Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SBL Report

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; WSW On: SBL Report From: Bruce On second thought, there would be no great point in my reporting on SBL as a whole. Instead, these few
    Message 1 of 13 , Nov 27, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To: Synoptic
      Cc: GPG; WSW
      On: SBL Report
      From: Bruce

      On second thought, there would be no great point in my reporting on SBL as a
      whole. Instead, these few notes from my own end of things.

      0. This was the first year in recent memory when SBL met apart from AAR.
      Everybody was surprised at the results. SBL estimated the attendance at about
      5300, which was well beyond their expectations, and booksellers reported that
      sales were good (in all categories) at SBL, whereas they had been notably
      disappointing at the previous separate AAR meeting. The latter result
      contradicted what seems to have been the more or less universal publisher
      expectation. Anyway, we now know, at least bookwise, who is carrying whom in
      that relationship.

      1. There were a number of interesting presentations, on several different
      panels, tending collectively to establish a better relative chronology of some
      of the source texts for Early Christianity than we have previously possessed.
      Not that any of the presenters explicitly noticed that tendency, or even that
      all of them got the directionality right, but still, for those who had hopped
      back and forth among just those offerings, there it was. Some of these
      implications will be taken up in due course by our small study group, the NT
      Quest.

      2. The Mark Group's session (9 AM on Saturday) devoted to Adela Yarbro Collins'
      Mark commentary drew a good crowd. J K Elliott mentioned several places at
      which decisions among conflicting manuscript readings might have been made
      otherwise (they chiefly involved overlooked instances which in his opinion are
      best resolved as homoioteleuton, but in which Adela had tended to prefer the
      short reading, especially when it was supported by Vaticanus et al). Discussion
      following the panelists's presentations did focus considerably on her
      reconstruction of a Pre-Markan Passion Narrative (PPN), the detail which we had
      earlier suggested might be a convenient point of departure for a wider
      discussion of pre-Markan elements in general (in our view, they exist, in the
      rest of the Gospel as well as underneath the Passion narrative, and combine to
      form what amounts to the earliest textual state of Mark). The possibility of
      developing the discussion in that direction was precluded by a fire alarm which
      emptied the room just as open discussion would have begun. The reconvened
      session, after the fire alarm eventually proved false, lacked the population of
      the original.

      3. The NT Quest's own session on Accretional Mark (at the perhaps not very
      convenient hour of 7 AM on Monday) attracted a suitably modest number of
      persons, two of whom were in the end interested in further pursuing the matter
      of a possible Accretional Mark (of which the earliest layer is the one
      mentioned in #2 above, and of which the last layer more recognizably reflects
      the orthodoxy of the later Church). With the passing of SBL 2008, we have
      abandoned the device of beginning the Accretional Mark discussion with Adela
      Yarbro Collins' PPN reconstruction, and will presently remove from the relevant
      web page (http://www.umass.edu/wsp/biblica/quest/index.html) our detailed
      analysis of it. Anyone with a technical interest in that particular question
      may wish to download those files for their own future reference, between now
      and 1 December, when they are scheduled to vanish.

      4. Jeffrey, where's the picture?

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... It s here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/photos/album/386659568/pic/list Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. Chicago,
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        E Bruce Brooks wrote:
        > 4. Jeffrey, where's the picture?
        >
        It's here:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/photos/album/386659568/pic/list

        Jeffrey

        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Chicago, Illinois
        e-mail jgibson000@...
      • E Bruce Brooks
        Jeffrey, OK, but what are the names of those ten people? Bruce E Bruce Brooks Warring States Project University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 27, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Jeffrey,

          OK, but what are the names of those ten people?

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Back row (left to right): E Bruce Brooks, Ken M. Penner, Gail Dawson, Gordon Raynal, Steve Black, Ken Olson Front row (left to right): Stephen C. Carlson,
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 27, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            On Nov 27, 2008 1:52 PM, E Bruce Brooks <brooks@...> wrote:
            >OK, but what are the names of those ten people?

            Back row (left to right):
            E Bruce Brooks, Ken M. Penner, Gail Dawson, Gordon Raynal, Steve Black, Ken Olson

            Front row (left to right):
            Stephen C. Carlson, Joe Weaks, Jeffrey Gibson, James McGrath

            scc

            --
            Stephen C. Carlson
            Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
            Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
          • E Bruce Brooks
            Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
              of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
              presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe Weaks recruited from the sidelines. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon) 1500
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                > Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
                > of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
                > presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?
                >
                Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
                Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

                Jeffrey

                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                Chicago, Illinois
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... I dimly recall the recruit in question was German or perhaps Scandinavian. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University Author of
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Nov 28, 2008 10:25 AM, "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...> wrote:
                  >E Bruce Brooks wrote:
                  >> Thanks to Stephen for providing the names of the ten suspects, including that
                  >> of organizer Jeffrey Gibson, in the SBL record picture. Who then was the
                  >> presumptive Eleventh Apostle, the one who held the camera?
                  >>
                  >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
                  >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

                  I dimly recall the recruit in question was German or perhaps
                  Scandinavian.

                  Stephen

                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson
                  Ph.D. student, Religion, Duke University
                  Author of The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2005)
                • archeboc
                  ... Did he escape naked ? Thanks for the report. a+ manu
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
                    >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

                    :shock:

                    Did he escape naked ?

                    Thanks for the report.

                    a+
                    manu
                  • Weaks, Joe
                    For what it s worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth). And further, when he
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
                      And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to the complimentary coffee pot.

                      Joe Weaks

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com on behalf of archeboc
                      Sent: Fri 11/28/2008 12:05 PM
                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] SBL Report


                      >Someone, like the young man in the linen garment, whom (I think) Joe
                      >Weaks recruited from the sidelines.

                      :shock:

                      Did he escape naked ?

                      Thanks for the report.

                      a+
                      manu


                      ------------------------------------

                      Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... Was the name on the tag Jeffrey Gibson ? I am a photographer, too, you know. ... And what compliment did the coffee pot give him? Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B.
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Weaks, Joe wrote:
                        > For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
                        >
                        Was the name on the tag "Jeffrey Gibson"? I am a photographer, too, you
                        know.
                        > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to the complimentary coffee pot.
                        >
                        And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?

                        Jeffrey

                        --
                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                        Chicago, Illinois
                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                      • Jim West
                        Oh you re so observant! ... ++++++ Jim West, ThD http://jwest.wordpress.com - Blog http://sites.google.com/site/biblicalstudiesresources/ - Biblical Studies
                        Message 11 of 13 , Nov 28, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Oh you're so observant!

                          Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                          >
                          > > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to
                          > the complimentary coffee pot.
                          > >
                          > And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?
                          >
                          > Jeffrey
                          >
                          ++++++

                          Jim West, ThD

                          http://jwest.wordpress.com - Blog
                          http://sites.google.com/site/biblicalstudiesresources/ - Biblical Studies Resources
                        • J. R. LEE
                          Can anyone please give a report on the review session of Adela Yarbro Collins Markan commentary (SBL 22-22)? Thank you much in advance. John (Jang Ryul) Lee
                          Message 12 of 13 , Nov 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Can anyone please give a report on the review session of Adela Yarbro
                            Collins' Markan commentary (SBL 22-22)? Thank you much in advance.

                            John (Jang Ryul) Lee


                            --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Weaks, Joe wrote:
                            > > For what it's worth, I can confirm that the young [German] man was
                            not unnamed. He had a name tag (pinned on to his linen cloth).
                            > >
                            > Was the name on the tag "Jeffrey Gibson"? I am a photographer, too,
                            you
                            > know.
                            > > And further, when he finished, he ran not away, but rather back to
                            the complimentary coffee pot.
                            > >
                            > And what compliment did the coffee pot give him?
                            >
                            > Jeffrey
                            >
                            > --
                            > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                            > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                            > Chicago, Illinois
                            > e-mail jgibson000@...
                            >
                          • E Bruce Brooks
                            To: Synoptic Cc: GPG; XTalk On: Mark Session (AYC Commentary) From: Bruce In response to John Lee s query (on Synoptic), and in the absence of more
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 1, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              To: Synoptic
                              Cc: GPG; XTalk
                              On: Mark Session (AYC Commentary)
                              From: Bruce

                              In response to John Lee's query (on Synoptic), and in the absence of more
                              authoritative responses from those so situated as to make them, perhaps I
                              should expand my earlier brief account of the SBL session, posted to
                              Synoptic on 11/27, which was devoted to a consideration of Adela Yarbro
                              Collins' new commentary on Mark. I don't do stenography, more's the pity,
                              and my own notes are mixed on the page with my reactions to them (and with
                              my memoranda about things to do next), but such as they are, here are a few
                              more details, necessarily intermingled with my comments because that is how
                              I work.

                              The listing of the panel in the program was as follows:

                              SBL22-22 Mark Group / 9:00 AM-11:30 AM / Book Review: Adela Yarbro Collins,
                              Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Augsburg Fortress) / James W. Voelz,
                              Concordia Seminary, Presiding / Panelists: / Tom Shepherd, Andrews
                              University (20min) / Rikki Watts, Regent College (20 min) / J. Keith
                              Elliott, Leeds University (20 min) / Response: Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale
                              University (30 min) / Discussion (60 min)

                              1. The session in general abounded with assertions of "the unity of Mark"
                              and, as a variant, "the stylistic unity of Mark." These are unexamined
                              postulates, and are directly contradicted by the manifest inconsistency of
                              the work, its mutual contradictions and explicit reversals of doctrine, and
                              yes, the fact that its famed stylistic markers cluster in some kinds of
                              material more than in others. I also note that many of them ("straightway,"
                              beginning every other sentence with "and," and adding parenthetical
                              explanations after "for") are obvious even in post-King James English, and
                              are the first mark of authenticity that a later writer would be likely to
                              seize upon in order to render his additions consistent, and palatable to an
                              audience already accustomed to the previous text. The ancient writers were
                              not as stupid, or as stylistically insensitive, as modern experts are
                              sometimes pleased to think them. Only a suitably arranged test of deeper
                              structure will prove anything about the unity or disunity of Markan style,
                              and pending the results of a little more library work on my part, that
                              investigation seems never to have been seriously undertaken, in a way that
                              would pass muster with someone who knows what stylometrics is all about.

                              2. Tom Shepherd objected to Adela's PPN (Pre-Markan Passion Narrative)
                              reconstruction, presented on p819 of her commentary and argued for ad locc
                              in the main commentary. Tom wanted to save the burial narrative (excluded
                              from Adela's PPN) as original. He challenged in particular Adela's criterion
                              of "vague spatial markers" after Mk 15:38 (the rending of the veil, which is
                              where she ends her reconstruction of the original PPN). She later conceded
                              (there was an audience question also, slightly later) that of her two
                              categories of vague markers after that point, the other one is the more
                              valid. Tom seemed also to rely (my notes are indeterminate at this point) on
                              the "sandwich" theory, due to Edwards and to several before him, as an
                              explanation of structures in Mk which to the unprejudiced philological eye
                              tend to indicate a later interpolation (eg, 14-3-9, the Woman at Bethany)
                              and not a piece of Markan authorial felicity. I have refuted this theory on
                              an earlier occasion. My own preference is to follow out the indications of
                              added material, and see if they lead anywhere. If further support of the
                              Resurrection as original doctrine, Tom adduced 1 Cor 15:1-8 as containing
                              the Gospel as transmitted to Paul, and noticed that it included a
                              Resurrection. This, to him, proves the case. The fallacy here is to have
                              ignored the possibility that the Gospel About Jesus may have evolved from a
                              simpler state before reaching the form in which it was transmitted to Paul.
                              This possibility would in principle be supported if early strata of Mark are
                              earlier in date than the conversion of Paul, or anyway Paul's consultation
                              with Jerusalem orthodoxy some years later. There turns out to be good
                              evidence that such was indeed the case (the latest strata of Mark contain
                              datable events which all cluster in the early 40's, while Paul was still
                              alive and preaching, thus putting the earlier strata well back in the 30's).
                              In my terms, Adela's reconstruction of this segment of Mark is actually
                              testifying to Layer 1, the base narrative, not just of the Passion but of
                              the whole of Mark, whereas the Resurrection doctrine belongs to Layer 3. The
                              way to interpret Corinthians, in my opinion, is thus to say that Paul tapped
                              into Christian doctrine at the point where, at least in one locality, it had
                              reached Stage 3 of its early evolution.

                              It is well known that not everyone at Corinth accepted the Resurrection,
                              another sign that their doctrine may have been early, and that Paul, coming
                              on the scene later, represented the newer doctrine. This idea too I have
                              expounded at greater length elsewhere.

                              3. It is not for nothing that Australian movies are sometimes issued with
                              English subtitles. To my ear, Rikk Watts' comments on this panel could have
                              used them at a few points, and his off-mike undertone asides to Adela
                              (seated next to the lectern) were totally lost to me, even though, fearless
                              of new knowledge as always, I was seated in the front and not the back of
                              the room. There was something said about general prophetic terms in Mk 13,
                              and about a "high" interpretation of Jesus (meaning, in my terms, an
                              interpretation of Jesus such as is reflected in Mark Layer 2 or higher), and
                              about Jesus's deeds as equivalent to the deeds of Yahweh. A propos miracles
                              of this sort, it was noted that Adela in her book had cited instances in
                              non-Christian literature about "walking on water," usually as an impossible
                              feat, but sometimes attributed to people, all of whom turn out to be rulers
                              or the equivalent. The progressive deification of Jesus is indeed a feature
                              of early Church theories of Jesus (it constitutes one of the major Synoptic
                              Trajectories, along with Jerusalemization, the rise in power of Jesus's
                              family, and the attenuated role assigned to John the Baptist). It does not
                              characterize Mark the way it characterizes John, and I will now add, it does
                              not characterize the early layers of Mark in the same way that it
                              characterizes the later layers of Mark.

                              There was also a question about the Markan audience: Christians? Preachers?
                              The point is well enough taken, though my notes do not show that it was
                              answered. The "unity of Mark" spectre was raised here as well. See above.

                              Somebody or other complained that though Adela marshals an impressive number
                              of previous opinions (as well as much valuable background from Greco-Roman
                              culture), she often simply presents them without deciding between them; it
                              seemed to be a complaint that she does not emerge with a single theory of
                              Mark. I would respond that to one used to Chinese commentaries, what she
                              does is wholly and entirely familiar. Where the commentator has a
                              preference, including a negative preference, the reader has no real trouble
                              identifying it. The rest are there for completeness, and (perish the
                              thought) to allow the reader a little thinking room. Myself, I am far from
                              faulting Adela for taking a "non liquet" view of many points in Mark. There
                              are some nubbins that are probably never going to be satisfactorily
                              explained (inside jokes like the naked young man; whatever), and for a
                              commentary to take positive stands on each and every one of them is to risk
                              refutation as a whole. The wise course, it has always seemed to me, is to
                              say what can be said, and on the unpronounceable parts, not to make a
                              pronouncement, but rather to cite reputable previous opinion or add relevant
                              new facts, and move on. The objection seemed to me to be distinctly
                              wrongheaded.

                              4. Keith Elliott, coming out of the textual critical corner, commended Adela
                              for speaking of the "earliest recoverable text," not of the "original
                              manuscript." Elliott is an eclectic critic, and he criticized in Adela's
                              book the tendency to respect "the best text" (Vaticanus), a category which
                              he does not recognize, and in many cases to prefer the shorter variant as
                              original. On the latter point, he has indeed a point, and he cited a couple
                              of places where skipping to a like wording further down (homoioteleuton, or
                              anyway an error based on it) would be a better explanation, in these cases
                              the longer text being better. Among them, as I recall (they went by a little
                              too fast for scribal comfort; here perhaps is a brand new type of scribal
                              error - too much allegro in the one reading the text to be copied) were
                              9:44, 46; 11:26, and 9:38. I have not yet had time to investigate the
                              specifics of these or other mentioned passages, and so have no opinion to
                              offer as of this date. These and some of the following text critical points,
                              I may mention, were the only corrections offered at this session which Adela
                              herself seemed to take very seriously, and she, like myself, made notes at
                              this point. I hope hers were a little more complete and tidy than my own.

                              At 6:23 (W omits the first half of the verse), the matter of "Markan style,"
                              presumably in its reduplicative propensities, came up again. So did the
                              problem of "OT in NT," in 10:19 ("do not defraud," which is not actually in
                              the Decalogue), where some MSS (eg Vaticanus corrected, Sinaiticus original,
                              Alexandrinus, Bezae) have the phrase MH APOSTERHSHS "do not defraud" and
                              others (eg Vaticanus original, Koridethi, Washingtoniensis, not to mention
                              Matthew and Luke) do not, and thus have a shorter reading. As I read the
                              evidence, Matthew and Luke wrongly excise what was very likely a part of the
                              original Jesus teaching, which eliminated temple piety from the Decalogue
                              and extended what was left a little further in the direction of economic
                              justice. Some MSS follow Mt/Lk, or follow a like principle (in the end, a
                              pedantic principle) in arriving at the shorter reading. In my view, the
                              longer reading should be maintained.

                              However that may be, I noted in listening to several of Elliott's remarks a
                              general principle, which was this: Text criticism, the juxtaposition of
                              manuscript variants, solves nothing, since the interpretation of those
                              differences is done either by mindless rules of thumb (brevior or its
                              reverse, both well attested in the literature) or by reference to some
                              unexamined and usually simplistic theory of the author or the text, which in
                              the lack of a previous *investigation* of the text, to see if in fact it
                              implies a single author, can only be arbitrary. Or to put it in terms which
                              were still current at mid-century, the higher criticism is sometimes
                              prerequisite to the lower criticism. Since the reverse is also true,
                              criticism in general must proceed in the usual series of spirals, gradually
                              reaching an understanding from which the basis of that understanding itself
                              may plausibly be established. Things get clear gradually, at one end and
                              also at the other. It's not exactly circular, but it is sometimes
                              agonizingly slow.

                              Another crux was the name of John the B, whether Baptist (8:28) or Baptizer
                              (6:25). Elliott remarked that "the nominal form [that is, BAPTIST] is
                              textually insecure in Mark." Well, maybe. Most texts have BAPTISTOU at 6:25,
                              but L and 700 exceptionally have BAPTIZONTOS. And at 8:28, most texts have
                              BAPTISTHN whereas 28 and 565 [I am looking at Swanson] have BAPTIZONTA. It
                              would seem that both the nominal and verbal forms are pretty secure in their
                              respective places. It will do no harm to list all the occurrences of this
                              epithet in Mk. WH followed by RSV have:

                              BAPTIST: Mk 6:25, 8:28; common in Mt, 3x in Lk.
                              BAPTIZER: Mk 1:4, 6:14, 6:24, never in Mt/Lk.

                              There are some nominal variants in the latter cases. It is easy from this to
                              formulate a theory that BAPTIZER is the old form, which has been replaced by
                              BAPTIST in Mt/Lk, and scribally overridden at most points of Mk also,
                              perhaps in some cases by Mt/Lk harmonization, a process which is definitely
                              attested in certain places. But the question is, why only *at certain
                              points* in Mk? It would also account for the evidence to say that Mk has a
                              mixed usage, and that where he has the nominal form, a very few minor MSS
                              have normalized it to the verbal counterpart which is admittedly more common
                              in Mk. But what accounts for the mixed form in the first place?

                              [Answer: the narrative voice in Mk uses the verbal form, whereas quoted
                              speeches (whether of Salome or of the disciples) use the nominal form. The
                              difference between 6:24 (indirect reported speech; verbal form) and 6:25
                              (direct quote, nominal form) is the crux; the minimal pair. I venture to
                              suggest that it matters, not only what the reading IS, but what the reading
                              DOES].

                              There was also the matter of OCLOS (Mk passim) / OCLOI (Mk 10:1 only;
                              Vaticanus original, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Washingtoniensis, but OCLOS in
                              Bezae, Koridethi, 700, Family 1, and several others). Adela did not notice
                              the variant in the notes attached to her translation (p457). The point is
                              amenable to explanation, but I decline to add a further excursus to a
                              perhaps already overly excursive note.

                              Elliott did pay Adela the compliment of saying, at the end, that he had been
                              accustomed to going to Taylor for Markan commentary, but that her book would
                              now become his first reference. I have felt exactly the same way, and was
                              pleased to hear that thought expressed by someone in authority.

                              What no one observed, but has seemed obvious to me as a reader, was that in
                              addition to the immense amount of work that it represents, Adela's
                              commentary is distinguished by a more acute literary sensibility than many
                              of its competitors, past and not so past.

                              INTERMISSION

                              As noted in my earlier brief report, the session had no more than begun
                              reassembling for the general discussion when the hotel fire alarm sounded,
                              and second floor persons were eventually advised to evacuate. When after ten
                              minutes or so the coast was again clear, only about half the audience, and
                              virtually none of the panelists except the author, were present. Discussion
                              was less than edifying, and I forbear to report on it.

                              SECURITY PS

                              [Also less than edifying is the fact, which became apparent only on later
                              analysis, that the Sheraton Boston hotel valet parking personnel steal
                              things out of cars left in their care, including credit cards that one had
                              thought were lodged in inconspicuous places. If anyone else had this
                              problem, they are welcome to contact me off list; I have information that
                              may be of assistance to them].

                              Bruce

                              E Bruce Brooks
                              Warring States Project
                              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.