Next Year

Koert van Bekkum (Kampen) “Geography in Numbers 33-34 and Recent Pentateuchal Theory”

It was noted in this paper that both earlier and recent discussions of the composition, genre and historical background of the itinerary in Numbers 33:1-49 and of the description of the Promised Land in Numbers 34:1-12 have highlighted the pre-exilic nature of these texts and it was considered what challenge this poses to recent theories of the formation of the Pentateuch. On one hand, it is still difficult to detect the specific sources behind the itinerary list of Numbers 33. On the other hand much information is available with regard to the tradition history of the geographical concept that is used in Numbers 34:1-12, Josh 13:2-6, Judg 3:3 and Ezek 47:15-20. In addition, this pre-exilic material turns out to be remarkably well integrated into Numbers 26-36 as a whole. These observations pose serious problems for several literary-critical criteria and for the suggestion that the chapters belong to a post-priestly compositional layer. They suggest that different, less deductive alternatives, including exploring the possibility of a tradition regarding an earlier blending of D- and P-like vocabulary and style, need to be found.

William Johnstone (Aberdenn) “‘The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape of Exodus”

This paper argues that Deuteronomy 5’s reminiscences attest that its “Horeb” Decalogue was once present in Exodus 20 (cf. the repeated cross-reference “as YHWH your God commanded you”). A number of considerations confirm the presence of the Horeb Decalogue in the original version of Exodus: the narrative surrounding its revelation in Exodus matches that in Deuteronomy; Deut 5:31 confirms the role of the Book of the Covenant (B, Exod 20:22–23:33) as exposition of the Horeb Decalogue and as code for the covenant in Exod 24:3-8; twice over, the reaffirmation of the covenant in Exod 34:5-26 uses the figure of speech of “merismus” to confirm that the terms of the covenant are unchanged. The first merism (34:5-16) begins with citing Word I in the Horeb version and ends with a free play on the conclusion of B in Exod 23:20-33; the second (34:17-26) also begins with citing Word I in the Horeb Decalogue and ends with a parallel version of B’s concluding legal stipulations in Exod 23:14-19. P’s “Sinai” edition of the Decalogue that now stands in Exodus 20 affirms that the Decalogue may indeed function as a formative influence on the shape of Exodus provided it is interpreted in cosmic terms, as in its most radical change: the motive for observing Sabbath.

Pieter van der Lugt (Dokkum) “The People of Israel as a Worshipping Community and the Design of the Song of the Sea (Ex.15:1-18)”

This paper suggests that, from a thematic point of view, the ‘Song of the Sea’ has a linearly alternating design, an undulating movement: explicit praises of God alternate with portrayals of the fate of the enemies. This design coincides with a pattern of linearly alternating verbal recurrences. The staircase parallelism which highlights the opening lines of the second, third and fourth cantos (vv. 6, 11a-b and 16c-d) neatly fits this pattern. The design is also supported by a strict regularity in terms of cantos and strophes. There are three 6-line cantos, which divide into two 3-line strophes each; these cantos are concluded by a ‘half-long’ canto of 3 lines of poetry: vv. 1-2.3-5|6-8.9-10|11-13.14-16b|16c-18 > 6.6.6.3 > 3.3|3.3|3.3|3 lines of poetry > a.b|a’.b’|a’’.b’’|a’’’. The linearly alternating correspondences demonstrate that the apex of the ‘Song of the Sea’ is to be found in the concluding Canto IV (vv. 16c-18): God guides his people to their inheritance and his holy abode. The poet who composed the hymn envisaged the Reed Sea event in the context of its ultimate goal, the praise of God as King of the world by his people in the temple of Jerusalem (after the exile). The outcome of this investigation differs from the results of other (more or less recent) studies on several points, including its undermining of the view of Maribeth Howell (1989) and many others that, in terms of subject matter, the ‘Song of the Sea’ consists of two unbalanced stanzas, ‘clearly indicated by a change of event’: vv. 1-12 (about the destruction of the Egyptians at the sea) and 13-18 (about the wilderness wanderings an the conquest).

Anselm Hagedorn (Berlin) “The Biblical Laws of Asylum between Mediterraneanism and Postcolonial Critique”

The paper compared some biblical laws of asylum (Ex 21:12-17; Deut 19:1-13) with inscriptions from the Greek world (Gortyn/Crete and Oropus). Noting the similarities and differences it was argued that the Hebrew Bible and ancient Greece both share the institution of asylum, making the Bible part of the Mediterranean world. The shape of the institution, however, differs – as is expected in a similar geographical region. The perspective of the paper was then broadened in asking whether the ancient evidence may have any relevance for our world today. Despite the dangers of such applications, the paper considered it possible to list three aspects of the ancient laws that might help to shape the debate about asylum in the 21st century: 1. The biblical innovation that every case of asylum needs a verified legal and procedural basis. 2. The extensive literary development of the laws of asylum in the Bible points to the fact that every regulation regarding asylum is in need of revision and innovation. 3. Asylum has to remain an individual right that is independent from status, person and gender and this would require the integration of the Greek element.

Bob Becking (Utrecht) “Covenant, Agreement and Law: the Social Code underlying the Book of Nehemiah“

This paper scrutinized the concept of the social code in the Book of Nehemiah. It observed that the prayer in Neh. 1 stresses the basic intention towards God’s commandments. Neh. 5 argues for the appropriation of the concept of ‘remission’ in a period of economic decline caused by drought. The presentation of the law in Neh. 8 urges the reinstatement of the Feast of Booths. In Neh. 13 the new community is marked by specific regulations on exogamous marriages and the celebration of the Shabbat. The Book of Nehemiah cannot play a role in the discussion of the formation of the Pentateuch, since Nehemiah offers not a reflection on the whole of the Torah, but presents the Gebot der Stunde for the new community in and around Jerusalem.

Jacques van Ruiten (Groningen) “Interpreting Torah: Strategies for Producing, Circulating, and Validating Authoritative Scriptures in Early Judaism”

This paper argued that in antiquity, especially in early Jewish literature exemplified by the book of Jubilees, displaying your knowledge was an important strategy for sustaining Jewish society. An imitation of texts from the past was valued even more highly than individual originality and innovation. However, when looking at strategies of copying and rewriting, one often discovers important steps of innovation veiled in a traditional form. The book of Jubilees presupposes material that can be found in the scriptural text, presents it mostly in the same sequential order, and includes in its composition nearly all the relevant pericopes. At the same it changes and innovates by rewriting the material (e.g., harmonisations), adding other material (e.g., Enochic traditions; halakic material), and by putting knowledge into a new framework (chronology). Although Jubilees acknowledges the Torah as an authoritative body of knowledge, it seems to claim the same, or even a greater authority for its own revelation than for that of the Torah. This display of knowledge by means of absorbing earlier authoritative texts is a means of sustaining society. It gives authority to a new text, and at the same time appropriates an ancient tradition by means of production, validation, and circulation.

Willem Smelik (London) “The Rabbinic Use of Languages”

This paper observed that the question of how much Hebrew was spoken by the Jewish population of Roman Palestine in the first few centuries CE in the context of contemporary multilingualism continues to be debated. Unfortunately, our understanding of the Jewish vernaculars at this crucial time and place still tends to remain stuck in models of diglossia or similar classifications of the attested languages on the one hand and in a single-minded view of the Jewish theory of language in view of the Holy Tongue on the other hand. It noted that the attested existence of multiple dialects of any of the three main languages involved—Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew—and the diverse ways in which the Aramaic and Hebrew languages relate to one another in the extant literature and documents have so far been incompletely developed and understood. The paper then concerned itself with the linguistic reality of the knowledge transfer of rabbinic culture as evident in the Talmud Yerushalmi, with particular attention to code-switching and the unfolding functional differentiation of the languages in writing. The results of the paper shed new light on the characteristics of the vernaculars in the early rabbinic period, the textual unity of bilingual communication, the non-diachronic aspects of code-switching, and the rabbinic perception of languages.

Hedy Hung (Aberdeen) “The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:1-3”

This paper observed that Isa 61:1-3 is generally taken to be a prophecy about the ideal servant, or the prophet claiming to be the servant, who works for the restoration of post-exilic Jerusalem. It suggested that two reasons account for this interpretation: one, the passage inherits the servant motif from the Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah; two, the fact that Israel has come under Persia’s shadow makes restoration to Davidic kingship seem impossible. It was argued that it was not likely that this text is limited to the reading of an ideal servant nor that history has dictated the thoughts and expressions of the Isaianic writing communities. It was further suggested that Isa 61:1-3 has a kingship motif and that this motif is seen to be intricately related to the servant motif in the Servant Songs by comparing the literary features of 61:1-3 with those of the Servant Songs as well as those of ch. 11. The paper explored the continuity and the transformation of the kingship and the servant motifs in different contexts and how the eschatologically important category of myth functions in this text.

Samuel Balentine (Richmond) “‘I am God and not a Human Being’; The Divine Dilemma in Hosea”

This paper relocated Tertullian’s question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” by focusing on Hos 11:9: What does Hosea have to do with Homer (or Hesiod)? If Hos 11:9 is the answer is to some sort of divine dilemma – “I am God [or `a god,’ ‘el] and not a human,” that is, “I am this kind of god but not that kind of god ” – then what were the presenting metatheistic and metaethical questions that shaped the world of the text? The exploration comprised three parts: 1) generic concepts of divinity (“El-ness”) in Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Greece in the eighth to sixth centuries, especially connections between Hosea’s El-God and Homer’s Zeus-god; 2) transcultural distinctions between divine and human portfolios, especially descriptions of divine judgment exercised by Zeus and YHWH/El; and 3) the interface between divine moralizing and moralizing about the divine. The paper concluded by suggesting that Hosea provides his readers with an education in divine moralizing (“How can I give you up, Ephraim,” 11:8) while he himself is at the same time moralizing about the divine. Hosea’s YHWH-God can transcend even divine limitations, a sort of self-transcendence in which divine compassion exceeds divine anger. YHWH is both more than human-like and more than God-like. In Hosea’s world we might say that YHWH is more El than any other El but also more YHWH than any other YHWH. How does one describe a God who is able to transcend divinity without forsaking divinity? The paper suggested that in a pre-Socratic world, where the formal conceptualization of philosophy (love of learning) is as yet unarticulated, Hosea’s author is already doing pre-moral, philosophical work.

Klaas Spronk (Amsterdam), “Teamwork in the Study of the Old Testament: 75 years of Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and 15 Joint Meetings”

This paper began by noting that in 2014 the OTW celebrated its 75th anniversary. On the occasion of previous anniversaries, De Boer had remarked that it was disappointing that the many meetings of the society hardly ever resulted in joint undertakings in their field of research. Later also Vriezen and Van der Woude pointed to the need for the theological faculties to cooperate and put more effort into teamwork. De Boer and Van der Woude’s own initiating of projects on the Peshitta and the Dead Sea Scrolls were offered as good examples of such teamwork. It was noted that various projects in which OT scholars participate have since been initiated in the Netherlands and Belgium, including those launched by, amongst others, Talstra, De Moor, Hoftijzer, Lust, and Ter Haar Romeny. Special mention was also made of The Dictionary of Deities and Demons edited by Becking, Van der Toorn, and Van der Horst (1995, rev. ed in 1999) and the project ‘ כלי†– Utensils’ organized by De Moor on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the OTW. The fact that the latter project is still under way (the results are published on the website of the OTW) also shows the complications of teamwork. It was noted that it was in that the OTW and SOTS decided to start their joint meetings, which was facilitated by the very good contacts between De Boer and a number of his British colleagues. The first meeting was held in the Netherlands, at Woudschoten. Since then there has been a meeting every three years, alternately in the Low Countries and in Britain. While teamwork is still the exception to the rule in our field, it was suggested that if we want biblical studies to survive this has to change.

Jaap Dekker (Apeldoorn) “The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah”

This paper noted the scholarly difference of opinion regarding whether Torah in the book of Isaiah should be understood as referring to the Mosaic Torah or in a more general sense be seen as indicative of prophetic instruction. It was argued that in the first part of Isaiah תורה refers to prophetic instruction as a general reference to the concept of justice and righteousness. In the second part it substantively refers to the realizing of the Lord’s salvific righteousness. This latter concept is already indicated in the programmatic vision of Isa. 2:1-4. Nothing indicates that a Torah-revision afterwards has altered this understanding of תורה or consequently the overall message of the book. While the paper did not argue that the final form of the book requires that all references to תורה be seen as referring to Mosaic Torah, it was suggested that, from a wider canonical perspective the closure of the segment of the נבאים in Mal. 3:22 makes clear that in the end, both the Law and the Prophets are to be read in accordance with each other. Thus whenever Christian theology interprets prophecy as ‘diametrically opposed to the legal context of the Pentateuch’, it was suggested (with Sweeney) that this reads against the grain of the present canonical form of the Hebrew Bible.

Graeme Auld (Edinburgh), “Did the Assyrian envoy know the Venite?“

The paper began by noting that there is no conflict between the Chronicler’s report of Hezekiah’s reform and that offered by the Assyrian envoy. But in Kings, altars were not included in the narrator’s list of four destructions practised by Hezekiah, while the envoy makes a feature of altars being removed and ‘this’ altar being chosen. The possibility of the envoy’s independence from the narrator raises the question of his credibility. The narrator in Isaiah offers no reform report, and in the shorter Greek text (Isa 36:7-8) none is provided even by the envoy. The Greek rendering of the envoy’s advice (‘mix with my master’) marks him as a figure of fun; and this may also be intended by ‘prostrate before this/one altar’ of the majority tradition, for prostration before an altar is neither commended nor reported anywhere else in HB. The corrections in both Kings and Chronicles to the report of Solomon standing to pray may be correlated with the emphasis on prostration before Yahweh in Book IV of the Psalms, and especially the Venite.

Michaël van der Meer (Amsterdam), “The Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in the Light of Contemporary Hellenistic Philosophy“

In response to contemporary discussion in Septuagint studies concerning the possible influence of philosophical (often: Platonic) influence upon the Greek translators of the Hebrew scriptural books, this paper argued that the Greek version of Genesis may reflect the influence of Greek philosophy, but only in an indirect way. It suggested that a number of unusual Greek renderings in the creation stories can be seen as deliberate attempts to avoid hedonistic concepts known from Epicureanism and its Cyrenaic predecessors. These expressions concern the translation of Hebrew gan-Eden with Greek paradeisos tes truphes instead of kepos tes hedones in order to avoid associations with the garden of Epicurus, the avoidance of the concept hedone and epithumia in Gen 18:12 (Hebrew ednah) and Gen 3:16 and 4:7 (Hebrew teshuqah) as well as the idea of an empty (Greek kenos) universe (Gen 1:2 tohu).

Deborah Rooke (Oxford), “Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective“

In this paper it was observed that in both the making and the maintaining of cult and priesthood in Leviticus, there is a clear masculine gender-bias. In Exodus, the cult itself is instigated by a male (Moses) at the behest of the divine male (YHWH), and those who bring most of the raw materials and transform them into cultic apparatus are males. The regulations for the cult personnel in both Exodus and Leviticus designate a particular group of males (sons of Aaron) as priests and thus as holy, able to operate in a space that is nearer the divine presence than is permissable for non-holy males and any female. The priests’ rites of initiation are carried out by a male (Moses), and their entitlement to cultic privilege depends on their male blood-line. In this overwhelmingly androcentric conception, women bring some of the raw materials for the cultic apparatus, and are required for reproductive purposes to maintain the priestly line. But they are excluded from the arena of the holy, and any holiness that they appear to have as a result of either their birth from or marriage to a priest disappears when their connection or proximity to the priest ends or is superseded. Indeed, far from being holy, women can threaten priestly holiness, specifically by virtue of their sexuality; this is evidenced by the restrictions on priests’ marriage partners, the severe condemnation of a priest’s daughter who becomes a prostitute, and the ban on priests mourning their wives and married sisters alone of all their close relatives. Priests who fail to observe these restrictions risk profaning themselves and/or their offspring, thereby losing their priestly status. At the same time, the cult as presented in Exodus and Leviticus could not exist or continue without women. Under these circumstances, the paper concludes that the nature of cultic holiness in this material is clear: it is constructed, performative, and provisional, like the notions of gender that underlie it.

[top of the page]

[index of past meetings]

The post Meetings 2015 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

South Road, Durham DH1 3LT (see here for a googlemaps link).

4-6 January 2016

Under the presidency of Professor Adrian Curtis

Printable Version of the SOTS Programme.
Booking form for the Summer Meeting (pdf / doc)

The venue for all sessions is Collingwood College, Durham (please see here for a description, and here for map of Durham).

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 4 January

• [2.00 p.m. Committee Meeting]
• 4.30 p.m. Registration
• 6.00 p.m. Reception, sponsored by Sheffield Phoenix Press
• 6.45 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Presidential address: Adrian Curtis (Manchester), “From People and Book to Text in Context: Volumes That Speak Volumes”

TUESDAY 5 January

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. David Firth (Nottingham), “Creating Narrative Instability in Joshua 1-5”
• 10.00 a.m. Bernard Jackson (Manchester), “The Whodunit underlying the plot of the Book of Ruth”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Heather McKay (Ormskirk), “Clothing, Adornment and Accoutrements in the Historical Books”
• 12.00 noon Nicolas Wyatt (Edinburgh), “The Rumpelstiltskin Factor: Explorations in the Arithmetic of Pantheons”
• 13.00 p.m. Lunch
• 3.00 p.m. Seminar “Research in progress”: PhD students and early career researchers present their work
• 4.00 p.m. Tea
• 4.30 p.m. Julie Woods (London), “Flaming Symbols: A Study of Fire as a Symbol of God’s Presence and Word in the Pentateuch and Jeremiah”
• 6.30 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Thomas Römer (Lausanne/Paris), “Yhwh, a god of the wilderness? The question of the origin of the Exodus tradition”

WEDNESDAY 6 January

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. Maria Cioată (Manchester), “Moses Gaster and the Study of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha”
• 10.00 a.m. Donn Morgan (Berkeley), “The Writings as Post-exilic Canonical Literature: Problems, Challenges, Significance”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Margaret Barker (Borrowash), “The First Englishing of the LXX”
• 12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
• 1.00 p.m. Lunch, followed by departure

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Collingwood College, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LT; the telephone number for the College is 0191 334 5000. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the College. 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 Friday 13th November 2015 (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 Tuesday 8th December 2015; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings can 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 (sotshospitality@gmail.com) so as to arrive by 13 November 2015 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 8 December 2015.

The post Winter Meeting 2016 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Rannfrid I. Thelle, Terje Stordalen and Mervyn E. J. Richardson (eds), New Perspectives on Old Testament Prophecy and History: Essays in Honour of Hans M. Barstad (VTSup, 167; Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2015).

The post A Festschrift for our president Hans Barstad appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

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).

The post Summer Meeting 2012 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Pollock Halls, University of Edinburgh

20th-23rd July 2015

Under the presidency of Professor Hans Barstad

Printable Version of the SOTS/OTW Programme.
Booking form for the Summer Meeting (word / pdf)

The venue for all sessions is South Hall on the Pollock Halls campus (please see here for a description).

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 20th July

• (2.00 p.m.) [Committee Meeting]
• 4.30 p.m. Registration
• 6.00 p.m. Reception, sponsored by the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh
• 6.45 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Koert van Bekkum (Kampen), “Geography in Numbers 33-34 and Recent Pentateuchal Theory”

TUESDAY 21st July

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. William Johnstone (Aberdeen), “The Influence of the Decalogue on the Shape of Exodus”
• 10.00 a.m. Pieter van der Lugt (Dokkum), “The People of Israel as a Worshipping Community and the Design of the Song of the Sea (Ex. 15:1-18)”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Anselm Hagedorn (Berlin), “The Biblical Laws of Asylum between Mediterraneanism and Postcolonial Critique”
• 12.00 noon Bob Becking (Utrecht), “Covenant, Agreement and Law: the Social Code underlying the Book of Nehemiah”
• 13.00 p.m. Lunch
• 2.30 p.m. Jacques van Ruiten (Groningen), “Interpreting Torah: Strategies for Producing, Circulating, and Validating Authoritative Scriptures in Early Judaism”
• 3.15 p.m. Willem Smelik (London), “The Rabbinic Use of Languages”
• 4.00 p.m. Tea
• 4.30 p.m. Hedy Hung (Aberdeen), “The Kingship Motif in Isaiah 61:1-3”
• 6.00 p.m. Reception, sponsored by Brill
• 6.45 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Samuel Balentine (Richmond) “’I am God and not a Human Being’, The Divine Dilemma in Hosea”

WEDNESDAY 22th July

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast
• 9.15 a.m. Klaas Spronk (Amsterdam), “Teamwork in the Study of the Old Testament: 75 Years of Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap and 15 Joint Meetings”
• 10.00 a.m. Jaap Dekker (Apeldoorn) “The Concept of Torah in the Book of Isaiah”
• 10.45 a.m. Coffee
• 11.15 a.m. Graeme Auld (Edinburgh) “Did the Assyrian Envoy Know the Venite?”
• 12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
• 1.00 p.m. Lunch
• 1.45 p.m. Visit to Edinburgh Castle (for 2.30 p.m.) followed by optional tour of New College
• 4.00 p.m. President’s Tea, New Club, 86 Princes Street (near New College)
• 5.30 p.m. Michaël van der Meer (Amsterdam), “The Greek Translation of the Pentateuch in the Light of Contemporary Hellenistic Philosophy”
• 6.45 p.m. Dinner
• 8.15 p.m. Deborah Rooke (Oxford), “Leviticus from a Gendered Perspective”

Thursday 23rd July

• 8.00 a.m. Breakfast and departure

The schedule is also available on Google calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=bqu7rlebu45ismiober61j822g%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=Europe/London.

It can be imported into various calendar apps and programmes using the following link: https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/bqu7rlebu45ismiober61j822g%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics.

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5AY, and the telephone number for the Edinburgh First Conference Office is (+44) (0131) 6512007. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the University and possible parking locations. Parking is somewhat limited and available on a first come first served basis. Please use public transport if  you are able.

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 Thursday 21st May 2015 (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 18th June 2015; 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 (sotshospitality@gmail.com) so as to arrive by 21st May 2015 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 18th June 2015.

The post Summer Meeting 2015 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Printable Version of the SOTS programme
The Booking form for the SOTS meeting
Travel information and directions to St. Hilda’s College

The venue for all sessions is the Jacqueline du Pré Music Building, St Hilda’s College, Cowley Place, Oxford, OX4 1DY.
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 21st JULY

[2.00 p.m. Committee Meeting]
4.30 p.m. Registration
6.00 p.m. Reception sponsored by Oxford University Press
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Professor John J. Collins (Yale) “Torah and Jewish Identity in the Second Temple Period”

TUESDAY 22nd JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Professor Kevin Cathcart (Dublin) “‘The Rainbringers’: Weather-God Imagery in the Psalms and Semitic Inscriptions”
10.00 a.m. Dr Helen Jacobus (London) “Noah’s Flood Calendar (Gen 7.10-8.19) in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q252 and 4Q254a)”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Dr Alison Gray (Cambridge) “Psalm 144: A New Song?”
12.00 noon Dr Charlie Hadjiev (Belfast) “The Bad King, the Good liar, and the Dead Man of God: Role models for the exilic readership of 1 Kings 13”
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.00 p.m. OUTING to Ashmolean Museum
4.30 pm President’s Tea (in the Ashmolean rooftop restaurant)
7.00 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Professor Anthony Frendo (Malta) “Burning Issues: mlk revisited”

WEDNESDAY 23rd JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Professor Hugh Williamson (Oxford) “In the Shadow of S. R. Driver: A Centennial Appreciation”
10.00 a.m. Dr Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (Aberdeen) “Zechariah 1-6: Between Redaction Criticism and Form Criticism”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Dr Hywel Clifford (Oxford) “Biblical Monotheism and Early Greek Philosophy”
12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
1.00 p.m. Lunch, followed by departure
2.30 pm Workshop for PhD students
4.00 pm Tea
4.30 pm Professor Johannes de Moor (Kampen) / Dr Marjo Korpel (Utrecht) “Adam, Eve and the Devil: A New Beginning”
6.45 pm Dinner
8.15 pm Professor Ronald Hendel (Berkeley) “Toward a Plural Poetics of Genesis: Style, Source, and Intertextuality”

THURSDAY 24th JULY
8.00 a.m. Breakfast

On July 24th a special day conference took place in honour of John Day at the Simpkins Lee Lecture Theatre, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford

THURSDAY 24^th JULY 2014

8.00 am   Breakfast  [for SOTS delegates only, at St Hilda’s College]
9.30 am    Introduction – Dr Stuart Weeks
9.45 am    Professor John Barton (Oxford), “Rational Obedience to God in the Old Testament”
10.30 am    Coffee / Tea
11.00 am    Dr Adam Carlill (Reading), “Snakes and Ladders: Step changes in Isaiah’s saraph oracles”
11.45 am    Dr Stuart Weeks (Durham), “Human and Divine, in Genesis and the Wisdom Literature”
12.45 am    Lunch
2.00 pm    Professor Hugh Williamson (Oxford), “Who Spent the Night at Geba? The who, what, when, and where of Isaiah 10:27–32”
2.45 pm    Dr Molly Zahn (University of Kansas), “Scribal Exegesis in the Second Temple Period: Not just for biblical texts!”
3.30 pm    Coffee / Tea
4.00 pm    Professor Graham Davies (Cambridge), “The Passover as the New Year Festival in P”
4.45 pm    Conclusion – Professor John Barton, followed by departure

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is the Jacqueline du Pré Music Building, St Hilda’s College, Cowley Place, Oxford, OX4 1DY and the telephone number for the Conference Office is 01865 276888. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the College and possible parking locations. There are only 5 parking places available on site and they will be allocated to those most in need. Please indicate on the booking form if you would like to be considered for one of these. Please use public transport if you are able.

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 Thursday 29th May 2014 (please see the details on the form). There is a subsidised price for those on low incomes or from economically disadvantaged countries. All bookings must be received by Thursday 26th June 2014; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings can 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 29th May 2014 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 26th June 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 29th May. Proposals for new members must reach her by 26th June. 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).

The post Summer Meeting 2014 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

University of Bangor
22nd–24th JULY 2013
under the presidency of Dr Eryl W. Davies

Printable version of the programme
The booking form for the Summer meeting
Locations of and Directions to Bangor University
Further Directions to Bangor University

The venue for all sessions is Neuadd Reichel main hall [Ffriddoedd Site].
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 22nd JULY

(2.30 p.m.) [Committee Meeting]
4.30 p.m. Registration
6.00 p.m. Reception sponsored by Bangor University School of Theology and Religious Studies
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Professor Robert Hayward (Durham)
“A Lawgiver for the Nations: Observations on the Greek Translation of Psalm 9:21”

TUESDAY 23rd JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Revd Brian Mastin (Bangor/Cambridge) “Sheshbazzar, Servant of the Great King”
10.00 a.m. Mrs Vivienne Rowett (Barton on Humber) “‘But is it in the text, Viv?’ Exegesis by hand and machine: an illustrated presentation”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Dr David Tollerton (Bangor) “‘Making the Story Beautiful?’ Responding to Rejections of the Hebrew Bible’s Usefulness for Post-Holocaust Thought
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
2.00 p.m. OUTING to Porthmadog, and trip on Welsh Highland Railway to Caernarfon
4.30 p.m. President’s Tea (on train journey)
7.00 p.m. Dinner
8.30 p.m. Professor John Goldingay (Pasadena, CA) “Memory and Old Testament Theology”

WEDNESDAY 24th JULY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Professor David Wulstan (Aberystwyth) “Psalmodic Prosody – Prelates, paragoges and pausals”
10.00 a.m. Dr John Tudno Williams (Aberystwyth) “Bangor University’s contribution to Old Testament Study ”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Professor Joachim Schaper (Aberdeen) “Ritual, Monotheism and the Place of Leviticus in the Pentateuch”
12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.30 p.m. Workshop for PhD students (tbc) OR Panel discussion: “Still Searching for Ancient Israel? A Debate Revisited”
4.00 p.m. Tea
4.30 p.m. Centennial Exhibition: Update and Question Session
5.30 p.m. Professor Graeme Auld (Edinburgh) “Time and the Infinitive: Writing Samuel and Kings”
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Professor John Barton (Oxford) “Ethical Digests in the Old Testament”

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Neuadd Reichel, University of Bangor, Ffriddoedd Road, Bangor, LL57 2TR. The telephone number for the reception desk, in an emergency, is 01248-388876. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the University [‘blue’ and ‘red’ routes refer to those from Junctions 9 and 11 respectively]. There is plenty of parking on the Ffriddoedd Site 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 Thursday 9th May (please see the details on the form). There is a subsidised price for those on low incomes or from economically disadvantaged countries. All bookings must be received by Tuesday 25th June 2013; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings can 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 9th May 2013 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 25th June 2013.

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).

The post Summer Meeting 2013 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Collingwood College, Durham
6th–8th JANUARY 2014
Under the presidency of Professor John Day

Printable Version of the programme
The booking form for the  meeting
Location and Directions to Collingwood College

The venue for all sessions is Collingwood College, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LT.
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 6th JANUARY

(2.30 p.m.) [Committee Meeting]
4.30 p.m. Registration
6.00 p.m. Reception
6.45 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Presidential Address: Professor John Day (Oxford)
“Problems in the Interpretation of the Story of the Garden of Eden”

TUESDAY 7th JANUARY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Dr David Reimer (Edinburgh) “The Language of Psalm 119”
10.00 a.m. Dr Stuart Weeks (Durham) “Googling Qohelet”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Dr Madhavi Nevader (Oxford) “On Reading Adam Royally”
12.00 noon Dr Sandra Jacobs (King’s College London) “Methodological Paradigms and ‘Parallelomania’ in the Study of Comparative Biblical Law”
1.00 p.m. Lunch
2.30 p.m. Seminar “Research in progress”: PhD students and early career researchers present their work*
4.00 p.m. Tea
4.30 pm Professor John Bartlett (Dublin) “Burchard of Mt Sion: A Thirteenth-century Baedeker”
6.30 p.m. Dinner
8.15 p.m. Professor Peter Machinist (Harvard) “Royal Inscriptions in the Hebrew Bible. A Problem and Its Significance”

WEDNESDAY 8th JANUARY

8.00 a.m. Breakfast
9.15 a.m. Dr Charlotte Hempel (Birmingham) “The Power of Posthumous Leadership in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls”
10.00 a.m. Professor Philip Alexander (Manchester) “The Polemical and Apologetic Context of the Rabbis’ Choice of Text-type for their Scriptures”
10.45 a.m. Coffee
11.15 a.m. Professor Paul Joyce (King’s College London) “Reception and Exegesis in Lamentations”
12.00 noon Business Meeting (Members only)
1.00 p.m. Lunch, followed by departure

*PhD students or early career researchers who would like to present their research at the seminar on Tuesday afternoon are invited to email a short abstract (150 words max.) to the Secretary, Dr Hilary Marlow (hm309@cam.ac.uk) by December 5th 2013.

Domestic Arrangements

The venue for the Meeting is Collingwood College, Durham University, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LT; the telephone number for the College is 0191 334 5000. Please refer to the enclosed map for information on how to get to the College. 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 13th 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 2013; no bookings can be accepted after that date. Bookings can 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 13th November 2013 (for the discount price) or at the latest by 5th December 2013.

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 741284, 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 13th November. Proposals for new members must reach her by 5th December. 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, 3 Newhouse Close, Wardle, Rochdale, Lancs OL12 9LW (e-mail vivrowett@aol.com).

The post Winter Meeting 2014 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Next Year

Prof. John J. Collins (Yale) “Torah and Jewish Identity in the Second Temple Period”

According to Second Maccabees, the decrees of Antiochus Epiphanes made it impossible to keep the Sabbath, to observe the ancestral festivals, or openly confess oneself to be a Ioudaios. For the author, to be a Ioudaios was not only a matter of ethnic descent but was defined by “the ancestral laws,” which included observance of the Sabbath and the festivals, and the practice of circumcision. These laws had been recognized as the expression of a distinctive way of life already by the Persians, and had been explicitly recognized by Antiochus III at the beginning of the second century. The reforms of Jason undermined the status of those laws by changing the constitution of Jerusalem, but did not try to suppress them. Antiochus Epiphanes attempted to put an end to the distinctive Judean way of life. The reaction by the Maccabees and Hasmoneans led to reaffirmation of the ancestral laws, but also to much greater attention to the details of the written laws than had been in evidence prior to the revolt.

Prof. Kevin Cathcart (Dublin) “‘The Rainbringers’: Weather-God Imagery in the Psalms and Semitic Inscriptions”

The choice of topic for this paper arose from a closer study of the first part of the Tell Fakhariyah bilingual inscription, which is dedicated to the storm-god known as Addu or Adad in Akkadian and as Hadad in Aramaic. The paper noted that Daniel Schwemer’s Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen (Wiesbaden, 2001) provided scholars with an exhaustive presentation of all that has been discovered about storm-gods in the ancient Near East and this work should be consulted before describing a deity as a ‘weather-god’ or a ‘storm-god’. In ancient Israel agriculture relied to a large extent on rainfall. Unlike Adad, Hadad and Baal, Yahweh was not a weather-god. The first five lines of the Tell Fakhariyah inscription merit comparison with weather-god imagery found in the Bible, especially in Job and Psalms. In this paper particular attention was given to Psalms 29, 65, 68, 104 and 147. Psalm 29, which is well known for its storm-god imagery, does not mention rain, though qôl, ‘voice’ or ‘thunder’ occurs frequently. The view that Psalm 29 was originally a Canaanite hymn to Baal (Ginsberg, Cross) must be rejected. Much of the psalm’s vocabulary (including h^adarah, ‘vision’) is not even attested in Ugaritic or Phoenician. Psalm 68, which describes Yahweh as ‘Rider of the Clouds’ (v. 5) and ‘Rider in the Ancient Heavens’ (v. 13), speaks of his pouring out rain in abundance upon the land of his inheritance. Psalm 65, which begins with a prayer to God on Zion (vv. 2-5) has a description of God the creator in vv. 6-9, and speaks of God as the bringer or giver of rain in vv. 10-14. Verses 10-11 should be compared with lines 2-3 of the Tell Fakhariyah inscription: ‘who sends down abundance and provides pasture and watering-place for all the lands’, and with lines 4-5, ‘who makes all the lands luxuriant, merciful god to whom it is good to pray’. Psalms 104 and 147 both present the attributes of Yahweh as creator and provider. The paper concluded that the picture of ancient Israel’s God as ‘rainbringer’ was a Hebrew one which shares some characteristics with portrayals in Semitic literature generally and with West Semitic literature in particular.

Dr Helen Jacobus (London) “Noah’s Flood Calendar (Gen 7.10-8.19) in the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q252 and 4Q254a)”

This paper set our to demonstrate that the biblical Flood calendar and chronology in the 4Q252 (4QCommentary on Genesis A) that exegetes Gen 7–8 does not precisely fit the calendrical paradigm proposed by Annie Jaubert in 1953 although it is very close. The paper further explored why the flood calendar of 4Q252 omits the raven and only uses the flights of the dove. It argued that the raven narrative in 4Q254a (4QCommentary on Genesis D) is exegeting the Septuagint version of the raven’s story and may be a form of interpretation at Qumran. It concluded that the Deluge calendar of 4Q252 and the narrative of the raven in 4Q254a are probably influenced by ancient Near East narratives and contain particular intertextual elements that do not exist in the Hebrew and Greek biblical versions of the story.

Dr Alison Gray (Cambridge) “Psalm 144: A New Song?”

The paper began by noting that Psalm 144 is frequently described as a ‘patchwork’ or ‘anthology’. It draws its ideas and phrases predominantly from Psalm 18, but reverberates with discernible echoes from Psalms 8, 33, 39 and 104. The interpretation of the psalm is complicated by its unusual form: it divides into two unequal sections of a very different character, style and form, leading to strong doubts about its original unity. A closer look at the relationships between the words, pictures and their conceptual associations would not only shed light on the author’s message but would also suggest an explanation for the psalm’s current structure. The paper went on to demonstrate the ways in which the author’s re-use of words and pictures from other psalms reveals his reflection on his current situation, and how a blend of modified ‘word-pictures’ from the past has been re-framed to form a unique, distinctive and compelling message of hope. Finally, the paper explored how the flexibility of metaphors within the psalm facilitate multiple interpretations according to different ‘frames’ and readers.

Dr Charlie Hadjiev (Belfast) “The Bad King, the Good liar, and the Dead Man of God: Role models for the exilic readership of 1 Kings 13”

This paper looked at 1 Kings 13 from the standpoint of the exilic audience of the book of Kings. It argued that the main characters in the story were meant to be taken as types embodying different aspects of the experience of its first readership. The death of the man of God symbolised the Babylonian exile, whilst king Jeroboam stood for the idolatry and rejection of the prophetic word in the past. The paper suggested that the most important character was the old prophet from Bethel who outlived his Judean ‘brother’ and took over his message of doom against Bethel. By doing this, and in spite of his earlier shortcomings, he was able to affect some limited form of ‘salvation’ for himself (when the punishment upon Bethel was unleashed his bones were not desecrated by Josiah). The old prophet stood for the possible future of the exilic readership of Kings. By means of this character the readers were challenged to accept the message of judgement of the book of Kings.

Prof. Anthony Frendo (Malta) “Burning Issues: mlk revisited”

The paper began by noting that, basing themselves on Otto Eissfeldt’s 1935 work on the Phoenician-Punic sacrifice known as molk, many biblical scholars had followed in his footsteps and opted to substitute the biblical deity Mōlek in the Hebrew Bible with this sacrificial term. However there had always been other scholars who disagreed with this position. Recently there had been a renewed surge of interest in the problem as to whether the Carthaginians had literally burnt their children in sacrifice to their gods. Since this problem touches on related issues found in the Hebrew Bible, the paper suggested that it was necessary to look again at some biblical texts to see whether children in ancient Israel were indeed sacrificed by burning. When the various ways of vocalizing the Semitic word “mlk” with its basic meaning of “king” were taken into account alongside the fact that in west Semitic there are words which can be used either as the names of deities or simply as their epithets, it became more plausible to uphold that, although the biblical word “Mōlek” does indeed refer to a deity, in a number of texts it was most probably originally vocalized as melek and used as an epithet with reference to different gods including Baal and Yahweh himself. The paper went on to note that, furthermore, composite divine names could be encountered, one component of which functioned as an epithet. Often it was idolatrous child sacrifice that was condemned in the Hebrew Bible and not the sacrifice of children made to Yahweh. However it seemed that there was also a non-Tophet group in Israel, which condemned the sacrifice of children tout court, whether offered to Yahweh or to foreign deities, and this was reflected in certain texts, such as Deuteronomy.

Prof. Hugh Williamson (Oxford) “In the Shadow of S. R. Driver: A Centennial Appreciation”

S. R. Driver died on 26 February 1914, having been Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford and a canon of Christ Church since 1883.  In addition to some general biographical details, party culled from unpublished letters, the paper focused in particular on his early career.  Although his first degree was in Classics and mathematics, he already knew Hebrew when he arrived at New College, Oxford. Becoming a tutor in Classics there after graduation, it was clear from his earliest publications as well as from other correspondence that his main teacher was Adolf Neubauer, who worked in the Bodleian Library. Three of Driver’s first four books related to rabbinical Hebrew, the fourth being his book on Hebrew Tenses, which was initially prepared for teaching purposes. His only publication relating directly to the Old Testament during those years was an article to refute the suggestion that the late date of P could be proved on linguistic grounds.  It was several years after Gladstone nominated him for the chair over three other possible candidates that his Introduction first appeared, showing that he had taken a long time carefully to work through the arguments for and against a fully ‘critical’ position (of which Gladstone would not have approved). Other evidence showed that he was a shy and nervous person, so that his honesty in publishing the results of his careful weighing of the academic evidence stands out the more clearly.

Dr Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (Aberdeen) “Zechariah 1-6: Between Redaction Criticism and Form Criticism”

The paper explored the genre category of vision report, with focus on the textual relationship within a periscope between the account of the visual impression and the accompanying divine oracles. The present investigation was limited to Amos 7:1–3; 7:4–6; 7:7–9; 8:1–3, and 9:1–4, and to Zech 1:8–6:8. The paper noted that several scholars have argued that the form of Amos’ vision report informs on the redaction-critical formation of Zechariah’s vision report. As each of Amos’ vision account ends with a divine word, the argument goes, so should Zechariah’s. It follows, these same scholars maintain, that the oracular material within Zech 1–6 is the natural and integral continuation of the preceding vision account, without which the vision account cannot be understood properly. The paper went on to demonstrate that this type of comparison was partly flawed. Form-critical and redaction-critical considerations must go hand-in-hand when seeking to determine the textual development of a given text. Furthermore, the paper maintained that the two sets of vision reports in Amos and Zechariah display the same type of relationship between vision report and oracle. In both cases, the oracular material constitutes a later addition that interprets and in some cases also redefines the message of the earlier account of the vision.

Dr Hywel Clifford (Oxford) “Biblical Monotheism and Early Greek Philosophy”

This paper suggested that early Greek Philosophy (EGP) had been deployed in traditional ‘diffusionary’ and modern ‘developmental’ accounts of biblical monotheism. The traditional narrative grew out of ancient Jewish and Christian apologetic that defended the universal truth, to which EGP bore witness, of the one God versus other gods or idols. The famous fragments of Xenophanes (‘one God, greatest among gods and men’) in Clement’s Stromata (late 2^nd Century), in a list of fourteen Greek poets and philosophers on divine incomparability, are quoted after a question from Isaiah (‘To whom then will you compare me? says the LORD’) to show that the one God is known by all, albeit in a ‘true periphrasis’ by the Greeks. The paper went on to note that the modern narrative is dominated by ANE evidence, but scholars continue to quote EGP with similar intent. Xenophanes’ fragments are compared to near-contemporary biblical texts in Halpern’s essay ‘Late Israelite Astronomies and the Early Greeks’ (2003), which, influenced by Jasper’s Axial Age hypothesis, proposes that Xenophanes and Deutero-Isaiah were both ‘self-conscious monotheists’. The paper suggested that similarities between their ideas, especially their rejection of polytheistic conceptions, showed an ‘international conversation’ at work. The weaknesses of these two narratives were a lack of detailed engagement with EGP (it is not obvious Xenophanes was a ‘monotheist’ – whether or not that category describes Deutero-Isaiah) and conceptual latitude: they work only because the comparative bar is set sufficiently low. The paper concluded that it is thus important to examine EGP on its own terms, to pursue comparative studies with greater care, and to open up both diffusionary and developmental accounts of biblical monotheism to ideological critique.

Prof. Johannes de Moor (Kampen) / Dr Marjo Korpel (Utrecht) “Adam, Eve and the Devil: A New Beginning”

The paper noted that it has long been recognized that certain passages in e.g. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 reflect what has been dubbed an ‘Adamic Myth’ that is older than the biblical creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2{3. However, thus far no convincing parallels for this ‘Adamic Myth’ had been adduced from the ancient Near East. In the opinion of the presenters, some poorly understood Ugaritic tablets provide this lacking background. Originally Adammu, the divine prototype of humanity, was an androgynous deity. Far from being the first to sin, the Ugaritic myth reveals that he was the victim of a decision of the divine council to send him to the vineyard of the great gods on the earth with the assignment to undo the damage inflicted by Ḥorrrānu, a rebel god who had been thrown out of heaven. The rebel’s revenge seems to have been the destruction of the tree of life in the vineyard of the great gods. As a result immortality was lost and the whole cosmos suffered. The paper suggested that the serpent he instructed to guard the tree was the Leviathan, one of many indications that the primordial history of humankind should be viewed as a macrocosmic chain of events. As for Eve, the Ugaritic myth intimates that through her the immortality of the human race was guaranteed by the process of continuous procreation. This started with the mother goddess, consort of Adammu, and was set forth by all mothers afterwards. Since the Ugaritic texts involved do not contain any indication that she was blamed for the first sin, the presenters raised the question why the Hebrew Bible in its canonical form hanged the first transgression on Eve. The paper went on to suggest that many elements in the primordial history as related in the Bible and parabiblical literature appear in a totally fresh light as a result of what they had found which had emboldened them to append the subtitle ‘A New Beginning’ to their book ‘Adam, Eve, and the Devil’ which had appeared recently in the Swiss series Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. The presenters explained that the reason for the choice for this series was that they wanted to honour Othmar and Hildi Keel for their groundbreaking work on iconography and the Bible because they believed they had identified the first second millennium BCE pictures of ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’.

Prof. Ronald Hendel (Berkeley) “Toward a Plural Poetics of Genesis: Style, Source, and Intertextuality”

There is currently a bifurcation in the field between those who practice source criticism and those who practice literary criticism. This paper argued that these two practices are logically inseparable, and that it is necessary to synthesize the two practices in order more fully to achieve their goals.  The examples given were the Tamar story in the context of the Joseph story, and the journeys of Abraham in Genesis 12-13.  The literary features of the sources (J and P) in the latter case could also elucidate the large-scale structure of the sources and the composite Pentateuch.

[top of the page]

[index of past meetings]

The post Meetings 2014 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.

Next Year

[top of the page]

[index of past meetings]

The post Meetings 2013 appeared first on The Society for Old Testament Study.