This idea is not my own (I’m not sure I should name the person involved), and it involves something google discourages as “click fraud,” but next time you feel like a bank has charged you unreasonable fees call them and tell them that unless they rescind them you’ll go to google, find one of their ads, and click it enough times to double the price of the fee. It’s a modernised version of the old scheme of sending payments in coins with insufficient postage (where the bank apparently receives a fee to claim their mail).
AACC Liveblog: Who is “you” and who are “we” – Phil Campbell
This is a proud moment for the Campbell family. The first academic paper to be presented by any of our line for eons, possibly the first ever. Dad has had this idea germinating for some time, so I’m really proud to be sitting here listening to its presentation.
A precis of the argument goes a little something like this:
In Pauline epistles, particularly Galatians, Ephesians, Philipians and Colossians, Paul deliberately employs the pronouns “us” and “you” to distinguish between Jewish Christians (us) and Gentile Christians (you). Commentators have suggested this might be a stylistic alternation. Which doesn’t make as much theological sense as reading the letters as addressing Jewish and Gentile Christians in different passages.
He’s following DWB Robinson, who in 1963, suggested that Paul used “the saints” to refer to Jewish Christians.
Paul consistently uses “we” or “us” language to talk about past bondage to the law. Galatians 3 is a key passage where this reading makes sense. There are plenty of corroborative passages where the language switches from you to us when Paul starts talking about the law. This doesn’t go the other way (from us to you).
Paul more often uses “you” to talk about being foreign to God, or not knowing God, being worldly or uncircumcised.
Passages with a we/you parallelism read better read in this light.
Galatians 2:15 provides an interpretive key “we who are Jews by birth,” while Ephesians 2:11 says “you who are gentiles by flesh.” There are a couple more instances of each of these distinctions.
So who are the saints?
All Christians? Spiritual beings?
After surveying the gospels, Revelation and the Epistles, Robinson found that the use of the term refers to Christians, and particularly Jewish Christians, and mostly the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem.
Robinson on Colossians 1:
“This means that we have an inheritance which ‘you‘ have been counted worthy to share. And ‘we‘ are ‘the saints’.
Robinson suggests the flow of Paul’s logic is:
- We, the saints, have enjoyed the blessings of God’s covenant fulfilment in Christ.
- You, the Gentiles, have been invited to join us.
- Now we, together, are united in Christ
Ephesians 1-2 Case Study
Paul spends chapter 1 claiming the privileges of Jewish Christians. The key comes in verse 12 “we who were the first to hope in Christ.” Paul develops a parallel between the Jews and Gentiles in 1:3-12 and 1:13-14. As a result the Gentiles are to have love for the saints (v 15).
The same logic and contrasts continue in chapter 2. You Gentiles were dead in your sins (2:1), we Jews were also dead (2:4).
In Ephesians 2:6 Paul fuses the two together into one category – using the same prefix on the verbs “made alive,” “raised,” and “seated” (the prefix translates as “together”).
Implications
This idea has some implications for some pretty major doctrines.
- Predestination – If Ephesians 1’s “we” refers to the saints of Israel being elected before creation where does that leave us?
- A new approach to Christians and the Law – Our position with regards to the previous efficacy of the law (or lack of position) rarely comes into consideration because we often read the OT as Christian prehistory.
- A fresh insight into the Spirit – Reading 3:14 and 4:6 in parallel suggests that the role of the Spirit post Pentecost is linked to the Gentile mission.
- A need to nuance “every member ministry” – The popular notion of “every member ministry” built on Ephesians 4:11-12 needs to be reconsidered in this light.
- A revised view of the Old Testament as Christian prehistory – we don’t need to see ourselves in terms of the struggle of removing ourselves from the curse of the law (our problem, as slaves to sin, was deeper).
- A revised Old Testament hermeneutic – Our desire to identify with Israel rather than the gentile nations (like the Philistines) might be misplaced.
- Evidence for common authorship of Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians – you may not be aware, but a bunch of academics don’t think Paul wrote these anymore – this theologically consistent use of the pronouns throughout these epistles suggests common authorship.
YouTube Twosday: Beatboxed Mario
I know it’s Wednesday. And months since I posted a YouTube Tuesday video on Tuesday. But check dis out.
Sketchman
There was a time, long ago, when computer games could be sketched on single pages. In pencil. Those were noble times. Simpler.
Here are some of Toru Iwatani’s (the game’s designer) planning drawings for Pacman. In 8-bit glory.
The other, other, white meat
Back on the first of April the online superstore ThinkGeek launched a new product. Unicorn Meat. I posted it.It was an April Fools joke. We all laughed. And laughed. All of us, except the American Pork Lobby. Who didn’t like that ThinkGeek billed their new product as “the other white meat.” So they sent a twelve page cease and desist letter.
Whoops. This my friends is a PR fail.
Back to the Future got it wrong
There are many things I am disappointed about with regards to the vision of the future presented by Back to the Future 2. I don’t have a hoverboard for one… but Michael J Fox has better cause to feel hard done by.
Via here.
I am glad the two tie look didn’t take off. What were you disappointed by?
YouTube Tuesday: Vuvuzela Concerto
James Morrison, on Santos, Sam and Ed the other night, said the Vuvuzela actually pitches somewhere between a and b flat. Just in case you were wondering… he played a vuvuzelaphone on the night – basically a set of vuvuzela pan-pipes. It was clever. So is this video.
Pixar Wars
A long time ago in a gallery far, far away, some guy produced these mashups of Pixar and Star Wars characters.
Bare boned cartoons
These cartoon skeletons follow a similar vein (or lack of veins) to the Pacman one from last week. They’re from designer Hyung Koo Lee.
Here’s Bugs Bunny.
And an anatomic drawing of his head.
Roadrunner:
Huey, Duey and Louie.
More here.
CS Lewis on writing
Craig linked to this list of 8 writing tips from CS Lewis. There are eight of them…
- Turn off the radio.
- Read good books and avoid most magazines.
- Write with the ear, not the eye. Make every sentence sound good.
- Write only about things that interest you. If you have no interests, you won’t ever be a writer.
- Be clear. Remember that readers can’t know your mind. Don’t forget to tell them exactly what they need to know to understand you.
- Save odds and ends of writing attempts, because you may be able to use them later.
- You need a well-trained sense of word-rhythm, and the noise of a typewriter will interfere.
- Know the meaning of every word you use.
AACC Liveblog: Getting Published – Ross McKenzie
Ross is a physics professor at UQ. He also has a blog which you should read. His interests are quantum physics and the intersection between theology and science.
Publication is important for the church
- Historically, evangelicals have ceded the academy to liberals and atheists.
- Publication is the key to the intellectual world. It is the currency of respectability in the academy. You have to be published to be taken seriously.
- Publishing leads to engagement with the broader culture. It is apologia and kategoria. If we want to be engaging in the crucible of ideas and knowledge you need to be getting published.
Publication is important for your college and denomination
- It maintains intellectual vitality.
- It keeps teaching content and research supervision abilities up to date.
- It raises the profile of a college and help in recruiting new staff and students.
- The process reduces isolationism and forces faculty to engage with other thinkers.
- It’s becoming increasingly important for government funding and accreditation of the Australian College of Theology.
Publication is important for you
- It maintains your own vitality.
- It puts your ideas out there for critique
- It helps maintain your employment (if you’re an academic).
Ross’s Guide to Peer Reviewed Publications
- Write a draft.
- Choose a suitable journal. If many references in your paper come from one journal then that’s probably a suitable publication. Electronically available journals are preferable, especially journals available in tertiary institutions. Narrow journals with small audiences aren’t ideal. The Australian Research Council ranks journals.
- Put the article in the format of the journal.
- Ask a colleague who has published in that journal, or a similar one, to give feedback. Take that feedback on board.
- Submit it.
- The most likely responses are: rejection, or a request to resubmit.
- If you’re rejected make the changes and submit it elsewhere. Keep repeating steps 2-6. If changes are requested make them. Swallow your pride.
- Don’t give up.
Peer review may help reduce self delusion and sloppy thinking – Richard Dawkins hasn’t published a peer reviewed paper for 30 years.
AACC Liveblog: Getting Published – From Concept to Publication with Michael Bird
Apart from running one of Christendom’s most popular blogs, Michael Bird is a widely published author. His presentation this morning is a piece of self reflection on his process from student to scholar, and the process from idea to publication. Though “A Bird’s Eye View on Paul” was not his chosen title.
Motivations for Publishing
- To disseminate research
- If you end up in an academic career publication is linked to funding. This is especially the case in the UK where universities depend on world class, brilliant, erudite publications for grants. Lots of institutions expect their faculty to be research active in their fields.
- To contribute to scholarly discussions and academic knowledge.
- To contribute resources for the wider church, to be a bridge between the academy and the church.
Bad reasons to publish
- Fame and fortune – most publishers would only be expecting to sell 300 copies of PhD dissertations. Most monograph series don’t pay royalties.
Getting Started
The initiative more often than not comes from the writer, not the publisher (unless you’re famous).
Origen: “A biblical scholar is like a hunter walking through a forest when a flash of movement catches their eye.”
Mike’s story: In the late 90s he read through Jesus and the Victory of God got him thinking “how did Christianity move from a fringe Jewish movement into a movement, within 50 years, that a Gentile emperor was making policy about.” Looking to explore that question became his PhD thesis.
Looking at what’s around on a topic and thinking about how to contribute to a conversation is a good start. Don’t think of your book as the definitive word on a subject. It’s a conversation that will continue after your contribution. That is how you should think about it.
How do you get this idea to the market?
Who is your audience? Academics? Students? Lay people? Once you’ve picked your audience find a publisher who will meet your audience.
If you’ve killed your academic audience through publishing journal articles then look at other audiences (possibly more lucrative too).
Bird says, on the question of when to start writing, sooner or later you’re going to have to start, so it might as well be sooner.
Preparing Your Submission
Step 1. Get ready for rejection. If you can’t handle rejection do not try to publish books.
Step 2. Write a proposal. Don’t bother with unsolicited manuscripts.
Writing a Proposal
Proposals look a little something like this:
- Title
- Short bio of yourself
- Summary
- Audience
- Need
- Competing volumes
- Potential endorsers
- Word Length
- Submission Date
- Sample Chapter
Getting the Proposal heard
- Meet an editor – network like crazy, meet people, schmooze. You’re incredibly unlikely to be published via an unsolicited manuscript. Your chances dramatically increase if you know the publisher. The editor has to believe in your project over and above the other projects on the table. They have to sell it to their editorial colleagues and the publishing company.
- Consider the market, ethos, values and theology of the publisher.
- Be willing to make changes. Negotiate on the size, the scope, the content, the audience… everything is on the table.
- Be prepared for it to be a long process filled with corrections, proof-reading, endorsers, indices…
Be Prepared for…
Some more things to be ready for in the process:
- A long delay waiting for a response, it’s ok to make enquiries about the status of your proposal a few months later
- Rejection
- Work and family commitments, your circumstances can change which will effect delivery dates.
- Editors can be brutal, there’s a difference between an academic supervisor and an editor. Supervisors want you to produce defendable work, editors want you to produce marketable work.
- Copy editors can be incompetent
- Publishers can change stuff
- Criticism in reviews
In the writing of books there is much sorrow, mainly for the authors. Bird writes because he learns the most in the publication process. Autonomous learning is the goal of any Christian scholarship. The first beneficiary of the process is yourself, but it’s good to see others. Writing is an avenue for participating in the debate, being part of the conversation, it’s fun.
How the blog interplays with books
Starting a blog was one of the best things he ever did. In the year after submitting his PhD he got several knockbacks. The blog opened doors with publishers (they even took him out to lunch). Some posts now prompt emails from publishers.
The blog has been great for bouncing ideas off people. and nutting out ideas.
AACC liveblog: Getting Published: Bruce Winter: Advice from a Veteran
Bruce says “always contribute to the body of knowledge”…
Argument should take place in the main body of the thesis, not in the footnotes. Some have used footnotes to disown arguments.
In the metamorphous from student to scholar we need to move on from attributing every notion or idea in footnotes and be prepared to argue things out in the text.
What does it mean to be a Christian and an Academic?
Bruce resolved never to engage, in his writings, with trashing other scholars. He believes that evidence should be argued out in the pages without playing the man.
A non-Christian friend made the comment that one of Bruce’s books “wasn’t an easy read.” He came to the realisation that the first paragraph has to be engaging if we are to grab the attention of a reader. Bruce’s rules of thumb:
- The heading must entice.
- The first sentence must grab the attention.
- The second sentence must inform.
This, in my opinion, a good rule of thumb for writing anything. Basically you’ve got to think about how you yourself approach a text – how many academic books have you read right through?
Bruce resolved to agonise most over headings and sub-titles, and introductions. They are important.
Chapter headings need sub-headings. They need to be well thought out structures. We must write with purpose.
Bruce reads the preface, the chapter headings, the chapter introductions and the conclusions (including the links between chapters) before deciding whether to read the whole book. His approach to writing follows his approach to reading.
There must also be a Christian approach to criticism, and especially to the review process. Some journals offer authors the right of reply to reviews – how do you take this opportunity without trashing someone who has trashed your work? We want academic interactions to also be Christian interactions.
Bruce avoids fads in academic circles because they pass. Some publishers love fads and are always in search of the next new thing.
We are accountable to Christ – not to reviewers or audiences.
Questions to ask of your work.
- Have we added to the body of knowledge?
- Have we illuminated the text?
- Have we built people up?
- Who are we writing for?
- What we write is the application of our gifts for the benefit of others. So does it benefit others?
Publish or perish is not the motto of the Christian.
AACC liveblog: Getting Published: Eisenbraun’s guide to getting published
If you have a monograph you want published here are Jim Eisenbraun’s tips for getting there.
- Start with a well thought out proposal – including your idea, its genesis, how it compares to other works in the field or underway, what need it meets. Is there a market?
- The right time to submit a proposal is a bit of a Goldilocks question – you want to have the ability to provide more information upon request without too big a gap in time, but you don’t necessarily need an entire manuscript. Sometimes things come in the form of an expanded article. Which is fine, and a good basis for decision making. Writing a Phd dissertation with publication in mind is useful (if the adviser will permit that). There are dissertations that aren’t worth publishing as a monograph. They’re always so tuned in to the adviser’s goals and philosophy that they can become unmarketable.
- Publishers like to be asked what they want, and they are fine with dispensing advice on how to edit a work to make it publishable.
- Don’t send an entire manuscript right off the bat – give something that can be read in 15 minutes.
- Put effort into your proposal – a badly written proposal will go no further. Grammar matters. Write well. Publishers love good writing. If they have to do a lot of work to your prose it will give them pause. The biggest cost in publishing is human – it’s not the paper and ink. Time spent fixing a manuscript raises costs.
- Good English is plain English. Sometimes academics get stuck in the notion that esoteric or made up words sound stronger. That’s not the case. Avoid jargon that I can’t understand what they’re saying. If the publisher, who works in the field, can’t understand what’s being said then what chance does the market have. Unclear jargon is faux-academic.
- How to Edit Your Own Writing is a great book full of “aha” moments. The Chicago Manual For Style is the American publisher’s bible.
- Eisenbrauns will ask for a proposal, then a chapter, then check with others in the field to make sure the idea will fly. They’re always looking for manuscripts that will advance the discussion, unless it’s a textbook that summarises the state of knowledge.
- If it’s a monograph that’s presenting a new idea the question is “will this carry scholarship forward?”
- Academic publishers care. They are engaged in the process of developing scholarship.
- Eisenbrauns’ review process is double blind and shared – reviewers and writers are not named.
- After the review process Eisenbrauns have to make a market decision. There are valuable materials that might only have 50 readers. Print on demand is an option but it looses some of the aesthetic value of the hardback high quality tome.
- Eisenbrauns still copy edits. Unlike some other publishers. Authors look at two sets of proofs. They print using traditional offset printing.
- The decision to publish, and a contract, may be made at multiple steps in this process. Even from the proposal. Especially if it is someone with a reputation. For first timers a contract is likely to come after seeing some of the finished work. If you want to be published multiple times avoid entering contract limbo.
- Finding the right publisher is an issue for writers – find the publisher that markets to your audience. Anybody can publish a book, with a few dollars, the test of publishing is to market. Rejection may not be a question of the quality of the work, find a shoe that fits. Publish with a publisher who prices things in a way that mortals can afford them. $200 monographs are unaffordable.