In the interest of continuing what I started the other day, here is a summary of what else I was able to see and learn at the recent SBL Conference in Atlanta.

Saturday afternoon I participated in a session regarding Teaching Philosophies, directed by BYU’s Taylor Halverson. This was a very helpful, practical presentation of ideas regarding how one should prepare him/herself to teach in a way that optimizes the students’ opportunities for learning. Patrick Egan of the University of St Andrews and Coleman Baker gave presentations explaining their thoughts on teaching philosophy and why one is needed, and then Dr Halverson gave a training on how to develop one of your own and evaluate those of others. It became apparent to me that many university hiring committees will not be interested in your application if you have not worked out an impressive teaching philosophy for yourself. After you have one, the real challenge is to be able to implement it.

Also on Saturday, I attended part of the session on “The KJV at 400: Assessing Its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence.” I was interested in attending this session as the KJV is the translation of choice of the LDS Church, and because I am on the planning committee of a local celebration of the KJV’s anniversary.  Scot McKnight of North Park University presented on the theology and exegesis that was apparent in the work of the translation ordered by King James.  He pointed out how the KJV was based primarily on the earlier English “Bishop’s Bible”, a translation used by the Anglican church, preferred over other English translations such as the Calvinistic/Puritan “Geneva Bible.”  The KJV was a theologically conservative revision, but did not have a strong theological agenda.  David Trobisch then gave a paper on the KJV and the development of textual criticism.  Among other things, he emphasized the need for textual criticism due to factors such as the existence of nearly 6000 known manuscripts of the New Testament.  Between these manuscripts are found over 100,000 text variations. No two manuscripts are exactly the same! Modern translations of the NT are based on the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, which is by no means a critical text. And there have been more than 27 revisions of Nestle-Aland already!

Sunday afternoon, I went to the session on Christianity in Egypt to hear John Gee of BYU speak on “Egyptian Interpretations of Abraham.” Gee zoomed through his material at a rate that left outsiders to the field (me) at a loss for being able to take down the wonderful information he had to present. Gee noted that pre-Christian Egyptians latched on to the story of Abraham as early as the time of Ptolemy I, likely due to influence from Jews living in Egypt (Thebes). Early on, Abraham was identified with the figure of Osiris and the teaching of astronomy. Alexander Polyhistor quoted ancient Hellenistic Jewish historian Eupolemus as saying that Abraham invented astronomy and taught it to the Egyptians. The celebration of the death of Osiris and birth of his divine son, Horus, in the Egyptian month of Khoiak was later paralleled by the Christians in December with the celebration of the death of Abraham and the birth of Christ. Firmicus Maternus mentions a Book of Abraham that deals with astronomy. Epiphanius tells of the story of Abraham vs. the idols, where the Pharoah throws Abraham into a fire for his opposition to the Egyptian gods. Abraham is saved by God/an angel, and the rulers of foreign nations come to learn from him of the true God; he is exalted by Pharoah to a high position. The Egyptians preserved stories of Abraham and often equated him with Osiris.

On Monday evening I heard Matt Grey, an LDS PhD student at UNC-Chapel Hill, give a paper entitled “‘Epigraphical Rabbis’ and Epigraphical Priests: Using Inscriptions to Evaluate the Relationship between Priests and Rabbis in Late Antiquity.” The basic thrust of his paper was to show that there were still groups of Jewish priests that continued to exert influence on Jewish communities after the fall of the Temple (70 AD) and up into the Byzantine era. Apparently, the rabbinic movement did not fully extinguish the priestly circles. There is much evidence for the co-existence of rabbis and priests in Jewish communities for many centuries. In the catacombs of Beit Sahrim, there are rooms specifically set apart for the burial of priests and their families. There are just as present there as rabbis and have their own special space marked off in the tombs, whereas the rabbis are buried together with others. Byzantine synagogues have mosaics that show a priestly influence — inscriptions show that priests were actually present. The priestly class must have remained active even after the fall of the Temple.

I have not yet reported on the “Latter-day Saints and the Bible” sessions on Monday and Tuesday that I attended. I will save those for next time!

To be continued…(again!)