Programme

University of Manchester
16th–28th JULY 2012
under the presidency of Prof George Brooke

Printable Version of the programme
The venue for all sessions is Hulme Hall.
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 16 JULY

[2.00 p.m. Committee Meeting]
4.30 p.m. Registration
6.00 p.m. Reception sponsored by the Journal of Semitic Studies and Oxford University Press
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Dr Kay Prag (Manchester), ‘David to Nehemiah: New Fragments from Kenyon’s Jerusalem’ (A joint lecture with the Manchester regional branch of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society)

TUESDAY 17th JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield), ‘Remembering David’
10.00 a.m. Dr David Shepherd (Chester), ‘“The Sword Shall Never Depart …”: Blood, Guilt and the House of David’
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Dr Dwight Swanson (Manchester), ‘“Editing the Bible” Revisited’
12.00 noon Dr Ann Jeffers (London) “The Politics of Selection: the Woodcuts from the Book of Judges in Luther’s Bible”
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.15 p.m. REF 2014: A brief presentation with Q & A session, led by Prof. George Brooke (Manchester)
3.00 p.m. ‘What publishers might be looking for in your next book’, a discussion led by representatives from Brill and Continuum
4.00 p.m. Tea
4.30 p.m. Prof. Reinhard Kratz (Göttingen), ‘The Two Houses of Israel: Some Observations on Isaiah 8:14’
6.00 p.m. Reception, sponsored by Brill
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Prof. Sara Japhet (Jerusalem), ‘The Term ger and the Concept of Religious Conversion in the Hebrew Bible’

WEDNESDAY 18th JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Dr Casey Strine (Oxford), ‘YHWH Is as YHWH Does: Monotheism and the Use of Foreign Leaders in Ezekiel’
10.00 a.m. Ms Gwen Knight (Rowton), ‘The geber engages in Begründung in Lamentations 3’
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Prof. Hugh Pyper (Sheffield), ‘From Zion to Olympus: Israel and Athletics’ (A paper in celebration of the 2012 Olympic Games)
12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.00 p.m. Trip to Manchester City Centre including a visit to the Genizah collection of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Deansgate, and concluding with tea by invitation of the President
5.30 p.m. Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Exeter), ‘Coping with Corpses: The Bible, the Body and the West’
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Prof. Hugh Williamson (Oxford), ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Hulme Hall, Victoria Park Campus, Oxford Place, Manchester, M14 5RR. The telephone number for the Conference Office is 0161 275 0210. There are 10 parking spaces on site for those with particular needs, which must be pre-booked. There is some on street parking and a multi-storey car-park on Hathersage Road about 10 mins walk away (car left at owner’s risk). Please use public transport if you are able.

The charges for hospitality are shown on the enclosed Booking Form. There is an option of standard or en suite rooms but NO twin or double rooms. Members are requested to pay their accounts in full when returning the form but, if necessary, a non-returnable booking fee of £40 will be accepted and the balance will be payable on arrival at the Meeting. A discounted price is available to those whose Booking Forms are received by 24th May 2012 (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 21st June 2012; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings may be made by email as long as cheques 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.

ADVANCE NOTICE OF FUTURE MEETINGS and Call for Papers

Winter Meeting, 2nd – 4th January 2013, at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge

Summer Meeting, 22nd – 25th July 2013, at Bangor University, Bangor

Members wishing to read a paper or conduct a workshop or other session at a forthcoming Meeting should write to the Secretary, giving a title and brief summary of the proposed paper or session, by 30th November 2012 (for the Summer Meeting 2013) or by 30th June 2013 (for the Winter Meeting 2014). The Programme Sub-Committee will respond by 31st January 2013 or by 31st July 2013 respectively to all proposals received. For academic papers, offers of shorter presentations (25 minutes) are particularly welcome, but longer presentations (50 minutes) may also be proposed.

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 742025, e-mail hm309@cam.ac.uk). Applications for a Conference Grant to assist in meeting the costs of attending the Meeting must reach the current Secretary by 9th May. Proposals for new members must reach her by 25th June. Application forms for grants and membership are available on the SOTS website, www.sots.ac.uk.

Changes of address should be sent to the Membership Secretary, Mrs Vivienne Rowett, The New Vicarage, Beck Hill, Barton-upon-Humber DN18 5EY (tel. 01652 632202, e-mail vivrowett@aol.com).

Abstracts

 Dr Kay Prag (Manchester), ‘David to Nehemiah: New Fragments from Kenyon’s Jerusalem’ (A joint lecture with the Manchester regional branch of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society)

Such is the density of the archaeological investigation of Old Testament Jerusalem that almost every stone turned leads to controversy. The subjects of recent debates have included the possible location of the Davidic palace and the existence of the city walls built by Nehemiah. The Kenyon archive of the first scientific excavations in Jerusalem in the 1960s still has contributions to offer on these and other questions. The immediate results were published by Kenyon in preliminary reports and informative monographs. The main focus of Kenyon’s excavation of Iron Age remains was in her Site A, on the slopes of the south-east ridge, on which the final report has been published. Iron Age remains in other areas excavated were on a lesser scale. Current findings, reflecting the more detailed analysis of the finds, relate to major walls in Kenyon’s Sites S.II and R, on the fringes of the Ophel area.

Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield), ‘Remembering David’

[no abstract provided]

Dr David Shepherd (Chester), ‘“The Sword Shall Never Depart …”: Blood, Guilt and the House of David’

While the divine promise through Nathan that the throne would never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 7.16) has long played an important part in discussions of the Deuteronomistic History, the corresponding curse that the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 12.10) has garnered much less attention. This paper offered an interpretation of the ‘sword’ in the context of the traditions concerning David and his immediate successors, arguing that the curse of the sword in David’s house is reflected first and foremost in the spectre of Davidic dynasty’s continuing to shed innocent blood and thus incur bloodguilt, with all its consequences. The paper argued that this concern is reflected not only at the beginning of the house of David (Court History/Succession Narrative) but also at the end (the episode of Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah; 2 Kings 25) and it concluded by inviting scholars to return to the analysis of the History armed with a fuller appreciation of the ‘curse of the sword’.

Dr Dwight Swanson (Manchester), ‘“Editing the Bible” Revisited’

This short paper considered the relation of source criticism to transmission history, and the interplay of literary and textual development of the biblical texts by reference to two major studies of recent years which come to the subject from opposite directions: John Van Seters’ book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, and David M Carr’s The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. These two works are summarised and evaluated in light of Eugene Ulrich, writing in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, who contends that the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls leads to the conclusion that ‘the line between composition and textual transmission…has slowly erased…’. These recent studies move the discussion on from the much raked-over ground of theoretical reconstruction of sources to a more evidence-based approach, giving more heed to the actual textual evidence that is available to us from the two-three centuries before the Common Era. The paper concludes by affirming the approaches based on the physical evidence, and calling for study to go beyond the historiographical and narrative texts, to examination of legal and prophetical texts.

Dr Ann Jeffers (London) “The Politics of Selection: the Woodcuts from the Book of Judges in Luther’s Bible” [paper not presented]

Dr Susan Gillingham (Oxford), ‘Reception History: Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View’

This paper argued that the relatively new appearance of Reception History is not an optional ‘extra’. It contended that Biblical Studies actually needs its perspective, in part because its interest in the broader ‘history of culture’ offers a dimension often lacking in traditional Biblical Studies, and in part because its concern with Wirkungsgeschichte complements the basic text-and-language approach in the traditional discipline.   The second part of the paper responded to four criticisms. First, its apparent lack of theoretical theological underpinning: we undoubtedly need more scholars who will reflect more critically on their practice. Second, it can be too descriptive: a more vigorous dialogue with some aspects of Biblical Studies could counter this. Third, it is too subjective: given the same propensity in Biblical Studies, further dialogue about shared concerns is long overdue.   Fourth, it is too individualistic: this is less justified, as Reception History has a reputation for collaborative scholarship.   This ‘new’ discipline has in fact always been an implicit part of Biblical Studies, whether receiving the text through the eyes of a 19^th century German commentator or through the field work of a biblical archaeologist; but its challenge to Biblical Studies now is to promote a more radical reflection on what ‘reading’ a biblical text is all about.

Prof. Reinhard Kratz (Göttingen), ‘The Two Houses of Israel: Some Observations on Isaiah 8:14’

The paper dealt with the question who or what are the ‘two houses of Israel’ of which Isa. 8.14 speaks. Already the textual tradition in the Septuagint and in the Targum prove that behind this expression there is an exegetical problem. I approached this problem from two angles: first with a look at some commentaries and monographs on the book of Isaiah, both old and new, second with a look at the early reception within the Damascus Document (CD VII:13). Having traced the early reception history I tried finally to solve the problem by means of redaction-criticism. This example shows quite well how one can derive ideas for the explanation of difficult phrases and passages of the Hebrew Bible from its early textual and reception history. On the other hand it demonstrates that it is rewarding to correlate the reception history with the redaction history of the biblical books.

Prof. Sara Japhet (Jerusalem), ‘The Term ger and the Concept of Religious Conversion in the Hebrew Bible’

[no abstract provided]

Dr Casey Strine (Oxford), ‘YHWH Is as YHWH Does: Monotheism and the Use of Foreign Leaders in Ezekiel’

The designation ‘radically theocentric,’ commonly attributed to Ezekiel, implies monotheistic tendencies. I argue that Ezekiel 17, which depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s role in Jerusalem’s defeat, uses its form and imagery to expresses a strong synergy between YHWH and Nebuchadnezzar. Through its form, Ezekiel 17 equates Nebuchadnezzar’s work in the earthly realm with YHWH’s activities in the divine realm; through its cosmological imagery, the text portrays YHWH in ways strongly reminiscent of Marduk. The combination of features substitutes YHWH for Marduk and commandeers Nebuchadnezzar as YHWH’s servant. It advises the exiles that YHWH, not Marduk, directs history. The rhetoric of Ezekiel 17 has a close parallel in Isa. 44.24–45.7, which analogously announces Cyrus’ role in Israel’s restoration. Each text juxtaposes these claims with its ‘idol polemic’ to form an argument that YHWH is unique and exceptionally powerful. Thus, they share a ‘monotheistic’ affirmation that is neither ontological nor simply soteriological, but mutatis mutandis, a form of narrative identification. This concept, described by Paul Ricoeur as ipse identity, opens new ways to think about how these texts assert that YHWH is unique. The Hebrew Bible is not interested in ontology, but praxis. In short, YHWH is as YHWH does.

Ms Gwen Knight (Rowton), ‘The geber engages in Begründung in Lamentations 3’

Across time and culture, during periods of disaster, questions such as: ‘Why me?’, ‘How long?’ or ‘Where is God in this calamity?’ have been raised. In Lam. 3.1, the geber, the wounded warrior, the strong man in grief, cries ‘I am the man who has suffered’. This paper discussed whom the geber might represent in Lamentations 3 and how the geber employs the triple acrostic as a framework from which to express lament. This is expanded by the strong reasoning process referred to by Westermann and Brueggemann as Begründung, by Kübler-Ross as ‘bargaining’ and by Bowman as ‘defence mobilisation’. Such coping strategies are also a fighting attempt to motivate or persuade yhwh and others perceived to have power, to listen to the lament, to understand and to act in justice and mercy. The geber starts with a statement in self-defence (3.1–3), invokes an act/retribution formula (3.25–27), looks for a reduced sentence through plea-bargaining (3.31–33), identifies with ‘others’ (3.34–36) and uses weeping in confession to draw out empathy (3.48–51). Such an approach seems to fail repeatedly, so the warrior accusingly asks for vengeance and appeals for legal restoration (3.64–66). Are these strategies effective? I argued that by departing from the traditional understanding that hope is the central point of Lamentations 3, this reading drives our interpretation towards a keen focus on stronger lament patterns and more profound processes of grief.

Prof. Hugh Pyper (Sheffield), ‘From Zion to Olympus: Israel and Athletics’ (A paper in celebration of the 2012 Olympic Games)

The few allusions to Greek athletics in the books of Maccabees are uniformly hostile and this has given rise to a prevalent view that one of the markers of the faithful Jew is the rejection of athletics and the cult of the body.   There is evidence, however, to suggest that this may be far from the whole picture.   This paper began by exploring some ways in which strength and athleticism seems to be valued in Jewish contexts, including the appointment of Herod the Great as ‘perpetual governor’ of the Olympic Games, and Philo’s use of metaphors from the gymnasium in his theological writings which seem to speak of firsthand knowledge of the events. There is also abundant evidence that boasting of success in performing athletic feats is a characteristic of ancient Near Eastern monarchs and not simply a Greek invention. Israel becomes an exception when it loses its political and military power and its writers increasingly downplay human strength and ingenuity in favour of divine protection of the community.   The second part of the Paper discussed the reversal of this view in the call for a new ‘Muscular Judaism’ by the pioneers of modern Zionism, demonstrating that athleticism and the possibility of armed conflict are related. The reaction to the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 revealed how central this new conception of the place of the heroic athlete is to Israel’s sense of identity. The seeming gulf between the Bible and the Olympic Games is thus something of an illusion.

Dr Walter Houston (Manchester) presented on ‘Between Salem and Mount Gerizim: The Creation of the Pentateuch Revisited’

Dr Houston was invited to give a paper at very short notice. In it he argued that the final form of the Pentateuch resulted from scribal activity in Samaria as well as in Judah. The close contacts between the two provinces in the Persian period are obscured by the ideology of Ezra-Nehemiah. The original text of Deut. 27.4 appears to have referred to Mt Gerizim rather than Mt Ebal, and it is paired with the reference to Salem in Gen. 14.18. The paper ended with the suggestion that the establishment of a new sacred site on Mt Gerizim without its own tradition may have been the motive for the combination of the Priestly and Deuteronomic material to form the Pentateuch.

Prof. Hugh Williamson (Oxford), ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’

In Biblical Studies redaction criticism is sometimes portrayed as a villain, either because it robs the text of a proper ‘author’ or because the number of redactional layers sometimes proposed exceeds anything that seems even remotely plausible. To answer this problem, greater attention should be paid to the distinction between redaction which involves the complete physical recopying of a work, and which therefore may be quite extensive, and glossing of an existing scroll, which could be sporadic, involve (obviously) only short additions, and which often take the form of Fortschreibungen. This latter point was illustrated with short additions to an earlier text of Isaiah 1–12 which refer the prophecies of judgment to their fulfilment in the fall of Jerusalem and the exile. Another series concerns brief additions that satirize idol-manufacture. By contrast, the evidence for redaction in its fuller sense in these chapters involves both more substantial additions and, in some cases, re-ordering of material. Redaction criticism should be referred only to this latter category, not to glossing.

[index of past meetings]