“Annual Miracle” Visits Philadelphia

052

If it were up to me, I would change the name of the Annual Meeting (the joint annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research [ASOR]) to the Annual Miracle. It simply blows my mind to see 8,000 Bible scholars and archaeologists get together for four days (this past year in Philadelphia from November 18–21) to give and listen to over a thousand lectures, sometimes dozens to choose from given simultaneously, often with four or five enticing subjects at the same time. No one can attend more than a small percentage of them, and I always worry that my choices are not representative.¹ But, as they say, what can you do!

The winner of this year’s prize for the lecture with the most esoteric title is Jack Lightstone of Concordia University. The title: “From Rabbinic Priestly Scribes to Rabbinic Sages: A Socio-Rhetorical Perspective on Tosefta’s (Dis)simulation [sic] of Mishnah’s Rhetorical Features.” The runner-up is Stuart Creason of the University of Chicago, who gave a paper entitled: “The Interaction of Syntax, Verb Form and Discourse 053Structure in the Karatepe Inscription.”

I do not mean to make fun of these papers. They are serious papers for specialists. But an overall look at the titles indicates that specialization is proceeding not only apace, but with lightning speed. There is too much dross and not enough gold. Too many scholars know that the only way to get their school to pay their way to the meeting is to give a paper; that they want to come to the Annual Meeting to learn should be enough to get their way paid.

As there are too many poor specialized papers, there are too few major synthetic papers by leading scholars. One reason, it is said, is that they are fearful of making mistakes, of being pilloried by their colleagues. They are too risk averse.

Archaeologists, too, are sometimes reluctant to publish reports, it is sometimes said, because they fear exposing themselves to criticism. It is safer to say nothing. Well, perhaps so. A paper by Jodi Magness of Tufts University examined a dig report on a synagogue excavation in Galilee. The excavators, who laudably had published a massive final report on their excavation, said they had found two synagogues, one on top of the other. Based on her study of the evidence made available by the final report, Magness said the excavators had misinterpreted the evidence: There was only one synagogue that had two phases. Eric Meyers, one of the excavators and soon-to-be-retiring president of ASOR, disagrees. Magness failed to look at the architectural evidence, he says; Magness looked only at the pottery and the stratigraphy. This is obviously only the beginning of an intense debate. Already two international experts, Israel’s Ehud Netzer and American Dennis Groh, have at least tentatively endorsed Magness’s findings.

Among the other archaeological offerings, a paper on the Edomites by Tel Aviv University’s Itzhaq Beit-Arieh especially intrigued me. Until the last few decades, almost everything we’ve known about Israel’s perennial enemy, the Edomites, came from the Bible. Now archaeology is bringing this elusive people and their distinctive culture out of the shadows, with some extraordinary new finds at Edomite religious shrines in the desert of Judah. I won’t say more about this because much of the material will soon be the subject of articles in BAR.

Overall, the hottest topics continue to be the historical Jesus and, a closely aligned topic, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity during the early centuries of the Common Era. Most of the sessions on these topics were filled to overflowing. The floors and aisles, as well as the seats were filled; people at the doorway bent with cupped ears in the hope of hearing scholars like John Meier (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus), Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (Jesus: Miriam’s Child, Sophia’s Prophet) and N.T. Wright (Jesus and the Triumph of God), all of whom spoke at one session on the subject. If I detect a theme, it is that if we are to better understand Jesus, we must better understand the Judaism of his time. As John Meier said, the Council of Chalcedon decided that Jesus was “both truly divine and truly (not somewhat) human. If he was truly human, he was truly Jewish.”

At another session on the same subject, the participants explored ways in which Rabbinic literature, despite the fact that it was written down centuries after Jesus, can enlighten the Jewish background of Christianity, but also how early Christian literature, including the New Testament, can help us better understand Judaism and Rabbinic literature. As argued by Herbert Basser of Queen’s University in Canada, “Both the New Testament and Rabbinic literature have a common heritage at some primary level. [Each] is enriched by our knowledge of the other.” New scholarly paths are opening up.

BAR readers who are interested in historical Jesus research and related issues may want to subscribe to our sister publication, Bible Review, which is planning special features on these issues in the coming year by some of the world’s leading scholars—in “language meant to be understood,” as we say at the Biblical Archaeology Society. That is not to say that there will be agreement. On the contrary, there will be considerable disagreement. But we guarantee that you will have a deeper understanding of the issues and will have enough information to decide for yourself where you stand on these issues.

Among the anniversaries marked at the meetings was the 100th anniversary of the publication of The Women’s Bible, edited by Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton and the women who worked with her reproduced and commented on passages in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, in which women were accorded inferior status or were conspicuous by their absence. As explained by Bernard Levinson of Indiana University, Stanton was shunned by the church of her day because of her claims to feminine equality and by the women’s movement because of her historical-critical approach to Scripture.

In a related session on Biblical law, an insightful paper asked why ancient Israelite society placed a cultural value on virginity, as did ancient Greek and ancient Near Eastern societies generally. Tikva Frymer-Kensky of the University of Chicago offered at least six possible explanations: (1) men want to assure their paternity; (2) women were considered property and men did not want to buy damaged goods, so to speak; (3) a fertile field must be pure; (4) requiring virginity by law was a way to assert state control; (5) fathers wanted to maintain control of their families; (6) it is related to the incest taboo (if a father can’t have her, no one else can). Frymer-Kensky admitted that, in the end, we are left with speculation.

One other paper deserves special mention; this paper is treated in the postscript on the next page.

I hope this gives some idea of the range of papers and why anyone with an interest in the Bible or archaeology should attend. Next year’s Annual Meeting has the added attraction of being in culinary heaven, New Orleans. Hope to see you there—if not in a lecture hall, at least in a restaurant.

056

Travel Scholarships: How to Apply

BAR is again offering travel scholarships to speakers at the next Annual Meeting, scheduled for New Orleans, La., November 23–26, 1996. If you cannot afford to attend without a scholarship and are either an Arab national from Arab lands, an Israeli Ph.D. candidate or an Israeli woman who has obtained a Ph.D. within 10 years of the application date, you are eligible to apply. The scholarships include $800 to help defray the costs of travel from the Middle East and $200 for registration fees, meals and lodging.

To apply, tell us the title of your paper and write a brief description. Let us know your background, education and experience. Be sure to indicate how you meet our eligibility requirements and to notify us when your paper has been accepted to the Annual Meeting program. (It is the applicant’s responsibility to arrange a place on the program. Deadlines for receipt of program proposals are in early March for ASOR, AAR and SBL.)

Mail your application to BAR, Meeting Scholarships, 4710 41st St., NW, Washington, DC 20016, by June 1, 1996.

If it were up to me, I would change the name of the Annual Meeting (the joint annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research [ASOR]) to the Annual Miracle. It simply blows my mind to see 8,000 Bible scholars and archaeologists get together for four days (this past year in Philadelphia from November 18–21) to give and listen to over a thousand lectures, sometimes dozens to choose from given simultaneously, often with four or five enticing subjects at the same time. No one can attend more […]