2020 Enoch Seminar Online

Title: Concepts of Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Christian Origins

Chairs: Gabriele Boccaccini and Lorenzo DiTommaso (with Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Miryam Brand, John Collins, Benjamin Reynolds, Lawrence Schiffman, Loren Stuckenbruck, Archie Wright, and Jason Zurawski). Secretary: Joshua Scott

Date : June 29 - July 1-2 (Monday - Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday)

Daily schedule (EDT, Eastern Daylight Time): 9:30am-11:30am / 12:00pm-1:30pm / 2:30pm-4pm

A welcome from Gabriele Boccaccini, director of the Enoch Seminar

It was March 22 when Kelley, Loren and I launched the idea of an online conference that would reproduce the seminar format of our meetings. We were sick and tired of reading every day about canceled conferences and postponed events. We wanted to give a sign of reaction and rebirth.

We are now approaching the beginning of this conference with the highest expectations. We are saddened by Loren’s illness, to whom we wish the fastest recovery, and by the death of James Dunn, who has given so much to the studies in our field. But we are excited by the enthusiasm demonstrated by the dozens of scholars who have worked on this project for months, and by the number of participants who joined it. It is an experiment we want to be successful and a bet we want to win.

In 20 years of activity, the Enoch Seminar has grown considerably from a small group of scholars to a much larger and more diverse community. We are committed to promoting an ethos of inclusiveness and friendship. As scholars, we do not live isolated from the world and untouched by the evil of this world. But we will be measured by the courage and determination with which we adapt to even the most difficult challenges.

Special thanks go to the chairs, the panelists, the respondents, the secretary and to everyone involved in organizing the conference. I wish everyone a pleasant and enriching experience.

Instructions to participants

Please, read the following instructions carefully. With more than 250 registered participants we must all commit to follow precise times and rules for an orderly discussion.

It is not a public conference (in streaming, for a wider audience) followed by Q&A, but a series of ten workshops among invited specialists. Each session will include three presentations (10-15 minutes), three respondents (5 minutes), followed by a discussion among conference participants. At any time during the session, participants will have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion by submitting their brief comments to the entire group through the Q&A chat. They may also signal your willingness to intervene briefly through the ‘raised hand’ function. Participants will be called after the first three respondents and prearranged discussants, as time allows. Depending on the length of the discussion, the end of each session might be delayed up to 10-15 minutes.

The conference will begin at 9:30am (EDT) on 29 June with a dialogue between Gabriele Boccaccini, John J. Collins, Amy-Jill Levine, Sofanit Abebe, Rodney Caruthers and Isaac Oliver, on the present and future of studies on Second Temple Judaism. At 10am, we will present the Enoch Seminar Life Achievement Award. The recipients of this award have made significant contributions to the Enoch Seminar and the study of Second Temple Judaism. This year’s recipients include Paolo Sacchi, George Nickelsburg, Robert Kraft, Michael Knibb, Michael Stone, and Devorah Dimant.

We will conclude our conference on July 2 with a wrap-up session, led by a group of panelists, and some final remarks.

All participants are expected to behave in accordance with norms for participation in academic conferences, and in particular are asked to note the following:

• 1. All audio and video will be muted during the sessions, except for presenters and those who are invited to intervene.
• 2. Participants are expected to identify themselves by their real names.
• 3. Participants are welcome and encouraged to use the Zoom features to communicate, but inappropriate comments or behavior will lead to immediate removal from the conference.
• 4. Participants should not record presentations in audio or video.

A shared google document with presentation abstracts, notes, and primary sources will be made available to all participants.

The Enoch Seminar Online Conference is generously supported by the University of Michigan’s Frankel Center for the Judaic Studies (https://lsa.umich.edu/judaic) and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies (https://mcecs.org).

Registration is free but a donation of $20 or more is highly appreciated to cover the costs of the conference and support the activities of the Enoch Seminar. You can go to: https://mcecs.org/register-for-enoch-seminar/ Below "Enoch Seminar Housing Payment," click on "Pay Now." This will take you to a PayPal page where you can select any amount you like.

REGISTRATION FOR THE 2020 ENOCH SEMINAR ONLINE IS NOW CLOSED.

Description (by Lorenzo DiTommaso)

Our Approach to this Online Seminar

Participants should keep in mind that the tenor of their presentations/responses ought to be prospective rather than retrospective. A survey of past work is not appropriate here, nor is the statement of an issue that has been “chewed over” for a long time. We seek, instead, new ideas, theses, or approaches. A statement of a major issue or question that has come to light in view of recent scholarship would be excellent, as well, especially if it is “thick,” in the sense that it contains ideas that could be unpacked and debated in group discussion for mutual profit.

Time Allotted for Each Presentation and Response

Each presentation is only 10-15 minutes and each response is 5 minutes in length. Unlike in-person Enoch Seminars, we do not require participants to pre-circulate their papers. Thus, the emphasis is on brevity, clarity, and, to a certain degree, generality, at least within the session parameters. Accordingly, participants should expect that they will be given ample time to revise/amplify their ideas for publication in the conference volume, ideally in dialogue with the formal responses (which, as discussed, will also be published) and informal group discussion.

The Nature of the Seminar

For this Online Seminar, questions posed are intended to be quite open-ended. On the one hand, this allows panelists and respondents maximum room for exploration within the compass of the session topic. On the other hand, we are issuing invitations to targeted specialists in the expectation they require the least in the way of guidance and have the most likelihood of sizing up the question and offering meaningful responses to it. For this reason, participation is by invitation only. It is not a public conference (in streaming), but a workshop among invited specialists.

A New Kind of Conference for this Distinctive Moment

This will be a new kind of conference experience for most of us. We've tweaked a few things in order to accommodate the new medium, according us maximum fluidity in the conference architecture without sacrificing traditional scientific rigour. We are excited that the Enoch Seminar is taking this initiative in light of the current moment and given the likelihood that online platforms will continue to be important and omnipresent in various academic contexts. The Seminar means to carry on despite these difficult times, not only to maintain continuity and connexions, but also because the Republic of Letters, of which we are citizens, may bend with stormy winds but will not break.

Enoch Seminar Statement on Harassment and Discrimination

In its commitment to diversity, the Enoch Seminar actively welcomes international scholars, persons of different religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds and sexual orientation, and seeks gender parity as well as scholars at different stages in their academic careers.

The Enoch Seminar wishes to foster an ethos of inclusivity in all its sponsored events. It requires the highest level of professional and ethical behavior, free of all forms of harassment and discrimination, from all its members and from anyone participating in any Seminar or affiliated function.

The Board of Directors is presently composing a code of conduct for members of or participants in the Seminar and will strike an Ethics Committee to which any complaints concerning this code will be reported and evaluated in strictest confidence.

Schedule (New York Time Zone)

DAY 1 (Monday, June 29, 2020)

9:30am - 10am - Welcome [Gabriele Boccaccini].

• A conversation of Gabriele Boccaccini with John Collins, Amy-Jill Levine, Isaac Oliver, Rodney Caruthers and Sofanit Abebe on the present and future of studies of Second Temple Judaism, while participants gather from all around the world.

10:00am - 10:15am -- Opening Remarks [Kelley Coblentz Bautch]

10:15am - 11:15am -- Awards Ceremony

• "Enoch Seminar Life Achievement Award" to honor Paolo Sacchi, George Nickelsburg, Robert Kraft, Michael Knibb, Michael Stone, and Devorah Dimant, "in gratitude for their exceptional contribution to the field of Second Temple Jewish Studies and their generous service in the Enoch Seminar."
• Presenters: Gabriele Boccaccini, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Annette Reed, John Collins, Lorenzo DiTommaso, Jonathan Ben-Dov.

11:15am - 11:30am -- Introduction to the Conference [Lorenzo DiTommaso]

12:00pm - 1:30/45pm [Chair Archie Wright] -- 1. If "apocalyptic is the mother of theology," is the problem of evil the mother of "apocalyptic"?

• Panelists: Ida Fröhlich, Albert Baumgarten, Emmanouela Grypeou
• Respondents: Matthew Goff, Matthias Hoffmann, Alexander Kulik
• Discussants: Gabriele Boccaccini, Ronald Herms, Mark Leuchter ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 1.

2:30pm - 4:00/15pm [Chair Lorenzo DiTommaso] -- 2. What was the nature and extent of Zoroastrian, Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greco-Roman influences on the diverse notions of evil in Second Temple Judaism?

• Panelists: Jason Silverman, Harold Attridge, Lorenzo DiTommaso
• Respondents: Vicente Dobroruka, Pierluigi Piovanelli, David Hamidovic
• Discussants: Giovanni Bazzana, Joan Taylor ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 2.

DAY 2 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)

9:30am - 10:00am - Remarks from DAY 1 [Gabriele Boccaccini, Miryam Brand, Archie Wright, Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Lawrence H. Schiffman]

10am - 11:30/45am [Chair Kelley Coblentz Bautch] -- 3. Which are the different ways in which evil was understood to enter into the world? Which historical or social circumstances prompted the preference from one or the other? Was it a case of a religious development in response to fundamental changes in the religious environment? In both cases, where and why?

• Panelists: Carol Newsom, James VanderKam, Florentina Badalanova Geller
• Respondents: Matthias Henze, Lester Grabbe, Anathea Portier-Young
• Discussants: Fiodar Litvinau, Daniel Assefa, Sofonit Abebe, Henryk Drawnel ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 3.

12:00pm - 1:30/45pm [Chair Jason Zurawski] -- 4. How do non-apocalyptic texts of the period engage with the issue of the origin of evil and the theological problems it raises? Is there literary evidence, explicit or implicit, for contemporary debate regarding the existence of multiple explanations for the origin of evil in the world, particularly regarding the ways that each explanation addresses theological and existential issues?

• Panelists: Gerbern Oegema, Karina Martin Hogan, Greg Sterling
• Respondents: Hindy Najman, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Wright
• Discussants: Erich Gruen, Francis Borchardt, Tessa Rajak ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 4.

2:30pm - 4:00/15pm [Chair Lorenzo DiTommaso] -- 5. Are evil human or superhuman figures a necessary and functional part of the earliest expressions of evil, or did they develop later?

• Panelists: Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Ryan Stokes, Archie Wright
• Respondents: Michael Morris, Lorenzo DiTommaso, Angela Kim Harkins
• Discussants: Jonathan Ben-Dov, Joshua Scott ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 5.

4:15pm - 5:00pm - [Chairs: Gabriele Boccaccini, Jackie Wyse-Rhodes, Deborah Forger, and Rodney Caruthers] - Meeting of the PhD Students and post-Doc attending the conference.

DAY 3 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)

9:15am - 10:00am - Remarks from DAY 2 [Gabriele Boccaccini, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Jason Zurawski, Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Jackie Wyse-Rhodes, Lawrence H. Schiffman]

10am - 11:30/45am [Chair Archie Wright] -- 6. The origin of evil in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

• Panelists: John Collins, Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer, Miryam Brand
• Respondents: Timothy Lim, Elisa Uusimäki, Benjamin Wold
• Discussants: Cecilia Wassen, Esther Chazon, Patrick Angiolillo, John Kampen ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 6.

12:00pm - 1:30/45pm [Chair Gabriele Boccaccini] -- 7. How is the problem of evil and its origin addressed in the Parables of Enoch and the Synoptics?

• Panelists: Leslie Baynes, Darrell Bock, Gabriele Boccaccini
• Respondents: Jim Davila, Eric Noffke, Benjamin Reynolds
• Discussants: Daniel Boyarin, Daniele Minisini, Isaac Oliver, Daniel Assefa, John Kampen ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 7.

2:30pm - 4:00/15pm [Chair Ben Reynolds] -- 8. Do Paul and John stand in line with trajectories already evident in the Synoptics and Jewish apocalyptic literature of the era, or do they represent a new direction? Do we have evidence of divergent notions on the origin of evil in the early Jesus movement?

• Panelists: Paula Fredriksen, Adele Reinhartz, Edmondo Lupieri
• Respondents: Matthew Thiessen, Jutta Leonhart-Balzer, Craig Koester
• Discussants: Paul Anderson, Charlotte Hempel, Matthew Goff, Karen King, Gabriele Boccaccini, Catrin Williams. Deborah Forger ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 8.

4:15pm - 5:00pm - What's Next? Ideas and suggestions for the Future of the Enoch Seminar. [Chairs: Gabriele Boccaccini, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Archie Wright] - Meeting open to all those interested in participating in future Enoch Seminar events.

DAY 4 (Thursday, July 2, 2020)

9:15am - 10:00am - Remarks from DAY 3: Gabriele Boccaccini, Benjamin Reynolds, Archie Wright, Lorenzo Di Tommaso, Lawrence H. Schiffman

10am - 11:30/45am [Chair Jason Zurawski] -- 9. How is the problem of evil and its origin addressed in Rabbinic literature? Does it/they stand in line with trajectories already evident in the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, or does it represent a wholly new explanation?

• Panelists: Hector Patmore, Steven Fraade, Paul Mandel, Daniel Boyarin
• Respondents: Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Ronit Nikolsky
• Discussant: Rebecca Wollenberg, Jonathan Kaplan, Torleif Elgvin ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 9.

12:00pm - 1:30/45pm [Chair Kelley Coblentz Bautch] -- 10. How is the problem of evil and its origin addressed in "gnostic" (Valentinian, Sethian, Mandaean) literature? Do they stand in line with trajectories already evident in the Second Temple Period, or represent a wholly new explanation?

• Panelists: Jason BeDuhn, Alberto Camplani, James McGrath
• Respondents: April DeConick, Nicola Denzey-Lewis, Dylan Burns
• Discussants: Karen King, Philippe Therrien ...

Click here for the abstracts and handouts for Session 10.

2:30pm - 3:45 - Wrap-up session

• Panelists [chair Gabriele Boccaccini]: Lorenzo DiTommaso, Kelley Coblentz Bautch, Miryam Brand, John Collins (with Lawrence Schiffman, James McGrath...)

3:45pm - 4:00pm - Final remarks [Gabriele Boccaccini]: Twenty Years of Activities of Enoch Seminar: From Florence to the Cyberspace. In memory of James D.G. Dunn and the late members of the Enoch Seminar: Hanan Eshel, Shemaryahu Talmon, J. Harold Ellens, Klaus Koch, Michael Bonner, Geza Xeravits, and Larry W. Hurtado. Committed to building the new generation of scholars in Second Temple Judaism.

DAY 1 Recap (by James F. McGrath)

Here is my recap of the first day of the first ever Enoch Seminar meeting held completely online, which began yesterday. The first day began with opening ceremonies that offered a retrospective going back to the early 1970s with Bob Kraft’s seminar focused on the pseudepigrapha and the publication of Jewish pseudepigrapha that had been previously largely ignored by academics working in both ancient Judaism and early Christianity. John Collins and Amy-Jill Levine provided some interesting anecdotes about those early days, when doing things like reading the Testament of Job, or offering a feminist analysis of Judith, were so new. Some perspectives from recent PhDs on how things look now and have changed followed this. Sofanit Abebe began with the fact that some texts that are studied as part of this endeavor, such as 1 Enoch, are scripture and thus the living Word of God within her own Ethiopian Orthodox Christian tradition and context. Rodney Caruthers followed with suggestions that included taking approaches currently applied to much-studied texts and bringing them to bear on relatively neglected ones; and turning more attention eastwards to explore topics such as reception of this literature in Asia, since there are natural resonances between stories such as those about the Maccabean martyrs and those about the Boddhisatva. Isaac de Oliveira brought this part back to the central focus, namely the integration of the study of early Christianity as a form of ancient Judaism, before branching out again to ways the same approach can usefully be extended to other areas such as early Islam. In concluding remarks on this part, John Collins talked about specialization as the boon and bane of second-temple Jewish studies. There was a time when no one specialized in second temple Judaism. Now some focus so exclusively on that that connections with other areas are being neglected. Amy-Jill Levine offered the flip side of that, with reflections on the increased focus on the meaning of the text for people today, which risks allowing anti-Jewish views and misinformation to creep back in as history is neglected.

The next major component talked about future plans not only of the Enoch Seminar but the Frankel Institute at the University of Michigan. This was followed by an awards ceremony for lifetime contributions to this field. The “Enoch Seminar Life Achievement Award” was given to Paolo Sacchi, George Nickelsburg, Robert Kraft, Michael Knibb, Michael Stone, and Devorah Dimant “in gratitude for their exceptional contribution to the field of Second Temple Jewish Studies and their generous service in the Enoch Seminar.”

The unique format of this first online Enoch Seminar meeting, as well as the typical format and what usually characterizes it when we hold them face to face, were explained by Lorenzo DiTommaso, who said that this may be the first full-fledged online conference of this sort since the lockdown began. There are around 300 participants!

The key question that will be our focus for the remainder that will tie individual sessions together, is this: If apocalyptic is the mother of theology, is evil the mother of apocalyptic? Ida Fröhlich got our first day’s first afternoon session started by looking at the origin of evil as explored theologically in Jewish literature in general and 1 Enoch in particular. She proposed that evil is only one of the major themes and focuses in apocalyptic. Matthew Goff responded by noting how the quest for origins and etiology (asking about the mother and ‘grandmother’ of confessional theology) reflects a particular framing, one that it liable to miss what individual works say in and to their own context. Even the terminology of “evil” frames things a particular way, since various parts of the Enochic literature look at instances such as an “evil tooth” (i.e. a toothache) and “evil spirits”) which are a cause of misfortune but not understood dualistically in connection with a Satan figure.

Albert Baumgarten was the next presenter and began with Celsus’ anti-Jewish polemic, arguing that in its depiction of how God will deal with the problem of evil, it is more accurate about Jewish and Christian beliefs than Origen cared to admit. Matthias Hoffmann responded, beginning with a mention of Loren Stuckenbruck who was unable to participate, and Jimmy Dunn who had just died. He then turned to apocalyptic and evil at key points in the history of theology, including figures as diverse as Martin Luther, Jacques Derrida, and Yuval Harari. Emmanouela Grypeou was the next presenter. She focused on apocalyptic and the problem of evil in late antiquity, in particular the presence and functions of merciless and punishing angels. There are many fascinating ideas there, including the notion that people are tormented in the afterlife by the demons they worshipped while alive. The development of a demonic underworld emerges out of this and carries the theme, originally focused on establishing divine justice, in a direction that results in a depiction of an afterlife from which God and God’s mercy are further and further removed. Alexander Kulik responded by emphasizing that there is no such thing as radical innovation, and highlighting some precursors to the late antique ideas mentioned in the paper. Gabriele Boccaccini was next as one of three discussants. He argued that evil was the key point of disagreement in particular between developing Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. He also emphasized that by the late second temple period the earlier distinction on the origin of evil as either due to disobedient angels or disobedient humans, no longer holds. Ron Herms responded and added in the sea and underworld as also places to which Jewish literature sometimes looks for sources of evil. The taxonomy is thus more complex. Mark Leuchter was the final discussant, and he dug back earlier into Deuteronomy and Ezekiel.

In the time of open discussion, John Collins emphasized that apocalyptic is a worldview more than a genre, and that evil means different things in different contexts and traditions. He doesn’t think that the question of evil is the defining influence on the Enochic tradition. Edmondo Lupieri expressed appreciation for Baumgarten’s bringing Celsus into the picture, and also emphasized that when we have an account of Christians with beliefs or practices that do not match our understanding, we must allow for there having been more diversity and other traditions than those we know of from the literature, rather than merely assuming they are wrong. Fröhlich mentioned Jesus and the disagreement between him and authorities over purity as also connected. Jack Levison asked about evil as misfortune, eliciting a response from Matthew Goff clarifying that the experience of misfortune did not always lead to conclusions about ontological, cosmological, or metaphysical dualism. The last session of the first day focused on Mesopotamian, Zoroastrian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman sources of influence on Jewish literature in this period. Jason Silverman emphasized that he was offering a prospective rather than retrospective perspective reflecting his most recent and ongoing research, focused on practices related to dealing with evil in the Persian Empire. Thereafter one may turn to the influence of the practices on intellectual thought. He began by describing the travel networks in the region and then turned his attention to amulets and practices related to safety of travel, including the deities that were thought to be responsible for providing safe travel, and texts that indicate how people appealed to them. A concrete example is the Royal Road and the spread of Bes beyond Egypt. Pierluigi Piovanelli responded indicating that he sees less evidence of Persian influence on apotropaic practices described in Tobit than Silverman does. Where Persian sources mention dogs serving a protective function, Jewish sources from Elephantine in Egypt do not view them that way. Harold Attridge presented on two sources for evil in the Greco-Roman world, which are by no means the only ones, namely the actions of personal beings, and impersonal forces, with many concrete examples from Greek literature as well as instances of their influence and adaptation in Jewish literature. David Hamidovic responded by continuing to explore these themes. Lorenzo DiTommaso discussed the question of Zoroastrian influence on the development of radical dualism in Jewish apocalyptic, bringing predictive Demotic texts from Ptolemaic Egypt into the picture. Taking into account a wider geographic scope as well as a longer time period shows a more complicated “punctuated equilibrium” in the evolution of Jewish apocalyptic. Vincente Dobroruka responded, arguing that even Egypt itself is more complex, with Alexandria often quite different in terms of thought and literature. Joan Taylor was the first discussant and brought Philo’s discussion of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah into the conversation. Philo focuses on the lack of hospitality as what prompts the divine punishment. Giovanni Battista was next, then Liz Fried, and also Daniel Boyarin, Lawrence Schiffman, Francis Borchardt, and Miryam Brand among others, including some of the day’s earlier contributors.

I must say that I’m impressed not only with the content, as is always true of Enoch Seminar meetings, but with how well the Enoch Seminar worked online. It was very much like the in-person experience, and the engagement was no less vibrant, meaningful, substantive, or interesting than at any face-to-face Enoch Seminar event I’ve attended. I will continue posting about the sessions as they continue this week!

DAY 2 Recap (by James F. McGrath)

The second day began with a look back on the first day of the first ever Enoch Seminar in this format, as well as the substantive content. Archie Wright suggested that even more attention probably deserves to be given to the differing degrees of interest in the garden/Adam and Eve story in different streams of Judaism. The issue of how evil is defined and the extent of interest is also important, as is the use of evil to motivate communities, both present-day confrontation with hostile forces and hope for something ultimate and eschatological. The place of angels in thinking about these matters is also key. Lorenzo Di Tommaso followed by highlighting the different degrees of interest in metaphysical evil and the causes and origins thereof, as well as the different views among groups that have that kind of interest. Another question yet to be answered is whether it is interest in metaphysical evil that sparks the development of apocalyptic, or whether the order is reversed. He also asked what it means to offer a “solution” to the problem of evil, as well as the significance of differences between the kinds of solutions offered. Miryam Bard pointed out that sometimes certain texts are framed as focused on the origin of evil, when in fact the things that are central to them may have been central for different reasons than we think, different than the reasons those things are or could be central to us. Lawrence H. Schiffman followed, expressing how wonderful it is to speak after someone who was his doctoral student. He highlights how certain themes from earlier such as Tiamat and battle with chaos persist without disappearing to reemerge at times, for instance in the magic bowls, as well as in kabbalah. What are the boundaries of monotheism, and of the demonic? That connects directly with my paper that will follow on Thursday, which is about earlier tradition from ancient Israel persisting to reemerge into fuller view in literary form later. John Collins spoke next, followed by Daniel Boyarin, the latter suggesting that he feels the meeting is revisiting an older debate and in fact moving backwards. In his view, the earlier conclusion that apocalyptic is most closely related to Wisdom and deals with revelations of hidden things, whether the weather or evil, is correct. Albert Baumgarten agreed. John Collins emphasized that those who were present at the earlier Nangeroni meeting of the Enoch Seminar at which Boyarin and Baumgarten felt these things were settled were not “we” – many present in the present meeting were not at that earlier one, and certainly do not feel bound by it.

Carol Newsom began the first session focused on new presentations with the Hodayot from Qumran and a side-reference to Philip Pullman. There and in other Dead Sea Scrolls the creation of humans from dust makes them something disgusting. The analogy of humans with vessels, clay, pottery connects directly with ideas about impurity, since pottery vessels cannot be purified and so if they become impure, the only thing left to do is to smash them. From this, the idea that the creation itself is inherently this way emerges, or at least shows that it has already begun to develop. Anthea Portier-Young responded by exploring how this connects with imagery in the Testament of Job, moving from there to comparisons across the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. She then made an analogy between pharmaceuticals and literary typoi, with both at times being applied and put to new uses in ways they were not originally designed to, sometimes with surprising results. James VanderKam went next and started with the general agreement that Jubilees does focus more on evil than its source material Genesis. The idea that evil is already there when humans are created is explored in Jubilees in comparison and contrast with Genesis, and the lack of any idea of original sin. Human acts were felt to provide an unconvincing explanation for evil. God is made ultimately responsible, as the one who appoints spirits over the nations to mislead them, while not doing so with Israel. Lester Grabbe responded, agreeing with the major points VanderKam made. Nonetheless, he isn’t sure that most ancient Jews thought so philosophically as to conclude that if God made rebellious angels, then God caused evil. Grabbe thinks evil is a separate entity from the creator God. Even when for us the implication is that God is responsible, that doesn’t mean ancient readers and authors had the same systematic theological instincts that we do and drew the same conclusion. Florentina Badalanova Geller presented next. In her view in the early Enochic literature it is the lust for the carnal that leads the rebellious angels into error. After that, the revelation of illicit knowledge to angels by those rebellious angels adds still more. She also highlighted the trope of the incubus, bringing her thoughts to a conclusion with focus on 2 Enoch. The violation of the division between the human and divine spheres is a recurring theme. Especially in later tradition, human women receive the propensity of the blame. Matthias Henze responded, originally having been slated to respond to Loren Stuckenbruck who could not participate due to health reasons. He thinks 2 Enoch 18 is not an account of the origin of human sin, and wonders about the appropriateness of filling in gaps in what 2 Enoch says by drawing on 1 Enoch. Henze also mentioned his students’ discomfort with the persistent attempts to blame women, and/or to avoid blaming humanity, when it comes to evil. In Testament of Reuben for example, misogyny reigns, blaming human women for enticing the Watchers. Geller responded by emphasizing that the focus in her paper was not the origin of human evil, but the origin of evil per se. The Watchers are depicted as committing treason, as celestial troops who disobey orders. There was lots of discussion that was rich and fascinating. VanderKam suggested that the author of Jubilees is seeking to distance the origin of evil from heaven (which made me think of the role emanations play in Gnosticism). Henryk Drawnel and Fiodar Litvinau were discussants. Karina Hogan had an interesting question for Carol Newsom about Ben Sira’s use of Job. Newsom suggested that Job’s engagement with Genesis is a subject that deserves a more comprehensive and in-depth study than it has received. Christine Hayes highlighted the inexplicable disruption of a perfect order in so much ancient literature, proposing that ancient people were more interested in narrating the origin of evil than in explanation per se. Gebriele Boccaccini ended the conversation pointing out that there is an emphasis in Jubilees on Israel having a remedy for the problem of evil. The literature does not always systematize or make its assumptions explicit.

Gerbern Oegema started off the afternoon session which focused on evil in non-apocalyptic texts, beginning with the Book of Tobit. Illness caused by demons is the main form of evil the work focuses on, and there are at least three approaches to healing: healing by God, non-religious healing, and pharmaceutical/magical approaches using substances with certain properties. Ben Sira provides a second example. Much changed after the Maccabean revolt. Karina Hogan began by discussing two different religious temperaments outlined by William James before exploring immortality as a denial of the early death of the righteous in Wisdom of Solomon. She revisited a view she articulated in her first published article. Her conclusion is that Wisdom doesn’t deny the existence of evil (the righteous are persecuted by the wicked) but that this creates a genuine problem of theodicy. Greg Sterling said that Philo isn’t consistent, but there is one thing that he emphasizes consistently, namely that God is the source of good but not of evil. On that basis Philo explains the plural in Genesis in reference to the creation of humans, i.e. humans are a mixture of good and evil and the evil must have a source in God’s subordinates. What the powers (which Philo draws from Plato) created was the possibility of evil, and not Evil as a thing that exists objectively. Philo’s bipartite view of the soul is closely connected to this (although he also utilizes Plato’s tripartite system in a similar way). Following the Stoics, Philo adopted a different stance than the Gnostics in not viewing the created material world itself as inherently evil. Hindy Najman considered how the same texts are interpreted in very different ways in connection with the question of evil. We do not need to resolve these questions in order to commit ourselves to doing good and resisting evil. Perhaps we would do better to focus on the struggle with evil, rather than evil as a theological problem, whether ancient or modern. Samuel Adams was next, and brought Stoic influence on Ben Sira back into focus. Ben Wright emphasized how human beings are recognized to be multidimensional, in the interest of absolving God of responsibility for evil. He said he calls the “Billy Graham Rule” the “Ben Sira Rule,” suggesting that ancient author projects on women a lack of self control that he is trying to deny characterizes himself. Erich Gruen said he would offer a change of pace and adopt a literary approach, looking to begin with at the depiction of Antiochus IV as evil and then, bizarrely, as a repentant convert to Judaism who desires to become a missionary. This is mockery, not history nor philosophy. Evil dissolves into farce. A really great example is the depiction of the Devil in Testament of Job. Grappling with evil can be found not only in philosophy but in novels, which diminish evil by parodying and deriding its worst exemplars, reducing it to ridicule. Francis Borchardt was also a discussant and highlighted the connection these ancient texts tend to make between masculinity and goodness and femininity and evil.

The fifth session of the conference asked, “Are evil human or superhuman figures a necessary and functional part of the earliest expressions of evil, or did they develop later?” Ryan Stokes presented first, using plurals in the title of his paper, which focuses on multiple forms of evils, multiple “problems of evils,” and multiple figures brought in to explain and/or narrate about the topic. Where some see divergent theologies, we may be dealing with different focuses, concern with different sorts of evil. Michael Morris responded, further highlighting and exploring that diversity. Kelley Coblentz Bautch emphasized that evil is a constructed category that, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. She noted the persistence of early forces of chaos and polytheistic elements can be seen in later works. The disagreements about when evil appears initially and in specific concrete forms are also to be noted. She pointed out that in the current form of the Book of the Watchers and of 1 Enoch, the Watchers are not used to remove culpability from humans. Every good story needs conflict, though not necessarily a villain. What is felt to be theologically and/or logically necessary is not presented as actually the case in every text or system that wrestles with these questions. Angela Kim Harkins, in responding, emphasized our tendency to frame things in terms of this-worldly and other-worldly. She noted that human and angelic figures in many of the texts discussed are mythical, and so does focus on either resolve the problem of evil in a way that absolves humanity? Archie Wright has been working on a monograph on the problem of evil and the reception of the figure of Satan throughout history. The question of whether such figures are real cannot be answered, but the reality of these figures is simply taken for granted by the ancient authors we are talking about. I liked that he used the term “diabology.” He mentioned the desire of theologians in developing orthodoxy to avoid and/or combat the views of Gnosticism. He explored how church fathers resisted Gnosticism in a variety of forms. Augustine emphasized the nature of the Devil as not created evil or with a sinful nature. If sin is natural, Augustine reasoned, it is not sin. He also said that if physical things (fire, water, earth, air) are inherently evil, they must always be evil without exception. Lorenzo DiTomasso responded, emphasizing how central questions of evil are to Patristic authors. Jonathan Ben-Dov was the first respondent in this session, and he focused on what have been called the Dionysiac and Apollonian forces. He also emphasized that myths require superhuman figures, violence, sex, and other things that are characteristic and which appear over and over. He also emphasized the locality of myth, connected with specific places and regions. Turning diverse figures into “Satan” is an effort to domesticate and control those traditions about evil. Joshua Scott, who has also helped manage and oversee sessions, spoke next as discussant. Once it moved to open discussion, Karen King highlighted the importance of the Nag Hammadi literature in relation to this, also drawing attention to Judith Lieu’s work on Marcion. Considering silenced and marginalized ancient voices has direct relevance to contemporary issues. Larry Schiffman emphasized once again the need to take a more complex view and approach to how ideas persist and re-emerge. Leslie Baynes focused on how a particular patristic author “split the difference” between those who posited eternal suffering and the redemption of all things via temporary suffering (apokatastasis). Rounding things off, Gabriele Boccaccini mentioned that if one attributes evil to rebellion, whether angelic or human, one needs to tell a story with at least one villain. He suggested that we sometimes fail to think about just how remarkable statements like Paul’s, that Satan is “the god of this age,” really are. Archie Wright emphasized how much from second temple Judaism remains present in Christianity beyond any possible “parting of the ways.” Lorenzo DiTommaso emphasized the aim of learning from one another since the entire endeavor of this conference is to connect things that no one of us could ever hope to have full mastery of. That’s what I’ll try to do in my own presentation on the last day, and I’m eagerly looking forward to feedback on it. I don’t know how many will listen to the recording of the 15-minute version I placed on YouTube and linked from the handout on the Enoch Seminar website. But I’ll try to approach the same material in a slightly different manner and structure so that it isn’t simply a repetition for those who may have done so. And hopefully those who listen in advance will be ready with lots more substantive feedback and suggestions as a result!

DAY 2 Recap (by James McGrath)

The third day began with a recap and some reflections on major themes and important points that were made. Jason Zurawski thought the discussion of how the texts connected evil with women was particularly important, as was the diversity of views and perspectives. Kelley Coblentz Bautch drew some connections between presentations and was grateful for the attention to how women are depicted in the texts. Gabriele Boccaccini highlighted the importance of power relations and dynamics. Larry Schiffman said he often jokes that everyone thinks what they study is the most important thing in the world before zooming (pun intended) in on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Commonalities have come to light and the directions of influence and movement of ideas (when these are not just reflective of widely shared beliefs) needs to be explored. The relevant terminology needs greater attention. We have to be careful about skewed evidence as we talk of “circles” which actually often simply means we have texts and don’t really know who to associate them with. Even when we have a library it does not necessarily indicate a group’s agreement with texts in it. Albert Baumgarten picked up the thread of atonement and emphasized the need to do justice to the way many groups, even some that seem strange, are “ordinary Jews” of their time, perhaps exceptions that prove the rule, rather than odd, even if they appear thus to us. Miryam Brand highlighted how certain assumptions need to be reexamined as we move beyond the second temple period, for instance. Terminology’s nuance can change as the context changes. John Collins promised to return to the question of terminology. He emphasized that the Qumran community were not systematic theologians. They had no interest in reconciling Jubilees and 1 Enoch, for instance. They were contextual theologians with a higher tolerance for diversity and tensions than we tend to have. Baumgarten thinks that the era of Stalinist Communism during which the Dead Sea Scrolls came to light is worth thinking about, leading to the idea that there were centralized authorities imposing uniformity in ideology and expression. Collins emphasized that that goes back long before Communism. Sofanit Abebe pointed out that the inclusion of Jubilees and 1 Enoch in the canon of the Ethiopic Church provides another example of a group esteeming both texts and holding them in tension. Schiffman emphasized that in Judaism practice is often more important than ideas, to which Boccaccini pushed back that practices exist within the framework of ideas and have connection with the world of ideas within which they are practiced. Baumgarten quoted his teacher Morton Smith. Boccaccini mentioned my blogging about the conference. I drew attention to the connection between his point about practice and beliefs and the point Christine Hayes made yesterday that many authors we are talking about seem more interested in narrating than explaining the origin of evil. But why did they desire to narrate this? Perhaps the balance is to be found if we say they had no interest in explaining except in the interest of addressing. Knowing who or what causes the toothache (the “evil tooth” as it was called) is relevant to trying to relieve the pain. Daniel Boyarin said that, whereas Schiffman suggested that most people would have gone to a relative’s bar mitzvah even if they didn’t observe food rules with the same rigor, in fact some sectarians did indeed refuse to associate because of their views on such matters.

The first post-recap session was session 6, and focused on the Dead Sea Scrolls. John Collins spoke about the treatise on the two spirits. No other work explicitly says “God made two spirits” in this way, although there are some that come close. Even if one agrees that this work “explains the origin of evil,” what evil does it explain the origin of? The focus there is on truth, which includes wisdom and cosmic order (as well as the understanding of the latter). He emphasized the problem with thinking that, if one finds an explanation for an idea within a Jewish context, one needn’t look any further or anywhere else. However, there is a wider interest in good and evil/dualism that is relevant to what we find in Judaism in this era. The view that a group like the Qumran community would not have been reached by Zoroastrian influence is likewise problematic. Collins ended by proposing that the treatise on two spirits was perhaps a proposal, even if offered with some authority, and one that not everyone embraced, as the lack of this section in some copies of the Community Rule. In his response, Timothy Lim disagreed, emphasizing that the treatise should indeed be viewed as a sectarian work by this community. He proceeded to survey some of the connections of terminology with other works produced by the Yahad. Miryam Brand spokle about sin without a concern for its origin in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a lot of interest in sinners and both sinners (whether human or angelic) and sins are often enumerated. Everyone sins and dies, but the blame is not placed on the Watchers. The focus in the discussion of the ubiquity of sin is on beings following their own will rather than God’s will and commandments. “Sin does not start at a particular time” and thus every generation must struggle against it. Sin has an ahistorical origin, is ubiquitous, and under human control for the author of the Damascus Document. Non-members of the group are foolish, but not incapable of repentance. Elisa Uusimäki responded, emphasizing that the author of CD posit a cosmic frame for vice. Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer presented next, emphasizing how the use of sectarian and non-sectarian texts by the Qumran community provides insight into their own views on evil. Statements about the maskil’s role as well as about demonic influences and promises of protection help bring their perspective into focus. Nonetheless tensions between different works and statements in them also make clear the diverse facets of their practices, their ethical teaching and emphases, as well as the cosmological framework thereof. Benjamin Wold emphasized lived religion and brought the Book of Revelation (which Richard Bauckham has called the “Christian War Scroll”) into comparison with the Qumran material. Then respondents followed beginning with Cecilia Wassen. I appreciated how she highlighted the role of statements about evil and demonic forces in teaching how to live and emphasizing the importance of ethical effort. She also emphasized how God and Belial also seem to collaborate in misleading those outside of the community (and how unfair that sounds!) Esther Chazon highlighted some evidence (particularly from apotropaic texts) that the treatise on two spirits, which presenters had called “exceptional” among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is less so. Patrick Angiolillo drew together threads from the whole session, emphasizing that the Qumran group was neither systematic in its theology nor hermetically sealed off from others. The Songs provide an important case study as it appears to be a pre-sectarian work that becomes important to the community. John Kampen used an archaeological metaphor to ask what questions we are using to interrogate the texts. Christine Hayes suggested a need to not simply define vice as absence of virtue, and to spend more time studying the meaning and nuances of the term for “truth” used, focused as it is on fidelity and non-deviation. Oren Ableman then started the wider discussion. Everyone expressed their good wishes for Loren Stuckenbruck for a speedy recovery. He was supposed to participate in this session.

After lunch Darrell Bock looked at evil in the activity of Jesus in the Gospels of Luke and John, situated within the framework of three categories: generic evil, cosmic battle, and refusal to submit to God. There are discussions of Satan (such as whether Satan can cast out Satan), and prayer for protection from Satan/the Evil One/evil, but the origin of Satan/evil is not narrated or explained in any of the Gospels. There is also a focus on “what resides in a person” as it pertains to defilement and wrongdoing. Leslie Baynes offered a comparison between the Synoptic Gospels and the Parables of Enoch, first taking the time to note how all these texts focus most on people and their actions, evil manifested in the deeds of sinners. There is a focus on iniquity in connection with kings as well as angels. There are several texts connected with this theme that express ideas that also appear in the Gospels, such as the reversal of situations (the last will be first and vice versa) and the bringing down of the powerful from their thrones (1 Enoch 46:3). The parable of the weeds blames Satan for evil. Gabriele Boccaccini says these works share common traits and assumptions: angels rebelled, humans are responsible, this world is a place of iniquity, and there is no remedy until God provides one at the end of times. That final remedy includes forgiveness and mercy as well as punishment. The timing of those things hoped for eschatologically differs, however. Jim Davila was the first respondent and compared John and the Synoptics with respect to their interest in demons and evil angels. He noted the presence of Baalzebul in the Gospels which is absent from the Parables of Enoch. It might come from 2 Kings, but Baalzebub there does not naturally lead one to promote him to ruler of demons. There is evidence of persistence of Canaanite tradition in later Israelite literature, such as when Isaiah 27:1 shows knowledge of Tablet 4 of the Ba’al Cycle. Is it a coincidence that Jesus focuses on Ba’al(zebul)’s house and conflict over control of his territory, precisely what one finds in mythology about Ba’al? I got really excited listening to this, since it connects with my own presentation on the last day of the conference. Not only Mandaean texts but also the Gospels show evidence of the persistence of pre-exilic figures and stories into the Christian era. See the fuller details Davila has shared on his blog. Erik Noffke spoke next about those figures who are said to be righteous in the New Testament, including Elizabeth and Cornelius. In the latter case, the fact that he is said to be righteous and yet is still lacking something is noteworthy. Being righteous is not the same thing as being saved from evil. He also asked why Elizabeth is said to be righteous but not Mary. Ben Reynolds helpfully drew connections between the presentations, including the way the works relate broader questions about evil to the specific contexts of their time. In the chat on Zoom there was a lot of interesting discussion that brought still further connections with Ugaritic literature, leading Miryam Brand to mention parallels between the Ugaritic “Book of the Gracious God” and the Enochic Book of the Watchers. Isaac de Oliviera expressed his interest in “iffiness.” John Kampen questioned the usefulness of lumping the Synoptic Gospels together when it comes to their treatment of topics such as “righteousness.” Darrell Bock suggested a future conference focused on the nature of the “good” as a follow-up to this one about “evil.” Leslie Baynes thanked John Kampen for pointing out the issues with lumping the Synoptics together, before proceeding to note how there is a lack of opportunity for forgiveness for the rich and powerful in the Parables. Boccaccini agreed that future exploration of goodness would be useful.

Paula Fredriksen started off the next session by focusing on “bad guys” rather than abstract metaphysical evil in Paul. She reminded us that people share a geocentric view of the universe, in which ethnic and/or family ties bind heaven and earth together. Divinity is a category of power that exists on a graded continuum. She notes the problems with translating daimonia as “demons” since sometimes these are more like viruses are to us, causes of illness, while occasionally they are more powerful overarching forces. She noted a parallel to Paul’s language in Livy, making clear that the non-human knees that will bow to the exalted Christ are those of gods. She spoke of the “pacific” Jesus being “Davidized” in the infancy narratives and in Paul, where he is the God of Israel’s “lieutenant” that defeats the gods of other nations. As the mission spread to Diaspora synagogues, Paul asked non-Jews to cut their ties with the gods of their cities. Ultimately, when it comes to the overcoming of evil, gods play a necessary role at Jesus’ Parousia for Paul. What sets Jews apart from their “pagan” neighbors was behavior, not belief. They didn’t deny the existence of gods, but refused to participate in sacrifices to other gods. (Note that this is my argument in The Only True God!) Adele Reinhartz prefaced her talk by saying she had ignored the question in following a trail down a Johannine rabbit hole. She views the Gospel of John as a cosmological tale and a historical tale with a happy ending. The Devil is the villain of the cosmological tale, while “the Jews” fill that role in the historical tale. The term “Satan” appears only once in John, in reference to Judas. The prayer that Jesus’ followers be protected from the Evil One presupposes that Jesus’ death is not the final victory of good over evil. The author may be tempering an earlier apocalypticism. Reinhartz doesn’t see an ethical focus in John. She said the point in John is that it is possible through Jesus to climb the ladder that connects heaven and earth, and to encourage people to do so. Edmondo Lupieri presented next, his first time presenting in the Enoch Seminar. He suggests that the big crisis in second temple Judaism is the Ezra-Nehemiah reform, which focused on the purity of the nation’s men in opposition to their marrying of foreign women. He also noted the connection between sin’s origin being attributed to the angelic realm and a corresponding inability of humans to save the world. Lupieri emphasized the connections with trajectories, in particular Gnostic ones, that continue for centuries afterwards. Lupieri highlighted where Paul seems to say that all death and sin enters the cosmos as a result of one man, Adam, a very different outlook from the majority of apocalyptic texts. Matthew Thiessen asked whether the worldview may have been that demonic “footsoldiers” focus on causing physical harm, which can be addressed through exorcism, while the “generals” have a different role. He also asked why John lacks exorcisms and concern with lepers and other forms of uncleanness, emphasizing corpses instead. Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer then shared some thoughts, followed by Craig Koester, who focused on evil as part of early Christian explanation for the execution of Jesus and their own ongoing experience of opposition. He also noted that the Devil does not speak in John as he does in the Synoptics’ temptation narratives. Karen King was the first discussant and thanked Fredriksen for bringing wider Roman/Gentile considerations into the discussion. Charlotte Hempel suggested that the creation of the Qumran community is more like little particles coming together than a “Big Bang,” and perhaps the same is true of evil’s origins in this ancient literature, making a comparison with bacteria as well. Paul Anderson mentioned “motivational dualism” and “explanatory dualism.” The terminology of “ruler of the world” highlights structures of oppression and domination. It is also important that sometimes references to evil and the Devil or devils are rhetorical tropes and should not be made to bear a heavy theological-cosmological weight. Anderson views John as cosmopolitan rather than sectarian. Catrin Williams chimed in next, followed by Matthew Goff, who made an analogy with churches that may have been renovated and expanded over time so that there are parts that reflect different architectural styles from different times periods. Systems of thought can also be like this. Gabriele Boccaccini said that he thinks Paul is more Enochic even than the Synoptics, something he’ll explore further in a future book. Fredriksen emphasized the need to read more Classics, as the gods studied in that field are the neighbors of Hellenistic Jews. Reinhartz noted the language of casting out in John, which is interesting in connection with the absence of exorcisms from the work. She also warned against returning to the idea of Judaism as exclusivistic while Christianity is inclusive, the Johannine literature being one good example of why this dichotomy does not work.

There was a last smaller discussion in which people raved about how well the online format has worked and asked for it to at least be hybrid going forward to allow a larger group to participate, and for there to be regular fully online ones on occasion. Magdalena Araujo drew attention to the greater access this would afford to scholars in parts of the world such as Latin America, that are not able to attend in person in most instances. Possible future topics were discussed, proposals including John the Baptist, apokatastasis, divinization, and early Christology (the latter being one that Larry Hurtado had been involved in planning before he died).

Day 4 Recap (by James McGrath)

The Last Day is here. Oh, sorry, I mean the last day is here. The Last Day may be a future Enoch Seminar conference, but this is the final day of the 2020 online one on Evil. The recap session started off with Archie Wright highlighting terminology and insider vs. outsider language as particularly important. The super-human element in some systems of thought when it comes to evil, and the names used, are noteworthy. Belial comes up a lot, and yet even so should not be assumed to be “the same” even if the same name is used (as Loren Stuckenbruck emphasizes in one of his books). Possible future topics for Enoch Seminars that were proposed include the Book of Revelation; Revelation and Inspiration; Philo of Alexandria and the Jewish Diaspora; Haggadic Literature; Christology and Angelology; Gnostic Literature; Church Fathers; Samaritans; and many others. Gabriele Boccaccini highlighted the interest in evil in the Enochic literature that is shared with New Testament literature, which came up in one of the early Enoch Seminar meetings. There is a need for a parallel discussion of the righteous when discussing evil and sin. The relationship between focus on eschatology and hope for a final solution to evil, and present everyday life in the here and now, is also something that connects them. Benjamin Reynolds mentioned how rich the discussion in the Chat on Zoom was. Unfortunately it is hard if not impossible to keep up with that while also chairing a session or presenting). He highlighted Paula Fredriksen’s points about Christology and how it requires evil enemies as part of its framework, and Adele Reinhartz’s proposal that the Gospel of John is more interested in cosmological evil than moral evil. Her point, that John saw Satan entering Judas as the moment the cosmological story and the historical intersect, and the act of seeing cosmological evil in the mundane, was particularly striking and thought-provoking. Lorenzo DiTomasso highlighted the plan to assemble a conference volume. He then noted the ways we use worldview in talking about these ancient authors, and the trajectory towards increased interest in metaphysical evil over time. The social function of evil in groups’ self-definition, and real and potential enemies of the group both within and outside, are important in understanding apocalypticism and other worldviews. I was happy to see Edmondo Lupieri suggest that a whole conference on Mandaeism would be useful and appropriate! Larry Schiffman says (by way of a joke) that the earliest person said to be named in conjunction with his circumcision ceremony is John the Baptist, and the earliest person said to be called to read the prophets in the synagogue is Jesus. But the serious point is that Christian sources are important for the study of Judaism. Christianity is an example of a form of Judaism that was willing to promote particular beings (both good and evil) to large-scale roles and statuses. John Collins noted the decline in attention to John’s Gospel’s relationship to the two spirits idea. We are too inclined to connect it with Qumran specifically, whereas Collins thinks he could have gotten it from elsewhere. Adele Reinhartz said there is still discussion of this, but less in connection with direct borrowing from one source or other group. But when it comes to imagery such as light and darkness, this can be derived from nature independently, being part of everyone’s life to an even greater extent before electric lighting came into the picture. Deborah Forger raised the question of how concepts of divinity relate to a group’s thinking about evil. She mentioned divinity existing on a gradation, with Jews distinguished from others by sacrifice, mentioning my work (see The Only True God). Miryam Brand highlighted the importance of thinking about how documents are grouped together, and how we can best prepare to study them without erasing differences between them.

Hector Patmore began the next session by shifting the attention away from “demonic superheroes” to the question of what ancient Jews thought demons looked like, and whether there is continuity between second temple and rabbinic literature on this matter. But first, a demon needs to be defined: a harmful supernatural entity who are ontologically distinct from those they afflict. It is also important to keep in mind that rabbinic literature is diverse (as is second temple literature). Patmore also emphasized the need to avoid parallelomania. He proposed as one possibility that demons might have been thought to be invisible (although not necessarily formless). Ancient sources mention exorcists commanding demons to perform some action as they depart to show they have done so, which would be unnecessary if they were visible. A second possibility is that their appearance is like that of angels. However, since we do not have a good sense of how Jews in the second temple period thought angels looked, this helps little. They appear in human form at times, but whether that is their “natural form” is a different question. A third option is that they were male and female. Lilith as female, shaddim and shaddot as male and female, are indicative of this possibility. The demon that afflicts Sarah in the Book of Tobit and other instances suggest sexual attraction to a human being in a manner that is understood to involve gender. (He left the mechanics of how this might function to the audience’s imagination.) Patmore mentioned the incantation bowls as well as texts from Qumran that also connect with this. In some later sources there may be evidence for demons having zoomorphic forms. An additional possibility is that some or all of the above are forms demons can take to achieve their nefarious aims, none of which is their “natural form.” Next Steven Fraade took us through study of some texts together rather than reading a paper. A midrash (Mekhilta of R. Ishmael) treats the passive verb in the mention of Enosh as indicating that his contemporaries began to attribute the name of Yahweh to other things, i.e. to commit idolatry. The Damascus Document refers to the “degeneration of the generations,” i.e. that evil doesn’t come into the world in one fell swoop but gradually over time, and involved groups rather than just individuals. Some sources focus on God’s withdrawal from the world, also discussing whether that is a cause or result of evil in the world. There are also depictions of Adam and Satan each trying to blame the other for evil, and of the divine image persisting in humanity only to the generation of Enosh. The discussion of genuflection is also interesting: they raised the question of why that gesture is appropriate before human authorities yet inappropriate before statues. Paul Mandel spoke next about the presence or lack of mention/focus on resurrection and an age to come in different sources and periods. He led us through a close look at some passages from Genesis Rabbah in particular but also other midrashim. At one point there is discussion of whether it is God or righteous humans that deal with evil deeds and evildoers, whether by more than counterbalancing their wrongdoing with their own righteousness or through other means. A story of Alexander of Macedon’s visit to Qazia is very interesting, providing a concrete example of the wicked being spared because of others (in that case sheep!) There are multiple this-worldly “solutions” to the problem of evil. Daniel Boyarin mentioned “satanic verses” in the title of his paper but largely skipped the topic, providing one quick example of Satan depicted as not a cosmic power, connected with the story of Job. He asked us to imagine Satan singing along with Nina Simone, “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” For R. Levi, Satan is not a cosmic explanation of evil. The story of Job is retold in a way that explores responsibility for evil in relation to the evil instinct (יֵצֶר הַרַע) in humans. There is widespread recognition in the Rabbinic tradition as a whole that the impulse that includes envy and sexual desire is crucial to positive aspects of human life. There are texts which turn a cosmic Satan into a comic Satan, in a manner that can be compared to the way some second temple texts turn hated emperors into converts to Judaism. The respondents in this session were Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Ronit Nikolsky, and Mika Ahuvia. Rosen-Zvi mentioned the “division of labor” between forces internal and external to humans when it comes to evil. There is continuity and change in the configuration, but not really any new players. He noted the incursion of the configuration found in Stoicism which has a material monism but ethical dualism. Nikolsky emphasized how these linguistic expressions are understood better in light of the study of cognition, which clarifies how humans make sense of experiences in the world and allows diverse experiences to be tied together. We externalize evil, whether as a concept or in personalized form. Even those ancient authors with whom we converse most frequently, focusing on their ideas, carry with them a wider worldview and lived experience that we are prone to ignore but ought to take into account. There is also a need to move away from focusing so much on the Bavli in Jewish studies, which allows one “official” corpus to dominate how Judaism in Late Antiquity is understood. She liked Daniel Boyarin’s description of the yetzer hara as “the fate that can be fought.” She mentioned additional examples of Satan as trickster in Jewish literature, following Esau on his hunting trip and assisting Noah in planting a vineyard. How far can one go for a good laugh? Further in story than in theology. Jonathan Kaplan was the first discussant of the session, and highlighted the way even using the terminology of “the fall” brings a problematic later reinterpretation of the Adam and Eve story into things. Tor Leif Elgvin was next and offered some categorizations of how God is related (or kept away from) blame for evil, especially cosmological evil. Gabriele Boccaccini then mentioned our neglect of IV Ezra in the discussion thus far.

The next session was the one in which I presented. Jason BeDuhn presented first on the demiurgical solution to the problem of evil, which drew heavily on earlier myths. This approach blamed evil on the creator(s), but there was still disagreement on when precisely the “tipping point” was when things went wrong. “Where is evil?” becomes a more important question as a result than “Whence evil?” A shared earlier myth is being adapted as different answers are offered. One end of the spectrum is that of Sethian Gnosticism. Sometimes the tipping point comes about as late as the giving of the Torah by angels, although we do not have that complete myth expressed in our sources by which to really discuss the details. (I would note the similarity with something found in Mandaeism, with the connection between Adonai the demiurge and Torah.) Some such as the Enochic approach focused on Genesis 6 are not demiurgical in the full sense, since the tipping point is subsequent to the completion of creation. I liked the way he referred to the demiurgical view as involving a “manufacturing flaw.” There is a connection between Rabbinic and Manichaean perspectives inasmuch as the involvement of other figures in making humans is especially important. This explains the compromised moral state of humans alone among living things in this world. It is a misrepresentation to say that Gnosticism reverses the view of others. On the contrary, Gnosticism is right at home among the demiurgical tradition, even if on one end of its spectrum. This was the predominant form of solution to the problem of evil in early Judaism and Christianity. Some objected to the disorderliness of the cosmos and unruliness of angels that are supposed to be God’s helpers, making them more malevolent, simplifying the cosmos in the process. Many figures nonetheless remain profoundly ambiguous, not simply good or evil. Angels are creation’s “middle management” and they mismanage in some way. Alberto Camplani presented next, his first time in the Enoch Seminar, on Marcion. He emphasized the need to get beyond von Harnack, who had neither the Dead Sea Scrolls nor various other important primary sources available to him. Marcion took up Paul’s view of evil and radicalized it. Camplani looked at the impact of Marcionism in a Syriac context in particular. Comparing Marcion with other figures of the second century (Justin Martyr, Valentinius, etc.) helps us get a better sense of his distinctiveness and what he shared in common with widely held views in his time. Marcion is incomprehensible without second temple Judaism. Marcion differs from Gnostics in not connecting the creator to that superior “stranger God.” The sinners of the Jewish scriptures will be saved because they did not serve the creator god, while Abraham will not. Many traditions are shaped by reaction against Marcion. He concluded with examples of reaction and response to Marcion. I presented next and you can hear a recording of my presentation on YouTube. I adapted it, weaving in more reference to things said throughout the conference that I couldn’t incorporate when I first wrote and recorded it. I didn’t take notes on my own presentation for obvious reasons. April DeConick responded first, and started by saying that my paper prompted her to think about the different ways the groups engaged with scripture, noting their proposal of alternatives to sacrifice (making me think of John the Baptist and his immersion as an example, which influences Mandaeism and Sethianism) as well as suggestion that the scriptures might not reflect the truth in entirety. She wonders whether we might not have to say that the Deuteronomistic revolution failed. She appreciated Jason BeDuhn’s spectrum of demiurgy, yet also worries this reinscribes Irenaeus’ perspective, which was based on texts and teachers and critique thereof. DeConick has sought to focus elsewhere. There is a network of diverse and in some ways unique transcendental movements, and the demiurgic tradition is not the only one. Valentinianism posited an ignorant rather than malevolent demiurge, with evil ultimately being blamed on the supreme God’s emanation. Some say that nothing that seems evil to us is truly evil. There is great variety. Nicola Denzey Lewis spoke next, noting the vast space and time surveyed in the three main papers. As scholars of religion we pull out common threads from such fabrics, and there were some that jumped out at her. She responded to my paper first, noting that philosophical monism doesn’t necessarily cause the problem of evil the way an anthropomorphic monotheism does. Bringing BeDuhn’s paper into view, she noted that there is a huge epistemic shift as malevolent forces move from being responsible for evil as creators, to beings that introduce it later by tempting and in other ways. Lewis also noted the lack of attention to gender in our presentations, which features prominently when Sophia creates on her own in an act that breaks with gender binaries in the divine emanations up to that point. She noted the focus on Jewish theological discussions pertaining to monotheism as a common focus, and also asked what the various parties viewed in the world around them as evil. Dylan Burns spoke next and noted a commonality between BeDuhn’s and my own paper despite our varied focuses and starting points, one that he finds persuasive: the “dualism” in Gnosticism is not an innovation but a conservative element. He also emphasized the importance of Alexandrian exegetical tradition. He wonders whether Marcion too might preserve some elements that seem like radical innovations and yet might in fact be conservative preservation of earlier tradition. We do not have evidence of Marcion’s knowledge of Enochic texts, whereas Manichaean and Sethian sources do show knowledge of that tradition. There are shockingly few studies of the archons themselves, perhaps because of their similarity to angels. But the term is significantly different, and may have this connotation: “Do not trust the heavenly magistrates. They’re a problem, not a solution, to what ails us.” In some literature Satan may be an archon and induce sin without participating in creation (demiurgy). The figures, prooftexts, and terms differ and we should track their changing use over time. Karen King spoke next, discussing the reasons for her objections to the term “Gnosticism” (with the -ism at the end). We sometimes fail to see the problems that we have created through our own terminology and categorizations. The diversity of the materials must always be recognized. The demiurgical focus is not the only way things were or could be configured. She tried to get us to shift from talking of groups to see commonalities as a literary phenomenon (without connecting those with groups). The Apocryphon of John is interacting with the Timaeus, Genesis, Wisdom literature, the Watcher traditions, and the Gospel of John, reading them together. The Apocryphon of John (unlike Philo who distinguishes the two creation accounts) gives the creation account twice, with Sophia early on and then Sophia Eve appearing later on. The demiurgic figure is a lion-faced serpent, and that connects with the serpent in Genesis. (One thing I skipped exploring in my paper as I read it was the question of this connects with the pre-exilic role of Nehushtan, depicted as a serpent entwined on a pole. I also now wonder whether the Mandaean drabsha (banner on a crossbeam) might also have a connection. Philippe Therrien spoke next, asking us to consider how we compare Gnostic texts and their influence on one another as well as on other literature. Can we deduce social groups from texts? Several people mentioned problems they have with the idea of “Jewish Gnosticism” (I might prefer, in light of my proposal, to say “Israelite Gnosticism”). Next Miryam Brand emphasized that the Law is not generally a problem in second temple Judaism, but is in fact a solution to the problem of sin. Paul seems to be the only one who takes the idea that the Law is not enough to eliminate sin so far as to claim that the Law actually causes sin. Larry Schiffman argued against the idea of Jewish Gnosticism. Giovanni Bazzana also spoke, before at the end we circled back to the presenters. Jason BeDuhn spoke about how the demiurgical tradition itself is unremarkable, the go-to solution for 75% of groups. Irenaeus and Tertullian represent a minority view trying to purge this element. Alberto Camplani went next, discussing the idea of Abraham’s bosom and paradise in Marcion and others. I mentioned some things that already appear in side notes I made in this blog post and so won’t repeat them here. But I also noted the points of similarity and difference between texts with respect to the use of comical mockery and satire in the interest of religious polemic. Mandaean sources mock Jesus, Adonai, and Spirit. Rabbinic sources poke fun at Satan. There is a tradition that connects with the Deuteronomistic History (Elijah vs. the prophets of Ba’al) and Deutero-Isaiah. The god or angelic being another group emphasizes is denigrated and made fun of. I think this deserves study, and given my penchant for puns, I’ll suggest we might call this subect “mockotheism.” Let me also clarify, in response to something Larry Schiffman said in the chat during my session, that I don’t envisage there having been a “Gnostic Synagogue” anywhere. What I envisage is there being places where communities as a whole initially continued pre-exilic religious traditions, and as the newer views and practices connected with Torah came to dominate, continued them as an esoteric tradition. Whether they held gatherings of their own and what those were like I don’t think we can say. But I see these views, like those of the earliest Christians, as existing as part of the diversity within synagogues at least for a time.

In the recap session, we agreed that this event exceeded all expectations. Lorenzo DiTomasso got things started with a focus on our limited vocabulary and the diverse service to which terms (e.g. “devil”) are put. The way cosmological and protological matters related to evil are treated have present-day, real world consequences. If the creation itself is inherently flawed, we approach life differently than if creation is good but being twisted. Depicting female figures in particular roles in the process has consequences. Miryam Brand emphasized how we speak of “evil” even when we are talking about different things. The same can be said about “apocalyptic”: is it a genre, a worldview, both, other things as well? Brand mentioned Baumgarten’s willingness to say that it is ridiculous how some presumed that there would be an eschatological resolution which would be in their favor. Celsus and the Rabbis confront these topics but do not have the same groups as their primary focus. She emphasized the distinction between “lumpers” and “splitters” among academics, and asked whether we can find a way to preserve the important contribution of both. Kelley Coblentz Bautch dug into some of the specific contributions of specific academics over these days, showing impressive recollection and/or notetaking in the details she mentioned with very precise recognition of those who contributed the points in question. John Collins followed Bautch’s summary with questions, noting to begin with the variety of things people consider “evil.” He also asked whether there was something in the Hellenistic era that changed people’s perception of the world. Ben Sira and apocalyptic works express interest in evil and its source, and so this is a broader interest in that era. We could use a few more Classicists in this group. Gabriele Boccaccini said that we may need to talk about the “origin of the origin of evil,” in other words, when interest in this topic comes to the fore. Apocalypticism does not espouse a single unified view of the origin of evil. He noted the way his students who are Christians and Jews either do or do not read the “Devil” into the story about the Garden of Eden in Genesis. Larry Schiffman made a joke about how good the food was during the conference. Mine was delicious, too, but hopefully everyone reading this is aware that we held the conference via Zoom and so were not eating meals together. More seriously, he emphasized the important contribution of this conference and of the Enoch Seminar makes in providing perspectives from other fields besides our own. We cannot explain the phenomena we study on our own because the ancient world is complex in ways that go beyond our specific areas of expertise. On the other hand, there are data about the ancient social context that we cannot know, as they go beyond the evidence provided by texts and other artifacts that have come down to us. We should not create churches out of Gospels, or J, E, P, and D communities. He suspects that views of evil probably crossed lines in ways that not every subject did. He drew comparisons between ancient and modern people with respect to wondering whom to blame in the case of a particular disaster: is it the military’s failure to build a dam wall, global warming, or something else? The ancients had similar disagreements. Daniel Boyarin challenged me on continuing to use “Gnosticism” as a term that many find problematic. He went on to challenge the ways we use “second-temple Judaism,” “apocalyptic,” and many other terms. I suspect that we all agree to at least some extent. The inability to agree on terminology, including even “religion,” cannot be allowed to keep us from speaking, but we do need to wrestle with these things constantly. In my own case, Mandaeism makes reference to the lightworld revealer Manda d-Hayye, whose name is usually understood to denote “Knowledge of Life,” and so in the case of Mandaeism at least “Gnosticism” seems as though it wouldn’t be inappropriate. On the other hand, “Mandaean” is itself a term that isn’t consistently used as a self-designation by the group that we apply it to. Karen King asked why it is that we focused this conference on “evil.” Sure, the ancient texts are interested in it, but there is more to it than that. How do their perspectives contribute to broader conversations in the contemporary world about evil? Giovanni Bazzana noted the lack of representation in the conference of those who work on what we might call “magic,” which wrestles with the practical challenges of evil. Many mentioned it, yet there weren’t participants or papers focused on that. Lester Grabbe mentioned how many important things happened in the Persian period, which is sometimes neglected in favor of focus on the Hellenistic age. Grabbe thinks the fallen angel tradition may precede Genesis 6 and the Persian period rather than being a result from Genesis. He mentioned an article by Birger Pearson from the 1980s arguing that Gnosticism originated within a Jewish context. Edmondo Lupieri emphasized how reality resists our taxonomies and refuses to fit our boxes. He thinks there were non-Christian forms of Gnosticism, and encouraged the Enoch Seminar to focus attention on the question. John Kampen encouraged us to talk about social and political contexts as much as we talk about literary contexts. Albert Baumgarten sought to answer Karen King’s question by highlighting that evil is part of our ongoing experience, even though our mythological framework is different, and that attracts us to the topic. For him, the most important part of participation is the chance to meet, be enriched by, and learn from young scholars, as someone now a decade into retirement. Encouraging the next generation to work in these areas and on these topics is an important part of what the Enoch Seminar does.

Gabriele Boccaccini rounded things off with the sobering thought that going forward things will never be the same again as they once were. We have experienced how rich an online conference can be and how it gives a greater number of participants access. We will not simply go back to the way we traditionally did things. We ended with many words of thanks and expressions of appreciation. As hopefully you can tell from my blog posts even if you didn’t participate, this was a truly wonderful and rewarding conference, everything one hopes an academic conference will be and much more. I hope if you’ve read my recaps/reports about it you’ve found them helpful and interesting. And if you attended the conference and we’re not already connected, or if you are a fellow academic at whatever stage in your career who works on things that you can tell I’m also interested in, please do get in touch. Another great thing about the internet is that it doesn’t only make conferences possible, but allows us to share our perspectives and knowledge more easily in between conferences as well.

Confirmed Participants

1. Elisabetta Abate, researcher (University of Gottingen, Germany)*
2. @ Sofanit Abebe (PhD candidate, University of Edinburgh, UK)*
3. Oren Ableman (Israel Antiquities Authority, Israel)*
4. Moises Yao Acayan (Asia Graduate School of Theology, Philippines)*
5. @ Samuel Adams [respondent]
6. James Adcock (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
7. Federico Adinolfi (Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose "S. Francesco", Italy)*
8. Jeff Anderson (Wayland Baptist University-Anchorage Campus, USA)*
9. @ Paul Anderson (George Fox University, USA) *
10. @ Joseph Angel (Yeshiva University) *
11. Patrick Angiolillo (NYU, USA) [Discussant] *
12. @ Giancarlo Paolo Angulo (PhD candidate, Florida State University, USA)*
13. Desta Anshebo (Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology, Ethiopia)*
14. @ Luca Arcari (University of Naples, Italy) *
15. @ Daniel Assefa (Capuchin Franciscan Institute Addis Ababa, Ethiopia)
16. @ Kenneth Atkinson (University of Northern Iowa, USA) *
17. @ Harold W. Attridge (Yale University, USA) [panelist] *
18. Thomas Babu (Serampore University, India)*
19. @ Florentina Badalova Geller (Royal Anthropological Institute / Max Planck, UK / Germany) [panelist] *
20. Kyung Baek, Instructor (Trinity Western University, Canada)*
21. Alexander Bailey (University of Oxford, UK) *
22. Samuel Balentine, Professor of Old Testament (Union Presbyterian Seminary, USA) *
23. Aloma Bardi (University of Florence, Italy)*
24. Lori Baron, Assistant Professor of New Testament (St. Louis University, USA)*
25. John Barton, Professor emeritus of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture (University of Oxford, UK)*
26. @ Albert I. Baumgarten (Bar-Ilan University, Israel) [panelist] *
27. @ Leslie Baynes (Missouri State University, USA) [panelist] *
28. @ Giovanni Bazzana (Harvard University, USA) [discussant] *
29. Jason BeDuhn (Northern Arizona University, USA) [panelist]
30. Jonathan Ben-Dov (University of Haifa, Israel)*
31. Aure Ben-Zvi Goldblum (New York University, USA)*
32. Luca Bertolino, Associate Professor (University of Turin, Italy)*
33. Harvey Van Bik (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
34. Ellen Birnbaum (Cambridge, MA, USA)*
35. Laura Bizzarro (Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina, Argentia)*
36. @ Gabriele Boccaccini (University of Michigan, USA) [panelist] *
37. @ Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary, USA) [panelist] *
38. Markus Bockmuehl (University of Oxford, UK)*
39. @ Francis Borchardt (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
40. Andrew Bowden (PhD candidate, LMU Munich, Germany)*
41. @ Daniel Boyarin (University of California Berkeley, USA) [panelist] *
42. Connor Boyd (University of Edinburgh, Scotland)*
43. @ Miryam T. Brand (W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Israel) [panelist]
44. Lucas Brandon (PhD candidate; Florida State University, USA)*
45. Tom de Bruin, Lacturer in New Testament Exegesis (Newbold College, UK) *
46. @ Dylan Burns (Freie Universität Berlin, Germany) [respondent]
47. Rolex Macatdon Cailing (Asia Graduate School of Theology, Philippines)*
48. Piero Capelli (University of Venice, Italy) *
49. @ Alberto Camplani (Sapienza University of Rome, Italy) [panelist]*
50. Rodney Caruthers (Gustavus Adolphus College, USA)*
51. Beryl Chan (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
52. Esther Chazon (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
53. Tobias Churton (Exeter, UK)*
54. @ Kelley Coblentz Bautch (St Edward's University, USA) [panelist] *
55. Federico Moises Colautti (International Theological Institute, Austria)*
56. Paolo Collini (Italy)*
57. Jack Collins (Independent Scholar, USA)*
58. @ John J. Collins (Yale University, USA) [panelist] *
59. Ryan Collman (University of Edinburgh, Scotland)*
60. Robert Costello (University of Aberdeen, UK)*
61. @ Sidnie White Crawford (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA)
62. Marianne Dacy (University of Sydney, Australia)*
63. @ James Davila (University of St Andrews, Scotland) [respondent] *
64. John Day (University of Oxford, UK)*
65. @ April DeConick (Rice University, USA) [respondent]*
66. @ Nicola Denzey-Lewis (Claremont Graduate University, USA) [respondent]
67. Kindy De Long (Pepperdine University, USA)*
68. Rodrigo de Sousa (Faculté Jean Calvin, France)*
69. Michael DeVries (University of Birmingham, UK)*
70. Magdalena Díaz Araujo, Professor of Judaism and Early Christianity (Universidad Nacional de La Rioja / Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina)*
71. @ Devorah Dimant (University of Haifa, Israel) [awardee] *
72. @ Lorenzo DiTommaso (Concordia University Montreal, Canada) [respondent] *
73. @ Vicente Dobroruka (Universidade de Brasília, Brazil) [respondent] *
74. @ Jan Dochhorn (Durham University, England)
75. Maria Doerfler (Yale University, USA)*
76. Henryk Drawnel (John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland)*
77. @ Rachel Dryden, post-doc (University of Cambridge, England)
78. Jean Duhaime (Université de Montréal, Canada)*
79. @ Oliver Dyma (WWU Münster, Germany)*
80. Florence Abimbola Egbeyale (PhD Candidate; Florida State University, USA)*
81. @ Jason von Ehrenkrook (University of Massachusetts at Boston, USA)*
82. @ Torleif Elgvin (NLA University College, Norway)*
83. John Endres (Jesuit School of Theology of Santa Clara University, USA)*
84. @ Esther Eshel (Bar-Ilan University, Israel)*
85. Yael Fisch, post-doc (University of Oxford, UK)*
86. Roy Fisher (Loyola Marymount University, USA)*
87. @ Crispin Fletcher-Louis (University of Gloucestershire, UK)*
88. Channah Fonseca-Quezada (McMaster University, Canada)*
89. @ Deborah Forger (Dartmouth College, USA)
90. @ Steven Fraade (Yale University, USA) [panelist] *
91. @ Paula Fredriksen (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel) [panelist] *
92. Michele Freyhauf (Durham University, UK)*
93. Lisbeth Fried (University of Michigan, USA)*
94. Rachel Frish (Bar-Ilan University, Israel)*
95. @ Ida Frölich (Catholic University Budapest, Hungary) [panelist]
96. Deane Galbraith (University of Otago, New Zealand)*
97. Josh Gervacio (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, USA)*
98. Bonifatia Gesche (University of Saarbruecken and Vetus Latina Institute, Germany)*
99. Ananda Geyser-Fouche (University of Pretoria, South Africa)*
100. @ Matthew Goff (Florida State University, USA) [respondent] *
101. John Goldingay, Professor of Old Testament (Fuller Theological Seminary, USA) *
102. Batsheva Goldman-Ida, PhD (Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel)*
103. Pablo Gonzalez-Alonso (Universidad de Navarra, Spain)*
104. David Goodin, Instructor (McGill School of Religious Studies, Canada)*
105. @ Lester Grabbe (University of Hull, UK) [respondent] *
106. Maxine Grossman (University of Maryland, USA)*
107. @ Erich Gruen (University of California Berkeley, USA) [discussant] *
108. Ithamar Gruenwald (Tel-Aviv University, Israel)*
109. Alexandra Grund-Wittenberg (Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany)*
110. @ Emmanouela Grypeou (Stockholm University, Sweden) [panelist]
111. Rebekah Haigh (Princeton University, USA)*
112. Chaya Halberstam (King's University College, University of Western Ontario, Canada)*
113. Robert Hall (Hampden-Sydney College, USA)*
114. Stephanie Hallinger (Universität Regensburg, Germany)*
115. @ David Hamidovic (Univerisity of Lausanne, Switzerland) [respondent]*
116. Todd Hanneken (St. Mary's University, USA)*
117. @ Angela Kim Harkins (Boston College, USA) [respondent]*
118. Tamar Hassin (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
119. @ Christine Hayes (Yale University, USA)*
120. @ Charlotte Hempel (University of Birmingham, UK) *
121. @ Matthias Henze (Rice University, USA) [respondent] *
122. Ronald Herms (Fresno Pacific University, USA)*
123. Andrew Higginbotham (Ivy Tech Community College - Lawrenceburg, USA)*
124. Gregory Hillendahl (London School of Theology, UK)*
125. Vered Hillel (MJTI, Israel)*
126. Matthias Reinhard Hoffmann (Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany) [respondent] *
127. @ Karina Martin Hogan (Fordham University, USA) [panelist] *
128. Kerwin Holmes Jr., PhD candidate (University of Virginia, USA)*
129. Cornelia Horn (Martin-Luther University, Germany)*
130. Tom Hull (Monash University, Australia)*
131. David Hymes (Northwest University, USA)*
132. Giovanni Ibba (Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose S. Caterina da Siena, Italy)*
133. Lorenzo Innocenti (Facoltà Teologica dell'Italia Centrale, Italy)*
134. David R. Jackson (Australia)*
135. Jozef Jancovic, Senior Research Fellow (Comenius University, Slovakia)*
136. Alex Jassen (NYU, USA)*
137. Michael Johnson (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
138. @ Jutta Jokiranta (University of Helsinki, Finland)*
139. John Kampen (Methodist Theological School, USA)
140. @ Jonathan Kaplan (The University of Texas at Austin, USA)*
141. David Katzin (UCLA, USA)*
142. Martina Kepper, Lecturer (Philipps-University Marburg, Germany)*
143. Paul Kim (Methodist Theological School in Ohio, USA)*
144. Bethany Kinderman (University of Oxford, UK)*
145. Ian Kinman (Fordham University, USA)*
146. @ Karen King (Harvard University, USA)[discussant] *
147. @ Michael Knibb (King's College London, UK) [awardee] *
148. @ Craig R. Koester (Luther Seminar, USA) [respondent]
149. Ross Kraemer (Brown University, USA)*
150. @ Robert Kraft (University of Pennsylvania, USA) [awardee] *
151. Rob Kugler (Lewis & Clark College, USA)*
152. @ Alexander Kulik (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel) [respondent] *
153. Un Sung Kwak (University of Oxford, UK)*
154. @ David Lambert (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)*
155. Peter Lanfer, Assistant Professor (Occidetal College, USA)*
156. Natalie Lantz, PhD student (Uppsala University, Sweden)*
157. Nitzan Lebovic, Associate Professor (Lehigh University, USA)*
158. Gwangsoo Lee (University of St. Andrews, Scotland)*
159. Ralph Lee (SOAS University of London, UK)*
160. @ Jutta Leonhardt-Balzer (University of Aberdeen, Scotland) [panelist] *
161. Jim Lepkowski (University of Michigan, USA)*
162. @ Mark Leuchter (Temple University, USA)
163. Joseph Levi (Shemàh School of Jewish Studies and culture Margulies Levins, Florence, Italy)*
164. @ Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Tetstament (Vanderbilt University, USA) *
165. Diana Levine (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
166. @ John R. (Jack) Levison (Southern Methodist University, USA) *
167. Mung Ngaih Lian (Lutheran Theological Seminar, Hong Kong)*
168. @ Liv Ingeborg Lied (Norwegian School of Theology, Norway)*
169. @ Timothy Lim (University of Edinburgh, Scotland) [respondent]
170. @ Fiodar Litvinau, PhD candidate (LMU Munich, Germany) [discussant] *
171. Drew Longacre (University of Groningen, Netherlands)*
172. Geert Lorein (Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, Leuven, Belgium)*
173. Kwang Meng Low (National University of Singapore, Singapore)*
174. Jared Ludlow (Brigham Young University, USA)*
175. @ Edmondo Lupieri (Loyola University Chicago, USA) [panelist]
176. Duncan MacRae (University of California, Berkeley, USA)*
177. Jordan Maly-Preuss (University of Oxford, UK)*
178. @ Paul Mandel (Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel) [panelist] *
179. Peter Marinković (Evang.-Luth. Church of Bavaria, Germany)*
180. Giulio Mariotti (Facoltà Teologica dell'Italia Centrale, Italy)*
181. Iñaki Marro (LMU Munich, Germany)*
182. Eric Mason (Judson University, USA)*
183. Ferran Mateo Hernandez (Faculty of Theology of Catalonia, Spain)*
184. Joshua Matson (Florida State University, USA)*
185. Luca Mazzinghi (Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Italy) *
186. Alexander McCarron (University of Oxford, UK)*
187. Gavin McDowell (PhD Student, Université Laval, Canada) *
188. @ James McGrath (Butler University, USA) [panelist] *
189. Jocelyn McWhirter (Albion College, USA)*
190. Yonatan Miller (University of Toledo, USA)*
191. Enric Cortes Minguella, Professor (Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya, Spain)*
192. Daniele Minisini (PhD candidate, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy) *
193. @ Michael Morris (University of Mary, USA) [respondent] *
194. Craig Morrison, Professor (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Italy)*
195. Eva Mroczek (University of California, Davis, USA)*
196. Andrea Musumeci (Fondo Nangeroni, Italy)*
197. @ Hindy Najman (University of Oxford, UK) [respondent] *
198. @ Mark Nanos (Lund University, USA)*
199. Matthew Neujahr (Marquette University, USA)*
200. Matthew Neville (Birmingham University, UK)*
201. @ Carol Newsom (Emory University, USA) [panelist] *
202. @ George W.E. Nickelsburg (emeritus, University of Iowa, USA) [awardee] *
203. @ Ronit Nikolsky (University of Groningen, Netherlands) [respondent] *
204. @ Eric Noffke (Waldensian School of Theology, Italy) [respondent]*
205. @ Gerbern Oegema (McGill University, Canada) [panelist] *
206. @ Isaac Oliver (Bradley University, USA)*
207. Daniel Olson (St. Mary's College, USA)*
208. Jessica Ontek, graduate student (Florida State University, USA)*
209. @ Andrei Orlov (Marquette University, USA)
210. Juan Carlos Ossandón (Pontificia Università della Santa Croce, Italy)*
211. Chan Sok Park (College of Wooster, USA)*
212. Sara Parks, Assistant Professor (University of Nottingham, UK)*
213. Tali Partock, post-doc (University of Cambridge, UK)*
214. Ronald Pasaribu (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
215. Hector Patmore (KU Leuven, Belgium) [panelist]
216. Alexander Perkins, PhD candidate (Fordham University, USA)*
217. Shelley Perlove (University of Michigan, USA)*
218. Chad Pierce, Professor (General Synod, USA
219. @ Pierluigi Piovanelli (University of Ottawa, Canada) [respondent]
220. Matteo Poiani (Université de Strasbourg, France)*
221. @ Anathea Portier-Young (Duke University, USA) [respondent]
222. Kirill Porubaev, PhD Student (Pontifical Biblical Institute, Italy)*
223. Jonathan Price (Tel Aviv University, Israel)*
224. Travis Proctor (Wittenberg University, USA)*
225. Jeremy Punt, Associate Professor (Stellenbosch University, South Africa)*
226. Tessa Rajak (University of Reading, UK)*
227. Andrea Ravasco, Professor (Istituto Superiore di Scienze Religiose Ligure, Italy)*
228. Annette Reed (New York University, USA)*
229. @ Adele Reinhartz (University of Ottawa, Canada) [panelist] *
230. Megan Remington, PhD candidate (UCLA, USA)*
231. @ Benjamin Reynolds (Tyndale University, Canada) [respondent] *
232. Jean-Michel Roessli (Concordia University, Canada)*
233. Kyle Roland, (NYU, USA)*
234. @ Ishay Rosen-Zvi (Tel Aviv University, Israel) [respondent]*
235. @ Paolo Sacchi (emeritus, University of Turin, Italy) [awardee] *
236. Timothy Sailors (Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Germany)*
237. Carlos Santos Carretero (Israel Institute of Biblical Studies, Israel)*
238. David Satran (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)*
239. @ Lawrence Schiffman (New York University, USA)*
240. Uta Schmidt (University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany)*
241. Eileen Schuller, Professor (McMaster University, Canada)*
242. James Scott (Trinity Western University, Canada)*
243. @ Joshua Scott (PhD Candidate, University of Michigan, USA)*
244. @ Shayna Sheinfeld (Sheffield Institute for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies, USA) *
245. Anna Shirav (University of Birmingham, UK)*
246. Ari Silbermann (Bar Ilan University, Israel)*
247. @ Jason Silverman (University of Helsinki, Finland) [panelist]*
248. Daniel Smith (University of Texas at Austin, USA)*
249. Isaac Soon, PhD student (University of Durham, UK)*
250. Gary Staszak (St. Mary's University, USA)*
251. @ Gregory Sterling (Yale University, USA) [panelist]*
252. Elizabeth Stell (University of Oxford, UK)*
253. @ Ryan Stokes (Carson-Newman University, USA) [panelist]
254. @ Michael Stone (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel) [awardee] *
255. @ Loren Stuckenbruck (University of Munich, Germany) [panelist] *
256. Kevin Sullivan (Illinois Wesleyan University, USA)*
257. Carla Sulzbach (McGill University, Canada)*
258. @ David Suter (Saint Martin's University, USA)*
259. Michael Dov Swartz (Ohio State University, USA)*
260. Balazs Tamasi (Budapest Jewish University, Hungary)*
261. Seng Tawng (Myanmar Institute of Theology, Myanmar)*
262. @ Joan Taylor, Professor (King's College London, UK)*
263. Hanna Tervanotko (McMaster University, Canada)*
264. Philippe Therrien (Université de Lausanne/Université Laval, Switzerland)*
265. @ Matthew Thiessen (McMaster University, Canada) [respondent]
266. Dieter Leon Thom (Australian College, Kuwait)*
267. Marcus Tso (Trinity Western University, Canada)*
268. W. Dennis Tucker (Baylor University, USA)*
269. Emmanuel Ordue Usue (Benue State University, Nigeria)*
270. @ Elisa Uusimäki (Aarhus University, Denmark) [respondent]*
271. Ana Valdez (University of Lisbon, Portugal)*
272. Jordi Cervera Valls (Facultat de Teologia de Catalunya, Spain)*
273. @ James VanderKam (University of Notre Dame, USA) [panelist]
274. Jacques van Ruiten (University of Groningen, Netherlands)*
275. Rebekah Van Sant-Clark (University of Oxford, UK)*
276. @ Cecilia Wassen
277. Catrin Williams (University of Wales Trinity Saint David, UK)*
278. @ Benjamin Wold (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland) [respondent]
279. @ Archie Wright (Regent University, USA) [panelist] *
280. @ Benjamin Wright (Lehigh University, USA) [respondent]*
281. Jackie Wyse-Rhodes (Bluffton University, USA)*
282. Yan Yu (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
283. Chi Yau Yue (Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong)*
284. Molly Zahn (University of Kansas, USA)*
285. Asad Zaman (Ohio State University, USA)*
286. Ziony Zevit (American Jewish University, USA)*
287. Jason Zurawski (University of Groningen, Netherlands)