Programme

University of Nottingham (Jubilee Campus)

Newark Hall, University of Nottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham, NG8 1AW (see here for a pdf with travel information).

2–4 January 2018

Under the presidency of Prof. Walter Moberly

Printable version of the Programme.

TUESDAY 2 January

• [2.00 pm Committee Meeting]
• 4.30 pm Registration
• 6.00 pm Reception, sponsored by the Centre for Bible, Ethics and Theology, University of Nottingham
• 6.45 pm Dinner
• 8.15 pm Presidential Address: Walter Moberly (Durham), ‘Thinking about God: A Reading of Psalm 82’

WEDNESDAY 3 January

• 8.00 am Breakfast
• 9.15 am Rebecca Watson (Cambridge), ‘”Thrown into the Sea”: An Ecologically Damaging Concept in the Hebrew Bible?’
• 10.00 am Philip Jenson (Cambridge), ‘Is there a Holiness Code and does it matter?’
• 10.45 am Tea and Coffee
• 11.15 am William Ford (Belfast), ‘”Like the Nations?”” The Challenge of the Canaanites in Exodus-Deuteronomy
• 12.00 noon Penelope Barter (Tilburg), ‘Inquiring of Yhwh in the Book of Ezekiel’
• 13.00 pm Lunch
• 1.45 pm Coach departs for outing to the National Holocaust Centre
• 5.30 pm Doug Ingram (Nottingham), ‘What is Good in Ecclesiastes?’
• 6.45 pm Dinner
• 8.15 pm Graham Davies (Cambridge), ‘Sources and Redaction in Exodus 1–18: A Partly New Synthesis’

THURSDAY 4 January

• 8.00 am Breakfast
• 9.15 am Meir Lubetski (New York), ‘A Careless Scribe or Learned Scribe in Chronicles 8:34?’
• 10.00 Alison Salvesen (Oxford), ‘”They did not settle in the land of the Lord: Ephraim settled in Egypt” (Hos 9:3): Returning to Egypt in Greek scripture and other Hellenistic Jewish works’
• 10.45 am Tea and Coffee
• 11.15 am Thomas Renz (Barnet), ‘Luther’s Lectures on Habakkuk as an Example of Participatory Exegesis’
• 12.00 noon Business Meeting (SOTS Members only)
• 1.00 pm Lunch (followed by departure)

Abstracts

Walter Moberly (Durham), ‘Thinking about God: A Reading of Psalm 82’

This essay attempted a fresh reading of Psalm 82 as a resource for Christian theology. Characteristic premodern and modern readings – that the psalm is an admonition to human judges, and that the psalm depicts a move from polytheism to henotheism or monotheism – were briefly noted, by way of setting the context for suggesting that the psalm can be read as offering a conceptual analysis of the Hebrew term for deity, ⁾elohim. Read thus, the psalm depicts justice as constitutive of the nature of true deity. Attention was also given to the psalm’s poetic literary form, and to the implications for reader or hearer of being given access to a “heavenly” scenario.

Rebecca Watson (Cambridge), ‘”Thrown into the Sea”: An Ecologically Damaging Concept in the Hebrew Bible?’

This paper examined the passages (Ex. 10.19; 15; Jon. 2.4; Mic. 7.19; Zech. 9.4; Neh. 9.11) in which someone or something is ‘thrown into the deeps’, seeking to ascertain whether they presuppose that the sea can ‘wash away’ or ‘dilute’ evil and assessing their implications for an ecological perspective. Close attention to these allusions indicates that casting in the sea is a rare outworking of divine intervention. They may relate to experience of loss in deep water and knowledge of the destructive power of the sea, but concern for proper rites of burial, cosmological concepts of the underworld lying beneath the sea and even juridical aspects to a water ordeal may have had an influence. However, the most significant aspect of casting into the sea is its association with descent to Sheol, as is shown by careful examination of the associated language in many of the passages examined (Ex. 15, Neh. 9.11, Jon. 2.4), though military reality (Zech. 9.4) and even beliefs about locusts’ life cycles (Ex. 10.19) could have an influence. However, these references do nothing to counter modern environmental concern, nor to justify disposal in the sea.

Philip Jenson (Cambridge), ‘Is there a Holiness Code and does it matter?’

This paper began by noting that the traditional historical-critical approach to Leviticus 17–27, the Holiness Code (H), is that there was a distinct law code which was later integrated by the Priestly editors into their own account (P). More recently, largely inspired by Israel Knohl, the direction of influence has been reversed, so that (using his terms) the Holiness School was responsible for a late redactional layer that incorporated the Priestly Torah. There is, however, a third school which is skeptical about the independent existence of H in any meaningful sense. The result has been a wide range of views about how H and P relate to each other, both in content and stance (are they complementary or in conflict?). The main arguments concern the structure of Leviticus, the ethical character of the two parts of Leviticus, and the nature of holiness. In each of these areas there is evidence that the differences have been exaggerated. The complex discussions about the underlying sources or redactions continue to matter to historical critics. However, for others it is making sense of the book of Leviticus as a whole that is of primary interest. The proposal that H and P are at least complementary invites reflection on a priestly vision of the world that is all the richer for the tensions and differences.

William Ford (Belfast), ‘”Like the Nations?”” The Challenge of the Canaanites in Exodus-Deuteronomy

In Genesis 12-50 the interactions between the patriarchs and the Canaanites are more positive than in the later Hebrew Scriptures, with the exception of the ban on marriage. This paper examined the relevant passages in Genesis (24:1-9; 27:41-28:9; 34 and especially 38), reading them canonically, particularly in light of the patriarchal promises which form an underlying theme of the patriarchal narratives. It argued that while Genesis as a whole discourages Canaanite exogamy, the situation is more complex than a simple ban. In Genesis 24 exogamy is preferable to leaving the land. In Genesis 28 avoiding exogamy is arguably not the main reason for leaving. Reading Genesis 34 in the light of 49:5-7 suggests that massacring is an inappropriate response to exogamy. In Genesis 38 it is strongly implied that Tamar is Canaanite. However, she is not only the heroine in Genesis 38 but elsewhere explicitly identified as an ancestor of David and Jesus.  A brief comparison with the conquest narratives suggested that this complexity is also evident there, and that the focus is not on ethnicity but on one’s attitude to YHWH.

Penelope Barter (Tilburg), ‘Inquiring of Yhwh in the Book of Ezekiel’

In the Book of Ezekiel, the elders sit before the priest-prophet three times (8.1; 14.1; 20.1), with a progressive revelation that they have come to “inquire” (drš) of Yhwh through Ezekiel. What is not revealed, however, is the content of their inquiry and why it angers Yhwh, who refuses to be consulted by them, but ultimately responds with an oracle (14.3-4; 20.3-4). This paper investigated the use of the expression in the Hebrew Bible, arguing that the locution has a wide range of uses and connotations before establishing which of these many interpretations of drš are utilised in Ezekiel, with particular attention to the linguistic links to Exodus 18. These connections offer a lens through which to interpret both the elders’ request and Yhwh’s anger, and further our understanding of Ezekiel’s prophetic role.

Douglas Ingram (Nottingham), ‘What is Good in Ecclesiastes?’

This paper began by noting that the question in 2.3, ‘what is good for mortals to do under heaven during the few days of their life?’ is a key theme in Ecclesiastes which has been given too little attention by scholars. It then went on to consider the use of the word ‘good’ (טוב) in the book, noting that it is one of the most frequently occurring words in the book and is used much more frequently here than anywhere else in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. However, this is often ‘hidden’ in English translations where a range of other words are used to translate טוב – including where it first appears in 2.1 and the uses of the word in the ‘call to enjoyment’ verses. The translation of the expression ראה בטוב (literally something like ‘look into good’) in 2.1 as ‘enjoy yourself’ (or similar), along with similar renderings of טוב elsewhere in the book, convey a sense of ‘pleasure-seeking’ in the use of the term. Qohelet, though, engages in serious exploration of what ‘good’ means for people living under the sun. The paper proposed that the chapter divisions between ch. 1 and ch. 2 further complicate matters by separating the first few verses of ch. 2 from the introductory verses in 1:12-18. If 2.1-3 are viewed as part of an introduction – rather than being linked only with the following verses – then the themes of ‘all that is done under the sun’ (1.13-15), ‘wisdom, knowledge and folly’ (1;16-18) and ‘what is good’ (2.1-3) can be seen as the main themes in Ecclesiastes. This corresponds with the most frequently occurring words in the book (‘deed’/’to do’, ‘good’/’be good’ and ‘wisdom’/‘be wise’) and when these words and associated words are taken into account, the three themes account for most verses in Ecclesiastes.

Graham Davies (Cambridge), ‘Sources and Redaction in Exodus 1–18: A Partly New Synthesis’

This paper presented an overview of the author’s conclusions about the composition of Exodus 1-18 in his nearly complete ICC commentary on these chapters. Contrary to much recent Continental research, he noted that he has found the best explanation of the evidence to be the use by the compilers of two independent non-Priestly narratives, the Song of Moses (all pre-exilic) and a separate Priestly narrative (from a later period) which followed the outline of the older accounts as far as ch. 16. Some redactional additions could also be noted. The identification of the Priestly texts (with expansions in ch. 6 and ch. 12) was straightforward and had long been agreed. In the non-P text, duplicate narratives were traced from ch. 3 to ch. 14 and reasons could be given, on the basis of narrative continuity and coherence, for associating most of ch. 1-2 and 15-18 with one or other of the strands isolated. The most novel aspect of the analysis was the proposal that in the non-Priestly sections of ch. 7-12 the main narrative, which had traditionally been attributed to J, should be ascribed to E and the remnants of a shorter alternative version belonged to J. This made for a more plausible connection with what precedes and follows and implied that the redactor who combined J and E (unusually) preferred the E version in the plagues narrative, presumably because it was fuller and more vivid. The case for an independent E source was strengthened as a result.

Meir Lubetski (New York), ‘A Careless Scribe or Learned Scribe in Chronicles 8:34?’

This paper observed that enigmatic 1 Chr. 8:34 and 9:40 are due a fresh investigation. The Chronicler names the royal grandson of Saul either as מריבעל or מריבבעל. While the suffix has been treated adequately in the literature, biblical scholars have been completely at a loss to account for the meaning of mry and then the change from מרי into מריב in the prefix. In addition, a seemingly shorter version of the name, מר-בעל, appears on a Samaria trapezoidal ostracon (#2 ln. 7) as well. That Baal is the theophoric component is transparent. The etymology and meaning of the prefix, however, is uncertain. This paper attempted to clarify both forms of the same name found in Chronicles that had not previously been explained satisfactorily. It argued that sources, especially Late Egyptian literary texts, might offer a novel approach in explaining the etymology of the prefix mry or mryb within biblical onomastics. This, in turn, might establish an alternative, perhaps more accurate meaning of Saul’s grandson’s royal name.  The paper also highlighted an unknown aspect about Hebrew scribes: they knew how to transcribe alien names correctly.

Alison Salvesen (Oxford), ‘”They did not settle in the land of the Lord: Ephraim settled in Egypt” (Hos 9:3): Returning to Egypt in Greek scripture and other Hellenistic Jewish works’

This paper began by noting that the portrayal of Egypt in the Hebrew Scriptures is almost wholly a negative one. For Israel, Egypt is the land of servitude (e.g. Deut. 26:5-9), unbridled sexuality (Gen. 12:10-20; 39:7–18; as a metaphor, Ezek. 16:26: 23:8, 19–27), idolatry (e.g. Ezek. 20:5–11; Jer. 44:7–8), political unreliability (Isa. 31:1; Ezek. 17:15). As Diana Lipton notes, Egypt is the archetypal ‘other’ contrasted with the blessed and God-given land of Israel. Voluntary return to Egypt is forbidden (Deut. 17:16), while the threat in Deut. 28:68 that God himself will send the people back there is the climax of the curses, reversing the foundational event of the exodus (Hos. 13:4, versus Hos. 8:13; 9:3; 11:5). Yet large numbers of Jews did settle in Egypt, from the sixth century BCE to the early second century CE, and again in the medieval period. The paper explored how Egyptian Jews may have reconciled their situation with the negativity towards Egypt of the religious writings of Judaism. The paper offered answers to the following questions: since Jewish settlers came to speak Greek, and from the mid-third century BCE, the scriptures began to be rendered into Greek, did the translators nuance passages dealing with Jewish immigration to Egypt? And to what extent did literary works composed in Egypt view contemporary Jewish experience there through the lens of the exodus event?

Thomas Renz (Barnet), ‘Luther’s Lectures on Habakkuk as an Example of Participatory Exegesis’

The paper opened with the observation that Martin Luther, with his focus on the literal meaning of Scripture independent of church authority, is sometimes counted among those who started the journey toward historical-critical research on the Bible. But Luther still saw himself as a participant in the history and realities to which Scripture testifies and therefore brought his own experience and understanding of God and the world to bear in his exegesis in ways which would become unacceptable in historical-critical exegesis. The paper suggested that Luther’s exegesis remains thought-provoking because of this “participatory” aspect. A first example, Luther’s discussion of the opening of Hab. 1:5, demonstrated both his linguistic competence and his limitations. While exegesis understood solely as a philological-historical endeavour has little to gain today from Luther, the presentation proceeded with seven examples which suggest the abiding value of Luther’s participatory exegesis for reflection on the subject matters of the biblical text as well as the pitfalls of his approach. The paper argued that seeing a lack of response to the prophet’s preaching as the background to Habakkuk’s complaint is not as absurd as it appears at first, but led to a misreading of Hab. 2:1. It also maintained that Luther consistently kept the focus on rulers as the target of condemnation and that news of the brutal suppression of the peasants’ revolt led Luther to change his interpretation of “desert/evening wolves” in Hab. 1:8 between his 1525 Latin lectures and his 1526 German publication. The conclusion highlighted that Luther’s conflation of concerns which we are used to keeping separate is capable of generating genuine insights, even if it can trip up the interpreter.