Thursday, February 04, 2010

Quiz: SBL TC Audience

The SBL-site publishes various photos from their past meetings. Follow the link to this photo and you will find (hopefully) an very interested audience in a session on NT textual criticism.

Identify as many as you can!

Extra bonus if you can identify the exact session.

(The photo may be swapped, but here is a direct link to the photo.)

19 Comments:

P.J. Williams said...

Left to right, front to back:

1.1 Troy Griffitts
1.5 Wayne Canaday
2.4 Hugh Houghton
4.1 Rick Bennett
4.2 Larry Hurtado
4.3 Dirk Jongkind
5.1 Bruce Morrill?
5.2 AnneMarie Luijendijk?
5.3 is a particular challenge

Peter M. Head said...

They mostly look familiar. I can only name eight of them.
To start on the far left front: Troy Griffiths - computer boffin extraordinaire and soon to start a PhD at Birmingham on computer science and NT TC (if he is allowed entry into the country).

Peter M. Head said...

snap

Peter M. Head said...

It must have been an interesting session. Does that help identify it?

Tommy Wasserman said...

PJW: I am a bit surprised that you did not identify 4.4.

Christian Askeland said...

3.2 Jeffry Kloha

5.2 Tommy Wasserman's head?

Is this the Saturday afternoon TC session? I was not there, but it does not appear to be the Sunday or Monday sessions.

4.4 ... a shady looking character, indeed.

Tommy Wasserman said...

Christian, I think your right ... about my head.

Tommy Wasserman said...

I don't now which session it is, but I note that there is at least another row in front of Kannaday et al. Moreover, I can easily exclude a number of sessions. But in the session I am left withI sat at the front row. This is difficult.

Stephen C. Carlson said...

3.1 Doug Burleson (student of Bill Warren at NOBTS)

Mike Holmes said...

1.3: Linda Belleville
1.4: Jean-Francois Racine
2.1: John Gram (Lutheran pastor from Vancouver, BC, w/a long interest in TC)
2.3 Nick Zola (doctoral student at Baylor)

The presence of Belleville leads me to think the session was 21-224.

Tommy Wasserman said...

Mike, I agree with you that it is probably 21-224. That is what I thought too, and probably during Peter Head's paper because the audience look so interested but critical ;-).

I remember that I started out on the front row, but later switched seat because I needed to load my computer.

I know at least two more who have not been identified, 1.2 and 4.4.

Christian Askeland said...

1.2 is a businessman from Washington, D.C. who has a lay interest in textual criticism. (If you are out there, I am sorry I do not remember your name!)

Peter M. Head said...

HA HA Tommy. Good one.

Peter M. Head said...

Also Tom Shepherd next to Jeff Kloha (3.3?)

Rick said...

PJW: hint on 4.4– 'diplai sacra'

It's definitely 21-224 because I remember them running out of handouts (as often happened in the TC sessions) and I gave one to 5.2 (aka AnneMarie Luijendijk).

Tommy Wasserman said...

Christian, I thought 1.2 was Paul Anderson, but he is not from Washington. i might be wrong.

And at first I thought 4.4 was Peter Williams, but apparently it is Charles Hill.

This is not a bad record.

I suppose 5.3 can only be identified by himself but 2.2?

Bill Warren said...

This is what I see, with with some being duplicates/confirmations of the comments others have made:
Front row: 1.2 Paul Anderson, 1.4 Jean-François Racine, 1.5 Wayne Kannady
Second row: 2.4 Hugh Houghton
Third row: 3.1 Doug Burleson, 3.2 Jeff Kloha, 3.3 Tom Shepherd (Andrews Univ.),
Fourth row: 4.1 Rick Bennett (Accordance), 4.2 Larry Hurtado, 4.3 Dirk Jongkind, and perhaps 4.4 Charles Hill.

I'm almost certain the meeting was the Sat. afternoon session, perhaps as mentioned when Peter was presenting, or was that Philip presenting? :)
Nice puzzle, Tommy!

Christian Askeland said...

Tommy, you are correct that 1.2 is not the fellow I had thought. Sorry! I too had also supposed that 4.4 was PJW.

Peter M. Head said...

In terms of the session, Tommy presumably knows when he went to the back of the room. There doesn't seem to have been any handouts for this presentation - that could eliminate some possibilities.