Papers

Joint OTW/SOTS Meeting, at Wadham College, Oxford:

Tuesday to Friday, 22-25 July 1997

Special theme: Exegesis within literary traditions of Israel and the ancient Near East

Professor Klaas Smelik (Brussels): The Representation of King Ahaz and King Hezekiah in the Books of Kings and Chronicles

Dr David Reimer (Oxford): Political prophets? Prophetic politics?

Dr Harm van Groll (Utrecht): The Use of Scripture and the Theological Choices in Ezra 9:6-9

Dr Marjo Korpel (Utrecht): Exegesis within the work of Llilimilku of Ugarit

Professor Michael Fishbane (Chicago): ‘The Hebrew Bible and Tradition: Reflections and Reconsiderations

Dr Janet Tollington (Cambridge): The Book of Judges: The result of post-exilic exegesis

Professor Jan Joosten (Strasbourg): Exegesis within the Septuagint of Hosea

Professor John Barton (Oxford): What is a Book?: Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel

Abstracts

Professor Ed Noort (Groningen), ‘The Traditions of Ebal and Gerizim: Theological Positions in theBook of Joshua’:

The stable and firm location of Ebal and Gerizim, so well known in the world of geographical facts is not that settled at all. The most famous witness to this instability is the Byzantine mosaic map of Madaba Here we find two locations for Ebal and Gerizim. The first is the ‘normal’ one, the other in the neighbourhood of Jericho. The last one is the opinion of Eusebius and Jerome. An overview of the texts of Deut. 27:2-3 in relation to 27:4-8 with the insertion of 5-7 and Deut. 11:29f. shows that the late texts of the Hebrew Bible indeed knew a location near Jericho. This can be a help for the problems we have with Josh. 8:30-35, because Josh 8:30-35 does not fit the present geographical, chronological or narrative context. The same ‘Vorlage’ Josh. 8:30-35 used, we find in the Samaritan Pentateuch Exod. 20:17a. From here it can be demonstrated that the reading ‘Ebal’ belongs to the original M.T. text of Josh. 8. That the location of Ebal and Gerizim in the neighbourhood of Jericho represents an old tradition can now be demonstrated from 4QJosh.a. Here the last part of Josh. 8:30-35 is situated before Josh. 5, directly after crossing the Jordan. A comparison with Flavius Josephus shows that Josephus locates the reading of the Torah at the end of Josh. 12 (contra Ulrich, the editor of 4QJosh.a.). Therefore we have good reasons to interpreted Josh. 8:30-35 in trhe context of the first steps in the Promised Land. Here the nomistic Deuteronomists told that the Torah was always present in Israel from the very beginning. The paper gave some theological conclusion about the relation between Land and Torah.

Dr David Reimer (Oxford): ‘Political prophets? Prophetic politics?’:

The Hebrew prophets have often been spoken of in political terms. In spite of the obvious political dimension to prophecy its political nature remains difficult to define. The question may be asked, does theology determine politics or do politics determine theology? Often the two are seen as exclusive: the prophets acted at divine behest, regardless of their circumstances; or they are seen to be advisors on domestic and foreign affairs, and keen observers of the political landscape. However, closer examination of the prophets suggests that theology and politics live in symbiotic relationship and mutually exert influence on the other. Four approaches to the question of prophetic politics sketch the range of options scholars have employed. Adam Welch stressed prophetic knowledge of divine will at one end of the spectrum, while at the other, Burke O. Long attempted to describe prophetic activity in wholly political terms. Between these two stand Walter Brueggemann and Oliver O’Donovan each of whom attempt to combine theology and politics in different ways. Readings of several key texts from Jeremiah demonstrate the way in which theology and politics come together in one prophetic tradition (20:1-6; 21:1-10 // 37:1-10; 46:2, 13, (26); 41-44; 26:20-24; 29:1-14; 37:14; 40:1-6; 45 // 51:59-64). In these texts, the prophet is seen to hold an ambiguous attitude towards Babylon and Egypt, as well as towards any possible future for the Judeans themselves. These ambiguities are the product of the prophet’s commitment to Yhwh in combination with a stark political realism. This study points towards (a) the political sovereignty of Yhwh, (b) the way in which prophetic allegiance transcends the state level, (c) the pivotal role played by theological interpretations of political circumstances, and (d) the necessity of both differentiating yet holding together theology and politics in analysis of the Hebrew prophets.

Dr Harm W. M. van Grol (Utrecht): ‘Exegesis of the Exile: Exegesis of Scripture? Ezra 9:6-9’:

The lecturer took exegesis as application. In his paper he studied two cases of possible, applicative allusions in Ezra 9:6-9: (1) Are the signs of mercy in Ezra 9:8-9 represented as the fulfilment of ‘Isaianic’ promises? (2) Is Ezra 9:6 a realization of the call to shame in Ezekiel 36:32? In his lecture he concentrated on the second issue. Ezra 9:6-15 is a prayer but also a sermon, and this sermon is highly exegetical. Ezra cites the law (11-12) and applies it to his community (10 and 13-14). Is there any interaction with other texts in the first part of his prayer too? The thesis was: Ezra 9:6 alludes to Ezekiel 36:32. It is an application of Ezekiel’s text; an exhortation and answer; a call to confession. The argument was based on the use of the verbs for shame: d,p and cjln Corroboration was found in the fact that Ezra 9:9 and Ezekiel 36 both use the word .pxg, ‘ruins’, and – more important – in the use the ‘law text’ in Ezra 9:11 makes of the same chapter of Ezekiel (the collocation of ibn to .p[, and yv`))))).

Dr Marjo Korpel (Utrecht): ‘Exegesis in the Work of Ilimilku of Ugarit’:

It cannot be doubted that Ilimilku was not simply the scribe of the three major Ugaritic religious texts (Legend of Keret, Baal myth, Legend of Aqhat), but their author, in the sense of a fairly creative editor of traditions he found interesting enough to rewrite in his own way and for his own purposes. No ‘canonical’ versions of the texts existed before Ilimilku started to write his own version, only templates may have been at his disposal. His work reflects the political and religious situation of his time to such an extent that his writing may be characterized as actualizing exegesis of existing traditions. His emphasis on the dominating role of goddesses and women, up to their eligibility to royal succession, seems to point to a dangerously thin line of male succession in the Ugaritic dynasty. It is likely that Ilimilku wrote his works in the order Kirtu-Ba`lu-Aqhatu. Between the first and the last he gradually accepted Ba`lu’s primacy in the national pantheon of Ugarit. In this way Ilimilku became an exegete of his own work. For the study of the Old Testament the unique example of one editing author responsible for three substantial works of outstanding literary quality is highly instructive. It means that repetitions and omissions, slight deviations in wording, grammatical frictions and even ostensibly different theological outlooks do not always point to different authors or editors.

Professor Michael Fishbane (Chicago): ‘The Hebrew Bible and Tradition: Reflections and Reconsiderations’:

This lecture concerned features of tradition and tradition-making in the Hebrew Bible. Fishbane opened with various methodological considerations, and advanced the notion of using changing traditions as indicators of ideas and values that lie beneath the textual surface and alongside it. Examples of inner-biblical exegesis were chosen that continued Fishbane’s earlier work but developed in several directions. Among the cases presented for consideration were 1. the variations in the law of sabbatical release in Exod. 23 and Num. 25, in which types of expansion witness to ongoing reflections on and applications of the law; 2. a discussion of the rules of refuge after accidental homicide, found in Num. 35 and Deut. 4, in terms of their historical and ideological inter-relationship, with especial attention to observing how the incorporation of priestly terminology into the older rule changes it religiously and ideologically; and 3. a consideration of rules bearing on strangers (Isa. 58), with especial emphasis on rhetorical expansions. The paper concluded with reflections on the contexts and rituals of study and tradition-making in ancient Israel, with a close examination of Neh. 8 to demonstrate the point. Finally, examples from Psalm 119 were introduced in order to show how the development of Torah study in the post-exilic period affected piety and spirituality.

Dr Janet Tollington (Cambridge): ‘The Book of Judges: The Result of Post-Exilic Exegesis?’:

The paper argues that the core of the Book of Judges, Judg. 2:6-16:31, was shaped as part of a continuous Deuteronomistic History. The prologue, Judg. 1:1-2:5, and the epilogue, Judg. 17-21, were added when the core was extracted from this narrative context. The paper asked when the book had been shaped, the purpose of its production, and from where the material in the prologue and epilogue originated. The prologue draws on material in Joshua and on developed exodus and covenant traditions. It was shaped to demonstrate the faithfulness and purity of Judah and to stress the degeneracy of Israel resulting from the corrupting presence of Canaanites, whom they were unable to drive out. It was argued that it had been compiled specifically as the prologue to Judges. The epilogue consists of two sections, Judg. 17-18 and Judg. 19-21, each subject to a long process of redaction. The latter section had early origins being based on material which promoted the Davidic dynasty in contrast to the northern kingdom’s ideals of a charismatic monarchy. It was shaped to conform to the stories about Abimelech, Jephthah and Samson in the core of Judges and had been transmitted with that material. When the Deuteronomistic History was produced these pro-monarchic stories were set aside as incompatible with the history’s theological emphasis. The paper argued that the first section of the epilogue was transmitted originally in the northern kingdom and then in Judah by communities opposed to the cult at Dan. This was illegitimate from the outset due to the apostasy of Ephraim and subsequently Ephraims’s corruption became a threat to the purity of Judah. The material also supported Josiah’s policy of establishing Levites in a secondary, non-priestly role in the Jerusalem temple. It was argued that the epilogue was produced in a post-exilic community seeking the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. Such hopes are found in the Book of Haggai focused on Zerubbabel during the years 522-517 B.C.E. Haggai also advocates a return to a pure cult as exemplified in the Solomonic temple and stresses the role of the priests. The paper concluded that taken together the three parts of Judges express a similar theology advocating a restored Davidic monarchy and a pure Yahwistic cult, while graphically portraying the chaos which would resul t from any other form of society. Judges most probably results from a process of post-exilic exegesis and was proclaimed alongside and in support of the prophecies of Haggai.

Professor Jan Joosten (Strasbourg): ‘Exegesis in the Septuagint Version of Hosea’:

Resisting the temptation to seize upon seemingly theologically motivated variants, this paper makes an effort to describe the exegesis found in the Septuagint version of Hosea as it arises out of the translational process. Three steps are distinguished in this process. First, the Hebrew source text had to be deciphered and the individual words identified. The numerous misreadings (confusion of similar letters, errors of vocalisation, wrong division of words) are not to be interpreted as evidence of a deliberate strategy of interpretation; they merely show that the translator was not acquainted with a reading tradition of the Hebrew Book of Hosea. The translator’s knowledge of Hebrew was not adequate to the difficulty of his source text; many words are wrongly identified, while others seem to have been completely unknown. The second step was for the translator to make sense of the single words in the context in which he found them. One observes, on the one hand, that words are usually translated in function of the context. There is a search for the mot juste in Greek. Some words’ meanings are apparently guessed from the context, sometimes with interesting results. On the other hand, the translator also shows faithfulness to the single words as he understands them, even where they do not seem to fit the context. In some particularly difficult passages the notion of context disappears entirely: the Hebrew is translated word for word into Greek, resulting in a text which may have been as obscure to the translator as it is to us. Beyond the questions of context, the translator at times diverges from his source because he judged that, at least in translation, the distance between meaning and reference was too great. Thus he adds a word where he perceives an ellipsis; he decodes some cases of metonymy and metaphor; he makes an occasional change for theological reasons; and he shows some awareness of the intertextual reference of some of Hosea’s verses. The coherence of the translational approach as described here is not to be sought on the level of content. Rather it is the formal aspect of the translation that reveals something of the theology of its author. His extreme faithfulness to the Hebrew, even where the text was not clear to him, shows that to the translator his source was inspired. This may also explain the fact that shocking passages – of which the Book of Hosea contains several – are with confidence translated as they were understood. The hermeneutics evinced by LXX Hosea can therefore be formulated like this: to trust the inspired text.

Professor John Barton (Oxford): ‘What is a Book?:

Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel’: The modern idea of a book is of a literary work that exists independently of its various written or printed forms, and is characterized by closure and consistency. In ancient Israel xtc was a much vaguer concept, and did not necessarily have these implications. Both ‘historical-critical’ and ‘literary’ approaches to the biblical text tend to presuppose that a true book would have these features: historical critics note that they are often lacking and conclude that Old Testament books are therefore composite or fragmentary; literary critics argue that they are there if one looks in the right place. This paper suggests that both schools of thought may be mistaken, in that ancient readers did not have our expectations of closure and consistency anyway. Examining the Old Testament and Apocryphal books that are imiations of earlier works can help us to see what people’s expectations actually were.

[index of past meetings]