these meeting with each year that I attend. For me, SBL is a time to see, hear, and hopefully speak to the "movers & shakers" (sorry, I can't think of anything else), in the area of Biblical research. It is exactly what I need once or twice a year. I need to hear what people are up to in their research. I suppose I could just read, and I do, but when you can hear someone personally speak and respond to questions about their area of study, I find that I and get a better idea of what they are saying. It's sort of like the difference between recorded and live music. This year will not be the first time that I have come to SBL having read someone's work and believing that I understood them, only to leave with a very different impression. Even when I do not agree with the views I hear, a personal presentation helps me in the classroom to represent someone's views more sympathetically.

One of the most interesting sessions was on the Gospel of Judas. In case you've been living in a cave, this was the document that was supposed to forever change the way we viewed Judas, Jesus and possibly Christianity. It didn't, but via National Geographic's exploitation of the document it did change the way a few selected scholars viewed their bank accounts. James Robinson was especially critical of those who hyped the content of the "gospel" for what seemed to him so be solely material gain. In the last couple of years The Di Vinci Code, the Jesus Tomb, and the Gospel of Judas hit the scene in sort of a one, two three punch. Each in its own way was seen by some (many?) Christians to be a challenge to their faith. The general ignorance of most Christians of the first centuries of early Christianity creates fear and reactionary responses whenever these issues come up. It's too bad because the panic is unnecessary and the reaction makes us look silly.

A final note on SBL: As a Fuller grad who worked under the PhD mentorship of Dr. Donald Hagner, I have to add a kudos to him for his defense of Mark Nanos' scathing criticism of his chapter on Paul in the recently released book Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries. Dr. Hagner was allowed a whole 4 minutes to defend his view that Paul's ministry shows continuity but also striking discontinuity with his Jewish past. He did an incredible job; I would have cheered but I don't think they do that.