Archive for the 'CSBS' Category

The call for papers for the 2010 sessions of the Ancient Historiography Seminar of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies has been released.  The theme for 2010 is “The Book of Chronicles and Early Second Temple Historiography.”

The last quarter-century has seen a remarkable resurgence in scholarship on the book of Chronicles. The Ancient Historiography Seminar of the CSBS invites papers evaluating the state of Chronicles research, including papers exploring the text, context, or subtext of the Chronicler’s work and Yehudite Historiography in the late Persian/Early Hellenistic Period. While the focus of the session will be on Chronicles, papers on other examples of early Second Temple historiography, especially as they contribute to our understanding of the Chronicler, are welcome.

To be considered for our program, please submit a 250 word abstract to the seminar chair, Tyler Williams (tyler [dot] williams [at] kingsu [dot] ca) by December 1, 2009.

The seminar will meet as part of the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, held at Concordia University, Montréal, PQ, May 29-31, 2010.

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne is a professional, academic working group of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies / Société canadienne des Études bibliques (CSBS/SCÉB). Last year’s schedule and papers may be found here, while the papers from the 2006, 2007, and 2008 meetings may be found here.

This year’s Ancient Historiography Seminar will be meeting in a couple weeks at the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies annual meeting in Ottawa (25 May 2009).  The theme for this year is “Historiography and Prophecy” and there is a full program planned. Feel free to check out the full schedule on the Ancient Historiography Seminar website.

In addition, the latest Review of Biblical Literature contained a fairly positive review of the first publication from the Ancient Historiography Seminar.  Based on the York 2006 meeting, The Function of Ancient Historiography in Biblical and Cognate Studies (Patricia G. Kirkpatrick and Timothy D. Goltz, eds.; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, T & T Clark International, 2008), contains essays by John Van Seters, Kurt Noll, Eve-Marie Becker, among others.

This book provides fresh perspectives from new scholars while engaging lingering questions from seasoned ones, and the function of historiography in biblical literature continues to be an issue of wide disagreement among biblical scholars but an emerging consensus considers it to serve primarily an interpretive function. Such a function(s) are discussed vis-à-vis J. Huizinga’s broad, theoretical definition of historiography as “the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.” Based on the latter, issues of historicity tend to be downplayed as the central focus; given the assumption that these are modern scholarly concerns. Thus, socio-historical intent (ideology) tends to be given priority, seeking to understand these writings on their own terms. This shift in focus is a key feature of the volume. Purchase from Amazon.ca | Amazon.com | Eisenbrauns.com

The Seminar’s second volume, from the Saskatoon 2007 meetings, is expected to be published in June 2009. The volume, Community Identity in Judean Historiography: Biblical and Comparative Perspectives (Gary N. Knoppers and Kenneth Ristau, eds.; Eisenbrauns, Forthcoming, June 2009), contains essays by Gary Knoppers, Ehud Ben Zvi, Mark Boda, Kenton Sparks, John Van Seters, among others.

The volume deals with issues of self-identification, community identity, and ethnicity in Judahite and Yehudite historiography. The scholars present addressed a range of issues, such as the understanding, presentation, and delimitation of “Israel” in various biblical texts, the relationship of Israelites to Judahites in Judean historical writings, the definition of Israel over against other peoples, and the possible reasons why the ethnoreligious community (”Israel”) was the focus of Judahite/Yehudite historiography. Papers approached these matters from a variety of theoretical and disciplinary vantage points. For example, some pursued an inner-biblical perspective (pentateuchal sources/writings, Former Prophets, Latter Prophets, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), while others pursued a cross-cultural comparative perspective (ancient Near Eastern, ancient Greek, Hellenistic historiographies, Western and non-Western historiographic traditions). Still others attempted to relate the material remains to the question of community identity in northern Israel, monarchic Judah, and postmonarchic Yehud. Order from Amazon.ca | Amazon.com | Eisenbrauns.com

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies invites papers related to the theme for the 2009 seminar: “Prophets and Prophecy in Ancient Israelite Historiography.”

Papers are invited that seek to advance the study of ancient Near Eastern historiography as it intersects with the phenomenon of prophecy, and the role and message of the prophets within the Former and Latter Prophets as well as other historiographic books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. Diverse methodological perspectives such as literary, historical, archaeological, epigraphical, and otherwise are invited, as are proposals from junior and senior scholars. Papers dealing with prophets and prophecy in non-biblical ancient historiography (such as Josephus, etc.) will also be considered.

The seminar will meet during the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, to be held at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, May 24-26, 2009. Contributors must be or become members of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies.

To be considered for our program, please submit a 250 word abstract to the seminar chair, Tyler Williams (tyler.williams [at] taylor-edu [dot] ca) by December 15, 2008. For more information please see the Ancient Historiography Seminar website: http://biblical-studies.ca/historiography.

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne is a professional, academic working group of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies / Société canadienne des Études bibliques (CSBS/SCÉB).

I am heading off to the 2007 annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies (CSBS) today. This year it is being held at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and runs for three days (May 27-29).

A glance at the programme reveals many interesting papers related to the Hebrew Bible, including papers in the Ancient Historiography Seminar (For those interested more in New Testament/Christian Origins or the history of interpretation there are many papers that would interest you, so check out the full programme).

If I have the time and an internet connection, I will post some reflections from the meetings like previous years. If an internet connection is not available, I will post some thoughts when I get back next Wednesday.

UPDATE: It doesn’t look like I will be able to do any reflections from here, so I will post some thoughts when I am back home.

As a member of the Steering Committee of the Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne in the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, I am pleased to report that the program for this year’s sessions is now available.

Here is a the schedule for this year’s seminar; as you can see, it’s a pretty impressive line-up.

Saskatoon 2007

Identity Formation and Ethnicity

Monday 28 May 2007 – 8:45 am – 12:00 (THORV 205A)

Chair / Président: Patricia Kirkpatrick (McGill University)

8:45-9:05 am – Israel and the Nomads of Ancient Palestine
Kent Sparks (Eastern University)
ksparks [at] eastern [dot] edu

Two views of Israel’s ethnogenesis now predominate among scholars. One holds that early Israel originated in the city-state society of Canaan, the other that its core identity was provided by nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists. In this paper I will explore the ancient Israelite portrait of the nomadic groups in Palestine, seeking to understand how Israel construed its historical and ethnic relationship with those peoples. The implications of this portrait for the debate about Israel’s ethnogenesis will then be considered.

9:05–9:15 – Questions

9:15-9:35 am – The Construction of Text and Ethnicity in Judges 5
Mark Smith (New York University)
mss11 [at] nyu [dot] edu

For the accounts of the reigns of David and Solomon scholars have suggested various layers in the books of Samuel and Kings, some regarded as near-contemporary pieces of historiography and have proposed various functions for the stories: propagandistic, apologetic, antimonarchic, etcetera. In this study I will look at some of these proposals in the light of comparative models and make some suggestions of my own.

9:35-9:45 – Questions
9:45-10:15 – Discussion
10:15 – 10:30 Break

10:30 – 10:50 – David the Mercenary
John Van Seters (Waterloo, ON)
john [dot] vanseters [at] sympatico [dot] ca

At the heart of Dtr’s conception of Israelite identity is the Davidic monarchy, with its divine election of the “house of David� and Jerusalem, wedded to the exodus/Horeb tradition of the covenant people. The crisis of the Babylonian destruction of monarchy and temple did not destroy this mode of identity but gave rise to a future messianic hope of a restored Davidic rule. Against this conception of David’s election and idealization is set another presentation of David’s rise to power as a mercenary leader employed by the Philistine king of Gath. As such, David used this role of mercenary to gain a power base in Judah and eventual control of the whole of Israel. David is also presented as maintaining his power as king entirely on the foundation of mercenaries, primarily foreigners. Since this portrayal is a complete anachronistic fiction, it must represent a deliberate ideological polemic against the Davidic monarchy and any form of identity that is based upon a messianic hope of monarchic restoration.

10:50 – 11:00 – Questions

11:00 – 11:20 – Identity and Empire, Reality and Hope in the Chronicler’s Perspective
Mark Boda (McMaster)
mjboda [at] mcmaster [dot] ca

It has often been noted that one of the purposes which energizes the Chronicler’s work is the reformulation of the identity of the Yehudite community in its new imperial context. Past proposals have focused, for example, on the importance of key past traditions (recapitulative historiography), incorporation of new traditions (priestly and levitical services), and delineation of the limits of the restoration community (all Israel). This paper will highlight evidence in the genealogical introduction and the narrative conclusion to the book of Chronicles that the Chronicler is revisioning identity for the community in Yehud. For the Chronicler, Judah became an imperial province with Josiah’s death as the state lost its independence and authority was transferred by Yahweh to imperial figures. Necho, Nebuchadnezzar, and Cyrus all act and/or speak as God’s representatives and it is this that provides ideological justification for Yehud’s identity as a province within an empire. However, this does not mean that these imperial figures will always speak or act for Yahweh or that provincial status is Yehud’s final destiny. The Chronicler’s presentation of Hezekiah highlights an emperor, Sennacherib, who meets his demise when challenging Yahweh and his Davidic king. In addition, the fate of the final four Davidic vassals as well as the shape of the conclusion to the Davidic genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 suggest that the Chronicler’s vision of the community’s identity contains hope for kingdom’s reestablishment. The Chronicler’s presentation of genealogy and story constructs an identity that emphasizes present reality without extinguishing future hope.

11:20 – 11:30 – Questions
11:30 – 12:00 – Discussion

Identity Formation and Ethnicity (Session 2)

Monday 28 May 2007 – 1:30 pm – 5:00 pm (THORV 205A)

Chair / Président: Lissa Wray Beal (Providence Theological Seminary)

1:30 – 1:50 – Are There Any Bridges Out There? How Wide Was the Conceptual Gap Between the ‘Deuteronomistic Historical Collection’ and Chronicles?
Ehud Ben Zvi (University of Alberta)
ehud.ben.zvi [at] ualberta [dot] ca

There cannot be any doubt that Chronicles and the books included in the so-called ‘Deuteronomistic History’ (Dtr) construe the past differently. At least one of the main intentions of Chronicles was to reflect and shape a different and, in my opinion, complementary image of the past for literati who were aware of the ‘classical’ version in books such as Samuel and Kings. But how wide was the conceptual gap behind these two historiographies? Against the background of a traditional tendency in research to highlight the differences between the two corpora, this paper shows a substantial number of similarities in worldview and basic concepts between some voices within the so-called Dtr and Chronicles. It further suggests that Chronicles picks up and develops these existing voices and accordingly sets itself and actually stands in partial continuity—as well as partial discontinuity—with the so-called Dtr. The paper concludes with a discussion of the significance of these observations with respect to social settings of the final compositional form of the books in Dtr and Chronicles in the Persian period.

1:50 – 2:00 – Questions

2:00 – 2:20 – A Comparative Study of the Exilic Gap in Ancient Israelite, Messenian, and Zionist Collective Memory
Katherine Stott (University of Alberta)
katiestott [at] optushome [dot] com [dot] au

I propose to examine the commonly noted gap in biblical historiography that marks the exile. An attempt will be made to explain the absence of narrative pertaining to this period by comparing the biblical concept of exile to the treatment of exile within ancient Messenian and Zionist thought. While these communities, like the Israelites, remember a time spent living in a state of exile outside the homeland, and acknowledge this period as a distinct phase within their history, the experience of exile is similarly marginalized in their social memory. By comparing and contrasting the construction of exile in Israelite, Messenian, and Zionist memory, insight will be gained into the possible reasons for the “exilic gap� in the biblical literature. Various factors will be explored including the possibility that the gap is a case of “structural amnesia� reflecting cultural trauma brought about by the exile; however, it will be argued that the most likely reason has to do with matters of group identity.

2:20 – 2:30 – Questions

2:30 – 2:50 – Textual Identities in the Books of Chronicles: The Case of Jehoram’s History
Louis Jonker (Stellenbosch University)
lcj [at] sun [dot] ac [dot] za

In recent years an increasing number of publications have discussed the issue of identity formation in Persian period Yehud in general, and in the Book of Chronicles in particular. As Berquist (2006) has indicated in his distinction of five different modes of scholarship on this issue, scholars, however, proceed with different and diverging assumptions about “identity.� Further, the complexity of the matter is often neglected when scholars work with a too limited definition of “identity.� In this paper I will pursue two aims: Firstly, I will explore the potential of “textual identities� (which is used in social psychology) as a description of the identity formation processes witnessed in the Books of Chronicles. Secondly, I will analyze the Jehoram narrative in Chronicles (2 Chron 21:2 – 22:1a)—in synoptic comparison to the Vorlage in 2 Kings 8—in order to test the hypothesis that “textual identities� could help us achieve a more adequate understanding of the dynamics of identity formation in the Book of Chronicles.

2:50 – 3:00 – Questions
3:00 – 3:15 – Break

3:15 – 3:35 – Characters in Stone: The Behistun Inscription and Yehudite Identity
James Bowick (McMaster Divinity College)

In 522 BCE, Darius ascended the Persian throne and shortly thereafter, he recorded the story of how he became king and solidified his reign in the trilingual Behistun inscription, which he also had translated and distributed throughout the empire. While much work has been done in comparing the history it records with Greek sources to understand what transpired, little work has been done on the literary and narratival characteristics of the inscription, as it is widely held that it is devoid of such artistic properties. However, a close reading shows that the text is artfully crafted, using several distinctive techniques to develop its theme. This paper will review how the Old Persian text of the Behistun inscription uses literary features to create an ascension myth, known throughout the empire. Stock phrases such as “Ahuramazda bore me aid,â€? different episodes described using almost identical language, the geographical breadth of the rebellions and the short time in which they are all dealt with, have a cumulative effect on the reader and suggest a quasi-miraculous element to the ascension. While the literary features of the text are quite different from those of the Hebrew Bible, the themes of the ascension myth would have been familiar to the Yehudite community. This paper will compare the historiography of the Behistun inscription with the historiography of the Yehudite community, contrasting Darius’s self description with how he is viewed in Hebrew literature, and how the Yehudite relationship to Darius affected their identity as a community.

3:35 – 3:45 – Questions

3:45 – 4:05 – Community Identities in the Rescript of Artaxerxes: The Mandate(s) of Ezra in Jerusalem, Judah, and the Province Beyond the River
Gary Knoppers (The Pennsylvania State University)
gxk7 [at] psu [dot] edu

The edict of Artaxerxes, the “king of kings,� (Ezra 7:11-26) pertaining to “Ezra the scribe-priest� has been the subject of intensive study during recent decades. The focus of this paper will not be on the rescript as a whole, since two recent monographs (Pakkala, Grätz) have devoted considerable attention to the form, structure, and compositional history of this curious and complicated passage. My paper will address the emperor’s charge to Ezra in the broader context of “the Province Beyond the River� (7:25-26). Is this mandate, despite appearances to the contrary, merely an amplification of the earlier charge given to Ezra in “Judah and Jerusalem� (7:14)? Is the mandate given to Ezra in 7:25-26 a utopian recollection of the glories of the united monarchy or something more closely connected to late Persian and Hellenistic times? Moreover, what are the relationships among the communities mentioned in the letter: the people of Israel, Judah, Jerusalem, and the people in the Province Beyond the River?

4:05 – 4:15 – Questions
4:15 – 4:45 – Discussion

4:45 – 5:00 – Open Planning Session for Vancouver 2008

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne is a professional, academic working group of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies / Société canadienne des Études bibliques (CSBS/SCÉB). For more information, please see our website.

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies invites papers on self-identification, community identity, and ethnicity in Judahite/Yehudite historiography for the 2007 Annual Meeting at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon (May 27-29).

Papers are invited to address a range of related questions, such as the understanding, presentation, and delimitation of “Israel” in various biblical texts, the relationship of Israelites to Judahites in Judean historical writings, the definition of Israel over against other peoples, the possible reasons why the ethno-religious community (”Israel”) was the focus of Judahite/Yehudite historiography, and the potential relationship of these issues to the Jewish-Samaritan controversy (at its earliest stages through the early part of the common era). Papers may approach the question from a variety of theoretical and disciplinary vantage points. For example, some may wish to pursue an inner-biblical perspective (Pentateuchal sources/writings, Former Prophets, Latter Prophets, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah), while others may wish to pursue a cross-cultural comparative perspective (e.g., Ancient Near Eastern, Greek, Hellenistic and early Roman historiographies: Herodotus, Berossus, Manetho, Josephus; or be informed by non-Western historiographic traditions). Yet others may want to relate (or unrelate) the material remains to the question of community identity in northern Israel, monarchic Judah, and/or postmonarchic Yehud.

To be considered for our program, please submit a 250 word abstract to Ken Ristau (kar340 [at] psu [dot] edu) by December 1, 2006.

The Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne is a professional, academic working group of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies / Société canadienne des Études bibliques (CSBS/SCÉB). For more information, please see our website.

Monday evening (29 May 2006) there was a special joint lecture sponsored in part by the CSBS by Bart Ehrman entitled “The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas.�

Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is one scholar who has been able to bridge the gap between the academy and the public. He is the only biblical scholar I know who has appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart in connection with his book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com) (click here to watch a video of his interview).

Ehrman’s lecture focused on uncovering the significance of the “Gospel of Judas,” the recently uncovered second-century gnostic gospel that has been all the rage in recent months. In a nutshell, the significance of this gospel text, according to Ehrman, is not because it is somehow more authentic than the canonical gospels or because it somehow undermines the very foundations of Christianity. Rather, its real significance is because it is a serious document of real historical significance which gives us a glimpse into gnostic thinking in antiquity. According to Ehrman, the text’s closest ties are with various Sethian forms of Gnosticism, although it has clear alliances with other forms of early Christian thought (Valentinian, Thomasine, Marcionite). He even argued that there appears to be remnants of Jewish apocalyptic theology in the surviving text. He also noted how it has some unique characteristics compared to other gnostic texts, such as the sympathetic portrayal of Judas as the only disciple who really understood Jesus’ work and message (sounds like The Last Temptation of Christ). The lecture was well done, although considering his audience was mainly academics, he could have raised the level of the lecture a bit.

After the lecture I went to a local watering hole with Ehrman and a few others. It was great to meet Ehrman in person and have some more infomal time with him. Among other things, I was very pleased to learn that Ehrman is not a Carolina Hurricanes fan! (Of course, he’s not an Oilers fan either. In fact, he doesn’t get into hockey at all! What a loser )

Here are some works on the Gospel of Judas, including some forthcoming ones by Ehrman and another by Tom Wright.

• The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2006; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• The Gospel of Judas, Bart Ehrman (commentary); and Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, Gregor Wurst (editors) (National Geographic Society, 2006; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, Herbert Krosney with a forward by Bart D. Ehrman (National Geographic Society, 2006; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: A Christian Response, N. T. Wright (Baker Books, October 2006; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).

Here is a very select bibliography of some of Ehrman’s recent works:

• Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Who Changed the New Testament and Why, Bart Ehrman (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• The Text of the New Testament: Its Origin, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (4^th edition; Oxford University Press, 2005; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Can Really Know about Jesus, Mary, and Constantine, Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2004; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2004; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• Christianity in Late Antiquity: A Reader, Bart Ehrman and Andrew Jacobs, eds. (Oxford University Press, 2004; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• Lost Christianities, Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Become the New Testament, Bart Ehrman (Oxford University Press, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).
• The Apostolic Fathers, Bart Ehrman (Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).

Ehrman’s scholarship is typically of a high quality, though he does have an axe to grind with fundamentalist Christianity (growing up as one himself). He also tends to pander to the sensational, though that isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as he is able to maintain his academic integrity in the process. All of this slants his scholarship somewhat, but his works are worth reading — albeit with a critical eye.

Monday morning (29 May 2006) at the CSBS there was a special session entitled “Curses and Curse Stories in Antiquity / Les Malédictions dans l’Antiquité Ancienne.” This special two-year session is headed up by Tony Chartrand-Burke, who teaches Biblical Studies at the Atkinson School of Arts and Letters at York University in Toronto, Ontario. I had the priviledge of getting to know Tony at this year’s CSBS — I actually shared a suite with him and a couple other guys (including Phil Harland, of Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean blog fame). Tony is a great guy and he has done an excellent job with this project. You can view the project website, including an annotated bibliography, here.

Tony Chartrand-Burke started the morning with a methodological probe, “Studying Curses and Curse Stories: Some Musings on Methodology.â€? This introduction to the special session included a summary of the results of an annotated bibliography currently in progress and some discussion on such issues as the forms, functions, and reception of curses and curse stories in antiquity. Tony is a master communicator and wasn’t even phased by the fire alarm going off in the middle of his introduction (I’m not sure the fire marshal would approve of Tony blocking the exits and yelling, “Stop or I will curse you” to all who dared to approach! ).

One of the highlights of the morning for me (being such a simpleton) was the South-Park-esque comic Tony showed about Elisha calling down a curse on a group of children and a couple bears killing a bunch of them (to view the comic, see here; to read the biblical account, go to 2Kings 2:23-25. Please note that I do not endorse the site on which the comic is found — nor do I endorse the comic, I just thought that it was kind of funny in a twisted sort of way).

The second paper of the morning was “Joshua’s Curse on Jericho: Fulfillment and Partial Reversalâ€? by Daniel Miller (Bishop’s University). Miller began with an excellent discussion of magic and incantations in the ANE, which led into a discussion of the “syntax” of incantations and incantatory curses. He then briefly explored Joshua’s incantatory curse on anybody who would rebuild Jericho in Josh 6:26. This curse is fulfilled in 1 Kgs 16:34, when one Hiel of Bethel rebuilds the city “at the cost of Abiram his firstbornâ€? and “of his youngest son Segub.â€? In a related story in 2 Kgs 2:20-21, the “man of Godâ€? Elisha purifies the Jericho spring (presumably poisoned by Joshua’s curse) with a magical ritual that includes an incantation. Taken together, these three passages constitute a discontinuous “curse storyâ€? of the Deuteronomistic historian (containing not one but two incantations). I thought Miller’s paper was very well done, though one question that it raised in my mind is how can one distinguish incantations with prayers.

Then Christine Mitchell (St. Andrew’s College), who is always entertaining, delivered a paper mysteriously entitled, “Writing / Elijah / Cursing: 2 Chronicles 21:11-20.″ She focused on 2 Chr 21:11-20, where the Chronicler relates the story of Elijah cursing — via a letter — King Jehoram with illness. This curse story is also the only story of Elijah in Chronicles and the only written curse found in the book. Mitchell argued that the figure of Elijah should be read as a type of the implied author “the Chronicler,â€? and the cursing letter and its fulfillment as a parable for the text and reception of Chronicles. Interesting, though I am not sure I bought it!

The next paper, “Curses and Ideology among the Qumran Covenanters� was delivered by Sarianna Metso, religion professor at the University of Toronto. She focused on four texts (1QS 2; 1QM 13; 4QCurses; and 1QBer) and illustrated how they do not just imitate the biblical text, but give expression to specific ideological emphases of the Qumran community, such as their dualistic worldview. A motivational shift from law to wisdom can be detected: whereas curses in the Hebrew Bible have their ideological basis in the conduct-consequence relationship of covenantal discourse, curses in the Essene writings often function as an expression of the dualistic worldview of the Qumran covenanters, stating the (predestined) fate of an individual not belonging in the lot of the sons of light.

Unfortunately, I had to leave before the final paper of the morning, “Divine Violence and Righteous Angerâ€? by Kimberly Stratton (Carleton University). Here is the abstract to her paper: “This paper explores the role violence plays in curses and eschatological imaginings, where violence is anticipated for another group. How does calling down divine/demonic violence/vengeance upon an “otherâ€? serve to alleviate a sense of injustice or suffering? What is the history and relationship between curses and fantasies of eschatological judgment? How was this violence regarded in its ancient context?”

On the whole, I quite enjoyed the session. Kudos to Tony for a well-organized and run session.

Late Sunday afternoon (28 May 2006), William Morrow gave his address as outgoing President of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies. Morrow is Associate Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at Queen’s University in Kindston, Ontario. He is author of Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1 17:13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1995; Buy from Amazon.ca | Buy from Amazon.com).

Morrow’s address was entitled, “Violence and Transcendence in the Development of Biblical Religion.” He began by noting the disappearance of individual lament/complaint prayer in the Second Temple period. The laments you do find in the Second Temple period differ from the earlier individual complaint psalms in that they tend to be in a narrative context, they neglect individual suffering, combine individual and communal elements, and have a unique status. According to Morrow, instead of individual lament psalms where the psalmist complains to God (and sees God as the problem in many cases), in the Second Temple period you see the development of prayers against demonic attack. The therapeutic impulse expressed in the earlier laments now shifts to incantations and psalm-like texts that have as their goal to expel demonic attack.

What I found the most interesting about Morrow’s address is his theory as to why these shifts took place. Morrow drew upon Karl Jaspers’s notion of an “Axial Age.� According to Jaspers, around 800 BCE to 200 BCE there was a major paradigm shift in the ancient world that saw significant conceptual changes. The primary conceptual change for the Israelites, according to Morrow, was in their conception of God: instead of an imminent deity who hears and responds to individual complaint prayers (and even assumes the deity has obligations to respond), you have a shift to a more transcendent deity. This compromised any felt intimacy with God and emphasized the need for intermediaries between God and the created world. Like the politics of empire (where the King rules from afar), God is no longer directly accessible to the psalmist.

In my mind this notion of an axial age makes much sense of the biblical material and the developments you see in the Second Temple period. At any rate, I quite enjoyed Morrow’s paper and I am looking forward to when it will be published. In addition, Morrow is just proofing the galley copies of a new book he has written on this notion of violence and transcendence where he develops this notion with far more detail. The new book will hopefully be out in time for SBL. I will make sure to post on it when it does.

I just got home today (early in the morning due to flight delays) from the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies annual meeting at York University, Toronto. I was hoping to post some reports from the meetings, but my dorm room at York didn’t have internet access (and no shower curtain — I felt like Jesus walking on water). In the next few days I will post some of my reflections from the meeting.

Sunday morning (Sunday 28 May) the session of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament / Bible Hébraïque/Ancien Testament met. There were a number of interesting papers as well as some good discussion. Here are some highlights.

In the Beginning… of CSBS

The very first paper of the conference was by Robert D. Holmstedt, the recently appointed Assistant Professor of Ancient Hebrew and Northwest Semitic Languages, Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto. He presented an interesting paper on “The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis 1:1.″ Beginning with the observation that while many (most?) scholars have departed from the traditional understanding of בר×?שית as an independent phrase with grammatical reference to “THE beginning,â€? it continues to thrive as reflected by the majority of modern translations. He also noted how advocates of the dependent phrase position (e.g., “when God beganâ€?) struggle with a precise and compelling linguistic analysis (how can a verb function as the absolute of the construct phrase?). In his paper, Holmstedt offered a linguistic argument that both provided a simpler analysis of the grammar of Gen 1:1 and clarified that the traditional understanding of a reference an “absolute beginning” cannot be derived from the Hebrew grammar of the verse. Based on his doctoral research into the relative clause in Biblical Hebrew, Holmstedt argued that the phrase is best understood as an unmarked, restrictive relative clause (a “restrictive” or “limiting” relative clause is one that providesmore information about the head word), and he translated the phrase as, “In the initial period that God created the heavens and the earth.” Thus, the phrase is not referring to an absolute temporal designation (”In THE beginning”), but is referring to the the particular begining from which the rest of the story in Genesis proceeds. Rather, there were potentially multiple בר×?שית periods or stages to God’s creative work. While I have always leaned towards taking the construction as an indefinate adverbial nominal suggesting a relative temporal designation (i.e., “when God began to create…”), I have never been satisfied with the syntax of such a construction. Holmstedt’s analysis provides a way of understanding the phrase that is both syntactically plausible and meshes with other ANE creation stories.

Burning (Ring Of) Fire

Next, Christian A. Eberhart from Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, read his paper “The Cult Term ×?ִש×?ֶּה (isheh): Remarks on its Meaning, Importance, and Disappearance.â€? Contrary to the views of such heavyweight biblical scholars such as Jacob Milgrom and Rolf Rendtorff, Eberhart argued persuasively (IMHO) that the Hebrew term ×?ִש×?ֶּה is best understood to include connotations of burning. He suggests that the best translation is, in fact, “fire offering.â€? Building on this broader understanding, he also showed that the term was a key notion of the sacrificial cult in which it can also be used as a comprehensive term for all sacrifices — especially in priestly texts.

The Matrix Revisited

Derek Suderman, a doctoral student at Emmanuel College, Toronto, focused on critical method and the book of Psalms in his paper “The ‘Complementary Hypothesis’ Reconsidered: Exploring Methodological Matrices in Psalms Scholarship.” Suderman wanted to debunk the notion that different critical approaches to the biblical text are complementary stages in the process of exegesis. The three pillars of the “complementary method” that Suderman questions are: (1) different approaches illuminate different aspects of the biblical text; (2) the different methods represent distinct steps in exegesis; and (3) the goal of biblical exegesis is to achieve a synthesis of the different methods. On the whole, I think Suderman was sucessful in showing how the different critcial approaches conceive (indeed, generate) the relationship between the author, editor, original text and setting of individual lament Psalms in such different ways so as to be incompatible. These elements are so inter-connected that changing the meaning or function of one element in the system affects all of the others. And since different biblical criticisms reflect divergent matrices, the “complementary hypothesis” of biblical criticisms is highly questionable. While I agree with Suderman’s main argument, I think that some methods are more complementary than others — especially those which developed in relationship with each other (e.g., form and rhetorical criticism). I tend to be very ecclectic with my method, and while all of the different methods may have some incompatibilities, they all can highlight certain things about the text.

Hosea’s “Flagrant Hussy”

The third paper of the morning was “Fresh Light on Hosea from History, Archaeology and Philologyâ€? by J. Glen Taylor, from Wycliffe College, University of Toronto. Taylor shared a number of insights on Hosea from his work for the Illustrated Bible Background Commentary series (Zondervan, forthcoming 2007). For example, contrary to Freedman and Andersen, he argued that Hosea’s wife was likely a “flagrant hussy” at the time God told him to marry her. Moreover, if one compares 1:2 both to 2:3 [ET 2:1] and to Ancient Near Eastern adoption formulae, it seems likely that God told Hosea also to adopt children previously borne by his new bride (i.e. children other than the three she bears in 1:3–9). One of the neatest points was his understanding of Hosea 14:9 [ET 14:8] as containing a subtle wordplay that mock the goddesses Anat and Asherah. While I think there is something to Taylor’s reading, in the discussion after the paper Holmstedt raised a good point that recent research suggests native Hebrew speakers do not tend to isolate roots and perhaps these sublte wordplays would be lost on them. While that may certainly be the case, the history of interpretation does show that native Hebrew speakers did put significant stock in word plays (And they are just so much fun to point out!).

Samson: From Zero to Hero

Next up was Joyce Rilett Wood, a PhD graduate from the University of Toronto. Her paper, “The Birth of Samson” explored the parallels between the story of Samson (Judges 13-16) and the legends of Heracles. She highlighted a number of well-recognized parallels, such as the role of lions and women in the respective stories. Beyond the these well-recognized parallels, she also argued that the story of Samson’s conception and birth (Judges 13) is parallel to the miraculour conception and birth of Hercules. While I think that Rilett Wood pointed out some significant parallels, she didn’t spend any time explaining the significance of the parallels (or perhaps more importantly, the differences). I was not convinced by her reading suggesting Samson’s mother conceived him through the direct agency of God. If anything, I think that there are far more compelling links between the other births in the Bible and the birth of Samson than the birth of Hercules.

Speech, Prayer, and Rhetoric

Finally, Mark Boda from McMaster Divinity College presented a paper entitled, “Prayer as Rhetoric in the Book of Nehemiah.” Taking the lead from recent literary models for the interpretation of prayer, Boda looked at the role of prayer within the rhetoric of the book of Nehemiah. Based on his rhetorial analysis, Boda argued that the initial prayer in Neh 1:5-11 draws the reader’s attention not only to the piety of the main autobiographical character, a piety that will be showcased throughout the book, but more importantly to the role this character will play in creating conditions which will facilitate similar piety in the community as a whole. While the first six chapters of the book of Nehemiah focus on the main character as an agent of renewal of the city’s infrastructure, the second half shifts this focus onto the main character as an agent of spiritual renewal. The placement of the two longest prayers in the book at Nehemiah 1 and Nehemiah 9 accentuate this rhetorical shift in the book as a whole. I especially liked Boda’s summary of the purpose of speech in ancient narratives (e.g., to advance plot, express author’s ideology, provide an alternative viewpoint, etc.).

All in all, it was a good morning. One thing that sets CSBS meetings apart from a large meeting like the SBL is the intimacy.