Canadian Society of Biblical Studies 2006 Annual Meeting

CSBSBanner.gif

I leave tomorrow morning for The Canadian Society of Biblical Studies (CSBS) 2006 Annual Meeting in Toronto, Ontario. This year’s meeting is being held at York University and runs for three days (May 28-30).

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).

Here are some highlights of papers relating to the Hebrew Bible:

Sunday 28 May 2006

8:45-12:00 (ACE 002) Hebrew Bible/Old Testament / Bible Hébraïque/Ancien Testament

  • 8:45-9:15 – “The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis 1.1” by Robert D. Holmstedt (Universtity of Toronto)
  • 9:15-9:45 – “The Cult Term הֶשּ×?Ö´×? (isheh): Remarks on its Meaning, Importance, and Disappearance” by Christian A. Eberhart (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon)
  • 9:45-10:15 – “The ‘Complementary Hypothesis’ Reconsidered: Exploring Methodological Matrices in Psalms Scholarship” by Derek Suderman (Emmanuel College, Toronto)
  • 10:30-11:00 – “Fresh Light on Hosea from History, Archaeology and Philology” by J. Glen Taylor (Wycliffe College, University of Toronto)
  • 11:00-11:30 – “The Birth of Samson” by Joyce Rilett Wood (University of Toronto)
  • 11:30-12:00 – “Prayer as Rhetoric in the Book of Nehemiah” by Mark Boda (McMaster Divinity College, McMaster University)

Monday 29 May 2006

8:45-12:00 (ACE 005) Curses and Curse Stories in Antiquity / Les Malédictions dans l’Antiquité Ancienne

  • 8:45-9:15 – “Studying Curses and Curse Stories: Some Musings on Methodology” by Tony Chartrand-Burke (York University)
  • 9:15-9:45 – “Joshua’s Curse on Jericho: Fulfillment and Partial Reversal” by Daniel Miller (Bishop’s University)
  • 9:45-10:15 – “Writing / Elijah / Cursing: 2 Chronicles 21:11-20” by Christine Mitchell (St. Andrew’s College)
  • 10:30-11:00 – “Curses and Ideology among the Qumran Covenanters” by Sarianna Metso (University of Toronto)
  • 11:00-11:30 – “Divine Violence and Righteous Anger” by Kimberly Stratton (Carleton University)

13:30-16:15 (ACE 002) Literary Approaches I / Approches littéraires I

  • 13:30-14:00 – “Textually Violating Dinah: Literary Readings and the Construction of the Interpreter” by Todd Penner (Austin College) and Lilian Gyde Gates
  • 14:00-14:30 – “The Golden Calf Story, Constructively and Deconstructively” by Dmitri Slivniak (York University)
  • 14:30-15:00 – “God is Not a Mortal He Should Repent: The Role of Samuel in God’s Rejection of Saul and the Shift to an Unconditional Covenant with David” by J. Richard Middleton (Roberts Wesleyan College)
  • 15:15-15:45 – “Some Advantages of Recycling: Jacob in a Later Environment” by Keith Bodner (Atlantic Baptist University)
  • 15:45-16:15 – “Brecht’s David” by David Jobling (St. Andrew’s College)

19:00-21:00 (Vanier College 135) Special Joint Lecture / La Conférence Conjoint

  • 21:00-23:00 (Vanier College – The Renaissance) – “The Alternative Vision of the Gospel of Judas” by Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill)

Tuesday 30 May 2006

8:45-12:00 (ACE 002) Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne
Function of Historiography – Hebrew Bible / La Fonctionne de l’Historiographie – Bible Hébraïque

  • 8:45-9:05 – “Is the Book of Kings Deuteronomistic? And is it a History?” by Kurt Noll (Brandon University)
  • 9:15-9:35 – “Uses of the Past: The Stories of David and Solomon as Test Cases” by John Van Seters (Waterloo, ON)
  • 9:45-10:05 – “Sennacherib’s Campaign Against Judah: What Saith the Scriptures?” by Paul Evans (Alliance University College)
  • 10:30-10:50 – “The Chronicler as Elite” by Tim Goltz (McGill University)
  • 11:00-11:20 – “The Function of Historiography: A Synthesis and Response to Kurt Noll, John Van Seters, Paul Evans, and Tim Goltz” by Tyler Williams (Taylor University College)

Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne
13:30-16:30 (ACE 002) Function of Historiography – Classics, Intertestamental Literature, and the Gospels / La Fonctionne de l’Historiographie – Les Littératures Classiques et Intertestamentaire, et les Évangiles

  • 13:30-13:50 – “The Gospel of Mark in context of ancient historiography” by Eve-Marie Becker (Oberassistentin Institut für Neues Testament)
  • 14:00-14:20 – “Once Upon a Time: Women as Leaders in Historiography and the Ancient Novel” by Dilys Patterson (Concordia University)
  • 14:30-14:50 -“Ancient Greek Historiography and its Methodology: How Does Luke Relate?” by Sean Adams (McMaster Divinity College)
  • 15:15-15:35 -“When in Rome…: Scripting Gender in Acts” by Todd Penner (Austin College)

13:30-15:30 (ACE 003) Literary Approaches II / Approches littéraires II

  • 13:30-14:00 – “Bug Splats: Squishing Joel’s Verbal Effigy” by James Linville (University of Lethbridge)
  • 14:00-14:30 – “Lament for a Broken Body: The Complaint Psalms and the Fragmented Biblical Subject’ by Fiona Black (MT. Allison University)
  • 14:30-15:00 – “Apocalypse and Apophasis: Paronomasia, Proverbs, and Prolixity in Isaiah 28.19-22” by Francis Landy (University of Alberta)
  • 15:00-15:30 – “A Divine-Human Cherub: The Primal Figure of Ezekiel 28” by Daphna Arbel (University of British Columbia)

As with last year, I will provide daily reports on the sessions, so stay tunned.


CSBS Ancient Historiography Seminar Papers Uploaded

I have just uploaded the final papers for this year’s Ancient Historiography Seminar, which meets in a week at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies (CSBS) at York University in Toronto, Ontario (May 28-30, 2006).

This will be the inaugural year for the Seminar and it looks like it will be a great meeting with a lot of interesting discussion.

The papers are all available in PDF format, though you must be a member of the CSBS to download them. If you are not a member of the CSBS, then you will have to contact the paper’s author for permission and then contact me for the username and password.

As I did last year, I will be summarizing the Hebrew Bible sessions of this year’s conference, so stay tuned!


Ancient Historiography Seminar / Groupe de Travail sur l’Historiographie Ancienne – CSBS Programme (30 May 2006)

As a member of the Steering Committee of the Ancient Historiography Seminar in the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies, I am pleased to report that the programme for our inaugural sessions is now available. Here is a the schedule for this year’s seminar:

Function of Historiography – Hebrew Bible /
La Fonctionne de l’Historiographie – Bible Hébraïque

Tuesday 30 May 2006 – 8:45-12:00 (ACE 002)

Chair / Président: Tyler Williams (Taylor University College)

8:45-9:05 am – Is the Book of Kings Deuteronomistic? And is it a History?
Kurt Noll (Brandon University)

The consensus among biblical scholars is that Kings is a work of history, probably the final instalment of Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History. To date, the best two attempts to defend that genre designation are those of John Van Seters and Baruch Halpern. Van Seters compares the Former Prophets to ANE literature, while Halpern stresses rhetorical structures indicating what Halpern calls “antiquarianism” in the text. However, recent researchers on Kings have raised issues that perhaps require a reassessment of the question about genre. On textual grounds, one can argue that Deuteronomy did not influence the earlier stages of composition and that later stages were no longer concerned with “antiquarianism.” This paper will review the debate between Halpern and Van Seters in light of the more recent research, revisit both the comparative argument and the argument based on rhetorical structures in the text, and offer a possible solution to the question of genre in the book of Kings.

9:05-9:15 am – Discussion

9:15-9:35 am – Uses of the Past: The Stories of David and Solomon as Test Cases
John Van Seters (Waterloo, ON)

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 Discussion

9:45-10:05 am – Sennacherib’s Campaign Against Judah: What Saith the Scriptures?
Paul Evans (Wycliffe College)

This paper won the Founders’ Prize and will be read on Sunday afternoon. It will be summarized at this session.

This paper provides a close reading of the Hezekiah-Sennacherib narrative of 2 Kings 18-19 which, with the aid of a Rhetorical analysis, will: 1) reassess putative sources found in the text (questioning the traditional A and B source delineations); and 2) reveal common misreadings of the biblical text (e.g., that a siege of Jerusalem is referred to and that Sennacherib’s army is said to be defeated outside the walls of Jerusalem). This study will then analyze the implications of these results for the use of this biblical text in historical reconstruction.

10:05-10:15 am – Discussion

10:15-10:30 – Break

10:30-10:50 am – The Chronicler as Elite
Tim Goltz (McGill University)

Noam Chomsky is credited with the observation, “The Internet is an elite organization; most of the population of the world has never even made a phone call.” If the “eliteness” of communities is, in part, measured by their ability to effectively communicate their message, the model of the Internet elite demonstrates a truism of human societies; that the majority of recorded communication is representative of relatively few individuals who tend to wield a disproportionate amount of power. In Western societies which communicate so freely and cheaply, it is sometimes difficult to imagine ancient societies where significant literary agency was limited to so very few people. As a member of the Yehudite elite, the Chronicler was one of those few. Most likely supported by the Jerusalem Temple, he wrote a revisionist account of the history of “Israel” which has been retained as the book(s) of Chronicles. Employing a unique comparative theory from the emerging discipline of elite studies within the humanities, this paper seeks to address the issue of what the term “elite” means in terms of the ancient Yehudite literati. Widely used but rarely dissected, the paper is also an appeal for biblical scholars to more critically engage the implications of term “elite” as applied to socio-historical reconstructions of ancient Israel, and, indeed, to related ANE cultures.

10:50-11:00 – Discussion

11:00-11:20 am – Tyler Williams (Taylor University College)
The Function of Historiography: A Synthesis and Response to Kurt Noll, John Van Seters, Paul Evans, and Tim Goltz

11:20-12:00 am – Discussion

Function of Historiography – Classics, Intertestamental Literature, and the Gospels / La Fonctionne de l’Historiographie – Les Littératures Classiques et Intertestamentaire, et les Évangiles

Tuesday 30 May 2006 – 1:30-14:30 pm (ACE 002)

Chair / Président: Todd Penner (Austin College)

1:30-1:50 pm – Dilys Patterson (Concordia University)
Once Upon a Time: Women as Leaders in Historiography and the Ancient Novel

In antiquity it was rare for a woman to be in a leadership role. Leadership typically meant having authority over men and participating in the male dominated public sphere, which, according to the cultural values of the day, was not the proper place for women. Nevertheless, women do figure sporadically in historiography and are central characters in Jewish novels. The Book of Judith, for instance, not only situates itself in Israel’s past but also demonstrates a solid appreciation of Israel’s history. Both historiography and the ancient novel therefore draw on the past to create meaning. This paper examines the anomalous position of female leadership and the use of this type of leadership to create meaning in three historiographies, The Histories by Herodotus, The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus, and the Jewish novel, Judith.

1:50-2:00 pm – Discussion

2:00-2:20 pm – Craig A. Evans (Acadia Divinity College)
Gospel Historiography and Biblical Epic

The four New Testament evangelists present the “history of Jesus” in distinctive ways. Their writing strategies place them in the general context of other Jewish writers of late antiquity, such as Josephus who writes an apologetical historical treatise, or Philo the epic poet, Orphica, Ezekiel the Tragedian, or a variety of other Jewish poets who imitated Greek style in their respective efforts to retell various parts of Israel’s sacred story or what we might regard in a certain sense “Biblical Epic.” The New Testament Gospels represent examples of the creative ways that Jews and persons caught up in the story of Israel attempted to retell sacred history in the genres and forms current in their day, including the forms found in Scripture itself. Although the strategies of the respective evangelists vary, their gospels are rooted in and linked to Scripture in important ways and so represent efforts to tell Israel’s story, centered on the figure of Jesus the Messiah.

2:20-2:30 pm – Discussion

2:30-2:50 pm – Sean Adams (McMaster Divinity College)
Ancient Greek Historiography and its Methodology: How Does Luke Relate?

2:50-3:00 pm – Discussion

3:00-3:15 pm – Break

3:15-3:35 pm – Eve-Marie Becker (Oberassistentin Institut für Neues Testament)
The Gospel of Mark in context of ancient historiography

My paper will expound on the approach of my “Habilitationsschrift” which will be published in Tübingen (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) in 2006: Das Markus-Evangelium im Rahmen antiker Historiographie. This approach is firstly historical and secondly methodological: ad 1: The Gospel of Mark seems to be the first record of early Christian writing, which has put the story of Jesus in a chronological and narrative order. Which specific historical circumstances have made the narrativization of the Jesus-story necessary? Reasons for that could probably be found in the events of the first Jewish revolt and the destruction of the Second Temple (70 A.D.). Is there any textual evidence within Mark’s Gospel for these historical events? and 2: The way Mark uses traditions and sources can be compared to the techniques of ancient historiographical writers. In this perspective, historiography can be defined as a narrativization of at least partially historical traditions. The discussion about the Gospel’s genre (biographical literature?) is – in that sense – has to be resumed once again.

3:35-3:45 pm – Discussion

3:45-4:30 – Discussion

This looks like an exciting session. I will be updating the Ancient Historiography Seminar Website in the next few days. I will let you know when everything is uploaded.


Final Thoughts on 2005 Canadian Society of Biblical Studies Meeting

This year’s CSBS meeting at the University of Western Ontario was, IMHO, a real success. I thought that the Hebrew Bible sessions were filled with interesting papers (see my previous CSBS posts), the university itself was a great place to visit, and the highpoint for me was (as always) to catch up with friends and colleagues from across North America. A huge advantage of the CSBS over against SBL is its intimacy. I would like to thank all those involved with organizing the conference!

For those interested in some comments on the New Testament sessions, check out Phil Harland’s Overview of Canadian Society of Biblical Studies conference.

CSBS Tuesday Report

The Tuesday Hebrew Bible session of the CSBS had a variety of papers loosely focused on the Writings.

The morning started off with an interesting paper by Arthur Walker-Jones from the University of Winnipeg. In his paper, “Myth Criticism of the Psalms,” he used Northrop Frye’s approach to myth to explore the individual laments.

Next was yours truly (Tyler F. Williams). I presented a paper on “The Psalm Superscriptions and the Composition of the Book of Psalms.” Focusing primarily on the Greek translation of the Psalter, I examined the additions and expansions in the LXX and found that the large majority of quantitative changes in the superscripts are the result of inner-Greek tradition history (rather than reflecting a different Hebrew Vorlage). I will post further on this paper in the near future.

The third paper of the morning was by another Edmontonian, Ehud Ben Zvi, from the University of Alberta. He looked at the Chronicler’s account of Amaziah in 2 Chronicles 25, focusing particularly at the claims advanced in the text itself rather than addressing any historical questions. His was a very interesting paper that explored time construction and periodization in the passage as well as many other features.

After a brief break we heard a paper by David Shepherd (currently of Briercrest College, but moving to Dublin to take up the role of principal of Dublin Bible College August 1) entitled, “‘Strike his bone and his flesh’: Reading Job 2 from the Beginning.” David presented a provocative interpretation of Job 2:5 (“his bone and his flesh”) in which he built a strong argument that rather than this statement being self-referential, it refers to Job’s wife. One challenge — among others — with this interpretation is taking נַפש×?וֹ (naphsho; translated as “his life” in the NRSV) in verse 6 as referring to his wife.

The fifth paper of the morning was presented by Derek Suderman of Emmanuel College (Toronto). His paper, “Towards an Improved Description of Biblical Prayer: Form-Critical Approaches to Direct Address in Psalm 55,” focused specifically on the shift in address in the psalm (rather than thematic changes).

The last (but by no means least) paper of this year’s Hebrew Bible sessions was by John Van Seters, now residing in Waterloo, ON. His paper, “The Myth of the ‘Final Form’ of the Biblical Text,” was perhaps the most provocative paper read this year. A preview of his forthcoming Eisenbrauns’ book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, Van Seters attempted to dismantle the notion of “editor” in ancient texts as well as the idea that there was ever a “final form” of any biblical text. While Van Seters had a number of good points about some anachronistic concepts that have crept into biblical studies, I have to admit that ultimately I was not persuaded by his paper. To be fair, I’ll have to take a look at his book to get his full argument.