Interested in Talmud?

If so, you may also find this article from Jewish Ideas Daily fascinating. I think it's a great brief intro into what rabbinics scholars actually do - (same as the rest of us studying ancient texts: weave theories of origin, identity, and interpretation from close reading of texts). My interest is more in Tannaitic literature, specifically midrash, but that's just because the deep rabbit hole of Talmud scares me. Here are a few excerpts.

The traditional "back story" of the Talmud is put forth in the 10th-century "Epistle" of the great Babylonian scholar Sherira Gaon. It is an invaluable source for reconstructing the generations of sages and students, and the chains of transmission, that yielded the Mishnah and Gemara, which in turn, and together, make up the Talmud. Yet many questions are left unanswered by Sherira. When and how were the Mishnah and Gemara, both of which were Oral Torah, written down? What exactly was the role of the post-talmudic Savoraim, the "explainers" who, Sherira says, "rendered interpretations akin to judgments"?

Epstein and others (including Abraham Weiss and Hyman Klein) gained purchase on these questions by investigating the relationship among the three basic historical layers of which the Talmud is composed: sources associated with the sages known as Tannaim, dating from before and up to the composition of the Mishnah at the turn of the 3rd century; the many statements and discussions attributed by name to the Amoraim, sages coming after the Mishnah; and the anonymous editorial voice known as "the stam" (literally, "plain voice") in which the first two layers are embedded and which surrounds, organizes, and discusses them.

The finished Talmud weaves all of these fragmentary traditions and texts into coherent dialogues among sages living miles and centuries apart, regularly transposing and reformulating sources while adding a sophisticated apparatus of explanation. The result is a work that not only is intellectually compelling but regularly achieves powerful literary effects. To Epstein and the others, what became increasingly clear was that strong editorial hands had been at play in the process.

[...]

This portrait of rabbinic culture begets, in turn, a powerful challenge. Modern intellectual integrity having yielded a restless scenario of fragmentary ancient texts being worked and reworked into the sources we have today, can we somehow put the pieces back together into a coherent and compelling story? And will that story reflect not only the work of the rabbinic interpreters but also the original texts and traditions, by now lost to us, that they were trying, through their editing, to maintain? 

The answer is yes, but it will be a different story, in ways both stranger and more familiar: a story of internal ferment and spiritual survival in the face of profound uncertainty.

Now in Paperback! Best Book on Inner-Biblical Exegesis Ever!

About a year and a half ago, I reviewed Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. I'm pleased to announce that this thought-provoking volume is now available in an affordable paperback edition. My hope is that it will reach a wider audience in biblical studies, especially graduate students interested in the formation of the Hebrew Bible and inner-biblical exegesis. Here are some of the published reactions highlighted by the publisher.

"This would be an excellent addition to any theological library and it is to be hoped that the publisher will soon release a paperback version so more students can enjoy the fruits of Levinson’s labours. —Theological Book Review 21 (2009)

“With this study Levinson demonstrates again how he masterfully integrates his own exegetical brilliance into larger theoretical frameworks beyond the constraints of biblical studies.” —Journal of Ancient Judaism

“The book deserves a wide readership. It would serve well as a text for advanced undergraduate or graduate courses that deal with inner-biblical exegesis. One can also hope that scholars in other fields will read it and take to heart Levinson’s argument for the reintegration of biblical studies into the core of academic work in the humanities. The book’s research is thorough, its argument forceful, its writing elegant, and it is blessedly short. If books can be placed into tribes, may this one’s increase.”—Review of Biblical Literature

“Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me to be beyond any reasonable doubt that, behind the final form of the canonical, biblical text lies evidence of a lively, imaginative, and creative use of interpretation, reinterpretation, and reapplication of earlier texts. It is a complex, living, creative achievement which, for just this reason, invites constant, continuing invention, as Levinson maintains. I certainly find this book itself a delightful, informative, and stimulating one to read.” —Journal of Theological Studies

Introducing Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael

Continuing my occasional journey through rabbinic literature, I want to introduce readers to my all-time favorite collection of midrash – Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael (hereafter “Mekhilta” though there is another lesser known Mekhilta de-R. Simeon ben Yoḥai). Admittedly, my experience with rabbinic literature is limited, so my favoritism for Mekhilta might be based merely on familiarity. It is also possible that my preference is colored by Boyarin's use of Mekhilta for his case studies in Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, the book that first introduced me to reading rabbinic interpretation.

Mekhilta is one of the halakhic midrashim. The name itself “Mekhilta” is an Aramaic word meaning “rule” or “norm.” It is used in the Talmud to designate not the commentary specifically but general notes on halakhic exegesis and the rules guiding that exegesis (ITM, 252). This is common in rabbinics - “midrash” can refer to a book like Mekhilta or simply to an exegetical method; “mishnah” can refer to the Mishnah or to a particular law/section in the Mishnah. The Mekhilta is named after R. Ishmael, the first authority named in Pisḥa 2. The exegesis covers Exodus 12:1-23:19; 31:12-17; and 35:1-3 (ibid.). As with much rabbinic literature, pinning down a precise date of composition is difficult. It is one of the tannaitic midrashim, containing early rabbinic traditions and exegesis. It was probably redacted sometime in the late 3^rd century or 4^th century C.E. in Palestine.

The Hebrew text below is from Lauterbach's edition. The English translation is mine.

Pisḥa 1, Parashah 1, lines 1-10.

ויאמר יי אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר שומע אני שהיה הדיבור למשה ולאהרן כשהוא אומר ויהי ביום דבר יי אל משה בארץ מצרים למשה היה הדיבור ולא היה הדיבור לאהרן אם כן מה תלמוד לומר אל משה ואל אהרן אלא מלמד שכשם שהיה משה כלול לדברות כך היה אהרן כלול לדברות ומפני מה לא נדבר עמו מפני כבודו של משה נמצאת ממעט את אהרן מכל הדברות שבתורה חוץ משלשה מקומות מפני שאי איפשר׃

Translation

“And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying” (Exod. 12:1). I could understand that the divine revelation (הדיבור; Jastrow, 295) was for Moses and for Aaron. But when it says, “And it came to pass on the day when the Lord spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt” (Exod. 6:28), the divine revelation was directed to Moses and not to Aaron. If thus, what is being taught by saying “to Moses and to Aaron”? It only teaches that just as Moses was included for the divine words, so Aaron was included for the divine words. So because of that, why does he not converse with him? On account of the honor due Moses. You will find Consequently, [Scripture] excludes Aaron from all the divine revelations in the Torah except for three places where it is impossible.

The rabbis here are noticing that sometimes the biblical text depicts God speaking only to Moses and other times mentions Moses and Aaron together. The discussion continues on to the issue of whether word order signifies priority and importance, but we'll get there next. The observation here is that Moses is deserving of more honor and respect which is why God spoke to him first. I'm unsure of the nuance where I've translated “You will find Aaron excluded”. I think Lauterbach has a more accurate assessment of the context when he translates “Aaron was not directly addressed” (p. 1), intimating that while Aaron was there and included, he was never directly addressed except three times. In these three cases, it's impossible to find anyone except Aaron as the direct addressee: Lev. 10:8, Num. 18:1, and Num. 18:8. Next up, Mekhilta on word order and equality, continuing on in parashah 1.

References
Boyarin, D. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Indiana University Press, 1990.
Jastrow, M. Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Putnam, 1903.
Lauterbach. J.Z. Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael: a critical edition on the basis of the manuscripts and early editions with an English translation, introduction and notes. JPS, 1961 [1933].
Strack. H. and G. Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Fortress Press, 1996.

Genesis Rabbah I,X: The ABCs of Creation

Why was the world created with a B? So asks R. Jonah in Genesis Rabbah I.X. Why was the world created with a word starting with B (Hebrew bere’shit)? If someone asked me that, I would exclaim, “What?! Do you lie awake nights thinking of these things?” But the answer is probably yes – things like this kept students of the Torah in Late Antiquity tossing and turning until they could discuss the question ad infinitum. Here is part of the discussion from Genesis Rabbah I.X.

למה בב׳ להודיעך שהן שני עולמים, ד״א למה נברא בב׳ שהוא לשון ברכה, ולמה לא בא׳ שהוא בלשון ארירה, ד״א למה לא בא׳ שלא ליתן פתחון פה למינים לומר היאך העולם יכול לעמוד והוא נברא בלשון ארירה, אלא אמר הקב״ה הריני בוראו בלשון ברכה והלווי שיעמוד׃

Why (was the world created) with a B? To make known to you that there are two worlds. (The letter B carries the numerical value of 2 in Hebrew. The reference is to this world and the world to come.) Another interpretation: Why was the world created with a B? Because it begins the word “blessing”. And why not with A? Because it begins the word “curse” (in Hebrew). Another interpretation: Why not with A? So that an opening might not be given to the minim (that is, apostates, infidels, or heretics) to say, “How will the world be able to stand when it was created with a letter standing for “curse”? But rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Behold, I created it with the letter standing for “blessing” and by this association (?) may it stand!

ד״א למה בב׳ מה ב׳ זה יש לו ב׳ עוקצים אחד למעלה ואחד לאחריו, אומרים לו מי בוראך, והוא מראה להם בעוקצו שלמעלה, אומר זה שלמעלה בראני, ומה שמו, והוא מראה להם בעוקצו שלאחריו י״י שמו׃

Another interpretation: Why (was the world created) with a B? Because B has 2 points, one (points) above and one after it. (When) they say to it, “Who created you?”, then it will appear to them with its point that is pointing above (as if) saying, “This one who is above created me.” “And what is his name?” And it will appear to them with its point that is pointing after it (as if saying) the LORD is His name. (Perhaps referring back to 'aleph or A, the first letter of the alphabet that begins the word for God--Elohim--in Gen 1:1)

ר׳ לעזר בר אבינה בשם ר׳ אחא כ״ו דור היה קורא א׳ תיגי לפני הקב״ה, אמר לפניו רבונו שלעולם אני ראשון שלאותיות ולא בראתה עולמך בי אתמהא, אמר לו הקב״ה העולם ומלואו לא נברא אלא בזכות תורה, למחר אני בא ליתן תורתי בסיני ואין אני פותח אלא בך אנכי י״י אלהיך (שמות כ ב)׃

R. Eleazar bar Abinah in the name of R. Aha: (For) twenty-six generations, the one called A argued before the Holy One, blessed be He, saying before Him, “Master of the Universe, I am first among the letters , but you did not create your world with me, how strange!” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “The world and everything in it was only created on account of the merit of the Torah. Tomorrow, I go to give my Torah at Sinai, and I will not open except with you: “I am the Lord your God (Exod. 20:1).

We’ve seen number-sayings before in Genesis Rabbah I.IV. Now we have alphabet-sayings. At least they didn’t get past A and B because that was a lot of text to work through, even though the Hebrew wasn’t necessarily that hard. (They’ll get to more letters on a completely unrelated topic in I.XI.) There are a few odd forms, but with rabbinic Hebrew, it’s usually possible to easily get the gist without fully understanding the morphology. I don’t quite know how to parse ליתן for example. From context, it looks like an infinitive of נתן “to give” but the infinitive in biblical Hebrew is irregular לתת. I still don’t quite know how to explain it, but I know what it means.

Today’s episode on Genesis Rabbah has been brought to you by the letter B and the number 2.

Filtering the Data

I’ve been catching up on episodes of the NT Pod over the past week or so. I have to say that I’ve really enjoyed Mark’s series on the Synoptic Problem, especially the more complete picture provided through the extended episodes. I’ve come to realize that I’m a Hebrew Bible person primarily because it’s the fountainhead for all later biblical interpretation, and what really interests me is the history of interpretation. To that end, I’m trying to be a well-rounded generalist in Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, and classical Judaism.

One thing struck me out of Mark’s discussion of the Synoptic Problem that I think is relevant for many many many issues in biblical studies. He talked about how most NT introductions never really present the student with the problem when they discuss the Synoptic Problem. They start with one of the solutions and filter all the pertinent data through the solution. (By the by, Mark, I’m not a NT expert but you’ve convinced me in your case against Q anyway.)

Filtering the data seems to be a common way for unexamined consensus positions to get passed on intact to the next generation of scholars. We all take away a certain perspective on the biblical data from our teachers. That perspective often works like a filter preventing us from seeing the data in a fresh way. I try to be as aware as possible of my own filters, or rather, I try to be aware of when a particular perspective or presupposition is coloring how I interpret the data. It’s hard to do, but it might be a good exercise for us all to think through how we might be filtering the data when we read the Bible or study any particular problem in biblical studies.

I can think of two perspectives that I’ve gained from my teachers that color how I approach my scholarship. First, in Qumran studies, I first learned about the Dead Sea Scrolls from a non-consensus scholar, so it would probably take nothing short of an angel from heaven revealing to me that Essenes did, in fact, live at Qumran and compose the sectarian scrolls there for me to accept the validity of that consensus. Second, in biblical studies, I learned to keep theological conclusions about the truth claims of the text from overrunning what the text itself actually says. That is, I learned to identify it when I or any other interpreter has come to the text peering through a particular theological lens. The result is that I am not a fan of unexamined consensus positions, and I draw a hard line between apologetics and critical scholarship.

Well, have you thought about it? What are your filters that affect how you read the Bible? Do you think of them as strengths or weaknesses?

Ancient Interpreters & Biblical Criticism

One of the benefits of studying at a top university like Wisconsin-Madison is the opportunity to hear guest lectures by world-class scholars. Two weeks ago I had the chance to hear James Kugel, a scholar whom I would regard as one of the leading experts on early biblical interpretation. His talk eloquently made the study of biblical interpretation immediately relevant for both readers in religious communities and scholars of biblical studies by highlighting the fundamental assumptions about the Bible shared between the ancient interpreters who preserved the text and the traditionally-minded modern reader.

Ancient interpretation is preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, and the Pseudepigrapha (and even in the Bible itself – though Kugel didn’t emphasize it) -- basically, in Jewish literature from the Second Temple period, the early part of which should be considered the end of the “biblical” period. The interpretation preserved in this literature reflects the agenda of these interpreters. It provides a window into their program of interpretation. Today, we might call it the “spin” they put on the reading of the text. Their “spin” focuses on the relevance they believed the Bible had for their own day. It was prophecy, not history.

This program of interpretation accompanied a change in assumptions about the Bible. Kugel said this change probably came about by at least 500 BCE or earlier (but I know of no way to date it firmly). These assumptions provide a framework in which interpretation happens: 1) The Bible is a cryptic document; 2) The Bible is a book of lessons for us today; 3) All parts of the Bible are perfectly consistent; and 4) The texts are divinely inspired or have some sort of divine approval.

With these assumptions in place, interpretation becomes essential as problems in the text challenge the assumptions. For example, all parts of the Bible don’t appear on the surface to be perfectly consistent. Some parts of the Bible must have a secret meaning because they can’t be saying what the surface meaning seems to imply (e.g., Song of Songs).

Eventually, exegesis provides an overlay of tradition that transforms the biblical characters until the tradition bears little explicit resemblance to the original. For example, tradition has turned Abraham into the first monotheist and David into a prophet. Biblical law is transformed until “an eye for an eye” (Lev 24:17-21) is weakened to a monetary fine as compensation. Prophecy is transformed from a parenetic pronouncement to an original audience to either a timeless ethical teaching or an eschatological prediction.

The relevance of studying these ancient interpreters comes in the realization that their assumptions continue to live on and many religious readers approach the biblical text with similar methods.

Kugel continued describing the rise of modern biblical criticism and the move toward examining the Bible as a historical and literary artifact. Exegesis to the modern critic is figuring out what the text meant to its original audience. But the text was not immutable and its meaning was never inherent. Meaning is created out of the interaction between text and reader. The tradents preserving the biblical text passed it along with a set of assumptions shaping how it should be read. The result is that theology motivated conscious changes to the meaning of the text by affecting the active assumptions of the reader, not through direct textual tampering.

Since we would never have had a Bible without the work of these interpreters, it is this “book of changed meanings” that was the original Bible. Therefore, the Bible of modern scholarship is a Bible that never was. Rather, it is the raw material used to create the Bible. Investigation of the Bible chapter by chapter and book by book needs to look at what the Bible came to mean, not just what the text originally meant. And that is why studying early biblical interpretation is so important.

Rabbinic Literature Conference

This upcoming conference sounds really interesting, but unfortunately, I'm unable to travel to Bar Ilan University on such short notice or any notice for that matter -- too expensive. I don't think I could convince the department that it was essential for my independent study on rabbinic literature. The information below is copied from The Talmud Blog (though I tweaked the formatting). Go there for more details on the sessions and who's participating.

Upcoming Aggada Conference

Bar Ilan University Faculty of Jewish Studies Department of Talmud

Lander Institute Jerusalem Academic Center Graduate School of Jewish Studies

Touro College New York Graduate School of Jewish Studies

Announce a two day international academic conference on Aggadah and Aggadic Interpretation Throughout the Generations January 18-19, 2010

The conference sessions will deal with attitudes towards the authority of Aggadot, the methods used to interpret them, the use of Aggadah in biblical commentary, Aggadah in philosophic and in non-philosophic contexts over the ages, Aggadah and Halakhah, as well as Aggadah in poetry and in polemics. Participating in the lectures will be professors from the sponsoring academic institutions, prominent professors from most of Israel's major universities, as well as lecturers from the U.S.A. and Canada.

The sessions will take place on Monday and Tuesday, January 18-192010. On Monday the sessions will be held at the Mintz auditorium on the Bar Ilan University campus and on Tuesday at the campus of Lander Institute at 3 Am Ve'olamo St. in Jerusalem.

Genesis Rabbah I.IV: Which Came First?

Genesis Rabbah I.IV begins with a list of 6 things that might have been created or at least existed as a glimmer in the Father's eye long before everything else was created. (See below for previous posts in this series.)

After running through the list of six things (with a seventh likely inserted later), the discussion turns to which of the six was the very first. Of course, they only get through three before getting sidetracked by a new topic - why did the world deserve to be created (or on account of whose merit was the world created).

Here is text and translation of another paragraph in I.IV:

אבל איני יודע אי זה קודם אם התורה לכסא כבוד אם כסא כבוד לתורה, אמר ר׳ אבא בר כהנא התורה קדמה לכסא הכבוד שנ׳ י״י קנני ראשית דרכו קדם מפעליו מאז קדם לאותו שכתוב בו נכון כסאך מאז וגו׳. ר׳ הונא ר׳ ירמיה בשם ר׳ שמואל בר׳ יצחק מחשבתן שלישראל קדמה לכל.

However, I do not know what was first, whether the Torah was before the throne of glory or whether the throne of glory was before the Torah. R. Abba bar Kahana said, “The Torah was before the throne of glory, as it is written, ‘The Lord made me, the beginning of his way, before his works of old’ (Prov. 8:22) – before that of which it is written, ‘Your throne is established from of old, etc.’ (Ps. 93:2).” R. Huna, R. Jeremiah in the name of R. Samuel b. R. Isaac: “The intention (to create) Israel was before everything else.”

The last sentence is not really the end of the section but rather the beginning of the new direction the discourse takes. Basically, God foresaw that Israel would accept the Torah; therefore, he went ahead and created the world based on the merit of that decision. Of course, not everyone agrees so the discussion continues with arguments in favor of other candidates whose merit also would have been sufficient to account for God's decision to create.

One of the most fascinating things about rabbinic literature is how much ink is spilled over one line from the biblical text. The text is still interpreting just Genesis 1:1a--"In the beginning God created." They won't even get to Genesis 1:1b until I.XIII.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's clear which one came first. Obviously it was the throne because God needed a place to sit as he looked into the Torah and thought about creating Israel.

The Ongoing Series on Genesis Rabbah:

1. Creation in Rabbinic Literature
2. Genesis Rabbah I.I: The Pre-existent Torah
3. Genesis Rabbah I.IV: First Things First
4. Genesis Rabbah I.IV: Identifying Insertions in Rabbinic Texts

In the Mail: The Right Chorale

LEVINSON, BERNARD M.
"The Right Chorale": Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation
2008. XXIII, 432 pages. plus 34 figures. FAT 54
ISBN 978-3-16-149382-9
cloth € 99.00

Thanks to the kind folks at Mohr Siebeck who sent along a copy of Bernard Levinson's recent book, "The Right Chorale": Studies in Biblical Law and Interpretation. It looks excellent, and I simply must come up with an excuse to read it sooner, rather than later. I will, of course, review it in depth here in the coming months. For now, here's the publisher's description:

This book presents twelve selected investigations of textual composition, interpretation, revision, and transmission. With these studies, Bernard Levinson draws upon the literary forebears of biblical law in cuneiform literature and its reinterpretation in the Second Temple period to provide the horizon of ancient Israelite legal exegesis. The volume makes a sustained argument about the nature of textuality in ancient Israel: Israelite scribes were sophisticated readers, authors, and thinkers who were conscious of their place in literary and intellectual history, even as they sought to renew and transform their cultural patrimony in significant ways. Originally published over a decade and a half, the significantly revised and updated studies gathered here explore the connections between law and narrative, show the close connections between Deuteronomy and the Neo-Assyrian loyalty oath tradition, address the literary relationship of Deuteronomy and the Covenant Code, reflect upon important questions of methodology, and explore the contributions of the Bible to later western intellectual history. The volume offers essential reading for an understanding of the Pentateuch and biblical law.

Identifying Insertions in Rabbinic Texts

I'm continuing to work through Genesis Rabbah I.IV. As I translated the next few lines, picking up where I left off in the previous post, it struck me that this short section seemed out of place in the flow of thought. The section started with a discussion of the six things that came before the creation of the world, and it will continue with a discussion of which came first out of those six things. In between, we have this:

ר׳ אהבה בר׳ זעירא אמר אף התשובה הה״ד בטרם הרים וגו׳ (שם צ ב) מאותה השעה תשב אנוש עד דכא ותאמר שובו (שם שם ג,

R. Ahbah bar Zeira said, “Also repentance. This is as it is written, ‘Before the mountains [were brought forth or you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God’] (Psa. 90:2). From that hour: ‘You return man to dust and say, Return, [O children of man’] (Psa. 90:3).

This section appears to be a later insertion. I don't know how rabbinic scholars would determine this, but here's my reasoning. First, we started out with a list of six things. The list is complete: 1) the Torah, 2) the throne of glory, 3) the patriarchs, 4) Israel, 5) the Temple, and 6) the name of the Messiah. So, "repentance" is added here as the seventh item in the list. Second, the style shifted when an interloper entered the discussion - R. Ahbah bar Zeira. This interjection breaks the logical connection between what came before and what will come after. The use of Scriptural support is not as neat and succinct as the earlier items. It is as if a later reader was following the discussion and couldn't help but interject with yet another text that somehow seemed to him to be relevant. R. Ahbah reminds me a bit of Elihu in Job 33-37. Fortunately for us, Ahbah is not nearly the windbag and blowhard that Elihu is. He throws in his couple of lines and goes away, for the moment. I wonder if it just really bothered them to have a list of only six things when we all know that lists of seven are so much better.

From Law to Prophecy

My friend Michael Lyons recently had his dissertation published with Continuum/T&T Clark. Someday I hope to be able to read it and perhaps even review it here.  That will happen when either A) Continuum sends me a review copy, B) Michael sends me a copy for Christmas like I asked, or C) I head over to the library to track down a copy. In the meantime, here's the publisher's description:

This work examines text-referencing practices and ideas about sacred texts in antiquity.  This book shows how Ezekiel, an ancient Israelite author, borrowed from and transformed an earlier text containing religious instruction.

Ezekiel used this earlier text (Lev 17-26, the "Holiness Code") in order to explain the sixth-century destruction of his city and the exile of its inhabitants, and to create hope for the exilic community of which he was a part.  It was precisely because he regarded this text as authoritative and paradigmatic for his own day that he borrowed its words and phrases and transformed them for inclusion in his own work.  The techniques behind these transformations include syntactic modification, inversion of word order, creation of word pairs, split-up and recombination of locutions, creation of word clusters, conflation, wordplay, and reversals.

By transforming the Holiness Code's legal instructions and covenant rhetoric into accusations and descriptions of imminent or recent punishment, Ezekiel could explain the tragedy by creating a causal connection between the people's behavior and the disaster they experienced.  By selectively and paradigmatically using the Holiness Code's covenant blessings, Ezekiel envisioned a future characterized by physical and spiritual restoration.  Ezekiel transformed law into prophecy in his attempt to meet the needs of his community.

SBL: Legal Revision and Religious Renewal

Nearly a week ago now, I had the opportunity to attend an SBL session devoted to the discussion of Bernard Levinson's book Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (reviewed on this blog here).

The panelists included David Wright, Christophe Nihan, and Beth Berkowitz with a response by Levinson himself. Wright and Nihan offered more traditional, straightforward reviews of the book with an overview of the content and some discussion of its strengths and weaknesses. Their reviews were generally positive - so much so that their minor criticisms and disagreements were not particularly memorable. Most disagreement seemed to stem from fundamental differences in perspective regarding the relationship between ancient Near Eastern texts, their authors, and their audiences.

The presentation by Beth Berkowitz was more creative and less traditional as a review. She demonstrated, convincingly in my opinion, how the later rabbinic exegetes further transformed the biblical text with similar goals of religious renewal, but she raised an important issue regarding whether the mode of textual transformation itself would not have also been transformed over time. I enjoyed her presentation the most as it gave me a chance to practice my rabbinic Hebrew (a Mischsprache par excellence, if there ever was one), and it reminded me of something that had jumped out at me on first reading Levinson's book. I find it completely plausible that the mode of textual transformation would have remained very similar over time. The same processes that worked to transform the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period and late antiquity in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature were also at work among the tradents who transmitted the biblical text and shaped its canonical form. Even today, interpretation of sacred Scripture is a vital part of religious life; it is the essential work of making an ancient, out-of-date text relevant for contemporary life. The mode has not substantially changed, but the decisions on what is and is not Scripture have been made - differently by different groups all over the world.

Overall, the reaction to Levinson's book was positive and responses were generous in recognizing the important contribution he has made. The discussion time at the end, however, seemed dominated by some who seemed to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the central tenet of this book. This point could have been made more explicity--earlier texts were preserved because they had a measure of canonical authority. Later texts had to be subtly subversive to recast the reader's understanding of the earlier texts because they couldn't just make the earlier texts go away. I think Levinson's book demonstrates perfectly how that process was at work in the Hebrew Bible. Anyone involved in a living religious community will be able to see that the process is still at work today.

Genesis Rabbah I.IV: First Things First

Sometimes I think I picked the wrong corpus of texts to study. Don't get me wrong - I like Hebrew Bible a lot - but reading later interpretations of the Hebrew Bible can be a lot more fun. Studying how the New Testament, or the sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, or rabbinic literature interpret the Hebrew Bible is exciting. Their Scripture-drenched worldview and ability to creatively weave texts together is fascinating.

Continuing on with Genesis Rabbah, we find Genesis 1:1 and Proverbs 8:22 intersecting again in section I.IV, but here the connection between Torah and wisdom is already established and assumed right away.

ו׳ דברים קדמו לבריית עולם. יש מהם שנבראו ויש מהם שעלו במחשבה להבראות. התורה וכסא הכבוד נבראו. התורה דכת׳ י״י קנני ראשית (משלי ח כב). כסא כבוד דכת׳ נכון כסאך מאז וג׳ (תהלים צג ב). האבות עלו במחשבה להבראות דכת׳ כבכורה בתאנה בראשיתה ראיתי אבותיכם (הושע ט י). ישראל עלו במחשבה דכת׳ זכור עדתך קנית קדם (תהלים עד ב). בית המקדש עלה במחשבה דכת׳ כסא כבוד מרום מראשון מקום מקדשנו (ירמיה יז יב). שם המשיח עלה במחשבה דכת׳ לפני שמש ינון שמו (תהלים עב יז

Six things existed before the creation of the world. Some were created and some of them were planned for creation.

The Torah and the throne of glory were created.

1. The Torah, as it is written, “The LORD made me, the beginning” (Prov. 8:22).

2. The throne of glory, as it is written, “Your throne is established from of old, etc.” (Psa. 93:2).

3. The fathers were considered in the plan to be created, as it is written, “Like the first fruit on the fig tree in its first season (lit. “her beginning”) I saw your fathers” (Hos. 9:10).

4. Israel was considered in the plan, as it is written, “Remember your congregation which you acquired beforehand” (Psa. 74:2).

5. The Temple was considered in the plan, as it is written, “Throne of glory on high from the beginning, place of our sanctuary” (Jer. 17:12).

6. The name of the Messiah was planned, as it is written, “Let his name be established before the sun” (Psa. 72:17).

The textual connections that link all of these verses to creation, or, more accurately, to the time before creation, are striking for their creativity. Hosea 9:10, for example, uses the catch-word "beginning", but in context, it clearly refers to the beginning of the fig tree's ability to bear fruit, not the ultimate beginning of all things. The intention to create Israel is very important, and here, it appears to link through sharing the verb קנה "to acquire, create" with Prov. 8:22. Jeremiah 17:12 should be the best support for the existence of the "throne of glory" as it is in the only example I could find of that exact phrase in the Hebrew Bible, but the rabbis use it to support the existence of the Temple. This language likely reflects the belief that the earthly temple was merely a copy or reflection of God's heavenly abode. But using Jer. 17:12 makes it seem like the throne of glory = Temple. So do we really only have 5 things?

As this section continues, the rabbis begin to argue over which one of these things existing before everything else existed before all the others.

To be continued

Genesis Rabbah I.I: The Pre-Existent Torah

Here is the text, my translation, and a discussion of the second half of Genesis Rabbah I.I (first half here). Finally, we’ll find out what ‘amon means and what Proverbs 8 has to do with Genesis 1:1!

ד׳א] אמון אומן התורה אומרת אני הייתי כלי אומנתו שלהקב״ה, בנוהג שבעולם מלך בשר ודם בונה פלטין ואינו בונה אותה מדעת עצמו אלא מדעת אומן, והאומן אינו בונה אות מדעתו אלא דיפטראות ופינקסות יש לו לידע היאך הוא עושה חדרים ופשפשים, כך היה הקב״ה מביט בתורה ובורא העולם, והתורה א׳ בראשית ברא אלהים ואין ראשית אלא תורה היך מה דאת אמר י״י קנני ראשית דרכו וגו׳׃

Translation:

Another interpretation: ‘amon means artisan (‘uman – Jastrow 27). The Torah says, “ I was the skilled tool of the Holy One, blessed be He” (Aramaic paraphrase of Prov 8:30). In the way of the world, [when] a king of flesh and blood builds a palace (Jastrow 1180, Gk loan word), he does not build it from his own knowledge but from the expertise of an artisan. And the artisan himself builds it not from his expertise alone but through plans (“documents” Jastrow 304, Gk loan word under alt. spelling)  and  descriptions (“tablets” Jastrow 1165-66, Gk loan word) in order that he might know how to make the rooms and doorways (“wickets” Jastrow 1248). Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, looked in the Torah and created the world, for the Torah says, “In the beginning, God created” (Gen 1:1a), and there is no “beginning” except the Torah, as it is written, “The Lord made me, the beginning of his way, etc.” (Prov. 8:22).

The discussion of the potential meaning of ‘amon continues in the same vein – trying out words that have a similar consonant pattern. There is an entry for ‘umannu in Aramaic in Jastrow, so I think Brooke’s (Anumma) comment on this earlier post about the potential Akkadian connection is possible. Based on the only other biblical occurrence of this word in Jer 52:15, I think “master-workman”, “artisan”, or “architect” give the best sense for ‘amon which fits nicely with the meaning the rabbis want to give Prov 8:30. However, the sense seems odd in the context of Prov 8:30: “I was beside him like a master workman, and I was his delight daily, rejoicing in his presence all the time.”

The importance of Proverbs 8 is that the speaker is Wisdom personified. She seems to be simultaneously depicted as a pre-existent co-creator of the world AND a little child playing in the sand while Yahweh does the heavy lifting. When I used to teach this passage to undergrads for Intro to Judaism, some of them had a hard time wrapping their minds around the rabbinic logic.

Here are the steps (or leaps, if you will):

1. Prov 8:22 and Gen 1:1 both use the same word for “beginning” ראשית.

2. Wisdom = beginning in Prov 8.

3. Therefore, beginning = wisdom in Gen 1. (i.e., With Wisdom, God created . . . )

4. Wisdom = Torah. I’m not sure if there’s a precise trigger for this connection. Perhaps it was intuitive. Perhaps Ps. 119 helped facilitate the connection by applying some of the ideals of Proverbs to the study of Torah. Ps 119:77 could create that connection - “Your Torah is my delight” – using the same word for “delight” as Prov 8:30. Key words are important connectors in midrashic exegesis, especially a relatively rare word like שעשעים that occurs only 9 times in the Hebrew Bible (5x in Ps 119 and 2x here in Prov 8:30-31). The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced of the role Ps 119 must have in making this equation, even though it isn’t explicitly cited in this passage.

5. Therefore, “With the Torah, God created.”

What’s really amazing is how these connections are assumed and expected to be understood. This type of intertextual reading of the Torah seems almost intuitive to the rabbis. This is definitely an “insider” text – written by elites for other elites. Complete knowledge of the Torah and the oral tradition is safely assumed.

From the moment Prov 8:30 was invoked by R. Hoshea, the end goal of the exegesis was this one unified point: God created the world using the Torah. What seemed at first glance to be an odd way to begin exegesis of Gen 1:1 flowed back into a main point that underscored the rabbis’ own authority and connected it to the creation of the world. Saying that God used the Torah to create puts God in the role of the ultimate Torah sage. In some way (though I doubt they would explicitly say this), God is subject to the terms of the Torah and must abide by the rules of interpretation. This is significant because the rabbis were establishing themselves as the final arbiters of the interpretation of Torah. They controlled access to the divine now.

The story of the oven of Aknai underscores this tension between divine revelation and human interpretation. “The Torah is not in heaven” (Deut 30:12). But that’s a story for another time . . .

P.S. If you think this rabbinic logic is too easy, try to wrap your mind around the way the Zohar (a medieval kabbalah text) reads Gen 1:1 as a depiction of the emanation of the Sefirot (symbols of divine energy) from heaven to earth. “With Hokhmah (wisdom, the 2nd sefirah), Ein Sof (the ineffable unnameable, utterly transcendent divine source) created Elohim (the 3rd sefirah). Fun stuff.

P.P.S. Prov 8 also plays into Christian interpretations of a pre-existent Christ. Wisdom = the Logos = Christ (cf. John 1). It gets more complicated, but this post was about Genesis Rabbah.

P.P.P.S. Hebrew text is from J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, 1965, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem: Wahrmann. Scribal errors are possible. I caught one instance of parablepsis myself. Scribal errors are much easier to understand once you’ve caught yourself caught yourself making them.

Creation in Rabbinic Literature

In an attempt to explore what rabbinic literature has to say about Creation, I've begun reading Genesis Rabbah, a midrashic commentary on Genesis likely composed between 200-500 CE. I'll be posting text, translation, and analysis as I work through the text.

Genesis Rabbah I.I.1

בראשית ברא אלהים וגו׳. ר׳ אושיא פתח ואהיה אצלו אמון ואהיה שׁעשׁעים

אמון פידגוג[1], אמון מכוסה[2], אמון מוצנע[3], אית דא׳ אמון רבתה[4], אמון פידגוג

היך מה דאת אמר[5] כאשר ישא האומן[6] את היונק, אמון מכוסה היך מה דאת אמר

האמונים עלי תולע, אמון מוצנע היך מה דאת אמר ויהי אומן את הדסה,

אמון רבתה היך מה דאת אמר התיטבי מנא אמון ומתרגמינן האת טבא

מאלכסנדריא רבתא דיתבא ביני נהרותא.

Translation: “In the beginning, God created, etc.” R. Hoshea opened [the discourse by quoting]: “And I was beside him – an ‘amon, and I was a delight” (Prov 8:30). ‘Amon means tutor; ‘amon means covering; ‘amon means hidden; some say ‘amon means great. ‘Amon means tutor: [This is] like what you read – “just as a guardian (‘omen) carries the nursing child” (Num 11:12). ‘Amon means covering: as in the verse that says “those who were brought up (ha’emunim) on purple” (Lam 4:5). ‘Amon means hidden as in the verse that says “and he was bringing up (‘omen) Hadassah” (Esth 2:7). ‘Amon means great as in the verse that says “are you better than No-Amon?” (Nah 3:8) which is translated “are you better than Alexandria the Great situated between the rivers?”

You can almost hear the inner monologue of the sage:

Amon, amon . . . what’s an amon? Hmm . . . we don’t know this word. This is both a problem and an opportunity. It’s a problem because, well, we don’t really know what the text says. It’s an opportunity because we can interpret according to what we want the text to say. Where to begin? Words that use the same consonant pattern-aleph, mem, nun? Well, we have omen, emunim, and No-Amon. Those could work.

The problem is that in biblical Hebrew the word in these contexts is all the same word. It is used in the sense of legal guardianship or of child-rearing. The word doesn’t denote “covering” in Lam 4:5 or “hiding” in Esth 2:7. However, it is a good example of the method used to determine the semantic range of a word when you don’t have a lexicon—look at other cases of how the word is used. The fact that these words are imbued with unusual meanings is significant because it highlights the esoteric nature of the discourse. The sages are about to reveal secret and hidden things encoded in the Torah. This section is just the teaser building up to the preferred meaning attributed to ‘amon in the next paragraph.

At first glance, it appears to be a rather oblique way to get at interpreting Gen 1:1a by immediately embarking on a discussion of the meaning of a rare word in Proverbs 8. A master plan seems to be at work shaping the interpretation with a singular purpose. The context of Prov 8 is essential to interpretation because nowhere does the writer of Genesis Rabbah make the connection explicit. The reader is expected to know who is speaking in Prov 8 and why that’s significant for understanding Gen 1:1.

To be continued . . .

Hebrew text is from J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, 1965, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem: Wahrmann.

---

[1] “pedagogue, tutor” (Jastrow 1136)

[2] “covering” (BDB 491-2)

[3] “hidden” (Jastrow 1292)

[4] “capital, great city” (Jastrow 1446) or “chief, great” (Jastrow 1438).

[5] היך מה דאת אמר: “even as you read in the Scriptures” (Jastrow 345). Lit: “like that which you say/read.”

[6] “nurse, guardian; foster-father or foster-mother” – see Isa 49:23, 2 Kgs 10:1, 5.

Thoughts on Intertextuality

I love intertextuality. It's fundamental to how we interpret life. It shows up when we weave dialogue from TV and movies or song lyrics into our everyday speech. Our perception of the world around us and all our interactions with others are affected by it. Every experience with language, spoken or written, every encounter with visual media informs our understanding of and reaction to new experiences or new texts.

When we immerse ourselves in a particular text, we effortlessly make connections between that text and a new text. Those connections can be linguistic or conceptual. Certain phrases stick with us, and we make an instant connection every time we hear it. [For me, it's the word "honestly." It calls up the line from Austin Powers every time: "Who throws a shoe?! Honestly!!"]

In the arena of biblical interpretation, it surfaces in some way nearly every time we read a text that somehow evokes ideas or phrases from texts we've read before. For example, I became very familiar with the text of Job going through it for text class in one semester. Over a year later when we hit Isaiah 35 in class, I heard echoes of Job frequently (cp. Job 4:3-4 and Isa. 35:3).

Intertextuality can be a fruitful phenomenon to apply to biblical interpretation despite its inherent subjectivity and often idiosyncratic results. Methodological controls are necessary to produce replicable results. Textual dependence, especially at the level of meaningful allusion instead of evocative echo, is notoriously difficult to demonstrate.

If our interest is intertextuality and biblical interpretation, the best place to start is with the masters of biblical intertextuality -- the rabbis of the exegetical midrashim (see Boyarin, 1990). If you want to know what biblical passages are relevant to the topic of creation (as I do), you might benefit from a look at Genesis Rabbah.

Tonight I read through Genesis Rabbah Parashah 1 in English. Sadly, the only copy left at our library was Neusner's deplorable translation (1985; I have it on good authority that all of Neusner's translations of rabbinic texts are deplorable. I mean, what can you expect when one man thinks he can speed-translate the entire corpus of rabbinic literature in his lifetime?)

I also have the standard Hebrew edition by Theodor and Albeck (1965). I plan to work through some passages in detail in Hebrew. From what I've read thus far though, the writers made very effective use of intertextuality to support their highly sophisticated theological exegesis.

More will be coming soon.

References:

Boyarin, Daniel. 1990. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Neusner, J. 1985. Genesis Rabbah. Vol. 1. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Theodor, J. and Ch. Albeck. 1965. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary. Jerusalem: Wahrmann.

The Five Books of Meme

I've been tagged in Ken Brown's 5 book meme thanks to Art Boulet and James McGrath.

The rules:

1. Name the five books (or scholars) that had the most immediate and
lasting influence on how you read the Bible. Note that these need not
be your five favorite books, or even the five with which you most
strongly agree. Instead, I want to know what five books have
permenantly changed the way you think.
2. Tag five others.

Since I've been tagged twice, I guess I have to list 10 books, right? Actually, I'm going to list it by the scholars whose work has influenced my thinking the most. The one thing all of these works has in common is that they've made me more attuned to the issues in the biblical text that cry out for interpretation.

The books:

1. John Barton. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study and The Nature of Biblical Criticism.

2. Michael Fishbane. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel and The Exegetical Imagination.

3. Bernard Levinson. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation and Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel.

4. James Kugel. In Potiphar's House, The Bible As It Was, and How To Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.

5. Benjamin Sommer. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40-66.

Honorable mention should be made of two works that have influenced my interest in the broader discipline of religious studies. First, Stephen Prothero's book Religious Literacy has helped me understand the importance of religious studies for making sense of modern world culture. Second, writing a critique of the book Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook greatly sharpened my critical thinking skills and helped me evaluate methodological approaches to the use of sources for reconstructing the history of a religion.

The tags: John Anderson, Phil Sumpter, Scott Bailey, Chris Brady, and Alan Lenzi.

The Transformation of Judah

I'm currently reading The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. While I don't agree with all of their conclusions, the idea that many of the biblical writers are working from a 7th century perspective is compelling. I agree not in the sense that the whole Bible was written from scratch in the 7th century but that earlier materials were woven together and sometimes updated from that historical point of view with the intent of addressing contemporaneous events. The following quote is from p. 249 in the chapter on "The Transformation of Judah."

It is easy to see why the biblical authors were so upset by idolatry. It was a symbol of chaotic social diversity; the leaders of the clans in the outlying areas conducted their own systems of economics, politics, and social relations--without administration or control by the court in Jerusalem. That countryside independence, however time-honored by the people of Judah, came to be condemned as a "reversion" to the barbarity of the pre-Israelite period. Thus, ironically, what was most genuinely Judahite was labeled as Canaanite heresy. In the arena of religious debate and polemic, what was old was suddenly seen as foreign and what was new was suddenly seen as true. And in what can only be called an extraordinary outpouring of retrospective theology, the new, centralized kingdom of Judah and the Jerusalem-centered worship of YHWH was read back into Israelite history as the way things should always have been.

I've highlighted the part that jumped out at me. It seems to be an ancient example of what Zevit was talking about [quoted here] - looking back into the past through a glass darkly, seeing their reflection and confusing it with what lay beyond the glass. Only in this case, it seems to have been an intentional retrojection of the present day back into the past. Innovation by planting it firmly in the past before what is being replaced.

Am I a Specialist after all?

Does a research focus on Hebrew Bible in general actually make me a specialist? James Crossley has rightly pointed out the difficulty in defining what exactly makes one a specialist or a generalist in biblical studies (reacting to Michael Bird's SBL Forum article with Craig Keener which I mentioned here).

It's true that Bird and Keener didn't precisely define the terms, but they seemed to refer to a specialist as one who focused on a narrow field (such as Pentateuch or Paul) versus the generalist who could deal with the whole corpus of Hebrew Bible or New Testament and possibly also the background literature. In a sense, it's a false dichotomy when placed in those terms because it's very rare for anyone to be able to keep such a narrow focus. Teaching responsibilities would most likely require a specialist in Pentateuch to teach the whole Hebrew Bible at least in survey.  Plus it seems irresponsible to consider yourself a specialist in a narrow branch of Hebrew Bible without understanding how your niche fits in the broader context of the Hebrew Bible. Similarly, it's irresponsible for Hebrew Bible scholars to overlook the broader context of their corpus - ANE history and literature.

Crossley pointed out that in the grand scheme of things just being well-versed in New Testament or Hebrew Bible was not really being a generalist, but Bird and Keener had realized that saying, "Hebrew Bible and especially New Testament each constitute a relatively small body of writings compared to many other areas of discourse."

So, I think the definition implicit in the forum article's use of "generalist" and "specialist" was that a "generalist" knows the Bible in its context - context implies at least general knowledge of Old and New Testaments, Second Temple literature including Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic literature, ANE history and literature, and Greco-Roman history and philosophy. Of course, there is always the risk of trading breadth for depth on many of these subjects, but I think having a broad general knowledge across much of it is necessary to have that deeper command of your niche area.

Maybe one's perspective on this issue is different from New Testament studies. Imagine picking up a book and just starting to read 2/3 of the way in. You're missing all the background, everything that built up to that point. Granted the "Bible" as Old and New Testaments is a later development in religious traditions, but the concept is valid. How can you understand any narrow specialized field of study without at least having a general command of the background material? I've often thought that what I've read in NT studies would benefit from a better understanding of certain concepts from Hebrew Bible and early Judaism, rather than the Greco-Roman focus that NT studies often take.

Am I missing something? The changes in our field, especially the recognition of biblical studies as a sub-discipline (in a sense) of religious studies, suggest having broad general knowledge will be a career essential. Perhaps I'm just odd for having interests and education that spanned the breadth of biblical studies and its background. Or perhaps it's just that my main exemplar of a model Hebrew Bible scholar is a specialist in Wisdom Literature who seems equally well-versed in everything from Pentateuch to Prophets to Proverbs to Syriac to Septuagint to Dead Sea Scrolls to rabbinic literature to Shakespeare to cognitive psychology. Oh, and ancient Egyptian wisdom literature, too.

Read everything . . . soon.

I like being a generalist

Michael Bird and Craig Keener have an excellent article on the SBL forum about why we need "generalist" scholars in biblical studies. The topic resonated with me as I've been having a difficult time facing the prospect of specializing for the dissertation. My interests have always been broad and wide-ranging. I guess that's what happens when you're a history major studying everything that happened from the beginning of time up to the recent past.  Part of the attraction of studying Hebrew Bible was that it ties in with so many of my other interests.  Here's a list of my general interests in order of importance.  Because of the nature of my program, I'll have to specialize near the top of the list.

1.  Hebrew Bible: Pentateuch (esp. Genesis and Deuteronomy), Job, Isaiah, and Psalms.
2.  Early Biblical Interpretation: inner-biblical exegesis, Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic literature, New Testament, Targum, Peshitta, LXX
3.  Northwest Semitic epigraphy and paleography (Aramaic, Phoenician, Ugaritic)
4.  History of ancient Israel & the ancient Near East
5.  Israelite religions in the context of religions in the ANE
6.  Religious Studies (History of Religions, Sociology of Religions) - especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from origins through the Middle Ages.
7.  History of the Classical World: ancient Rome
8.  History of Biblical Interpretation: medieval Jewish and Christian interpretation, Reformation
9.  Bible Translation & Translation Studies
10.  Biblical Theology

And that's just the Bible-related list of interests. Now if only I could narrow things down enough to specialize for just a few years . . .

Other bloggers on this topic: Charles Halton; Nijay Gupta; Mark Goodacre; Pat McCullough