(ProQuest-CSA LLC: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.) When I was nominated to be 115th president of Society of Biblical Literature11 of course felt very honored and was not reluctant to accept, but I also felt a bit uncomfortable or unsure about appropriateness of choice. Normally presidency of SBL alternates between OT and scholars, and my immediate predecessor (Lyn Osiek) clearly qualified for latter category. Although I have done some work on Greek Jewish scriptures (LXX/OG),21 can hardly be considered an OT person; indeed, I do not think of myself at all as a scholar in a traditional sense, even though my career has included investigations of traditionally biblical subjects such as a master's thesis on use of Jewish scriptures in canonical Jesus traditions3 and occasional excursions into specific NT exegetical problems-Was Theophile (in vocative) to whom Luke-Acts is addressed a woman? Did tradition reflected in NT book of Acts about Paul being called (from tribe of Benjamin) originate with some of his opponents who identified him in an uncomplimentary manner with Benjaminite king Saul of ancient Israel notoriety? Was Paul's identification with Tarsus due to a misunderstanding on part of author of Acts (or its sources) of Paul's occupational affiliation with Tarsian guild of weavers in Judea?4 But those were unpublished exceptions, and along with some dabbling in Dead Sea Scroll studies5 and aforementioned text-critical interests in that heterogeneous anthology of Old Greek translations that unfortunately has come to be known simplistically as the Septuagint, pretty much summed up my qualifications to be considered a strictly speaking. A little research into history of SBL and its presidents, however, helped put to rest any misgivings I may have entertained.6 From outset, its founders chose to call it society of bibli'car literature (and exegesis), not of literature. And from outset, many of its representatives were, like me, travelers along margins of Bible studies proper. The very first president, Daniel Raynes Goodwin (1811-1890) began his stint while already a near septuagenarian and held post for seven years ( 1880-87); he had made his mark as a teacher and a scholar, as well as an administrator and a churchman, especially in fields of philology and intellectual and moral philosophy, with some attention to NT translations and thought. Interestingly, he had served as provost at my home institution, University of Pennsylvania, from 1860 to 1868 before accepting deanship of Protestant Episcopal Philadelphia Divinity School, where he also taught until his death in 1890.7 In an address in 1873 to his alma mater, Bowdoin College, he presented his concept of a Christian liberal arts education as basic to survival of civilization: All life is progressive; college must be progressive or die.... If there be any folly greater than pretended antithesis of science and religion, it is that other folly of antithesis of science and classical learning. Let both go on together, each helping instead of hindering other. Let us propose no such miserable alternatives as learning or science, science or religion; rather let our watchword and battle-cry be learning and science, science and religion, now and forever, one and inseparable.8 The issue of relationship between science, religion, and classical learning became a recurring motif in SBL presidential addresses and discussions.9 While I do not intend to revisit that theme directly here, it should become obvious that, for me, learning responsibly about ancient contexts from which derives what came to be with associated religious interests is, well, paramount. While Goodwin can hardly be classified as primarily a many of his colleagues and successors clearly were such-J. …