Queries & Comments

008

A World of Opportunities

I am a junior at Oklahoma State University and am extremely interested in Biblical archaeology. I feel a kind of calling to pursue it as a career. I want to thank you so much for what you are. Tonight I stumbled upon your Web site [www.biblicalarchaeology.org] and cried as I read of the opportunities and literature that are available because of you. I cannot study archaeology at my university, but you have given me a way to pursue my interest. Thank you!

A-mazing Experience

Dear Dr. Joyce Brothers,

I attended the SBL/AAR Annual Meeting at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville (see First Person BAR 27:02). I have been troubled by a recurring dream since I returned home. I dream I am a white rat trying to run a maze. But even when I succeed, I don’t get a reward—I have to stand in a long line for food. What does this mean?

Sincerely,

A Troubled Biblical Scholar

The Age of BAR

Quote Misattributed—And Taken Out of Context

I would like to call your attention to a misappropriation of my comment in “The Age of BAR,” BAR 27:02, that “at Gezer we were still tossing bones away” in the 1960s and attributing it to Frank Moore Cross, my teacher and colleague. He was never a staff member at the Gezer excavations, although he might have visited the site on occasion. I was there from 1965 to 1969 as an area supervisor and am extremely grateful to Professors William Dever and John S. Holladay for the training in field methods I received during those years.

My “no bones” statement—not Cross’s—was wrenched completely out of context. In the areas where I worked, we did not collect animal bones systematically, which requires dry-sieving. However, there were a few supervisors in other fields who did systematic sieving and collecting of faunal data. As you mention in the article, one should put all of this into historical context; most excavations in the Levant were not collecting faunal and botanical remains throughout the excavated areas in a methodical manner, though it was being done that way by some of the prehistorians working in the Near East. In the early 1970s at Tell el-Hesi and at Heshbon, there were systematic efforts to dry- and wet-sieve deposits in all areas excavated in order to retrieve ancient faunal and botanical remains.

At Gezer the most innovative effort to involve natural scientists was the addition of Dr. Reuben Bullard, a geologist, to the senior staff. He examined microstratigraphy throughout the site, making on-site analyses of the nature and genesis of archaeological deposits. He also conducted geological surveys near Gezer.

On a more general note, I would have to say that your review of Biblical archaeology during the last decades was quite uneven and sketchy. It missed many of the discipline’s most salient developments, especially in the fields of paleodemography, 009society and economy, which can now be advanced because of improved collecting procedures, new technologies and intensive surveys.

We apologize for the misattribution. Stager and Cross were interviewed at the same time and the person who typed the transcript could not distinguish between the voices of Cross and Stager.—Ed.

Revisionism Won’t Go Away

Your “state-of-the-art” treatment of our branch of archaeology was timely and interesting, but it lacked balance and in some cases was in error.

(1) The statement that “at Gezer we were still tossing bones away” is simply wrong. The fact is that Gezer in the mid-1960s was among the first to attempt “total retrieval” of all materials, even experimenting with selective sieving and froth-flotation devices to recover floral and faunal remains. While it is true that our field reports do not adequately reflect this because laboratory analysis and integration lagged behind back then, we saved nearly all the bones; no one deliberately discarded them.

(2) Amnon Ben-Tor’s dismissive remarks about theory, while amusing, reveal why Israeli (and much of American) archaeology remains parochial, ignored by mainstream archaeology. It is a pity that you did not interview a few younger Israeli archaeologists, who are beginning to develop an admirable intellectual sophistication.

(3) The opinion of many of your informants that Biblical and archaeological “revisionism” should be ignored and will disappear within a few years is sadly out of touch with reality. Waiting for “revisionism” to go away constitutes a failure of nerve and does nothing to meet the fundamental historiographical challenge that “revisionism” poses.

(4) Ephraim Stern’s mentioning me in what you describe as “calling up great names from the past” might be flattering, but it made me feel like Sir Flinders Petrie. Is that why you did not include me among your informants, even though I have been in the forefront of those writing about trends in our discipline for more than 30 years?

He Doesn’t Fear Minimalism

In “The Age of BAR” several distinguished Biblical scholars and archaeologists pronounced a death sentence over “minimalism,” the stance that regards with maximal skepticism every Biblical claim unsupported by archaeology. What cannot be proven true is assumed by the minimalists to be false. Ephraim Stern gave minimalism two or three years, while Lawrence Stager’s prognosis was five years at most. Minimalists may take slight comfort in Amnon Ben-Tor’s more generous “five to ten years,” but ultimately, in the words of Frank M. Cross, “The minimalist movement will be eaten away and evaporate.”

I cannot fathom my colleagues’ confidence in minimalism’s imminent demise. Their business, after all, is deciphering the remote past, a sufficiently tricky business; they should hesitate to forecast the future.

Why are many scholars so provoked by minimalism? Why has the debate degenerated into a tragicomic Punch-and-Judy show with combatants privately and 010publicly disparaging their opponents’ theological bias, nationalist agenda, racial prejudice, competence, honesty and, believe it or not, nationality, ethnicity and personal appearance? I am far more alarmed by the tone of the discussion than by minimalism itself.

Socially and intellectually, I side with the opponents of minimalism. I am not personally acquainted with the leading hyperskeptics, and I am not convinced they are correct. But I should like to ask the champions of both sides, “What discovery could you imagine that would convert you?” After all, falsifiability is the hallmark of any useful hypothesis. Here, the minimalists assume the greater burden. It should be easy, in theory, to prove a positive, such as David’s existence, but much harder to prove a negative, such as his nonexistence. Until authenticated inscriptions can settle the matter, my attitude is, “Wait and see.”

While many of my scholarly friends find minimalism alarming, I do not. It is the natural culmination of a centuries-long evolution for which we may all be deeply grateful: the liberation of Biblical studies from religious dogma. Once, to doubt the literal truth of Biblical history was to risk ostracism, even death. (Now you just get angry mail.) For the past 200 years, however at least in universities, our tune has been “It Ain’t Necessarily So.” I am not surprised that now, in a delayed swing of the pendulum against fundamentalism, we hear the strains of “It Necessarily Ain’t So.”

Minimalism is not the End of Civilization As We Know It. Fundamentalist and critical scholarship have by now more or less gone their separate ways.

Personally, I find minimalist skepticism bracing, as long as it is not carried to extremes—for example, doubting the authenticity of inscriptions discovered in situ [as some minimalists did with the “House of David” inscription—Ed.]—and does not calcify into a perverse dogma. I read minimalist scholarship exactly as I read fundamentalist scholarship, learning what I can. I take comfort that, to fundamentalists, we’re all blasphemers and that, to the minimalists, I’m probably just another crypto-fundamentalist.

On my shoulders perch two spirits. One, dressed in gossamer, whispers consolingly in my left ear, “At every turn of the spade, archaeology confirms the essential historicity of the Biblical account.” On my right, clad in fire-engine red, another spirit leers and hisses, “But what can we really know about anything?” Sometimes I lean to the left, sometimes to the right. Mostly, I hold my head erect, finding it equally challenging to believe and to disbelieve. And I go about my work, in hopeful expectation of future discoveries, wherever they may lead.

Minimalists Were Smeared

Frank Moore Cross is a well-known and very respected scholar. Unfortunately, in “The Age of BAR,” he is quoted as saying of the “minimalists,” led by Niels P. Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson and Philip R. Davies, that “something that is not talked about too much: They’re kept alive by anti-Semitism. It bothers me.”

If Cross is misquoted then he has an obligation to say so publicly; if he is not, then BAR and Hershel Shanks should ask Cross to substantiate his charge.

I have read every English-language article and book published by Lemche, Thompson and Davies. I have not seen any trace of anti-Semitism. I fear Cross has substituted a vile ad hominem attack for valid arguments and disagreements. If that is so, then, whatever his scholarly accomplishments, Frank Moore Cross is a vile hatemonger.

Not all minimalists are guilty, but see, for example, Keith Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel (Routledge, 1996) discussed in “Scholar Claims Bible Scholars Suppress Palestinian History in Favor of Israelites,” BAR 22:02.—Ed.

Dayan Doesn’t Belong

The inclusion of Moshe Dayan among the “25 Giants” of Israeli archaeology ( BAR 27:02) was an insult to the entire archaeological community in Israel, and in the world, for that matter. Antiquities collectors and illegal, clandestine diggers have no place in such company.

Tribe of Reuben

The Name Game

I very much enjoyed reading the article on the excavation of Tall al-‘Umayri (“Excavating the Tribe of Reuben,” BAR 27:02). If it’s not too sacrilegious for a total amateur (but a comparatively well-read one), I would like to point out that Herr and Clark’s descriptions of the finds at ‘Umayri, and of its destruction, fits more nearly with a hypothesis that it is Amorite, perhaps even the capital as the name itself hints (‘Umayri/Amorite), and that the destruction was caused by the Israelite invasion, per the Biblical story of the destruction of the Amorites. The post-destruction settlement could have well been done by the tribe of Reuben, reusing an excellent site with a convenient water supply.

Larry Herr and Douglas Clark respond:

Our thanks to Mr. Marcus for his observations. The destruction of ‘Umayri could have been caused by many groups for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, archaeologists do not usually find clear signs of who the destroyers are. We have tried, but most tests have been inconclusive. The bronze weapons in the destruction, for instance, don’t seem to have identifying characteristics. Even the name of the modern site is neutral because it does not appear to be ancient. Moreover, the connection of ‘Umayri with Amorite doesn’t work linguistically. The modern site name is spelled with an ayin, while the name Amorite begins with an aleph. These letters are almost never confused when there are correspondences between modern Arabic place names and ancient Hebrew spellings.

Synagogue Sun God

Heavenly Bodies Do Not Angels Make

I must respectfully disagree with Lucille A. Roussin’s article, “Helios in the Synagogue,” BAR 27:02. 012She states, “That the sun, moon and stars were revered as angels is evident from the text of Psalm 148:1–4.” The Psalm describes all creation as praising the Lord. In verses 1–4, all heavenly things praise the Lord; in verses 7–12, all earthly creation praise the Lord. Angels as well as the stars, sun, and moon reside in the heavens. This does not mean that the sun, moon and stars were considered angels. It may well be that ancient Jews paid homage to things in the sky, but I do not see how one can support this by Psalm 148.

Lucille A. Roussin responds:

Mr. Ore selects one textual reference from among the many cited. My conclusion is based on the cumulative evidence, not merely on Psalm 148.

Do the Tribes Match the Zodiac?

Is it possible that there could be a connection between the Helios and the signs of the zodiac found in some synagogue mosaics and the fact that the nation of Israel consisted at one time of one father (Israel) and 12 sons? In Genesis, in the dream of Joseph, he sees himself, his parents and his brethren as sun, moon and stars. In the final words of Israel to his sons (Genesis 49) might there not be some basis to associate certain signs with certain tribes? Judah is a lion. Simeon and Levi are blessed as one (twins); or perhaps Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, would be the twins. Reuben is unstable as water (the water-bearer). Zebulun is associated with the sea (the fish) and Joseph with a strong bow (the archer).

It then makes sense, as Lucille A. Roussin points out, for the Torah representation of God to come at the top of the mosaic, standing over the representation of Israel as one Sun (Israel himself) surrounded by the 12 signs of the zodiac (the 12 tribes of Israel). Although I would consider this a strange correlation, it would at least give some rational explanation for such a representation appearing in a synagogue.

Lucille A. Roussin responds:

First, allow me to say there are no definitive answers, but there are excellent questions. The great scholar E.L. Sukenik, in his study of a synagogue mosaic at Yafia (Yafa), near Nazareth, suggested that the animals depicted in the remnants of a circular composition represented the twelve tribes.¹ I believe, however, they represent signs of the zodiac. Some ancient texts compare the flags of the 12 tribes to the 12 stones on the breastplate of the High Priest Aaron.²

What must be stressed, however, is that these images were not meant to be worshiped, but are rather metaphorical representations of an ordered universe.

013

Books

Dever is Swayed by Religion

When I saw that William Dever was reviewing Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman’s The Bible Unearthed, I frankly expected an intemperate hatchet job. I was pleased to find instead a review that gave an evenhanded recognition to the book’s strengths while nevertheless addressing firmly but politely its weaknesses.

Even so, the criticism Dever describes as “the most damaging” is actually one I regard as inapposite in an academic context: “If the Hebrew Bible is largely pious propaganda—in effect, a monstrous literary hoax that has fooled almost everyone for 2,000 years (until [the authors] set matters straight)—how can it be the basis for any religious belief or moral or ethical system?”

That objection is absurd in a purely archaeological discussion: Obviously, even a hoax could easily become the basis of a religious belief or of a moral or ethical system if enough people just believed it. I presume, for example, that Dever does not believe in the literal truth of Hindu scriptures—meaning that they are from his perspective effectively “a monstrous literary hoax,” although he would never be so indelicate as to phrase it that way—and yet I’m sure he concedes that those scriptures are the basis for a thriving religious belief and a highly functional moral and ethical system despite his appraisal of their historical truth value. Dever’s rhetorical question is a religious cri de coeur, not an academic refutation.

Dever has denied that his scholarly interpretation of archaeological data is affected by a religious bias in favor of Biblical historicity. This particular point of his review strongly suggests to me that such a bias does in fact color his conclusions.

Unfair to Authors

Re: William Dever’s review of The Bible Unearthed:

First, the book is obviously intended for a popular market, so criticizing it for being insufficiently scholarly is not particularly helpful. I, too, would have preferred something more scholarly, but I am also aware of how little these theories have been presented to the general public, other than in evangelical Christian polemics. This book is a badly needed counterweight.

Second, Dever’s pejorative labeling of the authors is neither fair, nor accurate. Silberman is not merely a “journalist.” He is an avid, though amateur, archaeologist who has published more than most professional archaeologists.

Dever describes Finkelstein as “idiosyncratic” and “doctrinaire.” Finkelstein is in fact a member of a major faculty and co-director of the dig at Megiddo. He publishes in mainstream journals, presents papers at significant symposia and mentors graduate students. These are all hallmarks of a scholar in the mainstream or at least not too many standard deviations from it. Mere disagreement with Dever should not put one on or beyond the fringe.

William Dever responds:

I did not label Neil Silberman, whom I have known for 30 years, a “mere journalist.” He is highly respected and I have praised his work. As for Finkelstein, I did not imply he is marginal, only that his “low chronology” is.

014

Dever’s Woeful Review

William Dever attacks The Bible Unearthed for saying nothing new, yet he cites not even a single book aimed at general readers that advances a complete synthetic history of Israel based on key archaeology completed since the 1990s. There is none. The book serves a purpose, one that Dever himself paradoxically admits is “much-needed.” This book is reaching out to a new audience to reveal what we scholars take for granted but which is certainly revolutionary to the average individual. It does not deserve Dever’s elitist disdain.

Second, Dever claims that Finkelstein and Silberman “mention few scholars by name and include not a single footnote or specific reference” apart from “a general reading list at the end.” This is an irresponsible and inexcusable lie. I count no fewer than 90 scholars mentioned by name in the body and appendixes. And the “reading list” (a derogatory term for what an unbiased person calls a bibliography) is hardly “general” but divided by chapter and hence by period, and even further by subject heading within each chapter. Every author named in the text has his or her book or article carefully cited in the corresponding chapter’s bibliography for further reading, and almost every general topic discussed has a “reading list” there as well. Altogether, more than 300 works are cited. I had no trouble figuring out which readings supported which claims in the text. Contrary to Dever’s claim that readers are not directed to the “crucial” archaeological evidence, this is in fact the primary occupation of the bibliography.

Third, Dever accuses the book of being “an ideological manifesto, not judicious, well-balanced scholarship,” yet he admits that the two main “bold” claims of the book (the late date of the Bible’s composition and its composition by a new monotheistic party with particular propagandistic aims) “are almost certainly right.” He even goes on to agree that almost every other substantial point made by the book is correct. Indeed, how can it be an ideological manifesto if, as Dever claims, it says nothing new and “adds little to the discussion”?

By far the vast majority of the book’s claims are accepted by mainstream scholars, and the rest involve disputes which the authors portray as such, presenting both sides before stating their own conclusions. Only a tiny handful of points are truly novel (the redating of a few finds), and they are not simply stated as facts, but argued for at length.

Finkelstein and Silberman can’t win against Dever’s often irrational hostility. What justifies Dever’s vitriol? In Dever’s own words the book is “modest,” “avoiding the extremes,” yet it is to be discounted because it is an unscholarly manifesto. The book offers nothing new, according to Dever, who then attacks it for a novel redating of some key finds. Something other than fairness and reasoned judgment is guiding Dever’s pen.

I shall never be able to trust anything Dever writes, given his shamelessly biased, false and useless review of this book, and you should think twice before using him as a reviewer again.

William Dever responds:

I count 30 scholars mentioned in the text of The Bible Unearthed (not the appendices), and there is not a single footnote providing the title of a published work, much less a page reference. I congratulate Mr. Carrier on tracking down the authors’ sources; few of the non-academic readers for whom the book is intended will be so persistent or so lucky. And if he does not perceive the authors’ ideological agenda, that is only because he does not know the larger archaeological discussion in Israel today.

Potpourri

More on Linear A

In Queries & Comments, BAR 27:02, M. B. Manning asks, “Was ‘ku-ro’ [the apparent notation for totals on Linear A tablets] borrowed from the Semites by the Minoans, or was it the other way around? Words such as kalu, kol, kullun meaning “entire, all” are so widespread in Semitic that borrowing into Semitic seems a rather unlikely explanation. There is also a probable Egyptian cognate, t_nw, the word for “number,” which is also used with the meaning “every” in some expressions of time (e.g., t_nw rnpt, “every year”). Egyptian t_ often corresponds to Semitic k; Egyptian ns “tongue” becomes Coptic las, les and corresponds to Semitic lisan, lashon, Berber ils etc. It is also interesting that, even if Cyrus Gordon’s “ya-ne” is, as seems likely, a “ghost” word, the Greek word for “wine” is oinos.

To address Manning’s final objection to Gordon, how does one prove archaeologically that people speak Semitic languages? Without written remains, would archaeologists identify Babylonians, Israelites, South Arabians and many Ethiopians as belonging to one language family? Considering the problems of identifying the earliest Israelites and Indo-Europeans, this is a formidable puzzle indeed.

The writer is a former associate chairperson of the Department of Religion at the Claremont Graduate School in Claremont, California.

The Living Concordance

I read with sadness the report of the death of Dr. Michael L. Klein (Strata, BAR 27:02). It was my singular privilege to have Professor Klein as my teacher during my first year at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati in 1977. He was doing research on what he jokingly referred to as “the ‘complete’ Fragment Targum.” In the course on Rabbinic Hebrew, which included the reading of selected portions of the Mishnah, I became deeply impressed with Professor Klein’s astonishing knowledge of the Hebrew Bible (a consequence of his Hasidic background). He was a virtual living concordance. He could complete, in Hebrew, almost any quotation from anywhere in the entire Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). I challenged him repeatedly, and he never failed to complete the verse. It was amazing indeed.

Strugnell Has No Interest in Copyrighting His DSS Work

The controversy surrounding the lawsuit filed in an Israeli court by Elisha Qimron against the Biblical Archaeology Society and its editor regarding copyright infringement in the reconstruction of the Dead Sea Scroll known as MMT took a curious turn with the suggestion of Florentino García Martínez that John Strugnell contributed substantially to the interpretation of this manuscript (“Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due,” BAR 27:02).

I am not surprised that Professor Strugnell would not have sought copyright protection for any of his Dead Sea Scroll work. His interest, it seems to me based upon my experience with him, rests solely on scholarship and is not driven b a need to keep others from using translations developed by him. He works at his own very able pace with an adroit comprehension of ancient Hebrew that is deeply admired among other scholars of ancient languages.

012

Cancel My Subscription! The Best Letters to BAR

Discover what readers think about BAR articles, ads, pictures and each other—and read how the experts respond.

Laugh out loud at some of the funniest and most fascinating remarks published in BAR’s Letters to the Editor department, the ever-popular Queries & Comments section!

These shocking, amusing and enlightening letters reflect the diversity of more than a half-million readers!

Entertaining and educational—illustrated with cartoons and photographs.

Special offer for BAR readers! Only $7.95, shipping and handling included! Call 1–800-221–4644.

004

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.

A World of Opportunities