Meetings 2012


Previous Year

Next Year

Prof. George Brooke (Manchester), ‘The Scribal Aesthetics of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ (presidential address)

Dr Adrian Curtis (Manchester) and Dr Rebecca Watson (Cambridge), ‘Churning the Mighty Waters: A Dialogue on Habakkuk 3’

Dr Hector Patmore (Kampen), ‘The Transmission of Targum Jonathan in Europe’

Dr Katie Edwards (Sheffield), ‘The Never-changing Face of Eve: Representations of Eve in Nineteenth Century Art and Twenty-first Century Advertising’

Prof. Graham Davies (Cambridge), ‘The Reception of William Gesenius’ Dictionary in England in the Nineteenth Century’

Prof. David Clines and Dr David Stec (Sheffield), ‘Reflections on the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew’

Prof. John Day (Oxford), ‘The Monarchy in Ancient Israel’ (Special Lecture to Commemorate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee)

Dr Alastair Hunter (Glasgow), ‘Midrash and Lexicon in Exodus’

Dr Dominik Markl (Heythrop College, London), ‘“Today” and the Pragmatics of Deuteronomy’

Dr Siobhan Dowling Long (Cork), ‘Tales of Wickedness, Heartache and Blessing: The Reception of the Genesis Flood Narrative in Music’

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)

Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield), ‘Remembering David’

Dr David Shepherd (Chester), ‘“The Sword Shall Never Depart …”: Blood, Guilt and the House of David’

Dr Dwight Swanson (Manchester), ‘“Editing the Bible” Revisited’

Dr Ann Jeffers (London) “The Politics of Selection: the Woodcuts from the Book of Judges in Luther’s Bible”. Due to illness of the speaker, this lecture was replaced in the meeting by Dr Susan Gillingham (Oxford), ‘Reception History: Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View’

Prof. Reinhard Kratz (Göttingen), ‘The Two Houses of Israel: Some Observations on Isaiah 8:14’

Prof. Sara Japhet (Jerusalem), ‘The Term ger and the Concept of Religious Conversion in the Hebrew Bible’

Dr Casey Strine (Oxford), ‘YHWH Is as YHWH Does: Monotheism and the Use of Foreign Leaders in Ezekiel’

Ms Gwen Knight (Rowton), ‘The geber engages in Begründung in Lamentations 3’

Prof. Hugh Pyper (Sheffield), ‘From Zion to Olympus: Israel and Athletics’ (A paper in celebration of the 2012 Olympic Games)

The planned presentation by Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Exeter), ‘Coping with Corpses: The Bible, the Body and the West’, could not take place. Instead Dr Walter Houston (Manchester) presented on ‘Between Salem and Mount Gerizim: The Creation of the Pentateuch Revisited’

Prof. Hugh Williamson (Oxford), ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’

At this conference there Prof. George Brooke gave further information on the REF 2014; and representatives from Brill and Continuum discussed ‘What publishers might be looking for in your next book’.

15th SOTS/OTW JOINT MEETING

22nd-26th July 2012

Amsterdam

The following papers were presented by SOTS members at sessions of the OTW/SOTS Joint Meeting:

Dr Margaret Barker, ‘Wisdom and the Other Tree’; Prof George Brooke, ‘The Place of Wisdom in the Formation of the Movement behind the Dead Sea Scrolls’; Prof David Clines ‘The Wisdom of Job’s Conclusion’; Dr Katharine Dell, ‘Ecclesiastes as Mainstream Wisdom (Without Job)’; Prof Cheryl Exum, ‘Unity, Date, Authorship and the “Wisdom” of the Song of Songs’; Revd Dr Knut Heim, ‘Metaphorical Developments of Personified Wisdom in Early Judaism and Early Christianity’; Dr Alastair Hunter, ‘An Awfully Beastly Business: Thoughts on behemah in Jonah and Qoheleth, with a Glance at Job’; Dr John Jarick, ‘Ecclesiastes among the Tragedians’; Dr Stuart Weeks, ‘Divine Judgment and Reward in Qoheleth’.

Abstracts

Winter Meeting 2012

Prof. George Brooke (Manchester), ‘The Scribal Aesthetics of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ (presidential address)

After a brief introduction in which the iconic character of the Dead Sea Scrolls was highlighted, the lecture sought to describe some of the scribal features of the Scrolls, paying particular attention to various aesthetic items. Five manuscripts were considered in turn. First, attention was drawn to the principal fragment of 4QJudgb. The fragment has been fairly reconstructed to indicate two striking features at the end of Judges: the last few verses of the book are laid out by the scribe in lines of gradually decreasing length, and the last verse (Judg. 21.25) is physically set apart from the rest of the text as has long been sensed. Second, there was discussion of the bisection of Isaiah between chapters 33 and 34, a matter that strongly suggests that the Book of Isaiah was copied in two halves in the Second Temple period. Third, the layout and size of 4QGend was considered; its very small size and damage patterns allowed the conclusion that the manuscript had only ever contained the first four or five chapters of Genesis. Fourth, the choice of a manuscript ruled with eight lines for the copying of the acrostic Psalm 119 in 4QPsg had seemed aesthetically sensible until the scribe recalled the tradition of leaving a blank line between each set of eight lines; a layout of nine lines per column should have been selected. Fifth, the highly distinctive arrangement of Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) on just two sheets of leather with room for seven columns on each was commented upon, as also several features of the principal scribal hand.

Dr Adrian Curtis (Manchester) and Dr Rebecca Watson (Cambridge), ‘Churning the Mighty Waters: A Dialogue on Habakkuk 3’

The intention of this presentation was as much methodological as concerned about content. The dialogue-format was an attempt to avoid the polarization of views that, for ease of argumentation and due to the characteristic scholarly quest for originality, is customary in modern academic discourse. Instead, it sought to identify differences in presupposition and definition which occluded areas where agreements were greater than first appeared and to pinpoint real areas of difference. The format also allowed for a close engagement whereby areas of disagreement and uncertainty were more thoroughly explored than is possible where a single paper attempts to engage with the full range of scholarship. The dialogue sought to re-assess the interpretation of Habakkuk 3 as reflecting the Chaoskampf myth and to evaluate the extent to which, and for what purpose, the myth may here be employed. Adrian offered a history of scholarship and advanced the view that Habakkuk 3 (especially v. 8) indeed describes a conflict between Yahweh and the sea. He also highlighted some key areas of disagreement between the two speakers, with some defence of his own perspective. In response, Rebecca addressed Adrian’s immediate criticisms before offering her interpretation of sections of Habakkuk 3 which were crucial to the debate. In particular, she argued on the basis of an analysis of all occurrences of the double-question ה… … אם in the Hebrew Bible that Hab. 3.8 can only be expressive of a question expecting the answer ‘no’. Overall, a dialogic approach resulted in a convergence of opinion rather than an accentuation of difference. Both speakers acknowledged areas where their views were – or could be brought – closer than they first supposed.

Dr Hector Patmore (Kampen), ‘The Transmission of Targum Jonathan in Europe’

A major research project is currently underway at the Protestant Theological University of the Netherlands (Kampen) that aims to collate all the extant manuscripts of Targum Jonathan to the books of Samuel. On the basis of this material the project aims to increase significantly our understanding of the nature of the text’s transmission in the West. It is intended that this project will provide the necessary foundational work for the production of new critical editions of Targum Jonathan by assessing the value of each manuscript for reconstructing the most antique form of the text and by identifying and explaining the textual variants. This paper provided a general overview of this important project and presented some results from my own research. Using examples drawn from the manuscripts, I highlighted tendencies observable to a greater or less extent in all Western manuscripts to revise the Targum’s text for exegetical or ideological reasons. Under consideration were manuscripts containing the continuous text of Targum Jonathan as well as shorter units of the text that appear in liturgical collections, which offer a text that is exegetically much fuller in nature.

Dr Katie Edwards (Sheffield), ‘The Never-changing Face of Eve: Representations of Eve in Nineteenth Century Art and Twenty-first Century Advertising’

[no abstract provided]

Prof. Graham Davies (Cambridge), ‘The Reception of William Gesenius’ Dictionary in England in the Nineteenth Century’

The paper celebrated simultaneously the bicentenary of the completion of Wilhelm Gesenius’s first Hebrew Dictionary and the recent publication of the final volume of the Sheffield Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, edited by David Clines. After a brief account of Gesenius’s life (including at least two visits to Britain) and his lexicographical works, indications of his influence in Britain in the nineteenth century was examined. In terms of copies in British libraries an admittedly limited survey suggested that it was the Thesaurus (rather than the single-volume dictionaries) which was most widely available. The dictionaries were, however, extensively known through English translations by J.W. Gibbs (1824: from the 1815 edition), by Christopher Leo (1825-28: from the original 1810-12 edition) and by Edward Robinson (1st ed. 1836) and S.P. Tregelles (1st ed. 1846), both using the 1833 Latin edition. Further evidence of the reception of Gesenius’s work was drawn from the writings of Samuel Lee (1783-1852) and T.K Cheyne (1841-1915). Alongside admiration for Gesenius’s philological expertise there was both open and veiled criticism of what was seen as his opposition to established Christian beliefs.

Prof. David Clines and Dr David Stec (Sheffield), ‘Reflections on the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew’

This paper gave an account of my work on the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew over a period of more than 20 years, during which time I worked on all 8 volumes of the Dictionary. I began by referring to some of the advances in computing technology which the project had seen over the years, and also related the great improvements in resources which became available as the project progressed, particularly as far as the Qumran material was concerned. I then went on to describe how the research associates went about their work of preparing an entry for the Dictionary, and pointed out some of the issues involved in analysing and presenting the material.

Prof. John Day (Oxford), ‘The Monarchy in Ancient Israel’ (Special Lecture to Commemorate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee)

First some general comparisons between the monarchy in Britain and ancient Israel were noted. Next, following a discussion of what may be known about the royal coronation rites, the role of the King was considered. The exalted position of the King in the Psalms was discussed, including the idealized picture of his universal rule, his role as a priest like Melchizedek and what it meant to be called ‘son of God’ and even ‘God’. This was contrasted with Deut. 17.14–20 which instructs the king not to multiply gold and silver, horses or wives and the Deuteronomistic history which appears to view Solomon’s multiplication of gold, silver and horses positively, even though he is condemned for his many wives. With regard to royal love and marriage, the problems of Psalm 45 were discussed. In addition, it was argued that the Song of Songs represented a post-exilic depiction of the love between Solomon and his primary wife, the Egyptian princess. Finally, with regard to royal death and burial, the location of the royal tombs in Jerusalem was discussed. It was concluded that the tombs of the earlier kings till Hezekiah, buried in the city of David, were located at the southern end of the city while Manasseh and Amon were buried in the garden of Uzza which was in the grounds of the royal palace near the Temple.

Dr Alastair Hunter (Glasgow), ‘Midrash and Lexicon in Exodus’

The structure of Exodus (in its final form a post-exilic work) involves three grand expositions, revealing an imaginative liturgical and theological mind at work. The first (1.1–15.21) is the story of Yahweh who redeems, a term with strong post-exilic significance. The associated festival is pesaḥ, and Exodus is at pains to give this festival a unique dating, providing a full story and all the necessary background information to enable the celebration of a family event –the only place in Tanakh where this happens. The second (15.22–2 4.8) is the story of Yahweh who covenants; the related festival is almost certainly shevucot – though this identification is by no means as clear as with pesaḥ. The third (24.9–40.38) presents us with Yahweh who dwells; Yahweh’s dwelling is the mishkan – the ‘tabernacle’ which is cited frequently in Exodus 26–40, with no references elsewhere in the book; its festival is sukkot. This is readily supported by the fact (agreed by both Kings and Chronicles) that it was at this time that the Temple was dedicated.

Dr Dominik Markl (Heythrop College, London), ‘“Today” and the Pragmatics of Deuteronomy’

Since Gerhard von Rad’s article ‘Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch,’ published in 1938, the word ‘today’ is known as one of the outstanding features of the rhetoric of actualisation in Deuteronomy. Yet, no systematic analysis of this expression has been so far advanced. This paper showed that more than half of the 75 usages of ‘today’ in Deuteronomy occur within formulaic language, which proves that this word serves as a literary device. The different references of ‘today’ in Deuteronomy – mainly to the days of Horeb, of Moab, of Exile and the time of the addressees – are deliberately intermingled in complex ways so that the ‘today’ of Moab is both grounded in the day of Horeb and at the same time perforates the ‘today’ of the readers. Within the final form of Deuteronomy, the expression ‘today’ is one of the rhetorical devices, which serve to re-create a collective identity for an early Jewish community after the experience of Exile in a covenant that reaches beyond ‘blessing and curse’. It aims at the readers’ decision for God, for the covenant and the Torah of Deuteronomy (30.15–20).

Dr Siobhan Dowling Long (Cork), ‘Tales of Wickedness, Heartache and Blessing: The Reception of the Genesis Flood Narrative in Music’

This paper discussed the reception of the Flood narrative (Genesis 6–9) in Music in two compositions from the 19th century: the first, a sacred opera, IlDiluvio universale (1834) by the Italian, Gaetano Donizetti, followed by Poëme Biblique: Le Deluge (1875) by French composer Camille Saint-Saëns; and one from the 20th century, “Noye’s Fludde” (1957) by British composer Benjamin Britten. Part One illustrated the way in which Donizetti’s Orientalist opera accentuates the theme of wickedness from the Flood narrative (Gen. 6.5). Part two explored the theme of God’s heartache (Gen. 6.6) in Le Deluge by Camille Saint-Saëns. The final part illustrated the joyful mood of God’s blessing in Britten’s Noye’s Fludde (Genesis 9). The paper addressed the question of the value of music as an effective interpretative medium through which listeners and readers view and appreciate the nuances and subtleties of biblical narratives.

Summer Meeting 2011

 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)

Such is the density of the archaeological investigation of Old Testament Jerusalem that almost every stone turned leads to controversy. The subjects of recent debates have included the possible location of the Davidic palace and the existence of the city walls built by Nehemiah. The Kenyon archive of the first scientific excavations in Jerusalem in the 1960s still has contributions to offer on these and other questions. The immediate results were published by Kenyon in preliminary reports and informative monographs. The main focus of Kenyon’s excavation of Iron Age remains was in her Site A, on the slopes of the south-east ridge, on which the final report has been published. Iron Age remains in other areas excavated were on a lesser scale. Current findings, reflecting the more detailed analysis of the finds, relate to major walls in Kenyon’s Sites S.II and R, on the fringes of the Ophel area.

Dr Diana Edelman (Sheffield), ‘Remembering David’

[no abstract provided]

Dr David Shepherd (Chester), ‘“The Sword Shall Never Depart …”: Blood, Guilt and the House of David’

While the divine promise through Nathan that the throne would never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 7.16) has long played an important part in discussions of the Deuteronomistic History, the corresponding curse that the sword would never depart from David’s house (2 Sam. 12.10) has garnered much less attention. This paper offered an interpretation of the ‘sword’ in the context of the traditions concerning David and his immediate successors, arguing that the curse of the sword in David’s house is reflected first and foremost in the spectre of Davidic dynasty’s continuing to shed innocent blood and thus incur bloodguilt, with all its consequences. The paper argued that this concern is reflected not only at the beginning of the house of David (Court History/Succession Narrative) but also at the end (the episode of Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah; 2 Kings 25) and it concluded by inviting scholars to return to the analysis of the History armed with a fuller appreciation of the ‘curse of the sword’.

Dr Dwight Swanson (Manchester), ‘“Editing the Bible” Revisited’

This short paper considered the relation of source criticism to transmission history, and the interplay of literary and textual development of the biblical texts by reference to two major studies of recent years which come to the subject from opposite directions: John Van Seters’ book, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism, and David M Carr’s The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. These two works are summarised and evaluated in light of Eugene Ulrich, writing in Changes in Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second Temple Period, who contends that the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls leads to the conclusion that ‘the line between composition and textual transmission…has slowly erased…’. These recent studies move the discussion on from the much raked-over ground of theoretical reconstruction of sources to a more evidence-based approach, giving more heed to the actual textual evidence that is available to us from the two-three centuries before the Common Era. The paper concludes by affirming the approaches based on the physical evidence, and calling for study to go beyond the historiographical and narrative texts, to examination of legal and prophetical texts.

Dr Ann Jeffers (London) “The Politics of Selection: the Woodcuts from the Book of Judges in Luther’s Bible” [paper not presented]

Dr Susan Gillingham (Oxford), ‘Reception History: Biblical Studies on Holiday? A Personal View’

This paper argued that the relatively new appearance of Reception History is not an optional ‘extra’. It contended that Biblical Studies actually needs its perspective, in part because its interest in the broader ‘history of culture’ offers a dimension often lacking in traditional Biblical Studies, and in part because its concern with Wirkungsgeschichte complements the basic text-and-language approach in the traditional discipline.   The second part of the paper responded to four criticisms. First, its apparent lack of theoretical theological underpinning: we undoubtedly need more scholars who will reflect more critically on their practice. Second, it can be too descriptive: a more vigorous dialogue with some aspects of Biblical Studies could counter this. Third, it is too subjective: given the same propensity in Biblical Studies, further dialogue about shared concerns is long overdue.   Fourth, it is too individualistic: this is less justified, as Reception History has a reputation for collaborative scholarship.   This ‘new’ discipline has in fact always been an implicit part of Biblical Studies, whether receiving the text through the eyes of a 19th century German commentator or through the field work of a biblical archaeologist; but its challenge to Biblical Studies now is to promote a more radical reflection on what ‘reading’ a biblical text is all about.

Prof. Reinhard Kratz (Göttingen), ‘The Two Houses of Israel: Some Observations on Isaiah 8:14’

The paper dealt with the question who or what are the ‘two houses of Israel’ of which Isa. 8.14 speaks. Already the textual tradition in the Septuagint and in the Targum prove that behind this expression there is an exegetical problem. I approached this problem from two angles: first with a look at some commentaries and monographs on the book of Isaiah, both old and new, second with a look at the early reception within the Damascus Document (CD VII:13). Having traced the early reception history I tried finally to solve the problem by means of redaction-criticism. This example shows quite well how one can derive ideas for the explanation of difficult phrases and passages of the Hebrew Bible from its early textual and reception history. On the other hand it demonstrates that it is rewarding to correlate the reception history with the redaction history of the biblical books.

Prof. Sara Japhet (Jerusalem), ‘The Term ger and the Concept of Religious Conversion in the Hebrew Bible’

[no abstract provided]

Dr Casey Strine (Oxford), ‘YHWH Is as YHWH Does: Monotheism and the Use of Foreign Leaders in Ezekiel’

The designation ‘radically theocentric,’ commonly attributed to Ezekiel, implies monotheistic tendencies. I argue that Ezekiel 17, which depicts Nebuchadnezzar’s role in Jerusalem’s defeat, uses its form and imagery to expresses a strong synergy between YHWH and Nebuchadnezzar. Through its form, Ezekiel 17 equates Nebuchadnezzar’s work in the earthly realm with YHWH’s activities in the divine realm; through its cosmological imagery, the text portrays YHWH in ways strongly reminiscent of Marduk. The combination of features substitutes YHWH for Marduk and commandeers Nebuchadnezzar as YHWH’s servant. It advises the exiles that YHWH, not Marduk, directs history. The rhetoric of Ezekiel 17 has a close parallel in Isa. 44.24–45.7, which analogously announces Cyrus’ role in Israel’s restoration. Each text juxtaposes these claims with its ‘idol polemic’ to form an argument that YHWH is unique and exceptionally powerful. Thus, they share a ‘monotheistic’ affirmation that is neither ontological nor simply soteriological, but mutatis mutandis, a form of narrative identification. This concept, described by Paul Ricoeur as ipse identity, opens new ways to think about how these texts assert that YHWH is unique. The Hebrew Bible is not interested in ontology, but praxis. In short, YHWH is as YHWH does.

Ms Gwen Knight (Rowton), ‘The geber engages in Begründung in Lamentations 3’

Across time and culture, during periods of disaster, questions such as: ‘Why me?’, ‘How long?’ or ‘Where is God in this calamity?’ have been raised. In Lam. 3.1, the geber, the wounded warrior, the strong man in grief, cries ‘I am the man who has suffered’. This paper discussed whom the geber might represent in Lamentations 3 and how the geber employs the triple acrostic as a framework from which to express lament. This is expanded by the strong reasoning process referred to by Westermann and Brueggemann as Begründung, by Kübler-Ross as ‘bargaining’ and by Bowman as ‘defence mobilisation’. Such coping strategies are also a fighting attempt to motivate or persuade yhwh and others perceived to have power, to listen to the lament, to understand and to act in justice and mercy. The geber starts with a statement in self-defence (3.1–3), invokes an act/retribution formula (3.25–27), looks for a reduced sentence through plea-bargaining (3.31–33), identifies with ‘others’ (3.34–36) and uses weeping in confession to draw out empathy (3.48–51). Such an approach seems to fail repeatedly, so the warrior accusingly asks for vengeance and appeals for legal restoration (3.64–66). Are these strategies effective? I argued that by departing from the traditional understanding that hope is the central point of Lamentations 3, this reading drives our interpretation towards a keen focus on stronger lament patterns and more profound processes of grief.

Prof. Hugh Pyper (Sheffield), ‘From Zion to Olympus: Israel and Athletics’ (A paper in celebration of the 2012 Olympic Games)

The few allusions to Greek athletics in the books of Maccabees are uniformly hostile and this has given rise to a prevalent view that one of the markers of the faithful Jew is the rejection of athletics and the cult of the body.   There is evidence, however, to suggest that this may be far from the whole picture.   This paper began by exploring some ways in which strength and athleticism seems to be valued in Jewish contexts, including the appointment of Herod the Great as ‘perpetual governor’ of the Olympic Games, and Philo’s use of metaphors from the gymnasium in his theological writings which seem to speak of firsthand knowledge of the events. There is also abundant evidence that boasting of success in performing athletic feats is a characteristic of ancient Near Eastern monarchs and not simply a Greek invention. Israel becomes an exception when it loses its political and military power and its writers increasingly downplay human strength and ingenuity in favour of divine protection of the community.   The second part of the Paper discussed the reversal of this view in the call for a new ‘Muscular Judaism’ by the pioneers of modern Zionism, demonstrating that athleticism and the possibility of armed conflict are related. The reaction to the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972 revealed how central this new conception of the place of the heroic athlete is to Israel’s sense of identity. The seeming gulf between the Bible and the Olympic Games is thus something of an illusion.

Dr Walter Houston (Manchester) presented on ‘Between Salem and Mount Gerizim: The Creation of the Pentateuch Revisited’

Dr Houston was invited to give a paper at very short notice. In it he argued that the final form of the Pentateuch resulted from scribal activity in Samaria as well as in Judah. The close contacts between the two provinces in the Persian period are obscured by the ideology of Ezra-Nehemiah. The original text of Deut. 27.4 appears to have referred to Mt Gerizim rather than Mt Ebal, and it is paired with the reference to Salem in Gen. 14.18. The paper ended with the suggestion that the establishment of a new sacred site on Mt Gerizim without its own tradition may have been the motive for the combination of the Priestly and Deuteronomic material to form the Pentateuch.

Prof. Hugh Williamson (Oxford), ‘The Vindication of Redaction Criticism’

In Biblical Studies redaction criticism is sometimes portrayed as a villain, either because it robs the text of a proper ‘author’ or because the number of redactional layers sometimes proposed exceeds anything that seems even remotely plausible. To answer this problem, greater attention should be paid to the distinction between redaction which involves the complete physical recopying of a work, and which therefore may be quite extensive, and glossing of an existing scroll, which could be sporadic, involve (obviously) only short additions, and which often take the form of Fortschreibungen. This latter point was illustrated with short additions to an earlier text of Isaiah 1–12 which refer the prophecies of judgment to their fulfilment in the fall of Jerusalem and the exile. Another series concerns brief additions that satirize idol-manufacture. By contrast, the evidence for redaction in its fuller sense in these chapters involves both more substantial additions and, in some cases, re-ordering of material. Redaction criticism should be referred only to this latter category, not to glossing.

[top of the page]

[index of past meetings]