Queries & Comments

008

Too Much Editor

I have been an avid reader of BAR and Bible Review since 1985. Every issue is underlined and treasured. But I have one small gripe. Never have I known a magazine in which the editor includes so many of his own offerings. Surely, with limited space, it would be well to include works of other people—those who have so much to offer. I feel I know Mr. Shanks very well, his ideas, his biases—why not let others get in on the act?

Point well taken.—H.S.

HASOR

Former ASOR President Blasts BAR Editor

For sham, Hershel, for sham!

As one who was in on the birthing of BAR, as a friend and informal consultant to [then-Jerusalem correspondent] Suzanne Singer in Israel in the early 1970s, I have always admired the energy and initiative that you bring to the enterprise of popularizing the results of archaeological work in Israel and, more broadly, in what W. F. Albright and others refer to as “the world of the Bible.” Through your publications and other efforts during the past quarter century you have added significantly to the public’s awareness of the activities of archaeologists in the Middle East, highlighting some of the results of their labors. In this enterprise you have engaged the support of numerous front-line scholars, many of them, if not most, members of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR).

You operate an organization for which you are sole manager and spokesperson. Members of the editorial boards of your publications are plied for information and advice but otherwise have no voice in policy matters. You pride yourself on being able to move deliberately to achieve results and to attain objectives. You are a one-man show and this has obviously contributed greatly to the success you have enjoyed.

Unfortunately, these facts have also contributed to an aura of suspicion and caution among scholars regarding your publications and other activities. Too often you have demonstrated a “my way or the highway” attitude in your editing practices and other matters. You are especially wont to use your editorials in BAR as a bully pulpit to promote your ideas and interests. ASOR has been a frequent foil in these pieces. Your charge of “hypocrisy” in the most recent edition is but the latest egregious example (First Person, “Hypocrisy, Thy Name is ASOR,” BAR 29:02).

But who is really the hypocrite?

Your latest assault, replete with its unflattering cartoon, is self-serving in the extreme and wholly disingenuous. First, the “arrangement” presented to ASOR (with whatever good intentions) was a 010transparent effort to use ASOR’s prestige and its network of member institutions to promote support for your latest enterprise [a planned online archive of BAR past issues—Ed.]. Did it have some merit? Possibly! But should it have become ASOR’s business? Absolutely not! But to you it didn’t matter that ASOR’s leadership, with good reason, said “Thanks, but no thanks.” No, that just provided you with an opportunity to bare once more your aggrieved soul and to use ASOR’s name to advertise your wares anyway.

Second, to the key issue—BAR’s promiscuity in allowing ads for antiquities dealers in its pages. As a private entrepreneur, you have the privilege to follow this path. We all know that advertising is a lucrative means of supporting magazine publication. ASOR, however, represents a professional body charged with taking the ethical high road. ASOR’s current statement on Preservation and Protection of Archaeological Resources was crafted during several years of serious deliberation by a special sub-committee of ASOR’s Committee on Archaeological Policy. Then it was debated openly by the ASOR Board of Trustees before it was made policy in 1995. It represents a very measured approach to a complex of very testy problems involving illegal trafficking in antiquities and the desultory impact such activity has on efforts to conserve and protect archaeological resources. It was forged at a time, in the wake of the first Gulf War, when the issues for Middle Eastern archaeology were greatly exacerbated. Our concerns were shared by other professional societies involved with archaeology and cultural preservation. Your charge that such policy is “wrong-headed” is scandalous, and your own hypocrisy is blatant. Presenting without historical context a list of what you call exceptions to the policy is yellow journalism of the first order. Referring to research involving the Dead Sea Scrolls, which passed into the legal domain half a century ago, belies the point. Vilifying individual members with unflattering cartoons is a new low, even for your pages. This is pure sham!!! You need to set the BAR higher!

Third, while your interest, as a member and (sometime) financial supporter of ASOR, in its annual program development, is appreciated, it is at the same time gratuitous. Your suggestion [to hold a conference on the antiquities trade] bears no “new news.” Throughout the past decade and more, ASOR’s annual meeting has at regular intervals included open sessions on the issues involved in looting and trafficking in antiquities. Nonetheless, I’m sure that our current Committee on Annual Meetings and Programs will consider your suggestions, as it does those of all thoughtful members, in its planning work.

Finally, please let’s put to rest your repeated misrepresentation of my reasons for resigning from your Editorial Advisory Board when my term as ASOR President commenced in 1996. It had absolutely nothing to do with any stated or unstated “ASOR policy” forbidding involvement with BAR. As I indicated at the time, it was simply necessary for me to refocus the scope of my responsibilities and obligations at that juncture in my career. In fact (check, please, with your staff) I have continued, throughout these intervening years, to be responsive and forthcoming to all appeals for help from your offices. However, this recent “First Person” diatribe just stepped heavily on the toes of my very worthy and very even-handed successor. This is unseemly and wholly unjustified. Your disrespect is seriously disappointing. Whatever delight you take in beleaguering ASOR’s leaders, it becomes you not at all, and is certain to frustrate any good intentions. I suspect that you have seriously muted prospects for what might have been a more positive era of cooperation. If this is what you truly want, so be it! Let’s move on! If not, an apology is very much in order!

We agree that, since his resignation from BAR’s Editorial Advisory Board, Professor Seger has continued to be forthcoming with his responses to our appeals for help. And for this we are grateful. We understand why he would disagree with the “First Person” column in our March/April issue. We also believe he deserves space in BAR to express his disagreement.—Ed.

ASOR President Resigns from BAR Board

Newly elected ASOR president Lawrence T. Geraty, a member of BAR’s Editorial Advisory Board since 1980, has resigned. On March 17, 2003 he sent the following letter to BAR editor Hershel Shanks. Shanks expressed his gratitude for Geraty’s long years of service and regret at his resignation.

I was surprised and pained at reading your “First Person” editorial in the latest BAR. I would have thought such an ad hominem diatribe would have been beneath you. At least you recognized that even though ASOR is cash-strapped, it has turned down monetary offers in order to remain true to its principles. While we all deal with complicated issues that are sometimes difficult and which make us fall short of our own high expectations, you have gone too far in labeling an organization upon which you depend for both authors and readers. I can tell from what you have said about ASOR under my leadership that I am an embarrassment to you, to say the least. Therefore, I resign from BAR’s Editorial Advisory Board effective immediately. At the same time, I wish you well and hope that you will follow your better instincts in the future.

Insulting Cartoon

I have long been an ardent reader of BAR. Its presentation of intelligent and spirited discussions enriches my understanding of current issues in Biblical archaeology. Imagine my shock when I saw the mean-spirited and, may I add, repulsive portrayal of a dowdy, four-fingered female in outdated clothing accompanying your editorial on provenanced and unprovenanced antiquities.

If your editorial is about the issue, so be it; however, the illustration, which certainly must have been approved by you, indicates that it is about the personality of a particular collector, presumably the wife of “a prominent member of ASOR’s executive committee.” The problem, it seems, is that she now opposes dealing in unprovenanced antiquities and, hence, advertising for them, although she and her husband have an extensive collection, presumably amassed before their conversion to a finer ethic.

All right, so they are converts. But when did it ever become a scholarly gentleman or a serious magazine to stoop to cheap graphics to ridicule a person whose position is inconsistent?

I’d suggest that you send your illustrator back to MAD magazine, where he is more likely to find suitable company. And, please, for the sake of accuracy, name the persons to whom you refer or leave them alone.

Such snide discussion and cartooning is worthy neither of you nor your magazine.

012

Pow!

That was a tremendously gutsy editorial against ASOR, or rather HASOR. It looks like you hit them square on the nose—bravo!

His Own Man

Thanks for the mention in the “First Person” column of the March/April 2003 issue, but I don’t practice law and don’t represent antiquities dealers or anyone else. I’m a professor and scholar. I occasionally consult with lawyers on art/cultural property law questions and sometimes appear as an expert witness in litigation, but always decline to assist lawyers whose clients’ hands appear to me to be dirty.

My views on antiquities problems are my own, arrived at on the basis of years of art-world experience, research and reflection. I happen to disagree with the extremist attitude of the archaeological establishment toward trade in antiquities not because I am in any way employed by or indebted to the antiquities trade or to collectors and museums, but because the archaeologists’ positions appear to me to distort reality and to be blindly self-interested, impractical and, in the end, socially harmful. I have said all this, with perhaps wearying frequency and at possibly excessive length, in published articles and in more vivid language in conversations with my archaeologist friends. I also deplore what I consider to be harmfully excessive retentionism in the cultural property laws and policies of many, though not all, of the major source nations.

Anyone interested in knowing more about my views can read about them in the essays collected in my book Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art and Law (London, The Hague, New York: Kluwer Law International, 2000).

Philistines in Canaan

By Land and by Sea

Regarding how the Philistines came to Canaan (“One if by Sea … Two if by Land,” BAR 29:02), consider how California was settled. Single men, well-off businessmen 013and well-off families traveled by sea [around the tip of South America—Ed.], a mere few weeks. Poor families, struggling merchants and faith communities came overland by wagon train, a matter of six months to a year, and a journey that was considerably more dangerous.

Perhaps there are parallels in the settlement of Canaan? Did humans in ancient times not realize they had options? Or as my mother put it, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. The either/or tone of many of your archaeological disputes is disturbing, when the answers are likely both/and some you’ve never thought of.

Annual Meeting

An Equine First for Israel

Your coverage of the Megiddo “horse show” at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (“Horsing Around in Toronto,” BAR 29:02) was most interesting. I am flattered, although unworthy, to be considered a “horse expert,” but certainly must admit to your designation as a “horse lover!” However, on behalf of Glenstern, who was incorrectly identified as an “Israeli racehorse,” a minor correction is in order. Glenstern is Israel’s Olympic contender in the sport of dressage (classical warfare maneuvers). He is a Dutch Warmblood, and he will compete in the 2004 Olympics in Athens as the first equestrian entry in history for Israel.

014

Cobblestones Suggest Stables

Regarding the cobblestones in tripartite buildings, their presence argues for a building’s use as a stable rather than against. I grew up in New Jersey on a farm that had cobblestoned stalls in the stables and have seen them in Virginia, England, Ireland, Portugal and New York City. The cobblestones provide durability, drainage and air circulation. Naturally, bedding is used, but more for absorption than for softness. It is important to be able to clean, by sweeping or hosing down, after a foaling, for example. Were horses stabled on bare dirt, the floor would quickly be torn up into fine dust by sharp hooves, and would congeal into mud from natural moisture (urine, perspiration, etc.). Straw or other bedding placed on top of that becomes embedded and tightly packed, with insufficient air circulation.

No One Answer

I am not a learned scholar, but it seems to this layperson that one aspect of the controversy over the function of tripartite buildings has been overlooked. They may not have been limited to any one use. The layout would seem to be very functional for a number of uses depending on local needs, and perhaps the use varied from city to city.

Jehoash Inscription

It’s Harder to Fool the Geologists

I enjoyed the article on the possible Jehoash inscription (“Is It or Isn’t It?” BAR 29:02). I am definitely in the “maybe” group as to authenticity. The scientists who have so far authenticated the physical aspects of the stone are probably more accurate than the archaeologists (whom I love!), who base their rejection on the few texts that have survived from that 015period over the millennia. There may not have been set rules for the language of inscriptions as long as the readers understood them. If the inscription is a forgery, the forgers would have to have been inept archaeologists but expert geologists, and it seems to me more likely that they were expert archaeologists but inept geologists.

Great magazine—never cancel my subscription!

Potpourri

Borowski’s Passion

I was saddened to read of the death of Elie Borowski (Appreciation: Elie Borowski, 1913–2003, BAR 29:02). We only met him once, in 1984, when he came to our home to raise funds for the Bible Lands Museum. He spoke passionately about his collection, which he was donating completely; then, reaching into the pocket of his coat, he pulled out several cylinder seals—thousands of years old—and passed them around the room. It was awesome to have held those objects in our hands. He gave us, as hosts, a souvenir—he rolled some of the seals into clay to be baked in the oven. We have our “Babylonian cookies” elegantly framed as a reminder of a memorable evening.

The Meaning of Parenthood

Regarding the truculent letters (Queries & Comments, BAR 29:02) from readers who believe that to call Joseph the father of Jesus denies the mystery of the Incarnation: As an adoptive parent, I find the assumption that Joseph can only be Jesus’ father if he contributed half of Jesus’ DNA highly offensive. Regardless of what we believe about Christ’s conception, the question we should be asking is “Did Joseph love and raise Jesus?” Parenthood is primarily about the bonds of love and responsibility, not genetics.

What “Son of God” Meant

I believe that Professor Daniel Kelly Ogden (Queries & Comments BAR 29:02) is misinterpreting the references in the Synoptic Gospels to Jesus as the “son of God.” The saying “son of God” is used many times in the Hebrew Bible: (1) to refer to angels and other celestial beings in God’s court (Genesis 6:2; Deuteronomy 32:8; Psalms 29:1, 89:6); (2) to refer to the King of Israel (2 Samuel 7:14); and (3) to refer to all the children of Israel (Exodus 4:22).

In extra-Biblical Jewish writings of the Second Temple and Talmudic periods, “son of God” is used in the following ways: (1) to refer to righteous Jews (Ecclesiasticus 4:10; Jubilees 1:24); and (2) to refer to the Messiah, who according to Judaic theology of the time would be a human being (High Priest or King of Israel), sometimes with supernatural powers but never God Himself or his “offspring.” This man would deliver all Israel from heathens and reestablish the Kingdom of Israel on Earth.

It was the Gospel of John, written more as a new religious dogma at least three generations after the life of Jesus, 069and Paul, preaching to the pagan gentiles who believed in the Greek gods, who put forth the idea that was foreign to the Jews of the time: Jesus was indeed the actual Son of God.

Yes, John, Paul and other parts of the New Testament refer to Jesus as the “Son of God,” but the Synoptic Gospels refer to him as the “son of God” in the traditional Jewish sense.

What about the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke?—Ed.

Jesus Was Known as Joseph’s Son

As a Christian I find much to commend in Daniel Kelly Ogden’s letter, but I would contend that his view is based more on a confessional or theological position than on strict adherence to the Greek texts found in Luke 4:22 and John 6:42. In both passages, the syntax is that of an interrogative introduced with an “ou” particle, which is a type of grammatical construction that entails an affirmative or positive response. Thus when the people ask, “Is he not the son of Joseph?” the expected answer is, “Yes, he certainly is the son of Joseph.” The people did not even remotely entertain the possibility that Jesus could be anyone but the son of Joseph, which is why his words were so surprising, for how could the son of Joseph say such things? It is only from a confession of the Christian faith—which is where one must locate both the Gospel writers and Professor Ogden—and not of the basis of the Greek syntax in Luke 4:22 and John 6:42 that one can claim that Jesus is the son of God and not the son of Joseph.

Great Mag, Great Web Site

Thanks for a great magazine. It has opened my eyes to understanding the Bible far more than my imagination ever could. I go to the message room [of our Web page—www.bib-arch.org—Ed.] every chance I get. The information and discussions have been great and helpful.

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.