Queries & Comments

012

Just the Facts, Please

I am not renewing. I am highly disappointed in your magazine.

I want information and not a lot of pros and cons. I get enough of that here. Only facts are what I’m interested in.

The Lexington Avenue Express Train to Israel

I read “How BAR Changed My Life,” BAR 21:03, and thought about my own introduction to the magazine.

My husband had the grand idea in 1988 to take our families to Israel. We were straight out of a Neil Simon play. During the trip, my mother-in-law kept referring to her BAR. Because of BAR we traveled to Sepphoris to see “The Mona Lisa of the Galilee.” Although we could not visit the dig, as it had been closed off by the archaeologists, I was hooked. I shortly thereafter subscribed to BAR and I anxiously await every issue. It has become a constant companion when in Israel. Not only have we visited the dig at Ashkelon, but we have also seen several of the erotic oil lamps featured in your article “Eroticism and Infanticide at Ashkelon,” BAR 17:04.

While all around me are dealing with the subway, I am far, far away in Israel thanks to my BAR. Now I just have to figure out how to get frequent flier miles for all these great trips!

More Kudei

I would like to join the throngs congratulating you on the 20th anniversary of BAR. It has now fired the imagination and challenged the intellectual complacency of an entire generation of scholars and pastors, professionals and amateurs. It is one of the most important journals around in the latter portion of the second millennium. Ad Multos Annos!

BAR for Theologians

I’m a graduate student in an allied field here on the East Coast who was given BAR as a gift by a cousin.

It is a good supplement to my studies and gives a richness of texture, a real-world sense, to the often ethereal ideas we deal with in theology. It is an excellent correlative and a good astringent as well.

Keep Theology Out

I have been a subscriber and a reader of your magazine for many years and have enjoyed and admired your courageous efforts on behalf of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I am Jewish but not devout, and I never had any problems with your approach of serving as a forum for both Christian and Jewish interests in the Bible. The publication of some anti-Semitic letters in your letters column surprised me but did not disturb me too deeply because, after all, “it’s a free country.” Some of your advertisers have not always been discreet in showing their strongly Christian bias, but even that I could easily tolerate.

However, your institutional ad for Bible Review offended me. This is not an outsider speaking in an ad or in a letter to the editor, but the voice of the Biblical Archaeology Society itself:

This climactic event [the raising of Lazarus] provides a crucial link between Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection—and points to the resurrection of all believers.

I know it’s only an ad (although clearly your ad) and you need more Christian readers for Bible Review, but it is most insensitive to your Jewish readers (or for that matter to your readers of many other faiths, as well as agnostic or atheist subscribers) in its implied proclamation that the Biblical Archaeology Society 014accepts the Christian dogma of the resurrection as a theological truth. That’s probably not what you meant to imply, but in fairness to your non-Christian readers your magazine should be edited more carefully in the future.

We were trying to summarize, in a compelling way, the point of the article, not to push any theological position. We regret that it did not come across to you that way.—Ed.

Ancient Cultures Are Not Trash

I would like to take issue with Rose Hamersen’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 21:03), which called some of your material “trashy pagan stuff.”

How sad that some BAR readers have such a narrow and intolerant outlook that it precludes even reading about the varied cultures and religions that made up the Biblical world and that contributed to the texture and richness that is Christianity.

Polytheistic cultures were as much a part of the history and culture of the Biblical world as monotheistic ones, so please continue to publish articles on finds detailing their societies, as well as the Jewish, Christian and Islamic ones. It is only through education, such as BAR provides, that prejudice and intolerance for a people, a religion or a culture different from one’s own can be overcome.

Thank you for a consistently excellent publication.

Ark at Elephantine

Who’s Speculating Now?

Bezalel Porten sets the tone in his article “Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine?” BAR 21:03, when he notes that Graham Hancock, whose work Porten attempts to poke holes in, is a journalist and not a historian. It’s a familiar cry among academics when “amateurs” intrude upon their sacred ground. What’s more, Hancock has had the tenacity to quote Porten.

Certainly Porten, as an expert on the Elephantine papyri, should be encouraged to comment on Hancock’s assertion that the Ark stopped at Elephantine, but it’s disappointing to find Porten so often using thin grounds for attempting to refute Hancock’s theory. For example, the question as to why a Jewish temple was built in Upper Egypt in the first place is central to the issue. Porten snorts at Hancock’s idea that it was built to house the Ark, dismissing it as “bald speculation.” But what does Porten offer us instead? As it turns out, he proposes that the Jews immigrated to Egypt’s southern border to fulfill prophecy by building an altar there whose existence Porten can only conjecture. Hancock is not the only one speculating here; personally, I find Hancock’s theory better reasoned.

As one reads Porten’s article, it is difficult not to wonder if he is more annoyed at Hancock’s “unscholarly speculation” or at an outsider’s, a mere journalist’s, ability to devise such an exciting and plausible theory, and what’s more, his success in writing a best-seller in the process—but then again, I suppose that’s unscholarly as well.

Don’t Dwell on Dwell

I read with much profit Bezalel Porten’s article “Did the Ark Stop at Elephantine?” BAR 21:03. There is one point, however, about which I believe both Porten and Graham Hancock—whose theory Porten effectively undermines—are in error.

Hancock stresses the word “dwelling” in the phrase, “the god YHW dwelling (in) the fortress of Elephantine” (yhw ‘lh’ sûkn yb brt’), which appears in one of the Elephantine documents. Hancock does so because he thinks (wrongly) that it gives evidence that the Ark was in the Jewish temple at Elephantine. Porten also underscores this term, but for a different reason. For him it provides evidence that the destroyed temple was probably rebuilt at some point—namely, near the very end of the fifth century B.C.E. Whereas prior to this date we find in the Anani letters the expression “the servitor of YHW in Elephantine”; a letter dated December 13, 402 B.C.E., refers to his wife Tamet as “the servitor of the god YHW dwelling (in) the fortress at Elephantine.”

Expressions similar to “(the god) X in Y” or “(the god) X dwelling in Y” occur in a number of ancient Semitic languages—for example, in Akkadian Isûtar sûa Ninua (“Ishtar of Nineveh”), Isûtar beµlet Ninua (“Ishtar, Lady of Nineveh”), and Isûtar aµsûibat Ninua (“Ishtar dwelling [in] Nineveh”—or better, “Ishtar who 016dwells [in] Nineveh”). These epithets are virtually interchangeable. No particular significance is to be attached to the terms “lady” or “dwelling.” Rather these expressions are simply variant ways of identifying Ishtar with a particular cult-place (that is, Ishtar of Nineveh as distinguished from Ishtar of Arbela, etc.). In the recently discovered Tell Fekheriyeh bilingual inscription,^a the god Hadad is once called in Aramaic hddskn, “Hadad of Sikan” (line 1) and a few lines later hdd ysb skn, “Hadad who dwells (in) Sikan” (lines 15–16). Thus in the Elephantine correspondence, no special nuance should be read into sûkn yb ([YHW] who dwells [in] Elephantine”) vis-à-vis byb (“[YHW] in Elephantine”). These expressions are interchangeable and serve to designate YHWH in his cult-place at Elephantine as distinguished, for example, from YHWH in Zion” (yhwh bsywn: Psalm 99:2) or “YHWH who dwells (in) Zion” (yhwh ysûb sywn Psalm 9:12) and from “YHWH of Samaria” (yhwh sûmrwn in the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions^b).

Bezalel Porten responds:

The epithets “(the god) X in Y” and “(the god) X dwelling in Y” may be synonymous and in certain circumstances even interchangeable. But is is most striking that sûkn yb (dwelling in Elephantine) is not used in the nine Elephantine contracts (not “correspondence”) prior to this last one. If “sûkn Yb” as well as the more abridged “(YHW) in Yb” “serve to designate YHWH in this cult-place at Elephantine,” then it is prima facie evidence that the Temple had been restored, or at least its site preserved as sacred. Though ordinarily interchangeable, sûkn here may just signal that YHW is back home.

Other Hints as to the Ark’s Location

Bezalel Porten states: “Nowhere in the Bible, neither in the account of the Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 587/6 B.C.E. (2 Kings 25), nor anywhere else, is there an indication of the fate of the Ark.”

(a) According to an ancestral tradition, the Ark was buried under the Wood Chamber of the Second Temple (Mishnah, Sheqalim 6, 1). The Wood Chamber abutted on the northeastern side of the Court of the Women.

(b) Rabbi Yehudah ben Laqish says: “[The] Ark was concealed in its place” (Tosefta, Sotah 13, 1), that is, the Ark was concealed below the Holy of Holies.

(c) Rabbi Eliezer says: “[The] Ark was exiled to Babylon” (Tosefta, Sotah 13, 1).

(d) The prophet Jeremiah found a cave-like chamber on Mt. Nebo and brought there the Ark together with the Tent of Meeting and the Altar of Incense (2 Maccabees 2:4–5).

(e) The two Tablets of the Covenant were swallowed up by the Earth (1 Vision of Baruch 6:7–10).

The readers of BAR have their choice.

Better than Ebbets Field

I read with delight the article by Bezalel Porten regarding the Elephantine papyri, and particularly a reference to several of these ancient documents in the Brooklyn Museum.

It is a rare treat for the museum to receive credit for the Elephantine papyri in its outstanding collection, which also includes a rare papyrus of the late Middle Kingdom of Egypt, containing Semitic names.

When visiting New York, BAR readers should include the Brooklyn Museum, located just a short drive or subway trip from Manhattan, on their itinerary. In the magnificent Egyptian Galleries, one of the Elephantine papyri is on public display, along with many other important items relating to Biblical archaeology. The Near Eastern collection includes large Assyrian reliefs, as well as some beautiful mosaics from a synagogue in North Africa (circa fifth century C.E.).

This large, world-class museum would be a most rewarding experience for BAR readers, who will also enjoy the large and beautiful Botanical Gardens adjacent to the museum.

I hope to see more BAR readers in Brooklyn.

10 Great Finds

Another Top 10

In the May/June 1995 issue you list “10 Great Finds” in archaeology. (“10 Great Finds,” BAR 21:03) I venture to say that if you poll your readers, they will present very different lists of the 10 great finds. Herewith is a list of what to me as 018a Jew seems to warrant top billing:

1. The Rosetta Stone, because it gave us the key to Egyptian language and history.

2. Hammurabi’s Code, because it gave us the first organized legal system.

3. The Mesha Stele, because it threw the first extra-Biblical light on the history of the Kingdom of Israel.

4. The Amarna Tablets, because they gave us a clue about the invasion of Canaan by the Habirus.

5. The Elephantine papyri, because they gave information on a Jewish military colony in the Persian empire.

6. The Ras Shamra tablets, because they opened up the Ugaritic texts.

7. The Cairo Genizah, because of its wealth of information on Jews in the 11-13th C.E. centuries and their literary production.

8. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which need no justification for being on my list.

9. The House of David inscription, from Dan, because of its extra-Biblical information on the kings of Judah.

10. The Priestly Blessing scroll, the earliest Biblical text outside the Bible.

It would be interesting to see the “10 Best” lists of other readers.

For more on these finds, look under the following topics in our 20-year index (available from BAS for $22.95): Hieroglyphics, Moabite Stone, Amarna Letters, Ugarit, Cairo Genizah, Dead Sea Scrolls, Tel Dan and Yahweh.—Ed.

Mrs. God? Never!

I have been subscribing to your magazine for a couple of years and I want to let you know that I have thoroughly enjoyed every issue. Up to now, I have been content to sit back and read the comments of others in regard to various debates, discussions and ego-driven conflicts. But in this last issue a passing comment was made that I just couldn’t let slip by.

In his article “10 Great Finds,” BAR 21:03, Michael D. Coogan states that the goddess Asherah “is the consort or wife of the chief deity—in Israel’s case, Yahweh.” I audibly gasped when I read that—and I’m a Trinitarian! I imagine you had a rabbi or two tearing their clothes over that one! As proof of this claim, Coogan offers Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17–19. Had he backed up a verse or two in his reading of both cases he would have seen that God through the prophet was condemning the Israelites for their apostate worship of this false deity, not supporting the claim that Yahweh had a wife. Coogan also offers as evidence five other passages where Wisdom is personified in metaphor as a female (Proverbs 8:15–16, 8:30; Sirach 24:2; Wisdom of Solomon 8:1, 3). All of the above mentioned verses are poetic metaphors. Someone needs to tell Coogan that his weak evidence hardly constitutes the teaching of scripture that there is a Mrs. God.

See Coogan’s reply to the next letter.—Ed.

Coogan Slanders Jeremiah

Michael D. Coogan’s comments about the fertility goddess pendant in his “10 Great Finds” astound and enrage me.

To be sure, the Ugarit tablets are of great value. But to say that Qudshu “was the principal goddess of the Canaanites, and probably of the Israelites as well” is outrageous. To say that the goddess Asherah was the wife of Yahweh is the height of blasphemy.

Jeremiah calls no one the “queen of heaven”; rather the grossly backslidden Israelites were disobedient in offering incense and cakes to one whom in their deeply sinful states they chose to term as the queen of heaven. Jeremiah never! To state that this goddess is Yahweh’s partner in creation and His lover is sacrilege that this pen hesitates repeating.

I am not yet doing it, but I can certainly understand why some cancel their subscriptions!

Michael D. Coogan responds:

In Jeremiah’s theology, of course, Yahweh didn’t have a wife. But some Israelites thought that he did. Scholars (not just me!) have come to realize that Biblical religion is only a subset of the religion of ancient Israel; within that larger matrix, ultimately considered heterodox by the prophetic, priestly and Deuteronomic traditions, Asherah was “in many circles regarded as the consort of Yahweh” (William G. Dever, “An Archaeological Commentary on 2 Kings 23, ” Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King [Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994, p. 151]). Evidence for this conclusion includes not only archaeological remains, such as the thousands of fertility figurines found throughout ancient Israel, but also Biblical and non-Biblical texts like those cited. 020The latter may not be normative, but they are important evidence for ancient beliefs and practices.

Publishing the Results

Use Volunteers to Break the Publication Logjam

In your May/June issue you solicited 14 scholars for their opinions on Biblical archaeology’s greatest achievements, failures and challenges (“Scholars Speak Out,” BAR 21:03). Not surprisingly four of these scholars listed “the failure to publish results in a timely fashion” as Biblical archaeology’s greatest failure, and David Ussishkin mentioned the publication of unpublished data as one of its challenges. In his letter to the editor in the same issue, my friend and colleague Oded Borowski accurately laid out the steps and problems involved in the publication process (Queries & Comments, BAR 21:03). Basically, most archaeological projects undertaken by educational institutions (universities, seminaries, museums) are run on a shoestring and in the staff’s spare time. Unfortunately, as long as this is the way projects are conducted, the backlog in publications will continue and in fact will worsen as educational institutions continue to cut back on positions related to Biblical archaeology (as noted by Philip King in the same article) [See also William Dever’s “The Death of a Discipline,” in this issue.—Ed.]

How are we to break this logjam? Obviously, all archaeologists should refrain from beginning a new project until the results of all their unpublished old work are in the hands of a printer. And if we archaeologists cannot police ourselves, the Israel Antiquities Authority must not grant permits to those whose projects are not well-advanced in the publication process. (There are even some who believe that all archaeology in Israel—including archaeology-for-tourism projects such as Beth-Shean and Caesarea—except for salvage projects, should be terminated until what is still unpublished is published.)

We must look beyond our comfortable business-as-usual way of thinking to see if there are new approaches that will aid us in the publication process. And I believe this is where readers of BAR can make a contribution. Probably one of the great innovations in archaeological fieldwork was Yigael Yadin’s introduction of the volunteer system. Not only did this defray labor costs, but it was also a tremendous PR coup, giving non-scholars a chance to be a part of history in the making. Part of the publication process involves the organizing and sifting of the excavated data. A by-no-means-exhaustive list includes typing data into computers, sorting photographs, and packing and unpacking artifacts. I am willing to bet that almost every excavation each year could profit from the help of a few extra hands now and then. And I am also willing to bet that there are a few BAR readers who would be eager to make a contribution to archaeology but who are unable to participate in actual digging. All it would take is the project staff to figure out what needs to be done and what can be done by those who are not professional archaeologists. BAR could provide advertising space for those projects seeking volunteer help for this phase of their work, just as it does for those projects in the field. Just as field projects have educational programs and tours, so could these publication projects, especially if several projects coordinated their efforts so that all their volunteers could go on the same tours and to the same lectures. There are probably also a few volunteers who, having helped dig up the artifacts, would like to see what happens to them after the excavation season is over.

This proposal can work: It has already been tested by another colleague, Ann Killebrew. For the last couple years Ann has had a volunteer from the U.S. during the fall who has helped her work through material from Tel Miqne (Ekron), saving Ann many hours of work. If Yadin’s innovation was a call to arms, you might call this proposal a call to fingers.

I would also urge all my colleagues to begin thinking about publishing their data in a computer-readable format. By the year 2000, all new computers will be equipped with CD-ROM drives. The CDs available now can store 660 megabytes of data, the equivalent of 110,000+ pages of text. How much would it cost to publish 110,000 pages in book form today?

There are ways to increase the pace of publication if we archaeologists have the will and the vision to do it.

The writer is a research associate at the University of California, Berkeley. He has nine seasons of field experience at Tel Dor and three seasons at other sites.—Ed.

Love Is Not Enough

Every reason Professor Oded Borowski gives in his letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 21:03) for scholars not publishing in a timely manner is correct. However, these reasons fail to deal with the real issues.

Ethical archaeologists include curation of artifacts, analysis and publication in their basic planning. “I just love to dig” is not enough reason to do so.

Sensible archaeologists are organizers. They create teams and encourage colleagues, graduate students, undergraduates, and talented volunteers to take on segments of the analysis and publication, thus easing their own burdens and inevitably enhancing the reputations of the “chiefs.” The day of baronial leaders with serf labor forces is long gone. We need to get the message to the fossilized barons still amongst us. They don’t know it all, never did and couldn’t publish everything they do know.

Responsible archaeologists wouldn’t dream of leaving their work unpublished. Their long-term reputations depend on their published results, and all know that, although it has been repeated to the point of nausea, “Archaeology without publication is destruction.” This remains a basic truth.

More and more permit agencies are saying, “No publication, no new permit.” All should be doing so.

The writer, working with Santa Rosa Junior College, oversaw the excavations at what is now Point Reyes National Seashore, in California.—Ed.

House of David

The Cult of the Dodos

In response to my Copenhagen fan club [see letters from Thomas L. Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche, both of the University of Copenhagen, in Queries & Comments, BAR 21:02.—Ed.], a few remarks on the new cult worship are in order. The same people who cannot accept the reference to “the House of David” in the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan are energetically writing articles to explain that the word DWD in the Dan inscription is not “David” but the name of some hitherto unrecognized deity called “Dod.” They are finding the “DOD” in the Mesha text on the Moabite stone and in various Biblical texts mentioning the “house of David” and “the tent of David.” They deny that David is mentioned in any of those places.

The intelligent public will surely recognize all this frantic Dodism as nothing but a cop-out to avoid admitting that the Jerusalem dynasty was really called “the House of David.” One joker has even discovered the “daughter of Dod” in the Mesha inscription. In Moabite spelling, the words for “house” and “daughter” can both be spelled B-T. So may the BAR readership be warned, a spate of DODs 022(or are they DODOs?) is on the way.

Frank R. Zindler, from Columbus, Ohio, [in the letter following Thompson and Lemche] cannot accuse me of wanting to prevent the DOD clique from publishing. I simply recommend that their nonsense be ignored. Biblical studies are often emasculated by vacuous discussions of the latest theories (in the name of academic freedom), instead of attempts to deal with evidence. Biblical scholars seem to love to chase their tails.

In a personal letter to me, Philip Davies [author of “‘House of David’ Built on Sand,” BAR 20:04] has called me a fundamentalist. In fact, he is a mirror-image fundamentalist.

Thus was born the new cult of Dod or Doda. Mercifully, Professor Alan Millard pointed out in his letter to BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:06) that W. F. Albright’s Dawidum (meaning “chieftain”) was thoroughly vanquished by I. J. Gelb in 1960. It is truly amazing that Albright did not remove or correct that idea of his in the 1969 edition of his translation of the Moabite Stone (in James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton Univ. Press). But he did not, and second-rate commentaries on the Mesha texts in subsequent years have continued to refer to it.

A new fragment of the Dan inscription was presented to us by Professor Avraham Biran at the Chicago meeting of SBL/ASOR last November. This fragment should make it clear once and for all (at least for all objective observers) that the inscription does have to do with the Davidic dynasty ruling in Jerusalem. The “House of David” is used in the Bible as the political title of the Jerusalem ruling dynasty, just as Jerusalem is called politically “City of David.” Now we have ninth-century B.C.E. witnesses to the reality of that expression in foreign inscriptions. Yes, Virginia, there really was a Davidic dynasty. But Virginia, if you want to believe in a deity called Dod, Doda or Dodo, I would recommend Santa Claus instead.

Potpourri

Archaeological Scandal

In the course of writing an article on plans for the City of David in the 3,000th anniversary observance, I interviewed archeologists at the Israel Antiquities Authority and Meir Ben Dov, field director of the excavations south of the Temple Mount and author of In the Shadow of the Temple Mount (Harper & Row, 1982). They all said the same thing: Nothing much is going to be done there. The reason is political. I asked why the entire area is not apropriated under the right of eminent domain and turned into an archeological garden. I was told that the government does not want to do anything that will “disturb the peace process.”

What about illegal building there? “Nothing can be done.” What about protection of the site? The government is doing “the best we can, with almost no manpower.” While I was guiding a group through the area last week, several local residents offered me handfuls of ancient coins that they said were found there.

This archeological scandal should not be allowed to continue. The City of David, the original Jerusalem, the most important archeological site in Israel, should be developed as a National Historical Landmark. Neither Jews nor Arabs should be living there. Those who 082claim a legal right to live there (if such a thing is possible!) can be compensated, and the entire area excavated and rescued from its continuing neglect.

BAS Should Cut Its Ties with Trinity Seminary

I am becoming worried about the continuing tabloid nature of some of your newer ad clients. I was shocked to see a beautiful and attractive full page ad for Trinity Theological Seminary.

I have just written a new chapter for a theological anthology (The Book Your Church Doesn’t Want You to Read, 1993, updated and expanded 1995) on easy-to-get and fake religious credentials and theological degrees. Trinity Theological Seminary advertised itself in BAR as an “accredited” college and seminary. My research listed them as otherwise.

Trinity Theological Seminary is mentioned in Bear’s Guide to Earning College Degrees Non-Traditionally by John Bear, Ph.D. (1994) and in Walston’s Guide to Earning Religious Degrees Non-Traditionally (1994) by Rick Walston, Ph.D. Both books list Trinity Theological Seminary as unaccredited!

The Trinity catalog makes outrageous claims of a special relationship with the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) and its affiliate, the Association of Bible Teachers. This does not look good for BAS’s academic credibility.

Trinity College and Theological Seminary is not accredited by the North Central Association, the regional association that accredits colleges and universities in 19 states in the midwest and north central United States. The North Central Association has accredited over a thousand schools.

Neither is Trinity accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, another accrediting association recognized by the United States Department of Education. This association has accredited 193 theological schools. Trinity is not among them.

Trinity is accredited by the National Association for Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC), of Grand Junction, Colorado. This association, established in the 1970s, has accredited a total of seven schools. This accrediting association has unsuccessfully tried several times to gain recognition from the Department of Education. NAPNSC presently has an application for recognition pending with the Department of Education.

In its initial ad in BAR, Trinity described itself as “accredited.” It later deleted this claim in its BAR ads.

Since his election as president of the Association of Bible Teachers (which is an affiliate of the Biblical Archaeology Society, publisher of BAR and Bible Review), Steven D. Lowe has become Trinity’s Dean of Christian Education. However, neither the Association of Bible Teachers (ABT) nor the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) has any special relationship with Trinity.

Unfortunately, Trinity’s catalog may give the false impression that Trinity does have a special relationship with ABT and BAS. Trinity offered to make available to ABT a sub-forum on the CompuServe computer network. Based on this, Trinity’s catalog states that “ABT is grateful for the opportunity to be associated with an institution of high caliber and academic integrity such as Trinity College and Seminary.” This cleverly, but falsely, gives the impression that ABT recognizes Trinity as “an institution of high caliber and academic integrity.”

In response to a query from Trinity, BAS offered to discount its seminars to Trinity students if a sufficiently large group signed up. BAS seminars are open to anyone who wishes to attend. Based on this offer, the Trinity catalog states that “Trinity is proud of its association with the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) of Washington, D.C. under the leadership of Hershel Shanks, President and Editor-in-Chief of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) and Bible Review. Under the terms of a special agreement with BAS, Trinity students will be able to enhance their knowledge and understanding of biblical archaeology, geography, history, and specialized areas of study such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, through attendance at BAS-sponsored three and six day seminars at sites around the world. In a reciprocal arrangement with BAS, Trinity students will be able to receive college or seminary credit for their participation in BAS-sponsored seminars.”

There is no special reciprocal relationship between Trinity and BAS. Our seminars are open to all and the group discount is available to all groups. Neither BAR nor BAS has anything to do with whether college credit is given for attendance at BAS seminars. That is up to any individual school. The language of the catalog easily gives the reader the false impression that BAS has some special relationship with Trinity, which it does not.—Hershel Shanks

Steven D. Lowe, Chair, Christian Education, Trinity College and Seminary; President, Association of Bible Teachers, responds:

I consider Hershel Shanks a colleague and a friend. It was through his leadership that 084the Association of Bible Teachers came into existence. He has graciously provided space in BAR and BR for the Association of Bible Teachers (ABT) to promote its mission of assisting and encouraging those who teach the Bible, regardless of theological or religious persuasion. It is for this reason that the tone of Hershel’s response is both surprising and disheartening.

First, I wish to respond to Mr. Snow. The fax machine in the office of ABT has been inundated with Mr. Snow’s scurrilous missives for the last several months. ABT’s fax machine, originally intended as a means of communication between members and interested prospective members, has now become a prisoner to Mr. Snow’s self-appointed academic mission. Conveniently, he fails to identify his academic credentials for assessing and evaluating the academic standards of institutions of higher education. Nor does he identify his mandate to do so and by whom it was given. It is not surprising therefore that his information is false and misleading, bordering on libel.

He overtly states that Trinity College and Seminary, an institution for whom I serve, is “unaccredited” and cites two standard reference guides, Bear’s Guide and Walston’s Guide, as proof. If he had done his homework, he would have discovered that Trinity is accredited by the National Association of Private Nontraditional Schools and Colleges (NAPNSC), the only exclusively nontraditional accrediting agency in the country, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, in Bear’s Guide, the editor states regarding NAPNSC that it has made a “serious and sincere effort to establish an accrediting agency specifically concerned with alternative schools and programs.” Bear’s Guide goes on to state that NAPNSC is the only unrecognized accrediting agency that “is both clearly legitimate and pursuing such recognition.” Trinity is accredited by this fledgling association and has been since 1992.

The more subtle and libelous portion of Mr. Snow’s remarks has to do with his references to “fake religious credentials and theological degrees” and theological degrees that are “easy to get.” In short, Mr. Snow is accusing Trinity of being a degree mill. That is, students who enroll in a degree program need not do any work but simply pay money to obtain an academic degree under false pretenses. Most of our students would find Mr. Snow’s comments laughable, in light of the rigors demanded of them in all our degree programs. All degrees awarded by Trinity are earned by Trinity students. Many of them are readers of BAR and I would invite their comments in this section of the journal.

If Mr. Snow had simply written his letter and it had been published by BAR, that would have been relatively easy to dismiss, considering the source. However, Hershel Shanks’ response to Mr. Snow’s letter is most disturbing. First, because the subject matter really has no business on the pages of a journal dedicated to the promulgation of Biblical archaeology and related disciplines. Second, because Hershel, with all due respect, has absolutely no academic credentials that qualify him as an expert on the subject of institutional accreditation and accrediting agency recognition by third party entities. Third, because of my close personal ties with Hershel, BAS and BAR/BR, due to my position as president of ABT.

No matter how distasteful this response is for me personally, I have no choice but to respond professionally, since my name was mentioned in Hershel’s response, as well as the two organizations I represent. Permit me to set the record straight.

Hershel’s reference to NAPNSC attempts at Department of Education recognition, rather than devaluing them as an organization, points to their tenacity and dedication to their mission. Dr. Earl Heusser, executive director of NAPNSC, has dedicated himself to the task of establishing a viable, legitimate and recognized accrediting association for nontraditional institutions of higher education in the United States. He has had to overcome many hardships, including academic bias against nontraditional institutions to bring NAPNSC to where it is today with a “provisional status” before the Department of Education. NAPNSC will be up for a vote again this November and we are hopeful that all the barriers that have been erected to inhibit their formal recognition from becoming a reality will have finally been overcome. Trinity is proud to be associated with Dr. Heusser and NAPNSC.

The brief reference to the fact that we have deleted the word “accredited” in our BAR ads is somewhat misleading. The impression Hershel leaves with an uninformed reader is that Trinity bowed to pressure and removed the designation to avoid controversy. The facts are quite the opposite. An executive decision was made on or about April 1995 by our president to remove the designation “accredited” from all of our advertising. His reason for doing so was that it was not necessary in light of the fact that every other institution of higher education advertising in the same journals did not do so. He felt no obligation to continue using the designation, even though true and accurate, because of the prevailing practice among competing institutions.

Hershel states unequivocally that “neither the Association of Bible Teachers (ABT) nor the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) has any special relationship with Trinity.” This is patently false.

(1) Trinity has a formal and special relationship with ABT. First, the ABT offices are located on Trinity’s campus in 085Indiana, and we lease our office space from them. Second, Trinity and ABT co-sponsored an archaeological excavation at Bethsaida in March of this year, which was promoted on the pages of BAR and BR in ABT’s “For Teachers” page. Third, Trinity, ABT and the Jerusalem Center will co-sponsor the same dig again in 1996, and I will be leading the group along with Dan Casey, a board member of ABT, who also serves on the faculty of the Jerusalem Center. Further, ABT currently has its own private forum on CompuServe under Trinity auspices, who assisted us in setting it up and in providing the space to us on their own private forum. This formal relationship between ABT and Trinity has been approved and ratified by the ABT Board of Directors. As a consequence, BAS has a formal relationship with Trinity because ABT is an affiliate organization of BAS.

(2) Trinity has an implicitly formal relationship with BAS. First, when I came to my position at Trinity late in 1994, I contacted Hershel about establishing a reciprocal arrangement between Trinity and BAS regarding the awarding of credit both to our students and to any interested participants who might wish to translate Continuing Education Units (CEUs) into academic credit. Hershel declined my proposal because, as he wrote in a letter on official BAS stationary dated February 10, 1995, “it would just raise too many hackles and problems were we to work together on college credit programs with any institution that was not regionally accredited.” He went on to say, “We would be willing to talk about special rates for your students [to participate in BAS seminars] and special rates for your students to subscribe to our magazines” [emphasis mine]. Later, in response to me, he wrote on March 8, 1995, “I am delighted that Trinity would still like to offer our seminars to its students. As to the discount we would offer … I think it would be somewhere between 10 and 15 percent, depending on the number of students enrolled.” We have, therefore, a special relationship vis-a-vis Trinity student participation in BAS-sponsored seminars and the “special rates” our students could expect to receive.

Second, there was an exploration of the possibility of BAS developing its own private forum on CompuServe under the auspices of Trinity, much like we have done at ABT. Hershel refers to this special relationship in the February 10 letter when he writes in the last paragraph, “I would also like to pursue the idea of a sub-forum on CompuServe. Perhaps a joint forum with BAS and ABT makes the most sense.” Later in the March 8 letter he wrote in the last paragraph, “As to the CompuServe forum, I am almost an illiterate on the subject, so I will be asking Bridget Young to get in touch with you or Dr. Frey in this connection.” Here we have a representative of BAS and Trinity getting together to establish a formal agreement regarding the formation of a sub-forum on Trinity’s private CompuServe forum.

Third, Hershel and BAS offered Trinity special advertising rates for advertising in BAR. Following a phone conversation with Hershel and Dean Roxanis of the BAS staff concerning the special rates Trinity would receive, I faxed this information to Dunn and Associates in care of John Hatcherian, who handles the BAS account, on January 2, 1995. I wrote, “Please confirm our calculation of cost at $3,384. Hershel and Dean authorized a 25 percent discount off the six time rate for us” John Hatcherian replied with a fax on on January 3, 1995, “I have left a message at the phone number that was given to me by Dean at BAR. The rate of $3,384 is fine per your conversation with Dean and I will send paperwork to you tomorrow.” Since March, 1995, Trinity has spent over $10,000 on BAR advertising at the discounted rate.

Fourth, BAS agreed to provide Trinity students with a special subscription rate to BAR. The February 10, 1995 letter, referred to earlier, contained a passing reference to a phone conversation I had with Hershel regarding our desire to expose Trinity students to the scholarship offered in BAR. Hershel wrote, “We would be willing to talk to you about special rates for your students and special rates for your students to subscribe to our magazines.” This “special rate” was agreed upon and since March 1995, 175 Trinity students have taken a subscription to BAR, providing BAS in excess of $1,800 in new subscription revenues.

Further, there is nothing in our catalog, referring to the BAS seminars, which was not agreed to and proposed by Hershel and BAS. The catalog page in question entitled “Specialized Studies” with a subheading that reads “Biblical Archaeology Society Seminars,” begins by stating that Trinity is “proud of its association with BAS.” This is nothing more than a public acknowledgment of what I have itemized above regarding the “special” relationship between these two organizations. The page goes on to read, “Under the terms of a special agreement with BAS, Trinity students will be able to enhance their knowledge and understanding of biblical archaeology, geography, history and specialized areas of study such as the Dead Sea Scrolls … Trinity students will be able to receive college or seminary credit for their participation in BAS-sponsored seminars … and will receive a special discount thereby helping to reduce the BAS seminar cost.” The only award of college credit being offered is that Trinity would offer its own students who attended the seminars. This page contains nothing that was not agreed to by Hershel and his BAS staff regarding the nature of the relationship between our two institutions. Therefore, he is wrong in claiming that the Trinity catalog “falsely gives the impression that BAS has some special relationship with Trinity.” His own words from his letter (“special rates for your students”) contradict his assertions in this response.

Hershel Shanks responds:

Unfortunately, the Trinity catalog trades in the names of ABT and BAS, leaving the impression that ABT and BAS, by their special relationship with Trinity, are affiliated with and approve of or endorse the Trinity program. The financial concessions we have made to Trinity, we would make for any school.

005

A Note on Style

B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by some of our authors, are the alternative designations for B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.

Just the Facts, Please

I am not renewing. I am highly disappointed in your magazine.

I want information and not a lot of pros and cons. I get enough of that here. Only facts are what I’m interested in.