2019 SBL International

2019 SBL International Meeting
July 1–5, 2019
The Pontifical Biblical Institute and the Gregorian University
Rome, Italy

EXODUS REDUX:
INVERSION OF THE EXODUS IN 2 CHRONICLES 34–35
03 July 2019
9:00 AM
L301 - Lucchesi

In his work on Chronicles (“Die Suche nach Identität in der nachexilischen Theologiegeschichte“), Reinhard Kratz suggestively asserts that reception history within the canon and “cultural memory” are nearly interchangeable concepts. Kratz thus proposes that the very act of the Chronicler’s reception of older traditions is in itself memory work. This paper endeavors to provide further evidence to the bold assertion of Kratz and argues that the reception of the exodus tradition in the Chronicler’s (re)telling of Josiah’s reign (2 Chron 34–35) is, indeed, memory work.

To do so, I will begin by exposing the intertextual relationship between the exodus event(s) and Josiah’s legal reforms, Passover celebration, and apparent untimely death, focusing specifically on its inversion of the earlier material (Exod 12–20). Second, I will discuss how such an inversion of the past functions to create and codify a specific re-envisioning of post-exilic identity. In so doing, I will demonstrate the effectiveness of memory studies as a critical lens and its potential usefulness for further study of biblical texts.

AS THEY DO IN EGYPT:
INTERTEXTUAL RECONSIDERATIONS OF LEVITICUS 18–20
02 July 2019
11:00 AM
C211 - Central

This paper examines the diachronic development of Leviticus 18–20 in light of its intertextual relationship to Ezekiel’s so-called revisionist history (Ezk 20). I argue that the Holiness Code is the primary textual referent for Ezekiel’s history (cf. Michael Lyons), and that Ezekiel 20 can be used to reconstruct an earlier redactional layer of Leviticus 18–20. Such an intertextual exploration of H in light of Ezekiel 20 (1) underscores the argument of Jacob Milgrom, i.a., that the sexual morality codes (e.g., Lev 18:6–23) are, in fact, secondary to the pericope; (2) indicates possible redactional arrangements of summary blocks within this portion of H; and (3) demonstrates a synchronic reading of H as essential to Ezekiel’s rhetorical strategy.

I will conclude by briefly assessing the value of the emerging field of memory studies to discuss the mnemonic activity in Ezekiel 20, and, in particular, how the reception of H by Ezekiel demonstrates a preeminent interest in codifying a normative version of the past for future generations. That is, Ezekiel uses (proto-)Leviticus 18–20 to provide a contemporary presentation of the past for the purpose of shaping future identity; i.e., using the past in the present for the future.