Jerusalem Rolls Out Red Carpet for Biblical Archaeology Congress

012

For a week in April, all Jerusalem was aglitter with archaeology. The occasion was the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology marking the 70th anniversary of the Israel Exploration Society.

At the opening session, the Acting President of Israel, Menachem Savidor, greeted the audience of more than 800 scholars and nonscholars from 22 countries around the world, including a group of 70 on a special BAR tour. Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek also addressed the group.

Three Jerusalem hotels flew banners welcoming the Congress members. Special exhibitions, including a large amount of unpublished material, were arranged for Congress registrants at the Israel Museum, at the Rockefeller Museum, at Hebrew University’s Institute of Archaeology, and at Tel Aviv University’s Museum Ha-aretz. Jerusalem’s Hilton Hotel, where most of the sessions were held, even gave Congress participants a discount at some of its restaurants.

One Congress session was held in the reception hall of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, beneath the huge Marc Chagall tapestries with their Biblical motifs. Before entering the Knesset, each participant was given a body pat-down by an Israeli security officer. For Israelis, such precautions have become second nature, but for outsiders it was a quiet reminder of Israel’s security requirements. A check into women’s purses preceded entry to the Jerusalem Theater where Mayor Kollek held a reception for the group.

At the opening session of the Congress, a string quartet and oboe played a musical setting to Psalm 121:

I will lift up mine eyes to the hills; from whence shall my help come?

My help cometh from the Lord who made heaven and earth.

He will not suffer thy foot to be moved; he that keepeth thee will not slumber.

Behold, he that keepeth Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.

After the closing lecture, a dance group raised the roof with Israeli folk dances and songs.

013

The heart of the Congress, however, was the lectures—which took place morning, noon and night. The roster of speakers and respondents, simply stated, consisted of the world’s most prominent and distinguished scholars in their herds. It was a star-studded cast that we cannot name simply because the list is too long and we should leave no one out. Representative topics included “The Israelite Settlement in Canaan—An Archaeological Case Study,” “Israel’s Neighbors—From the Philistines to the Moabites and Edomites,” “Cuneiform Archives from the Lands of the Bible—Mari, Ugarit and Amarna,” and “Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

Special archaeological tours of Jerusalem were led by the excavators. Curators led special tours of the museums. Following the series of lectures were four days of tours to archaeological sites all over the country, again guided by the excavators themselves.

So successful was the Congress that at a very early stage the organizers—who handled the arrangements superbly—began referring to it as the First International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, implying that there would be others in future years—clearly a wise decision.

The Congress on Biblical Archaeology originated as Israel’s response to attacks—both those politically motivated and those based on purely scholarly grounds—on the legitimacy of Biblical archaeology,^a so the Congress included many discussions of the nature of Biblical archaeology. Unfortunately, in this respect the Congress ended on a sour note. Congress organizers graciously accorded the very last address on the final evening of lectures to James A. Sauer, current president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), who took the occasion to argue that “Biblical archaeology starts in 0141250 B.C.” That date, according to the generally accepted chronology, roughly marks the beginning of the Israelite occupation of Canaan. Apparently for Sauer, nothing earlier in the Bible is historical and therefore cannot be the subject of Biblical archaeology.

Many participants, including a number of leading scholars, both Israeli and American, found Sauer’s unscheduled remarks especially inappropriate for the final farewell of the lecture sessions. His remarks did, however, generate considerable discussion.

Apparently for Sauer, the Exodus, the patriarchal narratives and the primeval history recounted in Genesis 1–11 cannot be considered historically accurate or verifiable accounts. Therefore, archaeology is irrelevant to a consideration of these parts of the Bible.

The charge is a serious one and should be taken seriously. Sauer is a prominent and highly respected scholar who served for seven years as director and guiding light of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, Jordan, before assuming the presidency of ASOR. He now teaches at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

An adequate answer to Sauer requires an understanding of the different kinds of history told in the Bible.

Beginning with the monarchy in the tenth century B.C., the Bible is generally considered to be historically quite accurate.

The Bible’s description of the conquest and settlement of Canaan, however, raises different kinds of historical problems than for subsequent periods beginning with the monarchy. There can be no doubt that Israel emerged in Canaan and occupied major portions of the land during the late 13th, 12th and 11th centuries B.C., and scholars are agreed on this. They are deeply and intensely divided, however, regarding the nature of the process by which this occupation occurred. They argue about how the Bible describes this process and about what the vast archaeological evidence discloses: Was it a swift military conquest or was it a peaceful infiltration, or a combination of both? If a combination of both, in what order? Or was it primarily a 015revolt of peasants already living in Canaan?

Going further back in Biblical history, most scholars find the Biblical accounts less and less historically reliable. As to the Exodus, most scholars believe the number used in the Bible (600,000 men on foot plus women and children [Exodus 12:37]) is highly inflated. Some question whether there was any Exodus from Egypt. Others suggest there were a number of entries into Canaan, perhaps not all from Egypt and perhaps over a very long period of time.

The patriarchal narratives raise still other kinds of historical problems. Scholarly opinion varies from one extreme to the other. Some say the patriarchal stories were made up in the first millennium, long after the events they supposedly recount, in order to give Israel a national history. At the other extreme, some scholars believe the patriarchal narratives are essentially accurate and can be assigned to a particular archaeological period. Most scholars, however, take a position somewhere in between. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob may or may not have been actual individuals. They may be eponyms—literary constructs representing clans and lengthy periods of history. The stories about them may have a core and setting in history but have been edited and reworked over the centuries and thus include many late as well as early elements, perhaps reaching back as far as the third millennium B.C.

The primeval history in the Bible, on the other hand, is generally considered by most modern scholars to be nonhistorical, but instead traditional accounts of the creation of the world, of human beings, of cities and of peoples, which, while containing considerable poetic truth, are not literally accurate.

To say, as Sauer does, that there is no Biblical archaeology before 1250 B.C. (that is, before the Israelite occupation of Canaan) is wrong on several counts.

Sauer’s position is, above all, doctrinaire and close-minded. It assumes, contrary to the weight of scholarly opinion, that there is no historical value to the Biblical accounts before the settlement in Canaan. As Yigael 016Yadin is fond of reminding us: What crazy people would invent a history for themselves of ignominious slavery in a foreign land? There must be at the very least some elements of truth in the Exodus story, which are the proper subject of archaeological inquiry. Similarly, in the patriarchal narratives, if even the setting or other elements of the accounts are historical, they are the proper subject of archaeological inquiry.

As everyone, including Sauer recognizes, scholarly views as to what happened during the time we call the settlement period vary widely. Yet Sauer recognizes that this period is the proper subject of Biblical archaeology.

Scholarly views as to what happened in earlier periods—the Exodus and the patriarchal period—also vary widely. Why are they not a proper subject of Biblical archaeology?

But there is a difference. All scholars agree that Israel did occupy Canaan. By contrast, some scholars argue that the Exodus never occurred, that the events recounted in the patriarchal narratives are unhistorical. Is Sauer in this latter group? Is he basing his argument that there is no Biblical archaeology before 1250 B.C. on a belief that there is no element of historical truth in the Exodus account or the patriarchal narratives? If so, he is guilty of terrible hubris, for most of his scholarly colleagues reject this extreme position.

But let us assume, for the moment, that Sauer is correct in discarding as nonhistorical everything in the Bible before the Israelite settlement in Canaan. Even then, he is wrong. For Biblical archaeology has a contribution to make in arriving at this conclusion. It is relevant that very little evidence of occupation in Sinai has been found for the period when the Exodus was thought to have occurred. It is relevant that many sites on the Exodus route have not been located archaeologically. It is relevant that the archaeological evidence has not identified a particular archaeological period which alone conforms to the background reflected in the patriarchal narratives.

Sauer’s position cuts off inquiry. It assumes not only that nothing relevant to the presettlement period has been found archaeologically but also that nothing will be found. Who among us can tell what the archaeologist’s spade will dig up next? Are we so secure in our knowledge that we can say not only that archaeology has nothing to tell us about Israel’s history before it came to Canaan but also that archaeology will never be able to tell us anything?

Sauer is an expert on Edom, Moab, and Ammon, ancient Israel’s traditional enemies east of the Jordan. In a separate lecture to the Congress bringing up to date archaeological research in these areas, Sauer referred to the classic surveys conducted by Rabbi Nelson Glueck before the Second World War. Although they were major advances for their time, Sauer noted, Glueck missed entire archaeological periods. New evidence has shown that areas in which Glueck found no evidence of human occupation in several archaeological periods covering hundreds of years were in fact relatively densely occupied.

This simply emphasizes how careful we must be of negative evidence, of arguments from silence. One never knows when newly uncovered evidence will contradict the negative evidence from silence. Sauer, who generally regards himself as a cautious scholar, careful not to speculate or go beyond what the evidence justifies, seems to have thrown caution to the winds when it comes to rejecting any historical value to pre-settlement Biblical history.

Contrary to Sauer’s position, Biblical archaeology should courageously address the question of how we should understand the Exodus and the patriarchal narratives in light of the unfolding archaeological evidence. The fact that there are no easy answers should not deter us from the task.

Attacks by a few leading American scholars on the legitimacy of Biblical archaeology have had their effects. Unfortunately, they have made even supporters of Biblical archaeology a bit cautious. Much of the scholarly community that has rallied to the defense of Biblical archaeology has done so in the context of clearly historical periods where there is an abundance of archaeological evidence. The settlement period is the prime example. And that was the example on which the organizers of the Biblical Archaeology Congress focused.

To focus on the Exodus or the patriarchal period is more dangerous. What if it never happened? Will we be accused of using archaeology improperly to prove the truth of the Bible? It takes more courage to ask what 017archaeology can tell us about the Biblical accounts of the Exodus and the patriarchal age than about the settlement period—even if the answers are negative. To ask archaeological questions about the Exodus and the patriarchal age is a legitimate and important inquiry—one we hope will be a focus of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology.

It is worth pointing out that archaeology has given as much difficulty as it has support to those who look to our discipline for authentication of the Bible. A major factor guiding the conclusion of most modern scholars that the primeval history contained in Genesis 1–11 is not historical has been the evidence inscribed on clay tablets from Mesopotamia containing mythical creation and flood stories that clearly served as a source for the Biblical author.

No one would deny that archaeological evidence has been misused in the past in an effort to authenticate the Bible. But that danger is now, happily, largely passed. For the Biblical archaeologist, there should be no limits to probing how archaeology from any period and from any place can help us better understand the Bible in its real world setting.

Another paper presented at the Congress caused both great excitement and great concern. It was written by Professor John Strugnell of Harvard University and Dr. Elisha Qimron of Tel Aviv University and the University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva. The paper revealed for the first time part of the contents of a letter found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The letter is of extraordinary importance on a number of counts.

First, it is the only letter among the inscriptional material found in the Qumran caves.

Second, its importance is reflected in the fact that it has survived in six different copies. None of them is complete; all are fragments. Obviously, this letter was copied and recopied because of its special significance.

Third, although the surviving parts of the letter contain neither the name of the addressee nor the name of the addressor, the contents make clear that it was written by the leader of the Qumran sect of Essenes.

Professor Strugnell dates the earliest copy of the letter to about 100 B.C. to 50 B.C. Basing his opinion on parallel situations, he judges that the letter was actually composed 30 to 60 years earlier than the earliest copy. So it could well have been composed in about 150 B.C., the date Strugnell gives for the founding of the sect. On this basis, Strugnell believes the letter may well have been written by the Essene sect’s founder, the Teacher of Righteousness himself! Strugnell and Qimron believe this to be the most ancient of the Qumran literary documents.

The contents of the letter indicate that it was addressed to a politically important person with whom the writer had a “love-hate relationship.” Strugnell thinks this was probably the high priest in Jerusalem.

The letter contains approximately 20 religious laws, referred to as halakhot, about which the Essenes differed with the Pharisees who controlled the Jerusalem Temple. The letter is polemical in nature and reflects the strict, uncompromising legal interpretations of the Qumran sect that drove them to withdraw from the rest of the people. The letter was written shortly after their withdrawal and will no doubt make an important contribution to the history of the Essene division, as well as the early history of the sect. As explicitly stated in the letter, it was their strict view of religious law (halakha) that led them to withdraw.

According to Professor Strugnell, with this letter we can now trace the history of the controversies relating to religious law by comparing the Essene version with the rabbinic version, which, as Strugnell explains, “gives the other side of the argument.” We can also begin to understand the principles that influenced the varying legal interpretations.

Strugnell and Qimron believe that this letter is linguistically closer to the Hebrew spoken at Qumran than is any other document.

Thus, they conclude that this letter is “undoubtedly” one of the “most important documents from Qumran.” “Its contribution to the history of halakha, Hebrew language and related fields cannot be exaggerated.”

Unfortunately, only five or six lines of the 120 extant lines of the letter were revealed in the paper. Therein lies the rub.

Two intriguing lines about 15 lines from the beginning of the letter read as follows:

“We have separated ourselves from the majority of the people … from intermingling with them in these matters and from participating in these matters.”

A second passage (three lines in one copy and four lines in another) contain the religious law relating to the slaughter of the red heifer (see Numbers 19):

“And [also] concerning the purity ritual of the [red] heifer—he who slaughters it and he who burns it and he who gathers its ash and he who sprinkles the water of purification—all these should be pure so that the pure should sprinkle on the impure.”

Other passages from the letter were not disclosed.

While a flush of excitement surged through the scholars listening to the paper, there was also a deep concern—concern that the remainder of the letter is still unavailable to scholars more than 30 years after its discovery.

According to scholarly convention, no scholar is entitled to deal with an inscription or other artifact until it is published by the scholar responsible for publication. In 1954, responsibility for publishing these fragments was assigned to Professor Strugnell. Other scholars cannot even see a photograph of the fragments except by leave of the scholar assigned to publish it. In a radio interview from Jerusalem, Professor David Noel Freedman of the University of Michigan, who himself has responsibility for the 018unpublished Leviticus Scroll from Cave 2, ^b called the situation “very distressing.”

According to Freedman, only about half of the Qumran fragments have been published and thus are available to scholars generally.

Strugnell is not unaware of the problem. He has given his doctoral students responsibility for the publication of some fragments previously assigned to him so that they will be published more quickly. Two such doctoral dissertations have already been written. They should be available shortly on microfiche and thereafter in print. In 1982, Carol Newsom completed her doctoral dissertation on the angelic liturgy from Qumran.^c This material is likely to be of unusual importance in understanding the origins of Jewish mysticism. It contains approximately 12 plates of material, about ten percent of the plates assigned to Professor Strugnell.

More recently, five plates were published in a dissertation by Eileen Schuller consisting of noncanonical psalms from the Persian and Hellenistic periods.

The remaining unpublished material assigned to Professor Strugnell in 1954 consists of some Biblical fragments, paraphrases of the Bible, aprocryphal narratives and pseudepigraphic psalms, as well as a considerable body of wisdom literature.

The letter from the Teacher of Righteousness will not be ready for final publication for another five years, says Professor Strugnell. It may take several more years before the publisher actually brings out the book. He is hoping to have a preliminary report available in a year or two that will be published thereafter in a scholarly journal. Professor Strugnell regards his Jerusalem paper on the Qumran letter as only an announcement of the contents.

When the other material assigned to Strugnell will be ready for publication is anybody’s guess.

Of course, Professor Strugnell is not the only scholar behind in his publication of Qumran documents. He is simply an example of what is happening.

We asked Strugnell why photographs of the fragments could not be published now so that other scholars could use them for their own research. He conceded that if the committee that made the assignments in 1954 had known how long publication would take, they might have made other arrangements. But now, he said, the scholars have “built up a style of work.” “When one is already working on the material, you have to follow the rules adopted when the project was set up.”

Some may wonder if that is a satisfactory answer. In 1977, Geza Vermes of Oxford University commented regarding the failure to publish the Dead Sea Scroll fragments in a timely fashion, “The world is entitled to ask the authorities responsible … what they intend to do about this lamentable state of affairs. For unless drastic measures are taken at once, the greatest and most valuable of all Hebrew and Aramaic manuscript discoveries is likely to become the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century.”^d

Other scholars have been equally critical of the delay. Professor Theodor Herzl Gaster wrote in 1976:

“Many of us who stand outside the charmed circle of the ‘scrolls team’ in Jerusalem deplore the fact that, after nearly twenty years, so relatively little has been made generally available to us … One cannot but contrast this with the promptness and rapidity with which the important cuneiform tablets from Ras Shamra or the Hittite texts from Boghazkôy are being made available, and regret wistfully that the prevailing policy will, by the hazards of mortality, prevent a whole generation of older scholars from making their contribution.”^e

See also Columbia Professor Morton Smith’s bitter comment: “[Some scholars] have now withheld Qumran material from the public for over 25 years.”^f

Perhaps it is time to consider a suggestion recently made by David Noel Freedman:

“A basic publication of all new inscriptional materials ought to be available within a year of the discovery. Such a publication should include the best possible photographs using the most advanced techniques. That should be the basic minimum and thus all scholars would have equal access to the material, which is certainly the most desirable situation in any scholarly field. It would be very helpful if the scholar or scholars responsible would also provide supporting and explanatory information about the circumstances of the find, the context, and other relevant data. Also desirable would be preliminary readings, transliterations, and translations. Any additional information would be at the option of those responsible. The more that is presented, the better for everyone, but the essential minimum would be photographs or tracings of hand copies, depending upon the nature of the discoveries and their condition. There is no reason why such an arrangement should conflict with the assignment of the official publication to a specified scholar or scholars. In that way the designated scholar or scholars would have ample time to produce an official comprehensive publication, although presumably there would be internal pressures not to delay unduly. At the same time the scholarly world and the general public would not be deprived of direct access to important primary materials which often have important bearing on many branches of our discipline. Such access might indeed spur the officially designated scholar or scholars to complete their work more quickly than otherwise would be the case.”

Very recently Philip J. King, immediate past president of the American Schools of Oriental Research, has lent his powerful support to Freedman’s basic approach:

“Lest valuable time and energy be exhausted on useless disputing in the future, it would seem best, as Freedman has advocated, to publish the literary remains immediately, without transcription or translation, simply the plates, to give all qualified scholars equal opportunity to try their hand at decipherment and interpretation. And that may be the most effective way to put an end to proprietary attitudes vis-a-vis scrolls, manuscripts, inscriptions, and tablets.”^g

It remains to be seen whether the profession will face this issue as a profession.

For a week in April, all Jerusalem was aglitter with archaeology. The occasion was the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology marking the 70th anniversary of the Israel Exploration Society. At the opening session, the Acting President of Israel, Menachem Savidor, greeted the audience of more than 800 scholars and nonscholars from 22 countries around the world, including a group of 70 on a special BAR tour. Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek also addressed the group. Three Jerusalem hotels flew banners welcoming the Congress members. Special exhibitions, including a large amount of unpublished material, were arranged for Congress registrants at the […]