We recently spent about a week in Boston during the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), with the Institute of Biblical Research (IBR) meeting in between. Aside from the papers, we enjoyed reconnecting with our colleagues and friends from all over the world and enjoying the beautiful city of Boston. Stan presented three papers and moderated two sessions, while Dave moderated one session and presented one paper.

Stan’s first paper at ETS, co-authored with Alan Kurschner, was entitled “The History and Current Status of Greek Linguistics and the Book of Revelation” in the Johannine Literature section. This paper surveyed the history of discussion of the language of Revelation from the earliest comments that we have, from Dionysius of Alexandria to the present. There have been some previous surveys, but this one emphasizes comments by scholars who offer sustained discussion of the topic. One surprising discovery was how little is said in most recent commentaries on Revelation about this topic, even though it remains an idea of dispute. This paper will be the introduction to an upcoming edited book on the Greek of Revelation that draws together papers from a range of scholars.

Stan’s second paper at ETS was entitled “Sociolinguistics and the New Testament: Where from, What, and Where to?” in the New Testament Greek Language and Exegesis section, with the theme of Sociolinguistics and New Testament Interpretation. The other invited presenters were James Dvorak, Jonathan Watt, and Sung Min Park. Stan’s paper provided an introduction to the topic of sociolinguistics, both to introduce the topic to those present and to provide a basis for the subsequent papers. The paper dealt with the origins of sociolinguistics in reaction to Chomskyan linguistics and the rise of interest in the social use of language, the major sub-areas within sociolinguistics (and their proponents), and some comments on which topics in sociolinguistics have been discussed in New Testament studies.

Stan’s third paper at ETS was entitled “The Christology of the Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate” in the New Testament Canon, Textual Criticism, and Apocryphal Literature section, with the theme of The Christology of the Apocryphal Gospels. The other invited presenters were Nicholas Perrin, Mark Strauss, and Benjamin Laird, which Stan also moderated. Stan’s paper actually dealt with the Gospel of Nicodemus and the two texts that comprise it, The Acts of Pilate and Christ’s Descent into Hell. After a brief introduction to the content of each work—for those who are not up to date in their reading the New Testament Apocrypha—the paper focused upon the abundant and varied use of Christological titles in each book, while also emphasizing the thoroughly orthodox and yet exciting stories they contain. They were not written to question orthodoxy but to creatively supplement the New Testament where questions might arise, such as what happened on the Saturday Jesus was in the tomb?

Stan also moderated the open session of the New Testament Greek Language and Exegesis section, which included papers on various topics such as grammatical metaphor, exegetical approaches, and register analysis.

Dave moderated a session at ETS in the New Testament – Studies in Paul section, with topics such as “husband of one wife” in 1 Timothy 3, martial obligation in 1 Corinthians 7, and Stoicism in Ephesians 2.

Dave also presented a paper at SBL entitled “Register, Idiolect, and the New Testament Writings” in the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics section. In this paper, Dave addressed the question of whether there is register and idiolect in the New Testament writings. Register is defined as a type of language that is constrained by the context of situation, which may account for the perceived language variation among the New Testament writings, particularly within the Pauline corpus. While some may argue that the so-called inauthentic letters such as Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles contain a type of language that is significantly different than the so-called authentic letters, register may explain why a single author uses different kinds of language, based on different contexts of situation. Dave also concluded that idiolect is not as useful of a category for analyzing the New Testament writings, as there are no verifiable and consistent methods to determine idiolect. This paper will be a chapter in a forthcoming edited handbook on Sociolinguistics and the New Testament in the Library of New Testament Greek series by T&T Clark/Bloomsbury, edited by Jonathan Watt and Esther Xue.

The sessions were intellectually and spiritually stimulating, as were the extra-curricular activities of reconnecting with colleagues and friends and browsing the book exhibits at the two major conferences. We enjoyed exploring Boston, including visiting the Boston Library, walking through the Boston Commons, and enjoying the culinary offerings and publisher receptions that were offered. We look forward to next year’s conferences in Denver.

— David I. Yoon and Stanley E. Porter