Celebrating at the Annual Meeting

026

Two silver anniversaries were celebrated at the Annual Meeting^a in Anaheim last November.

The first was the 25th anniversary of the publication of the first volume of the Anchor Bible series, celebrated with a dinner honoring editor David Noel Freedman.

More than one-and-a-half million copies of the various volumes in the Anchor Bible series have been sold, despite their high scholarly level. The series is certainly the most widely used and probably the most influential modern Bible commentary ever published.

The first, and one of the best-selling (over 84,000 copies), volume in the series—and now the most in need of revision—is E. A. Speiser’s Genesis. It was a path-breaking commentary at the time (1964), defining the patriarchal age chronologically, separating the text into constituent strands and relating events to Mesopotamian archives. The work of a giant, it soon became authoritative. The problem is that for too many, unaware of intervening scholarly insights, it is still considered authoritative. The fact is that it has long been in need of revision; it should now be sold—and must be used—only with caution. That it is so outdated is a mark of how far Biblical scholarship has come in the last 25 years.

The publishers have not been unaware of this. A new edition of Genesis has been assigned to Ronald S. Hendel of Southern Methodist University, a brilliant,^b but young scholar, barely at the beginning of his career.

Genesis is not the only volume assigned to a brilliant, but young scholar. Exodus has never been completed. It was originally assigned to Harvard’s Frank Cross; he turned it back when it became clear he could not complete it and all his other assignments (including the Dead Sea Scrolls). It was then assigned to Father Kevin G. O’Connell, who also turned it back after he accepted the presidency of Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York. It has now been assigned to 32-year-old William H. Propp^c of the University of California at San Diego.

In times past, publishing a commentary on a book of the Bible—especially a book of the Pentateuch—was the capstone of a scholar’s career. Speculation is rife in scholarly circles about the implications of assigning two such important volumes to men in their thirties—implications not only for the commentaries but for the field of Biblical studies. Are we running out of giants? What happened to the middle-aged scholars who should be coming into their own? Are they being ignored? Or are we simply ridding ourselves of age discrimination, recognizing that maturity as well as brilliance can be found in young and old alike? The new commentaries on Genesis and Exodus—still years away from publication—may tell us.

In the meantime, the Anchor Bible celebrates the publication of 47 volumes in the series—from the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and the Apocrypha.

In general, the commentaries are 027getting longer and longer. Speiser’s Genesis is only 379 pages. In 1970, the first two-volume commentary was completed—the Gospel of John by Father Raymond E. Brown—a total of 1,392 pages. The two-volume John nevertheless proved a commercial success, topping even Genesis. (Each volume of Brown’s commentary on John has sold over 90,000 copies.) The longest of the commentaries is the two-volume Gospel of Luke by Father Joseph Fitzmyer, at 1,642 pages.

The Anchor Genesis originally sold for $6.00. Today it is still only $22.00.

The most recent volume to be published (and, at $30.00, the most expensive to date) is, appropriately enough, Amos, the work of editor Freedman and his colleague Francis I. Andersen of New College Berkeley (California). Genesis is over five times as long as Amos, but Freedman and Andersen’s Amos is, at over a thousand pages, more than two-and-a-half times as long as Speiser’s Genesis.

At the dinner honoring editor Freedman, he was presented with a buckram-bound copy of his new Amos and words of tribute from venerable colleagues. By no means buckram-bound himself, Freedman at nearly 70 is a crackling bundle of energy and insights who continues to startle and astound.^d He is without doubt the greatest editor of Biblical studies in modern times. His finest monument, it has been said, is in the footnotes to the Anchor Bible. He reads—and comments voluminously—on the manuscript of each volume. No one has ever counted—some say they are countless—the times his suggestions and ideas are acknowledged with gratitude in volume after volume of the Anchor Bible—a fitting tribute.

The second 25th anniversary celebrated at the Annual Meeting was the first season of the excavation of Tell Gezer, about half way between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. The Gezer dig was a ground-breaking archaeological project in more than one respect. In 10 years from 1964 to 1973, more than 3,000 people participated in the excavation—including, for a week, the editor of BAR, a fact that was acknowledged with considerable laughter and barbs at the celebration. More seriously, many of the leading American archaeologists received their formative experience at Gezer—Bill Dever, the field director of Phase I; Joe Seger, the field director of Phase II; Harvard’s Larry Stager; Albright Director Sy Gitin; the University of Toronto’s Jack Holladay, Duke’s Eric Meyers and Carol Meyers; Dan Cole, of Lake Forest College; Oded Borowski, of Emory University; Darrell Lance, of Colgate Rochester Divinity School; Anita Walker, of the University of Connecticut; and Robert Wright, of Temple University.

Gezer was also significant methodologically—utilizing the latest scientific techniques, employing for the first time a staff geologist (Reuben G. Bullard), developing an influential system of field recording and providing a testing laboratory for various excavation methods that eventually led to a synthesis of British, Israeli and American views, and finally an exhaustive final report still in the process of publication.

The 25th anniversary Gezer gala was marked not only by nostalgic reminiscences, but also by serious lectures from three outsiders, as it were—an Israeli (Ami Mazar), an Englishman (Jonathan Tubb) and a German (Volkmar Fritz).

Tubb noted that while the Gezer excavating methods were based on the British “Wheeler-Kenyon” system, the Gezer excavation helped British archaeology break out of that system’s limitations as practiced primarily by Dame Kathleen (Kenyon was knighted—or is it damed?—toward the end of her life) in the 1960s and 1970s. She was, said Tubb, “a mighty figure, in every possible sense of the word” who dominated British archaeology in the Near East until her death in 1978. Kenyon’s method as she applied it, however, “lacked vision,” said Tubb. It was characterized by “rigidity.” “Kenyon became obsessed with sequential minutiae. The section or balk 028became almost an artifact in its own right, and the drawing of it, the raison d’être for digging the site in the first place. … The wider issues of architectural extension were not addressed at all … Yet she firmly believed that her system as used at Jericho, and then at Jerusalem, could not be bettered.” Tubb concluded that “it was really the publication of Gezer I in 1970 that began to open British eyes and minds to the possibility that advances in excavations and site recording systems might not, after all, end with Jericho.” Gezer combined careful stratigraphic control, an extensive interrelated recording system (involving a diary, a daily top plan and locus sheets that identify the site of all finds), as well as open-area exposure. Although impressed, at least grudgingly, by most of these advances, Kenyon was, according to Tubb, “rather less than complimentary about the system of locus sheets, suggesting in somewhat explicit terms a more lavatorial function for them.” Nevertheless, Tubb concluded, in large part because of the methodological advances at Gezer “We [British] really don’t dig in little box trenches any more.”

Ironically, while Tubb praised Gezer for modifying Kenyon’s method by emphasizing open area architectural exposure, a major methodological debate between Dever and Israeli archaeologists in the 1970s had Israelis like Yohanan Aharoni insisting on broad architectural exposure, while Dever was taking the other side. It was the Israelis, Ami Mazar said, who “continued to a large extent the ‘architectural’ approach to field work” in which “large areas were uncovered in order to reveal as much as possible complete architectural units.” From Kenyon and Gezer, he said, “Israeli archaeologists learned to appreciate the value of the earth debris in defining accurate stratigraphy and correct attribution of the finds to the various layers.” On the other hand, Mazar continued, American excavators learned from the Israelies to combine the stratigraphic approach with the Israelis’ architectural approach. Gezer clearly played an important part in this process of interchange.

Darrell Lance recalled how Gezer opened the door to “environmental concerns” in Near Eastern archaeology. “Some of us,” he said half tongue-in-cheek, “had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the collection of bones, seeds and other previously disregarded evidence.”

If there is one thing he would change, Lance said, it would be the publication of the results. To date, five volumes have appeared. “Although Gezer has one of the better publication records, still it is now 18 years after the completion of Gezer Phase I and we have a long way to go.” Lance admitted that his own projected study of small finds “will probably now have to be done by another generation.” In retrospect, the staff should have returned to Israel during the summers after completion of field work to complete the publication—a worthy suggestion!

Ami Mazar, on the other hand, praised the Gezer volumes “as an example of prompt publication.” Such is the variation in standards. Mazar noted that a detailed publication like the Gezer volumes “is almost incomparable in archaeological publications in Israel … It will,” he suggested, “stimulate further publication by archaeologists working in Israel.”

030

Paradoxically, despite the Gezer dig’s emphasis on careful methodology, major questions remain. Dever went back to Gezer in 1984 in the hope of answering some of these questions. He did, but satisfied primarily himself, so he is going back again this summer for some more digging. The date of the great outer wall is still in dispute—Dever dates it to the Late Bronze Age; the majority of Israeli scholars, to the Iron Age. Some archaeologists question whether the famous Solomonic gate, which Dever and staff date to the tenth century B.C.E., actually dates to King Solomon’s time (many Israeli archaeologists date it to the ninth century). Dever and Seger disagree about the date of a Middle Bronze destruction of the city: Dever attributes it to Tuthmosis III in 1468 B.C.E.; Seger has suggested that it could date as early as Tuthmosis I, late in the 16th century B.C.E.; Ami Mazar says he agrees with Seger.

One tragedy concerning Gezer is the state of preservation of the site—or lack of preservation. BAR called attention to this seven years ago, even offering a $5,000 contribution to any group that would undertake to restore and preserve the site.^e No one ever took us up on our offer. The theme was publicly raised again by Ami Mazar in his lecture at the 25th anniversary observance:

“A visit to Gezer nowadays is somewhat disappointing. The site is covered by high weeds. The impressive Middle Bronze Age gate structure is falling apart. The excavated areas can hardly be seen. Something has to be done to preserve Gezer.”

Dever acknowledged that the site “really is neglected.” He hopes to interest the team that will be excavating with him at Gezer this summer in preserving and restoring it.

While the two silver anniversary celebrations looked to the past, an exciting new project of Oxford University Press announced at the Annual Meeting looks to the future.

Eric Meyers of Duke University and vice president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) announced that the press, in conjunction with ASOR, will publish a new four-volume Encyclopedia of Biblical Archaeology. Yes, that’s the name—Biblical Archaeology is right there in the title. And Bill Dever is one of the section editors.^f Meyers promised that it “will certainly not be like anything that already exists in the field.” Over 450 illustrations will adorn a text of 1.2 million words.

According to Meyers, the encyclopedia will cover “the heartland of the Biblical world, Syria-Palestine”—why not say Israel?—as well as “its adjacent lands, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor and the Arabian Peninsula.” In addition, it will cover “for the first time,” according to Meyers, “the discipline of New Testament archaeology.” (It is good to have New Testament archaeology recognized as a legitimate academic discipline!) Meyers will be the editor-in-chief, assisted by section editors P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins; William Dever of the University of Arizona; James Sauer of the Harvard Semitic Museum; Carol Meyers of Duke University; James Muhly of the University of Pennsylvania; and Helmut Koester of Harvard University.

The main event at the Annual Meeting, as usual, was the thousand or more lectures, seminars, consultations, panel discussions, etc., going on simultaneously from 8:00 in the morning til 11:00 at night. The topics seemed endless—surely something for everyone.

Is it sheer perversity that I comment on what I found missing at the Annual Meeting? If so, so be it. Here they are:

1. I missed the special sessions devoted to a particular country. Each year for several years we could look forward to a “country” focus. One year it was Jordan, another it was Cyprus; then Israel, then Syria. We were told Turkey would be next. It never came. Then there’s Greece, and Egypt and Iraq, Sardinia, Rhodes, Sicily, Italy, Spain—and then start over again. Is it really too difficult to do this?

2. I missed Arab archaeologists who would report on what’s happening in their own countries. The Israelis are always there and what a welcome treat it is to listen to them, to talk to them, to share insights. In the past, we could sometimes do this with archaeologists from Arab countries—but too rarely.

3. I missed a special session on an ancient people. Last year it was the Phoenicians. I thought this year it might be the Philistines or the Moabites or the Edomites. But there was none.

4. Last year ASOR program chairman Barry Gitlen of Baltimore Hebrew University told me he had many new ideas in the works. But I did not see them.

5. In the ASOR sessions, virtually no attention was paid to New Testament archaeology. Oddly enough, SBL, rather than ASOR, sponsors an “Archaeology of the New Testament” group, which devoted several sessions to archaeological finds relating to the New Testament. Harvard’s Helmut Koester was initially shunned by ASOR—he is not a field archaeologist (a real archaeologist?)—so he took his wares to SBL. He and his colleagues—Holland Hendrix, Richard Oster, Dennis Smith, Steve Friesen, John Lanci, Stephen J. 031Patterson—are doing exciting things. But their focus is almost exclusively on the world of the Diaspora, mainly Greece and Asia Minor. As a result of this focus, combined with ASOR’s neglect of New Testament archaeology, there was not, so far as I was able to tell, a single paper on the archaeological background of early Christianity in ancient Palestine. Who knows what wonderful things might happen if ASOR and Helmut Koester’s group got together for an interchange.

6. Few, if any, sessions were devoted to public discussion of issues that face the profession as a profession. For example, several sessions were devoted to Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Despite the fact that the world at large is talking about the failure, after 35 years, to publish a substantial portion of the texts (see “Dead Sea Scroll Variation on ‘Show and Tell’—It’s Called ‘Tell, But No Show,’” and “Leading Dead Sea Scroll Scholar Denounces Delay,” in this issue), no mention of this occurred. This was in sharp contrast to a group of Qumran scholars who met in Poland last summer and who passed a resolution condemning the delay.^g Neither SBL nor ASOR has faced the problem, let alone taken a position. But this is by no means the sole issue the profession should address as a profession. As everyone knows, the problem of publication—of excavations as well as of inscriptional finds—is far more widespread than the Dead Sea Scrolls. Problems of funding hamper development of the field. Are programs for developing future scholars being systematically planned or are we proceeding haphazardly? These are only some of the questions the profession should be discussing as a profession. Where better to begin than at the Annual Meeting?

It is of course easier to be critical than to take action to resolve the problems. But perhaps this report can be regarded as an agenda for future discussion.

To be continued next year in New Orleans.

Two silver anniversaries were celebrated at the Annual Meetinga in Anaheim last November. The first was the 25th anniversary of the publication of the first volume of the Anchor Bible series, celebrated with a dinner honoring editor David Noel Freedman. More than one-and-a-half million copies of the various volumes in the Anchor Bible series have been sold, despite their high scholarly level. The series is certainly the most widely used and probably the most influential modern Bible commentary ever published. The first, and one of the best-selling (over 84,000 copies), volume in the series—and now the most in need […]