Papers

Professor Hugh Williamson (Oxford): ‘Do We Still Need Commentaries?’ (Presidential Address)

Dr Keith Grüneberg (Pangbourne): ‘Genesis 12:3: New Linguistic Insight into an Old Problem’

Dr Ann Jeffers (London): ‘Laughing at Abraham: Parody in the Testament of Abraham’

Dr Paul Joyce (Oxford): ‘A New Heaven or a New Earth? Towards an Understanding of Ezekiel’s New Temple’

Dr Alison Salvesen (Oxford): ‘The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Philological Commentaries on the Bible’

Professor Gordon McConville (Cheltenham): ‘Joshua: Mosaic Monarch?’

Dr Peter Addinall (Carperby): ‘Why Was Micaiah So Sure?’

Dr Walter Moberly (Durham) presented a response to Dr Addinall’s paper

Abstracts

Professor Hugh Williamson (Oxford): ‘Do We Still Need Commentaries?’ (Presidential Address)

We frequently hear complaints that there are too many commentary series, so are those of us who are engaged in writing them wasting our time? In somewhat light-hearted vein, the paper first accepted that many series are linked to lay, church or student demands, that they may serve a useful purpose in that realm, but that ‘we’ as scholars do not need them. However, even with the more obviously heavy-weight commentaries (such as the ICC or BKAT series), there is much which is not most effectively presented in commentary format: individual word studies, for instance, are more usefully presented in articles or dictionary entries, while it is a matter of simple observation that theories about composition and redaction criticism have more impact if presented in a monograph or article; in a commentary the arguments tend to be broken up and so lost from sight. By contrast, the argument was advanced that commentary on the Hebrew text itself remains essential. This reflection was prompted by the announcement of a new project, The Oxford Bible, to be edited by R. Hendel. It will present an eclectic Hebrew text, which might at first sight be thought to eliminate the need for textual commentary. However, a number of objections were advanced to the publication of such a seemingly authoritative eclectic text in dialogue with the stated positions of both Hendel himself in The Text of Genesis 1-11 (1998) and of A. Gelston (JSS 1990). The production of an eclectic Hebrew text in the form advocated will be of use only to scholars, for whom the greater need is to provide the evidence on which they may judge for themselves which reading should be preferred; for lay people, translations are already effectively based on an eclectic text. The project also manifests muddled thinking in a number of areas, such as the handling of vocalization and spelling, and in the case of a few books, such as Jeremiah, it would be completely impractical. Furthermore, the suggestion that the textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible should be the same as for classical texts overlooks the obvious differences in the circumstances of the text’s transmission and the fact that in classical studies the discipline includes a considerable element of so-called higher criticism, which is not entertained in this project. It was concluded that for scholarly use we still need commentaries in preference to an Oxford Bible.

Dr Keith Grüneberg (Pangbourne): ‘Genesis 12:3: New Linguistic Insight into an Old Problem’

The paper argued that there is a ‘middle’ domain instantiated in many languages: forms grammatically distinct from the simple active are used to express a variety of non-passive and non-reflexive senses. The Hebrew niphal is frequently a middle form, as well as often expressing passive force. However, it is very rarely reflexive: most niphals conventionally thus analysed are not semantically reflexive, but are rather middle forms. On the few occasions when the niphal is apparently reflexive this is probably a development from the passive sense, rather than indicative of a basic reflexive meaning. Hence in Genesis 12:3 the niphal נברכו is not a reflexive ‘bless themselves’. Nor is it a middle meaning ‘find blessing’ or similar, since such a middle sense is not otherwise instantiated in Hebrew. The passive sense ‘be blessed’ is thus grammatically required. Following Genesis 1­11, which shows God’s concern for all humankind, it is not surprising that the call of Abraham should ultimately benefit all the earth’s families.

[The paper was based on chapter 3 of Keith N. Grüneberg, Abraham, Blessing and the Nations: A Philological and Exegetical Study of Genesis 12:3 in its Narrative Context, BZAW 332 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003); buy from de Gruyters; read on Google Books]

Dr Ann Jeffers (London): ‘Laughing at Abraham: Parody in the Testament of Abraham’

This paper was concerned with the enduring interest that post-biblical literature showed in the figure of Abraham. The common factor is that Abraham is without exception an object of much respect, even a role model for Jewish, as well as Greco-Roman and Christian writers: a man not only of unfailing virtues, he is presented as an ideal statesman, a great learned sage, theologian, astrologer and mathematician of unsurpassed reputation. So the presence of an unusual characterization of Abraham in the Testament of Abraham (Recension A), and in particular the presence of parodic elements, calls for further investigation. The paper explored some of the theoretical concepts regarding parody as yielded by the Russian formalists, and more specifically by Mikhail Bakhtin, and reflected on their usefulness with regards to this ancient text. Two main questions were examined: ‘How is the Testament of Abraham (Recension A) a parody?’ and ‘What is the function of parody?’ Seven characteristics of parody were examined: exaggeration, a character’s capacity for self deception, trickster motifs, incongruity, crude naturalism/behaviour, oxymoronic character features, and inappropriate action or speech. On the function of parody, it was tentatively suggested that it is a subversive type of literature. This might have implications for the setting of Recension A, which might be placed within early Christianity’s polemic against laughter, and more specifically against Tertullian and Chrysostom, thus affirming laughter as a creator of meaning.

Dr Paul Joyce (Oxford): ‘A New Heaven or a New Earth? Towards an Understanding of Ezekiel’s New Temple’

The vision of Ezekiel 40-­48 is closely related to the visions of ch. and chs. 8-11 and demands interpretation in relation to them. The ‘chariot’ vision of ch. 1, the departure of the glory in ch. 11 and indeed the  מקדש מעט theme of 11:16 all need to be borne in mind when in ch. 43 the glory of the Lord returns and fills the Temple. This return stands within the context of Ezekiel’s overarching theology of the freedom of God, a finely-balanced dialectic between his presence with his people wherever they are and his honouring of the particular place of the special revelation of his holiness. The neglected view that chs. 40-­42 represent a report of an ascent to the heavenly Temple should be taken seriously. Whether chs. 40-­42 are indeed an account of an ascent or simply of a vision of the heavenly Temple, it is no exaggeration to speak of a continuity of Merkabah-like mystical tradition going back all the way to the visionary prophet Ezekiel himself. In 573 BCE (40:1), at the half-way point of the exile as he perceives it, Ezekiel anticipates that twenty-five years later an end to exile will be accomplished. The Temple of Ezekiel 40­48 is both a heavenly one and an earthly one. God’s return in 43:1-5 relates to the actual sanctuary in Jerusalem. This has to be rebuilt and so that same chapter appropriately speaks of the rebuilding (43:10-11), according to the heavenly model seen in chs. 40-­42. Even after the return of the Lord to dwell in his sanctuary, the emphasis on special location is qualified. These chapters freely use the phrase ‘Holy of Holies’,  קדש קדשים (with no article), as in 43:12, as though to diffuse the holiness that pertains not so much to the precise place as to the God who dwells. And it is that same God-centredness that renders the Ark of the Covenant and other paraphernalia redundant.

Dr Alison Salvesen (Oxford): ‘The Role of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion in Philological Commentaries on the Bible’

The Palestinian Jewish Greek revisions of the Septuagint known as Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion (the ‘Three’) have survived only in fragmentary readings. However, they are important because they date from the formative period of Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, when the consonantal text was being standardized (‘Theodotion’ c.50 BCE-50 CE, Aquila 130 CE, Symmachus c.200 CE). Thus these versions represent a vital link in the history of the Hebrew text, between on the one hand the Qumran fragments and the earliest stage of the LXX, and on the other, the Massoretic tradition, the Peshitta, the Targumim, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Vulgate. They provide evidence for the consonantal text, variant vocalizations, and Jewish philological traditions. It should be noted that Jerome, for all his ability in Hebrew, depended greatly on the ‘Three’ and on contemporary Jewish informants. Therefore the Vulgate is not a completely independent translation but a collection of data from Palestinian Jewish sources from the second to fourth centuries, with the additional influence of the LXX and Old Latin. The most up-to-date source for readings from the ‘Three’ is the second apparatus in the Göttingen edition of the LXX, but the Hexapla Project is compiling a database of all the fragments which will also be published in hard copy. Such work may encourage more biblical commentators to make use of the material.

Professor Gordon McConville (Cheltenham): ‘Joshua: Mosaic Monarch?’

The aim of the paper was to place the figure of Joshua in relation to the political ideas presupposed or advocated in the book of Joshua. The paper began by questioning the view that, on the one hand, Joshua and Moses together are ‘regal’ figures, and on the other, that Joshua is ‘a thinly disguised Josianic figure’ (R.D. Nelson). There were significant differences between them. In Exodus-­Deuteronomy Joshua was carefully presented as less than Moses (C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger). Conversely, Joshua was virtually absent from Judges­ Kings, and had no evident typological significance there; indeed, he appeared to have been expressly overlooked. In the book of Joshua, he was often portrayed as acting in concert with other agents, including ‘the leaders of the congregation’ and the people of Israel as such. His role in covenant-making was noticeably different from that of Josiah, with a greater emphasis on the role of the people themselves as agents. Finally it was suggested that Joshua shared with Deuteronomy (J.-M. Carrière) a concept of nationhood involving a distinctive view of land, people, law and institutions, in which these components transcended ‘primordial’ (S. Grosby) and local forms. In such a concept political agency is shared, and the sovereignty of the people as such represented by the ‘congregation’. Joshua’s temporary and limited role, together with his retreat into anonymity at the end, and lack of a successor, all fitted with such a concept.

Dr Peter Addinall (Carperby): ‘Why Was Micaiah So Sure?’

It is natural to assume, and no doubt the biblical author intended us to believe, that Micaiah was sure of Ahab’s death because he was genuinely inspired and could therefore ‘see’ into the future. There are, however, strong objections to this simple view of ‘prophecy’, not least that it ill accords with the general picture of prophetic activity given in Samuel­Kings. A more likely answer to the question emphasizes the role of the prophet in actively trying to bring about the fulfilment of the divine will in human affairs. In the case of Micaiah, he was a member of the extreme wing of the Yahwist movement in which Elijah and Elisha were prominent. These men shared with Syria a desire to destroy Omri’s dynasty, and the battle for Ramoth-Gilead offered an excellent opportunity to take a significant step towards the fulfilment of this aim by killing Ahab. Emphasis on prophecy as miraculous prediction is seriously misleading, and obscures its true character as a kind of fierce morality conceived as a divine categorical imperative.

Dr Walter Moberly (Durham) presented a response to Dr Addinall’s paper

After a brief summary of that paper, noting its concern to develop a moral account of prophecy which marginalizes predictive aspects (and so ascribes Micaiah’s certainty not to divine inspiration but to moral judgment and secret dealings with the king of Syria), a number of possible difficulties with the thesis were suggested. 1. Why should Micaiah’s knowing that the king of Syria wished to kill Ahab offer any assurance that the wish would be realized? 2. Micaiah’s first vision, the narrative reason for his certainty, has many parallels in other contexts, including many today, and needs fuller analysis. 3. Addinall’s commending of a moral construal of prophecy is in some tension with his portrayal of Micaiah as a ‘ruthless extremist’. 4. There are unresolved issues of method — ‘historical’ in relation to ‘literary’ — in the handling of the biblical texts. 5. Addinall makes no use of Jeremiah or Ezekiel, despite their offering paradigmatic accounts of the nature of prophetic language, and their having terminological and conceptual similarities to the Micaiah narrative. 6. If Micaiah wanted Ahab to be killed, then his jeopardizing of his own life through confronting Ahab seems an odd way of going about it.