Well, I’m finally home from San Diego. Lots I could talk about. This year’s meeting was as hectic as always (pretty much 9-9 every day), but was one of the better ones for me in recent memory.
First there was the hotel — not the one for ETS (for those traveling to San Diego in the future, the Town and Country Resort is not the place to be). My hotel for SBL was the Hard Rock Hotel, right next to Petco Field, just 2-3 minutes away from the conference center. Not only is that the perfect distance, but the hotel itself was awesome. When I first checked in, I learned I was a VIP. Right in the middle of registering the process stopped when the average-looking guy told me he couldn’t finish booking me in because of my status. He disappeared and a minute later an anything-but-average-looking woman told me I had to register at a desk hidden behind the wall, right next to a secret lounge with lots of leather. Those of you who know me have a perfect mental image for the word “incongruous” now.
My first impulse was to ask if they had misspelled my name. Then I presumed I was dealing with exceptionally clever marketing. (Trust me, this isn’t the normal conference treatment for biblical scholars or geeks in general.) I eventually figured it out when she started asking me about what I did and what my group was (Logos). I was a VIP apparently because I was part of a sizable group reservation. Back to normal . . . almost. Before I got my room key I had to pick the music I wanted to play when I opened my door and persuade her that I didn’t want to kick back in her registration nest with an adult beverage. I haven’t listened to popular music since the 70s, but didn’t want her to know that, so I let her pick something for me. I have no idea what it was. Didn’t matter since I turned off the jumbotron in the room where it was emanating from as soon as I got to where I belonged. I passed on the electric guitar rental (I kid you not).
Truth be told, I loved the room. Lots of normal items that didn’t look normal. It was something between the Jetsons and (I guess) what Mick Jaggar’s house looks like. The only problem was that there was no coffee maker. I don’t drink coffee, but I always boil water and make tea with those. It’s a staple. When I called downstairs for one, a girl answered: “Thanks for calling the Hard Rock Hotel, you’re rocking with Marcie, can I help you?” (See the note on “incongruous” above). While Marcie sounded wonderful, she couldn’t come up with something to boil water for tea. There were no coffee makers in the entire hotel. Plenty of booze in the room, but nothing to make tea. That isn’t the beverage of choice for rock stars, I guess. I had to bring a large hot tea to my room at the end of each day (from a diner on the first floor called — really — Mary Jane’s).
On to the conference itself …
There was a lot of interest in Unseen Realm. Granted, it’s still a bit of a secret, but the sampler at the Lexham booth had a lot of takers. I also handed out about twenty of the ARCs (“Advanced Reader Copies”) to scholars who have either followed the project or would understand what I was trying to do. The goal was, as noted earlier here, to obtain a blurb and the promise that they’d contact a journal to review the real thing once it publishes in March.
I got to an unusually high number of papers this year (I broke double digits for the first time in the last ten years). Several were super. It’s pretty rare that a paper gets a “wow” from me, but two earned that response this year:
Fallen Angels, Bastard Spirits, and the Birth of God’s Son: An Enochic Etiology of Evil in Galatians
“Bastard spirits” is an epithet for the Watchers in 2nd temple Jewish texts. This was one of the best papers I’ve heard in many years at this event. I had thought the paper would focus on Gal 3:19, one of the NT references where the law was delivered by angels. It wasn’t. Rather, the presenter (a doctoral student at Marquette) drew our attention to the line about the law being “added because of transgressions,” and then asked a simple question: just whose transgressions is Paul talking about? Everyone assumes that Paul refers here to Adam or humanity in general. The presenter proceeded to overview the evidence in 2nd temple texts (Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha) to show how Enochic Judaism preferred the revelation of Enoch over that of Moses (the law). He then pointed out (and everyone in the room likely knew this) that, for 2nd temple Judaism, the overspreading of evil in the world stems from Gen 6:1-4, not Genesis 3. He then asked whether viewing Galatians 3-4 from the perspective of the sin of the Watchers helps answer several problems in the text of those chapters that scholars have debated for centuries. He went through them point by point, showing how the Enochian material reframed those issues and provided coherent answers. The climax of the birth of the son of God marked a reversal of the wickedness brought to humanity by the sin of the Watchers. It was awesome. Those of you who have read The Portent, (and also its handbook) will recall Brian’s discussion of how the gospel of Matthew does the same thing – something I drew from a recent dissertation for the novel – also from a Marquette student. I’m obviously going to try and get a copy of this paper.
“So Shall Your Seed Be”: Paul’s Use of Gen 15:5 in Rom 4:18 in light of Early Jewish Deification Traditions
This paper was also epic. I know the author, David Burnett (I’ve encouraged his pursuit of this topic for graduate work), so a “precursor version” of the paper was available to me for Unseen Realm input. I’ll be inserting some things from this updated version, which has been accepted for publication in JSPL. The thesis is easy to understand. Genesis 15:5 is the passage where the visible Yahweh, the Word of Yahweh (Gen 15:1), promises Abraham: “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them. . . . So shall your offspring be.” Everyone (except some strong 2nd temple Jewish traditions!) presumes that both halves of the promise are quantitative (i.e., are about the number of descendants). The paper argued, following Philo and a wide range of other 2nd temple texts, that the second part (“so shall thy seed be”) should instead be interpreted qualitatively (i.e., Abraham’s seed will be transformed into celestial beings — glorified, divinized). Note that there is no “counting verb” in the second half of the promise, only the first. Modern interpreters insert that, based on the first half, to make the whole promise statement quantitative. Ancient interpreters didn’t do that. The paper then took listeners/readers back to the divine council worldview to frame the celestial language (sons of God, stars of God) as the proper context for understanding the glorification of the believer, including how believers displace and reconstitute the divine council in the eschaton (see Rev 2:26-28; 3:24; Rev 22:16). This is something I’ve blogged about before and of course have in the Unseen Realm draft.
Other very good papers included:
The Punishment of the Powers: Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 as the Backdrop for Isaiah 34
- The presenter is a doctoral student at Dallas Seminary. He did a nice job of showing how “the nations and their hosts” who are punished in the eschaton point to the lesser elohim over the nations.
Sacred Space in the Pentateuch
- This was one of several papers John Walton read this year. I got a copy from him afterward. I’ll ask him if I can post it. Not sure if it’s slated for publication. In that event, he won’t be able to permit that. Most of this wasn’t new for me, but there were a few great lines and clear explanations of the concept that I’ll be incorporating into Unseen Realm. John used the paper as a place for responding to some criticisms of his “Lost World of Genesis One” book, where he argues (coherently) that the cosmos of creation was cast as God’s temple. That leads me to …
Creation as Cosmic Temple
- This was actually a two-part presentation at SBL (two papers) in an ecological hermeneutics section. Both papers laid out how Eden, the Tabernacle, and the Temple conform to the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2, where the cosmos is (per the above) cast as the temple of God. Good stuff.
I went to one AAR session on Science Fiction and Religion. It was a bit disappointing. After you’ve read the books by Kripal and Knowles you want a little more than I heard.
Naturally, these conferences are about meeting people and catching up with friends. I was able to have lunch with several folks who follow this blog and who have participated in MEMRA language courses. Meeting Brian Godawa for the first time in person was a highlight. We hung out a few times when we both weren’t at papers. If you heard my Portent interview with Natalina, you know at least one topic of discussion. Can’t say more.
Finally, for those wondering about what books I bought, the answer is zero. The discounts are good till year’s end. I’m waiting to see how the numbers shake out. I’ve got my eye on the ones below. The first two alone add up to two hundred dollars (at the discount price no less; high-end scholarly books are amazingly expensive). It’s always this time of year when I wish that nonsense about how I’m getting wealthy debunking ancient astronaut blather or am a paid government disinformant about UFOs was true. Where’s CIA and NSA when you need them?! Maybe I should have Marcie call the publishers.
Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts (brings a tear to my eye as I type the title – Stuckenbruck is a leading scholar in this material).
Patmore, Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity (would be very handy for showing my take on Gen 3 / Isa 14 / Ezek 28 isn’t my invention)
L. Michael Morales, Cult and Cosmos: Tilting Toward a Temple-Centered Theology (he read a very interesting paper on Leviticus ritual and the tabernacle at ETS — yes, there are such things)
Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (the late Assyriologist’s compilation of the relevant tablets and exegesis of the stories)
Knafl. Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch (not yet released; early 2015; good for two Yahwehs issue)
And, as has occurred before, I managed to get a free book this year: Guy Consolmagno, Would You Baptize an Extraterrestrial?: . . . and Other Questions from the Astronomers’ In-box at the Vatican Observatory (UFO Religions fodder)
Enochic Judaism??????
>The Punishment of the Powers: Deuteronomy 32 and Psalm 82 as the Backdrop for Isaiah 34
Can you explain what “backdrop” means? Does it mean the overall theology or does it mean the actual text was present when Isaiah was written?
>Knafl. Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch
Is this anything like Ben Sommers works? I have read an article of his where he shows that ancient Israelites believed God had a physical body, but later on the P and D text came and tried to do away with that theology. Hence, [per Sommers] is the reason there is a sort of friction within the Torah. You have some sources [J] that are pro-physical body for God and than you have P and D that were against.
There was no such thing as Second Temple Judaism (singular). There were, like today, various strains of Judaism. One gets labeled “Enochic” because of an apparent deference to enochic texts and their theological content.
Backdrop = “Should Deut 32 and Psa 82 inform our interpretation of Isa 34?” (did the writer of Isa 34 have those passages / their content in mind?)
Not sure about Knafl; that’s why I want the book.
Nope, not like Ben Sommer. In fact, I argue against his interpretation of J, E, P and D. They all had a physical conception of the deity. That said, you should definitely buy and read the book.
Also, how do you see these sorts of conferences and your colleagues there. Is it flat out academic or is theology/belief discussed as well? Do you keep your religious faith tucked away, or are people open to discussion?
everything’s on the table for discussion.
Was there a heated discussion about how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if woodchucks could chuck wood???
BTW, has the portent puzzle/riddle been solved?
not this year! I won’t announce any progress on the riddle until summer.
Similar to the ETS sessions being on mp3, are the ones from AAR and SBL on mp3 as well?
Thanks for the review rock star!
I’ve never heard of them doing that. Some people bring hand recorders along, but I seldom see that.
There must be something wrong with me…most of this stuff, while a bit over my head, still sounds insanely cool! Rather jealous of you and Godawa getting to have a meeting of the minds…what I wouldn’t give for an NSA recording of that conversation! All in all, some awesome thinking, pondering and research going on. Looking especially forward to the end result in Unseen Realm!
we met in the cone of silence (if you’re laughing, you’re my age or older).
I’m probably half your age and know exactly what the cone of silence is. In fact, the rabbi at our synagogue used it in one of his sermons. Hey….I grew up on nick-at-nite. 😉
I loved that bit. It was brilliant!
I would love to see both of the papers you mentioned. As they become available, I hope you will let us know how to get a hold of them.
I will.
Yes, very interested in those as well
Same here, I’d love to read all those articles!
email me and tell me which ones (I need the reminder).
Any chance those papers are made available for us to be equally “wowed”? (Once you are able to obtain them, of course)
I won’t post the papers if I get them, but I’ll give them to people who ask.
Forgive me if it’s a silly question, but why are those books so darn expensive?
The short (real) answer is “because they can be.” High-end scholarly publishers calculate their costs based on the $ needed to break even on their internal cost (plus a little profit) from sales to academic libraries around the world. Because of their historic reputations, they know that college and university libraries will buy what they sell. They could, in theory, lower prices to the average consumer after that, but then libraries would scream. So they leave the crazy price in place — any sale is just pure profit after library sales.
Since libraries are now (many cases) cutting their physical space and going digital, you’d think that would help. Nope. Now publishers like Oxford and Cambridge are still selling to libraries – for thousands of dollars. The digital plan is subscription. Jack the prices way up (because students and alumni of the institution will get access to the material) on a subscription model. SOME high-end publishers have started to produce paperbacks, though (last several years – doesn’t sound like an innovation for anyone, but it is for them). Those are mildly affordable. But you may have to wait a year or more for a title you want to appear in paperback.
“The paper argued, following Philo and a wide range of other 2nd temple texts, that the second part (“so shall thy seed be”) should instead be interpreted qualitatively (i.e., Abraham’s seed will be transformed into celestial beings — glorified, divinized). Note that there is no “counting verb” in the second half of the promise, only the first. Modern interpreters insert that, based on the first half, to make the whole promise statement quantitative. Ancient interpreters didn’t do that.”
How does this relate to Gen 22:17 – “That […] in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;”?
You’d have to ask Philo (!) – my guess is that the absence of the counting idea in Gen 15 suggested the second aspect of quality. But when I get the full paper from the author, I’ll check this.
Norman Greenbaum’s ” Spirit in the Sky” would have been a fun choice for a musical entry music.
I’m very curious about your book list, especially the first two. I hope you will let us know about them (perhaps as a review) when you finally get the books. This would be the next best thing to actually be able to afford to read them.
Yes, please let us know how to get those articles! The Enochian Bastard Spirits and the origin of sin sounds fascinating. I would definitely love to have a copy!
email me and remind me which ones you want. I’ll need the reminder.
Definitely would like to read those two papers as well. Keep us posted!
P.S. Are you going to be starting a weekly video study soon since you are back?
email me for the articles. On the other, I’ll be announcing something in January.
Now that you are back, it would be nice if you can post more often….maybe….please….perhaps…….mmmm….
I hear you. I’m crushed until mid-December with other deadlines. After that things will be more normal.
Okay, I’ve read somewhat on your take on Isaiah 14, but I don’t recall seeing your view on Ezekiel 28. Do you take the stance that the King of Tyre is being compared to Adam rather than to a fallen Cherub?
No. I believe that the backdrop for Ezekiel 28 is the rebellion of a divine being. I had a journal article published years ago on that background (though the article is on Isaiah 14, it’s the same backdrop – see “b” below). It’s available here:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=lts_fac_pubs
I discuss this in more comprehensible terms in my upcoming Unseen Realm. In a nuthshell, you can build arguments for both views, but:
(a) the biblical data contains no support for the idea that Adam sinned “violently” out of pride, enamored with his own beauty and intellect (the language of Ezekiel 28). Adam was not a cherub.
b) – more importantly – every scholar knows Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are intimately connected at a textual and conceptual level. So how is it that they accept the idea of a divine rebellion as the backdrop of Isaiah 14, but not for Ezekiel 28? It’s an inconsistent hermeneutic. There’s no text-based reason to affirm the backdrop in one passage but not the other.
Frankly, I suspect the reason for the inconsistency is that scholars fear a connection to Genesis 3 (there are several clear connections). By “fear” I refer to the notion that, by affirming the connections, they’d sound like they are *saying* that “Satan” is in Genesis 3 or the other two passages. The word saṭan (Hebrew) never appears in ANY of these passages, so scholars don’t want to look stupid. That’s an over-reaction. I know that saṭan is never used in the OT as a proper personal noun (for a human or a divine being). That’s why I use wording like “divine rebel” in my book and online.
to readers: If this is news to you, see the two links below (in order):
https://drmsh.com/2010/02/01/the-absence-of-satan-in-the-old-testament/
https://drmsh.com/2013/11/15/yahweh-satan-samuel-chronicles/
The connection of Satan back to Eden is only made (biblically) in Rev 12, the last book of the Bible (in ordering and by chronology). Genesis 3 (and Isa 14 and Ezek 28) certainly has God having a divine “arch enemy” — it’s just that the particular word (saṭan) isn’t used to describe the serpent. that happens in later non-biblical Jewish material and, of course, the NT. And it’s appropriate to call the serpent/nachash that term – it fits (it means “adversary”). It’s just that it doesn’t happen in the OT. That’s all scholars need to say (affirm the obvious without extrapolating to the unnecessary).
Thanks. I’d just heard the theory before from someone that I know was familiar with your work, so I wanted to see if he’d gotten the idea from you.
I agree with you on the “divine Rebel,” though I’d argue that he’s found all over the OT, mostly going by the name of Baal. I know that Baal and El were on good terms in the Ugaritic material, but Baal’s counterparts (Teshub, Zeus, etc.) and the mythologies of the violent overthrow of the father god (Anu, Cronos) reflect, I suspect, the more violent aspect of the Rebel that came out after the Conquest under Joshua.
Thanks again, and Shalom!