1987 Annual Meeting in Boston: A Wild, Wonderful Academic Circus

052

There is nothing quite like it—the joint once-a-year sessions of the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), known to all as the Annual Meeting.

For four days—in Boston from December 5 through 8, 1987—it was total immersion. More than 5,000 scholars, teachers, job-seekers and interested laypeople—the largest number ever to register for the Annual Meeting—stuffed into eight hotels to jostle, to gossip, to gape at slides of the new finds, to doze as speaker after speaker droned on in dozens of simultaneous sessions, to riffle through new books in the acres of exhibits—and ultimately to absorb and to learn.

It was a wild, wonderful ten-ring academic circus.

In one ring Harvard’s Frank Cross and the University of Michigan’s David Noel Freedman were presenting what was billed as a “state-of-the-art dialogue” on Biblical Hebrew poetry. In another ring Phyllis Trible of Union Theological Seminary in New York was giving a stirring feminist interpretation of Miriam and her troubled relationship with Moses (entitled “Miriam, Moses and a Mess”), followed by a response from Weston School of Theology’s John Kselman.

A series of six talks—“Sixty Years of Nuzi Studies”—was devoted to the ancient Mesopotamian site of Nuzi where 5,000 cuneiform tablets dating to the 15th–14th century B.C. were discovered between 1926 and 1932. Columbia’s Edith Porada, the grand dame of the world of Mesopotamian seals, spoke charmingly on “Nuzi Glyptic Studies: A Retrospective.”

A special session commemorated the 40th anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately, Harvard’s John Strugnell, who was to give a report on plans to release and publish the unpublished (and therefore still secret) materials, failed to appear. Strugnell, now on leave in Jerusalem, left a message with the organizer of the session, New York University’s 053Lawrence Schiffman, that he was “stuck in Jerusalem.” Agitation over the continued failure to publish and release these voluminous materials, still not available to scholars generally, was palpable.^a Strugnell has promised BAR a report on the situation.

There were panel discussions, caucuses, symposia, panel presentations, plenary sessions, round-table discussions, consultations, dig reports, films, computer demonstrations, short talks, long lectures—from 8 o’clock in the morning till 11 o’clock at night. Nearly 1,500 people were listed on the program.

Bawdy House in Ashkelon?

Harvard’s Lawrence Stager presented his first report on what is surely one of the most important excavations to be started in Israel in the last few vears—the Leon Levy Excavations at Ashkelon. Human occupation at ancient Ashkelon stretches over a period of 4,500 years—from 3000 B.C. to 1500 A.D. Ashkelon is famous in the Bible as a member of the Philistine pentapolis, which also included Gaza, Gath, Ekron and Ashdod. David, in his dirge at the death of King Saul at Philistine hands, cries out:

“Tell it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult” (2 Samuel 1:20).

Stager has been digging for only three seasons at this huge 150-acre site and is just beginning to reach Philistine levels in a few areas. For much of its history, Ashkelon was a major marketplace and seaport, the most important one in Philistia. With the help of underwater archaeologist Avner Raban from Haifa University, Stager is searching under the sea for evidence of the port. He is also searching on land because it’s possible that the ancient port has silted up. So far, the harbor has not been found.

But Stager has found a Byzantine church with granite columns brought all the way from Aswan in Egypt; a huge horseshoe-shaped rampart enclosing the site on all sides but the seaside; some Philistine pottery in its earliest phases that reflects a non-Semitic culture “closely related, if not identical” to that of the Mycenaean Greek world; Phoenician seals; a puzzling burial ground for dogs; and a Roman bath complete with hypocausts under the floor of the hot room and a bathtub in the cold room. On the side of the bathtub the excavators found a Greek inscription that reads “Enter and enjoy … ” This led some to suspect that more than bathing went on inside this bath house. When a number of plainly pornographic—some would say merely erotic—pictures were found on broken clay lamp discs inside the bath house, several staff members concluded it was a bawdy house, not simply a bath house. Stager is not so sure. He “leans toward” the conclusion that the building functioned as a traditional bath house and only secondarily as a bawdy house.

These unusually well-crafted pornographic clay discs—Stager showed the two best preserved fragments—raise a problem for BAR. Should we—in the context of a report on the Ashkelon excavations—publish pictures of this blatant pornography, albeit archaeological finds, in the interest of portraying all aspects of life in the ancient Biblical world, specifically in the Roman period? Or should we recognize overriding principles of good taste and reader sensitivity? We would be pleased to hear from our readers on this subject.

Stager was allotted a mere 20 minutes for his report—as he wryly remarked, “seven minutes a season.” Another way of looking at it is 30 seconds a century. Seriously, though, there are dig reports, and then there are dig reports. So many dig directors want to present reports that the time allotted to each must necessarily be restricted. But it is not difficult to identify those major excavations and major subject matters that should be allotted 30 and sometimes 40 minutes for a presentation. Ashkelon was clearly one such case, and everyone knew that in advance.

Turning to the overall picture, I asked the program chairman for the archaeological sessions, the University of Pennsylvania’s James Muhly, what trends he had detected in the archaeological presentations. “Fewer talks presenting mere compilations of data and much more attention to what it all means,” he replied. Muhly was right, and it’s a welcome trend. Not that the details are unimportant, but at the Annual Meeting, where there is so much competition for time and space, broader interpretations of the data should be the order of the day.

I also asked Muhly if he agreed with me that despite the broader interpretations, the archaeologists had given very little attention to how their archaeological finds related to the Biblical text. Muhly agreed. “We’re going through a phase,” he said, “when the relationship of the finds to the Biblical text is simply not a critical question.”

Ironically, the most prominent deviation from this trend was an extraordinary session organized by a scholar who has widely trashed the term “Biblical archaeology,” the University of Arizona’s William Dever.^b To his credit, Bill Dever is one of the most dedicated and able practitioners of Biblical archaeology, despite his earlier, well-known aversion to the term Biblical archaeology. Now, even his crusade against the term seems to have ended—petered out, some would say. He is happy, he says, with the term “new Biblical archaeology.” And he doesn’t even mind just plain Biblical archaeology, he told me “now that it’s been cleansed of its 054former associations [with proving the Bible true], adding, “Labels aren’t important anyway.” Dever asks to be judged by what he does, not by what he says about the term Biblical archaeology. By this standard, Dever deserves as high marks as anyone in the profession.

Origins of the Israelites

The session Dever organized at the Annual Meeting, entitled “New Perspectives on the Emergence of Israel in Canaan,” lasted four hours and featured a star-studded cast of scholars,^c who presented seminal papers that will eventually appear in book form; following their formal presentations, the scholars argued with each other and took questions from the audience. In the November/December 1987 BAR, we alerted our readers to this session (see “Prolegomena to Boston,” BAR 13:06) and admonished the organizers to “make sure the hall is large enough to accommodate the expected crowd.” As a result, the session was moved to the Boston Sheraton’s Grand Ballroom, the only session of the Annual Meeting held in this cavernous hall. It was a good thing the move was made; even the balcony was crowded with eager listeners anxious to hear top scholars consider questions like these:

Where did the Israelites come from? How do we identify them on the ground—that is, based on the archaeological evidence? What did it mean to be an Israelite in the 12th century B.C.? When did the Israelites really emerge as Israelites?

Norman Gottwald of New York Theological Seminary argued that Israel’s emergence as a people in Canaan can be explained largely on the basis of people indigenous to Palestine. Larry Stager countered that the large increase in population from the Late Bronze Age (1550 B.C.–1200 B.C.) to Iron Age I (1200 B.C.–1000 B.C.) cannot be accounted for on the basis of an internal increase in population; there must have been considerable immigration into the land.

Israel Finkelstein from Bar-Ilan University in Israel showed that the establishment of the newly discovered Iron settlements in the hill country of Canaan, where the Bible says the Israelite tribes settled, occurred gradually, and from east to west. But a question was raised as to whether this represents a migratory settlement pattern or the filling first of the best available ecological and environmental niches.

Several speakers addressed the strong tradition in the Bible that Israel came from outside. Some scholars have been searching anthropological materials from other cultures to see if other cultures have developed similar “outside” traditions despite known facts to the contrary concerning their origins.

In an evaluative summary, Bill Dever spoke of the ways archaeology can be utilized in writing a history of the emergence of Israel. Unfortunately, he cast his considerable contribution as a kind of contest between archaeology and the Biblical text. He was unnecessarily (and, in terms of his own development, atavistically) offensive in his phrasing of the question: “Which data [that is, which texts or archaeological artifacts] are primary?” (his italics). Again: “Which produces a more satisfactory account of the phenomenon to be observed?” Which is “superior as historical evidence?” As Dever knows full well, each of these kinds of evidence supplements the other. Both must be utilized. Neither can be ignored. Each requires evaluation and interpretation. And in both cases, modern methods have allowed us to squeeze more reliable historical information from our limited data. There is no need to ask which is “primary” or “superior.” Depending on the precise historical question being asked, each makes a different contribution.

If it weren’t for the Bible, we would have no way of knowing that the Iron I settlements in the hill-country of Canaan might be Israelite. Indeed, we wouldn’t even know it was Canaan. This is what Emory University’s Max Miller meant when he wrote that artifactual remains are “anonymous unless interpreted in the light of written records.” For such statements, Dever accused Miller of a “somewhat naive overvaluation of texts.” Miller, said Dever, “has enough archaeological experience to know better.” Referring to Miller, a Biblical historian, Dever quipped, “the archaeological data are not mute; but the historian is often deaf!”

Miller, who was in the audience, took the floor in the comment period. Dever, he said, was “being more cute than analytical. We wouldn’t even be talking about the emergence of Israel if it weren’t for the Bible,” Miller said.

Nevertheless, to his credit, Dever is committed to asking historical questions, despite the difficulties posed by the text. We can and should ask, in his own words, “what really happened in history.”

According to the Biblical writers’ approach to history, however, “outstanding individuals, extraordinary deeds, large-scale political events, above all unique and innovative ideas … are what shape history.” For Dever, this approach “may be descriptive, but it possesses little true explanatory power.”

Nevertheless, Dever calls for “a truly synthetic effort … to achieve a balance between two approaches often thought to be antithetical.” (Alas, Dever makes his own contribution toward improperly perceiving them as antithetical). He 055recognizes that both texts and artifacts are “symbolic expressions that point to a reality beyond themselves. Both are encoded messages about the past. And both require cautious and similar interpretation.”

Where Dever is at his best is in describing the ways that archaeology can make its own special contribution to understanding history and, specifically, the emergence of Israel. Archaeological data, he points out, constitute an “external” witness, “completely independent of the religious community and its perspectives” reflected in the Biblical texts. Second, archaeological data by virtue of their random nature, often provide “a ‘populist’ view that may offer a vastly different, and sometimes more accurate, picture than that yielded by the elite perspective of the Biblical texts.”

In addition, the archaeological data “fill the lacunae in our knowledge of ancient Israel by illuminating the whole gamut of material culture. This includes not only pottery and building remains, but, far more significant, environmental considerations; settlement types and patterns; subsistence; technology; demography; socio-economic structure; art, symbolism, and aesthetics; even such matters as political structure, ideology and religion, which are usually (but mistakenly) thought to be the exclusive province of textual studies.” At this point, Dever quoted his fellow panelist Norman Gottwald: “Only as the full materiality of ancient Israel is more securely grasped will we be able to make proper sense of its spirituality.”

Finally, said Dever, only archaeology can provide the context of the text: “Only archaeology is capable of resurrecting the long-lost peoples and places of the Ancient Near Eastern world, the larger context within which the events claimed by the Biblical writers happened and the Biblical tradition took shape. Archaeology humanizes the Bible, makes it credible by illustrating unforgettably that the story is about real people, in a real time and place and circumstance—people like us.”

Although not many sessions directly addressed connections between the Bible and archaeology, Dever’s session on the emergence of Israel in Canaan was not the only one. I will mention two that are likely to be the subject of future BAR articles.

Solomon’s Stables Found?

Graham Davies of the University of Sheffield in England has reexamined the excavation materials from Megiddo and believes he can identify King Solomon’s stables. When the site was excavated in the 1930s, the University of Chicago excavators identified as the time of King Solomon some long buildings with a center section divided from paved side sections by rows of pillars. In 1 Kings 9:15 we are told that Solomon built Megiddo; later in the same chapter we are told that he built cities for his chariots and horses. In both Kings and Chronicles, we are told Solomon stabled 12,000 horses in his chariot cities. The fit seemed perfect. But later scholars argued that these buildings were really storehouses, not stables. Moreover, Israel’s best-known archaeologist, Yigael Yadin, conducted his own excavation at the site and established that the buildings dated about a century after King Solomon, probably to the time of King Ahab. So they were neither Solomonic, nor stables.^d

A recent study by John S. Holladay^e of the University of Toronto has, however, convinced many scholars, including Davies, that the buildings were in fact stables. But there is no arguing with Yadin’s dating of the buildings to about the time of King Ahab, certainly after King Solomon’s time. Davies has gone back to the excavation records from the 1930s, however, and found evidence of almost identical buildings underneath the buildings Yadin dated to King Ahab’s time. These buildings, says Davies, are probably King Solomon’s stables.

Jericho is another important Biblical site previously excavated in which a scholar has reexamined what came out of the ground and revealed new conclusions. From her famous excavations of the 1950s, Dame Kathleen Kenyon concluded that the great walled City of Jericho was destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (about 1550 B.C.), hundreds of years before Israel emerged in Canaan.

Bryant Wood of Associates for Biblical Research has carefully reexamined the pottery from Kenyon’s excavation and has concluded that the large walled city at Jericho was destroyed, not in the Middle Bronze Age, as Kenyon concluded, but in Late Bronze 1, about 1400 B.C. Although this city was destroyed, its walls continued to provide protection to a later, small settlement in Late Bronze IIA. We know the walls of this Jericho still stood at a considerable height because they were found in this condition by 20th century archaeologists. Wood believes it was this small settlement within the walls of the earlier major city that was the subject of the Biblical account of Jericho’s destruction.

Speaking of reexamining old interpretations, Jim Muhly identified a particular metal form as a Late Bronze Age bellows; the same form had previously been identified by other scholars as a crucible to cast ingots, a vat to dye linen purple, and a vessel to mix cheese. Muhly seems to have settled the matter definitively.

Arab Scholars Absent

One disappointing aspect of the archaeological sessions was the lack of a “country” focus. In previous years, special sessions were devoted to a single country—Syria, Cyprus, Israel and Jordan. This year, it was to have been Turkey, one of the most archaeologically exciting countries in the world. The Turks, however, weren’t interested, according to the program planners. What a shame! Perhaps they will be interested some other time. The loss is both theirs and ours.

Another disappointment was the fact that Arab participants seem to present papers only when their country is the 056subject of the particular year’s special focus. Scholars from Jordan, Syria, Egypt and perhaps other Arab countries should be encouraged—and provided travel subsidies—to come to the Annual Meeting to report on the exciting archaeological work that is going on in their countries.

A large number of Israeli scholars almost always attend the Annual Meeting, as Eliezer Oren of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev told me, “in order to learn what’s going on outside Israel.” Archaeological knowledge cannot be isolated by modern political boundaries.

“Bible lands are vast; yet almost all the focus is on Israel; this makes no sense,” Oren added. A concerted effort should be made to involve nationals from other countries of the region. Scholars from all countries in the area need to share their knowledge with each other. Somehow the money must be found to bring Arab scholars to the Annual Meeting on a regular basis.

More New Testament Archaeology Needed

It was also disappointing that so little attention was paid to archaeology as it relates directly to the New Testament. The few papers dealing with archaeology and the New Testament were organized into a “consultation” by SBL, not by ASOR. The work of Helmut Koester and his colleagues is important, but they can’t do it alone. Does archaeology really have so little to say about the origin and development of early Christianity? This is such a serious problem that it needs to be addressed institutionally by those who organize the archaeological sessions. We would welcome the reflections of some of our scholar-readers on this problem.

Overall, the Annual Meeting is being run more smoothly and with more attention to detail than ever before—including such details as large type on the name tags, so you’re not embarrassed at not being able to place a name with a familiar face.

It was unfortunate that the sessions were held in two different hotels, separated by a cold, eight-minute walk. This made it much more difficult to jump from session to session; it also meant coats had to be shlepped around all day. But with so many sessions, no hotel could be found to house them all. Such are the burdens of successful scholarship. Andrews University Dean Emeritus Siegfred Horn, who will celebrate his 80th birthday in March, recalled the old days—from the late 1940s into the 1960s—when the archaeological sessions were confined to a single evening session.

It was heartening to see so many senior scholars presenting papers. As readers of my reports in previous years know, this has not always been the case. We need to hear from our leaders. They set the stars by which we fix our own direction.

Two small suggestions: a presentation is often more effective when the scholar speaks to the audience rather than reads a paper verbatim. Each presenter should consider whether the ideas he or she wants to transmit can be conveyed more effectively by a formal verbatim reading or by a less formal presentation of ideas. In any event, no one should read a chart. Moreover, each presenter should time the presentation beforehand. It is embarrassing, discourteous and unfair to everyone when a presenter has to be stopped because of a blatant violation of time allotments. In short, don’t try to cut a paper for the first time while you’re presenting it.

One final note: It is my impression that many more laypeople are attending the Annual Meeting. This may be the reason, at least in part, for the increased attendance. This is all to the good. It is really quite astounding to see 5,000 people gathered together to explore religion and the Bible in an intellectual, scholarly way, and in a thoroughly non-sectarian setting.

If you think this might be your cup of tea, plan to attend next year’s Annual Meeting in Chicago, November 19–22, 1988. For advance information, write to: Scholars Press, P.O. Box 1608, Decatur, GA 30031–1608, or phone (404) 636–4757.

Flack Over Sepphoris Mosaic

The most unpleasant aspect of the Annual Meeting in Boston involved a personal attack on BAR by Eric Meyers of Duke University, ASOR’s First Vice President and Editor of ASOR’s semi-scholarly quarterly, Biblical Archaeologist. Meyers also co-directs an excavation at Sepphoris with his wife, Carol Meyers, and with Hebrew University archaeologist Ehud Netzer. During the 1987 season, a fabulous, third-century A.D. mosaic was uncovered at Sepphoris; it was featured in the January/February 1988 BAR as last season’s prize find (“Prize Find: Mosaic Masterpiece Dazzles Sepphoris Volunteers,” BAR 14:01). A detail from the mosaic graced BAR’s cover.

At the Annual Meeting, Meyers reported to the Executive Committee of ASOR’s Board of Trustees that BAR was publishing the picture on the cover without his permission. The matter of BAR’s cover was also raised at the full meeting of ASOR’s Board of Trustees, who were advised that the matter was being “pursued through appropriate channels.” Many people understood this to mean that BAR was about to be sued. Meyers himself refused even to greet, let alone speak with BAR’s editor.

Because the matter was so widely discussed at the Annual Meeting, it has 057unfortunately become necessary to set the matter straight:

In preparation for its annual review of excavation opportunities featured regularly in the January/February issue, BAR sent a form request for information and photographs to all dig directors, including the Meyerses. In response, the Meyerses supplied information and photos, as they have in the past. No restriction was placed on BAR’s use of the photos; the letter of transmittal even apologized for sending the material and photos late. Included among the photos were several shots of the mosaic that had been discovered at Sepphoris last summer. If we wanted additional photos, we were told in the letter, “please let us know.” We decided to feature the mosaic as the season’s “prize find” and used several views of it, one featuring Carol Meyers at the site (inside the magazine) and a detail of the mosaic on the cover.

Our art director examined the photographs more closely when he was about to send them to the “separator” (color photographs are “separated” into four different color plates for printing). At that time he noticed the picture we intended to use on the cover was “soft” (that is, not sharp) and that apparently it was a duplicate, not an original transparency. At that late date, a BAR assistant editor called Carol Meyers to ask her for the original transparency. She obligingly sent it, still without placing any qualifications on our use of it. “I hope this suits your needs” she said in her note, “or the standards of your photo editor.”

Some time later I received a call from the Meyerses’ lawyer—I had not, then, nor since then have I discussed the matter with either of the Meyerses—telling me that the Meyerses objected to our use on the cover of the particular detail of the mosaic we had chosen—the face of a woman. They didn’t object to our use of this detail inside, nor did they object to any other detail of the mosaic on the cover.

I could not understand what difference it made whether it was inside or on the cover. I found their position particularly puzzling because this detail—the most dramatic element of the mosaic—had already appeared in the New York Times, in Newsweek, in the international (i.e. United States) edition of the Jerusalem Post, as well as on the front page of several newspapers in Israel. Moreover, this same detail had appeared—the Meyerses had supplied the photograph—in color on the cover of an American magazine with a circulation of 350,000 and on the cover of a weekend magazine of an American newspaper.

The Meyerses’ lawyer nevertheless proposed to us and urged that we use a different detail from the mosaic on BAR’s cover. This was at the 11th hour and could be done only with major and expensive external and internal rearrangement of the magazine. But I agreed to consider a substitute cover if another detail of similar quality and excellence was immediately provided to us.

At the same time, I telephoned Ehud Netzer, the Meyerses’ co-director in Israel, to request that he send us his high-quality photos of the mosaic, with the understanding that we would not use them unless the Meyerses said it was all right. A day later Netzer called back to say that the Meyerses told him not to send the photos. Then, more than a week after the initial call from the lawyer, the Meyerses themselves sent us substitutes of inferior quality. I so advised their lawyer by overnight mail. In the meantime, the magazine’s production process was rolling forward and it would soon be impossible to make any changes. I heard nothing after that—either from their lawyer or from the Meyerses.

So the magazine was printed as originally planned. I simply would not print BAR either with an inferior, second-rate cover or with a blank cover. It still puzzles me why the Meyerses sent us the photo in the first place if they did not want us to use it. I am also puzzled about why Eric Meyers took the matter public at the Annual Meeting.

Apparently, the reason for this relates to Eric Meyers’s position as editor of Biblical Archaeologist, although the two publications are really not in competition—BAR is a popular, colorful bi-monthly with a circulation of over 120,000 and Biblical Archaeologist is a semi-scholarly quarterly with a circulation of less than 6,000. However, Meyers has been less than friendly to BAR ever since he became editor of BA. Before his elevation to the editorship of BA, Meyers, as well as his wife, wrote for BAR.^f After he became editor of BA, he and his wife told me that they considered it inappropriate for either of them to write for BAR or even to review books in BAR. Moreover, this prohibition extended even to BAR’s sister publication, Bible Review.

Until Meyers became editor of Biblical Archaeologist, the BA subscriber list was regularly rented to BAR so that we could ask BA’s subscribers if they also wanted to subscribe to BAR. When BAR printed a book review,^g concerning the history of ASOR, that Meyers didn’t like, he decided to retaliate by refusing to make his circulation list available for BAR’s promotions. That prohibition too is still in force.

But the Meyerses did continue to send us material about their excavations so we could announce them annually in BAR, and they continued to send us photos of themselves, their children, and their digs. Last year we included both in our dig section and on the table of contents page a picture of one of the Meyers children at Sepphoris. Until now, the Meyerses have been pleased with BAR’s coverage. Why they now find BAR’s coverage offensive remains unclear.

There is nothing quite like it—the joint once-a-year sessions of the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), known to all as the Annual Meeting. For four days—in Boston from December 5 through 8, 1987—it was total immersion. More than 5,000 scholars, teachers, job-seekers and interested laypeople—the largest number ever to register for the Annual Meeting—stuffed into eight hotels to jostle, to gossip, to gape at slides of the new finds, to doze as speaker after speaker droned on in dozens of simultaneous sessions, to riffle through […]