In this post, I would like to begin (it will probably take a few posts) to present some of the notes I took at the conference. I can’t promise that they will be interesting, either because the notes I took weren’t that great, or the presentation just wasn’t that interesting. In fact, I will probably not post all my notes, because some either don’t make sense to me, or they are just simply too tedious.  With that said, I will try to post some of the better notes here. And, as always, I must put forth the disclaimer that I cannot garauntee that my notes faithfully represent what the presenters actually said–but I try to stay faithful to what I got from their presentations.

New Testament Mysticism Session

Jared Calaway — Commentary on Luke 9: 51–56

Luke 9:51-56   51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,  52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.  53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.  54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?  55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.  56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.  

The “Face” walking towards Jerusalem = the “Face” being taken up into heaven; (The Face is the Presence, a reference to the Presence of Yahweh).

The apostles James and John, the “sons of thunder,” are here presented as angels (in Greek, messengers = angels) of the “Face” (or Presence) and have the power to destroy with fire (think of the angels at Sodom and Gomorrah).

These disciples were invested with power and authority at the Transfiguration. This authority is traditionally linked to the prophet Elijah. The later Desert Fathers would claim to have this same authority of Elijah, including the power to call down fire from heaven.

The presence of fire indicates the true divine form, as opposed to the form of an idol. True divine beings appear as beings of fire. When Jesus came down from the Mt. of Transfiguration, was his face shining? (See Matt. 17:2) 

(My note: for an interesting post regarding James and John as “sons of thunder,” check out Greg’s Boanerges post at www.believeallthings.com) 

Pentateuch Session

(I walked in late to this session, so I did not catch the name of the presenter and missed half of his presentation)

The Priestly Grundschrift – the “basic writing” or priestly works found in the Pentateuch 

–Gen. 1 (from the priestly source) challenges the basic creation story found in the next chapters of Genesis

–Gen. 6-9 rewrites flood story—different motivation for flood: earth corrupt—mabul: the chaotic waters under the throne let loose (this is a much bigger flood than in previous stories)

–Gen. 10 offers different explanation of linguistic diversity than earlier accounts

 Priestly rewritings challenge older theological issues. Presents idea of two covenants.

 One of the big questions is: Why does P (priestly editor) keep the J (Yahwist) accounts?  Because the integrity of the scribes kept the debate alive–theology was something to discuss and debate. Sometimes P was able to use and integrate J stories without doing away with them.

Andreas Schuele, Union Seminary Richard (I don’t know why the name Richard is there, but that is what I have in my notes!)

 Gen. 6:1–4 –Angel marriage story, where angels come down from heaven and marry human women

Generally understood to have come from the J (Yahwist) writer

Traditional explanations are not sufficient

Women don’t seduce Sons of God—they see the women and desire them

This text only indicates that there was a time when boundaries between earthly and heavenly was more fluid

There was a belief in beings that were between men and gods—why was this included in the primeval history?

Seems to be an inclusion of Greek mythology

Genesis genealogy doesn’t tell us about what happens to daughters of Adam

Gen 6:1–4 is a parallel track to male genealogy

 This passage has plenty of precedent in Greek mythology

–Achilles is son of goddess Thetis

(My note: the presenter assumes that the “Sons of God” mentioned in this passage refers to actual divine beings–angels from heaven. While this could have been the intended meaning of the author/editor who gives us this passage, it is not the only interpretation. Some early Christians believed that the Sons of God were the righteous sons of Adam/Seth who lived on the side of the holy mountain, just below Eden.  Some of these Sons of God gave into their desires and descended the mountain to mix with the daughters of Cain–see The Cave of Treasures. Thus, these Christians didn’t see the Gen. 6 as talking about literal heavenly angels, but of priestly humans gone bad.  It is widely recognized now that the ancient temple tradition considered priests to be angels. When the high priest went into the holy of holies, he wore white linen robes in imitation of the Angel of the Lord.  Although the Enoch literature relates an extensive account of the rebellious angels who descend from heaven and marry earth women, producing the Giants, some scholars consider these stories to be analogies criticizing the priests of the Second Temple. The corrupt priests that officiated in the apostate temple had engaged in unlawful marriages and thus polluted themselves and all of society.  Thus, it is not necessary to take this story literally, nor necessary to see Greek mythology as its direct antecedent.)

Ugaritic and Semitic Session

Presenter Unknown — KTU 1514

Isa 27:1—A direct quote from the Ugaritic tradition? Serpent = Leviathan = Lotan

What did Baal’s battle with Lotan represent? 

Because you smote Lotan, the slippery serpent, the crooked serpent, the tyrant with seven heads—thus you brightened the heavens—Mot will take revenge on Baal

The skies will be hot and will shine

Defeat of Lotan would allow Baal to continue to reign and, thus, allow the Sun to continue to rise each day—Baal’s rains cool force of Shaphash (Sun)—when there is no rain, Shaphash is unbearable—Baal and Shaphash are necessarily allies

Lotan/Leviathan sent by Mot (Death) to attack Shaphash in order to disrupt cosmic order

Lotan is parallel to Egyptian M.n/Apopis—coiled snake, multiple heads, underworld/aquatic—functionary of Seth and enemy of Re (Sun god) and mortals

Lotan protected Mot; Mot’s guardian dies, but Mot still claims that he will kill Baal

Baal defeats Lotan but is then killed by Mot

 Job 3:8—reference to Leviathan—Leviathan puts out the luminaries, causing the night to come — “May those who curse days curse that day, those who are ready to rouse Leviathan “

 Job 26:13—Yahweh destroys Leviathan and heavens become clear

Destruction of Leviathan by Gustave Dore

 5 ref. in Bible to Leviathan –Ps. 74, 104; Job 3:8, 26:13; Isa. 27:1

Isa. 24:23 allusion to darkening of the luminaries

Adonai, not Baal, is able to bring a universal conquering of Mot/Death—other baals have ruled over Israel, but they are now dead—rephaim are dead, but will live

This is polemic against worship of Baal and his rephaim—they die–only Yahweh ultimately defeats both Leviathan and Death (sin and death?)

Isa 25:6–8 – Emphasizing kingship of Yahweh 

Dan Belnap — BYU Professor

Ritual failure in the Baal and Kirta texts

Ritual approaches becoming more popular in Ugaritic and biblical literature studies. 

Feasts are usually successful events— they are generally positive ritual experiences

However, negative outcomes may sometimes result

Most ritual events are a series of rituals—a ritual process where rituals depend on others; A failure in one ritual can lead to a cascade of failure in others

Myth describes relations in the cosmos—a redescription of human experience—the rituals of deities relate to ritual practice of humans

The things happening in stories represent ritual acts

Feasts not are not so much cultic functions, but help to reinforce social connections—those invited, what food is served, location of feast—all important for understanding relations between Gods (and humans)

(KTU/CAT ?) 1.4 iii 10-22—second feast of Baal

Beloved…they mocked me, they arose and they spit on me in the midst of the assembly of the sons of the gods.

Ritual feast gone bad—mistreatment of guest of honor, Baal

Baal meals are meant to bring community together, but this one failed.

Baal makes huge feast—he is the king and is a generous host

Guests’ partaking of meal shows their submission to Baal

Baal declares feast a success—emphasizes kingship and victory over Mot

Baal recognizes and fixes his errors

El gives up throne to Baal—because Baal has learned how to bring order

Ba'al - 14th Century BC - Louvre, Paris

James R. Getz
CAT 1.41
“Mine Eyes have Seen the Glory”

Baptism was recast in Christianity-also Eucharist
Ancient Canaanite rituals were reappropriated in Christianity
Rituals are re-used in poltical, relgious, and social circles

Anciently there were rituals involving seeing the Deity
There is different language used for this in different passages-perhaps due to different locations or different rites-perhaps different deities are being addressed.

The king either sees or offers sacrifice to Deity, depending on the rite
There was an ancient tradition of going to the sanctuary and beholding the image of the Deity

Visitation of gods occured at temples
King provided wine at royal sacrifices
Seeing rites-sometimes king goes to temple to see deity, sometimes image of Deity comes to the temple

Hittites had similar traditions–yearly visit to temple to see (divine) King–this reflects ritual of divine audience

Falling rite = prostrating—king prostrates himself before the Diety.
–vassals bow before suzereigns, even in letters

Seeing rites are analogous to divine audience

I have many more notes from the SBL conference, which I will post in the coming days…

As for the conference, I attended sessions on Friday, Saturday, and Monday. On Sunday I went to a great fireside at David Bokovoy’s ward in Cambridge. The speakers were Dr. Bill Hamblin and Dr. Dan Peterson.  Dr. Peterson spoke on the relationship of Islam to Mormonism and Dr. Hamblin did a presentation on the continuation of the traditions and imagery of Solomon’s Temple over time. Both were wonderful and enlightening presentations.

I took many notes on the fireside and all the great sessions I attended, and I plan to post those within a week or so. I also want to post my thoughts on the organization of a new study group at SBL on the temple, started by BYU professors Bill Hamblin and David Seely. I am at the end of my semester here at Marquette and I am trying to finish up the last two of three papers that I have due this week. So please forgive me for the delay in posting.

In the end, this trip to the SBL conference was definitely worth it. I learned a lot and had the opportunity to meet many people. A partial list of some of the great people I met (or re-met in some cases):

• Dr. Bill Hamblin
• Dr. Dan Peterson and his wife
• Dr. David Seely and his wife
• Dr. Frank Judd
• Dr. John Welch
• Lynne Wilson–former LDS PhD student at Marquette
• Matt Grey–LDS PhD student at UNC Chapel Hill
• David Bokovoy–LDS PhD student at Brandeis
• Rev. Robin Griffith-Jones–Master of the Temple, The Temple Church
• Dr. Jim Davila
• Dr. John Gee
• Dr. Silviu Bunta
• Ben Spackman
• Dave Nielsen–BYU undergrad who presented at SBL

I also saw (but didn’t officially meet) George Nickelsburg, John J. Collins, April DeConick, and many others.

While that was very exciting for me, I hope what will be exciting for you are some of the notes I took while I was there. These notes will be forthcoming…

Of course, I will only able to be in one presentation at a time, so I will have to choose wisely which to attend. There will be many Latter-day Saint scholars presenting at the conference, including:

• Dan Belnap
• John Welch
• Dana Pike
• John Gee
• Robert Millet
• Gaye Strathearn
• Terry Ball
• Lynne Wilson
• Frank Judd
• David Seely

There will be other LDS presenters as well (I’m sorry to those I may have left out), so BYU and the Church will be well represented. There is even an “LDS and the Bible” study group that is held every year there.

I consider it a great opportunity to be able to go to these conferences and I am grateful to those who have helped me to be able to do so. 

I have not had the opportunity yet to post the rest of my notes from the SANE conference, so I will have many, many interesting things to post by next week!