No title

Biblical Arch eooogi

Perspectiveson the AncientWorldfromMesopotamiato the Mediterranean Vol.56 No.1

?

March1993

3;?

r? V~-~t3'

S

--Cfri~ ,,

;:

''f'r

??

\1??

Celebrating

W.

F.

and

Examining

ALBRIGHT

Biblical Archaeolo

on theAncientWorldfromMesopotamia to theMediterranean Perspectives A Publication oftheAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch

Volume56 Number1

March1993

2 About the Authors

3

Albright as an Orientalist Jack M. Sasson What made Albright so supremely confident of his ultimate vindication as a scholar? Albright brought an American-bred conviction about the centrality of the Bible to a powerful experience of identification with the landscape of Palestine. These influences combined in Albright's passion for the historical trustworthiness of the biblical witness.

8 Visions of the Future:Albright in Jerusalem, 1919-1929 Neil A. Silberman How were key aspects of Albright's archaeological project rooted in his experience of 1920s Palestine? Does Albright's claim of scholarly detachment from the political, religious, and economic turmoil of his first decade in Jerusalem hold up? The continuing power of Albright's scholarly legacy brings into view the social function of archaeologists in the Middle East.

page 8

18

Albright and the Gods of Mesopotamia

William W Hallo How do Albright's conclusions in Yahwehand the Godsof Canaan stand up today? Many of Albright's specific results have been challenged, yet the comparative methodology that he championed remains indispensable.

25

William G. Dever What of Albright's methodology, his results as an archaeologist, and his major biblical-historical conclusions remains valid today? Is Albright's chronological framework secure? Are the critical results of his fieldwork at Tell Beit Mirsim trustworthy? Albright's insistence on archaeologically reconstructing the context of Biblical literature may be his most durable, and vital, contribution.

page 18

36

page 25

What Remains of the House that Albright Built?

Mythic Trope in the Autobiography of William Foxwell Albright Burke O. Long Students of Albright have accepted at face value Albright's own picture of his transformation from skepticism to conviction made irresistible by archaeological discoveries during his early tenure in Jerusalem. Yet Albright's personal correspondence reveals that he required no such conversion. What, then are we to make of Albright's act of remembering his passing from skepticism to conviction?

46 Book Reviews On the cover: an early portrait of Albright, flanked by the site plan of Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum A and a second glimpse of the scholar at work forty-five years later.

About

the

Authors

Jack M. Sasson Jack M. Sasson is the William Rand Kenan Professor of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Professor Sasson is the author of many articles and books, including "Zimri-Lim Takes the Grand Tour,"(BA 47[1984]) and the recently published Jonahin the Anchor Bible (Vol. 24B. Doubleday, 1990). He has served on the editorial committees of many journals, including TheJournalof BiblicalLiterature,MesopotamianStudies,Journalof American Oriental Studies, as well as BiblicalArchaeologist.

Neil Asher Silberman Neil Asher Silberman, a member of the editorial board of BiblicalArchaeologist, has participated in excavations in Jerusalem and Akko. In addition to his many magazine articles, he has written Digging for God & Country:Archaeology, Exploration,and the SecretStrugglefor the Holy Land(Alfred A. Knopf, 1982) and BetweenPast and Present:Archaeology,Ideology,and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East (Henry Holt, 1989). His biography of Yigael Yadin, the noted Israeli archaeologist, military leader, and politician, will be published by AddisonWesley next year.

William Hallo William Hallo is the William M. Laffan Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature at Yale University. Professor Hallo is the author of The Torah:A Modern Commentary(Union of Hebrew American Cong., 1981) and (with W. K. Simpson) TheAncient Near East:A History (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), as well as other books and numerous articles. Dr. Hallo recently published The Bookof the People(Brown Judaic Studies 225. Scholars Press, 1991).

William G. Dever William G. Dever is Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Since the 60s, he has directed numerous excavations, including those at Shechem, Gezer, Kh. el-Q6m, Jebel Qacaqir,and Be'er Resisim. His ten books include RecentArchaeologicalDiscoveriesand BiblicalResearch(1986) and Archaeologyand BiblicalStudies:Retrospectsand Prospects(1974), and he has authored over 200 articles and reviews. Professor Dever served for three years as Director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, and had a four-year tenure as Director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. In 1981-1982, he was the John Simon Guggenheim Fellow at Hebrew University. Dever has held the editorship of BASOR and the office of Vice President of the American Schools of Oriental Research. He currently sits on the editorial board of AmericanJournalof Archaeology.

Burke O. Long Professor Long is Professor of Religion at Bowdoin College. He teaches courses in Bible and history of religions, especially the beginnings of Judaism and Christianity in the Greco-Roman World. He was a Senior Fulbright Lecturer at the Hebrew University in 1984. Recently, Dr. Long has held research fellowships at the American Jewish Archives (Cincinnati) and the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia). Long serves as chair of the Editorial Board and General Editor for the NEH supported SBL series, WritingsFrom the Ancient World.He has written extensively on form critical and modern literary approaches to the Bible, including 1 Kings Withan Introductionto Historical Literatureand 2 Kings (Forms of Old Testament Literature IX, X: Eerdmans, 1984, 1991). Dr. Long is currently writing a book on ideology and politics in the history and practice of biblical criticism in America. 2

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

From

the

Editor

* W. F. Albright represents, as it were, an Atlantis of biblical and Near Easternstudies, lingering in memory and story long after slipping beneath the sea. This issue of BiblicalArchaeologistcelebrates and critically examines Albright's lingering legacy in the many fields to which he made significant contributions. The contributorsrepresent something of the broad range of the great scholar's interests and, indeed, expertise: a specialist in Mesopotamian studies, a field archaeologist,biblical scholars, and a historian of the several disciplines. The essays by Dever, Long, Sasson and Silberman are revised versions of presentations before a special session commemorating the centennial of Albright'sbirth, "W.F. Albright in Myth and Reality,"at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research,Kansas City, Missouri. Thanks for organizing the ASOR symposium go to BarryGittlen and Bill Dever. Hallo's piece was commissioned for a like-minded conference which unfortunately never took place. That such energy was devoted to marking this milestone in Albright's personal history speaks eloquently to the Albrightian legacy of ideas, interpretations,and, not least, devoted students, admirers,and friends. Birth centennial observances are rare in our field. Perhaps others will follow Albright's, yet I am hard pressed to identify another whose enduring significance will be honored in like fashion by this generation or the next. BA is pleased to offer to a wider audience these critical celebrations and examinations of Albright on the centennial of his birth. This issue benefited greatly from the help of David Albright, who generously gave permission for the quotations from his father's correspondence that appear in Long's article and who made available several photos from the family album. The choice, placement, and captions for the illustrations were solely the responsibility of the editorial staff. * Founded by Albright's student G. EarnestWrightover one-half century ago, BiblicalArchaeologistis itself a reminder of Albright's scholarly Atlantis. BA aims at offering its readers perspectives on the broad range of archaeological,historical, philogical, anthropological, and linguistic disciplines which focus on the ancient Middle East and EasternMediterranean. This goal remains fundamental, though the magazine will certainly see changes as the new editorship proceeds. One change occurs with this issue: BA's production evolves from conventional typesetting to electronic publishing. Computer-based design will add a dynamic element to BA'stradition of graphic excellence. Like the legendary productivity and stamina of Albright himself, the enormous vitality of archaeological researchtoday demands an outlet of equal excitement and force. BiblicalArchaeologist commits itself to this charge.

Biblical

Archaeologist

ontheAncient World from Perspectives totheMediterranean Mesopotamia EditorDavid C. Hopkins ArtDirectorLyle Rosbotham BookReviewEditorJames C. Moyer EditorialAssistant Timothy L. Adamson EditorialCommittee VolkmarFritz Carol L. Meyers S. Thomas Parker Seymour Gitin A. T. Kraabel Neil A. Silberman Thomas E. Levy Mark S. Smith David W. McCreery L. Michael White SubscriptionsAnnualsubscriptionratesare $35 for individualsand $45 for institutions. Thereis a specialannualrateof $28 for those over 65, physicallychallenged,or unemis also availableas ployed. BiblicalArchaeologist partof the benefitsof some ASORmembership categories.Postagefor Canadianand other internationaladdressesis an additional$5. Paymentsshould be sent to ASORMembership/SubscriberServices,P.O.Box 15399, Atlanta,GA 30333-0399(ph:404-727-2345; Bitnet:SCHOLARS@EMORYUI). VISA/Mastercardorderscan be phoned in. Backissues Backissues can be obtainedby callingSP CustomerServicesat 800-437-6692 or writingSPCustomerServices,P.O.Box 6996,Alpharetta,GA 30239-6996. PostmasterSend addresschangesto Biblical ASORMembership/Subscriber Archaeologist, Services,P.O.Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 303330399.Second-classpostage paid at Atlanta,GA and additionaloffices. Copyright@1993by the AmericanSchools of OrientalResearch. CorrespondenceAll editorialcorrespondence should be addressedto BiblicalArchaeologist, 4500MassachusettsAvenueNW,Washington, fax:202-885DC 20016-5690(ph:202-885-8699; 8605).Booksfor review should be sent to Dr. JamesC. Moyer,Departmentof Religious Studies,SouthwestMissouriStateUniversity, 901 SouthNational,Box 167,Springfield,MO 65804-0095. AdvertisingCorrespondenceshould be addressedto SarahFoster,ScholarsPress,P.O. Box 15399,Atlanta,GA 30333-0399(ph:404727-2325;fax:404-727-2348).Ads for the sale of antiquitieswill not be accepted. BiblicalArchaeologist (ISSN0006-0895)is published quarterly(March,June,September, December)by ScholarsPress,819 Houston Mill RoadNE, Atlanta,GA 30329,for the AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch (ASOR),3301NorthCharlesStreet,Baltimore, MD 21218. Printedby WaverlyPress,Baltimore,MD. ?SOF

o~c

zCO UN

David C. Hopkins Editor

U9I'N

Albright

as

an

Orientalist

by J. M. Sasson

here is a letter in the Mari archives, now about 4000 years old, that Ishme-Dagan of Ekallatum sent his brother, YasmakhAdad, who was installed as king of Mari by his father, Shamshi-Adad. "I acceded to my father's throne," Ishme-Dagan says, "but having been very busy, I haven't sent you my news. Now you are my brother, and aside from you I have no other brother. I will make peace with any city or king that you take as vassal. Don't ever worry. Your throne is yours to keep." Ishme-Dagan then makes a couple of cute puns before ending with more pledges and reassurances. Ever since it was published in 1951, this letter, known as A(rchives) R(oyales)de M(ari) IV: 20, has played a major role in the arcane world of Bronze Age chronology. It assured us that when Shamshi-Adad died, his son ruled Mari a few more years before Zimri-Lim chased him out. This key fact helps to date Hammurabi, who later defeated ZimriLim. Many chronographers have staked their reputations on the date years of Hammurabi, urging us to follow the high, middle or low chronology. This letter, therefore, has entered into the lore as one of the great certainties of scholarship. Albright, who never hesitated to go his own way, simply balked at taking it at face value. It did not fit into his chronological scheme, which required Shamshi-Adad to live 10 years into Zimri-lim's reign. In his addenda to

YahwehandtheGodsof Canaan(1968: 232), Albright raised two objections: 1. Ishme-Dagan's tone should have been much more authoritarian had he replaced his father; 2. When speaking of his accession to the throne, Ishme-Dagan should have used the verb wakibum rather than erebum. Neither of Albright's reasons appears strong enough to overcome

Paul Haupt (1858-1926), born and educated in Germany, had taught at Johns Hopkins Universityfor twenty-five years when Albright became his pupil. Haupt was one of the majorfigures of "oriental" studies of his day, publishing extensively in Assyriology, Egyptology, Germanicsand the classics. He is most remembered for the Polychrome Bible, an edition that colorcoded the J-E-D-Pdocumentary sources. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

the plain evidence of the letter. Now comes the twist: a couple of years ago, ARM IV:20was collated and, would you believe it, the letter was not written by Ishme-Dagan at all, but by an Ishme-Addu, a ruler of a minor city-state, Ashnakku. What's more, it wasn't sent to YasmakhAdad, but to Ibal-Addu, king of Ashlakka. Albright was right after all; the letter was not appropriate for discussing chronology. One cannot but envy an intellect so experienced that it could just sense the unlikely. And although evidence independent of this letter keeps Albright's chronological scheme in doubt, this anecdote helps me raise an issue about him that I want to consider in assessing Albright as an Orientalist: what is it about this man's background and training that made him so confident of ultimate vindication? My assessment of Albright as an Orientalist will not entail an accounting of where Albrightian contributions stand today: if I cannot muster enough chutzpa to pontificate on the ideas he launched in disciplines that interest me-Semitic philology and the Near East of the Bronze Age, for example-I certainly will not want to evaluate his vocalization of Egyptian syllabic orthography, his contributions to archaeology, epigraphy, and paleography, not to speak of the current status of the myriads of subfields that he created. Instead, I will focus on two periods crucial to Albright's development: his apprenticeship, roughly until 1920, and his maturation, roughly until the mid-

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

3

30s. I will stick to issues relevant to Hebrew history.

Albright'sApprenticeship Albright came to adulthood in the first two decades of our century. At that time, the efforts of European scholars to flesh out biblical civilization had forked into two distinct yet dissonant undertakings. Julius Wellhausen lent his name to an approach that charted Israel's memory of its past rather than recreated its actual history. Neither religious skepticism nor historical nihilism prompted this strategy. Instead, by recognizing that the Bible was composed of documents that originated in different contexts, Wellhausenians were fulfilling a primary criterion for the writing of history: to revisit what truly happened in the past you must confront at least two witnesses to the same event. Wellhausen was giving historians four such documents! At first, Wellhausenian truths were sold all over Europe not as a corrective to Israel's own notion of its culture, but as a lesson about what happens when dogma supplants faith and mechanical activities displace worship: a fine moral to draw before Catholics and Jews. This essentially Protestant message reached America in the 1880s, and it sparked enormous interest. By recapturing God's earliest hope for humanity, progressive Bible scholars could reclaim backsliders and consolidate Christians behind a single set of convictions. Accordingly, as Albright, the son of missionary parents, was growing up in Chile during the last decade of the century, America was in the throes of a veritable "Bible Renaissance." The decade witnessed the founding of the AmericanInstitute of SacredLiterature,the YMCA, the Chatauqua Society, and the Sunday School programs.1 However, by the time Albright came back for good to the States, around 1903, this new dispensation was falling prey to a grassroots counter-attack. For most fundamentalists, this foreign ideology was not only divorcing Americans from 4

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

direct communion with their cultural icon, the Bible, but it was also compromising the way they charted their own past. Recall, please, that during the 19th century, the story of America was cast as a replay of the chosen people saga: immigrants leave their homelands for a New Zion, conquer Canaanites (read: Indians), battle Philistines (read: the British), and acquire an eternal charter. When the

Albright shaves in front of his tent at the

TellBeitMirsimexpeditioncamp.Heattributedhisabilityto cope well with the physicaldemandsof Palestiniansummer excavationto childhooddeprivationin the harshChileanclimate. people defy this charter, they risk splitting their nation asunder. With a biblical plot to drive their own secular history, Americans did not find Scripture realistically wanting, and therefore had little use for more pristine versions. I am willing to suggest that, raised in this atmosphere, but also experiencing America with the fervor of an immigrant, Albright acquired his hostility to Wellhausenianism early and held it constant throughout his career. In his own reminiscences of 1948, Albright acknowledged that he opposed Wellhausen "since boyhood" (1964:308). A second dimension of Albright's apprenticeship

entailed his encounter with PanBabylonian perspectives. Though his espousal of Pan-Babylonian views was to undergo severe testing during the years of dizzying discoveries of mid-1920s Palestine, Albright remained deeply influenced by his years at the Johns Hopkins University and by the instruction of Paul Haupt. Born to Protestant parents in Silesia (G6rlitz) in 1858, Haupt studied with Friedrich Delitzsch, years before the latter began to obsess anti-semitically on Babel's primacy over the Bible. In those days, Delitzsch and Haupt shared an approach to realizing the past that was also followed by Gunkel. They reckoned that much culturally valid knowledge could be teased out from documents not normally read for historical information: myths, epics, and hymns. Philology allowed them to make direct links with long vanished authors because the same rules of grammar controlled ancient scribes and modern scholars. They also read widely in fields that were then coming to the fore: sociology, anthropology, psychology, and above all, folklore. But whereas someone like Gunkel could take seriously folklorist James Frazer's notion that cultures progress on the same evolutionary path, Pan-Babylonialists-Delitzsch and to some extent Haupt-looked to a major center such as Babylon from which Jerusalem took ideas and practices. When Albright came to Hopkins, Paul Haupt had been there for a quarter of a century, bringing to America a mature sense of how to practice his art. It is difficult for us to recognize what a major figure Haupt was in his day. He was just 21 when he gave Sumerian its firm footing as a language with no known congeners. Haupt's first article, published in English, dissected the Semitic verbal system. Eventually, Haupt's bibliography of over 600 items had books and articles, some of them written in modern Hebrew, that spilled beyond Assyriology into Egyptology, Germanics, and the clas-

sics. He wrote on Hebrew metrics and on religious development, and although he is remembered longest for editing the PolychromeBible,an edition that color-coded J-E-D-P, he was most keen to stuff its pages with notes on the anthropology of ancient Israel and with etymological studies of obscure Hebrew words. Haupt was not beyond exploring the Aryan ancestry of Jesus, a topic then the rage of Europe, but he did offer a scheme to ease the plight of Russian Jews by proposing to transplant them near Mosul in Iraq (Cooper n.d.). In Haupt, the Orientalist, it is tempting to recognize where Albright got the inspiration for his work during and immediately after his doctoral days. He inherited from Haupt a European certainty about the human mind's capacity to coax secrets from the dimmest of testimonies. Albright instinctively shied away from Haupt's exposition of the Aryan ancestry of Jesus, but he followed him in combing Babylonian lore to solve biblical cruxes. Albright often gave credit to Haupt for his notions regarding early biblical history, themselves a curious juxtaposition of belief in the scientific plausibility of the miraculous elements and a denial of the historicity of biblical events. However, what Haupt lacked, and therefore could not give his brilliant pupil, was a vision of the whole and a sense of purpose. Albright differed from Haupt in two other important respects as well: his Americanism, which was not acquired, and his interest in archaeology, which was. The pivotal consequence of these differences gains pertinence in the aftermath of the first World War. After a period of democratic grace, totalitarianism was becoming rampant on the European continent. If only because of its increasingly pernicious use in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, intellectuals were beginning to mistrust the fruits of historical methodologies in much the same way as has occurred to us, American scholars, after Vietnam when, en masse, we moved from examining

the history of Israel to analyzing its literature. In Weimar, Germany, then also in reaction to Hitler's regime, responsible scholars in our disciplines tightened their focus of research and declined to glance beyond their own specialty. The appeal that was heard most often was to mind one's business: Babylon should tell us about Babylon only, Egypt only about Egypt, and Israel...

cent." When Nazi-inspired German Assyriology was praising Aryan contributions to the history of warfare, Daniel Luckenbill of the Oriental Institute was conjuring the shades of Assyrian kings, whose sordid deeds he knew so well, for a lecture on social justice and democratic ideals (1924:9-19). At the same time and place, Breasted was teaching a vast readership to honor Akhnaton, a

Landforms in the region to the west of Tell Beit Mirsim. By all reports, Albright truly experienced Palestine as the land of the Bible. He found its landscapes reminiscent of those of his boyhood Chile. Photo courtesyof RichardCleave.

well, at most only about Yahweh. In America, however, this constriction of horizons hardly ever materialized, even when we faced the Depression and the second global War. To the contrary, Americans had few doubts about how to practice history and exhibited certainty about their place in it. Even as Benno Landsberger, in Leipzig and then in Exile, was teaching students how to concentrate on Akkadian to penetrate better its diverse cultures, James Henry Breasted was praising the internationalism of the Amarna period and declaring the unity of what he termed the "Fertile Cres-

failed but god-intoxicated Pharaoh, as a major shaper of human conscience.

Albright'sMaturation Albright's period of maturation began in 1919, when he arrived in Jerusalem. In addition to a formidable combination of philological gifts and vast intellectual curiosity, he brought into play American attributes that were more starkly in evidence then than now: the ebullient enthusiasm about the future, the boundless belief in providence, the sure sense of beginnings and ends, the moral justification for action, and BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

5

the simplicity of conviction. Decades later, as he reflected on his own life, Albright speculated that his early years in Chile prepared him for the Holy Land, whose climates and landscapes were "strangely reminiscent" of each other. Later too, Albright also concluded that Providence converted the deprivation and hurt he experienced in Chile into advantages, as work in Palestine made demands on body and soul.

the validity of the covenant they established between each other. It is important, therefore, to stress that Albright did not seek to peddle a Werner Keller, "Bible as History," program confirming the reliability of each and every biblical episode. That we tend to debate the historicity of the patriarchs whenever we think of Albright's biblical history is only because he changed his mind repeatedly on that score, and therefore, has

5"

-At

At?

74

.......

........ .

iI ,•

-,

..~ .

Ruth Norton Albright holds her first son, Paul, as his father looks on in 1924 Jerusalem. Paul was born in December, 1922 at the Hospital of the Sistersof St. Joseph. Three more boys (Hugh, Stephen, and David) would complete the family. Photo courtesyof DavidAlbright.

The land that opened before Albright's eyes was the same as was observed by the Hebrew patriarchs. He traveled all over it and, as he recalled later, evidence confirming the reliability of Jewish scribes repeatedly assaulted his early skepticism. It did not take him long to acquire the vision that was missing: not so much that the Bible is true to history and that he, Albright, must prove to others that it is so; but that, despite the moral obtuseness of succeeding generations, history has remained true to the Hebrew people's instinct about God and about 6

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

left us an enormous paper trail with which to wrestle.2 Rather, Albright deemed himself a philosopher of history, a historian of religions, not unlike Breasted in interest, but immensely closer to where the needed evidence was to be found. Albright knew Babylon, Canaan, and Egypt intimately and even appreciated their cultural superiority over Israel in all but two reciprocal components: Israel's capacity to discover the logic of monotheism, and its courage to broadcast it as a historical truth (compare Freedman 1989). For Albright, Israel's great leap

was not theology but reason; it occurred not just in the minds of the prophets, but already at Sinai when Moses first spied a bush afire but not burning. The centrality of Moses's discovery remained constant with Albright, from his earliest publications until the last, and even survived his Haupt era. In its least attractive manifestations, this credo could emerge in a dismissal of Wellhausen who, frankly, I think Albright never exerted himself to understand. It could also come as a coarse challenge to "nihilists" to mend their negative way of dismissing his findings. To my mind, Albrightian confidence in the historicity of Moses and in the truth of Mosaic sentiments does not necessarily reflect a personal theological conservatism, as some have implied, but it feeds on the centrality of the Bible in the American vision, a vision that cuts across creed, color, and gender. Albright himself puts it bluntly in his writing. "In the center of history," he wrote in his autobiographical notes, "stands the Bible" (1964:291).3 This is the thought that I want to leave with you. If you recognize that we live at a time when orientalism is disparaged as a weapon of imperialism; when Near East politics force archaeologists into one region but not another; when history, like dreams, is said to be beyond reconstruction; when students are corsetted into ever tighter fields of specialty; when the encyclopedic mind is distrusted-if you accept all of the above as signposts for our age, then you might also believe with me that we are not likely to be visited any time soon by the likes of William Foxwell Albright.

Notes 1 I owe this information to R. Lee Carter, who is currentlywriting his dissertation at the University of North Carolinaon the "Message of Higher Criticism." 2 1 may just mention here that Albright came secondarily to using near eastern documents from Mesopotamian sites to authenticate the patriarchalnarratives,following

the lead of two other American orientalists, Ephraim A. Speiser and Cyrus H. Gordon. Earlier,he had depended on the Hammurabi and Hyksos dynasties to evaluate biblical parallels. 3 Other American orientalists who wrote in the 30s did not differ much on this point, although someone like E.A. Speiser shifted the center somewhat. "Sooneror later,"he noted, "the intellectual fortunes that we amass in peripheral fields get to be wisely invested in the Bible" (quoted in Finkelstein and Greenberg,1967:612).

Bibliography Albright, W. F. and Christian 1964 History,Archaeology, Humanism.New York:McGrawHill. 1968 Yahwehand the Godsof Canaan.London: Athlone Press. Cooper,J. n.d. From Mosul to Manila:Early Approaches to Funding Ancient Near EasternStudies Researchin the United States. Photocopy.

Cross, F. M. 1975 William Foxwell Albright:Orientalist. Pp. 14-18in ThePublishedWorks of WilliamFoxwellAlbright:A Comedited by D. prehensiveBibliography, N. Freedman.Cambridge, MA: ASOR. Freedman, D. N. 1975 ThePublishedWorksof William FoxwellAlbright:A Comprehensive Bibliography. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1989 W.E Albright as an Historian. Pp. 33-43 in TheScholarshipof William FoxwellAlbright:An Appraisal, edited by G. Van Beek. Atlanta: ScholarsPress. Finkelstein,J.J.,and Greenberg,M. eds. 1967 Orientaland BiblicalStudies:Collected Writingsof E.A. Speiser,Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Luckenbill,Daniel D. 1924 TheAnnalsofSennacherib.Oriental Institute Publication,2. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Discover

Arabian

archaeology

and

epigraphy EDITOR: DANIEL T. POTTS

Aim & Scope. In recent years the Arabian peninsula has emerged as one of the major new frontiers of archaeological research in the Old World. Yet until now, no journal devoted to the area as a whole has existed. Arabian archaeology and epigraphy is intended to serve as a forum for the publication of studies in the archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, and early history of Arabia.

1 volumeof 3 issuesperyear. COMING

IN

THE

NEXT

Latest excavation reports New finds Unpublished texts Numismatic discoveries Historical debates Compulsory reading for anyone interested in Arabia.

Biblical Archaeologistl Pooches Pampered or

Plain

Pariahs?

Please use the order form below. JI wish to subscribein 1993and receive the 1992volume free of charge I:enclose my cheque for:

L Please send me a sample copy free of charge

1993subscriptionrate USD 125 incl. postage.

THE

ASHKELON DOG

BURIALS

Arabian archaeology and epigraphy Munksgaard International Publishers Ltd. 238 Main Street Cambridge, MA 02142 - 9740 L Mastercard/Access/VISA/AMEX Cardno. Expirationdate Name Address

By Paula Halpnishand Brian ilesse

City State Country

Zip

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

7

Visions

Albright

in

of

the

Future:

1919-1929 Jerusalem, by Neil A. Silberman

first training and experience in Biblical Archaeology in the 1970s, William Foxwell Albright was not our teacher; he was something of a patron saint. Although he died in 1971, his image was familiar--especially as seen in the famous photograph of the kindly-looking scholar, with thick wire-rimmed eyeglasses, peering reflectively through a magnifying glass at an ancient manuscript (as below, p. 13 and the frontispiece of Running and Freedman 1975). He seemed to be all things to all people: philologist, orientalist, philosopher, historian-as well as archaeologist (Cf. Van Beek 1989). And despite the fact that many of Albright's archaeological conclusions are now, and were even then, questioned or discarded, his influence continues to be profound. That's why I think it may be worthwhile to examine a particularly formative period in Albright's career-his first ten years in Jerusalem-and suggest that the continuing power of his archaeological reputation may be based just as much on how he did archaeology as on any particular conclusions that he formed. I don't think anyone will take issue with me when I suggest that the decade from 1919 to 1929 was a crucial one for the future of the Holy Land (for recent surveys of the period see, for example, Giladi 1973, Khalidi 1984, Wasserstein 1991). At the time of Albright's arrival in Jerusalem in December 1919, Palestine was still under military occupa8

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

tion, and the distinct national aspirations of the country's Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communitiesthough mutually, perhaps fatally, in

Melvin Grove Kyle was regarded as a true friend by Albright, who wrote effusively of their relationship in memoriam (Albright 1933). Kyle provided financial backing for their joint expedition to the Dead Sea Valley and subsequently for the excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim.Kyle raised funds by his lectures to church groups across America about archaeology and the infallible truth of the Bible.

conflict-all still seemed achievable (McTague 1983). At the time of Albright's departure from Palestine to accept a professorship at Johns Hopkins in the summer of 1929, the country had undergone a far-reaching economic and demographic transformation (Abu-Lughod 1987; Brawer 1990), and the violence that

was about to explode in Jerusalem and Hebron would mark the end of any hope of peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jews (Cohen 1988). Regarding the history of our discipline, the decade of the 1920s was no less significant: in those years, W.F.Albright began the transformation of Palestinian archaeology from a semi-official enterprise conducted only by Great Powers, Great Institutions, and Great Fortunes, to a decentralized, heterogeneous activity that could be undertaken and funded by enthusiastic individuals and groups (King 1983). The irony is that Albright never intended to spend more than a few months in Jerusalem-and he certainly never intended to become a field archaeologist. In accepting the Thayer Fellowship at the American School for the 1919-1920 academic year, the 28-year-old Albright admitted that he was anxious to get back as quickly as possible to Baltimore, to his fiancee, and to his academic career (Running and Freedman 1975: 59). He had already begun to make a name for himself as a promising scholar, and the atmosphere in Jerusalem was certainly not conducive to quiet, reflective study. Just two years before, in the midst of the bitter fighting of World War I, Lord Balfour had issued his famous declaration. But now that Great Britain's conflicting promises to the French and to the Hashemites had been uncomfortably revealed, the leadership of the Zionist movement suspected betrayal. Palestinian Christian and Muslim notables

moved quickly to assert their traditional power. And a younger generation of Palestinian Arab intellectuals and activists looked northward to Damascus and worked for the incorporation of Palestine within a vast Arab commonwealth (Porath 1974; Maslih 1988; Fromkin 1989). The mix of personalities, ideologies, and intentions at the American School in its first post-war year of operation also reflected the country's political tensions. William H. Worrell, the director, was a Coptic and Arabic scholar well connected and sympathetic to the Arab nationalist cause. Albert Clay, the annual professor from Yale, was an aristocratic, conservative biblical scholar, who resented just about everything Worrell had to say. (King 1983:55-56, Running and Freedman 1975:66-69). From Yale also came Samuel Feigin, a Russian-born Palestinian Jew who taught Albright modern Hebrew, brought him along to Zionist lectures and rallies, and introduced him to another young Jewish activist named Lipa Sukenik. Sukenik would in time become one of the founding fathers of Israeli archaeology in more ways than one. (He was the father of Yigael Yadin. On early Jewish Palestinian archaeology, see Shavit 1987.) Through Worrell, Albright also became friendly with Omar as-Salih Barghuti, one of the leaders of the local Arab nationalist group, al-Nadi al-Arabi(Porath 1974; Maslih 1988). That left little time for serious study. Albright wrote home to his mother that he was "listening sympathetically to all sides, expressing no agreement with any, trying to stay neutral" (quoted in Running and Freedman 1975:70), but the tension was building. On April 2, Albright accompanied Barghuti to watch the Nebi Musa procession and two days later witnessed-to his horror-a wave of looting and violence directed against the residents of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. He briefly considered returning to America even before the end of the academic year (Running and Freedman 1975:73), but the unexpected oppor-

tunity that soon arose from the clash of personalities within the American School convinced him to stay. Then as now, the financial resources of archaeological institutions often fall far short of their trustees' ambitious plans. And so it was with the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem in the early post-war years. While the British School of Archaeology benefitted from an annual budget of $30,000 and the resources of the Palestine Department of Antiquities,

someone with more administrative experience (King 1983:58), William Albright was already in situ. And on June 18, 1920-on the urging of his mentor Paul Haupt at Johns Hopkins (Running and Freedman 1975:7980)-the 29-year old Albright accepted the post of acting director and began to lay the foundations of the discipline we know today. Our understanding of the early years of Albright's tenure in Jerusalem is-like much early 20thcentury Ancient Near Eastern histori-

The staff of the fourth field season (1932) at Tell Beit Mirsimincluded (standing left to right):William Gad (surveyor),CyrusGordon, A. Henry Detweiler (architect),John Bright, W. F.Stinespring, Eugene Liggitt, Vernon Broyles,and Aage Schmidt;(sitting) J. L.Kelso (assistant director), W. F.Albright (director), M. G. Kyle,and Nelson Glueck.

the American School had to make due on $6000-and no government sponsorship at all (Bulletin of the

AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch [BASOR] 2(1920). By the spring of 1920, therefore, Director Worrell, preoccupied with the school's poor finances and fed up with Professor Clay's constant carping, decided that he would be much happier somewhere else. This left the American School-with all its ambitious plans-without a director. Although the trustees would have preferred

ography-long on dates, placenames, and political history, but painfully short on social nuance. The lists of classes taught, sites visited, and excavations undertaken that were published in BASOR reveal little of the broader cultural context. Yet recent political and economic studies of Mandatory Palestine can give us some welcome background. They stress that in the years immediately after World War I, the country's traditional systems of village life and agriculture underwent a far-reaching BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

9

change (Stein 1984, Miller 1985). Since late Ottoman times, the economic viability of traditional rural lifeways had been growing more tenuous. Stepped-up enforcement of tax collection and increasing monetarization of the economy had forced many formerly independent cultivators into debt. Add to that the catastrophic effects of the expropriation, deforestation, and natural disasters suffered by the inhabitants of the country during the war years (Stein 1986), and it's easy to understand why many firmly believed in the early 1920s that the traditional way of life of the Palestinianfellahin was about to come to an end. For Albright, who traveled extensively throughout the country during this period, this situation ironically provided an excellent opportunity to make a scholarly contribution with the limited resources available to

10

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

him. "Owing to the unprecedented rapidity of the economic and social evolution of Palestine today," he informed the readers of BASOR, "the thorough study of the folklore of Palestine is a matter of imperative necessity" (BASOR 4[1921]:4). Taking his cue from then-accepted anthropological understanding that the simple, "primitive" folk of every country could be seen as fossilized specimens of the ancient, (Kuper 1988, Stocking 1989), Albright was convinced of the importance of folklore study "for understanding the mind of the Palestinian peasant, in so many respects no doubt, like his Israelite and Canaanite predecessors" (BASOR 4[1921]:4). Even though he eventually rejected this Euro-centric leap of faith as being wholly without factual basis, his initial fascination with collecting folklore had lasting effects. Unlike directors of the other

archaeology schools and major excavations who employed locals primarily as foremen, basketboys, and domestics, Albright gathered around him a circle of enthusiastic local scholars-"young Orientals" he called them (BASOR 5[1922]:16)to help him collect and write about Palestinian folklore. This group included Elias Haddad, Tewfik Canaan, Omar as-Salih Barghuti, Hanna Stephen, and Lipa Sukenik (BASOR 5[1922]:16-17), who were among the first of a growing number of local scholars to be deeply influenced by Albright's scholarship and personality. Yet the collection of folklore was not fated to become the main focus of Albright's work. In early November 1920, when he was invited to visit the ongoing British excavations at Ascalon, he discovered what seemed to him to be a new and far more pre-

cise tool. In discussions with William Phythian-Adams, a young Anglican cleric who had come out to Palestine to serve as Professor John Garstang's assistant, Albright learned how potsherds, not folktales, might be the key to understanding biblical history. Indeed, Albright would long recall how Phythian-Adams offered him his first introduction to archaeology, confidently demonstrating how the sequence of Ascalon's ceramics revealed a saga of civilization, ethnic migration, and conquest, that began with the arrival of non-Semitic troglodytes and proceeded through successive epochs of Amorites, Hyksos, Canaanites, and Philistinesupward to classical times (Albright 1922). Garstang and Phythian-Adams were trained in an archaeological tradition that placed the stress in historical interpretation on ethnic movement and technological progress

An overview of Jerusalemtaken fromthe tower of the RussianChurchon the Mountof Olivesduringthe yearsof WorldWarI.Albrightarrivedinthe cityjusttwo yearsafter its capturebythe British.Conflictamongthe variousaspirantsfor power-Jewish, Muslin, and Christian-hasbegun to emerge. MandatoryPalestinewas on the brinkof far-reaching social,economic,and politicaltransformation. Photo from the Matson Collection,Libraryof Congress.

(Trigger 1989:196-205). Later Albright identified this tradition with Egyptologist Breasted and disparagingly called it "atheistic humanism" (Albright 1964:6, 217-228). Now Albright was ready to combine his historical understandings with his personal religious belief. Just a few days after visiting Ascalon, at a meeting of the Palestine Oriental Society, he presented his epoch-making paper, "A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology," in which he arranged the great events of biblical history-or as he termed it, "the great drama of salvation," on a neat, chronological scale (Albright 1921).

Weaving a modem folktale of great wars and migrations, Albright evoked then-current historical and racial theories to speak of a great Indo-European inundation toward the Mediterranean where the invaders intermingled with the Semitic scions of an earlier movement from Mesopotamia. It was in this Bronze Age multicultural ferment, he believed, that a new, monotheistic religion did eventually arise. Needless to say, mass migrations, new nations, and new ideologies were subjects of contemporary interest in those heady days of international reallignment after World BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

11

I

..",

a

Av.

10

C

QI`-

".

..Apt I

1; ~

e

----?---TA

1

-14

British troops march in a display of military force in Jerusalem. The Mandatory

governmentstruggledto quellthe riotingof 1929.Albrightended histen-yeartenure as Directorof the AmericanSchoolin Jerusalemjust priorto the out-breakof bloody violence.Backin Baltimore,he guardedhisstanceof neutrality. Photo from the Matson Collection,Libraryof Congress.

War I (Fromkin 1989). More to the point, the material illustration of Albright's chronologically detailed, ethnic saga offered an attractive course of action for the struggling American School. Albright became convinced that it was not necessary to assemble huge staffs to excavate great mounds and search for monumental architecture in order to add to the understanding of the biblical world. With the aid of precise pottery 12

W,

-4e

I

Ii!

?

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

analysis, even the most humble ruin could be dated, assigned to a particular ethnic group, and thus be made to reveal its biblical history. Such was the motivation for Albright's first excavation, a project with a budget of only a thousand dollars, carried out at Tell el-Ful (Running and Freedman 1975:101, 106-107). Despite a nasty legal dispute over the lease to the property-highlighted by Albright's brief arrest

by the Jerusalem police on the complaint of disgruntled villagers-he succeeded in defining a ceramic chronology that neatly, if circularly, paralleled the history of the site, which he identified with Gibeah of Saul (Albright 1922). No less important, in his continuing participation in the meetings of the Archaeological Advisory Council of the Department of Antiquities, Albright helped to craft a unique compromise between the terminology of technological, ethnic, and biblical archaeological schemes. In the "Jerusalem Chronology" of 1922, signed by Garstang, Vincent, Albright, and PhythianAdams-a document that serves as

the basis for our archaeological periodization-the ethnic names of Canaanites, Philistines, and Israelites are neatly nested within the Stone, Bronze, and Iron stages of technological development (Palestine

1

il ~I

:I

FundQuarterlyStatement Exploration 1923:54-55). Had Albright's archaeological career concluded at the end of the Tell el-Ful excavations, he might be remembered today as an innovative thinker, but hardly comparable in achievement to the excavators of the great Canaanite sites of Megiddo or Beth Shean. But at this point in the story a crucial character enters, a character who gave Albright's scholarly insights a practical, organizational frame. He was Melvin Grove Kyle-Albright's senior by 33 years-president of the Xenia Theological Seminary, active supporter of overseas missionary work, and tireless defender of the Bible's historical authority (Albright 1933). "Science," Kyle once assured his readers in the Sunday SchoolTimeswith breathtakingly circular logic, "when it is true knowledge of the facts of nature, cannot be otherwise than harmonious with any other true statement of facts, as we constantly find the Bible to be." (Kyle 1928:53). And in the winter of 1924, with $1400 raised by his lectures to church groups across America about archaeology and the infallible truth of the Bible, Kyle arrived at the American School in Jerusalem to lead an expedition-an ecumenical expedition-to locate the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea. Setting off from Jerusalem in midFebruary, the team included Kyle, two of his students from Xenia, Albright, Thayer Fellow William Carroll, geologist Alfred Day from the American University in Beirut, flint expert Phre Alexis Mallon, director of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Inspector Nai'im Makhouli of the Department of Antiquities as expedition liaison, and Lipa Sukenik, formerly of the Hebrew Boys' High School, as expedition surveyor and

),

-]

'

i

Albright's most well-known portrait--magnifying glass in hand-was taken at his desk

at JohnsHopkinsca. 1958.

Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger,Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

field botanist (Kyle 1928:24-6). In a month of exhausting exploration, this eclectic group of scholars traveled from Amman down to Kerak and the Ghor es-Safi, discovering the massive Early Bronze site of Bab edh-Dhra and finally concluding that the wicked cities of the plain-so vividly described in the Book of Genesislay submerged somewhere at the southern end of the sea. For Albright the expedition was an incentive for further discovery. "Let us hope that other institutions will see the opportunity for similar joint expeditions," he noted in April 1924, "where we can promise scientific results and

interesting experiences all out of proportion to the modest expenses" (BASOR 14[1924]: 12). Indeed, expenses continued to be a matter of prime concern to Albright. While the major excavations in Palestine could hire a fulltime staff and enlist huge work crews of native diggers, the American School had only a small excavation fund. Most of its resources were devoted to the construction of the new school building in Jerusalem, on the dirt path leading northward from Herod's Gate (King 1983:74). We often fail to take into account this economic factor in tracing the history BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

13

of Biblical Archaeology. Even the largest projects-Beth Shean, Dor, Megiddo-were not immune to the effects of economic fluctuations. It's ironic that the "golden age" of Palestinian archaeology took place precisely at times of serious unemployment and recession, in the periods 1922-24 and 1926-28 (Halevi 1983). It might even be fair to say that the "goldenness" of that golden age was

summer thus in the bright sunshine and invigorating air of Palestine" (McCown 1943:86). What's more, President Kyle had shown that significant public interest-and financial support-could be raised in America by a direct appeal to Bible. This was, after all, the Age of Calvin Coolidge, Aimee Semple McPherson, and the Scopes "Monkey" Trial (for a survey of the cultural

Tell Beit Mirsim expedition camp as seen

landscape, see Susman 1984:105-121). It was also the era of the first "living history museums," such as Colonial Williamsburg and Greenfield Village, in which tangible artifacts and representations of "everyday life" offered subtle ideological reinforcement of conservative modern notions of gender, work, and family (Wallace 1986:142-149). Thus, the discovery of inscriptions and monumental architecture, while still naturally desirable, were no longer essential in an ongoing project of archaeologically illustrating life in biblical times (Cf. Broshi 1987). An excavation site was quickly chosen: the "Mound of the House of the Fast Camel Driver," better known as Tell Beit Mirsim, southwest of Hebron and at that time confidently identified with the biblical city of Debir (Running and Freedman 1975:143-163).And in the spring of 1926, with a budget of $3000, raised by Kyle lectures and by public sub-

fromthe tell (n.d.). Photo from the ASORIGlueck Collectionon deposit at the HarvardSemiticMuseum.

made possible by a steep drop in the going wage rates for Jewish laborers and fellahin. Yet while the major archaeological employers were hurt by periods of prosperity and rising wages, expeditions like Kyle's, based largely on the participation of scholar-volunteers, were far more adaptable. Albright's successor at the American School, Chester C. McCown, succinctly outlined the advantages of the new method: "During the summer vacation, scholars from Europe and America are glad to join the staff as honorary workers... a man who has the proper historical and philological preparation and interest can find no better opportunity to learn the methods and value of archaeology than to spend a 14

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

scription, a temporary camp was pitched in a nearby olive grove, workers were hired from the nearby village, and the digging began. The rest, as they say, is history. In the summer of 1929, after almost a decade of faithful service as director of the American School in Jerusalem, Albright left Jerusalem to accept the chair of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University. Before sailing for America with his family, he was honored with gratitude and adulation by his old friends and colleagues of the Palestine Oriental Society and by the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Hebrew University (BASOR 33[1929]:13). In his first ten years in Jerusalem Albright successfully maneuvered through the minefield of political options and, whether by intention or by pure circumstance,

after his return to comment on the grim situation in Palestine, he maintained the neutrality that he established ten years before. "I speak the tongues of both races," he told the reporter, "and because I have kept out of politics have been able to keep warm friends among both Arabs and Jews." (quoted in Running and Freedman 1975:171) It's strange that today's Biblical

Aerial view of Tell Beit Mirsim with the exposed portions of the northwest quadrant plainly visible. The mound covers an area of ca. 3 ha. Photo courtesyof RichardCleave.

created a distinctive brand of American progressivist archaeology. And even though, less than a month after his departure, a bitter struggle between Muslim and Jewish factions over possession of the Western Wall plaza exploded in a bloody wave of violence that resulted in the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Motza, Safed, and Hebron, Albright-safely back in America and preparing for the fall semester at Johns Hopkinsstill maintained that a scholar could detach himself entirely from the Holy Land's modern realities. Asked by a Baltimore newspaper reporter soon

ment sanction, employ local workers, and most important of all present a version of the past that is susceptible to modern political interpolation, without contributing-again, knowingly or unconsciously-to the modern political debate? This paper is meant to be a historical preface to what I hope can be a continuing discussion of the modern political and ideological nature

Excavations in progress near the end of the 1932 field season. Workerstoil in the southeast quadrant near the city wall. The fluctuating costs of labor have played a crucial role in archaeological investigations. The huge work crews of native diggers that supplied the muscle for some of Palestine's largest projects during the 1920s were beyond the means of the American School over which Albright presided. Photo from the ASORIGlueck Collectionon deposit at the HarvardSemiticMuseum.

archaeologists-or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists-who likewise take pride in wearing the public badge of scholarly impartiality, don't often acknowledge that there is something more to Albright's legacy than historical ideas. Can a scholar, who is also a product of modern society, with a particular national, religious, and economic position, really enter a strife torn society (like Palestine's in the 1920s) without participatingwillingly or unknowingly-in the political struggle that is going on? Can he or she obtain rights to an archaeological site (which is also a part of the modern landscape), negotiate for goods, services, and govern-

of Albright's legacy. For even though today's scholars may speak in terms more appropriate to CurrentAnthropology than The Sunday SchoolTimes, that difference-I could argue-may be less of political or sociological substance than of literary style. We must, for a moment, look beyond the scholarly etiquette and the sometimes bitter internal polemics of our discipline over matters of methodology to consider what social function we as archaeologists play in the unfolding modern history of the Middle East. We may recognize that the mindset and social role of American archaeologists in the region in the 1990s is-for better or for worse-

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

15

really not too much different from that established in the 1920s by the kindly, near-sighted gentleman in the famous photograph.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to Program ChairmanBarryGittlen and Professor William G. Dever for making possible the ASOR session in which this paper was first presented. ProfessorsLeona G. Running, David Noel Freedman,Philip King, and BurkeO. Long were kind enough to discuss with me some of the biographicalissues brought up in this article and share with me insights from their own research.

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, I., editor 1987 TheTransformation of Palestine:Eassays on theOriginand Developmentof theArab-IsraeliConflict.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press. Albright, W.F. 1921 A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology,Journalof thePalestine OrientalSociety1:49-79. 1922 The Excavationsat Ascalon. Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research6:11-18. 1924 Excvavationsand Resultsat Tellel-Ful (Gibeahof Saul).Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research4. New Haven: ASOR. 1933 In Memoriam Melvin Grove Kyle. BASOR51:5-7. 1940 FromtheStoneAge to Christianity: Monotheismand theHistorical Process.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press. 1964 History,Archaeologyand Christian Humanism.New York:McGraw Hill. Brawer,M. 1990 Transformationof Arab RuralSettlement in Palestine. Pp. 167-180in TheLandthatBecameIsrael:Studies in HistoricalGeography, edited by R. Kark.New Haven: YaleUniversity Press. Broshi,M. 1987 Religion, Ideology, and Politics and Their Impact on Palestinian Archaeology.IsraelMuseumJournal 6: 17-32. Cohen, N.W. 1988 TheYearAftertheRiots:American Responsesto thePalestineCrisisof 1929-30.Detroit:Wayne State University Press. Fromkin,D. 1989 A PeaceToEndAll Peace:Creatingthe ModernMiddleEast,1914-1922.New York:Henry Holt.

16

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Giladi, Dan 1973 JewishPalestineDuringtheFourth Alia Period(1924-1929):Economic and SocialAspects.TelAviv: Am Oved (Hebrew). Halevi, N. 1983 The Political Economy of Absorptive Capacity:Growth and Cycles in Jewish Palestine under the BritishMandate, MiddleEastern Studies19:456-469. Khalidi, W. 1984 BeforeTheirDiaspora.Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies. P.J. King, 1983 AmericanArchaeologyin theMideast: A Historyof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch.Philadelphia:The American Schools of Oriental Research.

9

Boarding a flight in New York in 1953, Albright returnsto Jerusalem after an absence of nearly two decades. He returned again a few years later to accept an honorary doctorate from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity. Kuper,A. 1988 TheInventionof PrimitiveSociety: Transformations of an Illusion.London: Routledge. Kyle, M.G. at Sodom:TheStoryof 1928 Explorations AncientSodomin theLightof Modern Research.London: The Religious TractSociety. McCown, C.C. 1943 TheLadderof Progressin Palestine. New York:Harper. McTague,J.J. 1983 BritishPolicyin Palestine,1917-1925. Lanham,MD: University Press of America.

Maslih, M.Y. 1988 TheOriginsof Palestinian Nationalism.New York:Columbia University Press. Miller,Y. 1985 Government and Societyin Rural Palestine,1920-1948.Austin: University of TexasPress. Porath, Y. 1974 TheEmergenceof thePalestinian NationalMovement,1918-1929.London: Cass. Running, L.G.,and Freedman,D.N. 1975 WilliamFoxwellAlbright,A Twentieth CenturyGenius.New York:Two Continents Publishing Group. Shavit, Y. 1987 "TruthShall Spring Out of the Earth:"The Development of Jewish Popular Interest in Archaeology in Eretz-Israel.Cathedra44:27-54 (Hebrew). Stein, K.W. 1984 TheLandQuestionin Palestine,19171939.Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress. 1986 The Political Implications of Palestine's Rural Economy (1917-1930). Cathedra41 (1986):133-154 (Hebrew). Stocking, G.W. 1989 The EthnographicSensibility of the 1920s and the Dualism of the Anthropological Tradition.Pp. 208276 in RomanticMotives:Essayson Anthropological Sensibility.History of Anthropology,6. Edited by G.W. Stocking. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press. Susman, W.I. 1984 Cultureas History:TheTransformation of AmericanSocietyin the Twentieth Century.New York:Pantheon Books. Trigger,B.G. 1989 A Historyof Archaeological Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Van Beek, G.W.,editor 1989 TheScholarshipof WilliamFoxwell Albright,An Appraisal.Harvard Semitic Studies, 33. Atlanta, GA: ScholarsPress. Wallace,M. 1986 Visiting the Past:History Museums in the United States. Pp. 137-161in PresentingthePast:Essayson history and thePublic,edited by S. P. Benson, S. Brier,and R. Rosenzweig. Philadelphia:Temple University Press Wasserstein,B. 1991 TheBritishin Palestine:TheMandatoryGovernmentand theArab-Jewish Conflict,1917-1929.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

Albright and the Gods of Mesopotamia by William W Hallo

n my libraryin Connecticut, I

have two copies of Yahwehand the Godsof Canaan.One is a dogeared paperback, its narrow margins crowded with my pencilled exclamation points, question marks and other annotations, including numerous dissenting opinions. The other is a hardcover edition in mint condition, its fly-leaf inscribed "ToWilliam W. Hallo with the regards of the author, William F. Albright." This vignette probably serves as well as any to epitomize my attitude towards Albright: on the one hand a critical distancing from some of his detailed positions, on the other a profound admiration for his methodology and for important aspects of his broader vision. In a day and age when respect for Albright the man runs higher than ever, but his scholarly views have been challenged and superseded one after the other, I am happy to acknowledge my debt to him. It is second only to the one I feel toward my own teacher, I.J.Gelb. In many ways the "contextual approach" to biblical scholarship which I have tried to develop may be described as an attempt to salvage the best parts of Albright's comparative approach (Hallo 1991a:23-34). I knew Albright in many capacities. He was my colleague at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati where he served briefly (Winter and Spring 1961) as visiting professor at the invitation of his great admirer and oldest disciple Nelson Glueck. He served on the editorial committee for the Speiser Memorial Volume, which I 18

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

edited. I knew him as the former Assyriologist who would have come to Yale, he never tired of telling me, but for the strains that cuneiform studies would have put on his failing eyesight (see also Running and Freedman 1975:185-86),and as a commanding presence at many a meeting of the American Oriental Society and the Society of Biblical Literature. I had the privilege of contributing to one of the four Anniversary Volumes published in his honor (Hallo 1969) and of delivering the Albright Memorial lecture at Johns Hopkins University in 1987, at the kind invitation of Jerrold Cooper, one of his successors (Hallo 1991). If I were asked to characterize Albright's methodology today, I would be tempted to describe him as a prototype of the computer. He commanded an enormous data base, and his calculations were constantly and instantly self-correcting. He was even attached to a printer, so to speak, in the sense that his editorship of the

Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof Ori-

ental Researchgave him a ready outlet for his learned findings. At the same time his high standing in "Biblical Archaeology"-a field practically of his own making-provided access to a wider audience for his more popular conclusions. He absorbed every new datum and every novel interpretation into his existing view of the past and revised that view accordingly. Albright was the last of those giants of Ancient Near Eastern studies who mastered all the major cultures of the field with equal authority

and was one of the first to adopt a truly multi-disciplinary approach to them. In a world where the larger picture was more and more obscured by fixation on the discrete data, he was one who never missed the forest for the trees. To acquaint oneself with Albright's contributions to the specific field of Mesopotamian mythology, it is well to read his bibliography-itself no small task-in two of the Festschriften dedicated to him (Lapp 1961, Freedman 1969; cf. also Freedman et al., 1975). There we may note that he was trained as an Assyriologist and wrote his doctoral dissertation under Paul Haupt in 1916 on the subject of "The Assyrian Deluge Epic." Though Albright never published his dissertation, that same year he addressed the American Oriental Society (Washington 1916), under the heading of "Some Misinterpreted Passages in the Cuneiform FloodTablet," according to the Journalof the

AmericanOrientalSociety(36 [1917]:

440). Two years later, the same journal carried two brief notices on "The Babylonian Sage Ut-napi'ti(m) Ruiqu"(Albright 1919a)and on "Ninib-Ninurta" (Albright 1919c). In the next seven years, Albright published nine or ten papers specifically on Mesopotamian deities and myths, but none of great length or enduring significance. These papers ranged from "Some Cruces in the Langdon Epic" (Albright 1919d) which dealt with the myth of Enki and Ninhursag, through "Gilgames and Engidu, Mesopotamian Genii of

Fecundity" (Albright 1920a), and "Some Notes on the Early Babylonian Text of the Atrahasis Epic" (Albright 1924). The first significant work intimating Albright's comparative interest was dedicated to his mentor, under the title "Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology" (Albright 1926c). The total output is not impressive: in ten years a dozen papers and some 157 pages from a scholar whose annual output averaged probably twice that for sixty years. (Other papers from this L' period are listed in the bibliography under Albright 1919b, 1920b and c, 1922, 1926a and b.) Another half dozen years were to elapse before Albright returned briefly to Mesopotamian studies with notes on "The SyroMesopotamian God SulmanEsmun and Related Figures" (Albright 1932) and "Primitivism in Ancient Western Asia (Mesopotamia and Israel)" (Albright 1935). In 1938, he reviewed S. Mowinckel's The TwoSourcesof the PredeuteronomicPrimevalHistory (Albright 1938), taking the renowned Scandinavian scholar to task for, among other things, ignoring the evidence about the antediluvian traditions of Mesopotamia furnished by the great "Weld-Blundell Prism" version of the Sumerian King List, which he himself had discussed fifteen years earlier (Albright 1923). The following year, Mowinckel offered a rejoinder and Albright a surrejoinder under the common title of "The Babylonian Matter in the PreDeuteronomic Primeval History (JE) in Gen. 1-11" (Albright 1939). In the same year, Albright became president of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis and devoted his presidential address to "The Ancient Near East and the Religion of Israel" (Albright 1940a). Thereafter

not a single new treatment of the theme of Mesopotamian mythology occurred among the ceaseless stream of articles that flowed from Albright's pen until his death on September 19, 1971. These last three decades of his life formed a period when Albright increasingly sought to sum up and synthesize his insights in longer

. ? '

?

14

I r

Thought, 1600-1200 B.C." (pp. 157179, esp. pp. 157-163). This was eventually followed by History,Archaeology and ChristianHumanism (1964), including an updated version of his presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature (pp. 130-156). Finally in 1968 he summed up his views in the book with which I started, Yahwehand the Godsof Canaan (1968), surveying, among other things, "Mesopotamian Cosmogony in Genesis" i" (pp. 91-100). What emerges from this thumb-nail review of Albright's writings on O Mesopotamia and its mythology is a somewhat meager harvest: some studies of individual Mesopotamian deities, such as Ninurta and Geshtinanna, and distinctly minor ones like Sumuqan, Uttu and Shulman; some other studies on the Akkadian epics of Atra-hasis and Gilgamesh and the Sumerian myth of Enki and Ninhursag; and comparative treatments of Mesopotamian elements in the primeval history. Small wonder that, in the volume recently edited by Gus W. Van Beek (1989) under the title The Scholarshipof WilliamFoxwell Albright:An Appraisal,there are no chapters devoted to his contributions to Assyriology, to mythology, or even to the history of religions, though the last field certainly commanded his attention throughout his scholarly career. The slender volume confines itself to discussions of his contributions to Semitic epigraphy and paleography, history, philology, and archaeology. I have already alluded to Albright's failing eyesight as his own favorite explanation for the re-direction of his focus of interest. In the biography jointly authored by David Noel Freedman and Leona Glidden Running, under the subtitle "A

i

E c

?I

i

~6~t; ``

~p d~

z~L~

~

*3

Albright has entered his eighth decade in 1963 when he posed for this shot at his desk at Johns Hopkins. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

monographic works. In these books we do find some echoes of his earlier interests. At the very outset, there appeared the influential From the Stone Age to Christianity:Monotheism and the HistoricalProcess (1940b), which included brief discussions on "Mesopotamian Religion between 3000 and 1600 B.C." (pp. 140-149) and "The Background of Religion and

"i

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

19

Twentieth-Century Genius," another explanation was offered by another of his principal disciples, George Ernest Wright. According to Wright, Albright was trained originally in Accadian studies. He was writing all those Assyriological mythological studies, and then shifted completely in the environment of the Holy Land, just as though he were a Jew being converted to the land, the Holy Land. All his childhood dreams now surface and he forgets - he just goes back on all the myth-and-ritual stuff. It was an identification with the soil as dramatic as any modem Israeli's transformation along that line (1975: 317). But I prefer yet another explanation, likewise found in the biography by Running and Freedman, but this time furnished by Albright's widow. According to this source, the invitation which Albright received from Yale to succeed to the Laffan Chair of Assyriology and Babylonian Literature was engineered behind the scenes by Mrs. Albright. She wanted to provide her husband with some leverage to improve his modest emoluments at Johns Hopkins University. She had, however, no wish whatsoever to leave Baltimore. When the offer came and Albright seemed disposed to consider it, she firmly announced that if he left for New Haven it would be without her (1975:185).This then appears to be the real reason for his abandonment of a career in Assyriology. But there is a footnote to this anecdote. Albright and his biographers are in agreement that, when he finally chose to remain at Johns Hopkins, he urged Yale to call Albrecht Goetze in his place. That suggestion alone would earn him the gratitude of Assyriology even if he had done nothing else for the field-and of course he did! If now we were to assess progress in the field of Mesopotamian mythology and its Biblical reflexes since the appearance of Yahwehand the Godsof 20

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Canaanin 1968, it would be well to begin with some definitions. The plain sense of Greek muthosis "spoken word, report, narration," readily .shading over into "chatter, rumor, fable." Current usage has reverted to that sense, and particularly to the connotation of "misconception, untruth," as when Ernst Cassirer wrote on TheMyth of the State (1946, 1966), or Lewis Mumford on The Myth of the Machine (1967), or Thomas

ition was given wide currency in the introduction to TheIntellectualAdventure of Ancient Man in 1946, republished in 1967 as BeforePhilosophy. Here Henri Frankfort and Henriette Frankfort-Gronewegen introduced the notion of mytho-poetic thought, which was then illustrated by the various contributors. T. H. Gaster provided a felicitous reformulation of this definition in the preface to his Myth, Legend,and Cus-

(1978).

mythopoeia,"he wrote, "articulates a present, existential situation in general, continuous terms, translating the punctual into the durative, the real into the ideal" (1969:XXXIV).In this formulation, which has found favor in Assyriological circles (Hallo 1970:117n. 1; 1984:170),mythology comes very close to aetiology, a concept borrowed from medicine where it refers to the origin and evolution of a given pathology. And, indeed, texts labeled myths, as well as those usually described as epics, contain numerous aetiologies. More recent research, however, has sought a broader definition of myth, one that includes not only literary genres but also other "molds" that reflect, shape, and preserve the intellectual conceptions of a given ethos. Such molds include representations in art, reflections in ritual, and key expressions in the languages of the sources. A definition of this sort seeks to chart the underlying ideologies, the deep structure as it were, of which diverse formulations are but the surface manifestations. For all those manifestations, the term "mythologem" may be better suited. The concept of the mythologem can be illustrated (in a simplistic way) by the example of Etana the heavenscaler, whose mythologem is expressed first and perhaps most tellingly in pictorial terms, i.e., in the form of cylinder seals of Old Akkadian date (ca. 23rd century B.C.E.; Baudot 1982), and briefly in laconic entries in the Sumerian King List and other Sumerian and Akkadian compositions (Alster 1989). The formal

E. Szasz on TheMythof Psychotherapy tomin theOldTestament. "Myth,or

"'`' .,.. :: i. ~?;? ?j??,.. " iI~?

/?~

/ :''~i~t~

??.

??/. ~ ..

-

?z ~, Pi :'5 r

Etana, the heaven scaler, rides the back

of an eagle in hisquest for immortality portrayedon an OldAkkadiancylinder seal. Inthe neo-Assyrian re-tellingof his Etana becomes the firstking mythologem, and hisquest aspiresfor a son and successor.Hismythologembespeaksthe antiquityof kingship. Illustrationby RhondaRoot.

We can afford to ignore this usage here. A more familiar one defines myth as a tale about the gods, but this simple notion has now largely gone out of fashion. It depends on an untenable distinction between myth and epic, defining epic as a tale about mortals, albeit of a legendary past and of an accordingly heroic stature. In fact, of course, both myth and epic inextricably mix gods and mortals in ancient as well as classical traditions. A more serviceable definition regards myth as a poetic explanation of present phenomena in terms of an imaginary event in the past, i.e., as an essentially intellectual exercise of the pre-scientific imagination. This defin-

myth, attributed to an author of neoSumerian date (ca. 2100-2000 B.C.E.) called Lu-Nanna, went through Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian recensions before assuming the canonical form best known in neoAssyrian (Wilson 1985). In this recension, Etana has become the first king, his quest is for a son and successor, and his mythologem can best be defined as a metaphor for an underlying belief in the antiquity of kingship. Without multiplying the examples, it can be argued that while Mesopotamian mythology had its share of straightforward tales of the carryings-on of the gods, as well as of simplistic aetiologies, it also served on a more sophisticated level to articulate the tensions that informed a society standing in equal dread of palace and temple-of the visible might of the monarch as much of the unseen power of the deities and demons that populated the Mesopotamian pantheon. What, if any, light do these reflections on Mesopotamian mythologies throw on the Biblical situation? On the face of it, we seem to confront a consummate contrast. In Israel, one God alone contrasted with the multitudinous deities exemplified by the 3300 entries in the first edition of Anton Deimel's PantheonBabyloniacum of 1914 and the 5580 entries (5367 net after substracting cross-references) in the second edition of 1950. The God of Israel was its sole acknowledged king, except during its relatively short-lived experiment with an earthly monarchy. A gradual centralization of the Israelite cult superseded any competing claims of local shrines and presumably eclipsed or appropriated whatever myths might have perpetuated their ancient claims. And yet, the Bible preserves ample traces of mythologems not so fundamentally different from those of Mesopotamia (or of Ugarit). Some of these are found scattered throughout the Biblical texts, as when Ezekiel appeals to Noah, Dan'el (Daniel), and Job as models of rectitude (14:14, 20),

or when Isaiah alludes to Lothan (Leviathan; 27:1) and the Psalmist to God's triumph over watery chaos (e.g. 29:10; see Petersen 1982). But I will concentrate here, like Albright, on those motifs found in Israel's primeval history-or should we say pre-history-as preserved in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, especially as these have become known since the appearance of Yahwehand the

Godsof Canaanin 1968.

Leaving aside the priestly version of creation in 1:1-2:4a,we may begin

~L

~~r,,~~cu r;\ ~jgfT

L~~'*Pi~a~~~;

~

I~,vw

:', " :.

-r

Sumerian toponym (Millard 1984). But the essential parallelism between Adam and Adapa of the Akkadian epic is harder to escape. The epic of Adapa is first known in an exemplar from El Amarna at the threshold of the Iron Age (Piccioni 1981). Numerous studies of the epic conclude that this epic is an isolated aetiology on the origin of human mortality. If the Biblical story of Adam is in this respect derived from the Akkadian epic, it has certainly transformed the mortality motif

.

p? $\

.

I

i ~t

~--*

Graphic depictions of the Mesopotamian myth of Etana are known from several cylin-

der seals.Inthis impressionmade by a seal of OldAkkadiandate (ca.2300 B.C.E.), Etana scalesheavenon the backof an eagle who carriesthe Kingaloft to do reconnaissance for the "plant of birth." Illustrationby RhondaRoot.

with the story of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Recent opinion has cast doubt on Kramer's comparison of Eve's creation from Adam's rib with the myth of Enki and Ninhursag, in which Ninhursag gives birth to various other deities out of different parts of her ailing anatomy, including Nin-ti, "the lady of life" or "the lady of the rib," out of her rib (Kramer 1945 and 1981:143-4; Attinger 1984;Jacobsen 1987:204). But it has given no greater credence to Hans Goedicke's proposal for an Egyptian word-play behind the story (1985). The derivation of Eden from Sumerian edin has also encountered opposition with A.R. Millard's preference for a native Hebrew etymology from the root 4dn,"to be pleasant," in spite of the luxuriant vegetation associated with the

greatly. It becomes a first link in the chain of traditions explaining the origins of all humanity and its gradually decreasing lifespan. Subsequent episodes in the primeval history are likewise transformed in the Biblical appropriation of this shared mythology of Western Asia. The conflict of shepherd and farmer is embodied in the Sumerian myth of Dumuzi and Enkimdu, also known as "The Wooing of Inanna," in which Inanna chooses the shepherd (Kramer 1981: 136-140). In Genesis, the corresponding motif becomes an aetiology of the domestication of plants and animals (in that order?) that is dimly preserved in the tale of Cain the farmer (and first-born) and Abel the shepherd (4:2), and the otherwise unexplained and inexplicable divine preference for the latter (4:4-5). BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

21

The founding of the first city, Eridu, and the whole "Eridu Genesis" (Jacobsen 1981, 1987:145-150;Hallo 1990:198)are encapsulated in one Biblical verse (4:17) according to which Cain gave birth to Enoch, and he (i.e. Enoch!) became a (i.e., the first) city-builder, naming this city"did Enoch"-after his son, Irad (Hallo 1970:64). The entire antediluvian tradition, with its double line of kings and counselors, is transformed in Genesis from a king-list into a genealogy, or

(Larsson 1983:404).As for his father Enoch, "the seventh in descent from Ada" (Jude 14), his "translation" or "metathesis" is now clearly seen as a reformulation of the ascension of Utu-abzu, counselor to the seventh antediluvian king Enmeduranki (Borger 1974). The end of the Flood is a mixed bag of comparisons and contrasts. The epics of Atar-hasis (Lambert and Millard, 1969:99) and Gilgamesh (Ancient Near EasternTexts,95, lines 159-161) preserve in successive ver-

Albright was the last of those giants of Ancient Near Eastern studies who mastered all the major cultures of the field with equal authority.

rather a double genealogy, one Cainite and one Sethite (Genesis 4:17-22; 5:3-32). The last antediluvian (Noah) is transformed from king or hero into a wise man and ancestor of all subsequent humanity. The flood itself, which figured in the earliest tradition as a metaphor for waves of Amorite migrations into the urbanized valley of Sumer, is transformed into a literal, natural cataclysm even before it enters the Biblical record (Hallo 1990: 194-197 citing Albright 1925:79n.2);in Genesis, it is further given a moral dimension of cleansing the earth of pristine evil (Frymer-Kensky 1977, 1978). Parenthetically, it may be noted that Methuselah, the longest-lived of the antediluvians, died in the year of the Flood by the Bible's own reckoning, i.e., 1656 according to the "Era of Creation." But according to Rabbinic exegesis, he was not among the evildoers, and died seven days beforethe Flood (cf. Gen. 7:4, 10), thus allowing a week of mourning for this pious man (Hallo 1983:26,n.12).Similarly, the Septuagint had him safely out of the way six years before the Flood 22

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

sions an unedifying spectacle of the Mesopotamian gods crowding like flies around the sacrifice of the floodhero. The scene itself depends ultimately on a Sumerian cliche of the sacrificial theme (Hallo 1987:10 and n.35). It is echoed in the chaster Biblical topos of God's smelling the sweet savor of the sacrifice (Gen 8:21), and perhaps even in Callimachus' simile: "Like flies around a goat herd or like Delphians at a sacrifice" (Burkert 1983:119). The "bow in the cloud" (9:13, 14, 16; cf. Ezekiel 1:28), which seals God's covenant with Noah, echoes the Sumerian word for rainbow, usually written TIR.AN.NA, literally "forest (Akkadian qitu) of heaven," but at least once TIR5.AN.NA., i.e., BAN.AN.NA, literally "bow (Akkadian qavtu)of heaven" (Hallo 1989: 69*). The covenant itself goes far beyond the Mesopotamian prototype. While the Mesopotamian gods are content to restore humanity to its prior condition of serving divine needs, the covenant with Noah imposes on all humanity a set of fundamental ethical requirements, system-

atized by later Rabbinic exegesis as the seven Noachide laws (Novak 1983). Finally, in the aftermath of the Flood, the story of the Tower of Babel has an obvious Mesopotamian setting, though it lacks, in texts discovered so far, an actual literary prototype in cuneiform, at least for the building of the tower as such. The ostensible theme of the Biblical tale is a "negative aetiology." It explains how a total "confusion of tongues" replaced a pristine unity of language. Early Mesopotamian bilingualism may also clarify this transformation, if we may understand the difficult plural of "one" in Gen 11:1 as words in "one-to-one (correspondence)" (see the remarks of A. Shaffer cited by Staal 1977:5).This theme is anticipated by the so-called "spell of Nudimmud (= Enki)," a passage in the Sumerian Epic of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta that has remained enigmatic despite the best efforts of a number of Sumerologists (Jacobsen 1987:288-290). But the denouement of the Biblical tale, and with that its deeper significance, is the dispersion of peoples from their original Mesopotamian home (11:9).Naturally enough, that theme is totally absent from the cuneiform version. It is clearly the creation of the Biblical author for whom it formed, via the genealogy of Shem (11:10-26)and the sojourn in Harran (11:27-32),the necessary transition from the universal prehistory of humanity to the particular protohistory of Israel. And while the former took place among the gods of Mesopotamia, the latter unfolds in the land promised by Yahweh. To return, then, to our starting point: the comparative methodology which Albright championed remains potentially valid even in a field such as Mesopotamian mythology where many of his specific contributions have been superseded. The "parallelomania" of which he and his disciples were sometimes wrongly accused, as well as the "parallelophobia" of some of his critics are both seen to be largely undesirable

extremes. In the process a maturer methodology has emerged. Advancing from a primary concern with comparison, this methodology has learned to pay equal attention to contrasts. It has emphasized the importance of genre on both sides of any attempted equation or juxtaposition of Biblical data with that from the surrounding Near Eastern context. And it has dared to raise the questions of where, when, and even in what direction any alleged borrow-

Mesopotamian mythology and its Biblical reflexes entitled "Yahweh and the Gods of Mesopotamia" originally commissioned for the Albright Centenary Symposium, which was to have been held at Memphis State University from May 16-20, 1991, under the auspices of the Memphis Area Chapter of the Near East Archaelogy Society, Mr. James E. Powell, President. It is my sad duty to note here Dr. Powell's death on December 30, 1991.

•"L,

tH ?~

\'

~io

Anchor Books editions of Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1969) and From the Stone Age to Christianity:Monotheism and the HistoricalProcess (1957), originally published in 1940. Despite numerous challenges to detailed positions contained in Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, the volume remains a shining example of the comparative approach to understanding the relation of the Bible to ancient Near Easternmythology. From the Stone Age to Christianityexemplifies the synthetic work that characterized Albright's scholarly production in his last three decades. Photo courtesyof OtisPhotography.

ing between the two sides may have taken place. At its best, such a "contextual approach" salvages what is worthwhile in that earlier and perhaps simpler comparative approach of which Yahwehand the Godsof Canaanremains to this day a shining example (Hallo 1990, 1991).

Acknowledgment This is a portion of a longer paper on

Bibliography Albright, W.F. 1919a The BabylonianSage Ut-Napi'ti(m) riqu. Journalof theAmericanOriental Society38:60-65. 1919b The Mouth of the Rivers.American Journalof SemiticLanguagesand Literatures35:161-95. 1919c Ninib-Ninurta. Journalof theAmerican OrientalSociety38:197-201. 1919d Some Cruces in the Langdon Epic. Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety 39:65-90

1920a Gilgames and Engidu, Mesopotamia Genii of Fecundity. Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety 40:307-35. 1920b Uttu, the Sumerian God of Commerce. Journalof theAmericanOriental Society40:73-74. 1920c The Goddess of Life and Wisdom. AmericanJournalof SemiticLanguages and Literatures36:258-94. 1922 The Name and Nature of the SufnerianGod Uttu. Journalof the AmericanOrientalSociety42:197-200. 1923 The BabylonianAntediluvian Kings. Journalof theAmericanOriental Society43:323-29. 1924 Some Notes on the Early Babylonian Textof the Atrahasis Epic.Journal of theAmericanOrientalSociety 40:135-35. 1925 The evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity cAn-cAnat-CAtta.American Journalof SemiticLanguages41:73-101. 1926a The BabylonianGazelle God Arwium-Sumuqan.Archivfiir Orientforschung3:181-83. 1926b Ea-mummu and Anu-adapa in the Panegyric of Cyrus. Journalof the RoyalAsiaticSociety1926:285-90. 1926c Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite Eschatology.HauptAnniversary Volume143-54. 1932 The Syro-MesopotamianGod Sulman-Em.fin and Related Figures. 7:164-69. Archivfir Orientforschung 1935 Primitivism in Ancient Western Asia (Mesopotamia and Israel).Pp. 421-32 in Lovejoy and Boas, A DocumentaryHistoryof Primitivism,Baltimore. 1938 Review of Mowinckel, TheTwo Sourcesof thePredeuteronomic PrimevalHistory.Journalof Biblical Literature57:230-31. 1939 The BabylonianMatterin the Predeuteronomic Primeval History (JE) in Gen. 1-11,part 2 (reply to Mowinckel). Journalof BiblicalLiterature 58:91-103. 1940a The Ancient Near East and the Religion of Israel.Journalof BiblicalLiterature59:85-112. 1940b Fromthe StoneAge to Christianity: Monotheismand theHistoricalProcess. Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins Press. 1964 History,Archaeologyand Christian Humanism.New York:McGrawHill. 1968 Yahwehand the Godsof Canaan.London: Athlone Press Alster, B. 1989 The TextualHistory of the Legend of Etana.Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety109:81-86. Attinger,P. 1984 Enki et Ninhursaga. Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie74:1-52.

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

23

Baudot, M.-P. 1982 Representationsin Glyptic Art of a Preserved Legend: Etana,the Shepherd, who Ascended to Heaven. Analecta13:1-10. OrientaliaLovaniensia Borger,R. 1974 Die Beschwdrungsseriebit meseri und die HimmelfahrtHenochs. Journalof NearEasternLanguages

33:183-196.

Burkert,W. 1983 HomoNecans:TheAnthropologyof AncientGreekSacrificialRitualand Myth. Berkeley:University of California. Frankfort,H. and Frankfort,H.A. et al. 1946 TheIntellectualAdventureof Ancient Man. Chicago: University of Chicago. 1951 BeforePhilosophy:theIntellectual AdventureofAncientMan. Chicago, Hammonds-North: Penguin. Freedman,D.N. 1969 Bibliographyof W.F.Albright. Eretz-Israel 9:1-5. Freedman,D.N. et al. 1975 ThePublishedWorksof William FoxwellAlbright:A Comprehensive Bibliography (Cambridge,MA: ASOR). Frymer-Kensky,T. 1977 The Atrahasis Epic and its Significance for Our Understanding of Genesis 1-9. BiblicalArchaeologist 40:147-155. 1978 What the BabylonianFlood Stories Can and Cannot TeachUs about the Genesis Flood. BiblicalArchaeology Review4/4:32-41. Gaster,T.H. Myth, Legend,and Customin theOld Testament,N.Y.:Harper & Row. Goedicke, H. 1985 Adam's Rib. Pp. 73-76 in Biblical and RelatedStudiesPresentedto SamuelIwry.Edited by A. Kort and S. Morschauer.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Hallo, W.W. 1969 The Lame and the Halt. Eretz-Israel 9:66-70 1970 Antediluvian Cities. Journalof CuneiformStudies23:57-67. 1970a The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry.Pp. 116-134in Actesde la XXVIIeRencontreAssyriologique Internationale. 1983 The FirstPurim. BiblicalArchaeologist 46:19-29. 1984 LugalbandaExcavated.American OrientalSeries65 (reprintedfrom Journalof theAmericanOrientalSoci-

ety103,1983)165-180. 1987 The Origins of the SacrificialCult: New Evidence from Mesopotamia and Israel. Pp. 3-13 in Ancient IsraeliteReligion:Essaysin Honorof

24

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

FrankMooreCross,edited by P.D. Miller,Jr.,et al. Philadelphia: Fortress. 20:68*1989 More on Bows. Eretz-Israel 71*. 1990 The Limits of Skepticism.Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety 110:187-199. 1991 The Death of Kings. Scripta 33:148-165. Hierosolymitana 1991a TheBookof thePeople.Atlanta: ScholarsPress. 1992 Informationfrom Before the Flood. (forthcoming). Jacobsen,T. 1981 The Eridu Genesis. Journalof Biblical Literature100:513-529. 1987 TheHarpsthatOnce...:Sumerian New Poetryin Translation. Haven/London: YaleUniversity. Kramer,S.N. 1945 EnkiandNinhursag:a SumerianParadiseMyth. BASORSupplementary Studies 1. 1981 HistoryBeginsat Sumer.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Lambert,W.G.and Millard,A.R. 1969 Atra-hasis:theBabylonianStoryof the Flood.Oxford University Lapp, N. 1961 Bibliographyof W.F.Albright. Pp. 363-389in TheBibleand theAncient NearEast,edited by G.E.Wright. Garden City: Doubleday. Lasson, G. 1983 The Chronology of the Pentateuch: a Comparison of the MT and LXX. Journalof BiblicalLiterature102:401409. Millard, A.R. 1984 The Etymology of Eden. VetusTestamentum34:103-106. Novak, D. 1983 TheImageof theNon-Jewin Judaism: an Historicaland ConstructiveStudy of theNoahideLaws.New York: Mellen. Petersen, C. Bestim1982 Mythosim Alten Testament: und UntermungdesMythosbegriffes suchungderMythischenElementein den Psalmen(ZATWBeiheft 157). Picchioni, S.A. 1981 II Poemettodi Adapa.Assyriologia 6. Budapest:Eotvos Lorand Tudomanyegyetem. Running, L.G. and Freedman,D.N. 1975 WilliamFoxwellAlbright:a Twentieth-CenturyGenius.New York:Two Continents Publishing Group. Staal, F. 1979 OrientalIdeas on the Origin of Language. Journalof theAmericanOriental Society99:1-14. Wilson, J.V.K. 1985 TheLegendof Etana.Wauconda,IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.

ALBRIGHT

a 9i A 20th CenturyGenius LeonaGliddenRunningand David Noel Freedman

1

centennialeditionof the

A gautobiography ofthe

deanof biblical acknowledged archaeologists by two former studentsandclose associatesof Albright. Theauthorsattemptan of objectivepresentation life, character, Albright---his andcareer-that personality, farbeyond wouldbe understood thewidecircleof his scholarly colleaguesandhis students,now recognizedscholarsin theirown provides right. Theautobiography glimpsesintohis childhoodand familylife andtraceshisjourney world intothearchaeological wherehe becamea worldrenownedscholar.Albright's the storybecomes,in miniature, storyof biblicalarchaeology. $14.95, 464 pp.,paper.

Andrews University Press BerrienSprings,MI 49104 Tel: 616-471-3392 FAX: 616-473-4429 Toll free: (credit card orders only) 1-800-253-3000

What

the House Albright Built?

Remains

That

of

by William G. Dever

W

. Albright'sinfluencein E

Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and archaeological studies was so widely felt that we can speak of a "Baltimore school." This remarkable one-man achievement is perhaps unparalleled in American intellectual history. It was undoubtedly the direct result of Albright's great scholarly range, powers of synthesis, and breathtaking vision-not to mention the proliferation of his views throughout the academy and even among the public by several generations of students and students' students. What I wish to suggest here is that while Albright often appeared ingenuous (as geniuses frequently are), his creation of the "Albright school" was absolutely deliberate, even programmatic. It was evidently his lifelong intent to shape all our disciplines, not just archaeology-indeed (to use his word), to "revolutionize" them. Thus I prefer to speak not of an Albright "school," but rather of a grand edifice, meant to stand the test of time: "the house that Albright built." And I wish to ask simply: What was that house? What remains of it? And what, if anything, can be built upon it, or rebuilt upon its ruins? If I have been fair regarding Albright's aims, it now remains to turn to his achievements and to sepa-

rate these into (1) methodsand (2) results for purposes of our analysis.

The House that Albright Built: Methodology Principal Aspects of Albright's Methodology At the outset, I stress the overarching importanceof method, as Albright and his students often did. Yet, as I shall suggest, Albright himself

The House that Albright Built-literally. Construction of the present home of ASOR in Jerusalem was begun in September, 1924. Albright presided over the project as the School's director,worrying about everything from exchange rates between the Egyptian and Britishpounds to the cost of an electric dynamo.

belonged to no particular philosophical school and indeed rarely articulated his own methodological presuppositions fully. Only in his last work, History,Archaeologyand Christian Humanism (1964), did he indulge himself in the luxury of more personal reflection. Despite the fact that

the philosophical and theological marginalia of this work met with embarrassed silence from some of his disciples, several of the essays reveal unique insights into what made Albright "tick." In one essay (actually his published Presidential address at the SBL meetings in 1939, but little noticed), he makes a number of uncharacteristicly explicit remarks, such as the following: I am a resolute "positivist"-but only in so far as positivism is the expressionof the modern rational-scientific approachto physical and historicalreality ... I am even in a sense an instrumentalist (read "functionalist"; WGD), but only to the extent that I acknowledge the truth of an instrumentalism sub specieaeternatatis(in its essential nature) ... I am an evolutionist, but only in an organismic, not in a technical or a melioristic (i.e., "determinist"; WGD) sense ... I am, as will be clear from the above sketch, essentially an historicist (1964:141). Despite these astonishing claims, however, Albright clearly did not embrace any of these philosophical schools as they were understood generally in the fields of anthropology or social history; nor does his own reading and published work, however BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

25

wide, show any attempt at serious dialogue with them. What, then, does typify his approach?

Empiricism Elsewhere Albright speaks more characteristically, over and over again, of ancient Israel's unique growth beyond mythological and prelogical to "empirico-logical" thinking; of the "logic born of experience." Albright's method for penetrating to the meaningbehind Israel's experience-his primary goal-was thus: (1) to focus on history, as reflect-

regarding the historical experience of mankind" (1964: 289). It was, of course, Albright's basic empiricism that repelled him from the theoretical speculation and skepticism of the Biblical criticism of his day, which drew him irresistably to archaeology with its promise of new, objective, "external evidence"-the realiaof which Albright often spoke so optimistically. Thus it is not far wrong to regard Albright as fundamentally a rationalist. That leads to the second aspect of his method. :-j:~:::::

~ii--::l:jj~~?~-~-_:_ --_::~: ::-: ::-::::::::":::: :::::;:-:-:

:::: ;::::::;-::::::: __i

The Jerusalem school takes shape: the front and west wing were the first to be completed. The building was "ready"for occupancy in October, 1925.

ing that experience; and (2) to read history as the record of factual events that can be understood rationally, and even objectively, by rigorous analysis. In this he was reacting against rigid developmental schemes such as Hegelianism; rejecting functionalism, despite its notion of the wholeness of culture; and eschewing all metaphysical or idealist philosophies of history, such as those of Croce, Dilthey, and Collingwood. As Albright put it: "I am opposed to all systems of thought based on arbitrary postulates and denying or dis26

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Positivism Despite Albright's sharp critique of classic positivism, as represented by Comte, Mill, Spencer and their modem counterparts in social theory, Albright was in many ways a positivist himself (as even he hinted). "Positivism" denotes a philosophical system that is (1) based not on speculation but on the positive, observable data of sensory experience; and (2) finds its justification in scientific facts and their relation both to each other and to the order of natural law. To what degree would Albright fit such a scheme? It is not simply Albright's empirical methods, and his insistence upon history's being amenable to rational investigation, that would mark him

as a positivist. More significantly, positivism pervades his overall orientation to the study of human society and culture as an organic whole. Thus there is a discoverable order in history. As Albright put it in its most succinct form: The most reasonable philosophy of history, in my judgment, is evolutionary and organismic.Evolution is not unilateral progress, it is more than a series of abrupt mutations; yet, like organic development, it falls into more or less definite forms, patterns, and configurations, each with its own complex body of characteristics (1964:141). Again, Albright is a positivist in his appeal to natural (i.e., "higher") law in order to fathom the meaning of history. Only on the basis of these twin presuppositions-natural order and law-like principles of organic growth-can we understand Albright's choice of typologyas an essential tool (although typology was not, as Cross and some others seem to think, the essence of Albright's method). Thus Albright could say: "The evolution of artifact types is now known to follow-superficially at least-the same course as the development of corresponding phenomena in the biological world" (1964:20). And elsewhere, he would add to these phenomena suitable for typological classification such things as ideas (his progression from "protological" to "empirico-logical" to "'logical' thinking"); institutions (especially religious institutions, classically arranged in a progressive scheme in his Fromthe Stone Age to Christianity);and categories of historical judgment (where he worked out a scale of 1-5, from the most objective to the most subjective judgments). Furthermore, Albright's abhorrence of idealism and relativism are largely aspects of his positivist outlook. If indeed there is a rationally discernible, divine order of things, then the true scholar can have no patience with speculation. As for rel-

ativism, Albright observes: The epistemological importance of archaeology and comparable fields ancillary to history, is that they deal almost entirely with judgments of fact and typical occurrence rather than with judgments of cause and effect (as per his typology), value or personal reactions, thus redressing the imbalance which has given rise to exaggerated forms of historical relativism (1964:27). Finally, Albright's well known penchant for grand, daring theses can only be explained by reference to positivistic presuppositions. I will return to this point when looking at the results of his life's work, but one typical statement will suffice to show the underlying positivist methodology. Albright himself states that his syntheses are based on two postulates. (1) Historical knowledge is identical with scientific knowledge in vast areas of research dealing with the past of mankind. (2) The historian is obligated to use all the resources of modem scientific and philosophical analysis to reconstruct the steps by which men have learned to use their minds more effectively (1964:271). Albright goes on to conclude: "In other words, the writer insists on basing historical research on a combination of empirical and rational methodology" (1964:271). And a final methodological statement further identifies Albright with positivism: "The reliability of historical data ranges all the way from the highest humanly attainable level of cognitive certainty to the lowest level of subjective conjecture ..." (1964: 279). Even more than Albright's syntheses of Ancient Near Eastern and Israelite history, his broader humanistic (and indeed Christian) generalizations reveal what I think we must term his positivist biases. Thus he

declares without hesitation: "Archaeologists have now proved the historical as well as the contemporary primacy of Western civilization" (1964: 46; that should silence the relativists!). Conservatism It is universally recognized that Albright was a conservative-that is, in the sense that his whole career was a reaction against what he regarded as the radical and unjustified rewriting of Biblical history by Wellhausen and his followers. A single statement, actually made in 1932, but typical of

. ......

out relation to its environment. The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of history (1935: 137, 138). Yet Albright's conservatism did not amount to Fundamentalism (though he was sometimes unfairly

..

7wto

.

f ..,

The Jane Dows Nies Memorial Building of the American School in Jerusalem, complete

but for the east wing. As a metaphorfor Albright'sachievementsin archaeologyand relatedancientneareasterndisciplines,it appearsthat the "housethat Albrightbuilt" has largelycollapsed.Muchof the foundationsremains,however,especiallythe challenge to use new archaeologicaldiscoveriesto placethe Biblein contextand thusto renderit moreintelligible. his views at the end of his life, captures, I think, the very essence of this conservatism: Archaeological research in Palestine and neighboring lands during the past century has completely transformed our knowledge of the historical and literary background of the Bible. It no longer appears as an absolutely isolated monument of the past, as a phenomenon with-

accused of that). He was, rather, a "conservative" in the true sense. Everything he did was permeated by the consistent attempt to find and to preserve the quintessential, historical core of human experience, and so to penetrate to a timeless meaning. Thus he sought to "rescue" Israelite history and religion from the hands of radicals who, by ignoring the newer archaeological data, subverted the Bible and obscured its essential historicity (and, of course, thus BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

27

undermined its moral value). Ironically, Albright himself could have been termed a "radical" in the etymological sense, for he fought all his life to get to the root of the matter, which he thought was not metaphysical but factual. If Albright was a radical, however, he was not a "revolutionary," even though he often spoke of the "archaeological revolution" in Biblical studies, in the vanguard of which he saw himself and his students. I would suggest that Albright's conservatism was more a matter of temperament and personal conviction than of theological orthodoxy. Indeed, it is evident that Albright had little formal interest in theology, apart from his belated approval of the "Biblical theology" movement of the 1950's, because of its obvious connection with Neo-orthodoxy and therefore with conservatism. He called himself, in his last works, not a theist, but rather a "Christian humanist." And it is significant that it was his proteg6 Ernest Wright-a Presbyterian clergyman, seminary professor, and renowned Old Testament theologian-who masterminded the merging of "Biblical archaeology" and "Biblical theology,"not Albright. Albright remained aloof from this final phase of "Biblical archaeology" and the heated theological controversies that it engendered. In my view, Albright's religious (not theological) conservatism, based upon his views of the Bible, has been downplayed by some of his students, who were reluctant to confront the obvious. Albright's explicit focus was always on the role of religion in culture, but even moreso on the specifically Judaeo-Christian heritage. Herewith are some typical statements. Archaeologists and historians cannot help agreeing that religion is the nucleus of all cultures of the past (1964:47). Religion is still the hope of the world, as in the past. Religion alone unites the intellectual and aesthetic in man with the affec-

28

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

eclectic, one who, despite his disciples' claims for originality in method, Beyond this general interest in simply borrowed from any source religion, there is Albright's preoccuwhatever would likely prove usepation specifically with Israelite reliful-notably archaeology. gion, evident from his earliest to his But, as I have argued elsewhere, latest published works. This was Albright was not primarily an clearly intended to be the consummaarchaeologist (a conclusion that has tion of his life work in the longbeen maligned by Cross, who misses awaited Historyof theReligionofIsrael, the point). Of course Albright (1940) which unfortunately he left unfinseized upon archaeology at one parished. And for Albright, the religion ticular point in his career; and he of Israel led inexorably into later exploited its potential brilliantly, in Judaism, and finally to Christianity. what must be acknowledged as a polemical tour deforce.There were many who were skeptical, but they were simply overwhelmed by Albright's unparalleled mastery of not was the data. However, Albright never Albright confined himself to archaeology; he did not conceive of archaeology as a primarily an separate, autonomous discipline at but all; and he certainly would have archaeologist, resisted the specialization and profesa historian. sionalization that we take for granted today. If may be worth noting that the only body of true theory attributable to Albright-all of it limited, and implicit rather than explicit, as we noted above-is drawn from social It is no coincidence that the subtitles of the major chapters in Albright's theory and history, not from archaeread: StoneAge to Christianity ology. There is no evidence, for that Albright ever read, a Israel Was "When instance, "Praeparatio"; was influenced by, such much less and "Charisma Catharthis"; Child"; theoretical works in Ameriand "In the Fullness of Time." As he pivotal canist archaeology as Walter Taylor's summed it up elsewhere: "There is A StudyofArchaeology (1948).Indeed, only one way out of the apparent breadth all for we of modem (which life): Albright's impasse (i.e., must return again to the Bible and impresses us in our own small circle), he never moved in the mainstream of draw new strength from the sources of Judeo-Christian faith" (1964:297). archaeology; he made few if any contributions to archaeological theory; But if Albright's methodology and in the handbooks that treat the was marked by empirical reasoning and a positivistic outlook, coupled history of American or worldwide with a conservative bent, can we archaeology he invariably goes The reason is not that unmentioned. him with any particular identify not. school? was parochial, but rather Probably Albright philosophical As he himself put it, "I have become that he was not primarily an archaeologist; instead, by his own preferincreasingly aware of the inadequacy of most philosophical postulation" ence, he was an Orientalist. His forte not method, but results. To those was (1964:287). In the final analysis, I would we presently turn; but first we must characterize Albright as a pragmatist offer an assessment and critique of in the formal not his method, in order to determine (although again what may still be relevant. sense). He was an enthusiast, an tive and altruistic (1964:82).

A Current Critique of Albright's Methodology Let us focus our discussion of Albright's method on his empiricism. For all the superficial appeal that socalled empirical methods may have, there is much skepticism today. First, taken simply as a method, empiricism is flawed. It is excessively rationalistic; it assumes an impossible "objectivity" on the part of the observer; it rejects the roles of intuition, symbol, and mystery; it tends to force facts, even when established as such, into one procrustean bed or another; it often results in intellectual arrogance, moralism, and dogmatism of the worst sort. Taken to its logical conclusion, empiricism is sterile. But let us look more close at how Albright's brand of empiricism created problems for the historian and archaeologist today. For the historian of ancient Israel, Albright's categorization of the Hebrew Bible as the "logic born of experience" begs the very question of the meaning of that experience. Upon reflection, it is clear that Albright's "empirical logic" is a modem construct forced upon the Bible, rather than derived from it. Such "logic" was Albright's experience-his perception of reality-not Israel's. Of course, all modem interpreters run that risk; but Albright, sanguine as he was in the efficacy of his empirical methods of historical reconstruction, seemed curiously unaware of the risks. Albright's empiricism led him to a view of history and history-writing that few would espouse today. Several brief quotes will suffice: By history I mean the record of man's entire past, including the reconstruction of civilizations as well as the record of event. In this essay the term "history" will never be used in a metaphysical sense (1964:291). History cannot, therefore, be distinguished from any other science or intellectual discipline on the objective-subjective plane alone

(1964:280, 281). My task is restricted as far as possible to historical description and interpretation, leaving the higher but less rigorous forms of interpretation to others (1964:141). These statements, presented so baldly, are startling; but they are characteristic. Almost totally absent here is our current awareness (forced upon us, no doubt, by the abuses of past historiography) that the historian refracts, as well as records expe-

his lifelong synthesis of Israel's history, as we shall see below (Van Seters 1983; Lemche 1985; Halpem 1988; Garbini 1988; Thompson 1987; and Edelman 1991). For the archaeologist today, there are even more serious problems with Albright's empiricism. First, his notion of archaeological data, of "realia," appears, I am sorry to say, somewhat naive today, in view of what many recent studies have revealed as the very nature of the "archaeological record." That record

% PIP RLFAC W

...

.

.

.

INTIUT

LBIH

A

.

F

RCAVL

ira~~AN

V*

Ruth Albright stands in front of the gate of the Jerusalem school which had been

renamedin honorof her now-deceasedhusbandthree yearspreviouslyin 1969.Thethriving W. F.AlbrightInstituteof ArchaeologicalResearchabidesas one tangibleand critical legacyof Albright'slife. rience; that history-writing is anything but "objective." For all Albright's eloquent critique of historicism and his awareness of its dangers, he comes perilously close to historicism himself. Finally, Albright's empirical approach rests upon an assumption that would be widely questioned today, namely, that the bulk of the literature of the Hebrew Bible constitutes "history" in anything approaching the modem sense. This change in scholarly opinion strikes at the very heart of both Albright's method and

does not consist primarily, or even in any sense, of "facts" that can be directly observed. It consists rather of random, poorly preserved artifacts, often dislocated from the environmental and social context that once gave them meaning, subjectively interpreted in the light of modem needs. As Binford puts it, "the past is 'created' by archaeologists using observations made in the present ... it is inferred or constructed in terms of the data which archaeologists feel are significant" (1983:32;see also Binford 1982; Sabloff, Binford, and McAnany BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

29

1987; and especially Schiffer 1987). It is significant that Albright spoke more than once of the "science of archaeology," even alluding presciently to the multi-disciplinary thrust of the "New archaeology" in his last works. But the nomothetic, "explicitly scientific" pretensions of the "New Archaeology" are passe in today's "post-processual" climate (Watson, LeBlanc, and Redman 1971, 1984 and Dever 1992a). Albright's confidence that archaeological "facts," accumulating in ever greater

dence as mentioned above, the historical tradition may be taken as secure" (1964:268). The conclusion-i.e., the "historicity" of the Bible-simply does not follow. Analogies never constitute proof, but are only illustrative, heuristic devices. Here again, Albright's assumptions about the primacy of archaeological "facts" led him to overstate the case. Similar difficulties beset Albright's well-known espousal of typology as a method, indeed one that for him had unique explanatory

Workingmorefrom his then unrivalled knowledge of the pottery than from clean separation of loci, Albright created his stratification of TellBeit Mirsim after thefact.

archaeological literature. He made only rare statments on typological theory (1964:20-21). And today, with the proliferation of that literature, it would be difficult to find a single reputable archaeologist who would rely upon typology as unhesitatingly as Albright did (Spaulding 1953; Ford 1954; Jennings 1957; Rowe 1968; Sabloff and Smith 1969; Whallon 1972; and Thomas 1974). The other telling mark of Albright's method, his positivism, stemmed from his reliance on "empirico-logical" methods. Positivism falls under much the same criticism as empiricism. Here, however, Albright's methods, ironically, anticipated those of the school of "logical positivism" as this positivism was taken up by the "logicodeductive" or "nomothetic" branch of the "New Archaeology" of the 1970's (see the critique of positivism in Salmon 1982; Hodder 1985; 1986; Marcus and Fischer 1986; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Binford 1987; Earle and Preucel 1987; Preucel 1991; LambergKarlovsky 1989; and Trigger 1989).

WhatRemains of Albright's Methodology?

numbers and variety, would speak for themselves, and, when widely known, would bring about his "revolution" in Biblical studies, seems somewhat quaint today. Two particular aspects of Albright's archaeological empiricism deserve further comment. One is his use of analogy, which he himself saw as intrinsic to his methods. While aware of its abuses, he argued that "in empirical logic we find a more sober use of analogy" (1964:74). Much of Albright's comparative research, attempting to set the Hebrew Bible in broadest context, was, of course, based on analogical arguments. In a typical survey of comparative data he would conclude: "Historical analogies do not constitute proof when taken alone, but when they fully agree with such evi30

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

power in the understanding of ideas as well as artifacts. Yet typology--the systematic, even predictable arrangement of things in temporal sequences and hierarchies-is possible only if these phenomena possess an intrinsic "logic" of their own, which can be discerned with empirical methods. To put the methodological crux in terms of more recent discussions, Albright assumed that types are not "designed," but are "discovered;" that they are not merely conveniences for our purposes of classification, but indeed correspond to the real world. Thus the recognition of characteristic types enables us not only to describe but actually to explain the past. Albright seemed unaware, however, of the considerable theoretical discussion of typology in general

Here we can be relatively brief, since from the foregoing analysis it is evident that time has revealed many flaws in Albright's fundamental methodology. I would argue that most of his particularapproaches would be considered invalid today, that only a few general principles are still useful. These might be enumerated as: (1) the emphasis on the importance of new evidence, especially those data deriving from archaeological sources; (2) the necessity for changing one's mind in the light of new evidence; (3) the importance of integrating textual and artifactual/material culture data; and (4) the implicit (though not realized) thrust toward a new hermeneutic in Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern historiography. These aspects of Albright's methodology are lasting, and by no means yet fully exploited.

The House That Albright Built: Results Whereas Albright's philosophical presuppositions were not always clearly articulated, the effectsof his research were extensively published and were there for all to see, especially in his several large-scale syntheses. This facilitates our assessment of Albright's results, though we cannot separate these results from either his methods or his aims. The tasks to which Albright set himself early on can best be seen by dividing his work into archaeology and history.

tum" method at Tell Beit Mirsim. The fact is-and most of us know it-that Albright, working more from his then unrivalled knowledge of the pottery than from clean separation of loci, createdhis stratification after the fact. Because he was a master of the comparative literature and had a genius for synthesis, it all seemed to hold together. I would suggest, however, that

four six-week seasons at Tell Beit Mirsim-a total of little more than 30 weeks. Most graduating Ph.D.'s today have more actual field experience. Certainly Tell Beit Mirsim stands as his great monument in fieldwork. Most of us "cut our eye teeth" on the site's stratigraphy (certainly at Harvard). Yet, in writing a recent encyclopedia article on Tell Beit Mirsim,

Archaeological Aims and Results The major objectives of Albright's overall work were: 1. To bring greater precision to archaeological fieldwork, so as to use improved stratigraphy in particular to work out a more refined cultural sequence for ancient Syria-Palestine. 2. To put ceramic typology on a more systematic (if not scientific) basis, largely for chronological purposes. 3. To integrate artifacts and texts, both Biblical and extra-Biblical, into an overall, organic historicalframework, focusing largely on "political" (rather than, say, cultural or socioeconomic) history. I point out in passing that there is no indication whatsoever that Albright ever intended to establish Syro-Palestinian or "Biblical" archaeology (he used both terms) as either a separate professional or academic discipline-quite the contrary. That is to say, Albright conceived of "Biblical archaeology" only as a sub-discipline of Ancient Near Eastern, and specifically of Biblical, studies (Albright 1969; Dever 1985). Assuming that Albright achieved all these aims to a greater or lesser degree, how does his achievement stand today? In the field, the real laboratory for archaeological technique, we need to recall that Albright spent only a few weeks at Tell el-Fil and Bethel, plus

S13

2

22

_1

3

3

2

12

I 1

_

30

20 0

10

to 1,0

0

_32_4 11

1

to

00

t

33

_

21

31

41

20

30

30

+0 60.

_

_

NE

NW 3

I

2

sw

is

40

so

SE

13 3

and assuming that it would be straightforward, I came to the somewhat shocking realization that nearly every major stratum has to be completely redone (AnchorBibleDictionary, s.v. " Beit Mirsim, Tell"). This is not the result so much of advances in knowledge as it is of basicflaws in stratigraphy and in critical judgment. Albright's students have defended his stratigraphic methods and results; but more objective critics like G.R.H. Wright long ago (1966) pointed out serious faults in the "locus-to-stra-

*

3

,

The familiar site plan of Tell Beit Mirsim. Stratum A presents a tangled maze of dwellings and workshops, typical of fortified provincialtowns in the IronAge.

Reisner's field methods at Samaria in 1908-1910 were, in fact, superior. But Reisner, a secularist and an "outsider," remained unrecognized in the annals of Palestinian archaeology until Ernest Wright, to his credit, rescued him from obscurity in 1970. Even so, I would argue that the real revolution in American field meth-

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

31

ods did not come until the 1960's1970's with Gezer and its daughter excavations. And here the impetus was not Albright and "Biblical archaeology," or even our own mentor's (G. E. Wright) work at Shechem, but the "New Archaeology"-in many ways a reaction against all that had gone before. Of course we were directly and self-consciously indebted to Kenyon as well (Dever 1980; 1981b; 1985; 1988). In summary, Albright's contribution to field methods per se, despite

surprisingly long, and until recently it served us well with only the modifications that would be expected in time. I shall not go into detail regarding the necessary changes in dates and terminology, since all specialists are familiar with the problems, and they have been dealt with elsewhere (Dotan 1985; Gitin 1985). We need to organize an international panel of Syro-Palestinian archaeologists, with the intent of putting forward an entirely new scheme of periodization-one that is increasingly neces-

131

Albright made much of the successive phases of Iron I stratum B: Squatter occupation

followed by Philistinesettlerssucceededby Israelitere-occupation.Thisphasingwas largelybasedon presuppositionsregardingceramicsequencesas well as notionsof biblicaltraditionand earlyIsraelitehistory.Thestratigraphyof the sites requiresa complete reworking.Albrightreliedupon his masteryof ceramicchronologyratherthan stratigraphicmethodsto achievehis highlyinfluentialresults. his brilliance and innovative ideas elsewhere, was minimal. I suggest that that is because, once again, Albright was not primarily an archaeologist, but a historian, for whom archaeology was simply a convenient, pragmatic tool, not a technical discipline to be mastered for its own sake. He moved on to other tools. Albright's more intellectual challenges were met more successfully. Indeed, his cultural and chronological framework came to dominate the field internationally. It has prevailed 32

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

sary as Albright's scheme continues to break down. If we are not successful, chaos will be the result. One certainly cannot assess Albright's success in archaeology without discussing "Biblical archaeology"-in his view, and that of many of his disciples, his crowning achievement. But of this I shall say little, because nowadays there is not much to say. The fact is that "Biblical archaeology" of the classic AlbrightWright style is dead, either as a serious intellectual enterprise, or as an effective force in American academic

or religious life. Although I insist that I did not kill "Biblical archaeology," I have written its obituary several times and so will leave it at that (Dever 1981a; 1985). The reasons for its demise consist partly, of course, of external threats, like the newer archaeology, together with the professionalism and secularism that are irresistable today. But, as we shall see shortly, the movement largely collapsed from within, when it finally failed to achieve either its historical or theological agenda. However one analyzes it, few of our generation, even within ASOR, and none of the next generation, think the issues of "Biblical archaeology" are even worth discussing. The programs of the ASOR Annual Meetings for the past several years bear ample witness to this situation. Ironically, I may be the last of the old-style "Biblical archaeologists" (at least Hershel Shanks thinks so)--or perhaps the first of the new? In 1990, at the Second International Congress of Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem I presented a paper heralding a new approach to archaeology in relation to Biblical studies (although for many years I have been calling for a dialogue; see 1974; 1980; 1981a; 1985). This approach recognizes that the "New Archaeology" is passe, due partly to the "post-processual" or "contextual" archaeology of Ian Hodder, now gaining rapid momentum (see especially his Reading the Past, 1986). Aspects of this latest movement bring us back full-circle to archaeology as history (above). To that extent, Albright's archaeology as history rather than culture may not be so obsolete after all. Biblical and Historical Aims and Results It is evident from virtually all of Albright's publications, stretching across 40 years, that his overarching goal was to undo the critical, liberal rewriting of Israel's history, i.e., to reverse Wellhausenism; and in that sense, to restore confidence in the "historicity" of the literary tradition

in the Hebrew Bible. Any number of quotes would suffice to demonstrate that Albright believed he had achieved just that. For instance: Thanks to modem research we now recognize its (i.e., the Bible's) substantial historicity. The narratives of the Patriarchs, of Moses and the Exodus, of the Conquest of Canaan, of the Judges, the Monarchy, Exile, and Restoration, have all been confirmed and illustrated to an extent that I should have thought impossible forty years ago (1964:293).

accepted (1964:294). Only one God ... This is the view of the entire Old Testament (1964:99). The religion of Israel did not change in essentials from Moses to Hillel (1964:57). Yet the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure; that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel's his-

We now recognize the substantial historicity of the entire Scriptural tradition from the Patriarchs to the end of the New Testament period (1964:56). Let us look, then, at the particulars of Albright's agenda-the superstructure, as it were, of the house that he built. As for grounding the Biblical Patriarchs in history (in this case, Albright's Middle Bronze I period, ca. 2100-1900 B.C.E.), the cumulative results of archaeological research have overturned Albright's reconstruction completely. Van Seters, Thompson, and others had already assembled the textual evidence; and in 1977 I surveyed the archaeological data. Since then, virtually no commentator has paid serious attention to Albright's views. Today, the universal scholarly consensus is that neither the literary materials nor the archaeological data permit us to say anything with certainty about a "Patriarchalera" in history. The traditions are late, and probably unreliable (Thompson 1974; Van Seters 1975; and Dever 1977). Virtually the only treatment attempting to utilize archaeological data since this shift is McCarter (1988). If we turn to Albright's second agenda item, "Moses and Monotheism," even less can be said. Albright asserted, for instance, that: The practical monotheism of Moses and other early Israelite religious leaders is again being

stein's TheArchaeology of theIsraelite Settlement(1988), the best synthesis, as well as at a voluminous secondary literature, to realize that today no reputable Biblical scholar or archaeologist anywhere would espouse Albright's views. Whatever the details, it is clear that the vast majority of the "early Israelites" were indigenous Canaanites. Mendenhall was right 30 years ago: there was no "conquest." The theologicalramifications of that fact have scarcely been envisioned; but that is another story

0.0 sais

7-

15 Z

-

It

41

The full exposure of the southeast section of Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum A shows numer-

ous four-roomhousesand a casemateperimeterwall.Visibleas well arethree "dyeplants"(e.g., square32A2-3),circularstone installationsthat Albrighttook as evidence for a localtextile industry.Morelikely,these "vats"were employedin olive oil production as manyparallels(e.g., at Ekron)makecleartoday. tory, probably not until the Exile and Return (see the state-of-the-art studies gathered in Miller, Hanson, and McBride 1987). Albright's next crusade was to provide archaeological validation for the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. Until about 1980, this model could still compete with others, such as the "peaceful infiltration" or "peasants' revolt" models. But a decade of intensive, multi-disciplinary field excavation and survey, mostly carried out by Israeli archaeologists, has swept away "conquest models" completely. One has only to look at Israel Finkel-

(Dever 1990; 1992b; 1992c; 1992d). Albright's syntheses of the later Monarchical and Exilic periods have stood the test of time somewhat better. But even here, his reconstruction of an archaeological and historical background for the DavidicSolomonic era has recently been challenged by younger Israeli archaeologists (who are not, as many suppose, "Biblical archaeologists" in the classic American sense at all; see Dever 1989a; 1989b). Despite a strong defense of Albright by myself and others (most recently at Gezer in 1990), skeptical voices threaten to prevail (BASOR 277/278(1990); BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

33

Dever 1992f). Albright had, of course, occasionally extended his "Biblical archaeology" to the New Testament period. But here he could offer little that was original, and virtually nothing that turned out to be significant, so no critique is necessary. The fact is that "Biblical archaeology" really affected only American, Protestant Old Testament studies; and that only for the earlier history of Israel, focussing on selected problems that were much more theological than historical (Dever 1985). Finally, we must ask what is of lasting value in Albright's Biblical and historical syntheses. The answer is, very little. His central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum. The negative side of all this is that the "revolution" that Albright confidently predicted has indeed come about at last, but hardly in the way that he anticipated-quite the opposite. The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer, "secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology."

Conclusion Despite his pivotal role in our disciplines, Albright has rarely been assessed fairly. His disciples, out of filial piety, were over-zealous in his defense. Most lionized him (something he would not have wanted), and others remained perpetually in his shadow. The liberal establishment resented him, often tried to dismiss him, but were forced to tolerate him because of his mastery of the field. The fact is that William Foxwell Albright was a figure larger than life, and we still have not come to terms with him. Here our intent is certainly not to cut him down to size, much less to psychoanalyze him, but simply to try to place him within the social context of knowledge, to evalu34

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

ate his achievement in the light of his own aims and methods. That is in the spirit of Albright. Let us return, then, to our original figure, "the house that Albright built," and summarize what remains. The superstructure (i.e., the overarching synthesis) has largely collapsed. It had but one principal builder; it was too grandiose; perhaps erected prematurely, just before a flood of new data became available; it had too many flimsy building blocks; it was patched up too long by well-meaning admirers. The telling blows came not from external forces, as much as from internal weaknesses that had been there all along, in historical, archaeo-

William Foxwell Albright was a figure larger than life, and we still have not come to terms with him.

logical, and even theological contradictions. The final blow came when Albright's major agenda could not be realized, and when the agenda in fact changed for the scholarly mainstream. The house collapsed rather quickly, so much so that many did not notice (see Freedman 1985). Of the foundations, however, much more remains. First, many of Albright's brilliant individual discoveries and conclusions regarding important details-stones of the foundation-remain intact, a part of our cumulative knowledge of the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Second, the fundamental methodology is still sound and essential-especially the necessity for using constantly new archaeological discoveries to place the Bible in context and

thus to render it more intelligible. There, our task is to rebuild upon the secure foundations that Albright laid. In final retrospect, I see Albright as a noble figure-a sort of "gentle giant," oblivious to his detractors, with an unquenchable thirst for knowledge and an almost childlike optimism that knowledge alone would transform. For all his sophistication, in some ways he was an innocent abroad. Ours is a cynical age, when we know too much, believe too little. We can only look back at Albright with a mixture of admiration and awe.

Bibliography Albright,W.E

1935 TheArchaeologyof Palestineand the Bible.Baltimore:American Schools of OrientalResearch(reissued in 1974). 1940 FromtheStoneAge to Christianity Monotheismand theHistorical Process.Baltimore:The Johns Hop-

kinsUniversity.

1964 History,Archaeology, and Christian Humanism.London: A. and C. Black. 1969 TheImpactof Archaeologyon Biblical Research.Pp. 1-14 in New Directions in BiblicalArchaeology,edited by D.N. Freedmanand J. Greenfield. New York:Doubleday. Binford,L.R. 1982 Meaning, Inference,and the ArchaeologicalRecord.Pp. 160-63 in Ranking,Resources,and Exchange, edited by C. Renfrew and S. Shennan. Cambridge:Cambridge Uni-

versity.

1983 In Pursuitof thePast:Decodingthe Record.London: Archaeological Thames and Hudson. 1987 Data, Relativism and Archaeologi-

calScience.Man22:391-404.

Cross, EM. 1973 W.E Albright'sView of Biblical Archaeology and Its Methodology. BiblicalArchaeologist 36:2-5. Dever, W.G. 1974 Archaeologyand BiblicalStudies:RetrospectsandProspects.Evanston: Seabury-Western. 1977 Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.E.:The ArchaeologicalPicture. Pp. 70-120in IsraeliteandJudeanHistory,edited by J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller.Philadelphia:Westminster. 1980 Archaeological Method in israel:A Continuing Revolution. Biblical 43:41-48. Archaeologist 1981a BiblicalArchaeology and Biblical

Theology: An Appreciation of G. Ernest Wright.HarvardTheological Review73:1-15. 1981b The Impact of the "New Archaeology" on Syrio-PalestinianArchaeology. Bulletinof theAmericanSchools of OrientalResearch242:15-29. 1985 Syro-Palestinianand Biblical Archaeology. Pp. 31-74 in The HebrewBibleand Its ModernInterpreters,edited by D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker.Philadelphia:Fortress. 1987 The Contributionof Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Israelite Religion. Pp. 209-47 in Ancient IsraeliteReligion:Essaysin Honorof FrankMooreCross,edited by P.D. Miller,P.P.Hanson, and S.D. McBride.Philadelphia:Fortress. 1988 Impact of the "New Archaeology." in Timeand Pp. 337-52 in Benchmarks Culture:Introductionto Palestinian Archaeology,edited by J.E Drinkard, G.L. Mattingly,and J.M.Miller. Atlanta:Scholars. 1989a Archaeology in Israel Today:A Summation and Critique. Pp. 14352 in RecentExcavationsin Israel: Studiesin IronAge Archaeology, edited by S. Gitin and W.G.Dever. Winona Lake, IN: American Schools of Oriental Research. 1989b Yigael Yadin:PrototypicalBiblical 20:*44Archaeologist. Eretz-Israel *51 (the Yadinvolume). 1990 RecentArchaeological Discoveriesand BiblicalResearch.Seattle:University of Washington. 1992a BiblicalArchaeology: Death and Rebirth?Forthcoming in Proceedings of theSecondInternationalCongress on BiblicalArchaeology, Jerusalem, 1990. 1992b Unresolved Issues: Toward a Synthesis of Archaeological and Textual Reconstructionsof Ancient Israel. Pp. 195-208in ThePoliticsof Exegesis,edited by P. Day, D. Jobling, and G.T.Sheppard. Boston: Pilgrim. 1992c Archaeological Data on the Israelite Settlement:A Review of Two Recent Works.Bulletinof theAmerican Schoolsof OrientalResearch284: 77-90. 1992d CeramicContinuity,Ethnicityin the Archaeological Record, and the Question of IsraeliteOrigins. EretzIsrael24 (the Malamat volume; forthcoming). 1992e The Chronology of Syria-Palestine in the Second Millennium B.C.:A Review of CurrentIssues. Bulletinof theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research288:1-25. 1992f FurtherEvidence on the Date of the "OuterWall"at Gezer. Bulletinof the

AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch (forthcoming). Dothan, M. 1985 Terminologyfor the Archaeology of the BiblicalPeriods. Pp. 113-35in BiblicalArchaeologyToday.Proceedings of theInternationalCongresson BiblicalArchaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, edited by J. Amitai. Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety. Earle,T.K.;and Preucel, R.W. 1987 Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique. CurrentAnthropology 28:501-13;525-38. Edelman, D.V., ed. 1992 TheFabricof History:Text,Artifacts, andIsrael'sPast. Sheffield:Almond. Ford,J.A. 1954 The Type Concept Revisited. AmericanAnthropologist56/1:42-54. Freedman,D.N. 1985 Comments, cited by the Editor,BiblicalArchaeological ReviewX/1:6. Garbini,G. 1988 HistoryandIdeologyin AncientIsrael. New York:Crossroad. Gitin, S. 1985 Stratigraphyand Its Application to Chronology and Terminology.Pp. 99-107 in BiblicalArchaeologyToday. Proceedings of the International Congress on BiblicalArchaeology, Jerusalem,April 1984, ed. J. Amitai. Jerusalem:Israel ExplorationSociety. Halpern, B. 1988 TheFirstHistorians.TheHebrewBible and History.San Francisco:Harper & Row. Hodder, I. 1985 Postprocessual Archaeology.Pp. 126 in Advancesin Archaeological Methodand Theory,vol. 8, edited by M.B. Schiffer.Orlando:Academic. 1986 ReadingthePast:CurrentApproaches to Interpretation in Archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University. Jennings,J.D. 1957 DangerCave.Salt Lake:University of Utah. Lamberg-Karlovsky,C.C. 1989 Archaeological Thoughtin America. Cambridge:Cambridge University. Lemche, N.P. 1985 EarlyIsrael.Anthropological and HistoricalStudieson theIsraeliteSociety beforetheMonarchy.Leiden: Brill. Marcus,G.E.;and Fischer,M.M.J. 1986 Anthropologyas CulturalCritique:An Momentin theHuman Experimental Sciences.Chicago:University of Chicago. McCarter,P.K. 1988 The PatriarchalAge. Pp. 1-29 in AncientIsrael.A ShortHistoryfrom Abrahamto theDestructionof the

Temple,edited by H. Shanks. Washington:BiblicalArchaeology Society. Miller,P.D.;Hanson, P.D.;and McBride, S.D., eds. 1987 AncientIsraeliteReligion.Philadelphia: Fortress. Preucel, R.W.,ed. 1991 Processualistand Post-Processualist Archaeology.Carbondale,IL:Southern Illinois University. Rouse, I. 1968 Prehistory,Typology,and the Study of Society. Pp. 10-30 in Settlement Archaeology,edited by K.-C.Chang. Palo Alto, CA: National Press. Sabloff,J.A.;Binford,L.R.;and McAnany, P.A. 1987 Understanding the Archaeological Record.Antiquity61:203-09. Schiffer,M.B. 1987 FormationProcessesof theArchaeological Record.Albuquerque:University of New Mexico. Shanks, M.; and Tilley,C. 1987 Reconstructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice.Cambridge:Cambridge University. Spaulding, A.C. 1953 StatisticalTechniquesfor the Discovery of ArtifactTypes.American Antiquity18:305-13. Thomas, D.H. 1974 PredictingthePast:An Introductionto New Anthropological Archaeology. York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston. Thompson, T.L. 1974 TheHistoricityof thePatriarchalNarratives:TheQuestfor theHistorical Abraham.Berlin:de Gruyter. 1987 TheOriginTraditionof AncientIsrael, I. TheLiteraryFormationof Genesis and Exodus1-23. Sheffield:Almond. Trigger,B.G. 1989 A Historyof Archaeological Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University. Van Seters, J. 1975 Abrahamin Historyand Tradition. New Haven: YaleUniversity. 1983 In Searchof History:Historiography in theAncientWorldand theOriginsof BiblicalHistory.New Haven: Yale University. Watson, P.J.;LeBlanc,S.A.; and Redman, C.L. 1971 Explanationin Archaeology: An ExplicitlyScientificApproach.New York:Columbia University. 1984 Archaeological Explanation:TheScientfi'cMethodin Archaeology.New York:Columbia University. Whallon, R. 1972 A New Approach to Pottery Typology. AmericanAntiquity37:13-33. Wright,G.R.H. 1966 A Method of ExcavationCommon in Palestine. Zeitschriftdes Deutschen 82:113-24. Paliistina-vereins

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

35

Mythic Trope of William

in

the Autobiography Foxwell Albright

by Burke 0. Long

When

he was about55years

old, W.F.Albright wrote that his move to Jerusalem some 27 years earlier and the discoveries he made while anchored at the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) were decisive in defining his attitude toward the Bible. An "initially rather skeptical attitude toward the accuracy of Israelite historical tradition," he said, "had suffered repeated jolts as discovery after discovery confirmed the historicity of details which might reasonably have been considered legendary." These same discoveries intensified his opposition to Wellhausen's theory of Israelite religious history, and led him "increasingly to insist on the substantial historicity of the Mosaic tradition and the antiquity of Israelite monotheism" (Finkelstein 1948:165). Many scholars have accepted, apparently with little question, this figure of passage-a conversion from skepticism to conviction made irresistible by archaeological discovery in the land of the Bible. Typical is the remark by Philip King: As a young man Albright shared the skepticism of his mentor Haupt about the historical value of the biblical traditions. In time, however, he became more conservative and repudiated the radical views of Haupt. Archaeology provided the external evidence that led Albright and others to a more positive attitude about the early traditions of Israel (1983:52). 36

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Somewhat earlier, John Bright had put the matter even more pointedly: ... Albright had in general a very positive view of the historical worth of the biblical traditions. But he did not arrive at this view because of dogmatic presuppositions, as some have seemed to think (he rigidly adhered to the historico-critical method), but on the basis of objective external evidence... from Mesopotamia [for the authenticity of patriarchal migrations]...[and from] the evidence of the excavations that convinced him that the Israelite occupation of Palestine took place through violent conquest.... He believed in the historicity of the Conquest, not because his presuppositions led him to wish to do so, but because the evidence forced him to that conclusion (1975:6-7).1 Albright's own view, in virtually his own words, was even passed along to the National Academy of Science in support of his nomination to membership in 1956.2 Despite such unanimity of acceptance, however, we might be well advised not to take such declarations at face value. The very act of recollection involves selection, loss, and possibly repression. From the heights of mid-career, Albright gave us a constructed moment from his formative years. What complexities might this artifact have held within its appealing form?

Conversion in Jerusalem? Albright made his way through Egypt to Jerusalem in late 1919, when he was just twenty-eight years old. Barely nine months later, in September of 1920, he confessed to Samuel Geiser, a close friend from college days, that "the stand I take on biblical questions is now very conservative and sober, tho (sic) this has always been my tendency, as you may remember from the Academia days" (September 26, 1920).3 This change of heart sounds a little more like reversion than conversion. Less than two months later-it was now November-Albright told James B. Nies, a benefactor of ASOR, that he had "recanted all the more or less novel opinions" drawn from Paul Haupt and put into his article on the Joseph story (see Albright 1918). "The fourteenth chapter of Genesis," Albright continued, "the career of Abram, the Exodus, and the Song of Deborah now come at last into a clear historic perspective...due largely, I think, to the finally exact results I have obtained in Babylonian chronology, which now agrees exactly with Breasted's Egyptian for the second millennium" (November 11, 1920; see Albright 1921b, 1921c). This too, seems hardly like a passage from skepticism to conviction, for one normally recants only error, and in that act reaffirms a truth previously held. It is difficult for me to imagine what Albright could have discovered during those first nine months in British mandate Palestine that would

have "jolted" him out of his skepticism. During his first months in Jerusalem, Albright concentrated not on archaeology in the direct sense, but on studies of modern Hebrew and Arabic. He reported in 1921 that "not much could be accomplished in archaeology" owing to bad weather and political problems (Bulletiinof the AimLericall Schoolof OrieintalResearch [BASOR] 3 [1921]:2). Furthermore, if a newly established chronology was the key to his forswearing error, as he had written to Nies, it was a key he carried in his pocket when he traveled to Jerusalem. Albright had actually laid the cornerstone of his new chronology while he was still at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. At the meeting of the American Oriental Society in April 1919, he announced the crucial discovery: the synchronism of Menes of Egypt with Mani of Magan, defeated by Naram-Sin, thus establishing the reference point by which to date many other rulers and events in biblical and Near Eastern history. Albright described the importance of his discovery in a letter to his father written just a few days after arriving in Jerusalem (Albright to Wilbur Finley Albright, January 11, 1920). Six months after taking up residence in Jerusalem, and without engaging directly in archaeological excavation, the young Albright was still reflecting on the implications of his earlier discovery. Father will be pleased to know that the articles I am now preparing on biblical history and Palestinian archaeology are not of a nature to hurt anybody's faith, the last thing on earth I want to do....I have succeeded at last in

bly and rigidly critical and methodical as ever (Albright to Zephine Viola Foxwell Albright, July 19, 1920).

Albright taught science during a year's service as principalof a high school in German-speaking Menno, South Dakota. He evidently had his portrait made at that time (1913). Histenure ended when he won a fellowship for graduate study at Johns Hopkins University. Photo courtesyof DavidF Albright.

"dovetailing" early Israelite history from Moses to Samuel with "profane" history, and thus fixing its chronology within a decade: the Exodus took place in 1260, and the battle of Taanach (Deborah) cir. 1180. I can also date the composition of Chronicles-EzraNehemiah within a decade of 420 and refer it definitely to Ezra. All these results are hopelessly conservative in appearance, even if the treatment is just as incorrigi-

It begins to look as if a turn toward the "hopelessly conservative" had little to do with Albright's having to face the "facts" of archaeological exploration in Palestine. Perhaps a more significant trigger in releasing Albright's "very conservative and sober" attitude, as he had put it to Sam Geiser in 1920, was that this disposition was deeply congruent with the social and intellectual climate of Jerusalem, the American School, and much of the American public at the time. The school's founding scholars, its Managing Committee, most American professors of Bible, and quite a few Semiticists and Assyriologists expressed in their activities a blend of mostly Christian, essentially Protestant, piety and Germanic-styled humanistic Wissenschaft (King 1983:25-31).4David Lyon, of Harvard, had expressed a consensus in his 1910 Presidential address before the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis: The chief motive which prompts to Palestinian study in all its phases is religious and Biblical....As the tourist goes to that country for religious quickening or for confirmation and elucidation of the Scriptures, so the student is moved by the same motive (1911:4). Chairing the Executive Committee of ASOR in those days, and editing its semi-popular Blulletin (BASOR) from its inception in 1919 until 1930, was James A. Montgomery, an Episcopal clergyman whose father's line of descent

Biblical ArcIaeoIlogist 56:1 (1993)

37

included many other Episcopalian ministers. Montgomery combined active church work with scholarly pursuits until 1907 when he devoted himself exclusively to teaching, writing, and editing at the Philadelphia Divinity School and the graduate school of the University of Pennsylvania (Freedman 1974). Under Montgomery's editorship, early issues of BASOR frequently appealed to readers whose interests in the Bible were both devotional and academic. Albright, in these early years, contributed a number of essays that conformed entirely to such expectations: part research report, part investigative travelogue, part pilgrim's notes. In one piece, he conveyed a fresh enthusiasm and investigative hunger made all the sharper by religious sentiment: These unassuming mounds among the hills of Ephraim and Benjamin are of the greatest interest to us, since they represent authentic monuments of the Israelite past. Every stone and potsherd they conceal is hallowed to us by association with the great names of the Bible. Who can think of the tells which mark ancient Mizpah and Gibeah without a thrill, as memory calls up the shade of Samuel, and the heroic figure of Saul? (1922c:9). In another report, Albright looked ahead to future excavations at Ashkelon, and by the way, announced his apologetic hopes, if not convictions: "Here will be discoveries to confute the skeptic and delight the scholar's heart, to extend our knowledge of our own past, and to illustrate many a passage of Holy Writ" (Albright 1922b:14). Montgomery, as did other archaeologists at the time, sought financial support for ASOR by appealing to such pious longings, dashed with genteel nationalism. On behalf of the struggling school in Jerusalem he wrote in 1919, "...if America is to maintain an honorable place in the international plan for archaeological

38

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

work in Palestine outlined above, an increased income must be obtained at once. All members of the Archaeological Institute [the parent institution of ASOR] and all lovers of the Bible are earnestly urged to come to our aid" (BASOR 1[1910]:4). The appeal became more elaborate--a whole page was devoted to the school's financial plight-in a subsequent issue. Montgomery concluded

ov

ON:

Johns Hopkins Professor Albright exam-

inesshelvedartifactscloseto the year 1955.Albrightthought of himselfas a scientistand was well-readin the variousscientificdisciplinesof hisday.A good numberof photos portrayAlbright(who worriedabout hisdeterioratingeyesight) peeringthrougha magnifyinglens.These photoscapturethe scientificspiritof detached,objectivescrutinyof the world. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

that "religious, patriotic and scientific motives combine to call loudly for subscriptions to the support of the School" (BASOR 2[1920]: 9). Paul Haupt, Albright's teacher at the Johns Hopkins University, urged his promising protege--and this was not at all unusual-to build political and financial support for himself and ASOR by confirming Biblical belief. "Let me urge you again," he wrote, "hunt for the Mons Testaceusat the

junction of the valleys of Hinnom, Kidron, and Tyropoean, also for the site of the Inn at Bethlehem referred to in my paper on the Crib of Christ....If you succeed in one of these explorations, funds will be forthcoming for operations on a more extensive scale." (Haupt to Albright, July 6, 1920). Few among Albright's new associates in Jerusalem-from PythianAdams to Pore Vincent to Gustav Dalman-thought differently, save for peculiarities of religious or national allegiances. Even more to the point is that internal tensions within the staff of ASOR during 1919-20 squeezed the young Albright between the evangelical zealotry of Albert T. Clay and the quieter piety of John Peters on the one side, and William Worrell, a Unitarian, Arabist, and more broadminded scholar, on the other (Clay 1907, 1919, 1923). Worrell was Director of the school for 1919-20, Clay was Annual Professor, and Peters was a Lecturer. Albright was the Thayer Fellow. Clay and Peters were senior scholars by age, and although they were not always on the best of terms, they enjoyed easy access to political power within the school's managing committee. Albright was very conscious of this fact.5 While developing a close friendship with Worrell, and staying out of the way when tensions rose between Clay and Worrell, Albright was careful not to antagonize Clay or offend his evangelical convictions, even while privately deriding Clay's poor scholarship and lack of training in the Hauptian tradition. The situation was such that in May, 1920, at a meeting of the newly organized Palestine Oriental Society-Clay had founded the organization and was presiding over this occasion-Albright felt obliged to announce to the assembled company that his scholarly reconstructions of Solomon's temple entirely agreed with the Biblical account (Running and Freedman 1975:79;King 1983:56)6 While keeping Clay's favor that

first year, Albright also traveled throughout the country with John Peters, who acted as companion and archaeological guide (Running and Freedman 1975:72-76). Peters was an active Episcopal clergyman and archaeologist who took for granted the historical reliability of the Bible and used the higher criticism to construct and elucidate authoritative religious doctrine. He had no doubt that archaeological finds, in the main, confirmed the Biblical versions of history. In his presidential address before the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in 1900, Peters had mounted a spirited and pious defense of the religion of Moses, using the tools of historical research to inveigh against others who diminished Moses' stature. If Moses did not give the world philosophically pure monotheism, he gave it "practical monotheism," along with exalted ethics inscribed on two stones. Moses was unique, he said, and it was "because he [Moses] was sui generis, towering above his race and time, that he was able to found, among a primitive and barbarous people, a religion capable of such wonderful development," which of course led to Christianity (1901:204). Peters wrote several reports on discoveries in the ancient Near East. Sometimes-this happened especially when dealing with New Testament subjects-romance took hold of him, and he became a Christian pilgrim, evoking fervent and moving assurances of the Gospel writer's eye-witness fidelity:

the temple-to the Garden of Gethsemane. They walked between gardens, where just at that time, according to custom, the vines were being trimmed, the cuttings from which had been thrown into the street to wither. You have in the account of Jesus' discourse on the way one of those unconscious eye-witness pictures of the surroundings; how as they walked down that street, they trod on these withering vine branches, and saw the vine stocks

Vl?::-

It is almost a mile's walk from the house of the Last Supper-down the stair street, past the fountain of Siloam, out of the water gate, turning to the left up the valley of the Kidron, past the priestly tombs, under the great mass of

low*-

The main (Homewood) campus of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Albright returned to Hopkinsto take the chair of his mentor Haupt in 1929, five years before this aerial photograph was made. Hopkinswas founded as a research university in the German Wissenschafttradition, trumpeting the maxim that "wherever there is knowledge, there is science...." This ideology reinforced Albright'sown self-image. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

from which they had been cut.... Who could have invented this; who but an eye-witness have reported it? (1922:237-38). As previously noted, some of Albright's surveys of explorations in Palestine, while more restrained, evoked a similar spirit. It is easy to imagine that such a travel companion would have encouraged, rather than

discouraged, Albright's evangelical convictions. All these considerations make me question whether new discoveries in the land of the Bible, the simple press of external evidence, can account for Albright's turn to a "conservative and sober" attitude.

Albright'sReligious Sensibilities Was Albright even initially skeptical about the Bible's historical reliability when he traveled to Jerusalem? Had he somehow become "liberal" at Johns Hopkins University only to revert to a formerly held "conservatism?" Albright himself left that impression when he wrote to Sam Geiser and James Nies in 1920. Yet to Paul Haupt, with politic deference and apology, Albright offered a more ambiguous picture: I wish I could follow you more closely in many points, but, for better or worse, I have returned in general to tendencies already fully developed before I came to Johns Hopkins. A paper soon to appear in JBL,for example, is simply a revision and enlarged form of one written thirteen years ago, which had lain quietly among discarded papers during the intervening time. With you, thanks to the excellent linguistic and philological training received, I learned to be a philologist, and to set philological accuracy and soundness on a high pedestal, but my historical points of view remained unchanged, I fear. Perhaps after a temporary reaction to conservatism I will see my way clear to follow more closely in your footsteps. At present I do not seem to be able, at least in biblical matters. Yet I can never forget the unequalled training given in the

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

39

Old Testament seminary of Johns Hopkins. To it, I owe a very great deal, which I appreciate profoundly, so I hope you will pardon my tendency to go astray in applying the methods learned at your feet (October 11, 1922). Indeed, important elements in Albright's general approach to the Bible were already fixed long before he went to Baltimore for graduate training. Some insights into his upbringing as the son of a Methodist missionary who was a strict biblical literalist, have been recorded (Running and Freedman 1975:1-26). A letter from the late 40s provides us with a new detail: during his pre-teen and teenage years, from about 1897 to 1909, Albright avidly followed a series of essays on "Archaeology and Biblical Research" that were regularly published in TheMethodistReview (Albright to Nolan B. Harmon, April 20, 1947). Aimed at educated laypeople and clergy, the Review offered scholarly articles on history, theology, social ethics, literature, and public affairs. The unsigned essays on biblical studies were cautiously accepting of the "higher criticism" and firmly committed to the divine origins and inspiration of the Bible. The authors shared the widespread excitement about new discoveries in the Near East, and approved of "biblical archaeology"-they took this to include excavations in all the region-insofar as it was seen to support traditional evangelical views of the Bible against what they often called the "destructive" or "divisive" critics.7 Albright would have read a defense of the antiquity of the Psalms that ascribed them to David's time; how archaeology confirmed the historicity of Genesis 14; or, that in general "the testimony from the monuments is, therefore, all favorable to the conservative view, and the sooner the higher critics will see it the better it will be for biblical criticism" (MethodistReview 77[1895]:811-814;80 [1898]:138-41, 315). In 1911, while still an undergraduate at Upper Iowa University, 40

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Albright published a paper, a prototype of hundreds that were to follow, on discoveries at Elephantine. It is astonishing to see how thoroughly professional the article was by the conventions of the time, and how firm were the implicit convictions that underlay its argument. I give an extended quotation so that the network of interlocking assumptions and the confident tone-it is already vintage Albright-may be fully appreciated.

When Albright remembered his passing from skepticism to conviction, he displaced himself onto a fictive landscape of positivistic science.

The Jewish temple of Yahu' was founded before the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses in the year 525, and must have been founded years before this event, as the last days of the Saite dynasty were troubled times for Egypt. This temple foundation [at Elephantine], then can scarcely be dissociated with the events narrated in Jer.,Chap. 41-44, which could not have happened more than fifty years before.... It is in the highest degree probable that the Jews, who seem to have stood in such awe of the Chaldeans and their king, would have retired to upper Egypt, where there was comparatively little danger of Babylonian invasion. It was at this time and under these circumstances, doubtless, that they built their

temple, evidently expecting as did their countrymen in Babylonia to return to their native land (1911:18-19). Clearly, archaeology serves its highest purpose when illustrating the Bible. The Bible is reliable for faith, and in a leap of logic, so too, when properly analyzed, the Bible yields trustworthy history, which in turn confirms the initial presumption of the Bible's trustworthiness. While an undergraduate at Upper Iowa University, Albright was captivated by a particularly idealistic notion of science that many people at the time likewise found irresistible. He channeled this infatuation into the service of Christian apologetics. In an effusive essay entitled "Modernism" he wrote: Science illuminates vast stretches of the unknown darkness around us and binds the whole world together in unity of relations. And over the material advance hovers the kindly glow of human brotherhood, warming and uplifting men's hearts as never before. The broad spirit of world-citizenship, transcending the bounds of mere local patriotism, heralds a new day when peace shall reign unendingly among men (1911[?]:1-4). Then, having glanced briefly at the "phases of this progress, which is inseparably bound with our modernism, both as cause and effect," Albright asked rhetorically, "Has our religion alone been unaffected by this great period of transformation and revaluation?" Some resist such changes and cling to a "Christian economy...as immutable as the Himalayas." But Albright, ebullient essayist now turned moralist and apologist, exhorted his reader: Let the chaff go; men may quarrel over the chaff-like grain, but the essentials are with us...The human God-this is the Desire of Nations-deity incarnate, suffering with us, [came] to save us

from our lower selves. What concept nobler, what better able to inspire men with enduring moral zeal! Here lies the heart of our faith-a heart thru (sic) which modernism may attune itself with the pulse-beat of suffering humanity. Let the battle rage around this stronghold! (1911[?]:1-4). Intellectual governors such as are evident in both these essays continued to operate at Hopkins where, we may reasonably assume, the young Albright would have been most swayed by 4, the opinions of his teacher and Doktorvater, Paul Haupt. However, while cooperating with Haupt's investigations of comparative Semitic mythology, and taking from him the thorough \ 1 grounding in comparative philology that was to be the hallmark of his career, Albright scornfully dismissed Haupt's theories whenever he felt they offended his moral and religious sensibilities. Once, in a class, Haupt reconstructed a finely balanced Hebrew text of the original Song of Deborah (Judges 5) in its historical context-typical stuff for a Germanic "higher critic." Albright was skeptical, and doubted "the possibility of even 'Lord Yahweh's' [a term he and other students used for Professor Haupt] rethinking the thoughts of the original writer, especially when a reconstruction of the history of the times is involved" (Albright to Zephine Albright, November 30, 1913). Sometimes, Haupt's theories offended the young Albright's sense of good taste, but this offense, too, was tied up with certain commitments to the status of the Bible as religious and historical truth. "...PH out orientals the orientals," he wrote to Sam Geiser. "For instance, Song of

Songs 7:2 he explains as referring to the vulva and the hairs of the vagina! I doubt very much whether the gifted author would have considered those special features of the Pudenda as such a poetical subject! Prof. H. makes me disgusted sometimes" (February 13, 1914). Contrary to the impression he left in his later public comments, Albright never seemed to go through much of a "liberal" phase at Hopkins. Albright stopped far short of adopting Haupt's points of view on

Faculty and students of the Oriental Seminary, downtown Baltimore circa 1915. Paul Haupt occupies the right front chair, seated next to his colleague Aaron Ember,a Semiticist and Egyptologist. Seated in the first chair on the left is Professor FrankBlake. Albright occupies the fourth chair on the left. Albright credited his time at Hopkinswith unequalled linguistic and philological training, but declared in a letter to his mentor that his historical points of view had remained unchanged. Photo courtesyof Prof.JerroldCooperof Johns Hopkinsand DavidF.Albright.

many questions. Early on, he took pains to assure his parents that he was not straying from his Christian convictions, and wrote his mother during his first year that he hadn't seen fit to "change a single important view so far" (January 18, 1914). After being taken on as Haupt's proteg6, Albright sought approval and pro-

tected his deepest convictions, expressing them not to Haupt, but to intimate friends and family. Near the end of his first year, Albright wrote to his mother: Sent off my manuscript "Die Heimat Bilams" ["Balaam's Home Country"] to the publisher yesterday. I did not show it to Dr. H., because it interferes with his ubiquitous theories....I certainly prepared it in beautiful shape, tho (sic). I have learned a lot from Dr. H. about preparing manuscript. If only I could stumble upon something which would meet Dr. H's approval, I might land the fellowship again for next year (March 15, 1914). While finishing his dissertation, Albright still held back. Writing to Sam Geiser, he dreamed beyond Johns Hopkins, of dedicating a first book to Geiser, but quickly veered off toward his ambivalent feelings for Haupt: "This won't be my dissertation. I should blush to inscribe your name on Professor Haupt's work. I may dedicate it to him if I dedicate it at all. 'Render to Caesar the things that be Caesar's"' (February 12, 1916; Running and Freedman 1975:28). In fact, he held back at least two papers that had been written during those Hopkins years because, as he wrote later to a Hopkins classmate, "I didn't care to court trouble while I was at Prof. Haupt's mercy!" (Albright to Paul E Bloomhardt, December 8, 1922; See Albright 1921a, 1922d). Soon after getting off the train in Baltimore, Albright described himself to his mother as a quiet crusader, a scientific agon struggling against biblical literalists who dogmatically dismissed the ways and findings of science. The scientific, that is, historical,

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

41

philological, and archaeological exploration into the ancient biblical world could scrape off unwanted encrustations and refurbish the eternal truths of Christianity-this meant for Albright the Protestant truths of Christianity. When properly restrained by piety, a scholar could restore original biblical truth, especially the teachings of the Hebrew prophets and Jesus that were obscured long ago by redactors and glossators. The higher criticAlbright was now speaking of himself-must be a reformer inflamed with a prophet's passion for social change and armed with a scientist's "cold scrutiny." Albright wrote to his mother that henceforth he would see biblical criticism, although something of an unfortunate necessity in one's search for truth, "as a crusade, which must be forced upon the attention of the world (with caution, and not with too unrestrained zeal)" (December 26, 1913; Running and Freedman 1975:29-30). Some five years later, having graduated Johns Hopkins, Albright explained to Sam Geiser what this crusade really meant: creating "Christ-myth rationalism," a scientifically and historically explained Protestant Christianity Triumphant. He wrote to Geiser that he was preparing a series of new publications: ...the prehistory of our Christology will be worked out as thoroly (sic) as possible, for the first time. Needless to say, polemics will be avoided, nor will a direct reference to the New Testament be made until all the train has been laid... For years I have tried to find common ground, where scientific rationalism and evangelical faith can meet. Now I seem to find it. During the coming years I shall, if God wills that my eyesight be spared, devote myself quietly to my technical researches, incidentally building a structure too strong for the batteries of mistaken apologetics. 42

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

When it is all over, orthodoxy will rub its eyes and say, wonderingly, "What was I afraid of? It all seems so reasonable now!" Such are the laws of progress in our society (October 8, 1918; see Albright 1919a, 1919b). When we realize that Albright envisioned such a program for himself in 1918, at an age of twenty-

An Artifact of Self-as-Scientist I do not want to suggest that Albright was cynically misleading us when he invoked that figure of passage. His barely concealed discomfort over having to write his autobiography suggests something quite different. Albright believed that historical truth, even the truth about a person's life, had to be liberated from the partly hidden clutches of subjectivity if it was to be of any general use. Submitting to that ideology, and ambivalent beyond simple modesty, Albright proceeded to write himself out of his own autobiography: ...the subject will attempt to appraise his own development, in the light of the more pertinent facts of his education, following this sketch by a series of brief treatments of five interrelated themes where his present views have been most clearly influenced by the external facts of his education and experience (Finkelstein 1948:157).

Albert T.Clay was Annual Professor in Jerusalem (1919-20) during Albright'sfirst stay at the school. Founder of the Palestine Oriental Society, Claywas one of the strong personalities with whom the young Albright had to contend and whose influence Albright apparently courted.

seven, his suggestion made at twice the age that he had passed through a liberal phase at Johns Hopkins and had been jolted toward or back toward conservatism by new discoveries, seems deeply problematic. Is it possible that while remembering conversion, he forgot the choices of faith which inflamed his youth and guided his life's work as a Christian theist, historian, and philosopher? (See Freedman 1989: n.4; Albright 1964). Evidently the figure of passage, its captivating simplicity, hides a denser reality. Hence a new question arises: how may we understand the function of such a verbal gesture which simultaneously discloses and closes?

Perhaps one way to view this situation is that Albright constructed an artifact of Self which involved the displacement of self-I mean by this the willing and choosing subjectnot only from this particular narrative, but from his life's work as a humanistic, scientific biblical scholar. As any artifact, this one must be understood, not finally or absolutely, but provisionally, against some interpretative grid. Time and space allows me to make only one proposal. When Albright remembered his passing from skepticism to conviction, he selectively re-membered that experience, reducing its complex psychological and social dynamics. But he did something else, more implicit, but very powerful: he created an objectified Self and located It within a charter narrative for the field of biblicistic Orientalism. That move allowed Albright to displace himself onto a fictive landscape of positivistic science, within a paradigmatic

moment of first awareness. It is as though the figure of passage recalled the Self's first embrace of values and convictions that define "how things really are" in the world of Christianity, the Bible, humanistic science, and biblical archaeology. More than any other American scholar of the 1920s-1950s, Albright developed, defined, and dominated these fields as they came together in his work. Obviously he would have been aware of his many accomplishments when coining the figure of passage in 1948. So it may not be too far off mark to think that this artifact of Self, constructed partly with ideological ligaments of science and religion, would also have represented biblically centered Oriental research in its mythic, heroic dimension. And how are things naturally, truly, eternally, according to the implied myth? What are some of those beliefs and values, the "givens" that, once taken on as natural truths, gave foundational structure to Albright's work? One "given", for example, posits ancient history as discoverable, amenable to rational method, able to be reconstructed in some objective sense if one pays attention to the sure and unfailing evidence which convicts. Within the ancient world, the Bible is the privileged text, radically different from, but related to and illuminated by, those lesser cultures and writings all about. The study of all those civilizations related to the Bible is the indispensable means of overcoming the sterile previous age, the age of literary and textual study ignorant of excavations. Such new approaches will assuredly establish a rational ground for Christianity's claim to be the highest Truth. Thus, archaeology and Oriental studies, as indeed the Orientalist, achieve their highest purposes in channelling their energies toward biblical study. "Palestine," Albright wrote, "is the land where the sacredest of human possessions came into being and hardly a mile of its surface is not hallowed by Biblical associations. In the illustration, eluci-

dation, and, if need be, confirmation of this masterpiece of world literature archaeology justifies itself finely" (1922:403). And finally, a scholar, a Christian humanist scholar, walks a path of progress, energized and driven to discover the new, to suppress one's own subjectivity in the act of accumulating fact upon fact, building structures of knowledge that are presumed to confirm, not so much all

With a bequest of $50,000 from his estate in 1922, the Rev.James Buchanan Nies financed the building of the School in Jerusalem in memory of his wife Jane Dows Nies. Ordained EpiscopalClergyman as well as Columbia UniversityPh.D., Nies was a self-taught Assyriologist. Lessthan a year into Albright'sfirst sojourn in Jerusalem, he wrote to Nies that he had "recanted all the more or less novel opinions" drawn from Paul Haupt and published in his article on the Joseph story (Albright 1918).

the details, but the emotional weight, of a trustworthy Bible. Yet progress is never sufficient to end the quest, for the mythic paradigm of science specifies iterative discovery, a lifetime of jolts to settled opinion, while leaving quite undisturbed the foundational structures of inquiry. The chartering myths of science seem key parts of this picture. As is well known, Albright thought of himself as a scientist (see Finkelstein 1948:167;Running and Freedman, 1975:287). This self-image was not

simply a matter of youthful infatuation, as one might gather from his essay on Modernism. Albright was in fact well read in the various scientific disciplines of his day, especially mathematics, physics, and biology; as a high school principal, fresh out of college, he enthusiastically taught mathematics and science and cultivated those who showed aptitude in science (Albright to Father, January 12, 1913). He extolled the theories of the great scientific thinker Poincard (Albright to Father, December 15, 1912) and in one letter romanticized science as Mistress (Albright to Sam Geiser, October 26, 1913). In his middle years, Albright dreamed of establishing an academy of humanistic science and scientific humanism (Albright to Sam Geiser, October 31, 1929), and to some extent his active participation in the affairs of the American Philosophical Society and the History of Ideas Club at Johns Hopkins helped him realize the dream. This sense of self-as-scientist, however, ought not to be thought of as simply a matter of individualistic preference. Albright came of age in a social environment in which science and scientsts enjoyed great popular, if not heroic, prestige in America. Books, magazines, and even such sedate media as the Proceedings of the Academy of Science turned flesh and blood scientists into romantic and mythic figures who were dedicated to a set of ideals remarkably similar to those espoused by religion: selflessness, dedication to truth, and an emotional asceticism which, in its elevating purity, could inspire and motivate (Rosenberg 1961:3). Scientists were iconic knights whose features remained remarkably static in popular magazines: brilliant, hardworking, and modest, mixing qualities of wizard, creator/destroyer, and hero (La Follette 1990; Burnham 1987). They struggled to set the mind free of superstition and dogma; they marched in a moral crusade to lift humankind from its primitive imperfections and set it on its way to perBiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

43

fection. For the theist-scientist-hero (and there were many such people eulogized in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), such struggles to rise out of darkness did the bidding of a God who nudged evolution toward increasing perfection and, for human beings, perfected apprehension of divinity (Faulkner 1931; Gibson 1913). Clearly appropriating a good measure of this popularized culture of science, the young Albright embarked on graduate training in 1913. He chose a school that embodied many of these same notions. The Johns Hopkins University had been guided since its founding in 1876 by the ideals of the German Wissenschaftlich research university. Its first president, Professor Gilman, promulgated a dictum that, because of its defining importance, every subsequent President had somehow to reenact: "Wherever there is knowledge, there is science; and wherever there is a science there should be a hearty maintenance of it by all educated men" (quoted by French 1946:440). Albright hardly needed to be convinced of the values borne within such declarations of principle. Considering the evidence of his undergraduate years, and his brief career as a high school science teacher, his socialization into a culture of academic Wissenschaftmust have been more like reenforcement than taking on an unfamiliar way of being in the world. We can return now to that figure of passage, which by now has taken on the status and function of myth. I would suggest that in 1948, when Albright construed his beginnings in Jerusalem and left us with an artifact of self-as-scientist, he drew not only upon his own personal persuasions. He drew deeply upon a formative myth of The Johns Hopkins University, which in turn had its roots not only in the practice of science but in the mythic dimensions of the culture of scientists.

44

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

Conclusion I am very conscious that my comments have grown more speculative as they moved beyond the concreteness of Albright's personal papers. Much work needs to be done. Rather than make definitive pronouncements, I have meant only to suggest lines of investigations, ways of thinking about the role of a scholar in a particular field of academic endeavor. To what end, you may ask? I believe that it is time to begin constructing accounts of Biblical studies not so much as histories of great ideas, methodologies, or progress in accumulating reified truths, but as historical inquiries into ideas mediated through ideologically charged social processes. Looking at matters in this way, a trope of autobiography created by one of the giants no longer among us, turns out to be an invitation to consider the social world in which such language takes its life and does its work. We must investigate how constructed meanings, artifacts of self, ideologies, and charter narratives shape a culture of academic inquiry, as well as help define those who practice their craft within it.

Notes 1See also Running and Freedman(1975:109) who write: "He [Albright]remembered how 'liberal' he had become during his university studies ... and thought he might

have continued as a liberal, except for the fact that his topographicaland archaeological work was continually confirming biblical tradition and undermining the extreme liberal views about the history of Israel then current."Miles (1976:152)throughout accepts Albright's own view that "... he

[Albright]first came upon anomalous archaeologicalevidence and made the necessary, drastic revision of the synthesis of biblical history reached by the 'higher criticism' of the nineteenth century."Although acknowledging room for doubt, Campbell (1979:39) thought it necessary to let "Albrighthave his own say in this matter, and thus reported:"He [Albright]asserted regularly that it was the force of evidence, of the data and the warrants for their pertinence, which led him ratherrapidly in his first decade in Jerusalemto place a higher degree of confidence in the worth for historical reconstructionof what both prose narrative and poetic texts in the Bible contained."

But even Albright's own "say"demanded interpretation,and Campbell obliged by stating that the methodological principle involved was a "willingness to admit a possibilityof historicity in a text (emphasis added; 1979:40).J. Max Miller,in the same article,interpretedAlbright's principle not as admission of possiblehistoricity,but as a presumption that behind a biblical text was an actual event, even if the text itself is a misleading guide to its true nature (Campbell 1979:42).Reappraisalamong those who were close to Albright may now be underway as indicated by the work of Freedman (1989:37-41). 2 "His initially skeptical attitude toward the reliabilityof Israelitehistorical traditions changed as his archaeologicalfinds again and again confirmed the truth of details which might otherwise have been considered legendary."See the printed nomination papers enclosed in a letter from Edwin B. Wilson to Albright, April 1, 1956.All of Albright's letters referredto in this article are found in the collection of Albright's papers housed at the American Philosophical Society,Philadelphia. Permission to quote from these letters was given by David Albright of Baltimore,Maryland. 3 The title "Academia"refers to a self-styled "GeniusClub" founded by Dr. Daniel Mason Parkerat Upper Iowa University, Albright's and Geiser's undergraduate college. See Running and Freedman 1975:15. 4Therewere very few Jewish scholars participating at the turn of the century in the historical-criticalstudy of the Bible as developed in late 19th-centuryGermany.Cyrus Adler and MorrisJastrow,Jr.,however, were members of the Executive Committee of ASOR in 1919-1920.Jastrowserved as President of the Society of BiblicalLiteratureand Exegesis in 1916;Max Margolis edited the Society's Journalof BiblicalLiteraturefrom 1914 -1921 and was elected president in 1923.JulianMorgenstern,in the rising new generation, began his academic careerin 1907. 5 Clay was an influential member of the Committee at the time. Aware of possible conflicts and always seeking his prot~g6's advancement, Paul Haupt advised Albright on steering safely through the shoals: "Dr. Peters is not a great scholar, but he has a good deal of influence and may help you a great deal. If there should ever be any difference of opinion between Peters and Clay, especially in practical questions, most people will be inclined to side with Peters" (Haupt to Albright, July 6, 1920). It is unclear what, if any, role James Nies played in helping Albright find his way during this first year in Jerusalem. It would be surprising if he were not somehow involved. Nies, an Episcopal priest and cuneiformist, was a "great patron of Oriental learning" as Clay

wrote in memoriam(BASOR7[1922]:2),well connected to scholars of the ancient Near East, and most definitely a friend of the American Schools (see King 1983:66).He greatly admired Albright's scholarly abilities, and before Albright left for Jerusalem, Nies offered to help him personally if ever a financial difficulty arose. At Haupt's urging, Nies also supported Albright's candidacy for Acting Director of the School (Haupt to Albright, May 22, 1920).Apparently Nies's earlier misgivings about Albright's Hauptlike treatmentof the Joseph story had been set aside (Nies to Julian Morgenstern,June 26, 1919;JulianMorgensternPapers,American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati,Ohio). 6 Albright's description of the occasion suggests that others in the audience, not just Clay himself, would have received such a declarationwith favor. He wrote to his father,"(On)May 25 the second meeting of the Palestine OrientalSociety was held at the Governorate,Pere Lagrange and Professor Clay presiding. Good papers were presented by Pore Dhorme, Mr.PhythianAdams, of the BritishSchool of Archaeology and others. I gave an oral paper on 'Mesopotamian Influences in the Temple of Solomon', which was very well received, especially as I took care to point out in advance that my results were in agreement with the Biblicalreports"(Juneor July, 1920). In Albright's calculations, Clay's presence loomed large, however, since in the very next paragraphof this letter he wrote an extraordinaryharsh condemnation of Clay's work, career,and personal behavior. Clearly,Albright had little respect for the man or his scholarship. He did not fault in principle Clay's defense of the Bible, however. He merely dismissed its careless excesses, and besides, Clay's apologetic activities were tainted by hypocrisy. "Ifhe were honest in his apologetics," Albright wrote, "Iwould respect him, but to judge from certain remarksI have heard him make, I fear he is not." Albright wrote a much gentler assessment of Clay in 1924, urging Worrellto lay aside the bitter residue from his disputes with Clay: "He [Clay] is a strange man- generous and kind-hearted to a degree as a rule, but unbelievably vindictive to those he regards his foes. He is good at heart, but passionate and impulsive. His careeris nearly at an end, I fear, since his health is not good; I hope you have buried the hatchet....He has always been kind to me, so I can never feel hostile toward him, but I can see, better than before, how easily he may be turned into a bitter and ruthless foe" (January20, 1924). 7 See especially Editor William V. Kelley's statement explaining the reason and purposes for the new "department"(Methodist Review76[1982]:135).

Bibliography Albright, W. E 1911 Recent Discoveries at Elephantine. I. UpperIowaAcademician1:18-20. 1911? Modernism--The Genius of Our Day. UpperIowaAcademician. 1912 Papers. The Library,American Philosophical Society.Philadelphia. Bright,J. 1918 Historical and Mythological Elements in the Joseph Story.Journalof BiblicalLiterature37:111-43. 1919a The Mouth of the Rivers,American Journalof SemiticLanguagesand Literatures35:161-95. 1919b Some Cruces in the Langdon Epic. Journalof theAmericanOrientalSociety 39:65-90 1920 Menes and Naram-Sin.Journalof EgyptianArcheology6:89-98,295-296. 1921a The Date and Personality of the Chronicler.Journalof BiblicalLiterature40:104-24. 1921b A Revision of Early Assyrian and Middle Babylonian Chronology. Revued'Assyriologieet d'Archeologie orientale18:83-94. 1921c A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology.Journalof thePalestine OrientalSociety1:49-79. 1922a Archaeological Discovery in the Holy Land. BiibliothecaSacra79: 401-417. 1922b The Excavations of Ascalon. Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research6:11-18. 1922c Gibeah of Saul and Benjamin.Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research6:8-11. 1922d The Location of the Garden of Eden. AmericanJournalof Semitic Languagesand Literatures39:15-31. 1964 History,Archaeologyand Christian Humanism.New York:McGrawHill. 1975 William F. Albright as an Historical and BiblicalScholar.Pp. 3-10 in David Noel Freedman,ThePublishedWorksof WilliamFoxwell Albright:A Comprehensive Bibliography. Cambridge, MA: ASOR. Burnham,J. 1987 How SuperstitionWonand Science Lost:PopularizingScienceand Health in the UnitedStates.New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University. Campbell, E. 1979 W.F.Albright and Historical Recon42: struction. BiblicalArchaeologist 37-47. Clay, A. T. 1907 Lighton the Old Testament from Babel. Philadelphia:The Sunday School Times.

1919 TheEmpireof theAmorites.New Haven: YaleUniversity. 1923 TheOriginsof BiblicalTraditions. New Haven: YaleUniversity. Faulkner,H. 1931 QuestForSocialJustice.New York: MacMillan. Finkelstein, L., editor. 1948 AmericanSpiritualAutobiographies. New York:Harper. Freedman,D. N. 1974 Montgomery,James Alan. Dictionaryof AmericanBiography.Suppl. 4. New York:Scribner's. 1989 W. E.Albright as an Historian. Pp. 33-43 in TheScholarshipof William FoxwellAlbright.An Appraisal, edited by G. Van Beek. Atlanta: ScholarsPress. French,J.C. 1946 A Historyof the UniversityFounded byJohnsHopkins.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins. Gibson, C. 1913 Heroesof theScientificWorld:An Accountof theLives,Sacrifices,Successes,and Failuresof Someof the GreatestScientistsin the World'sHistory.London: Seeley, Service & Co. Hardwick, S. 1965 Changeand Constancyin William FoxwellAlbright'sTreatment of Early Old Testament Historyand Religion, 1918-1958.Diss., New YorkUniversity. Ann Arbor:University Microfilms. King, P. 1983 AmericanArchaeologyin theMideast. A Historyof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch.Philadelphia: ASOR. La Follette, M. 1990 MakingScienceOur Own:Public Imagesof Science,1910-1955. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. D. Lyon, 1911 On the ArchaeologicalExploration of Palestine.Journalof BiblicalLiterature30:1-17. Miles, J. 1976 Understanding Albright:A Revolutionary Etude. HarvardTheological Review69:151-175. Peters, J. 1901 The Religion of Moses. Journalof BiblicalLiterature20:101-128. 1922 Bibleand Spade.New York:Scribner's Sons. Rosenberg,C. 1961 No OtherGods:On ScienceandAmericanSocialThought.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins. Running, L. and Freedman,D. N. 1975 WilliamFoxwellAlbright.A Twentieth CenturyGenius.New York:Morgan.

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

45

Book

Reviews

Women and the Genesis of Christianity III,editedbyAnn By BenWitherington + Camxv 273 pp.New York: Witherington, bridgeUniversityPress,1990;$44.50(hardcover),$14.95(paper).

book condenses and

popularThis izes two previous monographs by the same author in the Society for New Testament Studies monograph series, Womenin the Ministry of Jesus (1984) and Womenin the Earliest Churches(1988). Witherington acknowledges a debt to his wife Ann, "who rewrote the material into its present form for the general public" (page x). He-and presumably his wife-writes as "a committed Christian who takes seriously the canonical authority of the whole of the Bible for the Church" (page xii). Consequently, apart from a background survey of "Women in First Century Cultures" (pages 3-26), the book confines itself to the New Testament canon, and for the most part to Jesus and Paul. The background survey is helpful on women in Judaism, but less so on women in the Hellenistic and Roman world. It is not clear on what basis Witherington is distinguishing Roman from Hellenistic material. Is it a distinction of time, place, or language? Does Rome refer to the city or the empire? What does it mean to compare "Roman women" with "their counterparts in the Mediterranean world" (page 25)? Nor is it clear why he has separate sections on Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Macedonia and Asia Minor, but none on Egypt-even though he stresses the influence of the Isis cult, and in passing calls Egypt "a country where women were allowed unprecedented freedom" (page 17). The book's major thesis is that Jesus and Paul were moderates on women's roles in the family, in society and among the people of God.

46

56:1(1993) Biblical Archaeologist

Jesus was not a feminist and Paul was not a chauvinist. Jesus was a reformer, not a revolutionary. He affirmed the traditional family structure, yet qualified it so as to raise women's status (e.g., by revoking the husband's right to divorce his wife). At the same time, he made room outside that structure for celibacy as an option for those committed to his Kingdom (e.g., Matthew 19:10-12). Witherington makes the intriguing suggestion that in Matthew 5:28 Jesus is speaking not of inward lust but of sexual harassment, not "male weakness in the face of a temptress, but male aggression which leads a woman into sin" (page 37). Jesus also rejected distinctions of clean and unclean that would have prevented him from reaching out to women in need. Some readers will feel that the evidence so well assembled here makes Jesus more of a feminist than the authors are prepared to admit. As for Paul, Witherington finds only continuity between the Lord and his Apostle. Jesus and Paul fit together, for him, into a consistent, canonical whole that can and should illumine present-day discussions. Witherington manages this even while defending the authenticity of Paul's command to women to be silent in the congregation (1 Corinthians 14:33b-36), and while arguing that the Pastoral epistles are, if not written by Paul, at least a "legitimate development" of Paul's thought and practice. Not everyone will be convinced by his moderating interpretations of Paul, but feminists and traditionalists alike will do well to pay attention to his careful and nuanced discussions of 1 Corinthians 7, Galilee 3:28, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, and Ephesians 5:21-33. These sections-although perhaps too technical for their intended audience-are among the strongest parts of the book and could help its author play a peacemaking role in present-day controversies.

The last two chapters again focus on Jesus, this time from the Gospel writers' perspective. Although women play a larger role in the narratives of Luke and John than in the other two, Witherington finds in all the Gospels basically the same "moderate feminism"-or "reformed patriarchy"-that characterized Jesus and Paul. This book has two main weaknesses, in addition to its survey of the Greco-Roman background. The first is its limited scope. A popular audience and a concern to establish attitudes normative for today are no reasons to limit the discussion to canonical writings. Some attention to the New Testament apocrypha (especially the apocryphal Acts), and to early Christian archaeology would have afforded valuable glimpses of women's roles in the ancient church at the grassroots level. Even within the canon, Witherington does not address the Book of Revelation, with its images of the Mother, the Prostitute and the Bride. Second, there is a tendency to dodge some-not all-of the hard sayings of both Jesus and Paul: e.g., Jesus' commands in Luke to "hate" or to "leave" one's wife (Luke 14:26, 18:29), and Paul's negative statements about women as the first to sin (not only 1 Timothy 2:14, but 2 Corinthians 11:3 and Romans 1:26). These are places where students and the general public need more help than this book supplies. On the positive side, the Witheringtons have given us a scholarly, understandable book that generates more light than heat. This is precisely what they set out to do (page xii), which is no small achievement on this subject. J. RamseyMichaels Southwest Missouri State University

The Music of the Bible Revealed translated from By SuzanneHaik-Vantoura; La Musiquede la Biblerevelee;1978,by DennisWeberandJohnWheeler; Berkeley, CA:BIBALPress,1991;557 pp.,$29.95 (paper). N usic theorist and author uzanne Haik-Vantoura posits a fascinating thesis in TheMusic of the BibleRevealed.By systematically deciphering the cantillation signs (the te'amim)that accompany all of the written Hebrew text, she claims to have found the original music of the Bible. From this music, she has constructed a significantly convincing, coherent and comprehensive Hebraic music theory. Haik-Vantoura's quest began during World War II and has continued for almost 50 years. She has researched every available source that might shed light on a number of perplexing mysteries: What does the music locked away in the Hebrew Bible manuscripts really sound like, and of what importance is it? Do the notational signs embedded in the text give evidence of a truly self-contained theoretical musical system? Is there evidence to show that the music discovered dates to antiquity? To the first question, one can only say that the music as deciphered by Haik-Vantoura (and now available in recorded form) touches the listener with its "archaic simplicity" in a most powerful way. That a modal music, circumspect, restrained and disciplined, sensitive to every nuance of text, is able to speak to people who are far removed from it in time, is an eloquent testimony to its uniqueness and to its universality. Many who have heard this music agree that it serves to heighten significantly the meaning of the text. Indeed, HaikVantoura asserts that the text and music were created by "poet/melodists" as a "gestalt." Hence, the Hebrew Scriptures should be heard, even today, in a similar way, (i.e. as "text/music") in order to fully comprehend the meaning. Haik-Vantoura has uncovered a

end." In recent years, students of archaeology and ancient art have benefitted from the production of many sumptuous volumes that accompanied international exhibitions of artifacts and objectsde art. Such books are usually characterized by a meticulous concern for detail with regard to illustrations (selection, color quality and layout) and text (content and printing quality). Treasuresfrom an Ancient Landwill undoubtedly rank among the most useful of exhibition catalogs, since it earns high marks for the quality of its pictures (including two maps and a chronological table) and text. Its eight major essays, written by eight different experts, provide good introductions to various aspects of Jordan's history and culture. But the value of this compact volume, which surveys the art of Jordan in 191 pages, is enhanced by a well-executed editorial policy. Piotr Bienkowski's hope that this book will "fill a gap in the literature on ancient Jordan" (page x) has been realized, since-in his own words"for the first time a broad overview is taken of the various art forms throughout Jordan's history, rather than the country being regarded strictly chronologically or geographically" (page x). Treasuresaccomplishes this objective for a wide range of readers-students and scholars of Jordanian history and archaeology in particular, as well as readers with a general interest in ancient art. Like most archaeological exhibitions of this magnitude, "Jordan: Treasures from an Ancient Land" Treasures from an Ancient provided a once-in-a-lifetime opporLand:The Art of Jordan tunity to see many of the finest artixiii + 178pp., EditedbyPiotrBienkowski, facts that have been recovered in JorFalls,NH:AlanSuttonPublishing, dan, Wolfboro objects that were brought Inc.,1991,copyrightby theTrustees of the NationalMuseumsandGalleriesonMersey- together-with much planning and effort and at considerable expenseside,$26. (Alsoavailablein paperback from AlanSuttonPublishingLtd.,in Phoenix from nine major collections in Jordan, Hill,FarThrupp,Stroud,Gloucestershire, England and France. I saw the exhibiEngland. tion in the Liverpool Museum, and I well-known a dictum, affirm that this book's 189 color phorephrase r 1"of of making many catalogs tographs and 25 black-and-white museum exhibitions, there is no

musical theory that is amazingly cohesive and truly functional in nature. A hierarchy of value is established between the individual notes of the various modes in somewhat the same way as that established by the Greeks and later by the Christian church. This system, with its tonic, dominant, and subdominant scalar degrees, was found to be remarkably complete without need of additions or adaptations. The third question concerning the age of this system of te'amimis a bit more problematical than the fact of its existence as a coherent system. Not having primary sources to work with, her belief that this music goes all the way back to Moses becomes conjecture, informed though it is. However, her careful handling of secondary sources is excellent and her argument is persuasive. This well-translated edition is stocked with written musical examples, photographs of cited manuscripts, and copious documentation. Included is a list of available articles, another book, a video-cassette, four volumes of musical scores, and several recordings as well as a glossary of musical terms. In addition, the impressive array of testimonials from experts in the field assure the uninformed reader-as well as scholars, musicians and theologians-that Haik-Vantoura's work dk&servesserious consideration. Calvin Johansson Evangel College

56:1(1993) Biblical Archaeologist

47

illustrations embody the heart and soul of the display. Anyone who spends time poring over the maps, photographs, drawings and text of Treasurescan experience some of the stimulation enjoyed by the thousands of visitors who saw this collection from May to November 1991. Treasuresopens with an affirmative foreword by Her Majesty, Queen Noor al-Hussein of Jordan, that draws attention to the historical-cultural unity of Jordan and Palestine. Sir Leslie Young (Chairman of the Trustees, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside) prefaces the major essays with a word of thanks to the Jordanian officials who assisted Bienkowski (the Curator of Egyptian and Near Eastern Antiquities at the Liverpool Museum) in the task of bringing the exhibition together. Bienkowski, whose abilities as excavator, writer, editor and administrator have made him one of the leading statesmen of British archaeology in the Near East, contributed a preface and the opening essay, "Jordan:Crossroads of the Near East." Like the rest of the book, this essay is beautifully illustrated, and its content is broad in scope (surveying the prehistoric through Ottoman periods) and up-to-date. Bienkowski refers to current and ongoing excavations and is aware of recent developments in historical-cultural reconstruction. Fawzi Zayadine's treatise on "Sculpture in Ancient Jordan" is an excellent survey of an important topic. Once again, the quality of photos in this section is remarkable. For example, the Shihan WarriorStela (photograph 34 on page 36) has never looked so good. Zayadine's overview of sculpture from the Ammonite and Nabataean realms is well-informed and will undoubtedly stimulate further discussion. Although a short bibliography is appended to each essay, the list on sculpture in ancient Jordan (pages 60-61) is the fullest and most helpful. The study on "Art and Archaeol-

48

56:1(1993) Biblical Archaeologist

ogy" by Graham Philip surveys a subject that is often overlooked: the use of stone, copper and bronze, iron, gold and silver, bone and ivory, and faience and glass as raw materials in antiquity. Needless to say, Michele Piccirillo's essay on "The Mosaics of Jordan" is one of the most important-and most lavishly illustratedcontributions. His work on Byzantine-Umayyad mosaics is well known, especially because of the recent discoveries at Umm er-Rasas, and most readers will want to examine his other works, which are cited in the suggestions for further reading on page 132. In a brief but informative treatise, Alan Millard, a leading expert on Semitic epigraphy, covers "Writing in Jordan: From Cuneiform to Arabic." In addition to seals, Millard considers such inscriptions as the Tell Deir Alla tablets and plaster inscription, the Tell Siran bottle, and the Tawilan cuneiform tablet. Students of the Moabite Stone/Mesha Inscription will be impressed by the full-color plate on page 137. The last two essays, "Traditional Costume in Jordanian Culture" and "Folk Jewellery in Jordan,"by Widad Kawar and Birgit Mershen, respectively, cover more recent but interesting artistic expressions. Both writers are well known for their knowledge of the production and distribution of these traditional arts, and these essays will be of special interest to scholars and travelers who come into contact with traditional costumes and jewellery in day-to-day use or in collections. The volume ends with a list of photographic acknowledgments and a fairly detailed index. Treasuresis a permanent record of a highly successful exhibition that will retain its value for many, many years, even though the artistic masterpieces that were gathered in Liverpool in 1991 have now returned to their permanent home. GeraldL. Mattingly Johnson Bible College

Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament xx + 235 pp. Wheaton, By PhilipW.Comfort. Inc.,1990; IL:TyndaleHousePublishers, $19.95.

M

ost serious Biblereadersare

aware that there have been some spectacular discoveries this century of early New Testament manuscripts and that these have in some way affected the English translations in use. But I suspect that few readers, including textual experts (who rightly focus on the Greek text behind the translations), fully comprehend just how extensive the impact on English translations has (or has not) been. Now, however, thanks to Comfort, it is possible to more accurately gauge the effect of some of these discoveries on the most widely used English translations. The central purpose of this interesting book is to determine where and how the early New Testament papyrus manuscripts affected English translations of the New Testament. To this end, Comfort analyzes the effects of about 64 early (fourth century C.E. or before) manuscripts, virtually all of which were discovered in the last 100 years, on major English New Testament translations since the American Standard Version (1901), including the 1990 NRSV (in part), but not the Revised English Bible (1989). Section One offers an introduction to the place and role of papyrus manuscripts in the transmission of the New Testament. The significance of the papyri is closely (but not solely) related to the fact that most of them are significantly earlier (second to fourth centuries C.E.) than the parchment manuscripts (mid-fourth century or later) upon which previous editions and translations of the New Testament were based. Section Two offers a description of selected early papyri; details covered include when a papyrus was first included in a critical edition of the Greek New

Testament (thus making its evidence available to translators) and an assessment of its significance (or lack thereof) for text and translations. Section Three examines those New Testament passages where early papyri have had a substantial effect on recent translations of the New Testament, while in Section Four Comfort offers his observations about the overall effects of the papyri. The book concludes with a bibliography, map and 14 excellent photographs of selected manuscripts. This fine work effectively accomplishes its goal and pulls together information heretofore available only in widely scattered sources. Most readers will likely be more interested in the first and last sections, which contain the heart of Comfort's contribution. Some basic knowledge of textual criticism may prove helpful, as the definition of necessary technical terminology is uneven; while some basic terms are defined, several more technical words are not. Section Three, the discussion of specific passages and textual variants, will be a useful reference to those piqued by the sometimes cryptic footnote references to "other early manuscripts." Comfort summarizes well the gist of the arguments for each variant reading. A word of caution: only those variants occurring in early papyri are discussed. Such famous variants as the end of Mark 16 are not mentioned, simply because no papyri containing this part of Mark have been discovered. Although the decision to include only those papyri as old as or older than the important parchment manuscripts is understandable, in the end it seems somewhat arbitrary.It means that some papyri that are, by Comfort's own analysis, of no significance, have been included solely on the basis of age, while a later witness, such as papyrus 74 (seventh century C.E.) is excluded, despite its importance. Age is a relative matter; some

very early papyri are so poorly copied that they are of little value in recovering the original text of the New Testament. At the same time, some "late" manuscripts are in fact direct copies of very early ones, and thus far more important than their nominal date would suggest. What is perhaps most surprising is the relatively modest number of changes these important and valuable witnesses to the New Testament produced in English translationsabout 115 in all, by Comfort's criteria. Equally important are the many places where they confirmed judgments based on later evidence. In a sense, the lack of changes is as much the story as is the alteration. That this book brings out both sides well speaks well for it. This is a helpful guide to those interested in the subject. Michael W. Holmes Bethel College

The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism ix + 257 pp. By HowardEilberg-Schwartz, IN:IndianaUniversity,1990, Bloomington, $35.00;$17.95(paperback).

n the nineteenthcentury,anthropology proved invaluable for understanding traditional cultures encountered by empire-building nations, yet for theological reasons it was seldom used to understand the equally traditional culture of Judaism (Chapters 1-3). Europeans considered Judaism a higheror revealedreligion. Anthropology could study lower religions that evolved from human experience, but there was nothing human or savage in Judaism for anthropology to study. In the twentieth century, debates between students of text and tell further delayed the development of an anthropology of Judaism (Chapter 4). Yet anthropology is no less text-based than biblical or ancient Near Eastern studies. One relies on the ethnogra-

phies composed by skilled modem observers, the other on texts from the ancient world. Neither is an objective data base; insiders are not better interpreters of culture than outsiders, nor modern ethnographies better interpretations than ancient texts (Geertz 1973). As the long overdue anthropology of Judaism begins to take shape, modern audiences discover how fascinating and truly human the previously ignored world of the Bible can be. The social world of the Book of Leviticus is a fine example. Leviticus uses herding, farming (Chapter 5) and horticulture (Chapter 6) to structure social life (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Traditional people treat land and animals in the same way they care for themselves. Daily chores like cooking, eating and sexual intercourse reflect their world view (Levi-Strauss 1966; Douglas 1973). Without knowing how biblical people worked, it is impossible to understand the behavior described in Leviticus. In Leviticus, protocol for bodily emissions consists of three criteria. Emissions that are controllable, characteristically male or creative, such as fecal matter, are harmless. Emissions that are uncontrollable, characteristically female or infertile, such as menstrual flow, place the community at risk and must be neutralized (Foucault 1977). Leviticus determines status almost exclusively by ancestry, birth defects and physical handicaps (Chapter 8). In contrast, the New Testament uses personal achievement, and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mishnah use both. Because cultural behavior regularly imitates divine behavior, monotheism severely limits examples of divine behavior (Chapter 9). Nonetheless, Leviticus models its way of life on God as Creator. God creates by naming, separating, classifying. Consequently, education or

Biblical 56:1(1993) Archaeologist

49

torah study eclipsed even procreation as the most God-like behavior and the status of the teacher in Israel surpassed the status of the parent. The Savage in Judaismis a fascinating and readable study convincingly demonstrating that anthropology is indispensable for understanding the Bible. Surprisingly, Eilberg-Schwartz shows a preference for texts over ethnographies. Fieldwork primes the inquiry, but Leviticus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and the Mishnah are the database. Part I is a solid introduction for beginners and a reliable evaluation for specialists. It offers real help in understanding the issues and avoiding misuse of literary or anthropological parallels. Part II is provocative, even though some applications that link circumcising children with pruning trees, slaughtering kids and mothers together or cooking kids in their mother's milk with incest taboos, and letting sideburns grow with leaving comers of a field unharvested are not argued convincingly. Eilberg-Schwartz observes that historical-criticism revolutionized understanding of Israel as a People of the Book;now it is the social sciences turn to help us appreciate Israel as a Peopleof the Body. His work is a fine contribution.

Bibliography Douglas,M.

NaturalSymbols;Explorationsin Cosmology.New York:Vintage Books. Foucault, M. 1977 DisciplineandPunish:TheBirthof thePrison.New York:Pantheon Books. 1973

Geertz,C. TheInterpretation of Cultures: SelectedEssays.New York:Basic Books. Lakoff,G., and Johnson, M. 1980 MetaphorsWeLiveBy. Chicago: 1973

Universityof ChicagoPress.

Levi-Strauss,C. 1966 SavageMind.Chicago:University

of Chicago. Don C. Benjamin Rice University

50

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

A Century of Biblical Archaeology

argue that this phenomenon is particularly, if not uniquely, American. By RogerMoorey.xvii + 189pp.Cambridge: This perspective leads to one of the Knox,1992;$14.99 Westminster/John major and consistent themes of his book: the religious heritage, particu(paper). small volume is designed to larly the Protestant heritage, of This a of brief the Americans, and to some extent othprovide history of "biblical archaeolers, produced a century of misuse of development In in the archaeology. To buttress his arguogy" past century. many the book its ment, Moorey "religiously" indicates accomplishes goal. ways the religious traditions out of which It gives the reader a good sense of the various excavators emerged. This of the and of the discipline progress into "biblical archaeolowhich seems, from his perspective, to pits to have fallen from time time. explain the problems of biblical gists" in other the author However, archaeology. ways, falls into the same pit he is wont to However, there are some curious with Moorey's approach. difficulties out to others-a bias that point While he constantly indicates the reliclouds one's perception. gious affiliation of American and Moorey lays out his goals in the French excavators, most of the EngIntroduction. He wants to address lish excavators are excluded from this of "students primarily theology kind of labeling. Indeed, when he rather than archaeologists," and he discusses criticisms of Kenyon and as an wants to address this audience her work in Israel, he dismisses those not as a biblical archaeologist, criticisms as "chauvinism" (page 96) that of scholar. He cautions many and does not entertain the possibility in in those involved archaeology the that her religious background may past have come to the discipline have led to some problems with her "through a deep religious involvework. ment with the Bible" (page xvi). This Also, his use of this religious in labeling as an explanation for all the approach, he argues, has resulted faults of "biblical archaeology" is "biblical archaeology" becoming "a simplistic. This simplistic reasoning byword for prejudice and unscientific is demonstrated by Moorey's suggesprocedures" (page xvi). These obsertion that de Vaux's identification of vations clearly influence Moorey's comments about past archaeologists Qumran as a monastic community was and their excavations. merely a consequence of de Vaux The next six chapters trace the being a Catholic priest (pages 90-91). Another concern about Moorey's development of biblical archaeology from 1800 to 1990. Each chapter disapproach is the manner in which he earlier scholars. He is criticizes cusses various archaeologists and that the practices and indeed correct their work in the field. Among the of standards the individuals singled out for attention prior generations do not meet the are Yohanon Aharoni, William E methodological requirements of objectivity and excellence Albright, Nelson Glueck, Kathleen that exist today. That is properly M. Kenyon, Roland de Vaux, G. E. noted by Moorey and through his Wright and Yigael Yadin. The book ends with a brief glossary, a short presentation of the arguments by William Dever for "Syro-Palestinian bibliography, and indices of personal names and places. Archaeology." However, this criticism is valid for any discipline: yesMoorey suggests that the interest in "biblical archaeology" emerged terday's frontier is today's narrowminded bias. It would have been among "American investigators more constructive to focus on the trained in biblical studies and theology" (page 3). Moorey goes on to

and religious history of the west. (page 11) The cadre of contributors includes historiographers who have concentrated on the origins of Christian asceticism, either as a pagan intrusion into what they assumed was an anti-ascetic "Biblical" tradition or as the result of heretical theologies derived from that tradition. To combat these assumptions the collection demonstrates: the pervasiveness of spiritual and philosophical exercise and training (the basic meaning of askesis,or "asceticism") in the whole Greco-Roman world (including Judaism and Christianity; the great variety within ancient traditions of ascetic beliefs and practices; and the power of these ascetic traditions, a force which saturated virtuAscetic Behavior in Grecoally all geographic and demographic Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook climes of late antiquity. xxvii + 514 Editedby VincentL. Wimbush, The translations are very readpp.Series:Studiesin Antiquity& Christian- able, and each has an introduction MN:AugsburgFortress, ity.Minneapolis, which carefully and clearly sets the 1990,$41.95. document into its social and chronosourcebookis comprisedof logical place. At the same time, the This 28 texts by over two dozen memintroductions avoid pressing the bers of The Project on Ascetic Behavtranslator's point-of-view on the ior in Greco-Roman Antiquity (of the reader. The authors also attempt to Institute for Studies in Antiquity and avoid bias by placing the texts under Christianity). The numbers make five, loosely-defined genres: Homily; long odds for an integrated and Philosophical and Theological Exhorfocused presentation, but Wimbush tation; Ritual and Revelation; Life and his colleagues have put together and teachings; and Documentary an anthology of pagan, Christian Evidence. The last heading includes and Jewish texts from late antiquity various documents that evidently that effectively undergirds their were difficult to put anywhere else challenge: and an informative, illustrated of those the to archaeological presentation about the ... change thinking who were convinced that ascetiprimary text (TheLifeof Chariton)that cism can or must mean one thing. precedes it. There is an excellent bibIt should further be a valuable liography on asceticism in the ancient resource for students and scholworld, several indices and a judicious number of footnotes that are to the ars of Greco-Roman antiquity who are not yet convinced that point and informative. A section of the complex religious self-under"Chronological Tables" (arranged of the and orientations geographically) is a very helpful standings tutor. been have adequately period The documents themselves are accounted for, much less critheir decisive in of terms mainly from the Constantinian or tiqued, influence in the social, political, post-Constantinian eras, although

advances and developments of these earlier scholars and how we need to move beyond them, as Dever asserts, rather than condemning them for falling short of standards that did not yet exist. In many ways the book provides a good overview of the development of the archaeology in the Syro-Palestinian area, and, in this regard, it is a positive contribution to scholarship. However, a caution must be noted in regard to Moorey's implication that no one who has any religious affiliation can present archaeological results that are unbiased and "scientific." JohnR. Spencer Carroll John University

;OWN, .............

lZ

llga-

fiala

BI

6

A 6hghi

rplet

lil

-:'i~iii: belmutt_-

o

che bysBapsas~~

prepaid~s

dMdraI'MoVAUie

money ::.",ER

:::,xs

uname :i~i :

.aC

IN.,e

1 li

op

IAW!

s~a~~k~f~ssMldl:Ww? Ow:

2 oiiibiii C'gi

'a

e M

Als

NOV

::di .

.

snxi

.

34B

s

7

ii::•::?:,:

O a

i.......

56:1(1993) Biblical Archaeologist

...

i

51

earlier materials are well represented. The geographical spread of the collection is broad and inclusive. The volume contains representations from those who embraced an extreme asceticism as well as those who had reservations. As is the case with every anthology, every relevant document cannot be included. Most of the absentee materials are readily available elsewhere, and the notes and bibliography will lead the reader to them. The group's decision to include less easily attainable texts (several not previously available in English) is commendable. I know of no comparable work in English. The title of the book is therefore less inclusive than the wealth of the book's contents, which actually open up for the reader the spiritual thrust of late antiquity. The anthology is not for neophytes in religious studies. Readers who are seriously interested in the development of the Western world's spirituality, who wish to fill out an important aspect of the history of Christianity and the Western world and who are interested in the broad ranges of human spiritual behavior will profit from Ascetic Behaviorin Greco-RomanAntiquity. David R. Cartlidge Maryville College

At That Time the Canaanites Were in the Land: Daily Life in Canaan in the Middle Bronze Age 2, 2000-1550 B.C.E. ByIritZiffer,88pp.in English,132pp.in Hebrew,TelAviv:EretzIsraelMuseum (Exhibition 1990;$30. Catalogue),

L

illustratedwith 74 color

52

Biblical 56:1(1993) Archaeologist

avishly and 113 black-and-white figures, Irit Ziffer's At That Timethe Canaanites Werein the Landpresents the realia of life and death in Middle Bronze Age Canaan. Produced as a catalogue to accompany the Eretz Israel Museum's 1988 exhibit of the same name, this volume admirably meets its goal of providing a wealth

of easily accessible information, broadly illustrative of Canaanite daily life. Following an initial chapter introducing the Canaanite Middle Bronze Age, succeeding chapters survey Canaanite housing, wooden furniture and vessels, ceramics, woven matting and basketry, cosmetic containers, clothing, jewelry and seals, the warrior's equipment, and ritual activity and its artifacts. Each of these wellfocused chapters provides a thorough introduction to its topic while setting Canaanite material culture in the greater ancient Near Eastern context. Utilizing the material remains excavated at Jericho as the basis of the presentation, Ziffer also draws heavily on the objects from Tell elAjjul and Megiddo as well as more recently excavated Canaanite sites. Relevant material from Egypt and Mesopotamia, from such sites Tell elDab's and Mari, provide the broader comparative framework for understanding the nature and importance of the Canaanite material. Nevertheless, while Ziffer's reconstruction of Canaanite life is based on the dwelling remains from Jericho, the evidence from homes had to be supplemented by that from tombs to flesh out the picture of daily life. Unfortunately, Ziffer nowhere addresses the issue of whether goods buried in tombs had any (let alone the same) household function. One of the outstanding features of this book is Ziffer's succinct explanations of such things as the meaning of the terms Canaan and Hyksos, the form and functioning of the typical Canaanite house, and the nature of faience, alabaster, scarabs, chariots and bronze weaponry, and Canaanite funerary practices. In addition, she provides similarly useful explanations of the processing and manufacturing techniques of the goldsmith and the metalsmith, the producer of alabaster and faience artifacts, the Tell el-Yehudiyeh potters (and why store-jars have tapered bodies and

what happens to ceramic "seconds"), the weaver and the woodworker, and the seal cutter. Such interesting and useful information, presented so adroitly, enables the reader to comprehend the high level of skill attained by the Canaanite craftsmen and the utility and beauty of the possessions of the wealthier Canaanites. Students of the Canaanite Middle Bronze Age will find Ziffer's work a useful, readable introduction to the material culture of the era. Indeed, the book's accessibility, avoidance of jargon, and emphasis on explanation should also make it appealing to the general reader. Ziffer leads the reader into the lives of the rich and famous (or nearly so)-the wealthy are portrayed here, not the common Canaanite. Surely not all Canaanites lived and were buried as well as those depicted. Moreover, how did Mr. or Ms. Canaanite really live; what did they do day-in and day-out, whether in village or urban setting? The English text itself employs a crisp, concise style which rarely slips into slavish translation of the accompanying Hebrew text. It is basically well edited, and there are but a few typographical errors. Another error crept into page nineteen of the English text (the Hebrew text is correct) where Elijah is mistakenly substituted twice for Elisha. Finally, this reviewer found the basic underlying assumption of Ziffer's book (exhibition catalogue) troublesome: the unsupported and undocumented assumption that the Middle Bronze Age II was the era of the Israelite Patriarchs. Ziffer assumes the Patriarchs to be actual historic individuals, assumes that they existed in the Middle Bronze Age II, and then uses the MBII artifacts of Canaan to illuminate the lives of those hypothetical patriarchs. Archaeologists and Biblical scholars long ago abandoned this approach. BarryM. Gittlen Baltimore Hebrew University

THINWENYLO O III

Editor: Ephraim

Stern,

Hebrew University of[Jerusalenl

Assistant

Editor: Ayelet Gilboa,

Hebrew University of Jerusalent Editorial Director: Joseph Aviram, Israel Exploration Society EditorialBoard: Ofer Bar-Yosef, Harvnard Uiiversit V

4

Avraham Negev, Hebreii' Uniiversilt of JenrLsaleui David Ussishkin, Tel Aviv Uliversiiv

EditorialAdvisors:

Nahman Avigad, Hebreii' Uiliver-silt ol'Jenrsaleili Abraham Biran, Hebreat' Ui1ioi College

PhilipKing,BositoiCollege

Lawrence E. Stager, Harvard University Amnon Ben-Tor, Hebre~i' Uiniversilt olJenrisalelm

F

irst published more than twenty years ago, this is the

revised and updated edition of a classic in this vital field...

From reviews of the first edition: "The definitive work in this vital field..." -CHOICE (7/76) "The encyclopedia makes a clear contribution to scholarly literature on Biblical archaeology, and it is recommended for libraries serving advanced students." -RBB/Booklist (10/15/80) Organized alphabetically and in four volumes, this comprehensive work describes and analyzes archaeological excavations in the Holy Land, the area that includes Israel, ancient Palestine, and parts of Syria, Jordan, and the Sinai Peninsula. Revised and updated to reflect the most recent archaeological findings, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land is a new edition of the classic in this field. With more than 400 articles prepared by more than 150 scholars from around the world, the Encyclopedia presents a rich and extensive body of archaeological material. The Encyclopedia encompasses the latest archaeological findings, and presents new evidence about the cultural history of the region. Lavishly illustrated with more than 2000 maps, plans, charts and drawings - in two-and fourcolors - the Encyclopedia is easily accessible both to scholars and general readers. It is fully cross-referenced, and includes bibliographies for each article, as well as a thorough index. For anyone interested in the Middle East, in biblical studies, and in the history of civilization, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land is a real find. * 4 volumes * c. 1600 pages * two-color throughout * 64 pages full-color

c. 2000 illustrations * 9 x 12 * ISBN: 0-13-276288-9

SIMON

Academic Reference Division

&

SCHUSTER

15 Columbus Circle, 26th floor, New York, New York 10023 A Paramount

Communications

Company'

Questions?

Call us at (212) 373-7353