The First Person column in this issue is written by Professor Hector Avalos, although he will not know it until it appears in print.
Avalos, who teaches Religious Studies at Iowa State University, is author of a new book titled The End of Biblical Studies.1 Its thesis is that “Biblical studies as we know it should end.” He believes that scholars should “redefine” the purpose of Biblical studies “so that it is tasked with eliminating completely the influence of the Bible in the modern world … Why do we need an ancient book that endorses everything from genocide to slavery?” he asks. (See related book review REVIEWS.)
According to Avalos, scholars today who teach Biblical studies are “part of an ecclesial-academic complex that collaborates with a competitive media industry.” The infrastructure of this complex includes not only Biblical scholars but also archaeologists. They in turn are supported by universities, churches, professional organizations like the Society of Biblical Literaturea and the “media-publishing complex.” That is where BAR comes in: It is part of this “media-publishing complex.” Indeed, we are apparently the only popular Bible archaeology magazine in that complex; at least we are the only one he mentions.
We devote this issue’s First Person to Professor Avalos’s description of BAR:
Magazines are part of the effort to maintain the importance of the Bible in modern society. And among Bible-related magazines, none is more loved and reviled than Biblical Archaeology Review, which is reportedly the archaeology magazine with the largest circulation in the world. The creation of Harvard-trained lawyer Hershel Shanks (1930–), BAR has served biblical education well in some cases and badly in others. I use many of its articles in my classes because they are written by some of the best-known biblical scholars in the world.
Shanks and his magazine share a personality: brash, bold, and controversial. BAR has been rightly credited with assisting in the liberation of the DSS [Dead Sea Scrolls]. Among other things, in 1991 the Biblical Archaeology Society published a computer-assisted reconstruction of the scrolls that, in effect, allowed scholars access to officially unpublished materials. This and other developments led the Israel Antiquities Authority, which oversees the official DSS team, to end in 1991 the monopoly it had on access.2
And indeed, BAR thrives on conflict. BAR has made the most of the public feuding between [William] Dever and [Philip] Davies, among other scholars, and BAR is where some of the actual fiery exchanges take place. There are numerous stories about the gossip at the SBL Annual Meeting that are more akin to the style of the National Enquirer than to the typical scholarly publication. Consider the headlines of articles from the January/February 2003 issue: (1) “Israeli Scholar Bares His Fangs—Again,” which is about Elisha Qimron, a scholar with whom Shanks has had legal battles; (2) “Will Marty Abegg Ever Find a Job?” which is about a scholar who published unauthorized copies of the DSS and was ostracized as a result.3
The competitive nature of BAR can be seen in the recent editorial by Shanks against National Geographic’s promotion of the newly recognized Gospel of Judas. National Geographic had a virtual monopoly on that discovery, and it used its magazine cover, a television special, an exhibit in its Explorers Hall in Washington, DC, and its Web site to bring attention to the Gospel of Judas. Shanks remarks: “The way the National Geographic has played up this story makes it guilty of unjustified sensationalism. I realize some may consider this a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If that be treason, however, make the most of it.”4
Of course, BAR is well-known for being embroiled in the scandal of the James Ossuary. It was BAR that first announced the existence of this ossuary, which has the name “Jesus” inscribed in 076it. The attention-grabbing headline on the cover of the November/December 2002 issue of BAR was “World Exclusive! Evidence of Jesus Written in Stone/Evidence of ‘James the Brother of Jesus’ Found in Jerusalem.” Now that the Israel Antiquities Authority has declared the ossuary to be a forgery, Shanks has been one of the vocal supporters of Oded Golan, the alleged forger, now on trial in Israel.
For this and other reasons, many prominent scholars have at one time or another refused to write articles for that publication, or even to cite articles in BAR.5 Shuka Dorfman, the director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, which governs all archaeological work in Israel, has gone so far as to prohibit Israel Antiquities archaeologists from providing interviews to Shanks’s magazines.6
Among the most vocal critics of BAR is Eric Meyers, a prominent archaeologist from Duke University, who has accused BAR of encouraging the plunder of archaeological sites because it provides advertisements for antiquities dealers, who mostly traffic in unprovenanced artifacts (those whose archaeological context has not been verified by professional or authorized channels).7 Featuring objects in BAR may increase the market value of precious objects. In detailing the role of Shanks in organizing the exhibition of the ossuary to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto in 2002, Meyers also stated that “Shanks took a large fee for this; it’s reported to be a $25,000.00 fee just as agent for the exhibition.”8 In short, Meyers suggests a conflict of interest in Shanks’s defense of the ossuary.
In general, BAR is a vocal advocate for the value of the study of the Bible, and it celebrates every artifact that is even remotely associated with the Bible. Although he is Jewish, Shanks is also an advocate for the archaeology of the New Testament.9 Shanks himself may not believe that everything in the Bible is historical but he certainly still upholds many cherished beliefs, including belief in archaeological support of the “validity of the Book of Judges.”10
Although not afraid to publish articles offensive to many fundamentalists, Shanks also knows that Christians are the main consumers of his magazine. Accordingly, a regular columnist for Bible Review (and now for Biblical Archaeology Review) is Ben Witherington, a Christian apologist and professor at Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky. Witherington is the general editor of the “New Cambridge Commentary Series” and a frequent guest on programs for the History Channel and Discovery Channel. Among other things, Witherington sees himself as a champion for a new kind of “Biblical orthodoxy.”11 His orthodoxy shows up frequently in Shanks’s publications, as illustrated by the essay sugarcoating Paul’s attitude toward slavery.12
The religionism and ideology of Shanks is also evident in how the magazine judges scholars by the degree to which they support Judaism, Israel, or Zionism. For example, in a sidebox describing the major players in DSS studies, it describes Frank Moore Cross as “[o]ne of the world’s leading scholars and probably the most influential … A great friend of Israel and of the Jewish people.”13 On the other hand, John Strugnell is described as “[a]n anti-Semite. Rabidly anti-Israel.”14 Despite the context of a legitimate discussion on anti-Judaism among DSS scholars, such characterizations also display the degree to which being for or against Israel (not just against Judaism) is important for Shanks.
Yet Shanks’s organization is showing signs that there is less interest in biblical studies magazines than in previous years. In 2005 Shanks announced the end of two of his unsuccessful magazines, Bible Review and Archaeology Odyssey.15 The former was meant for readers less interested in biblical archaeology, and the latter was meant for readers interested in archaeology beyond the confines of the biblical world. Shanks credited the Internet and falling advertising revenue as reasons for ending publication. However, he also has issued this more somber assessment:
The gap between archaeology and the Bible is widening, however, not narrowing. This is dangerous not only for people interested in the Bible but also for the archaeologists, 077many of whom, to be blunt again, could not be less interested in the Bible. For in the end, public support for archaeology does matter.16
The consolidation of Shanks’s magazines signals again that all is not so well in biblical studies, even if Archaeology, another popular magazine, envisions a bright future for archaeology outside of Israel or the Bible.17
The First Person column in this issue is written by Professor Hector Avalos, although he will not know it until it appears in print.
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
“The SBL,” according to Avalos, “is the agent of a dying profession.” “The vast majority of [its] members are actually part of a religionist enterprise centered on maintaining their elite leisure pursuit, called ‘biblical studies’… Attending a session of an annual meeting [of SBL] is a study in irrelevance.”
Endnotes
1.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007.
2.
For an account of the “liberation” of the scrolls, see Philip R. Davies, George J. Brooke and Philip Callaway, The Complete World of the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), especially pp. 26–27.
3.
See BAR 29, no. 1 (January/February 2003): 34, 36.
Shanks, “Duke Professor Calls for Public Pressure Against BAR: But Eric Meyers Won’t Take on His Colleagues,” BAR 31, no. 2 (March/April 2005): 6.
8.
Eric Meyers, “Un-provenanced, Unauthenticated: Ethics and the Antiquities Market,” lecture delivered May 5, 2004, Center for the Study of Antiquity, Cornerstone University, Grand Rapids, MI. The Lecture appears on the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/bswbOOossuary_Meyers.pdf (accessed August 15, 2006).
9.
See his remarks on the importance of New Testament archaeology in Shanks, “Roundup of Annual Meetings,”BAR 31, no. 2 (March/April 2005): 44.
See Ben E. Witherington III, The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism (Waco, TX: Baylor Univ. Press, 2005), especially pp. 251–254.
12.
Witherington, “Was Paul a Pro-slavery Chauvinist? Making Sense of Paul’s Seemingly Mixed Moral Messages,” BR 20, no. 2 (April 2004): 8, 44.
13.
Shanks, “Major Players,” BAR 17, no. 2 (March/April 1991): 53.
14.
Shanks, “Major Players.”
15.
Shanks, “A Time to Consolidate: BR to Become Part of BAR—Suspends Separate Publication,” BR 21, no. 5 (Winter 2005): 2.
