San Francisco Tremors

054

The Bible is the fault line that divides a significant segment of the scholarly world. It is the attitude toward the Bible that underlies the disparate battles, both institutional and substantive, that are being fought as I write. The fissures are deep.

055

For 13 years, since 1985, I have been reporting on the Annual Meeting in every March/April issue of BAR. Each year I tell newcomers that the term refers to the joint annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR), the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR).

That is no longer true. ASOR, the premier American organization of professional archaeologists specializing in the ancient Near East, has withdrawn from the Annual Meeting and, for the first time in memory, held its meeting by itself. The reasons, as might be expected, are complicated but not surprising. They involve money, personalities, institutional pride—and the Bible!

ASOR held its separate meeting this year in Napa, California, a two-hour drive from San Francisco, where the Annual Meeting would be held a week later—as usual, from the Saturday to the Tuesday before Thanksgiving.

For several years, dissension between ASOR and SBL has been brewing. The two are hardly evenly matched, however. SBL is healthy and fiscally sound, if not prosperous, with a membership of more than 6,000. ASOR’s membership numbers a mere 1,400 and while its overseas schools, especially in Jerusalem and Amman, are substantial and thriving, the mother organization is anemic, often lurching from crisis to crisis with survival sometimes in doubt. In the old days, ASOR supported its overseas schools; now the overseas schools help to support their parent.

In recent years ASOR has been increasingly sidelined at the Annual Meeting, with less and less of a voice. It is not a member of Joint Ventures, which operates the Annual Meeting. And its institutional pride has been hurt. Last year, in negotiations with SBL, it overplayed its hand and the break finally came, much to the sorrow of many members of both organizations. ASOR withdrew from the Annual Meeting.

Some, however, were happy with this decision. ASOR would now be independent and master of its own house. Equally important, ASOR would not be dominated by biblicists.

ASOR’s relationship to the Bible has long been schizophrenic.^a Historically, its subject has been Biblical archaeology. But in recent years many in the organization have wanted to break this tie. They believe it skews, even prejudices, the organization’s goals. This is especially true of those archaeologists working in Arab countries. They wonder what Islamic archaeology or the Early Bronze Age in Syria has to do with the Bible. Others within ASOR are concerned at the possible implication that as Biblical archaeologists they are out to prove that the Bible is true. Still others feel that archaeology is an independent discipline in itself, unrelated to the Bible.

On the other hand, those who defend the traditional terminology, supported by the broad definition of William Foxwell Albright, the late doyen of Biblical archaeology, argue that Biblical archaeology can include all of Near Eastern archaeology and even beyond.

This division now threatens to tear ASOR apart.

Overall, the ASOR meeting in Napa was a success. Skeptics predicted that people who couldn’t afford to attend two meetings extending over a week would choose SBL rather than ASOR. The ASOR leadership hoped for a registration of 250 (the Annual Meeting, by contrast, attracts more than 8,000). In terms of attendance, the ASOR meeting was a resounding success; nearly 350 people signed up. This lent a certain coziness, even friendliness, to the meeting. No papers were scheduled for one afternoon so everyone could go on a tour of the Napa wineries. Sessions sometimes did not begin until 10:00 a.m. All graduate students who wanted to give papers could do so, regardless of their merit.

Increasingly vitriolic negotiations with SBL over the past year about the possibility of returning to the fold led the ASOR leadership to make tentative arrangements to hold next year’s ASOR meeting in Memphis, Tennessee at a completely different time from the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting (to be held in Orlando, Florida).

When the matter of next year’s meeting came before the ASOR members meeting at Napa, however, the troops rebelled. By motion, the members overwhelmingly rejected the Memphis meeting and instructed the ASOR leadership to attempt to rejoin the AAR/SBL consortium and failing that, to hold the ASOR meeting just before, and in the same place as, the Annual Meeting.

The focus of most ASOR members’ archaeological interest remains the Bible. Yet the fissure within ASOR appears to be growing wider and wider, with the current leadership on one side and most of its members on the other.

This same division is seen in the recent decision by the ASOR leadership to change the name of its semischolarly magazine from Biblical Archaeologist to Near Eastern Archaeology. The change was made despite a membership survey in which 83 percent of those responding expressed themselves against it.

The truth is that as of this writing, the ASOR leadership would still like to hold its meeting next year in Memphis, apart from the Bible people, despite the wishes of its members. [Late bulletin: ASOR will meet in Orlando the week before the Annual Meeting.]

Yet the ASOR leadership cannot be said to be anti-Bible. Their focus is simply broader than the Bible, though including it.

Ironically, when it came to choosing a speaker for the ASOR banquet, the leadership turned to Avraham Biran, the grand old man of Biblical archaeology and the long-time excavator of Tel Dan. His lecture, “Biblical Archaeology Then and Now,” was clearly the highlight of the ASOR meeting. He received a standing ovation both before and after his talk. “The Bible is not a dirty word,” he declared.

Unfortunately, only people who could afford $125 a plate could attend the banquet. A contribution to ASOR was required as a condition of attendance. As a result, only about 70 of the 350 registrants attended. Some felt this was symptomatic of a certain exclusionist, elitist attitude on the part of the leadership of ASOR, which has long been ruled by an inner clique.

056

My own prescription for ASOR is the subject of my First Person column. ASOR, despite its problems, has wonderful possibilities.

After the ASOR meeting at Napa, the AAR/SBL Annual Meeting was held in San Francisco. In addition to presenting the usual academic papers, SBL gathered a small group of archaeological experts to consider how to meet its members’ continuing interest in archaeology as it relates to the Bible now that ASOR was no longer creating these sessions. For this year’s Annual Meeting, our own Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) had stepped in to fill the gap. The question was what to do for next year’s meeting. Although the group included ASOR president Joe Seger, SBL proceeded to institutionalize its own archaeological program, which seemed to signal the continued separation of ASOR and SBL.

Two sessions organized by BAS under the rubric “Where Is the Tenth Century?” proved to be a highlight of the Annual Meeting. (The tenth century is the period of the United Monarchy of King David and King Solomon.) The ballroom in which the sessions were held was filled to overflowing, with crowds in the hall straining to hear from outside.

Two principal issues are involved. One involves the very existence of the United Monarchy and of David and Solomon. This has been the subject of other reports in this magazine and in our sister publication Bible Review.^b An extreme group, often called Biblical minimalists (and sometimes, pejoratively, Biblical nihilists), contends that David and Solomon never existed, that there was no United Monarchy, that it was all made up several centuries later.

This position was to have been espoused by Thomas Thompson of the University of Copenhagen, a leader in the Biblical minimalist movement. His presentation, however, consisted simply of summaries of the Biblical narratives; presumably, the audience was to conclude that the very recitation of them established their fictional character.

The second issue is more strictly archaeological. Some scholars from Tel Aviv University have recently taken the position that what have been identified as tenth-century B.C. levels in fact date to the ninth century B.C. and that what were previously thought to be 11th-century levels date to the tenth century. If they are right, this effectively removes much of the evidence for the United Monarchy. The material from the 11th century—now the tenth century—was appropriate for the period of the Judges, when there was no central administration and no national government, when, as the Bible says, “everyone did as he pleased” (Judges 21:25). But if this is all we have for the period of David and Solomon, these are slim pickings indeed. That is why the issue is so important for those trying to understand Biblical history.

Because the issue is so important and is being debated by leading archaeologists—and is also very complicated and often 060technical—I have dealt with this at greater length in a supplement to this report (“Where Is the Tenth Century?”).

Nadav Na’aman of Tel Aviv University, a highly regarded Biblical-period historian who is also fully acquainted with the archaeological corpus, sought to give a historian’s view of the United Monarchy. He came up with some interesting observations, although recognizing that the historicity of some Biblical accounts “depends on the dates attributed to the archaeological strata in sites like Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer.”

Na’aman began his analysis with the period before the United Monarchy (Iron Age I, 1200–1000 B.C.), noting that during this period sites east of the Jordan were fortified strongholds, most of which suffered a violent end before the time of the United Monarchy. West of the Jordan the situation was entirely different; most of the settlements there were unfortified. Na’aman suggests that east of the Jordan local dynasties competed for territory, which often led to the destruction of settlements and the expansion of the territory of the victorious local ruler. West of the Jordan, the inhabitants obviously felt more secure. Life was more stable. Some internal unity bound the people together west of the Jordan. That is why a unified state developed earlier in Israel than in Moab.

Basing his scholarship on the analysis of Biblical texts as well as on archaeological materials, Na’aman finds the Biblical account of David’s rise to power “quite plausible.” The rise of a local leader who becomes head of the kingdom has both ancient Near Eastern and modern political parallels. David’s movement from place to place in search of security, his temporary service among the Philistine enemy, and his gradual accretion of power based on ability and successful military campaigns “all make good historical sense,” said Na’aman.

Archaeologically, he noted that in every one of the places mentioned in David’s wanderings before he became king, Iron Age I pottery has been found. Moreover, several independent Biblical traditions attest to the historicity of David’s rise to power.^c The recently discovered inscription from Tel Dan, which mentions the “House of David,”^d shows that by the ninth century B.C. David was already regarded as the founder of a dynasty.

Na’aman’s judgment with respect to King Solomon is quite different. Here he believes that the story is “unhistorical in most of its details.” Na’aman does not doubt Solomon’s existence, only the grandeur of his rule. Although Na’aman concedes that Solomon built a temple (“the memory of Solomon as original builder of the Temple must be authentic”), it was likely smaller than the one built later in the monarchy. But Na’aman recognizes that his overall judgment on Solomon’s reign will depend on the outcome of the debate regarding what strata are to be attributed to the tenth century.

At one time, Na’aman characterized the United Monarchy as a “chiefdom” rather than a “state,” even though the Israelites regarded themselves as a kingdom.^e In the midst of the discussion at the Annual Meeting, however, Na’aman changed his mind. He passed me a note saying that henceforth he would not refer to the kingdom of David and Solomon as a chiefdom.

061

In a second paper at the same session, Lawrence Stager of Harvard University explained how the older (Iron Age I) Israelite tribal organization was superseded by what he called a “patrimonial state,” in which the king occupied a position between that of tribal leader and patrimonial deity, a situation that prevailed not only in Israel but in contemporaneous adjacent societies as well. Stager referred to the social structure as “a series of nested households.” Below the tribal or clan leader was the head of the extended family—the bet ab.^f According to Stager, “The king and the state were the household and family estate writ large, and the national deity was the paterfamilias writ larger still.” Note that bet (also transliterated beth or beyt), literally “house,” applies to the household, to the dynasty of the ruler (Bet David) and to the Temple of the Lord (Bet Yahweh). The conditions for the institution of the monarchy were there all along in the tribal confederation. The catalyst proved to be the Philistine military threat.

To what extent can the different interpretations of the United Monarchy be attributed to the particular lens through which the interpreter is looking? This was the question addressed by Neil Asher Silberman, author of several books relating to the history of archaeological interpretation, in the last paper of the session. Silberman’s answer is that everyone is guilty of looking through a lens created by his or her own particular experience or bias, the Biblical minimalists no less than the late dean of Israeli archaeologists, Yigael Yadin, whose biography Silberman wrote. But the picture Silberman painted was nevertheless nuanced: If Yadin saw the Solomonic period as a reflection of, and justification for, modern Israeli state-building, his view was also determined by his experience as a military leader, who would naturally admire an efficient and structured administration of power. Similarly with the Biblical minimalists: Their attempts to deny the historicity of ancient Israelite nationhood has “far-reaching modern political and religious implications that only an ostrich can deny.”

Stager reacted harshly to Silberman’s presentation: “Silberman would like to equate all inquiry as relativistic and subjective.” Stager referred to the “fad of post-modernism” that “seeks to ‘democratize’ critical inquiry, leveling it to that of ignoramuses who in their hubris assert that ‘Our opinion is just as good as yours.’”

Stager also took on the Biblical minimalists, several of whom teach at the University of Copenhagen (Stager referred to them as the “Copenhagen dyspeptics”). They have gone so far as to suggest that the Tel Dan inscription, part of a large stone stele that refers to the House of David, is a forgery.^g All they really have to offer us, said Stager, “are ideological positions carved in stone—these are the real forgeries—intellectual forgeries of the first and post-modern order. Mr. Silberman’s condescending equation, or leveling, of Yadin’s gigantic contribution to scholarship with that of the ideologues is reprehensible … In its most extreme form, post-modernist ideology gives a hearing to revisionists who would deny that gas chambers were used during the Holocaust. I can only detest such deterioration of scholarly standards and perversions with all my mind, heart and soul,” a dramatic end to an extraordinarily insightful session.

What was King David and King Solomon’s Jerusalem like? Some say it was a small administrative center, not a city at all. Others contend it was the capital of a kingdom.

And what was there for David to conquer? This, too, is being reassessed, including the function of the famous vertical chimney known as Warren’s Shaft. Until now, the debate has been whether this is the mysterious tsinnor (2 Samuel 5:8) that David’s general Joab climbed up to get inside the city and surprise the Jebusites.^h Ronny Reich, of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Haifa University, and Eli Shukron, of the IAA, are now excavating this area. In a preliminary report to another session of the Annual Meeting, Reich persuasively argues that Warren’s Shaft was never used to draw water, as had been almost universally recognized previously. You can’t get close enough to the opening at the top without falling into it, and if you could, obtrusions (or shelves) sticking out from the sides of the shaft would make it almost impossible to lower a rope with a bucket on the end. Surely, if it had been used as a water tunnel, these obstructions to its effective use would have been cut away.

Reich and Shukron are also excavating a mammoth tower over the Gihon Spring, made of enormous ashlars and dating to about 1800 B.C. Not until King Herod’s time are such mammoth worked stones found in Jerusalem. This excavation promises to revolutionize our understanding of Jerusalem’s ancient water systems. This tower was probably the terminus of the tunnel system that was previously thought to lead to Warren’s Shaft; water was easily available inside the tower. Reich has promised BAR an article on the excavations, but it will have to wait for further excavation in the next season or so, as he, too, struggles to understand all the implications of what he has found.

I apologize to all those scholars whose stimulating and insightful lectures I listened to, but have not referred to here, and to those hundreds of lecturers that I would have liked to hear but couldn’t. It is an invigorating experience to be among thousands of people eager to learn and hundreds of scholars equally eager to share their knowledge.

Indeed, the experience has inspired us here at the Biblical Archaeology Society to plan a similar experience for lay people—not quite as technical and scholarly as the Annual Meeting, but equally stimulating and intellectually exciting. Next November in Orlando, we will sponsor something called the “Bible and Archaeology Fest”—dozens of simultaneous lectures by leading scholars who will be in Orlando for the academic meetings. The lectures at BAS’s Bible and Archaeology Fest, however, will be geared to the interested layperson—the kind of people who read BAR. You will be able to choose among various lectures on a wide variety of topics, stopping in at the subject and lecturer that most intrigues you at the moment. You will experience the same frustration that I feel when there are so many things going on at once and I can’t attend them all. I can’t even attend more than one at a time. But don’t wait to sign up. Space is limited.

To my scholarly readers as well as to my not-quite-scholarly readers, I look forward to seeing all of you next November in Orlando.

The Bible is the fault line that divides a significant segment of the scholarly world. It is the attitude toward the Bible that underlies the disparate battles, both institutional and substantive, that are being fought as I write. The fissures are deep.