I have been meaning to write an article on a few of the entries in the most recent BAR. No, not the Browning Automatic Rifle, I’m talking about the Biblical Archaeology Review. Although some of you would probably find the first more entertaining, the latter is really the more important and relevant thing to discuss, as far as I’m concerned. Especially in light of the guest appearance this Wednesday night on our show, Dr. Hector Avalos, and his fascinating book, The End of Biblical Studies.

I generally read through this periodical, not only because I find the articles compelling, but the Magazine as a whole attempts to break the chain of evangelism by presenting—and I mean it really tries hard—the most scientific articles it can find, or that have been submitted. Some are unbelievably inaccurate, and at times the Magazine editor, Hershel Shanks, will allow his Jewish-religious viewpoints to interfere with his choice of articles, and often his choice of words.

I make it a point to highlight his Jewishness, because unlike many Biblical periodicals that exist, Shanks is not a fan of evangelism. This is a point that has been consistently made throughout his career. In fact, one has to wonder if perhaps it was the combination of these two factors, his Jewish heritage and his problems with evangelism, that led Shanks to once have openly endorse and back the now-sensationalized James ossuary, which is now considered by many scholars to be a forgery. It was a mistake that has stayed with him for some time, and because of it he has received a lot of grief over it; and rightly he should receive it.

However, I am no fan of evangelism either. I have to support many of the positions Shanks does hold. Here is a recent letter he received, and published in his Queries and Comments section of the BAR:

I received my first copy of BAR, and I would like a question answered before I jump to conclusions and cancel my subscription. Upon reading through the magazine, I came across an article titled “The Life of the Dead Sea” (January/February 2008 ). The article begins with “Millions of years ago.”

Does your magazine hold to a creation view or an evolutionary view? Evolution goes against the Bible. God created everything in six days.

Shanks response was admirable:

You will probably be more comfortable canceling your subscription.

Hilarious to say the least, and I whole-heartedly agree. However, I have to take issue with some of his positions. If I didn’t, what sort of discussion would happen?

My first contention with Shanks is his horrendously obvious slant towards neoAlbrighteans. I would hesitate to call them maximalists, as I feel the only maximalists left are evangelicals. However, there are many scholars who still, whether by some level or another, hold onto the concepts of Bill Albright, which are severely outdated and hinder on implausibility—at least, as the evidence stands now. There is certainly no way to know whether future sites will yield his accuracy, but based on so many more recent studies, it is unlikely and practically improbable that such evidence will surface. William Dever, a well known neoAlbrightean for example, holds a special place in BAR, and is allotted this space to discuss, with Shank’s approval (whether he wants to openly admit it or not), those artifacts found by antiques dealers and sold illegally on the antiquities market. And why shouldn’t Dever be allowed to publish these articles using these finds? After all, Shanks was more than willing to jump on that wagon when the ossuary was found. And we all know where that wagon was headed.

My second contention with Shanks is his labeling of “Zionist” and “antiZionist” to scholars whose only crimes resemble the same ones applied to Eilat Mazar by Shanks, who would undoubtedly call Mazar a Zionist, but who so offensively labeled Kathleen Kenyon a “well-known anti-Zionist” which he then links to his article entitled, “Kathleen Kenyon’s Anti-Zionist politics—Does It Affect Her Work?” (BAR, September 1975) This sort of self-gratifying suggestion does not in any way diminish the quality of anyone’s works. Who is taking the reign from who, here? William Dever has neglected his duties as a professional in this regard as well, labeling Thomas L. Thompson of being an anti-Zionist as well, or rather being “anti-Israel” and “anti-Bible”. (“A View from Copenhagen” ) As if one can just ignore sound arguments based on their opinions of a person’s politics; are scholars to hurl epithets at one another instead of reading the material appropriately? Thomas L. Thompson has flat out called the labeling “hysteria”, and rightly it is. Shanks needs to apologize for these horrendous labelings, especially since many are inaccurate. When scholarship allows libeling to become a part of debate is when Hector Avalos’ book becomes a reality. It certainly will be the end of Biblical Studies, and Shanks will find himself the editor of a teen gossip magazine rather than a serious publication.

Third, I cannot help but find it obnoxious that Shanks is unwilling, and downright indignant, to give way. In his article in the previous BAR issue, “In Defense of Eilat Mazar”, Shanks was wrong about the whole intent behind the original post he writes about, bringing in Eilat Mazar when such discussions were nonextant. He was called out on this by Eric Cline, who writes, “It’s a shame that Hershel Shanks didn’t do his research and fact-checking properly before he wrote his First Person editorial (‘In Defense of Eilat Mazar,’ March/April 2008 ) dragging people’s names through the mud.” Shanks was rightly cited as being one who creates “dissension between professional colleagues” by “sowing discord”. This judgment could not be more accurate, and often times Shanks does this just by labeling somebody inappropriately or inaccurately such as mentioned in the previous paragraph. An apology was owed to Cline, and a retraction was necessary, not only because it makes Shanks look bad to keep the article without a retraction, but also because he did suggest that Cline was responsible for bringing in Eilat Mazar. “First, it quoted Professor Eric Cline…(quote from Cline here-Ed.) No consideration of the evidence. No consideration for Mazar’s qualifications.” (ibid.) But Cline’s comment had absolutely nothing to do with Eilat, so why would Cline or National Geographic discuss the evidence? Once more we see Shanks dark side, where the whole point was to promote “Zionist” scholars over those who he deems differently. What is worse is that Shanks finds the reality of the situation “repulsive.” I’m sorry Hershel, but you do sow discontent. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

To quote Avalos, “The religionism and ideology of Shanks is also evident in how the magazine judges scholars by the degree to which they support Judaism, Israel, or Zionism… such characterizations also display the degree to which being for or against Israel (not just against Judaism) is important for Shanks.” (“BAR – Most Loved and Most Reviled,” May/June 2008 ) Sometimes it is so important that he ignores everything else.

In fact, if those reading this article feel that I have spent the past few pages discussing petty issues instead of looking at the facts, you’re damn straight I have.  That is my whole point.  I have not had time to deal with any of the important issues, like whether or not National Geographic sensationalized material and the Gospel of Judas, or whether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls can be read a specific way.  There is no time, because I, like Shanks in many instances, have wasted all this room on bickering.

More articles forthcoming. Hector Avalos appears on the Rational Response Squad Wednesday, May 7^th at 8pm EST.