Papers

At Halifax Hall, University of Sheffield, 2nd – 4th January 2002

Professor John Bartlett (Dublin), ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis’ (Presidential Paper)

Professor Michael Knibb (London), ‘The Book of the Watchers in its Context’

Professor Robert Hayward (Durham), ‘Days without Number: Jacob, Israel, and Jesus ben Sira’

Dr Thomas Brodie (Limerick), ‘Towards Tracing the Unity of the Primary History (Genesis­-Kings)’

Professor Alan Millard (Liverpool), ‘Books in Ancient Israel’

Professor Amnon Ben-Tor (Jerusalem), ‘Observations from Tel-Hazor’

Abstracts

Professor John Bartlett (Dublin): ‘Between Scylla and Charybdis: The Problem of Israelite Historiography’ (Presidential Address)

In this paper, Scylla represented the extreme ‘revisionist’ view that biblical history-writing had more to do with literary artistry than with historical fact, and Charybdis the conservative view that assumed the basic trustworthiness of the biblical historians’ accounts. The background to and the substance of the revisionist case were presented. Central to the problem was the evaluation of the Deuteronomistic History as an historical source; it was argued that the biblical historians did have a realistic sense of historical perspective and could not be dismissed as presenting ‘bogus’ history. Both revisionists and conservatives of whatever religious belief could and should agree on historical method in interpreting ancient texts. Modern historians needed better to understand the mindset of the ancient historians, to assess their motives and to date their texts, in order to evaluate them fairly as sources for the history they would write.

Professor Michael Knibb (London): ‘The Book of the Watchers in a Wisdom Context’

The picture of Enoch that is presented, both within 1 Enoch itself and in the wider circle of Enochic writings, is essentially that of a scribal figure, a learned man known for his wisdom and knowledge, particularly astronomical knowledge. This picture was discussed in the light of the long-standing debate concerning the relationship between the apocalyptic writings and the wisdom tradition, particularly the view that the origins of ‘apocalyptic’ are to be found in mantic wisdom. It was noted that Enoch himself is hardly presented as a mantic, and that there are significant differences between the Book of Enoch and the wisdom writings in the Hebrew Bible and the Apocrypha. Furthermore, a number of scholars have recently argued that there are passages in Sirach that indicate it was written in polemical opposition to writings such as 1 Enoch. However, the corpus of wisdom writings from Qumran, and in particular 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, has been seen to provide important parallels to 1 Enoch. Both 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction emphasize the mysterious and heavenly character of knowledge, and both are concerned with the themes of cosmology and judgement, while in 4QInstruction these themes provide a theological framework for the traditional wisdom instructions it contains. Against the background of the presentation of Enoch as a scribal figure and the connections between 1 Enoch and writings such as 4QMysteries and 4QInstruction, the paper examined the wisdom characteristics of the Book of the Watchers. Amongst other things, attention was drawn to the theme of the revelation by Enoch of cosmological and eschatological mysteries, and the contrast that is drawn between this revelation and the revelation of the heavenly secrets by the angels, which are described as ‘a worthless mystery’ (cf. 16:3-4). It was suggested, in conclusion, that while Sirach may well provide evidence of a critical attitude towards the possession of esoteric knowledge, 4QInstruction and 4QMysteries do present us with wisdom writings the perspective of which is much closer to that of 1 Enoch and underline the view that its author belonged in sapiential circles.

Professor Robert Hayward (Durham): ‘Days without Number: Jacob, Israel, and Jesus ben Sira’

The textual witnesses to Ben Sira/Sirach 37:25 contrast the life of human beings consisting of few days with that of Israel, which is for days without number; and the verse attracts commentators’ attention because of its textual variants and its uncertain position within chapter 37 as a whole. It is widely regarded as secondary. This paper argued that the verse is part of a larger complex of ideas, attested elsewhere in the textual witnesses to Ben Sira/Sirach, concerning the future hope of Israel. Important here is the appearance of the rare title for Israel ‘Jeshurun’ as a variant reading in Hebrew manuscripts of Ben Sira, a title which LXX significantly rendered as ‘beloved’, having ‘messianic’ overtones. This parallels a similar textual ‘instability’ in verses of Ben Sira/Sirach which describe Israel as in receipt of either ‘blessing’ or ‘first-born sonship’, verses which are central to the sage’s thinking about the divine gift of land to Israel. It was suggested that Joachim Schaper’s recent researches on LXX Psalms might illuminate the different traditions about Israel’s future hope attested by the various textual traditions of key verses in Ben Sira/Sirach, offering the possibility (contra Schaper) that the sage’s own attitudes towards Israel’s future might not have been as ‘conservative’ as sometimes supposed.

Dr Thomas Brodie (Limerick): ‘Towards Tracing the Unity of the Primary History (Genesis-­Kings)’

Building on recent claims about the unity of specific biblical texts, paticularly the presenter’s own studies on the dialogue-like unity of Genesis and of 1 Kings 16:29–­2 Kings 13 (Genesis as Dialogue [OUP, 2001] and The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-­Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings… [Liturgical Press, 2000]), this paper proposed both that the entire Primary History (Genesis-­Kings) forms a unity — a unity that is complex and dialogical rather than linear — and that it is the result of a single process of composition. This need not mean just one writer. It is possible that several authors, using hundreds of sources, worked for decades; but if so, they worked in coordination to produce a single work. The evidence for unity falls under three broad headings: the unity within individual books; the continuity between books; and the continuity within the Primary History as a whole. Elements of overall continuity include: external plausibility; coherence of content; coherence of structure, particularly between the Primary History’s beginning, centre, and end; and the way in which the entire narrative is systematically mirrored in the Elijah-­Elisha account. If Calum Carmichael is correct, the entire narrative, including the Elijah-Elisha narrative, is also mirrored in some complex way in Mosaic law. Accordingly, apart from initial drafting and final editing, the process of composition seems to have been essentially three-part: the writing of the basic narrative, from creation to the fall of Jerusalem; the distilling of that history into prophetic language (the Elijah-­Elisha narrative); and finally, the interweaving of the entire narrative into the corpus and language of Mosaic law (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).

Professor Alan Millard (Liverpool): ‘Books in Ancient Israel’

Whereas Babylonia and Egypt provide examples of books, that is, written narratives of enduring value created for edification or amusement, from the third millennium BCE onwards, the oldest copies of Hebrew books visible are the Dead Sea Scrolls, raising the question, ‘Were there books in Iron Age Israel and Judah?’ Currently it is asserted there was no literature there before the Assyrian period, or that there is no real evidence for literacy. Four counter-arguments were offered. Firstly, ample evidence exists for the use of writing for administrative purposes throughout the Monarchy, in major towns and also in small settlements and forts. Secondly, books are absent from the neighbouring kingdoms, yet they have yielded narrative texts on stone (e.g., the Mesha and Tel Dan Stelae, the Byblos inscriptions, the Sefire treaties), texts hardly novel when inscribed, nor likely to be written only on stone, implying other examples existed on papyrus, leather, or waxed tablets. The Siloam Tunnel Inscription and fragments from Jerusalem and Samaria prove that Hebrew monuments existed. Thirdly, the use of perishable materials is responsible for the absence of books. This appears from comparison of the Ugaritic texts with contemporary documents from Canaan and from considering the types of texts written on papyrus and on ostraca at Elephantine. Fourthly, rare examples of Hebrew literary texts suggest more existed. The ‘Priestly Benediction’ on the Ketef Hinnom plaques, Arad Ostracon 88, a Horvat ‘Uza ostracon, and the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom graffiti show people were writing Hebrew prose and verse. The Tell Deir ‘Alla Balaam text, painted on plaster before 800 BCE as a column of a roll, is the final demonstration. These sources give sufficient basis for accepting that books were written and read in Israel and Judah during the Monarchy period. Some of them may survive in the Hebrew Bible.

Professor Amnon Ben-Tor (Jerusalem): ‘Observations from Tel-Hazor’

The archaeological excavations at Hazor are of considerable interest to Old Testament scholars because of the sequence of events which can be observed at that particular site. A huge Canaanite city, the ‘head of all those kingdoms’ (Joshua 11:10), is violently destroyed by fire. Who destroyed Canaanite Hazor and when can at present not be determined with certainty. The only written record regarding this event is the one given in Joshua 11:10-14. Admittedly, this account is centuries later than the events described, yet some historical memory, based perhaps on oral traditions, should not automatically be ruled out. In this context the Merneptah stele (approximately 1210 BCE), in which one finds the earliest mention in any external record of the name ‘Israel’ (as a people!), is noteworthy. Following a period of about two centuries of abandonment and sporadic occupation, a period during which there appears to be no central authority in the land, the site rises from the ashes. At this stage the settled area is much smaller than that of the previous Canaanite city, and only half as large as that which would follow. Hazor of the 10th century BCE (following the traditional chronology) is still an ‘embryonic city’, sparsely built, extending over an area of only about 8 acres, but already impressively fortified by a casemate wall and a six-chambered gate (cf. 1 Kings 9:15). In the 9th century BCE Israelite Hazor reaches its peak: it doubles in size; a citadel, public installations such as huge water-works, storehouses, and new fortifications are built. Decline gradually sets in during the 8th century BCE, resulting in part from Aramean and Assyrian pressure. In the middle of that century Hazor is partially destroyed by an earthquake (cf. Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5), and then it is finally destroyed in the third quarter of the 8th century. Evidence for this violent destruction, which should most probably be attributed to the devastating conquest of the Galilee by Tiglath-Pilesser III in 732 BCE (cf. 2 Kings 15:29-30), was uncovered throughout the city. One does not necessarily have to be a ‘fundamentalist’ in order to see the great correspondence between the sequence of events as described in the Old Testament and that uncovered by the spade at Hazor. The inevitable conclusion is thus that those who wrote and edited the texts (admittedly, centuries after the events described, though exactly when is beyond the scope of the present paper) knew what they were doing. That knowledge was probably based on oral or perhaps written traditions, which they had at their disposal.