Comments for Sansblogue http://bigbible.org/sansblogue biblical studies : bible : digital : food Sun, 20 May 2012 23:03:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on The heresy of democracy by tim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/spirituality/theology/the-heresy-of-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50170 tim Sun, 20 May 2012 23:03:29 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1811#comment-50170 PS your system sounds really good. The best examples of consensual leadership I've seen have been in African institutions, Westerners are too fond of giving and taking orders! PS your system sounds really good. The best examples of consensual leadership I’ve seen have been in African institutions, Westerners are too fond of giving and taking orders!

]]> Comment on The heresy of democracy by tim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/spirituality/theology/the-heresy-of-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50168 tim Sun, 20 May 2012 22:44:52 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1811#comment-50168 On the photocopier, it seems to me if the decision s operational (which model to buy) it is a waste of time to involve many people, but if the question is whether to spend a lot of money on this equipment or to use this money in other ways then more people should be involved. On the photocopier, it seems to me if the decision s operational (which model to buy) it is a waste of time to involve many people, but if the question is whether to spend a lot of money on this equipment or to use this money in other ways then more people should be involved.

]]> Comment on The heresy of democracy by Judy Redman http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/spirituality/theology/the-heresy-of-democracy/comment-page-1/#comment-50167 Judy Redman Sun, 20 May 2012 22:39:50 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1811#comment-50167 The Uniting Church also works on what Rhett calles "congregational governance" - although all our councils work like this, from congregation through to national. We try very hard not to have to vote, as such, but to reach consensus, and we have a formal consensus decision-making process which means that we very rarely vote in a meeting but we do have ways of indicating how people feel. I have been in meetings where when the initial indication was taken, about 80% of those present believed one option was correct, but after one or two of those in the minority spoke about why they believed what they believed, we got consensus for their position, which I believe was a movement of the Spirit. But we *do* sometimes discuss stewardship issues like how much we might spend on a new photocopier - trying to balance the fact that we don't have to pay for the time it takes to do some things manually against the fact that our volunteers might well be doing something different if they weren't doing manual photocoyping tasks. And we would probably get a small group to look at the cost vs benefit and bring a recommendation. So I'm probably reactionary, too, Tim. :-) The Uniting Church also works on what Rhett calles “congregational governance” – although all our councils work like this, from congregation through to national. We try very hard not to have to vote, as such, but to reach consensus, and we have a formal consensus decision-making process which means that we very rarely vote in a meeting but we do have ways of indicating how people feel. I have been in meetings where when the initial indication was taken, about 80% of those present believed one option was correct, but after one or two of those in the minority spoke about why they believed what they believed, we got consensus for their position, which I believe was a movement of the Spirit. But we *do* sometimes discuss stewardship issues like how much we might spend on a new photocopier – trying to balance the fact that we don’t have to pay for the time it takes to do some things manually against the fact that our volunteers might well be doing something different if they weren’t doing manual photocoyping tasks. And we would probably get a small group to look at the cost vs benefit and bring a recommendation. So I’m probably reactionary, too, Tim. :-)

]]> Comment on Reviews and the society of scholarship by tim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/digital-life/reviews-and-the-society-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-49712 tim Fri, 18 May 2012 17:37:37 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1808#comment-49712 You are right, and to quote Jim West (as well as Qohelet) "there is [indeed] nothing new under the sun" but in the print age such rejoinders were rare, and at the discretion of the editor. Now they are beginning to become more common, and at no one's discretion except the author's. This seems to me to be another case of digital taking something that was potential or a small feature and making it more developed and (I expect before long) a major feature of the process. If that change occurs it changes the nature of "reviewing". So, not new, but a small revolution in the making. You are right, and to quote Jim West (as well as Qohelet) “there is [indeed] nothing new under the sun” but in the print age such rejoinders were rare, and at the discretion of the editor. Now they are beginning to become more common, and at no one’s discretion except the author’s. This seems to me to be another case of digital taking something that was potential or a small feature and making it more developed and (I expect before long) a major feature of the process. If that change occurs it changes the nature of “reviewing”.

So, not new, but a small revolution in the making.

]]> Comment on Reviews and the society of scholarship by jim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/digital-life/reviews-and-the-society-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-49701 jim Fri, 18 May 2012 15:46:47 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1808#comment-49701 it should also be remembered that book reviews appearing in print journals have been the subject of rejoinders. thumb through old issues of any biblical studies journal and you'll find authors responding to reviews in 'short notes' and sometimes long essays. this is not new. it should also be remembered that book reviews appearing in print journals have been the subject of rejoinders. thumb through old issues of any biblical studies journal and you’ll find authors responding to reviews in ‘short notes’ and sometimes long essays.

this is not new.

]]> Comment on Reviews and the society of scholarship by tim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/digital-life/reviews-and-the-society-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-49575 tim Fri, 18 May 2012 04:50:30 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1808#comment-49575 I replied: Bob, Thanks, I was not aware that the practice wasn't new (I was not aware of it at all till I read Mark's post). It does not surprise me that it has been available for a while, as I said in the post I am impressed by just how innovative RBL has been. Like you I'd hope more authors took up the possibility. Especially within the relatively restrained boundaries you mention. I wonder if SBL could consider bringing this innovation closer to the heart of RBL by attaching the comment thread to the reviews themselves. That could really begin an interesting and often fruitful dialogue between authors, reviewers and other readers... I replied:

Bob,

Thanks, I was not aware that the practice wasn’t new (I was not aware of it at all till I read Mark’s post). It does not surprise me that it has been available for a while, as I said in the post I am impressed by just how innovative RBL has been.

Like you I’d hope more authors took up the possibility. Especially within the relatively restrained boundaries you mention. I wonder if SBL could consider bringing this innovation closer to the heart of RBL by attaching the comment thread to the reviews themselves. That could really begin an interesting and often fruitful dialogue between authors, reviewers and other readers…

]]> Comment on Reviews and the society of scholarship by tim http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/digital-life/reviews-and-the-society-of-scholarship/comment-page-1/#comment-49573 tim Fri, 18 May 2012 04:48:55 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1808#comment-49573 Bob Buller clarified in an email (which he gave permission to quote here: Let me begin by thanking you for noting the two author responses announced in today's RBL newsletter. I am of course grateful for any publicity that bloggers offer RBL, but I also am curious to see how you, your readers, and other bloggers respond to the notion of authors responding online to reviews published online. That being said, I must note that this "innovation" is not exactly new. The RBL blog has invited comments almost from the beginning (2008), and we published the first authorial response in September 2009 (http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/09/20090930-ramelli-and-konstan-terms-for.html). At that time we also established the policy that, although we will not announce all comments in an RBL newsletter, we will announce author responses in a newsletter, so as to promote greater dialogue between reviewer and author. For additional author responses (unfortunately, a small number of authors use the blog to respond), see: http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/11/20091140-mason-josephus-judea-and.html (December 2009) http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2010/12/20101238-williamson-ephesians.html (January 2011) http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2011/02/20110206-pervo-making-of-paul.html (February 2011) http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2011/02/20110209-terrell-pauls-parallels.html (February 2011) All of these were, I believe, announced in an RBL newsletter; if any were omitted, it was a mistake, not a matter of policy. I should also note that RBL blog comments are carefully moderated: commenters must identify themselves either in the comment heading or within the comment (no truly anonymous comments), and we will not publish ad hominem attacks. In short, we hold commenters to the same standards as we expect of our reviewers (see http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/ReviewerInstructions.pdf), in order to promote meaningful and productive dialogue. Thanks again for your blog posts today. I do hope that more authors and readers will avail themselves of the opportunity to comment on the many reviews that we publish. Bob Buller clarified in an email (which he gave permission to quote here:

Let me begin by thanking you for noting the two author responses announced in today’s RBL newsletter. I am of course grateful for any publicity that bloggers offer RBL, but I also am curious to see how you, your readers, and other bloggers respond to the notion of authors responding online to reviews published online. That being said, I must note that this “innovation” is not exactly new. The RBL blog has invited comments almost from the beginning (2008), and we published the first authorial response in September 2009 (http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/09/20090930-ramelli-and-konstan-terms-for.html). At that time we also established the policy that, although we will not announce all comments in an RBL newsletter, we will announce author responses in a newsletter, so as to promote greater dialogue between reviewer and author. For additional author responses (unfortunately, a small number of authors use the blog to respond), see:

http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/11/20091140-mason-josephus-judea-and.html (December 2009)
http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2010/12/20101238-williamson-ephesians.html (January 2011)
http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2011/02/20110206-pervo-making-of-paul.html (February 2011)
http://rblnewsletter.blogspot.com/2011/02/20110209-terrell-pauls-parallels.html (February 2011)

All of these were, I believe, announced in an RBL newsletter; if any were omitted, it was a mistake, not a matter of policy.

I should also note that RBL blog comments are carefully moderated: commenters must identify themselves either in the comment heading or within the comment (no truly anonymous comments), and we will not publish ad hominem attacks. In short, we hold commenters to the same standards as we expect of our reviewers (see http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/ReviewerInstructions.pdf), in order to promote meaningful and productive dialogue.

Thanks again for your blog posts today. I do hope that more authors and readers will avail themselves of the opportunity to comment on the many reviews that we publish.

]]> Comment on Bible enticement? by Q&A with Dr. Mark Hoffman, Professor of Religion and Media | Don't Eat The Fruit http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/ot/bible-enticement/comment-page-1/#comment-48369 Q&A with Dr. Mark Hoffman, Professor of Religion and Media | Don't Eat The Fruit Fri, 11 May 2012 13:36:19 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1803#comment-48369 [...] about in your book, but I can contribute a few of my own thoughts. I addressed a related matter on Sansblogue where the issue was trying to entice more Christians to read the Bible, but your question is [...] [...] about in your book, but I can contribute a few of my own thoughts. I addressed a related matter on Sansblogue where the issue was trying to entice more Christians to read the Bible, but your question is [...]

]]> Comment on Bible and technology guest post: ubiquitous Bible reading by Bible enticement? - Sansblogue http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/uncategorized/bible-and-technology-guest-post-ubiquitous-bible-reading/comment-page-1/#comment-47601 Bible enticement? - Sansblogue Mon, 07 May 2012 22:10:28 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1799#comment-47601 [...] Bible and technology guest post: ubiquitous Bible reading [...] [...] Bible and technology guest post: ubiquitous Bible reading [...]

]]> Comment on Bible and technology guest post by Bible enticement? - Sansblogue http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/bible/biblical-interpretation/bible-and-technology-guest-post-2/comment-page-1/#comment-47600 Bible enticement? - Sansblogue Mon, 07 May 2012 22:10:13 +0000 http://bigbible.org/sansblogue/?p=1776#comment-47600 [...] Bible and technology guest post [...] [...] Bible and technology guest post [...]

]]>