Papers

At Trinity College, Dublin, 22nd-25th July 2002

Professor William Dever (Tucson), ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: What Archaeology Can Contribute’

Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield), ‘Adieu Asherah, Divine Consort of Yahweh’

Dr Simcha Shalom Brooks (London), ‘Gibeon as a Major Cultic Centre in the Time of Saul’

Dr Seth Kunin (Aberdeen), ‘Experimenting with Women’s Roles in the Book of Judges’

Dr Alastair Hunter (Glasgow), ‘Only Fools and Children: Belief in God as a Problem for the Psalmist’

Professor George Brooke (Manchester), ‘Psalms and Psalters in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Issues of Pluriformity and Canon’

Professor Charles Conroy (Rome), ‘The Case of the Disappearing Redactor in Second Isaiah’

Dr Deborah Rooke (London), ‘On the Handel-ing of 1 Maccabees’

Dr Walter Houston (Oxford), ‘The Rich, the Poor and the Wise: Some Assumptions Examined’

Abstracts

Professor William Dever (Tucson): ‘Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: What Archaeology Can Contribute’

This paper addressed the historiographical challenge posed by recent ‘revisionist’ or ‘minimalist’ schools of Old Testament scholarship. According to these schools, the Hebrew Bible contains little more than a ‘social construct’ of Hellenistic Judaism, not a history of any Israel in the Iron Age of ancient Palestine. In particular the views of Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas Thompson of Copenhagen, and Philip Davies and Keith Whitelam of Sheffield, were examined. These views were then challenged on the basis of methodological inadequacies and ideological biases as well as the overwhelming archaeological evidence of a real Israel in the 12th-­6th centuries BCE. As an example of the sort of archaeologically-based histories of ancient Israel that are now possible, the 8th century BCE was taken as a case-study. This ‘axial age’ is brilliantly illuminated by a wealth of archaeological data, which demonstrate how balanced, well-documented, satisfying histories are feasible.

Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield): ‘Adieu Asherah, Divine Consort of Yahweh’

The disappearance of Judean pillar figurines from southern Cisjordan in the Persian period and the failure of a new, locally-made form of female fertility figurine to replace them provides archaeological evidence for the forceful imposition of early Judaism within the province of Yehud. A review of the find spots in the Iron II (monarchic) period suggests their probable use as votive offerings, amulets, and possibly statuettes in home shrines. Their sudden elimination within the territory of Yehud strongly implies that they no longer were deemed legitimate objects. Had they been used in the cult of Yahweh, seeking human fertility and safe childbirth from him, they would not have posed a problem. By implication, they were connected with the cult of a female fertility goddess whose worship was being forcefully suppressed. The Khirbet el-Qom and Quntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions identify Asherah as Yahweh’s divine consort; it is plausible to suggest that the figurines were used in the cult of Asherah. 1 Kings 6 contains two conflicting accounts of the interior decoration of the main sanctuary of Solomon’s temple. One overlaps closely with the exilic-era description in Ezekiel 41 of the proposed decoration for the restored temple and also with the post-exilic description in 2 Chronicles 3 of Solomon’s temple. In all three, cherubs and palm trees are used extensively to create a background pattern. The palm tree was a symbol of a fertility goddess in the western Levant and Asherah was represented by a tree within the Jerusalem temple (Deuteronomy 16:21; 1 Kings 15:13). A logical implication of this set of data is that Asherah’s symbol was ‘neutralised’ by being made a decorative element divorced from the goddess in the Persian-era temple, as were the cherubs, to reflect the new theology of monotheism. Set beside the elimination of the Judean pillar figurines, the change in temple decoration in the Persian era reflects conscious measures to eliminate Asherah as a viable divinity in favour of a single godhead, Yahweh.

Dr Simcha Shalom Brooks (London): ‘Gibeon as a Major Cultic Centre in the Time of Saul’

Saul’s biography is so brief in the biblical text that it is difficult to evaluate his place in Israelite history. The dominant impression created is that Saul was a failure. It is feasible that this negative presentation was due, not to a lack of availability of contemporary material, but to a deliberate and selective editing by the pro-Davidic writers. In attempting to show a more realistic picture of Saul, the paper took into consideration the inscribed jar handles discovered at modern el-Jib (biblical Gibeon); the link between the names inscribed on these jar handles and Saul’s genealogical lists in 1 Chronicles (8:29-40; 9:35-44) establishes the probability that Saul’s ancestral home was at Gibeon. The textual evidence also suggests that Gibeon was ‘a large city, like one of the royal cities’ (Joshua 10:2), and later the largest place of worship in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 3:2). The argument was presented that Gibeon was the largest place of worship throughout the period of Samuel, Saul and David. It was also proposed that not only was the ‘Tent of Meeting’ at Gibeon, but also the Ark which David later removed to Jerusalem. The biblical writers excluded this information about Saul and Gibeon in order to diminish any importance relating to Saul and to justify David’s transfer of the Ark to Jerusalem.

Dr Seth Kunin (Aberdeen): ‘Experimenting with Women’s Roles in the Book of Judges’

This paper developed a structuralist analysis of the use of women in the book of Judges. The paper initially examined two interrelated texts, Judges 9 and Judges 11 — focusing on the death of Abimelech and the sacrifice of Jephthah’s daughter. It argued that these two narratives are structurally inverted, that is, the mythemes or structural elements found in Judges 9 are exactly inverted in Judges 11. The paper then placed the underlying structural patterns into the broader context of biblical underlying structure, suggesting that the structure is a recapitulation of that found in Genesis 22 (although not suggesting that it knew of or was based on that text, rather that it arose from the same cultural context). The recapitulation in Judges, however, was demonstrated to be defective, that is, the texts do not fully or adequately reproduce the underlying structure. The paper then suggested that all of the texts in the book of Judges, save perhaps one text (Judges 1:11-15), dealing with women are similarly defective. The paper developed two main arguments from this structuralist analysis, the first concerning the ideological use of the text and the second the theoretical status of this type of text. The first argument relates to the possible use of the book of Judges in relation to the concept of dynastic kingship. The significant aspect that is defective in most of the texts relates to the denial of the descent and chosen line model. This ideological construction may relate to either a denial or attack on dynastic kingship as a whole or as an argument against any dynasty other than that of the Davidic line. Although there is not strong evidence in either direction, the use of a non-defective text in relation to the tribe of Judah at the beginning of Judges and an attack on the tribe of Benjamin in the conclusion of the book gives some weight to the second possibility. The second argument relates to the status of the book as myth. Levi-Strauss has argued that myth dies when it is historicised. This contention, however, is not supported by the data; many myths are found in an historical style. It is possible, however, that Levi-Strauss’ suggestion can be changed to ideologised rather than historicised. This would be demonstrated in the defective nature of the texts found in the book of Judges.

Dr Alastair Hunter (Glasgow): ‘Only Fools and Children: Reflections on Psalms 8-14′

Following on the presenter’s earlier work on the Psalms of Ascents as a group, this paper sought first to appraise the external and internal evidence for a similar approach to Psalms 8-­14 and then to evaluate the implications of such an approach. While the evidence is much more tenuous than for Psalms 120-­134, a study of word use and themes gave some weight to the proposition. A significant number of words and phrases were (on a rough statistical analysis) characteristic of the putative group. On the basis of this preliminary assessment, the paper then explored the thesis that the group in part functioned as a response to the problem posed by the radical theology of Psalm 8, with subsequent psalms displaying a tendency to undermine and ‘correct’ what may have appeared to be a work of heterodox popular theology implying an uncharacteristically optimistic view of the relationship of Yahweh to humankind.

Professor George Brooke (Manchester): ‘Psalms and Psalters at Qumran: Issues of Pluriformity and Canon’

The paper first presented some of the manuscript evidence for psalters at Qumran, stressing the diversity of how the psalms were presented and that it is not always clear whether a manuscript deserves to be counted as a copy of a psalter, expecially since some of them, such as 4QPsn, are better described as containing excerpted texts. The argument was then put forward that there were four or more forms of the psalter in the late second temple period, each of which might have had some authority. In addition to the so-called ‘biblical’ psalms manuscripts, some could be found in collections such as are presented in 4Q380, 4Q381 and 4Q448; another (akin to 11QPsa) seems to have been deliberately associated with David and might be referred to in the so-called canon note in 4QMMT C.10-11. The interest in David is also discernible in the process of historicisation apparent in the titles given to some psalms in some manuscripts found at Qumran. The paper concluded with some brief comments on the use of the psalms in the Qumran sectarian compositions and confirmation that many of the psalms were viewed as authoritative and as a demonstration that the contents and order of the first three books had largely stabilised by the second century BCE.

Professor Charles Conroy (Rome): ‘The Case of the Disappearing Redactor in Second Isaiah’

The paper summarised some important aspects of the very complex situation of (Second-)Isaian studies in the past decade or so, and suggested a possible framework for accommodating the various orientations, especially composition criticism and redaction criticism, which are often perceived and presented as antagonistic and mutually exclusive. Composition criticism falls within the general area of final-form study and is represented in Second-Isaian research by two main types of analysis: dramatic analysis (Beuken, Leene, Watts, and Baltzer) and structural analysis (Laato, O’Connell, Korpel, and De Moor). While there are considerable differences between the scholars in each of these groups, their contributions were evaluated briefly in general terms. Redaction criticism of Isaiah 40-­55 in its more recent phase has been dominated by four monographs: Kratz (1991), van Oorschot (1993), Berges (1998), and Werlitz (1999). Their contributions were presented in very broad lines, and a significant measure of convergence was noted, which has also been stressed by Rainer Albertz in his recent work Die Exilszeit (2001). Finally it was proposed that the adoption of a two-phase model for exegetical work (first a detailed literary study of the final form of the text; then a historical study of its genesis) will allow both composition criticism and redaction criticism not only to co-exist but also to interact fruitfully in the interests of a better understanding of Isaiah 40-­55 within the book of Isaiah.

Dr Deborah Rooke (London): ‘On the “Handel-ing” of 1 Maccabees’

The Handelian oratorio Judas Maccabæus was produced in 1746 as a compliment to the Duke of Cumberland for suppressing the Jacobite rebellion. The writer of the libretto, a clergyman named Thomas Morell, used the book of 1 Maccabees as his major source, and in Parts II and III of the libretto he followed the source material relatively closely. But Part I owes very little to the source material, raising the question of why Morell structured the libretto in this way. An answer is suggested by a sermon preached by Morell in 1739/40, entitled ‘The Surest Grounds for Hopes of Success in War’, in which Morell lays out a ‘theology of successful war’: war must only be undertaken for a just cause or at the divine command, and must be preceded by prayer carried out in the proper fashion and in the proper place. Then, and only then, God will favour the troops against their enemies. In Part I of Judas Maccabæus, all of Morell’s criteria for a successful war are met, including those that are not met in the source text of 1 Maccabees. It therefore seems likely that Morell has altered his source to reflect these criteria, in order to portray the Maccabæan campaign, and therefore the anti-Jacobite campaign with Cumberland at its head, as having unequivocal divine favour.

Dr Walter Houston (Oxford): ‘The Role of the Poor in Proverbs’

The paper considered first the social background of the writing of Proverbs. It was concluded that the writers belonged to a cadre of scribes associated with the court (or courts), the upper levels of which were landowners with a private income. The book may therefore be expected to display the attitudes of the upper classes. It was next considered what attitudes it displays towards the poor, and the argument of J.D. Pleins that it attacks the poor as responsible for their own poverty through laziness was examined and rejected. The tone of the sentences which speak of the poor is either objective or sympathetic, urging the practice of charity. These attitudes, though typically aristocratic, were common to the whole of society. Theologically speaking, the value of the book is focused on those sentences which ground the appeal to generosity on creation.

[index of past meetings]