THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS -- Friday, May 22, 1959-40
Scholars Review Historical Bible Knowledge —1
Discuss Role of Dead Sea Scrolls,
Archaeology, Varied Translations
Nationwide attention has been berg of Jewish Theological Sem-
shown the Wayne State Univer- inary; George E. Mendenhall of
sity Conference on Old Testa- University of Michigan; Marvin
ment Studies which brought to- H. Pope of Yale; the Rev. John
gether, for the first time, nine L. McKenzie of West Baden
of the world's great authorities College; and Dr. Spiro of WSU.
Dr. Albright opened the
on Biblical research in a panel
discussion on various aspects of conference with the observa-
the Biblical era in the light of tion that the present panel
modern historical and archeo- was the first time that a
Bible conference has been
logical knowledge.
The conference was so suc- held in a secular university.
cessful—each session drawing • He credited the discoveries
overflow audiences—that it is of archeology for this depart-
ure, saying that with the
now assumed that Wayne
physical evidence uncovered,
State University will make it
the Bible can now be viewed
an annual event, each May.
The conference was under the as would any other historic-
auspices of the WSU Depart- ally-accurate book.
Prof. Albright was introduced
ment of Semitic Languages and
Literature. Dr. Abram Spiro, by Rabbi Morris Adler.
The keynote address on "The
chairman of the department, or-
ganized and supervised the con- Age of the Patriarchs and the
Ancient Near East," was de-
ference.
Renowned participants were livered by Prof. Speiser, who
Professors William F. Albright, said that within his lifetime
of Johns Hopkins University, the scholar's attitude towards
chairman of the Conference; Abraham and the other patri-
Ephraim A. Speiser of Univer- archs has changed from regard-
sity of Pennsylvania; Frank M. ing them as fanciful figments of
Cross Jr. of Harvard; David N. imagination to viewing them as
Freedman of Western Theologi- an idealized representation of
cal Seminary; Harold L. Gins- historically real persons.
He cited the accuracy of
the Bible's account of the
Hebrew Corner
customs, language and names
of persons living in the pa-
Youth Aliyah
triarchal era and gave Gen-
esis 12 as "the commence-
(Translation of Hebrew column.
Published by Brit Ivrit Olamit.)
ment
address of Biblical his-
,
It was several months ago, i• -
tory,
the commencement of a
the middle of our winter. I travelled
to Kibbutz Ein Harod in the Jezreel
process that never stopped—
Valley, to spend the Sabbath with
and which became an expe-
friends, members of the kibbutz.
rience of mankind forever."
A cold wind welcomed me as I
When the matter was thrown
came to Ein Harod on Friday before
evening. But my friends assured me
the panel for discussion,
that the celebration to be held on tO
the following day would warm me. there was general agreement in
That Saturday a celebration was principle as to the significance
held in Ein Harod to mark the of the patriarchs and in the ap
twenty-fifth anniversary of Youth
Aliyah. For this celebration a num- proximate dating of their time
ber of men and women who had (middle bronze age, 2100 to
come twenty-five years ago from
Germany gathered from various 1500 B.C.E.) but some areas of
parts of the country. They were in conflict developed in the influ-
the first group of Youth Aliyah, and
ence which certain of the sur-
they came then to Ein Harod.
In the course of the twenty-five rounding peoples of the period
years since then, Youth Aliyah has
brought ninety thousand boys and had on the patriarchs.
Prof. Freedman pointed out
girls to Eretz Israel. At first they
came only from Germany. After- that archeological evidence in
wards from other countries in Eur-
ope and from the Middle East and recent times has been able to
now—even from South America. place Abraham-type characters
Forty percent of all these young
people were refugees from the holo- in their proper geographical
caust in Europe.
and temporal context and these
Youth Aliyah brought the young
people to the kibbutzim and the fit in with the Biblical version.
moshavim. Here they studied and He noted that without these
worked and became good citizens. recent uncoverings, most schol-
Today you will find many of them
in important positions in the Army ars had tended to go along with
and the Government, in new settle-
50 years
ments near the frontiers, in science Wellhausen theory of
ago which tried to place the nor monotheism can be under- nent Orientalist discuss the sub-
patriarchial epoc in the time of stood without the figure of ject "3,000 Years of Bible
its supposed writing, 800 to 600 Moses. Once again, he said, the Study."
Dr. Speiser declared that "the
BCE. He ridiculed the Biblical historical existence of Moses and
"authorities" who place Abra- the account of an exodus fit in actual writing of the Bible re-
ham in the late bronze age. Ac- well with substantiating arch- quired many centuries and
cording to them, said Prof. eological evidence. He claimed many authors." He explained
Freedman, "Abraham on his way that the evidence for Moses that "the Bible shows remark-
to Egypt would meet Moses is better than was previously able unity that stems from the
leading the Children of Israel supposed and that many of the central historical theme."
In the compilation of the
out." discrepancies cited by research-
There followed a discussion ers exist only in their own Bible, he stated there was
of the nature of "The God of minds. Dr. Ginsberg agreed and "more sustained study than
the Fathers" and the various said that unless we follow the on any other written book,"
"El" designations. The God of story of Moses as given in the and he added that "study to-
Abraham was in many respects Biblical account, many things day is on an even broader
like the tribal "Els" of the that we do know for certain scale than ever before."
Material from Dead Sea
Canaanites of the time, but had fall into absurdity and become
Caves, he said, prove how apt
taken on a more cosmic and impossible.
Dr. Speiser acknowledged the Apocrypha is. He said that
universal aspect.
In answer to a question from that there is no direct archeo- "the first stage in Bible study
the audience challenging the logical evidence of the existence consisted of distinguishing
veracity of the Biblical account of a particular person called Torah from secular writings;
of creation in view of modern Moses, but "we have enough then came translations; and re-.
geologic knowledge, the panel circumstantial evidence of his search swelled enormously."
was in agreement that the ques- existence to hang a man."
While he outlined the im-
tion of creation was not part of
As for Moses' role in the de- portance played by translators
the historical part of the Bible velopment of monotheism, the and those who gathered the
but was a poetic introduction to consensus was that Moses' con- available Scriptural material,.
the story of its people. Dr. Spei- tribution to monotheism would_ Dr. Speiser said that "the inter-
ser said that the truth or false- have been impossible without pretation of sacred Scriptures
hood of the account was incon- the groundwork laid by his had to stay within the groove
sequental, only its meaning, of predecessors. Dr. Speiser said carved out by tradition."
there being a single creator, that Moses' main function was
"Higher criticism over-
was important. The Rev. Mc- that of liberator and in making reached itself," he declared.
Kenzie repeated that the ac- monotheism and Yahweh wor- He stated that "the object of
count of Genesis is a "poetic ship the official religion of Is- archaeology is not to deter-
conception, not a scientific one." rael.
mine whether any statement
Dr. Ginsberg agreed and said
in the Bible is true, but to
Dr. Cross, on the other
that belief in creation was a hand, said that monotheism
interpret what it means."
"matter of faith."
might very well have been a
Dr. Speiser said that Dr.
Though the patriarchal be-
post - Mosaic. theology , but Arnold Toynbee's view of the
lief marked the change from
Moses made the relationship pre-classical world was seri-
an emotional to a rational re-
between God and Israel a ously distorted."
ligion, Abraham could have
covenantal one — for the
"The Scriptures," Prof. Spei-
had no formal creed or set of
first time this relationship ser emphasized, "were already
beliefs, since the formal rea-
was deliberate and not just holy before they were Scrip-
soning process was not yet
natural.
tures. A lot of faking was done
discovered and would have to
As proof of the possibility in writing them down. But au-
wait for the Greeks. Abra- that monotheism was not yet thors and translators put down
ham's religion was a prag- fully developed he cited the the material very faithfully and
matic one with monotheism Decalogueic admonition "Thou the material was regarded as
implied, rather than spelled Shalt HAVE No Other Gods," sacred."
out.
postponing the decision on
Dr. Speiser was introduced by
"The Role of Moses in the whether such other Gods ex- Dr.
Winifred A. Harbison, vice-
History of Israel" was the topic
president of WSU.
for consideration at the second isted.
"The Nature and Rise of
A major attraction of the coh-
session. Dr. Albright started
ference
was
the
lecture
by
Prof.
Prophecy"
and "The Old Testa-
the discussion with the thesis
Scrolls"
that Moses was a very impor- E. A. Speiser, on Monday eve- ment and the Dead in Sea Tuesday's
audience of were discussed
tant figure in the history of ning. An overflow
Israel and that neither Israel more than 600 heard the emi- morning and afternoon sessions,
* * *
*
Prof. Albright Highlights Field Series
the Mishnah. Though assign-
Mg extreme importance to
Series was the address by Prof. the scrolls he said that they
William Foxwell Albright, for- definitely do not replace the
mer head of the Semitics De- Mishnah and other rabbinic
partment at Johns Hopkins sources as prime research
0
and in all other fields of life.
University_ a n d now visiting material for the age of
lecturer at the Jewish Theolog- Christianity's birth.
nlmi=rri
It is now possible to trace
ical Seminary. Dr. Albright,
T
• : • T
-11/Li - r1:1'?17.
who spoke Tuesday evening at the cult u r e of the era in a
the Art Institute, on the sub- straight line through the Old
,bu r . n V??",11 tr`lt?.?
'40 M rr77 ject "The Dead Sea Scrolls and Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls,
ironr,M
the New T e s t amen t," was the New Testament, Psuedopi-
rtpp ,17.11.7o4 .11L7t# r1nh7 vv t34 greeted enthusiastically by a grapha and doWn t h r o u g h
lr77 -.11,7717
record a u d i e n c e. The walls later Christian literature, he
rn7tP)
of the 1,200 seat auditorium added.
11114141 ron. 114
The Dead Sea Scrolls have
were lined with men and wo-
L
?
P4 7, PiLPn
•iMI t tl. - nt??
lt,t4
men who stood for lack of proved almost conclusively that
seats. All balcony steps were John, once thought to be the
.71:4n1).P 71
occupied and some of the audi- least Jewish of. the Apostles,
ence even spilled over onto the was "in some ways" the most
niritirp pan r1M 77?I7 riTp,
stage itself. Jewish, he said. The syntax of
vt,0 n'rz
itrip171
Dr. Albright's lecture was a John's writings are almost en-
fitting climax to the two-day tirely Semitic, though written
"TT rz L?IN •=7 1 • ni4P L7 conference on Old Testament in Greek. As for John's anti-
1 ";1z. 1R."1 7Pki - nillP 1iPP
studies. It concluded a success- Jewish sentiments, Dr. Al-
Tinsrn? mrariri
1'7. 31 -1D -1
ful year's Semitics lectures de- bright said that even today, as
by a group of the then, the most bitter animus
7`r,P 1,2 1 livered
.nYin34 m$ittni 'P'L?P
country's leading scholars in against Jews often. comes from
wpm) S emit ic s and Middle East former Jews, and Christians
nt.r;r1
studies. often experience the same phe-
7rrix.4
wil?4r;
L2t3
r3, tinpn
Introduced by Rabbi Morris nomenom.
Though they shed much
Adler, Dr. Albright was wel-
.rr;ttpro rritz?s7 nre77'?
rrp'.?
comed as a writer, lecturer, in- light on. the pre-Christian and
structor. "This is a fitting cli- Christian thinking, the eDad
n ,rnrqt 1? rr i n
max to a unique conference," Sea Scrolls are "entirely Jew-
iDpRr.);- .1 i1 N71. L7 Rabbi Adler said. "There is ish," Dr. Albright said. "There
-pr) vi:vp n' `l x4pn
alive in Detroit a great respon- is no trace of the doctrine of
nn,r2. r441i *Int??? rits. . tr,417, s i v e n e s s to this field of salvation in the Scrolls."
n ,4itz,n
The Essenes, to whom the
thought."
Dr. Albright said that the Scrolls are attributed, were the
r3`21tti".4, ,;1W7 ??Pni nnttM7 "4.0 t iN.'tg itrtV4I
Sea S crolls filled a "third most important Jewish
irrTynp? ;-Tw: trjrril Dead
,L71:14ri To? rr,7
gulf that had existed through sect" after the Pharisees and
the centuries — there was a the Sadducees. They stemmed,
- 11t17. l 7tg 74itrix7 7141nrp:n,
.t:37riM
gap in original language as did the Pharisees, from a
texts from the second cen• type of Hassidism of the
..-ri-vi-nr?71;t1tg
(rozi). 13/ rol4V n'1? ritSPrq)
tury B.O.E. until the time of period, who were the backbone
r11.)
The highlight of the Lea and
Walter Field Semitic Lecture
of the Maccabean revolt. While
the Essenes were ascetic, the
Pharisees were more worldly,
and in this respect, Christian-
ity may well turn out to owe
more to the Pharisees than to
the Essenes.
Prof. Albright defended the
authenticity of the Dead Sea
Scrolls, claiming that the calli-
graphy was p e r f e c t for the
period from which the Scrolls
are supposed to come. In addi-
tion he cited supporting evi-
dence from the pottery and
by the Carbon 14 method of
dating.
Dr. Albright commended
Prof. Frank Cross, who was in
the audience, as "one of the
most serious students of the
Dead Sea Scrolls."
While, in the course of his
lecture, Dr. Albright spoke
of unanimity among scholars
in support of the authenticity
of the scrolls, "except for a
certain gentleman in Phila-
delphia who must remain
nameless," he did, in re-
sponse to a question, discuss
the attitude of Prof. Zeitlin.
He differed with him, said
"he never made a good arch-
aeologist" and ridiculed his
opposing views.
Dr. Abram Spiro, who opened
the evening's session and intro-
duced Rabbi Adler, expressed
satisfaction over the good re--
sults of the conference and the
Lea and Walter Field Lecture
Series.
Rabbi Adler expressed grati-
tude to Mr. and Mrs. Field for
having made the lectures
possible.
1