Papers

Mr Edward Ball (Nottingham): ‘Seeing’ and ‘Believing’ in Habakkuk 2:4

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Exeter): Bones, Burials and Boundaries in the Hebrew Bible

Dr John Job (Chesterfield): Does the Ghost of Zerubbabel Haunt the Pages of Jeremiah

Professor Karl William Weyde (Oslo): Characteristics of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period

Dr Tomas Frydrych (Falkirk): The Legislative Function of Narrative in the Pentateuch: A Case Study

Dr Edmée Kingsmill (Oxford): ‘Flee, My Beloved, and Be Like a Gazelle or a Young Hart’ (Canticles 8:14)

Professor Doron Mendels (Jerusalem): Did People in the Hellenistic Period and Beyond Believe in Their Pasts?

Dr David Shepherd (Belfast): ‘Strike His Bone and His Flesh’: Reading Job 2 from the Beginning

Dr Jennifer Dines (Cambridge): Greek Daniel’s Debt to Isaiah — but which Isaiah?

Professor Joseph Blenkinsopp (Notre Dame): The Sealed Book of Isaiah 29:11-12

The meeting included the symposium: Where Are Hebrew Bible Studies Today and Where Are They Going?

Dr Katharine Dell (Cambridge)

Dr Hugh Pyper (Sheffield)

Dr Adrian Curtis (Manchester)

Abstracts

Mr Edward Ball (Nottingham): ‘Seeing’ and ‘Believing’ in Habakkuk 2:4

After some initial comments on the critical and interpretive questions raised by the book, and the nature of the ‘difficulty’ they express for reading and responding to Habakkuk as a (scriptural) text, especially in the setting of academic biblical studies, the textual problems of 2:4 (especially v. 4a) were considered, and the thematic and syntactical links of vv. 4 and 5 noted. A new proposal for the textual reconstruction of v. 4a and consequently for the interpretation of the whole line was then offered. The significance of this understanding was examined, first in its immediate context alongside vv. 1-3, where particular attention was given to the nature of this passage, to the sense of the divine command in v. 2, and to the ‘identification’ of the ‘vision’ spoken of, before considering briefly the wider context within the book. After some brief observations on the interpretation of v. 4b, an outline, exploratory theological reflection on the verse, in the light of the suggested reconstruction and its larger context, was tentatively proposed.

Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Exeter): Bones, Burials and Boundaries in the Hebrew Bible

Archaeological and anthropological studies suggest that within traditional societies graves or other mortuary symbols might serve to mark the boundary of a given place or to signal ownership of a territory. As such, the marking and maintaining of boundaries is often closely associated with ancestor veneration. This paper explored the ways in which traces of this traditional form of marking boundaries are reflected in the Hebrew Bible. It was argued that some of the ritual and ideological dimensions of this practice are particularly prominent in three key traditions: Jacob and Laban’s territorial agreement (Genesis 31:43-54), in which symbols and practices associated with cults of the dead serve to signal the division and possession of land; Josiah’s burning of bones at Bethel (2 Kings 23:15-20), in which the ancestral pedigree and protection of the hated Bethel cult is wiped out; and Abraham’s purchase of the burial ground at Machpelah (Genesis 23:1-20), in which Israelite distinction and separation from the Hittites and their territory is artfully articulated.

Dr John Job (Chesterfield): Does the Ghost of Zerubbabel Haunt the Pages of Jeremiah?

After stating by way of introduction a conviction that there really was a historical figure called Jeremiah, although the book contains much important later redaction, the suggestion was made on the basis of Jeremiah 22:24-30 that this passage bears evidence of (a) an early stage of development which manifests a hostile attitude to the monarchy; (b) a second stage, which could reflect enthusiasm for restoration of the monarchy at the time of Zerubbabel; (c) a third stage, when this revision was vehemently rebutted; and (d) in the light of Jeremiah 33:24-26, a final swing of the pendulum, not even represented in the Septuagint, again evincing strong hopes of restoration for the Davidic line.

Professor Karl William Weyde (Oslo): Characteristics of Prophecy in the Second Temple Period

Continuity between post-exilic and pre-exilic prophecy occurs in words and visions as a medium of divine communication. Connecting themes are, e.g., Yahweh’s presence in the Temple, Jerusalem as the centre of pilgrimage of all nations, and messianic hopes expressed for a descendant of David (Zerubbabel). Ethical demands, too, are in several respects similar to those of the pre-exilic prophets. There are changes, however, in post-exilic prophecy: messengers are presented as interpreters of words and visions, and messianic expectations are connected to the high priest Joshua whereas Zerubbabel fades. The priest becomes Yahweh’s messenger (Malachi 2:7). The increasing importance of the priests appears also in Malachi 1:1, where the term ‘my messenger’ probably refers to a cultic figure interpreting traditions. This view can be substantiated by the occurrence of משא in Malachi 1:1 and Zechariah 9:1; 12:1, since, in Chronicles, the term is applied to different kinds of spiritual activities carried out by priests and Levites, including teaching and exposition of the law. Prophecy changed, but did not decline. The change is probably due to the termination of kingship, and to an increasing literary activity, and also to the fact that words of the pre-exilic prophets were confirmed by the Exile and became reliable guides for the future. Thus, prophecy in the Second Temple period took on more the nature of exegesis of earlier authoritative words. However, prophecy in the old sense did not completely disappear; Chronicles relates ad hoc prophetic utterances by figures who were affected by the spirit (רוח) of Yahweh/God.

Dr Tomas Frydrych (Falkirk): The Legislative Function of Narrative in the Pentateuch: A Case Study

Law gains its significance from the way in which a community makes use of it, and this significance can depart far from that suggested by the semantic meaning of the legislative utterance — the significance of law does not reside in what the law says, but in what the community says about the law, the narrative context it creates around it. The command to observe the Sabbath in the two biblical accounts of the Decalogue, while virtually identical in wording, gains radically different significance by its juxtaposition with the creation narrative on the one hand, and the story of deliverance from Egypt on the other; in one, the law becomes a primary eternal principle for humans to submit themselves to, in the other a divine gift in the midst of Israel’s history, a secondary response to existing human need — it is impossible to speak meaningfully of the Sabbath, and by implication of any law, without reference to a narrative context. Narrative contexts are, however, arbitrary, and law can, therefore, only function by a conventional association with a specific narrative context. This raises serious questions about any attempt to reconstruct the significance of the biblical legal system which does not pay attention to the narrative that the legal material is embedded in.

Dr Edmée Kingsmill (Oxford): ‘Flee, My Beloved, and Be Like a Gazelle or a Young Hart’ (Canticles 8:14)

At Canticles 2:9 the female states: ‘My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart’. At 2:17 she exhorts him: ‘Be like a gazelle or a young hart’. And at 8:14 she commands him: ‘Flee, my beloved, and be like a gazelle or a young hart’. This final verse has baffled commentators from earliest times. But if, as this commentator thinks, the Song is the apex of the wisdom literature, and is charged with messianic expectation; and if the clue to these animals lies in the four references in Deuteronomy which pair them and allow them for food (12:15, 22; 14:4-5; 15:22), then the female may here be the heavenly Sophia sending the Beloved into the world to be its food. That a Messiah is born in Beth Lechem, laid in a manger, and in due course claims ‘whoever eats me will live because of me’ (John 6:57; cf. the claim Wisdom makes at Sirach 24:21) is not understood to demonstrate the poet’s prescience but is seen as the realization of his understanding of Wisdom as food. Both the male and the female in the Song are thus seen to represent Wisdom: the female as earthly and heavenly Wisdom, the male as sent forth to be Wisdom incarnate.

Professor Doron Mendels (Jerusalem): Did People in the Hellenistic Period and Beyond Believe in Their Pasts?

The paper had four themes: the relationship of societies, groups and individuals to their past; an attempt to classify modes of use of antiquity in Antiquity; the junctures at which people use the past in Antiquity; and the agents that transmitted antiquity in Antiquity. The conclusion was that in the Hellenistic period and beyond, we find various kinds of strategies concerning the use of the past that operate alongside each other. If we examine attitudes towards the past in groups within a society at a particular moment, we will get a disharmonious and chaotic picture. Certain groups considered the mythological past (this includes the Old Testament) as holy and yet altered it, or parts of it, according to new cultural, political and social circumstances. Others that manipulated the past actually destroyed much of it and did not leave it in its original for posterity. Therefore one can speak of destructive currents concerning the attitude of societies in the Hellenistic period and beyond towards the past as we in modern times understand historiography and other agents that preserve an accurate picture of our pasts. Societies, groups and individuals were imbued with fragments of their past, but did not respect their histories in their totality. The picture drawn here accords with the analysis in Mendels’ Memory book, namely that societies in the Hellenistic world live with memories and inscribed traditions, fragmented, comprehensive, collective and individual, false and true, embodied through temples, art and literary output as well as in bureaucracies and regimes. (A full version of this paper was published in Peter Schaefer [ed.], Antiquity in Antiquity [Tübingen: Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 2007].)

Dr David Shepherd (Belfast): ‘Strike His Bone and His Flesh’: Reading Job 2 from the Beginning

Following the destruction of Job’s children and possessions in Job 1, traditional readings of chapter 2 understand the Satan to be demanding that Job himself be struck down as a test of his disinterested piety. Instead, this study builds on earlier observations of the importance of Genesis for the writer of Job by arguing that the Satan’s language in Job 2, and in particular his use of the expression ‘his bone and his flesh’, invites us to read this passage from ‘the beginning’ (Genesis 1–3). When we do, the Satan is seen to be demanding the elimination of Job’s wife and, with her, any possible perpetuation of Job’s life in the shape of new progeny. While such a reading makes better sense of particular obscurities in Job 2, it also complicates traditional characterizations of Job’s wife by suggesting that she was not merely the Satan’s tool (so Augustine, John Calvin and others) but also his target.

Dr Jennifer Dines (Cambridge): Greek Daniel’s Debt to Isaiah — but which Isaiah?

Hebrew-Aramaic Daniel contains many reminiscences of other texts, including Isaiah. When the Septuagint translation of Daniel was made, did the translator recognize the Isaian allusions? How might we be able to tell, in places where the translation matches the source-text (approximating to the Masoretic Text)? One clue might be provided if the wording is close to that of LXX Isaiah, a version which I.L. Seeligmann claimed was known to the translator of LXX Daniel. This claim was tested by looking at several passages where striking similarities are found between LXX Daniel and LXX Isaiah. The direction of influence was discussed, since the dating of both texts is uncertain, but it was concluded that LXX Daniel does indeed draw occasionally on LXX Isaiah. In some places, the translator has created new echoes not found in the Masoretic Text. Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether the translator is aware of an allusion, and sometimes he seems to have drawn on other passages of scripture rather than Isaiah. The situation is complex, but it looks as if the translator drew on the whole Isaian corpus and knew it in Greek as well as Hebrew. The answer to ‘Which Isaiah?’ could be ‘all three’ and ‘both’.

Professor Joseph Blenkinsopp (Notre Dame): The Sealed Book of Isaiah 29:11-12

The cryptic saying in Isaiah 29:11-12 about a sealed book which two categories of readers are invited to read is ostensibly a prose comment on the immediately preceding passage that condemns public indifference to prophetic preaching (29:9-10). It also refers back to the sealed prophetic testimony and teaching of Isaiah 8:16, but now interpreted as referring to the book of Isaiah, but the book of Isaiah read in the light of the prophetic-apocalyptic perspective in evidence elsewhere in the book. It therefore illustrates the shift from oral to written prophecy and from prophetic eschatology to the apocalyptic eschatology of the book of Daniel. In Daniel and other apocalyptic writings from the late Second Temple period, including the Qumran sectarian texts (e.g. 4QMysteries) and early Christianity (e.g. Revelation 22:10), the Isaianic sealed book serves as a fundamental symbol for the revelation of supernatural mysteries, analogous to the idea of revelation as the decryption of a coded message. In these writings, the interim period during which the book remains sealed is the time of the hiddenness or anger of God, a time therefore of spiritual disorientation and blindness. The two categories of readers refer respectively, on this reading, to those who do not share the eschatological consciousness which alone renders the book of Isaiah intelligible, and those deaf to any kind of prophetic discourse. Neither has the key to crack the code, and so for both the offer falls on deaf ears.

The meeting included a symposium:
Where Are Hebrew Bible Studies Today and Where Are They Going?

Dr Katharine Dell (Cambridge)
presented a short introduction to the subject. She based her discussion around four changes charted by G.E. Wright in an article in 1960 (‘Old Testament Scholarship in Prospect’, JAAR 28), notably the rise of new philosophical systems which go on to have a profound influence on interpretation, the call to expose the assumptions underlying the quest for objective Old Testament scholarship, the rise of archaeology and our knowledge of the ancient Near East, and the application of ever-fresh methods. Forty-six years on from the publication of this article she asked whether this blueprint for the future still has merit and found that it did. In this context she aired issues such as the influence of post-modernism in its celebration of diversity and plurality upon Old Testament interpretation and the corresponding dangers of relativism, the tension between the quest for ‘history’ (and related secular and anti-historical approaches) and the pursuit of theological ‘truth’, the use of archaeology and the ancient Near East in the modern context, the trend towards specialization and yet the value of interdisciplinary approaches, the value in older methods despite the objective/subjective debate, and the importance of imparting the fruits of scholarship to faith communities. Continuing lively debate was seen to fuel fresh possibilities for the future of our discipline.

Dr Hugh Pyper (Sheffield)
based his thoughts on the future of biblical studies on two recent conference sessions. One was a session at the International Meeting of SBL in Edinburgh on ‘The End of Biblical Studies’ where the argument had been put forward that the alienness of the Bible and its implication in violence and oppression meant that it should be discarded. On the contrary, Pyper argued, in the current political climate it is precisely the issue of how to deal with the alien and disturbing in our common culture that most needs to be addressed; the simplistic response of rejecting what we find alien is profoundly dangerous. At the same conference, Jacques Berlinerblau had pointed out that, although this may be a poor time for biblical studies, it is a great time for the Bible: outside Theology and Biblical Studies departments, the cultural influence of the Bible is more important than ever and a wide range of scholars are waking up to this; there is a great future for study of the Bible, but it is happening in other disciplines and in new forums. The challenge is to embrace this while maintaining the disciplinary rigour that traditional biblical studies can bring. The second session had been at a conference on teaching theology and religious studies. Pyper pointed out how Old Testament studies in particular have historically been pushed to the margins in the curricula of both theology and religious studies, but he argued that Old Testament studies belonged at the centre of both. The same texts have validly been read either with theological questions in mind or by applying the disciplines of religious studies, thus forming a unique resource for demonstrating the distinctiveness but also the interdependence of the two approaches. Interdisciplinarity, which is a much-vaunted but often rather meaningless slogan in contemporary academia, is actually practised in Old Testament studies and this is something the discipline should have the confidence to assert and to model for other disciplines. All in all, there is an exciting future for the student of the Bible; the question is whether those who teach in academic biblical studies can have the confidence and flexibility to respond to these possibilities.

Dr Adrian Curtis (Manchester)
offered anecdotal evidence that there is great interest in, but actual ignorance of, the Old Testament in faith communities and educational establishments. Teachers and preachers have not, apparently, been meeting that need, so there must be potential for those who teach the teachers and preachers to communicate an enthusiasm for the subject which can be passed on. The shape of many degree programmes means limited time for the Bible and biblical languages. However, the increasing stress on integration and looking for links across areas taught within Theology and Religion programmes provides an opportunity for demonstrating the range of approaches and methods which make up Old Testament study. The fact that languages do not loom so large may actually be encouraging students to take them! Taught Master’s programmes may increasingly provide the tools for research. The advancing of the discipline through cutting-edge research is vital. But so is the provision of the much maligned ‘popular’ work which helps to foster interest and enthusiasm. SOTS has a vital role in holding together the interests of those who must have an eye to the next Research Assessment Exercise and those who must have an eye to nurturing the next generation of biblical enthusiasts.

[index of past meetings]