Queries & Comments
010
Sex and Those Infernal Bind-In Cards
Those infernal advertising cards bound into the issues are ridiculous. In the BAR I received today, I took out 4 “doubles” and 3 “singles.” Do they actually breed?
AAARRRGH! Have mercy!
Miss Red Guernsey
Pilot and Engineer
Bayport, New York
Strained, Contorted and Tortured
I have decided your magazine is too reactionary and fundamentalistic for my taste. Your interpretations of archaeological finds are strained, contorted and tortured in order to fit your fantasy that the Bible—which undeniably has merit as an allegorical investiture of some wisdom and truth—is a work of history and not of mythology. Your attitude may appease the “inerrant” type of “Biblical scholar” as well as certain nationalistic fanatics, but it does not satisfy the search for truth with which archaeology should be concerned.
Cancel my subscription.
Charles Moyer
Peninsula, Ohio
Death of a Discipline
The Sky is not Falling
In his essay, “The Death of a Discipline,” Bill Dever writes that “The crux of the matter is that Middle Eastern archaeology, which so many of us love and serve, is in danger of dying” (italics added). NOTHING could be further from the truth. Throughout his essay Dever makes the mistake of equating a small and provincial aspect of Middle Eastern archaeology—Biblical archaeology—with the whole of Middle Eastern archaeology.
Dever refers to Harvard several times in his essay. He states that Harvard takes only one student a year in Middle Eastern archaeology, and he seems to think that Larry Stager runs that program. This too is in error. The days in which one individual can control an entire research field, even a provincial one, are over! Perhaps this is what is wrong with Biblical archaeology: the notion that one person is a department. Dever makes no mention of the following professors at Harvard, all of whom teach the archaeology of the Middle East: Ofer Bar-Yosef, Irene Winter, Piotr Steinkeller, Richard Meadow, David Mitten, Stephen Cole or myself. Additionally, we have at least two visiting professors or research scholars each year.
The fact is that Middle Eastern archaeology is thriving in most major research universities. Dever mistakenly writes, “Despite what most would consider an outstanding record, the University of Arizona has decided to close the graduate program in archaeology.” Nothing of the kind is happening! The heart of that university’s strong program in archaeology will remain intact in other departments, mainly anthropology.
I suspect that if Dever had a broader vision of what Middle Eastern archaeology was, with respect to geography, methods, theory and the like, there would be less concern about the loss of a part of it. If Biblical archaeology is dying, the reasons must be sought within that sector of research and not within the larger field of Middle Eastern archaeology. Perhaps there is a biological law operating here: A narrow provincialism with a context of over-specialization frequently leads to extinction.
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
Stephen Philips Professor of Archaeology
Peabody Museum
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
See William Dever’s reply following Liza M. Redfield’s letter.—Ed.
Support for Biblical Archaeology Depends on Popular Interest
Let me see if I have this straight. Biblical archaeology, if not archaeology itself, got its start because certain persons who had the means to do so undertook excavations in lands mentioned in the Bible. They did this because they were interested in the Bible and wanted to learn more about conditions in Bible times and/or they wanted to prove the historical accuracy of 012the Bible. Over the years the discipline has survived on the support of people who shared those interests.
For the last two or three decades though, we have been told that Biblical archaeology should have nothing to do with proving or disproving the Bible. It’s just the branch of archaeology that concentrates on the area of the world that happens to be thought of as “the lands of the Bible.” According to some practitioners, even reading the Bible to cast light on an archaeological find is inappropriate, as such research may cloud the expert’s judgment.
Now a leading practitioner in the field is concerned about the loss of public support for his discipline. Should he be surprised? My own interest in history and archaeology centers on the ancient Near East specifically because, as a Christian layman, I want to learn more about the historical context of Biblical narratives. Were it not for that, my leisure time would likely be spent reading about the history of India, China, Middle America or some other place. No doubt many of your readers and supporters have similar attitudes.
Support depends on popular interest. Legislative appropriations to public universities reflect popular opinion. If Biblical archaeology is not responsive to the interests of its supporters, then the death of its support is inevitable.
Bob Gruen
Chatham, Illinois
See William Dever’s reply following Liza M. Redfield’s letter.—Ed.
Archaeology Must Evolve with the Times
William Dever’s well-written article laments the demise of American Mid-Eastern Archaeology (AMA).
Old style AMA is becoming extinct for a good reason. It is no longer viable in the form it now takes. The lack of funds and support are hints that society no longer wants classic 19th-century archaeology.
In this day of computers, the Internet, faxes, CDs of artifact collections and Biblical databases, arcane “professional” archaeology, as a separate discipline, is no longer needed. Today, it is no longer necessary to have a local $75,000-per-year university scholar on hand when a three-minute call on a fax or computer will connect you to any expert in the world.
We cannot afford distinct archaeology departments that fail to fill classrooms, fail to report research in a timely manner and experience the gutting of grants by “university overhead.” Scholars, in order to survive, must not only be knowledgeable, but must also be good businessmen/women, good teachers and good public relations experts, and must produce enough significant and interesting literature (for scholars and the public) to justify their salaries. The non-communicative, elitist, ivory-tower nerd, as is often still being trained at universities, will disappear.
Though academic, professional archaeology is disappearing, it is being replaced by the next step in the evolutionary spiral—the well-informed, worldly and self-supporting amateur archaeologist who has at his/her fingertips more data and knowledge than the professional of ten years ago. It is the amateur archaeologist who will carry on.
BAR and other “popular” journals, supported by the interested public, will become the heart of the new Biblical archaeology. A few good professionals will be needed, but considerably fewer than in the past. I thank Dr. Dever and his colleagues who brought us to this point.
Ellis J. Neiburger
Curator of Anthropology (retired)
Lake County Museum, Illinois
See William Dever’s reply following Liza M. Redfield’s letter.—Ed.
Update on Pittsburgh Seminary
As a faculty member at a seminary with a long tradition of archaeological work in the Middle East, I was distressed to learn of the threatened demise of the discipline in American institutions, as reported by Professor Dever. I would like to correct two misstatements in the article with respect to Pittsburgh Seminary, however.
Paul Lapp’s old position will not be filled; that was vacated after his untimely death in 1970. Our appointment this year of Professor Linda Day in Old Testament was to fill the position left open by the retirement of Eberhard von Waldow.
However, a recent grant has made it possible for us to establish an endowed chair in Bible and Archaeology, and we expect that the chair will be filled by a person well qualified in the archaeology of the Middle East who will enable the seminary to continue its commitment to work in that field.
Donald E. Gowan, Ph.D.
Robert C. Holland Professor of Old Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Badè Institute Not Closed, But …
I wish to correct William Dever’s statement that the Pacific School of Religion (which sponsored the Tell en-Nasbeh excavations) “has closed its program and is selling off its splendid Badè Institute collections.” As coordinator of the Badè Institute for five years, I would like to point out that this is simply not the case. Even though the hours of the coordinator position have been significantly reduced over the past several years 013and a large portion of the institute’s library has been loaned to the nearby Graduate Theological Union library, the Badè Institute has by no means closed its doors to the public, nor has it sold (or even considered selling) any portion of its antiquities collection. The institute still has its museum, conducts tours for church and school groups, and sends out traveling museums to schools throughout the country. So even though the Badè no longer acquires new books and periodicals, it has not “closed its program,” nor has it entered the lucrative yet deplorable business of selling artifacts to public and private collectors.
Kevin Kaiser, coordinator
Badè Institute
Pacific School of Religion
Berkeley, California
See William Dever’s reply following Liza M. Redfield’s letter.—Ed.
Bad All Over
Dr. Dever’s article further underscores for me the hopelessness young and gifted American scholars face in virtually every field of any importance to history or civilization not swathed in pop trendiness.
If BAR’s readers value their children’s or grandchildren’s futures, they will steer them clear of the pursuit of scholarship and into the sciences unless they have substantial fortunes to leave them. Yes, it’s tragic, but I do not see a time in the near future when universities here will value genuine scholarship.
Sadly, Dr. Dever’s fine and worthy field is not uniquely threatened. BAR’s readers ought to know that the same situation exists across the board.
Liza M. Redfield
New York, New York
William Dever responds:
I published “The Death of a Discipline” with great trepidation, despite encouragement and valuable help in editing from Hershel Shanks, because any kind of archaeology connected with both Israel and the Bible is bound to tread on many toes (even some of my own students have chided me). Sure enough, some Christian readers accused me of “doubting the truth of the Bible” (that is, their particular truth), while several Jewish readers advised me to get out of the field, to leave archaeology in Israel and the Bible to the Israelis to whom it rightfully belongs (the New Testament, too, I suppose). Such responses, based as they are on ignorance, obvious bias and even racism, do not deserve a serious response.
At least one reader expressed the view that we elitist “experts” have gotten the comeuppance we deserve and will soon be obsolete. As he puts it, soon anyone can simply log in on the Internet and in three minutes find out everything he needs to know about anything archaeological. Unfortunately, this naive reader confuses “facts” with real data, mere information with wisdom. In any case, who will program computer data banks if not we specialists? And who will train the next generation to do so? The danger is that the electronic Utopia may produce a generation of technical wizards who are nonetheless cultural and moral idiots.
Other letters were helpful in correcting me on factual matters that had changed since I wrote this article more than a year ago. Thus I learned that the Badè Institute has not gone out of business, after all, as I was told would be likely when I was first 014approached as a consultant. (Nevertheless, it is a museum, not a teaching institution.) Also, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary has hired a new Biblical scholar and has moved toward establishing a complementary position in archaeology.
There have been other good developments. It was encouraging to hear from President Paige Patterson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary that my article firmed up their resolve to hire an archaeologist, and they are now in touch with two of my graduate students. For me, the best news is that one of Arizona’s recent Ph.D.’s, Dr. Alexander H. Joffee, has been hired in a tenure-track position at Penn State in the department of anthropology with a cross-appointment in Judaic studies, working with a leading Bible scholar there, Baruch Halpern. Another, Dr. J.P. Dessel, is now teaching temporarily at Bryn Mawr College, which has recently announced a junior position in Near Eastern archaeology that may focus on Syria-Palestine. Finally, the Pritchard chair at the University of Pennsylvania, vacant for many years, has now been revived, although unendowed and at a junior level. But my original point is unchanged: we need more positions to survive, especially some endowed chairs.
One reader insisted that the National Endowment for the Humanities had funded some recent excavations in the Middle East. But my student Dr. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, who works for NEH, has sent me the official list. While several field projects in Turkey were funded in 1994, there were no NEH grants for excavations in Israel or Jordan, and there was only one small grant for a Syrian dig (directed by an unemployed academic). In any case, Dr. Magness-Gardiner also informs me that she has been terminated, and her former division of NEH is not even accepting applications for funding in Middle Eastern or classical archaeology. The virtual elimination of our division of NEH, which I predicted, has prompted an article with a title similar to mine in a recent number of Lingua Franca, “Can Classics Die?” and a newsletter from Archaeological Institute of America president Stephen Dyson declaring that classical archaeology is facing its most serious financial crisis since 1945.
While I appreciate the corrections and the few “good news” stories even more, it should be clear to the careful reader that I was not simply crying “Wolf.” The crisis is real.
One senior colleague in our larger field, Professor C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky of Harvard’s Peabody Museum, chastised me for bad-mouthing American archaeology in the Middle East, which he insists is thriving. Lamberg-Karlovsky simply missed the point of my article, which, despite some passing reference to “Middle Eastern” archaeology, was obviously about American Syro-Palestinian and Biblical archaeology specifically, which are not thriving. Thus he misconstrues my statement that Arizona is “closing its graduate program in archaeology.” That my colleagues across the street are thriving in New World archaeology, even if true, is irrelevant to this story. His comments about his Harvard colleagues, all of whom I know and respect, fall in the same category; none works in the fields I was describing. Furthermore, he declares that “Biblical archaeology” deserves to die, because it has been so “provincial”—unrelated to the real world of Middle Eastern archaeology and anthropology. If Professor Lamberg-Karlovsky had read anything of what I have written the last 25 years, he would know that I have persistently tried to interpret Syro-Palestinian archaeology in that wider, more secular and professional context. And I have consistently criticized my own colleagues for precisely the “parochial” stance (my own term) so many of us have been taking. Yet the major barrier we who work in “Bible lands” face is precisely the condescending attitude Professor Lamberg-Karlovsky and many pseudo-sophisticates take toward us and ancient Palestine, despite our efforts at a rapprochement. In any case, whose archaeology is “provincial”? Ours that deals (among many other things) with the very roots of Western civilization in the long Biblical and Judaeo-Christian tradition—or the archaeology that deals with a small corner of ancient Near Eastern prehistory?
Readers should know that the Near Eastern archaeology program at Arizona still has nearly 20 graduate students in residence, who will be allowed to finish their degrees. Together with students from a handful of other universities, and a few younger academics who are managing to survive, this should give us some hope.
Pozo Moro
Where Resurrection Appears in the Bible
I read with a great deal of interest “From Death to Resurrection—The Early Evidence,” BAR 21:05, by Aharon Kempinski, who claims that “no trace” of belief in resurrection from the dead appears in scripture before Ezekiel’s time. But surely the Song of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2 contains at least a glimmer of resurgent life: “The Lord kills and brings to life; (he) brings down to Sheol and raises up” (NRSV).
Not only is the text of Samuel pre-Babylonian, but the Song of Hannah is considered by some scholars to be an older composition that was later inserted 016in the historical narrative. Should we be so quick to conclude that at the time of Exile resurrection represented a new idea of Punic origin?
The Reverend John Frederic Maria Millen
Health Advocates Coalition
San Francisco, California
See the reply following the letter from Stanton Carter.—Ed.
More Biblical References to Resurrection
The article by the late Aharon Kempinski states that “no trace of this belief [resurrection] appears in the Bible before Ezekiel’s vision during the Babylonian Exile.” This is clearly not so. Job 19:25–26 states: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last He will take His stand on the earth. Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God.” Isaiah 26:19 states: “Your dead will live; their corpses (nebelah) will rise.” Some psalms speak directly of the resurrection: “O LORD, Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol; Thou has kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit” (Psalm 30:3). Other psalms speak of reward (or judgment) that can only be given after death, such as Psalm 73:24, 27: “With Thy counsel Thou wilt guide me, and afterward receive me to glory … Those who are far from Thee shall perish.” This psalm, which laments the success of the wicked on earth, only makes sense if God will judge resurrected bodies afterwards. Other than that, Mr. Kempinski had a very interesting article.
Stanton Carter
Livermore, California
Bernhard Lang of the University of Paderborn, Germany, replies:
It is understandable that some readers should have questions about the late Dr. Kempinski’s claim that “the first Biblical mention of resurrection occurs in the book of the prophet Ezekiel, composed at about the same time the Pozo Moro monument was erected,” that is, in the sixth century B.C.E. First of all, it must be said in fairness to Kempinski that his paper is about an ancient Phoenician tomb monument whose architecture and reliefs indicate the appearance of fresh ideas about life after death in the Phoenician world. The paper makes only a passing reference to the Bible and does not per se discuss the debated question of how ancient Israelites thought about life after death and how their views might have changed over time.
As for myself, I agree with Kempinski that the first clearly datable evidence for Jewish hopes for resurrection is from the sixth-century Book of Ezekiel. Isaiah 26:19 seems to date from about the same period (and was at any rate written much later than when Isaiah delivered his prophecies in late eighth-century Jerusalem). The Job passages referred to by some readers are more obscure but may also date from this period.
However, there is little scholarly consensus about the history of ancient Israelite afterlife beliefs. There is still room for a diversity of opinions—as there is about the implications of the Pozo Moro monument.
As for myself, I think that it does not indicate the emergence of a belief in resurrection. Rather, the monument seems to indicate that the Phoenician abode of the dead was relocated above the skies—in heaven. The god of death, Mot, would of course stay in the netherworld. A similar relocation of Hades occurred in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
A Bucket a Day Keeps the Doctor Away
I was fascinated by the article about the Pozo Moro monument, as, indeed, I am by most of your articles.
Back in the early 1970s, I worked on a process for high-resolution, high-contrast photography of ancient stones for the purpose of “bringing up” weathered carvings. I worked with many stones and believe that I have not lost my eye for following the faded traces of the carver’s work.
With this in mind I bring to your attention the photograph in the Pozo Moro article.
The caption and accompanying sketch indicate, for the right half of this relief, a second table bearing an animal head, a jar and “what may be a loaf of bread” as standing before “an animal-headed figure who may be the Phoenician version of Anubis.”
From the enclosed tracing, which I made of this portion of your photograph, I believe we can see that the rather equine-shaped figure at the right is holding a large knife in one hand and the hair of a human figure in the other, said figure being pulled backwards over a flame possibly on a tripod or other support.
The stone is more heavily weathered in the area of interest, and, of course, the published photograph has lost definition in the reproduction process, but such an interpretation would seem to be more in keeping with the depiction of a deity who is busy satiating himself with bucket-o-baby.
Nonetheless, the article in particular and your magazine as a whole are 019informative and entertaining, and I am afraid that I do not think much of those readers who confuse your subject matter with theology. Thankfully my vision is not so narrow, nor my faith so weak.
The Reverend Michael McCrery
Frackville, Pennsylvania
Trinity Seminary
Blood, Sweat and Tears
As a recent graduate of Trinity Theological Seminary, I hope you might be interested in hearing my comments in regard to Alan Snow’s letter and your ensuing response (Queries & Comments, BAR 21:05).
I would like to assure you that I worked most diligently over a four-year period to earn my Ph.D. degree from Trinity. Not only was the course work challenging, but each of my instructors demanded the highest quality work and academic excellence. My degree was anything but easy to obtain, and I have several file drawers full of notes and work I completed in its pursuit.
I can assure you that my dissertation is stained by a significant amount of blood, sweat and tears.
I have taken courses at three other theological seminaries accredited by either the North Central Association or the Association of Theological Schools, and I can honestly say the course work at Trinity was not only more challenging, but it more thoroughly prepared me academically than any of the others.
Dennis R. McLaughlin
Jefferson City, Missouri
Trinity Can Hold Its Own
As a long-time BAR reader and subscriber, I am disturbed—although not surprised—at the tone of your remarks about Trinity 020College and Seminary in response to Mr. Snow in Queries & Comments, BAR 21:05. In particular, I am disturbed by your willingness to lend a non-critical ear to someone like Mr. Snow, whose glaring ignorance of the facts regarding Trinity College and Seminary, and the process and meaning of accreditation in general, are apparent in his letter.
Trinity has the most advanced, sophisticated system in the world for off-campus education programs in Christian ministry, Biblical studies, theology and related areas. In addition, Trinity offers resident courses and seminars at its Albuquerque, New Mexico, campus. Course for course, Trinity degree programs meet or exceed the academic standards of any quality seminary.
On the subject of accreditation, let’s talk quality of academic processes and learning outcomes, not merely recognition. After all, most of the well-known scholastic shenanigans (like transcript fixing and bogus classes for athletes) have occurred in regionally accredited colleges and universities; not to mention the kind of “touchy-feely,” non-academic classes taught by the hundreds in colleges and seminaries all across our land. Trinity courses are tightly monitored and require a volume of work that cannot be avoided.
The insinuation that Trinity is anything less than a credible, indeed high-quality, academic institution is pure pseudo-academic gobbledygook. Ask any of my students who are also graduates of schools like UCLA, MIT and practically every major evangelical seminary in the U.S.A. and who constantly complain—lovingly—that Trinity is about the toughest thing they have every attempted.
Steven Collins
Director, Trinity College and Seminary
The Southwest Campus at Albuquerque
Albuquerque, New Mexico
018
Jerusalem 3,000
Anchor Bible Editor ‘Burns’ BAR; Claims Pro-Zionist Bias
I was deeply disturbed by your recent advertisements unnecessarily linking BAR subscriptions and purchase of your recent book to the (alleged) 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Serious historians recognize how completely arbitrary the year 1996 is for Jerusalem’s history (we do not know that it became David’s capital in 996 B.C.E.; and even if it did, then we are only approaching the 2,992nd anniversary of that event!). Serious historians also appreciate how artificial and tenuous the historical link is between that ancient Near Eastern theocratic monarchy and this modern, Western, secular, democratic (well, sort of) state. It is sad that you ignore these scholarly insights and instead embrace the party line of right-wing ideologues who handle Israeli history in an essentially “Orwellian” manner.
It is irresponsible of the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) to endorse such a blatantly political exploitation of the past. It raises profound questions about what sort of interests and whose agendas are ultimately being promoted by BAS. To what extent is BAS committed to Biblical archaeology because it ultimately advances certain political interests (of right-wing Israelis) rather than academic or even (inter-)religious ones? Have you, as editor and chief spokesperson, been completely forthcoming in explaining to your readers the nature and extent of this apparent commitment? Surely you cannot deny that some such political agenda drives BAS when you publish such ideologically charged ads. Yet if some such political agenda more or less informs even part of BAS’s mission, then how can you answer the charge that BAS—despite its informative magazines, glossy photographs, impressive resources and alluring travel programs—has itself ironically become part of the problem confronting serious Biblical archaeology today?
Surely you must know that the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is yet to be resolved by responsible political representatives of the concerned parties negotiating in the give-and-take context of realpolitik. This important but delicate process must not be complicated further by exciting passions through the cynical exploitation of a remote, long-dead and irrelevant past under the guise of “scientific archaeology.” God forbid, but it would seem that the next logical step would be for BAS to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary of David’s purchase of Araunah’s threshing floor (the site of the current Dome of the Rock) as a prelude to the construction of a Jewish temple on the site. When right-wing Zionists clamor for it (and they will), will BAS again agree to promote their political agenda?
Do you really not understand how dangerous such a meddlesome blending of religion and politics (under the aegis of archaeology) is in this volatile part of the world at this very sensitive time? What do you hope to accomplish by publishing ads that are not only academically irresponsible and commercially unnecessary but also politically inflammatory? In encouraging hard-line Zionists and enraging hard-line Palestinians, is BAS actually hoping for a re-escalation of tensions in the Middle East? Is it gambling that the state of Israel might decisively benefit from (cracking down on) a renewed Intifada (or worse)? And can you explain to your more religious readers (both Jewish and Christian) why you are selectively relating 2 Samuel 5:6–7 [David’s capture of Jerusalem—Ed.] to modern Israel, but not other (arguably relevant) texts such as Leviticus 18:26–28, 19:33–34, 20–22; or Deuteronomy 28:58–63 [texts requiring equal treatment for “the stranger (or alien) who resides among you … lest the land spew you out for defiling it”—Ed.]?
It seems to me that you and BAS are playing a very dangerous game, the kind of game that tends to compromise the integrity of everyone involved. It genuinely pains me to say that I can no longer play it with you; in fact, I am ashamed to think that for over a decade now I may have been an unwitting partner in this highly partisan, high-stakes game of Middle East power politics, a game in which scholarly integrity, scientific objectivity and even relevant Jewish and Christian moral sensitivities have never been welcomed.
In the past I have tolerated this perceived bias because I felt I might benefit professionally from the services provided by BAS. Furthermore, I was generally sympathetic to your encouragement of Jewish-Christian dialogue and understanding, even though I was uncomfortable with the way in which interfaith issues were sometimes framed with a decidedly pro-Zionist slant.
However, I simply cannot in good conscience help underwrite this apparent political agenda any longer. If in the past Bill Dever has had compelling reasons for not writing for your magazines, I have today encountered compelling reasons for not reading them. Regrettably and painfully, I request that my subscriptions to BAR and Bible Review be cancelled.
Gary Herion, Ph.D.
Associate Editor, Anchor Bible Dictionary
Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY
Hershel Shanks responds:
Were it not for the unusual prominence of the author of this letter, we might well not have printed it, certainly not at this length, for the reason that many, if not most, of his points have already been answered in the introduction to our Jerusalem coverage in “Jerusalem 3,000: A Yearlong Celebration,” BAR 21:06 (which Dr. Herion could not have seen when he wrote his letter). Moreover, we try to avoid, unless it is clearly germane to our archaeological concerns, modern politics, just as we try to avoid theology, unless it too becomes pertinent to our scholarly archaeological interests. When, inevitably, we sometimes do become involved in theology or politics, we try very hard to be respectful of varying views, especially those that may differ from our own. If we occasionally err, it is not for lack of trying.
That perhaps explains our particular sensitivity to a broadside from a man who signs his letter, and thus takes his identity, not simply as an assistant professor at a fine, small college, but first and foremost as the associate editor of the monumental six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary, whose full-page ads in BAR tout the dictionary with my own review: “One of the most significant publishing events in many years.”
The first paragraph of Dr. Herion’s letter immediately sent me to the advertisements that occasioned it. How had the advertisements for BAR subscriptions and for my new book, Jerusalem: An Archaeological Biography, which is being published by Random House, somehow inadvertently taken an explicit or implied position regarding the status of Jerusalem or tried to use Israel’s 3,000th anniversary celebration to support her political position with regard to the Holy City? “Surely,” Dr. Herion wrote, “you cannot deny that some such political agenda drives BAS when you publish such ideologically charged ads.”
I read and re-read the advertisement but couldn’t find what Dr. Herion was referring to. I still can’t. It is simply an ad for a popular archaeological history of Jerusalem, full of beautiful pictures and given high marks by several famous scholars. Not a whiff of politics. The chapter titles, listed in the ad, begin with “Jerusalem Before the Israelites” and end with “Moslem and Crusader Jerusalem.” Although the book was obviously 019written to coincide with Israel’s celebration of Jerusalem as the 3,000th anniversary as the capital of Israel, the only reference to this in the ad is a quotation from Professor James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary: “Hershel Shanks celebrates Jerusalem’s trimillennium as Israel’s capital in authoritative and engaging prose.” That’s it. What in the world does Dr. Herion refer to when he calls this ad “academically irresponsible and … politically inflammatory”?
Perhaps Dr. Herion also means to refer to our announcement in the September/October issue that we will participate in the 3,000th anniversary by publishing a series of archaeological articles about Jerusalem. Is he really saying that we should not publish articles about the archaeology of Jerusalem?
What Dr. Herion really objects to, as his letter makes plain, is the 3,000th anniversary celebration itself. BAS, in his view, should have nothing to do with it—not even advertise a book written by the editor or upcoming articles on the archaeological history of Jerusalem. (Presumably, I should not even have written the book.) Nor should we participate by publishing a series of articles about Jerusalem archaeology.
To have anything to do with this celebration, in Dr. Herion’s view, inevitably involves us in “a blatantly political exploitation of the past” and “ultimately advances certain political interests (of right-wing Israelis).”
Dr. Herion’s first objection is that the date of the celebration—1996—is arbitrary. Well, to some extent it is arbitrary, as I noted in my introduction to our Jerusalem coverage in the previous issue. On the other hand, it’s not, as Dr. Herion claims, “completely arbitrary.” It happened about 1000 B.C.E., so, as I said in the last issue, “1996 is as good a year as any in which to remember the past.”
As I also said in that introduction, “Our own participation will be archaeological.” But, according to Dr. Herion, that is impossible. Any recognition of the anniversary, he says, is necessarily political. To participate in an archaeological way is to “embrace the party line of right-wing ideologues who handle Israeli history in an essentially ‘Orwellian’ manner.”
Herion’s own political position is clear from his letter. He refers to the modern state of Israel as a “democratic (well, sort of) state.” (Is the United States a “democratic [well, sort of] state”?) But the real extent of his passion is reflected in his actions: Because we have participated in the 3,000th anniversary celebration by advertising (and, presumably, by writing) a book on the archaeological history of Jerusalem and by publishing a series of articles on Jerusalem archaeology, Dr. Herion will, at least figuratively, consign everything in our magazines to the flames; he will not read them. A bit extreme, don’t you think?
But Dr. Herion also makes a broader charge: Overall, not just in the advertisements to which he objects, “BAS [is] playing a very dangerous game, the kind of game that tends to compromise the integrity of everyone involved … [a] high-stakes game of Middle East power politics, a game in which scholarly integrity, scientific objectivity and even relevant Jewish and Christian moral sensitivities have never been welcomed.” Everything we do, apparently, is tinged “with a decidedly pro-Zionist slant.”
Well, Dr. Herion is right if what he means is that in general we support Israel (although not everything her government and her people do or the positions they sometimes take; we have no expressed view regarding the final status of Jerusalem in the peace process) and we do take some pride in what Israel has accomplished. But it is difficult to find a reflection of all this in our pages. (Incidentally, we also offer a scholarship to Arab nationals to give a paper at the Annual Meeting.) When it trenches on our Biblical and archaeological concerns, we have no hesitation in criticizing Israel, her officials or her archaeologists. Our criticism of the position of Israel’s establishment regarding access to the then-unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls is well known. And even with respect to the 3,000th anniversary celebration, we used the occasion to criticize the failure of Israeli archaeologists to publish the three major Israeli excavations that have occurred in Jerusalem since the 1967 Six-Day War (“A Yearlong Celebration,” BAR 21:06).
So, yes, Dr. Herion, I suppose you could say we are pro-Zionist. If that offends you so deeply, you may be right to cancel your subscription to BAR and our sister publication Bible Review (although, if you want to edit a subsequent edition of the Anchor Bible Dictionary, you may need to sneak into the library for a peek, now and again, to keep abreast of what’s happening in your field). On the other hand, we don’t trumpet our politics in our pages and we are quick—some would say too quick—to criticize Israel when we think that is called for. If that be treason, Dr. Herion, make the most of it.
020
Pennies from Heaven (Lots of Them)
We would like to thank the person or group who recently sent us an envelope with no return address and containing the following note:
“Your name has been selected by lot (Proverbs 16:33) to receive tithes and offerings (Exodus 23:15, 34:20; Deuteronomy 16:16) anonymously (Matthew 6:3).”
Enclosed were 12 $100 bills, a $20 bill and a $10 bill. We would be happy if this inspired others to do likewise, but please—don’t send cash through the mail.
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.
Sex and Those Infernal Bind-In Cards
Those infernal advertising cards bound into the issues are ridiculous. In the BAR I received today, I took out 4 “doubles” and 3 “singles.” Do they actually breed?
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.