Leading Scholar Calls for Prompt Publication

002

How quickly should ancient texts be published after they come into a scholar’s hands?

Within one year—at most, says Professor David Noel Freedman in a forthcoming issue of the Biblical Archaeologist.

This is a statement of major importance by one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars—a statement to which the Biblical Archaeology Review is pleased to give its enthusiastic endorsement.

Professor Freedman calls for the prompt publication of the text, even though transcription, translation and commentary may follow only after several years of study. Prompt publication of the text, however, means all scholars—and through them the public—will have available the original material to use in their own studies.

Professor Freedman’s proposal calls for a drastic change in the present procedure whereby a scholar may take ten or twenty or more years to complete his own study of a manuscript before making the original text available to other scholars. For example, the materials from Cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scroll archive are still not available to scholars generally—after 25 years.

As Professor Freedman points out, “Cave 4 contained more material—all in fragmentary condition—than any other cave; while the task of sorting and piecing together, studying and interpreting was doubtless the most difficult of all, still after 25 years (the materials from Cave 4 came to light in 1952) we would expect that the materials would be available for study.”

BAR has recently urged scholars such as Professor Nachman Avigad of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to make available pictures of their finds promptly without waiting for the completion of their scholarly studies—finds such as Jerusalem’s ancient Cardo, a Byzantine inscription mentioning Justinian, and arrowheads shot by the Babylonians during their siege of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., all of which Professor Avigad is withholding. Professor Freedman’s suggestion regarding prompt publication of ancient texts highlights a closely related issue.

We hope that the scholars involved will quickly recognize the merit of Professor Freedman’s proposal. Other scholars—and the public—do have a right to know. These finds, in the final analysis, belong to all of us, not just to the particular scholar in whose care they have been entrusted for publication.

Professor Freedman is director of the Program on Studies in Religion at the University of Michigan, director of the W. F. Albright School for Archaeological Research, Vice President of the American Schools of Oriental Research, immediate past President of the Society for Biblical Literature, editor of the Anchor Bible series, editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, and author of numerous books and articles.

Herewith is the pertinent part of Professor Freedman’s statement:

The question is whether the traditional pattern of publication is appropriate and acceptable any longer, especially with regard to great and important finds—that is, whether the procedure whereby a single scholar, or a small group can or should have the exclusive right to study and publish inscriptional materials at their own pleasure and discretion, thus effectively barring the scholarly community and ultimately the public from access to such materials.

It is clear that once the new materials reach responsible hands, the owner or scholar assigned to work on them has a serious responsibility concerning the documents. Traditionally, it has been the view that such a scholar or scholars should have exclusive control of the materials until he or she had completed the process of assembling, study lag, and preparing the materials for publication. It was expected that the scholar in question would devote himself or herself 003assiduously to the work until it was completed—and that there be no undue delays and certainly no deliberate obstruction. Needless to say, different scholars have responded to these assumptions and expectations in different ways, and their performance has varied from the extreme of prompt and efficient (sometimes less than effective) publication to endless procrastination and delay.

It can be said fairly that such a monopolistic system, which depends solely on the willingness and ability of the individual scholar to meet the expectations of his colleagues, has not proved successful, especially when the mass of data is great and the difficulty and/or complexity of the decipherment and interpretation require extended application. In recent years especially, the length of time between discovery and general publication of major finds has increased notably. It seems to me that frank discussion of the issue is long overdue and that a new approach to the question should at least be considered.

There can hardly be any dispute that those responsible for new discoveries should have the right to publish them. Furthermore, it makes for an orderly procedure if the official publication of the materials is assigned to particular, qualified scholars. In addition, ample time must be allowed for thorough study, extended analysis, and full treatment of the materials. Every effort should be made to expedite the official publication for the benefit of other scholars and ultimately of the interested public. However, imposing arbitrary or even flexible deadlines, while desirable, has not resulted in prompt dissemination of the data and is not likely to, since often a great deal of time is needed for adequate assimilation of the information and treatment of the problems.

There is no reason, however, why the procedures outlined above should also include exclusive monopolistic control of the primary material by one or two scholars assigned to study the documents. On the contrary, the goals to which we all subscribe and aspire will be gained much more quickly and efficiently if the materials are made available in photographic reproduction or facsimile as soon as possible to the entire scholarly community. In that way, the designated scholar would not be working in isolation (always detrimental to the best scholarly results) or in secret with a few colleagues, but he would have the benefit of the wisdom and ideas of the whole community, and his own work could proceed that much more quickly and effectively.

There is no reason why the so-called “official” publication must be the first to appear—much better if it were to come at the end of a process of disclosure and refinement. It is a well-established fact that the decipherment and interpretation of documents proceed much more rapidly and successfully when many scholars are involved in the work then when few or one are.

Therefore I propose that newly discovered inscriptions and documents be presented in a suitable format—namely, photographs, hand-copies, and preliminary transcriptions as soon after discovery as is physically feasible. Some time may be needed simply to sort and assemble fragments, or to unroll and copy or photograph damaged materials or those which are otherwise difficult to handle. But it should be possible to reproduce the texts within one year of discovery at the outside.

In that way the world of scholarship would be much better served than it is now—and needless roadblocks in the way of research would be removed.

The history of scholarship in our field, which is much affected by archeological finds and especially new inscriptional materials, would be a much happier account of progress, not marred by endless frustration on the part of those who do not have access to pertinent data simply because someone else has exclusive rights in the matter, were such a plan followed.

How quickly should ancient texts be published after they come into a scholar’s hands?
Within one year—at most, says Professor David Noel Freedman in a forthcoming issue of the Biblical Archaeologist.