Programme

Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge – 5th-7th January 2015

Under the presidency of Professor Hans Barstad

SOTS Programme can be downloaded here
SOTS Booking Form for the meeting
SOTS Booking Forms to Fitzwilliam College

The venue for all sessions is Fitzwilliam College, Storeys Way, Cambridge CB3 0DG.
Publishers are invited to display books for sale during the Meeting.
Members who have had books published recently are also invited to display copies.

MONDAY 5th January

• (2.00 p.m.) [Committee Meeting]
• 4.30 p.m. Registration
• 5.45 p.m. Reception
• 6.30 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Presidential Address: Professor Hans Barstad (Edinburgh), “The Bible in the University: SOTS and the Academy”

TUESDAY 6th January

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. Dr Anja Klein (Edinburgh) “Praying Biblical History: The Phenomenon of History in the Psalms”
• 10.00 a.m. Dr Christopher Thomson (Cambridge) “Was the Exile a Payment of Debt? The Supposed רצה II in Lev 26 and Isa 40:2”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Dr Kris Sonek (Melbourne) “The Abrahamic Traditions of Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: A Window into the Past”
• 12.00 noon Dr George Nicol (Fife) “The Bible as a Document of the Church”
• 12.45 p.m. Lunch
• 2.30 p.m. Seminar for PhD students and early career researchers
• 4.00 pm Tea
• 4.30 pm Dr Nathan Macdonald (Cambridge) “Priestly Families and the Hasmonean Revolt ”
• 6.30 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Professor Alexander Rofé (Jerusalem) “Sectarian Corrections in Biblical Manuscripts: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots”

WEDNESDAY 7th January

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. Dr Judith Hadley (Villanova) “False Reading, False Reporting, and Just Plain False: Some Problems with Hebrew Inscriptions”
• 10.00 a.m. Professor Lester Grabbe (Hull) “Why the Exodus Could Not Have Been in the 15th Century BCE (if There Was an Exodus)”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Professor Kristin de Troyer (St Andrews) “The Textual History of the Book of Joshua”
• 12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
• 1.00 p.m. Lunch, followed by departure

All PhD students or early career researchers (including those who are not yet members of SOTS) are welcome to attend the seminar on Tuesday afternoon. Please contact Dr Kirsi Cobb for more details: (kirsi_cobb_sots@outlook.com)

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge, Storeys Way, Cambridge, CB3 0DG. The telephone number for the College is 01223 332000. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the University. There is plenty of parking at the College but we would recommend public transport where possible.

The charges for hospitality are shown on the enclosed Booking Form. Members are requested to pay their accounts in full when returning the form but, if necessary, a non-returnable booking fee of £30 will be accepted and the balance will be payable on arrival at the Meeting. A discounted price is available to those whose bookings are received by Wednesday 12th November (please see the details on the form). There is a subsidized price for those on low incomes or from economically disadvantaged countries. All bookings must be received by 5th December 2014; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings can also be made by email to sotshospitality@gmail.com with cheques to follow by post. Please note that in making a booking, members render themselves liable for payment of the full cost of that booking, a liability that will be waived only in the light of extenuating circumstances and only when the final conference accounts permit a refund. You may wish to consider taking out insurance on your booking (or check that your annual travel insurance is applicable) to cover the possibility of you having to cancel your booking. You are advised to make a copy of your completed Booking Form for your own records.

Members wishing to attend the Meeting should send the enclosed Booking Form to the Hospitality Secretary, Mr James Patrick, Mansfield College, Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3TF (email: sotshospitality@gmail.com) so as to arrive by 12th November 2014 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 5th December 2014.

Correspondence concerning the affairs of the Society should be sent to the Secretary, Dr Hilary Marlow, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS (tel. 01223 741281, email hm309@cam.ac.uk). Applications for a Conference Grant to assist in meeting the costs of attending the Meeting must reach the Secretary by qwth November. Proposals for new members must reach her by 5th December. Application forms for grants and membership are available on the SOTS website.

Changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary, Mrs Vivienne Rowett, 3 Newhouse Close, Wardle, Rochdale, Lancs OL12 9LW (e-mail vivrowett@aol.com).

Abstracts

Hans Barstad (Edinburgh), “The Bible in the University: SOTS and the Academy“ (Presidential Address)

This paper began by noting that according to folklore, and also in parts of academia, the future of Old Testament Studies, the very core activity of SOTS is not at all promising. However, such negative “rumours” are simply not true. As part of the humanities in general, knowledge of classical Hebrew will always remain important. In reality, the patient is alive and kicking, and not at all in need of blood transfusion. Or, with Mark Twain, “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Scholarly activity in SOTS ranges from frontline international scholarship to high quality national research. Members publish abundantly in international peer reviewed journals and monograph series. Both nationally and internationally, society members serve on numerous editorial boards, as well as on doctoral and search committees. The society enjoys outstanding respect among peer societies abroad. Quite a few members of the Society are elected members of national academies like the British Academy and The Royal Society of Edinburgh, or similar institutions abroad. Last, but not least, with around five hundred scholarly active members, SOTS has now also achieved “critical mass.” However, when we look upon the marvellous academic resources that do exist within SOTS, the word “underused” also springs to mind. In my view, it is important that all members consider possible ways of improving SOTS in order to make this excellent organization even more visible to the public. The governing body should look into this issue and suggest priorities. In my view, among several possible projects, SOTS should prioritize a Bible translation project. There are many reasons why SOTS should look more closely into translating the Bible into English. Since there is a huge market, it is quite unproblematic to find publishers. Similar projects in other countries are successfully brought to an end with far less impressive resources than those of SOTS. It is realistic to think of the SOTS Bible Translation Project in terms of a twelve year scheme, subdivided into four, three year periods (2016–2018; 2019–2021; 1922–2024, and 2025–2027). An independent, international committee should evaluate all aspects of the activity after each three year period.

Anja Klein (Edinburgh) “Praying Biblical History: The Phenomenon of History in the Psalms”

The paper noted that a number of texts in the Hebrew Bible are characterised by their interpretation of Biblical History (Exod 15; Ps 78; 105; 106; 114; 135; 136). The question is how Biblical History was reformulated in these so-called “Historical Psalms” and how this poetic re-reading can be explained. It can be demonstrated that the Historical Psalms are to be aligned in a literary historical development that starts with the Song of the Sea in Exod 15, which figures as the literary birthplace of the fusion of hymn and history. Here, the literary development bears witness to how Biblical History was transformed into a prayer. It is then carried into the Book of Psalms, where the Historical Psalms continue the reception with different emphases. This dynamic exegetical process can be described as Biblical Judaism’s search for identity, in which the people assure themselves of their history with their God. The literary genre of prayer texts evokes a cultic context and allows for the individual to appropriate and consummate their collective identity.

Christopher Thomson (Cambridge) “Was the Exile a Payment of Debt? The Supposed rṣh II in Lev 26 and Isa 40:2”

This paper observed that the verb rṣh is commonly supposed to mean “pay a debt” in a few passages, namely Lev 26:34, 41, 43; Isa 40:2; and 2 Chr 36:21. The majority of scholars follow Siegmund Fraenkel in seeing in these passages a distinct root rṣh II meaning “pay,” unconnected with the more common rṣh I meaning “accept, be pleased with.” Although some scholars have questioned whether the distinction is necessary, none has rebutted the supposed evidence in its favour from Middle Hebrew, Jewish Aramaic, Akkadian, and Old South Arabian. This paper argued that this supposed evidence does not in fact point to a distinct rṣh II. It also critiqued Gary Anderson’s argument that the single verb rṣh can mean “pay” in the qal stem, and showed that the relevant texts are intelligible on the basis that rṣh has its usual meaning “accept, be pleased with.” In Lev 26:41, 43 and Isa 40:2 rṣh ʿāwōn refers to the people’s reception and acceptance of punishment. Whereas Gillis Gerleman defended a similar position on the basis that the verb can have a neutral sense, it more likely denotes a positive reception, with literary factors, in particular irony and allusion, explaining its unusual use in connection with punishment in these texts. This has implications for the conceptualisation of sin in the Hebrew Bible. Rather than representing sin as a debt to be paid off by sinners, these passages conform to the more common pattern noted recently by Joseph Lam (who sees them as exceptions), namely that God is the one who repays sin through punishment.

Kris Sonek (Melbourne) “The Abrahamic Traditions of Judaism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: A Window into the Past”

This paper noted that Jewish rabbis did not merely elaborate on the biblical material. They developed, or even rewrote, the story of Abraham in response to the cultural and theological challenges of the time. The post-biblical and re-invented Abraham fights against idolatry, practices the whole written and oral Torah, and learns that astrology is pointless. Christian interpreters are familiar with this rewriting of the patriarch’s biography, but their interpretation is governed by a different set of theological concerns. Both groups develop their own theology, and, more often than not, exchange heavy blows. There are many Jewish and Christian texts which illustrate that mutual process, and Gen 15:5 is an excellent case in point. The reception history of this verse by ancient interpreters not only discloses a complex cultural world, where Jewish rabbis and patristic theologians are in dispute with each other, it also helps us understand the impact of scriptural interpretation on the subsequent development of Western civilisation. This paper examined Jewish and Christian commentaries written between 200 and 500 AD. In particular, it examined the Abrahamic traditions in both Talmudim, in Genesis Rabbah, and in the works of the most representative theologians of the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of biblical exegesis to show that the interpretation of the image of the stars in Late Antiquity indirectly influenced the development of science and technology in the Middle Ages.

George Nicol (Fife) “The Bible as a Document of the Church – A Personal View”

Following some general remarks on recent significant trends in biblical studies, this paper noted that these will exacerbate the gulf between church and academy respecting biblical interpretation. A brief introduction to the official documents of the Church of Scotland showed that they provide little indication of how the Bible should be interpreted as a document of the Church. In view of the ideological nature of many of the biblical texts an argument against too ready a recourse to theological interpretation was outlined and the paper concluded with the suggestion that priority should be given to biblical studies in the context of the general theological degree that is aimed towards preparation for ministry and that an integrated approach that brings biblical studies into a closer dialogue with the other theological disciplines is desirable.

Nathan Macdonald (Cambridge) “Priestly Families and the Maccabean Revolt”

This paper suggested that the long-standing theory that there was a conflict between Oniads and Tobiads finds no foothold in our oldest sources, 1 and 2 Maccabees. The idea originates with Josephus and we may question whether this genuinely represents the dynamics of the second century BCE. There are reasons for doubt. First, questions have long been raised about the historicity of the Tobiad romance, with its folkloric elements attracting particular suspicion. Second, the connection between the Tobiads and the Maccabean revolt seems to be the result of Josephus attempting to integrate the sources at his disposal in Antiquities 13–14. In particular, Josephus identifies the Tobiads of the Romance with the ‘renegades’ of 1 Macc 1:11. This tendentious equation is probably the result of Josephus superimposing his own experience during the Judean War of internal factional strife, often along family lines.

Alexander Rofé (Jerusalem) “Sectarian Corrections in Biblical Manuscripts: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots”

This paper observed that sectarian corrections in the texts of the Hebrew Bible constitute a significant segment in the field of theologically motivated textual interventions. Pharisaic corrections, noted long ago, are found in the MT of Proverbs 14:32; Psalms 49:12 and Qohelet 3:21 (vocalization). To these the presenter added the example of the MT reading of Qohelet 5:5. A Sadducean addition is extant in 1 Samuel 7:6 LXX which relates to the sectarian quarrel in the Jerusalem temple concerning the water libation in the Succoth festival. Scholars have pointed out Essene textual reworkings in Isaiah 53:11 (LXX and Qumran MSS); 8:11 (Qumran MS) and 9:14 (all textual witnesses). A pre-Zealot textual correction was carried out in Hebrew texts of the Pentateuch: melek was substituted by nasi’, prince (cf. LXX and the Damascus Document, CD 5:12). This reflects an anti-monarchic attitude in the name of the kingship of the Lord. All in all, sectarian interventions in the Biblical texts are few in number, which attests to an attitude of respect vis-à-vis the Biblical texts already by Hasmonean times.

Judith Hadley (Villanova) “False Reading, False Reporting, and Just Plain False: Some Problems with Hebrew Inscriptions”

This paper discussed some problems often encountered when dealing with Hebrew Inscriptions: namely problems with the readings of the inscriptions themselves, problems with the reporting and publication of the inscriptions, and the ever increasing problem of forged inscriptions. First were the Ketef Hinnom amulets: two silver scrolls discovered in 1979 which, when deciphered, were found to contain a version of the Priestly Benediction, also found in the Bible in Numbers 6:24-26. This discovery was intimately known to the presenter, as she herself found the larger of the two amulets under discussion. The case of the amulets bears on all aspects of the paper, since the story of the discovery of the amulets has been told in various forms over the years, and there are inaccuracies concerning the reporting in print of the discovery and the reading of the amulets. In addition, the authenticity of the scrolls has been questioned, because they seem “too good to be true”, but their discovery in a sealed archaeological context by the presenter has put that question to rest. Also discussed was the Siloam Inscription, especially the presence of smoothed, blank panels above and below the inscription, and its connection to other smoothed, blank panels in the tunnel. Turning to the category of forgeries, bullae (clay seal impressions) and seals were presented, together with statistics concerning unprovenanced finds of this sort, and a comparison of these with stamped jar handles. This was followed by a presentation of the unprovenanced Jerusalem pomegranate and the James ossuary. The paper concluded with a discussion of the Temple Mount Sifting Project, directed by Dr Gabriel Barkay, which is sifting through material that had been illicitly removed from the area beneath the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

Lester Grabbe (Hull) “Why the Exodus Could Not Have Been in the 15th Century BCE (if There Was an Exodus)”

The paper began by noting that the traditional dating of the exodus, based on ‘Bible chronology’, was the 15th century BCE. It was Albright who changed it to the 13th century, and this has remained the conventional scholarly dating. However, several scholars are still willing to maintain the 15th century. By surveying the history of the Egyptian New Kingdom, with a special focus on the Amarna texts, this paper showed that the Pharaoh was firmly in control of the Palestinian region from 1500 to 1200. (It makes no presumption as to what form or even whether an exodus took place.) The only exception was possibly a few years after the death of Akhenaton, but this was in the 14th century. The 15th century was dominated by Thutmose III, who ruled much of that century and made a number of military expeditions into Syro-Palestine. When we come to the Amarna letters, we find a situation that ill fits the settlement of Israel in the land of Canaan. No one can read the Amarna letters carefully and reconcile them with the situation described in Joshua and Judges. The 15th century seems to be ruled out for an exodus or settlement anything like that described in the Bible, when we look at the history of the New Kingdom and its control of Canaan. But, then, so is the 13th century!

Kristin de Troyer (St Andrews) “The Textual History of the Book of Joshua”

In this paper, it was argued that the minuses, pluses and variants found in OG and MT of the Book of Joshua are in some cases due to the different Hebrew Vorlage from which the OG of the Book of Joshua was translated. As an example the case of 8:13 was discussed. First, an analysis of the translation technique was offered. It was demonstrated that the OG is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew text and that the solution for the minus of 8:13 needs to be found in the Vorlage of the text, rather than sought in the intervention of the translator. Next, the witness of 4QJosha and Josephus was studied—both pointing to the absence of 8:13 in their Vorlagen. It was then argued that the omission of 8:13 in the OG was actually a plus in the MT, with the literary critical analysis supporting this view. Finally, with the help of the early Jewish reviser, Theodotion, it was argued that the Vorlage of the OG became the MT before Theodotion started with his revision, as the latter had added 8:13 to his OG in order to align the OG with the then current MT text.