Interview with David Noel Freedman

051

The following interview with Professor David Noel Freedman was conducted by BAR Editor Hershel Shanks on November 25, 1979.

Professor Freedman has been more influential than anyone else in the United States in publicizing the Ebla tablets. In early 1976, Freedman flew to Rome to talk to Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato, the University of Rome archaeologist and epigrapher, respectively, who headed the Italian Mission to Ebla. Following this trip, Freedman circulated a lengthy memorandum which formed the basis for the early American press reports on the Ebla finds.

Freedman is also editor of the Biblical Archeologist, a semi-scholarly publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research, where both Matthiae and Pettinato have published articles on the Ebla finds and where Freedman himself wrote about what he then thought was the significance of the finds.

BAR: Can you give to the general reader who is not a scholar an idea about what bearing the Ebla tablets are likely to have on Biblical studies.

Freedman: Well, primarily in the area of language and literature, as is the case with the Ugaritic tablets. Any literature with a similar language is bound to overlap with the language and literature of the Bible. There are words in common, certain constructions, and since there are still many items in the Bible that are not clearly understood, any light from the ancient past, especially from a Semitic language of which we have been ignorant and which is a thousand years older than, let us say, the primary source for northwest Semitic, which is Ugaritic, can’t help but shed light.

BAR: Ugaritic literature dates from about 1400 B.C., is that right? And the Ebla tablets are about a thousand years earlier. The Ugaritic texts are squarely into the Biblical period, isn’t that correct?

F: Well, of course.

BAR: And the Ebla tablets predate the Biblical period.

F: No doubt—most of them.

BAR: Is it your view that the Ebla tablets will have at least equal significance for Biblical studies as the Ugaritic tablets have had?

F: My guess is they will. But, in fact, we won’t know until they are published.

BAR: Professor Robert Biggs of the Oriental Institute in Chicago stated in a recent lecture, and I quote, that “The people who look to Ebla for proof of the historicity of the Bible will be sorely disappointed.” Do you agree with that?

F: He may well be right. Right now I don’t think we can say whether this will in fact be the case because originally there were claims made about the contents of the tablets. These [claims] have been challenged and, in part, retracted. So I think that it is just an open question. I don’t think anybody without direct access to the tablets or photographs or hand copies can really say very much one way or the other.

BAR: You did say, in a memorandum, approximately three years ago and I quote, “We may say at this early stage of investigation that the new discoveries should tell us much about the background and origins of people who later became Israel.” Do you still hold to that view?

F: Quite frankly, I don’t know. It will depend in large measure on readings from the Ebla tablets which, as I say, were made, I’m sure, in good faith, and which have at least in part been retracted in good faith, but we do not have what is necessary and that is actual photographs, hand copies and a consensus of scholars 052on the readings. When we arrive at that then we will be able to say.

BAR: This is a change of position on your part, isn’t it?

F: No.

BAR: You previously said a great deal about the Ebla tablets.

F: As everybody knows, I am not a scholar of cuneiform and I was relying entirely upon the reports of the only person who had direct access to the materials at the time.

BAR: And who was that?

F: Professor Pettinato. And, as we know, Professor Pettinato has issued a retraction about a number of those readings.

BAR: Can you tell me about some of those readings that he has retracted?

F: I’m not sure I understand.

BAR: Well, I believe you said that he has retracted … Are you referring to the Cities of the Plain?

F: Yes, right.

BAR: Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Bella …

F: But Pettinato still contends that Sodom and Gomorrah do occur in the tablets. That is denied now by Professor Matthiae on the basis of readings by Professor Archi who is the new epigrapher for the expedition. But Professor Archi suggests that there may be the name “Sa-du-ma” [Sodom]. I think you published this yourself. [“Ebla Evidence Evaporates,” BAR 05:06.] But neither Pettinato, nor Matthiae, nor Archi has provided a single case where the actual signs are given in photographic, or hand copy reproduction, and until those are available to the scholarly community, I think it is no longer possible to say what they are.

BAR: As you know, you have been accused of sensationalizing the Ebla finds. Do you have any regrets about the things you have said, or the publications you have issued on it?

F: I would say that hindsight is always easier and in view of what has happened, it is clear that I relied a little more than I should have on the word of various scholars.

BAR: And who are they?

F: Well, as you know, we published articles [in the Biblical Archeologist] by Professor Matthiae on the one hand, and Professor Pettinato on the other, and those articles contained a number of statements about Biblical connections which both scholars have since denied.

BAR: Some people have said that you have no right to speak about the Ebla tablets because you can’t read them. To what extent is that justified?

F: Well, I think that as somebody in the field of the ancient Near East, I can certainly report what scholars tell me. The big question is the reliability of the information provided. I would agree fully that I am not qualified to decide, but what we [Biblical scholars] try to do essentially is what you try to do [in BAR], and that is check your sources and get opinions as to the reliability of the material and also the people providing it, and I thought I had done that.

Now, I must say that, while obviously we have to doubt the original claim, the retraction is not altogether persuasive either.

BAR: Why is that?

F: Well, when somebody changes his mind, what you expect is an explanation first of what is actually there, the actual signs, so that other people can check it. Then the reasons for the original interpretations, and then the reasons why this interpretation no longer seems attractive. [If] a new reading is given, you expect a justification for the new reading—all on the basis of the actual visible data. In no case has this been provided here. And one can therefore wonder whether the retraction is more reliable than the original claim, or whether there is any reliability in any of it. We need actual information. When Matthiae writes and says that none of these things are found in the tablets, how do we know that he knows what he is talking about. He says that Mr. Archi says this is what 053he has read. Well, no doubt that is true, but what is the basis of the reading, what are the actual signs, and what other possibilities are there, because as you know from the study of cuneiform, there are various kinds of values that are attached to each sign and any particular cluster of signs can be read in a variety of ways and often is. Especially when dealing with an unusual group from a very early period, much more uncertainty attaches to the interpretation and analysis. And quite legitimate scholars can have quite differing views of what a particular cluster of signs stands for.

BAR: Is it true that in the case of an earlier claim that the name Sargon appeared in the tablets, that was later retracted and a satisfactory explanation was given as to how the signs had been misread?

F: Yes. That is the kind of explanation, that would be a model.

BAR: Has that kind of explanation been given with respect to the other retractions?

F: Not to my knowledge. I have seen none of this, and that is the kind of explanation one would expect when there has been a change in a reading.

BAR: You have expressed the view, on the basis of your earlier understanding of what the tablets said, that the patriarchal age should be dated to the mid-third millennium, at approximately the time of the Ebla tablets. Have you retracted that view?

F: I consider that still an open question. Perhaps the evidence which I thought was available in the Ebla tablets is not in fact there. But while we must now question some readings, Professor Pettinato insists that both Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the Ebla tablets. We know from external archaeological data, entirely independent of the Ebla tablets, that the settlements in the Dead Sea region, especially Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira, and others as well, all belong to the Early Bronze Age, approximately the same period as the Early Bronze Age city of Ebla. Furthermore, and I have this on the authority of a number of archaeologists, there is no evidence of a Middle Bronze Age settlement anywhere in the Dead Sea region. This leads to the conclusion that the standard scholarly view among those who believe that the patriarchs are historical, a view which places the patriarchs in the Middle Bronze Age, leaves unexplained this significant discrepancy. This is quite apart from Ebla. If Ebla had never been found, it would still remain a very serious point. If the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is to be associated with the patriarchs, and if Sodom and Gomorrah are to be found in the Dead Sea region, which is almost universally agreed, then the fact is that there were no cities of any kind there in the period to which most scholars who believe the patriarchs are historical have assigned the patriarchs [that is, the Middle Bronze Age]. Even without Ebla, we would have to consider the third millennium option, the Early Bronze Age option, if we are to take seriously the tradition which associates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with the time of the patriarchs.

BAR: At one time it was thought that the form Ya appeared in the Ebla tablets as an abbreviated form of the Hebrew god, Yahweh.

F: Or, Yahu. Yes.

BAR: Is this still an open question, or has it, too, been retracted by Pettinato?

F: No, as far as I know, and I am not in touch with Pettinato, but I have talked to Professor Dahood^a and he believes the reading Ya as a divine element is still viable, and that protests to the contrary, which have been quite numerous, are misguided because, according to Dahood, the Ebla signs have to be understood in the context of that particular language. The values which other cuneiformists assume, or assign to the Ebla signs, may be mistaken. Dahood is persuaded that Ya as a prefix, in the form Ya-Ram-U with the divine element as a determinative, is actually Ya and it must be read as Ya and not, let us say, as El which has been suggested by other scholars. So that I’ve no opinion of my own in this case, but simply point out that there is substantial disagreement as to the reading. [See “The Politics of Ebla,” BAR 04:03].

BAR: Has Professor Dahood seen the tablets, and can he read them?

F: He is simply reporting what Pettinato says. I don’t think he has seen the tablets. I’m sure he has seen the photographs. He is not a Sumerologist, neither am I. We have both had some training in cuneiform.

BAR: Do you believe that the Syrian government has attempted to influence the way in which the scholarly world presents the Ebla materials to the world?

F: Well, that’s very hard to say. I have been told—I have not had any direct communication with any Syrian official—that they were concerned that the presentation, the publicity surrounding the tablets, somehow had a pro-Israel tint, or slant which they felt was unfair, and all they were concerned about was a balanced presentation to show that the primary value of the tablets was in connection with Syrian civilization, Near Eastern civilization, cultural, economic and social matters, and that these tablets should not be regarded as a kind of pre-Bible or something like that. I’m not sure I understand fully the Syrian view of this matter. I cannot imagine how anything in the Ebla tablets could be imagined to give aid and comfort to Israel in political terms.

BAR: Do you think that either Professor Pettinato, or Professor Matthiae has been influenced in what they said about the tablets by the Syrian concerns which you have just identified?

F: I don’t want to answer that.

BAR: If you had it to do over again, would you do anything different with respect to the Ebla tablets?

054

F: [Pause]

BAR: Let me put it this way, if Pettinato and Matthiae’s information which they gave to you had proved to be correct, do you feel that you made improper scholarly speculations based on that information.

F: No. No. The primary object, the real purpose of the whole business was to get the materials out and available and accessible to all serious-minded people and especially qualified scholars. I don’t know whether the policies and practices I pursued had that effect or would have had that effect. That was the only consideration. If it would have helped this process to have held back or to have qualified—this may sound very naive—but the only objective here was to get out the actual contents, the materials. I think, on a second go-around, I would take a cuneiform specialist with me, before talking to anybody, that is, to have somebody who could check and test and evaluate whether anyone claiming to say something about the tablets was accurate.

BAR: In light of the retractions, must we now suspend all discussions of the Biblical implications of the Ebla tablets?

F: I’m afraid that with one set of changes, there may be two or three more and that it’s quite possible that speculation now is premature, until we get the kind of solid material evidence that people can be satisfied with. I must concede that the earlier skepticism of many has been partially justified. There is good hope that there will be substantial publication in the next few years.

BAR: Would you care to speculate as to what in the end is likely to be the significance, the major significance, of the Ebla tablets for Biblical studies?

F: Well, I think without question you can say they will have significant bearing on the content, that is, on the actual words, sentences of the Bible in terms of elucidation, clarification, supplemental information about the meaning of the Biblical vocabulary. This is inescapable, it must do this, assuming that the tablets can be read and translated. If it turns out that there are historical data of one kind or other, then—it was always a very long chance—I would think that almost anyone would agree that if you had the names of five Cities of the Plain, same names, same order, the name of the king, all of this, it would be very striking. If none of that is true, of course, then we are back where we started from.

BAR: What about the Ebla tablets as providing insights from a culture which is a backdrop to Biblical civilization?

F: As everybody knows, the Biblical tradition assigns the origins of the patriarchs to Mesopotamia, to Ur and Haran. Certainly this [Ebla] is the same general cultural horizon, so any information about that would be helpful. If it turns out that the patriarchal period must be dated later, to the beginning of the second millennium or even later than that, then the time span, of course, will reduce the significance of the Ebla materials [the Ebla materials being from the mid-third millennium]. Anything lying in the background is bound to be of help, just as old Akkadian texts have shed a good deal of light on the background of Biblical stories and materials, and the same with the Sumerian material from Ur III. So it’s very likely, it’s impossible not to provide information about this background of the Biblical traditions. It can’t fail to.

How much of this will bear directly on the Biblical traditions we won’t know until the tablets can be published and read.

The following interview with Professor David Noel Freedman was conducted by BAR Editor Hershel Shanks on November 25, 1979. Professor Freedman has been more influential than anyone else in the United States in publicizing the Ebla tablets. In early 1976, Freedman flew to Rome to talk to Paolo Matthiae and Giovanni Pettinato, the University of Rome archaeologist and epigrapher, respectively, who headed the Italian Mission to Ebla. Following this trip, Freedman circulated a lengthy memorandum which formed the basis for the early American press reports on the Ebla finds. Freedman is also editor of the Biblical Archeologist, a semi-scholarly […]