TESIS_Ferdinand Oberio Regalado

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies

Theological Seminary Title: THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF WILLIAM H. SHEA'S WORKS ON BIBLICAL STUDIES Name of researcher: Ferdinand Oberio Regalado Name and degree of faculty adviser: Aecio E. Cairus, Ph.D. Date completed: March 2004 William

Henry

Shea,

former

associate

director

of

Biblical Research Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, and former

professor

in

Old

Testament

at

Andrews

University

Theological Seminary, has gained prominence within Seventh-day Adventist and non-Adventist circles because of his numerous works in different areas of biblical studies. In spite of his prominence

and

significant

influence,

there

has

been

no

extensive investigation of his works. This paper seeks to answer the following questions: What is the precise nature of William H. Shea's works in the area of biblical studies? To what extent and in what way, if any, have his works influenced the discipline of biblical studies?

To

determine

the

nature

available

unpublished

according

to

the

of

works

following

Shea's have

works,

been

his

analyzed

categories:

published and

and

classified

contextual-historical,

literary, archaeological, and exegetical. This research examines the extent to which they have been cited, used, and responded to by both non-SDA and SDA scholars of reputable standing, either to lend support

to

their

study

or

to

critique

Shea's.

The

method

of

research used in this paper is both descriptive and analytical.

It is found that the nature of Shea's works in biblical

studies

is

primarily

contextual-historical

but

also

multiplex. It includes archaeological, literary, and exegetical work in which he combines all of the approaches.

This study reveals that the impact of Shea's works in the area of biblical studies is felt in both Adventist and non-Adventist circles. The impact of his works is felt largely among

conservative

biblical

scholars

who

share

similar

conservative views with him. Based on the data quantitatively analyzed, it is found that Shea had an impact in historicalcontextual and literary areas as seen by the number of those who agreed with his positions and conclusions. In the study of the nature

and

impact

of

William

H.

Shea's

works

in

biblical

studies, it has been shown that he is both a renowned scholar and a dedicated believer.

copyright Š 2004 by Ferdinand Oberio Regalado All rights reserved

5.

215 21 5 219

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF TABLES Summary . . . . . LIST .

Conclusions . . .

Table

APPENDIX 1 .

Surnmary of the Impact of Shea's Works among SDAs. .. .

1. HISTORICAL-CONTEXTUAL ARTICLES OF SHEA

222

2. LITERARY Surnmary ARTICLES of the OF SHEA Impact of Shea's 2 .

Works among non-SDAs . .. ..

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTICLES OF SHEA.

22 8

. .. . . . . . . .

.

..

.

. . . . . .23

3. Combined Surnmary of the Impact of Shea's EXEGETICAL ARTICLES OF SHEA. .

Works among SDAs and non-SDAs . . .

4 . ............

4. Historical-Contextual Articles of Shea .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . .

5 .

6 .

Literary Articles of Shea.

7.

Exegetical Articles of Shea. . .

Archaeological Articles of Shea.

4. THE IMPACT OF SHEA'S WORKS ON BIBLICAL STUDIES. Shea's Place in Biblical Studies The Impact of Shea's Works on their Readers . . . . . . Within the SDA Church Among His Students Among His SDA Colleagues Among non-SDA . . . . . . . . .

Articles in Standard Reference Works . . . . . . . . . .

Articles in non-SDA Publications . .

Areas of Shea's Influence ....

Archaeology . . .

Biblical Studies . . . . . . . . .

Method of Biblical Interpretation . . . .

Surnmary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

v

vi

2

23 7 241

49 5 1 5 6 6 2 210 63 65 6 9211 77 72 7 7 8 5 8212 0 85 223 82 229 90 9 1233 9 9238 3

6 10 2 10 2 11 125 2 11 12 8 6 12 2 12 7 12 8 12 9 157 13 7 16 15 3 7 18 9 18 9 19 3 20 4 20 8

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I

want

to

thank

the

following

institutions

and

individuals that have made it possible for me to complete my studies and dissertation for my doctoral degree: First

and

foremost,

I

thank

God

for

the

wisdom,

health, and sanity given to me during the course of writing this dissertation. Soli Deo Gloria!

I also thank the Southern Asia-Pacific Division for the financial

support,

and

the

administrators

of

Adventist

University of the Philippines (2001) for believing in me and granting me a bursary.

To the esteemed members of my cornmittee: Dr. Aecio Calrus, Dr. Yoshitaka Kobayashi, and Dr. Ronald Bissell, thank you for the counsel and guidance.

To Dr. Gideon A. Durante and Dr. Clinton Wahlen, thank

you

for

your

contributions

as

the

external

and

internal examiners, respectively.

To Mrs. Anne Bissell, who went the extra mile to edit my work, although she is technically retired as editor

viii

of the Seminary, and to Mrs. Elsie de la Cruz for the final editing, I am most grateful.

To

Dr.

William am

H.

dissertation,

I

bibliographical

assistance,

Shea,

grateful and

for

the for time

subject

of

this

his

friendship,

given

by

him

in

answering all my questions. My admiration and respect for him as a person and as a scholar has increased even more.

To my wife Che (Charito), I am grateful for her moral support, prayers, and love.

To our daughter Lyndsay, I am thankful for her love, prayers, and understanding. For her, the finishing of my doctoral study means the end of postponing having a sibling.

To the members of my family, thank you for your moral support and prayers.

To all my friends, colleagues, and anyone, who in one way or another contributed to this dissertation, I am very grateful.

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AUSS

Andrews University Seminary Studies

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

BASaR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

JATS

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature Palestine Exploration Quarterly

VT

Vetus Testamentum

CHAPTER

1

INTRODUCTION Wi1liam

Henry

Shea,

former

associate

director

of

Biblical Research Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland, and former professor in the Old Testament at Andrews University, Theological

Seminary,

has

gained

prominence

within

the

Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church because of his numerous works

and

insightful

contributions

toward

enlightening

biblical texts through the use of ancient Near Eastern data.

David Merling remarks that Shea published more works “in the last twenty years than many great scholars do in a lifetime." l In 1982, Lloyd A. Willis noted that Shea ~has published more archaeological articles in non-SDA journals than any other SDA writer"2 during the period from 1974 to 1980. Shea's prominence is recognized not only within the _________________________ lDavid Merling, ~Introduction," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Sigfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), xiv.

2Lloyd A. Willis,. Archaeology in Adventist Literature 1937-1980, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 7 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1982), 453.

1

2 Adventist Church but also within other circles. Examples are his co-editing of a book with Tamara C. Eskenazi and Daniel

J.

Harrington,'

and

his

encyclopedia

article,'

reviewed approvingly, in the main, by John J. Bimson and David Livingston.3

Shea's "widespread influence can be easily noted by the large number of home countries and universities of the ________________________ 'See Tamara C, Eskenazi, Daniel J. Harrington, and William H. shea, eds., The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions lNeW York: crossroad, 1991). Another example is a number of his articles in different Festschriften for nonSDA scho1ar. See, William H. shea, "Two Palestinian Segments from the Eblaite Geographical Atlas," in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His sixtieth Birthday, ed. carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 589612; idem, "Commemorating the Final Breakthroug h of the Siloam Tunne1, " in FilcuS: A semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, ed. Yo~l L. Arbeitman, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 58 (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988), 431-42; idem, "The Date of the Exodus," in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard, Jr., and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids: Krege1, 2003), forthcoming.

2William H. shea, ~Exodus, Date of the," International standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), complete1Y

The

rev. and reset ed. (1979-88), 2:230-38.

'John J. Bimson and David Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) 13 (september/October 1987): 45. See a1so, John J. Bimson's "A

Reply to Baruch Halpern's 'Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,' in BAR, November/December 1987," BAR 14

(July/August 1988): 52-5. This is an affirmative use of shea's works elsewhere. William H. Shea, "The Conques ts of Sharuhen and Megiddo Reconsidered," Israel Exploration Journal 29 (1979): 1-5.

3

contributors

(Australia,

Canada,

England,

Korea,

Peru,

the

Philippines, and five universities in the United States)"1 to a Festschrift in his honor published in 1997. In spite of his prominence

and

significant

influence,

there

has

been

no

extensive investigation of his works.

Statement of the Problem

The

problem

addressed

in

this

dissertation

is

clarifying the nature and impact2 of William H. Shea's works on Biblical Studies. More specifically, What is the precise nature of William H. Shea's works in the area of Biblical Studies? To what extent and in what ways, if any, have his works influenced the discipline of Biblical Studies?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the nature and impact of William H. Shea's works on Biblical _________________________ l

Merling, xiv.

2

Commenting on the Festschrift to William H. Shea, Keith N. Schoville, Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, states: "This collection of essays by former students, colleagues, and friends of Dr. William H. Shea reflects both the breadth of his scholarly interest and the impact [italics supplied] of his innovative ideas upon the writers." Keith N. Schoville, ~Statement on the back cover of the book," To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997).

4 Studies. An investigation of the nature and impact of Shea's works should be of interest to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

This is especially true when there is a greater knowledge of the extent of the influence of an SDA scholar of reputable standing like Shea, who has made significant contributions to the wider audience of non-SDAs. Justification of the study Aside from his prominence, the choice of Shea as the subject of this study is based on his continuing influence even

after

his

retirement

in

1998,1

as

evident

from

his

prolific publications, active involvement in various Bible conferences, and teaching stints at SDA extension schools in different countries.2 A quick survey _________________________ 1Dr. Shea currently holds a position as an associate editor of the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (JATS) based in Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA. In one of the regional meetings of the Adventist Theological Society (ATS) held at Andrews University in May 13-15, 1999, after Shea's paper regarding the date and the Pharaoh of the Exodus was read by David Merling (since Shea had another appointment overseas), one of the attendees said, ~Now 1 am going to have to rewrite the handouts for my Old Testament class." Ed Christian, ~Andrews Chapter Offers Archaeology Conference," Adventist Theological Society Newsletter 10 (July 1999): 4.

2Ed Christian, ~ATS Reaches out to World," Adventist Theological Society Newsletter 11 (May 2000): 1; idem, ~ATS Reaches out to World," Adventist Theological Society Newsletter 12 (May 2001): 1; idem, ~ATS News," Adventist Theological Society Newsletter 13 (August 2002): 1.

5 of recent articles and book reviews from his prolific pen could substantiate this claim.1 Second, among SDA biblical scholars, Shea is perhaps the only one, both in his early and later works, who extensively

used

ancient

Near

Eastern

(ANE)

data

in

illuminating the Scriptures.2 For example, early in his ________________________ l See for example, William H. Shea, "Three Notes on Relations Between Early Rabbinic and Early Christian Sources," JATS 12 (Spring 2001): 216-31; idem, ~Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia?" JATS 12 (Spring 2001): 83-8; idem, ~Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14," JATS 12 (Spring 2001): 89-96; idem, ~The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede," JATS 12 (Spring 2001): 97-105; idem, ~Justin Martyr's Sunday Worship Statement: A Forged Appendix," JATS 12 (Autumn 2001): 1-15; idem, ~A Review of the Biblical Evidence for the Use of the Fall-to-Fall Calendar," JATS 12 (Autumn 2001): 152-63; idem, ~Literary and Theological Parallels Between Revelation 14-15 and Exodus 19-23," JATS 12 (Autumn 2001): 164-79; idem, "Azazel in the Pseudepigrapha," JATS 13 (Spring 2002): 1-9; idem, "1'he Sabbath in Matthew 24:20," Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS) 40 (2002): 23-36; idem, review of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: The Old Testament, by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, AUSS 39 (2001): 347-49; idem, review of In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, by Nili Sacher Fox, AUSS 40 (2002): 327-29; idem, "How Long was the Creation Week?" Adventists Affirm 16 (2002): 22-4, 40.

2Among other of his works, see, William H. Shea, ~Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura," AUSS 20 (1982): 29-52; idem, "Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and the Book of Daniel: An Update," AUSS 20 (1982): 133-49; idem, ~Darius the Mede: An Update," AUSS 20 (1982): 229-47.

6 career,

the

choice

of

his

dissertation

topic1 shows

his

interest in corroborating biblical history with the Near Eastern materials. By examining the famine records of both Egyptian and greater Palestine, he attempted to correlate those famines with the biblical famines during the time of Abraham

and

during

the

Jacob-Joseph

period

with

this

approach, he was able to establish a possible correlation between Egyptian and Syro-Palestine historical milieus with those of both biblical periods mentioned.2 An

examination

of

Shea's

use

of

ancient

Near

Eastern texts and materials on the interpretation of the Bible

is

relevant

to

the

discussion

concerning

the

appropriate and inappropriate use of ancient Near Eastern data or archaeology and its exegetical application.3 _______________________________ l

William Henry Shea, ~Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine" (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1976; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1977).

2

See the brief review of Shea's dissertation in Willis, 460-61.

3

See, Gerhard Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1980), 119. Angel Manuel Rodriguez notes: "The meaning of a biblical text is, then, determined by its own biblical context because it is only there that we are informed about the way God used the ancient Near Eastern background. By acknowledging that God was directly involved in the process of rejecting, polemicizing, adapting, reformulating, and incorporating some of the cultural, religious, cultic, and legal practices of the ancient Near East, we can honor the divine nature of Scripture and justify the need to submit to its authority." Angel Manuel Rodriguez, ~Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to

7 Archaeology or ancient Near Eastern data are sometimes used by people in sensational or irresponsible ways. l A case in point is the continuing claims that Noah's ark and the ark of the covenant2 have already been found.3 In the light of this situation, we will see how Shea's works contribute to avoid

such

extremes.

After

assessing

Shea's

use

of

archaeology in his writings up to 1980, Willis states: The prolific writing of Shea indicates a constant search for enlightenment of contextual details of biblical narratives, especially in areas where historical lacunae ha ve led to critical questioning or rejection of biblical data. This approach is obviously __________________________

the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration," JATS 12 (2001): 64.

One of the issues involved in the use of archaeology is the common “norm among archaeologists" that “archaeology is the reality check of ancient documents" including, of course, the Bible. Using archaeology as such would lead to the fact that it becomes an ~evidence against the Bible" and ascertained “to disprove the reliability of the Bible." David Merling, “The Relationship Between Archaeology and the Bible," JATS 9 (1998): 232-33. l

See Kenneth L. Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology, 4th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002); Fred Reiner, “Tracking the Shapira Case: A Biblical Scandal Revisited," BAR 23 (May/June 1997): 3241, 66-7; André Lemaire, “Paleography's Verdict: They're Fakes," BAR 23 (May/June 1997): 36-9; and P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “Why All the Fuss?" BAR 23 (May/June 1997): 40.

2

See, for example, Patti Hansen Tompkins, ~Adventist Raiders of the Lost Ark," Spectrum 13 (June 1983): 49-54.

3

See, e.g., Ron Wyatt, Discovered: Noah's Ark! (Nashville: World Bible Society, 1989). See the refutation of such claim in David Merling, “Has Noah's Ark Been Found?"

Adventist Review, 20 May 1993, 13-5; idem, ~Has Noah's Ark Been Found?-2," Adventist Review, 27 May 1993, 16-7.

8 also apologetic. Shea was normally both cautious and nondogmatic in his apologetic statements, and in fact warned against abuse of apologetics.1 Lastly, despite Shea's important contributions in the area of Biblical Studies, no doctoral dissertation or comparable in-depth research seems ever to have be en devoted to his works, a hiatus we hope will be filled by this study.2 Two doctoral dissertations have dealt with Shea's works, but neither did so extensively. The first one is the research of Lloyd A. Willis,3 which describes the works of Shea and other SDA scholars and writers who contributed to the area of Biblical Archaeology in Adventist literature during the period of 1937 to 1980. 4 Although Willis made important descriptions of Shea's works, his delineation is not extensive

and

is

limited

to

the

period

ending

in

1980.

Moreover, his main concern was to determine the extent to which Shea and other SDA writers used archaeology in a polemic or non-polemic way. _____________________________ l

Willis, 543.

2

Based on the search in the dissertation abstracts on-line by the University Microfilms International, up to March 2003, no doctoral study has been devoted to our present topic.

3

The published work of Willis is the one we will use throughout this papero 4

Willis, 424-25, 452-70, 543-44.

9 Another rather

dissertation

briefly

Silitonga

is

placed

historicist According

school to

that Shea, of

of

that Hotma

among

Saor

many,

interpreters

Silitonga,

deals

on

interpreters

with

Shea's

Parasian

as

Silitonga.1

belonging

the who

book

works

of

belong

to

the

Daniel.2 to

the

historicist school are those who accept “the sixth century B.C. as the date of the book of Daniel," and maintain the ~prophecies of Daniel as being fulfilled throughout history which extends from the past, through the present, to the future."3 However, Silitonga deals with the works of Shea quite sketchily.4 He is more interested in reviewing Shea's viewpoint on Dan 11.5 ___________________________ l

Hotma Saor Parasian Silitonga, “Continuity and Change in World Rulers: A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Seventhday Adventist Interpretation of Daniel 11" (Ph.D. diss., Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2001).

2

Ibid., 44-5.

3

Ibid.,

32.

4

Ibid., 83-7.

5

Silitonga points out that Shea maintains, together with other historicist interpreters, that Dan 11:5-45 refers to “the Seleucids and Ptolemies, Rome and Egypt, the papacy and spiritual Egypt, as well as the end-time religious and political powers" (ibid., 48).

10 Delimitations Certain delimitations need to be made to keep this work within

reasonable

bounds.

This

study

does

not

provide

an

exhaustive treatment of all of Shea's works, only those relevant in order to delineate the nature of his works and their impact on Biblical Studies. Moreover, this study does not analyze the exegesis of biblical passages in Shea's voluminous works because it is primarily descriptive in nature. Neither does it attempt to critique Shea's methodology nor to test its validity. Shea's works in Biblical Studies are categorized into four groups: contextual-historical, literary, exegetical, and archaeological.

The apologetical or non-apologetical character of his works is not discussed in this study.

Methodology In order to determine the nature of Shea's works, all his published and available unpublished works have been analyzed and classified. The nature of his work is exegetical, literary, contextual-historical, archaeological, and a combination of them all. In describing the nature of his work, we let the works of Shea

speak

for

themselves.

There

is

no

attempt

to

either

evaluate Shea's methodology or to investigate its soundness.

11

To set forth the impact of his works on Biblical Studies, this study examines the extent to which his works have been cited, used, and responded to by both non-SDA and SDA scholars of reputable standing, either to lend support to their study or to critique Shea's study. In effect, the method of research used in this paper is both descriptive and analytical.

The order of presentation is as follows: chapter 1 is an introduction to the study. It includes the statement of the

problem,

study,

purpose

delimitations,

of

the

and

study,

justification

methodology.

Chapter

for 2

the

is

a

biographical sketch of Shea's life. This chapter presented to identify the nature of his works and the background on how he became interested in the area of Biblical Studies, as well as the

background

of

the

extent

of

his

contributions.

Consideration of the personal milieu of Shea helps to provide a contextual view of the nature and impact of his works.

A detailed analysis of the nature of Shea's works in Biblical Studies is the content of chapter 3. As previously mentioned, Shea's works are allowed to speak for themselves in providing a description of the nature of his works.

Chapter 4 is a description and analysis of Shea's impact on Biblical Studies. This chapter delineates the

12 extent and contributions of his works in both SDA and non-SDA circles, as well as the place and areas of his influence in the field of archaeology, biblical studies, and biblical interpretation. The last chapter summarizes and concludes the study.

CHAPTER 2 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF SHEA'S LIFE To

set

forth

the

context

of

William

H.

Shea's

contribution in Biblical Studies, it is necessary to describe his life. His life may be divided into four parts: his early life,

his

education

doctrinal

and

confronted,

and

and

career,

theological his

issues

work

as

an

his

involvement

that

the

Associate

SDA

in

various

Church

Director

of

has the

Biblical Research Institute.

Ear1y Life

William Henry Shea was born December 31, 1932, in Upland, California,l of Henry Morris Shea and Nette Josephine Lende.2 ~As a child," living in Laguna Beach, California, he ~grew up with no religious influence at all."3 His mother was an Episcepalian by religion, while __________________________

l

Willis, 452; Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

2

William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail. His father was bern in 1892 in Blunt, South Dakota, while his mother was born in Appleton, Minnesota in 1896 (ibid.).

3

William H. Shea, ~Dr. William H. Shea," interview by Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Shabbat Shalom, December 1995, 8; Merling, ~Introduction," xiii.

13

14 his father, although raised as Presbyterian, “had no religion at all--a kind of agnostic." Bill's father left his childhood religion “as soon as he left home."l After living in Laguna Beach for ten years, Shea's “family moved to Ontario, California.”2 In that place, “due to the influence of a neighbor,"3 Bill became interested in “the Bible and biblical history."4 This “neighbor" was actually two teenage children of an SDA family across the street from Bill's house, with whom he went to high school, and who invited him to go

to

the

attendance

Adventist at

the

church

church

at

every

Sabbath.

his

neighbors'

Through

regular

invitation

and

through the influence of the same neighbors, Shea was baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church on December 4, 1948.5 Reminiscing about his last year in high school, Shea says, “I came

to

believe

in

the

divine

inspiration

of

the

Bible."6

Perhaps that was the start of his interest in biblical studies, which was demonstrated when he began studying for his college degree. _________________________

l

Shea to Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail.

2

Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

3

Ibid.

4

Ibid.

5

Shea to Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail.

6

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8.

15 Education and Career William Shea's education and career span almost fortyfour

years.

His

andremarkable.

He

education went

from

and being

career a

were

medical

diverse

student

and

medical doctor to study of the Bible, biblical history, and Semitic languages.

La Sierra College When

he

degree,

went he

to

took

college “both

to

study

courses

in

for

his

religion

baccalaureate and

sciences"

because he was interested in both disciplines. 1 Thus, at La Sierra

College

(now

University),

his

studies

~included

a

religion major, history minor, and premedical requirements." 2 In his junior year, he finally decided to make “medicine [his] vocation and religious studies [his] avocation. ”3 In 1954, he graduated with a B.A. in Biology,4 as a preparation for his medical career.

At La Sierra, two religion teachers left a mark in his life, which “had a great influence upon his life and __________________________ l

Ibid.

2

Willis,

4

52.

3

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8; Merling, ~Introduction,H xiii.

4

~Qualifications and Experience: William H. Shea, M.D., Ph.D.: Archaeology"; available from http:// origins.swau.edu/who/shea/~shea01.html; Internet; accessed 4 February 2003.

16 life

interests."l

These

two

teachers

are

Drs.

Edwin

Heppenstall and Thomas Blincoe.2 Thomas Blincoe was known as a teacher par excellence not only because of his Christcentered teaching style but al so because of his Christcentered life, which was shown both inside and outside the classroom. It was a life worthy of emulation. Former students of Dr. Blincoe attest to this fact.3 Dr. Heppenstall was known as a teacher and writer on the practicality of the doctrine of righteousness by faith.4 Loma Linda Medical School Two

years

after

he

graduated

from

college,

Bill

married Karen Olsen, who was also a medical student.s They have been blessed with three children, Josie, Ted, and Becky.6 In 1958, Bill Shea “completed an M.D. degree from _____________________________

l

Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

2

Ibid.

3

See, Morris Venden, ~Always Talking About Jesus," in More College Faith, ed. Ronald Alan Knott (Berrien Springs, MI: Worthy Books, 1997), 219-20; Roger H. Bothwell, “Jesus and the Stupid Question," in More College Faith, ed. Ronald Alan Knott (Berrien Springs, MI: Worthy Books, 1997), 35-6.

4

Edward Heppenstall, Salvation Unlimited:

Perspectives in Righteousness by Faith (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1974).

5

6

Merling, ~Introduction," xiii.

Information on Shea's children was shared as follows: The eldest is Josephine Frances Shea, who is

17 the Medical School of Loma Linda University"l--barely four years after

completing

his

B.A.

His

wife

graduated

from

the

same

Medical School one year after he did.2 Bill Shea "spent two years in internship and surgery residency in the Los Angeles area."3

After

his

surgery

residency,

"the

Shea´s

accepted

medical missionary positions in Nicaragua."4 Missionary Activities In Nicaragua, Bill Shea served as a "staff physician and

part-time

medical

director"

in

La

Trinidad

Adventist

Hospital.5 This "remote hospital had only 25 beds with limited supplies and help."6 In spite of such poor conditions, they served in that hospital from 1960-1963.7 ________________________

presently a curator at Edsel Ford Museum in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. The second is Theodore William Shea, who is an obgyn physician, practicing medicine at Red Bluff, California.

The youngest is Rebecca Annette Erdelyi, an orthopedic nurse as well as circulating nurse in the operating room at Manassas, Virginia (Shea to Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail) . l

Willis, 452.

2

Merling,

3

Willis, 452.

4

Merling,

5

Willis, 452, n. 4.

6

Merling,

7

Willis, 452, n . 4.

"Introduction,"

"Introduction,"

"Introduction,"

xiii.

xiii.

xiii.

18 After serving in Nicaragua, the Shea´s went back to the United States where Bill completed his “second year of surgery residency at White Memorial Hospital in Los Angeles in 1964."1 They “next worked for two years [from 1964-1966] at a hospital on the Island of Trinidad"2 in the West Indies. Bill Shea decided to practice his where

medical

medical profession in these two countries,

care

is

inadequate,

because

of

an

impelling

reason. Shea declares: 1 went to two different countries outside of the United States to practice my [medical] profession because 1 felt that 1 might be able to do more good in areas where medical care was not so readily available.3 On that island, Shea “served as a staff physician and medical director at Port-of-Spain Community Hospital" from 1964-1966 and 1970-1972”4 The period of interruption (1966-1969) was spent at Harvard University. Shea decided to study at Harvard to qualify himself for teaching Bible and biblical history.

This urge to qualify himself came when he was asked to teach in the “Seventh-day Adventist denominational junior college" now Caribbean Union College, __________________________ 1

Ibid.

2

Merling, “Introduction," xiii; Willis, 452, n. 4.

3

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea,H 8.

4

Willis, 452, n. 4.

5

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8-9.

19 while he was serving as a medical missionary in Trinidad.1 That college “was a half an hour drive from the hospital in which [he] worked."2 Because that college had a shortage of religion teachers, Dr. Shea stepped in to fill the vacated position. To quote his own words: They were short of teachers in the religion department so I volunteered. My particular interest was history during the period of the Hebrew Bible and the light that archaeology can shine upon it. I taught at that junior college for over two years.3 Shea's short teaching stint at Trinidad shows his interest in biblical history and the use of archaeology in illuminating it. His interest in this field of study was more clearly demonstrated when he enrolled at Harvard.

Studies at Harvard In

his

desire

to

do

more

in

teaching

biblical

history and to qualify himself in that field, Shea studied for

three

years

at

Harvard.4

To

support

himself

and

his

family while studying there during 1966-1969, Shea worked a _________________________

l

Ibid., 8; Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

2

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8.

3 4

Ibid. See, also, Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8-9; Merling, Ulntroduction," xiii.

20

an "emergency room physician at the New England Memorial Hospital" at "Stoneham, Massachusetts."l During his first year at Harvard, 1966-1967, Shea "was a special student" in the Divinity School.2 Then he transferred to Harvard Graduate School3 working "on an M.A. degree in

Assyriology,"4 which he

"did until the

end of

1969."5 At Harvard, Shea's "main teacher"6 was George Ernest Wright, who was one of William F. Albright's students.7 Shea, recalling his Harvard days under George Ernest Wright, notes: Coming from the Albright school as he did, Wright firmly ancho red his Exodus and the Conquest in the thirteenth century. One of my fellow students at Harvard in the late 1960s had the temerity to submit a

____________________________ l

Willis, 452-53, n.5.

2

William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.

3

Ibid.

4

Willis, 452. See, also, The Daniel and Revelation Committee, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, "To the Reader," in William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic InteTjpretation, Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series, vol.

1 (Washington, DC: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1982), vi.

5

Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.

6

Merling, "Introduction," xiii.

7

Lawrence T. Geraty, "Beyond Fundamentalism: A Short History of Adventist Old Testament Scholarship," Spectrum 13 (December 1982): 48.

21 paper in favor of the 15th century Exodus and the Conquest to the' Old Testament seminar.1 Another former student of Albright, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., was al so Shea's teacher in one of his courses, namely, “History of Israel."2 This fact opens the question whether Shea was in any way influenced by the “Albright School" in his approach to the Bible. That question needs to be studied separately.

During

Shea's

stay

at

Harvard,

he

joined

an

archaeological excavation for two seasons (1966, 1967) at Tel Gezer.3 The 1966 second campaign season ~took place from July 4 to July 29,"4 while the 1967 third campaign season took place from July 18 to August 11.5 In 1967 season at Gezer he served as Camp Physician.6 During the same season, he was assigned to Field 111, where his area ________________________

l

William H. Shea, Early Israelíte Inscríptions from Sínai (Red Bluff, CA: privately printed, 2000), xv.

2

William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 4 June 2003, Electronic mail.

3

Merling, “Introduction," xiii; Willis, 453. 4William G.

Dever,

~Excavations

at

Gezer,"

Bíblical Archaeologist 30 (May

1967): 54.

5

William G. Dever, H. Darrell Lance, Reuben G. Bullard, Dan P. Cole, and Joe D. Seger, Gezer II: Report of the 1967-70 Seasons in Fields 1 and 11, ed. William G. Dever (Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College/Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, 1974), 1.

6

Ibid.

22 supervisor was Lawrence Stager under the direction of William G. Dever.1 It is likely that Shea's interest in archaeology was greatly enhanced by this archaeological experience ."

According

to

Willis,

Shea's

M.A.

degree

was

unfinished, when his M.A. thesis was published in Andrews University Seminary Studies (1971-1972 issues) in “a fourpart sequence."3 The reason Shea did not finish his studies at Harvard was a personal one. At the end of 1969, he ~petitioned

for

a

split

program

involving

four

fields,

Egyptian history and language[,] and Mesopotamian language and history."4 When he was told that he ~could not take a split program" and that he should only “specialize in one or _________________________

l

William H. Shea, ~Solomon Depicted in the Name of Gezer on a Block in the Outer Wall of the Solomonic Gate at Gezer," unpublished paper, 2003, p. 1. In the 1967 season at Gezer, there were a number of participants in that archeological dig who are now prominent scholars and archaeologists. Among them are: Eric M. Meyers, Carol Meyers, H. Darrell Lance, Joe Seger, Lawrence Stager, Carey A. Moore, Jr., and John Osborne. See the group picture in Dever, et al., Gezer II, plate 45.

2

In 1971, Shea a1so joined the archaeological expedition in Tell ~esban that took place from July 5 to August 20, under the direction of Siegfried Horn. Shea was assigned as a square supervisor in Area C, under Henry O. Thompson, who served as his are a supervisor. See Roger S. Boraas, and Siegfried H. Horn, ~Heshbon Expedition: The Second Campaign at Tell ~esban (1971)," AUSS 11 (January 1973): 3.

3

Willis, 424-52, n.5.

4

Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.

23 the other," he left Harvard because he ~did not want to do that."l Meanwhile, while studying at Harvard, he ~received an invitation to join the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological

Seminary."2

However,

he

did

not

accept

the

invitation at that time because he and his wife needed to go back to Trinidad to resume their medical work. He continued his medical missionary work in Trinidad, until he accepted the previous offer of the Seminary in 1972. 3 From 1972 onward, Bill Shea taught part-time in the Seminary while at the same time pursuing his doctorate at the University of Michigan.

University of Michigan "[T]he Sheas returned to Trinidad for another two years

[1970-1972]"4

to

continue

their

medical

mission.

In

1972, the family arrived at Andrews, while Bill Shea started studying at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. 5 In that same year, "he joined the faculty of Andrews University."6 As noted earlier, he was teaching part-time ________________________

l

Ibido

2

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 9.

3

Willis, 452-53.

4

Merling, ~Introduction," xiv.

5

Ibid.

6

Willis, 452-53.

24 at Andrews while at the same time studying fer his Ph.D. in Near Eastern studies until he completed his degree after four years, at the age of 441 (still young to earn a second doctoral degree).

At the University of Michigan, he studied with David Noel Freedman and George Mendenhall,2 known former Albright students. Apparently, the influence of the “Albright School" through the legacy of Horn continued, perhaps in some degree in the scholarly life of Shea. Geraty observes, Shea, who has become a prolific writer for scholarly Old Testament journals, plus three more of Horn's students (Kenneth Vine ... ; Douglas Waterhouse ... ; and Alberto Green ... ) went on to the University of Michigan to study with other Albright students, George E. Mendenhall and David Noel Freedman.3 At the University of Michigan, Shea's study involved four fields: (1) Palestinian archaeology; (2)

ancient Near

Eastern history; (3) Old Testament history; and (4) Biblical Hebrew.4 This kind of immersion in different fields of ancient Near eastern studies apparently helped Shea in his prolific writing,

and

prepared

him

for

a

professorship

at

Andrews

University, Theological Seminary. __________________________

l

Merling, “Introduction," xiv; Willis, 453.

2

Merling, “Introduction," xiv.

3

Geraty, 48.

4

Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.

25 Professorships at Andrews After he finished his doctorate in 1976, Shea began teaching in the

Seminary

teaching

at

Andrews

full-time.1 Beside

University

responsibilities,

he

held

different

his

administrative

positions. Among them was acting chairman of the Old Testament Department

in

1981,

~and

as

chairman

in

1982."2

While

at

Andrews, he was given an offer to be ordained into the ministry.

He did not accept the offer because if he ~ever went back into medicine

[he]

minister."3

would

Thus,

he

prefer ~kept

to

remain

that

simply

status

all

as

a

licensed

through

[his]

career."4 He taught in the Seminary for fourteen years until he accepted the post of Associate Director of the Biblical Research lnstitute of the General Conference in 1986.5 ______________________________

l

Willis,

2

rbid., 453, n. 1.

453.

3

William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 9 July 2003, Electronic mail. He got the status of being a licensed minister by the virtue of his being a licensed missionary when he served in Central America as a medical missionary (ibid.).

4

Ibid.

5

Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 9.

26

As a professor at the Seminary he was ~noted for his bow tie, hard exams, and easy marking."l Shea has been described as a ~good-natured and distinguished scholar."2 One of his former Ph.D. students recalls a typical way in which Shea taught and conducted a doctoral seminar class. He writes: [O]ne of the highlights of my [doctoral] study program was an archaeology seminar 1 took with Bill. In that seminar we did such diverse things as struggle through paleo Hebrew of the Izbet Sarta [sic] abcdary [sic] to discover a possible reference to Hophni and Phinehas, to restudying Egyptian history for possible links to the Exodus, to looking at the first and second temples. 3 That

same

seminar

was

typical

of

continuously

former

doctoral

indeed the

kind

student

~stimulating, of

creative

investigating."4

One

remarked exciting things

can

see

that

Shea's

research,

and

that

Bill

was

the

nature

of

Shea's attitude towards the archaeological data in what he ___________________________

lNorman H. Young, ~Reconciliation in Philo, Josephus, and Paul," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), 233.

2Ibid.

3Robert K. McIver, ~Jesus and Sepphoris: Missing Link or Negative Evidence?" in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), 299, n. l.

4Ibid.

27 required his students to do in a class. It appears that Shea

was

trying

to

look

for

possible

connections

or

corroborations between biblical and archaeological data as found in both biblical and non-biblical literary texts.

Acting Director of the Horn Museum During

his

Andrews

years,

Shea

held

another

significant

administrative post. He served in 1985 as ~acting director of the Institute of Archaeology, following Lawrence T. Geraty's acceptance

of

new

administrative

duties

at

Atlantic

Union

College."l During his term as acting director, the Institute of Archaeology, in cooperation with the Horn Museum, sponsored a conference called ~Conference on Biblical Archaeology." The presenters in the different sessions were ~S. H. Horn, K. L. Vine, L. G. Herr, K. N. Schoville, J. K. Hoffmeier, E. R. Thiele, L. T. Geraty, W. H. Shea, A. Terian, J. B. Storfjell, 0. S. LaBianca, and W. J. Hackwell." In 1986 William H. Shea transferred to the Biblical Research Institute in Washington, D.C. Bj0rnar Storfjell, his colleague in the Old Testament Department,

had

agreed

“to

fill

in

as

interim

Institute

director pending the appointment of a permanent director."2 _____________________ l~The History of the Horn Museum"ÂĄ available froro http://www.andrews.edu/ARCHAEOLOGY/museum/ham_history.htm; Internet; accessed 4 March 2003.

2Ibid.

28 Involvement of Shea in tbe Desmond Ford Controversy

Discussion of Shea's involvement in the Desmond Ford controversy and the post-Glacier View period is in arder here, because

it

happened

during

his

teaching

stint

at

Andrews

University. This controversy could also serve as a backdrop for Shea's

publications

during

this

period

and

subsequent

publications after the controversy. This section of the paper is divided into two parts: first, it deals with the Desmond Ford controversy, then, the post-Glacier View controversy.

The Desmond Ford Controversy Desmond Ford, an Australian biblical scholar, created a controversy in the Adventist church when he made a public presentation of his views concerning the Sanctuary and 1844 at the invitation of the Association of Adventist Forums. This public presentation that challenges the Sanctuary doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventists and the biblical support for the 1844 teaching was held on the campus of Pacific Union College at Angwin, California, on October 27, 1979.1 ______________________ 1Richard W. Schwarz, and Floyd Greenleaf, Light Bearers: A History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, rev. ed.

(Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2000), 634.

29 After the controversial presentation, Dr. Ford was given “a six-month leave of absence with pay from Pacific Union"l to give him ample time “to research and write his views for presentation to a study committee to be set up by the General Conference."2 While

researching

headquarters

of

at

the

the General

archives

located

Conference

of

at

the

Seventh-day

Adventists (GC), Dr. Ford was given a ~group of counselors informally called 'The Ford Guiding Committee,'" of which Richard L. Hammill, former president of Andrews University and

retired

chairman.

3

Vice

President

of

the

GC,

served

as

the

The responsibility of this 14-member committee

was to give a written response to each chapter of Ford's position paper “within a two-week period."4 However, ~most of the members, most of the time, did not bother to write the required chapter critiques."5 In any case, the group _______________________

lEdward E “Plowman, “The Shaking Up of Adventism?"

Christianity Today, 8 February 1980, 64.

2J. Robert Spangler, ~Editorial Perspectives: Personal Glimpses into the Background and Resu1ts oí the Glacier View Sanctuary Committee," Ministry, October 1980, 5.

3Richard L. Hammill, Pilgrimage: Memoirs of an Adventist Administrator (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University press, 1992), 188.

4Ibid.

5Adrian Zytkoskee, ~Interview with Desmond Ford," Spectrum 11 (November 1980): 59; Hammill, 189.

30

helped prepare the 125-member ~ad

hoc

Sanctuary

Review

Committee,"la larger group that was to ~give an official response to Dr. Ford's view."2 Dr.

William

H.

Shea,

who

was

then

an

associate

professor of the OT at SDA Theological Seminary, was a member of the large group called Sanctuary Review Cornmittee.3 The review committee met on August 10-15, 1980, at the Glacier View Youth Camp in Colorado, U.S.A.4 In early April of 1980, Dr. Shea had been ~advised informally" that he would be a member of the large committee ~to review the document written by Desmond Ford."5 At the time he was informally advised, he began writing profusely in response to the issue raised by Ford against the traditional Adventist interpretations of the Sanctuary doctrine. Since Ford had not finished his manuscript then, Shea merely based his response on two published works of _________________________ lSchwarz and Greenleaf, 634.

2Hammill, 189.

3~participants and Committees," 1980, 25.

Ministry, October

4Hammill, 190; Spangler, 6.

5William H. Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment, 1980," TMs (photocopy), p.

1, Leslie Hardinge Library, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines.

31 Ford; his commentary on Daniel1 and the published Manchester thesis, The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology,2 published by the University Press of America. From these two works one can have a clear idea of Ford's view and his position about the sanctuary doctrine as well as his approach to the Bible.3 Shea chose to write his response for good reasons. He writes: From my experience with committees large and small it has seemed to me that it is cornmonly preferable to have something specific in written form to respond to rather than depending upon a spontaneous flow of ideas to bring out the points at issue.4 After

four

months

of

research

and

writing,

Shea

produced a manuscript entitled, Daniel and the Judgment." This manuscript was later published in 1982 by the Biblical Research Institute (BRI) of the GC with some revisions under the new title: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation. In 1992, the

same

book

was

revised

but

kept

its

title

under

the

editorship of Frank B. Holbrook.5 _________________________

lDesmond Ford, Daniel, foreword by F. F. Bruce (Nashville, TN: Southern Pub. Assn., 1978).

2Desmond Ford, The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1979).

3Shea, uDaniel and the Judgment, 1980," 3.

4Ibid., 1.

5William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series, vol.

32 During the conference at Glacier View, various papers were

presented.

Among

the

presenters

was

Dr.

Shea,

who

presented his manuscript on Monday night, August 11, 1980, in a

condensed

Judgment."l official

form The

paper

journal

According

to

under

of

the

the

was the

same

later

title:

published

Association

editors

of

~Daniel

that

of

in

the

Spectrum, the

Adventist

journal,

and

Forums.2

Shea's

paper,

together with one by Fritz Guy, was ~highly influential."3 Indeed,

Shea's

paper

had

a

considerable

impact

on

the

discussion of the issue.

In the published Ford interview, Dr. Shea appears among

the

Adventist

scholars

who

openly

opposed

his

position, but are ~diligent scholars" whom he ~personally respect[s]."4 ________________________ 1, rev. ed., ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventhday Adventists, 1992). lSpangler, 8; ~Papers Prepared for Sanctuary Review Cornmittee," Spectrum 11 (November 1980): 76.

2See William H. Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," Spectrum 11 (1980): 37-42.

3Roy Branson, ~About This Issue," Spectrum 11 (November 1980): 1.

4Zytkoskee, 56.

33

Post-Glacier View Controversy The main issue in the Desmond Ford Controversy as determined by Shea ~was whether or not the past teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that an investigative judgment began in heaven in 1844 was soundly based in Scripture."l Ford agreed.2 Gn this central issue, Shea noted that the teaching of the SDA Church is indeed based on the Bible. Ford denied it,3 offering

instead

the

apotelesmatic

principIe

of

biblical

interpretation.4 However, Shea questioned the consistency of Ford's application: As Ford and 1 both agreed when we met at the small cornmittee on the Andrews campus in May, he did not apply the apotelesmatic principIe to Daniel 2 or Daniel 7 in his cornmentary. He did apply it to Daniel 8, 9 and 11. He has still not applied it to Daniel 2 or 7 in the Glacier View manuscript. Since Daniel 2, 7, 8 _________________________ __ lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.

2Desmond Ford, ~Ford Responds to Shea," Spectrum 11 (1981): 54.

3Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.

4Ford argued that ~the traditional historicist interpretation of the apocalyptic Scriptures could not be sustained" (Plowman, 64). The effect of questioning the historicist method of interpreting the known apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation led Ford to declare ~that Christ has been king and priest ever since his ascension" (ibid.). According to Ford, what happened in 1844 ~was not a shift in the geography but the rising up of a people (Adventists) who would recover the spirit of the Reformation, pr9claiming 'the law in its fulness and the gospel in its fulness so that all men might be judged by their response to that proclamation'" (ibid.).

34 and 11 are all outline prophecies that extend through history from the sixth century B.C. to the time of God's final kingdom, the apotelesmatic principIe should either be applied to all of them or to none of them.

By applying it to only half of them, Ford has not done ~so with consistency."l EIsewhere, Shea writes, The ultimate irony in the controversy that Ford raised in this way is that he offers the apotelesmatic principIe to the Church as the solution to the problem he sees in Daniel 8:14. It actuaIIy is his own refusal to employ his own principIe that has created this problem. . . . In his [doctoral] thesis, Ford did not use what he now calls the apotelesmatic principIe to interpret the prophecy of Mark 13 so that it might appIy to both the generation of the apostles and our modern generation. For him, Mark 13 was intended to have occurred in the first century and the first century only. 2 Shea

noted

that

Ford

applied

the

apotelesmatic

principIe to Dan 8:14 by interpreting it as referring to the following events: (1) victory of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 165 B.C.ยก (2) the great redemption of the crossยก (3) to the last judgmentยก and (4) to ~every revival of true religion." Simply put, if Ford applied Dan 8:14 to different events, why did he refuse to appIy it to the judgment that began in heaven in 1844?3 Hence, Shea concludes: ~Thus it is Ford's faiIure to appIy his own apotelesmatic principIe to Mark 13 ____________________________ lWilliam H. Shea, ~Shea RepIies to Ford," Spectrum 11 (1981): 59.

2Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 42.

3Ibid., 41, -42.

35

and Daniel 8:14 that has created the very controversy which he says he has proposed it to solve."l Ford's Glacier View manuscript was later published under the title: Daniel 8:14--The Day of Atonement and the Investigative

Judgment,

published

by

Evangelion

Press

in

1980.2 Shea, on the other hand, continues publishing on the issue that Dr. Ford raised against the traditional belief of the SDA Church. For example, in the book Symposium on Daniel, volume 2 of the Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series of the Biblical Research Institute, Shea wrote a ____________________ lIbid., 43. Ford replied that he did not ~refuse to apply the apotelesmatic principIe to Mark 13. Both the Daniel cornmentary and my Glacier View sanctuary manuscript do so apply. (See pp. 49 and 293 of Daniel, and pp. 284ff. of the recent Sanctuary manuscript.) My Manchester thesis makes no references to the apotelesmatic principIe at any point, for, as all know who ha ve done exegetical work for non-Christian universities, examiners there are only interested in the initial meaning of a passage in biblical literature--what it meant for contemporaries. . . . My recent manuscript strongly links the apotelesmatic principIe with another principle--that of conditionality. The latter is clearly affirmed in the Manchester thesis, and repeatedly so." Ford further argued that when he does ~apply the apotelesmatic principIe, I endeavor to do so with consistency. That is to say, a prophecy by means oĂ­ the apotelesmatic principIe is not to be applied to anything and everything, but to events of similar shape and context in separate ages" (Ford, ~Ford Responds to Shea," 56-7).

2Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14--The Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, FL: Evangelion Press, 1980). This work has been cited by Gary Land, ed., Adventism in America: A History (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 292, n. 62. '

36 large part of the material in comparison with other contributors to that volume.

Associate Director Research Institute

of

the

Biblical

During his term as Associate Director of the BRI, Shea continued

writing

voluminously.

The

dominant

concern

of

his

research during this period was the corroboration of biblical history from the nonbiblical history of the ancient Near East, especially Canaan, Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria.1 His

responsibilities

administrator

and

editor

to

varied being

a

from

being

researcher.

a

semi-

Since

the

Institute is at the forefront of the SDA Church's information on

various

subjects,

it

receives

about

~3,000

letters

of

inquiry per year.H Both by request and on voluntary basis, Shea evaluated different manuscripts on “various subjects" at the rate of about three manuscripts a ____________________ lAmong others, see for example, William H. Shea, ~Menahem,H The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, completely rev. and reset ed. (1979-88), 3:317-18: idem, ~The Neo-Babylonian Setting of Daniel 7,H AUSS 24 (1986): 31-6: idem, ~Proto-Sinaitic Inscription 357," in The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies: Presented to Siegfried H. Horn, ed. Lawrence T. Geraty, and Larry G. Herr (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 1986), 449-64: idem, ~Esther and History," Concordia Journal 13 (July 1987): 234-48: idem, ~New Light on Exodus and Construction of the Tabernacle: Gerster's Protosinaitic Inscription No. 1,H AUSS 25 (1987): 73-96; idem, ~Potential Biblical Connection for the Beth Shemesh Ostracon," AUSS 25 (1987): 257-66; idem, ~Sennacherib's Description of Lachish and Its Conquest," AUSS 26 (1988): 17180.

37 day. The members of BRI also had publication projects, which they wrote or edited.1 As

Associate

participated requested

in

by

Director,

different

people

from

Shea

Bible

also

Land

different

study

conducted group

and

tours,

countries.2 Through

that

activity, he was in constant contact with the many different Adventists particularly diversified

around when and

the he

world was

hectic

the

who

joined

tour

guide.

responsibilities

at

such In the

study spite

tours, of

Institute,

his he

still found time to write and contribute to the scholarly world.

In 1998, after serving for 7 years in Central America as a missionary

physician,

14

years

at

Andrews

University

as

professor of the 端T, 12 years in the Biblical Research Institute as Associate Director, Shea retired from denominational work at the age of sixty-six, with a total of 33 years of service. After his

retirement,

he

kept

writing

and

publishing

significant

articles for the Church and for the scholarly world. He now lives with his wife Karen at Red Bluff, California, enjoying his slow-paced retirement _______________________ lShea, ~Dr. William H. Shea," 9.

2Ibid.

38 life but still active in research and writing. It is apparent

that

productive.

his

retirement

years

are

considerably

CHAPTER 3 THE NATURE OF SHEA'S WORKS IN BIBLICAL STUDIES Chapter three examines the nature of Shea's works in the area of Biblical Studies using a descriptive approach. It gives an overview of his corpus, and describes the ~Albright school."

It then delineates different approaches utilized, notes how he used the ancient Near Eastern data in establishing selected biblical historical data, and lastly, identifies the dominant themes in his publications. The approach taken is selective and illustrative.

Shea' s Bib1ica1 Studies Corpus

This section studies Shea's biblical studies corpus by examining first the books and monographs he published, followed by the articles in the journals he had written.

All his published works are not described exhaustively, but only those that are helpful in describing the nature as well as the extent of his works.

39

40

Published Books and Monograph Careful particularly

the

observation books

he

of

Shea's

published,

publications,

reveals

that

one

prominent subject he has dealt with is the book of Daniel.

Most of the articles in his Festschrift are al so devoted to the book of Daniel. The introduction of the Festschrift states that (t]o those who surprising that the Book [sic] spoken often on

know his (Shea's] work, it will not be there are so many chapters relating to of Daniel since he has also written and aspects of that book.1

Among the books he produced, three deal with the book of Daniel.2 Two of the books are cornmentaries in the Bible Amplifier series that deal with the book of Daniel. The first volume discusses the historical section of the book of Daniel, while the second deals with the prophetic chapters of the book of Daniel.

The subtitle of the first volume, Prophecy As History, reveals the main thrust of the book. To Shea “prophecy is merely history written from the divine ________________________ lMerling, “Introduction," xv.

2It is supposed to be four books and monographs, but since the book, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, is merely a revised and published form of the unpublished manuscript, ~Daniel and the Judgment, 1980," we considered these two works as merely one.

41 viewpoint before it happens.H1 He maintained that the historical part of the book of Daniel ~gives us the context and starting pointH of its prophetic part.2 Indeed, ~history and prophecy are not to be set apart in separate realms; they are interwoven.H3 Hence, it is important that the historicity of the historical section of Daniel must be established without questiQn. This is crucial in the interpretation of the prophetic chapters of the book. Shea argued that ~if the history of Daniel is accurate, then its eschatology should be real, toO."4 In other words, ~if the history in Daniel is inaccurate, then there are not sound grounds

for

accepting

its

eschatology."S

That

is

why

Shea

cogently argued for the historicity of the book of Daniel in the first volume of the Bible Amplifier series.6 The second volume of the commentary on the book of Daniel discusses the chapters of the book in “reverse" _______________________________

lWilliam H. Shea, Daniel 7-12: Prophecies of the End Time, Abundant Life Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 12.

2Shea, Daniel 1-7: Prophecy as History, Abundant Life Bible Amplifier (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 13.

3Ibid.

4Shea, ~History and Eschatology in the Book of Daniel,H JATS 8 (1997): 198. sIbid.

6See, especially, Shea, Daniel 1-7, 37-44.

42 order: ~chapter 9 first, then chapter 8, followed by chapter 7." Shea followed this reverse order for two reasons; first, ~the text becomes more meaningful if viewed" in the reverse order; second, it is ~based on insights that have come from studying the literary structure of various Old Testament texts-especially the Psalms."l In other words, Shea followed ~the thought

order"2

of

the

book

rather

than

its

written

and

historical order with good reasons.3 The

other

book

on

Daniel

tackles

~Daniel

7-9

and

11,

and

concludes with a brief examination of ancient 'calendations' in establishing the validity of the date October 22, 1844."4 In establishing October 22, 1844 and the year-day principIe, Shea used

evidence

from

biblical

data,

~Hellenistic

Jewish

literature, Qumran documents, and _________________________ lShea, Daniel 7-12, 12.

2Ibid., 23.

3~Only when these prophecies are put in this thought order does the modern reader appreciate fully their great sweep and connection with each other--something that would have come more naturally to an ancient listener or reader because of the way in which his or her thought processes had been conditioned.

By reversing Daniel's original order of presentation, we have attempted to unveil the full beauty of the way in which these prophecies were first presented" (ibid.,24).

4Douglas Bennett, review of Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, by William H. Shea, Ministry, June 1983, 32. See also, Richard M. Davidson, review of Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, by William H. Shea, AUSS 27 (1989): 243-45.

43 rabbinic

literature."l

commendation

in

that

Accordingly, Shea路did

this

~creative

work

research

deserves ...

for

providing solid Old Testament support for the (SDA] church's position

on

the

interpretation

of

Daniel."2

Apparently,

the

primary approach Shea took in his works on the book of Daniel is both

historical

and

literary,

with

sorne

sprinkling

of

archaeology and exegesis here and there.3 One

monograph

published

by

Shea

deals

with

Sinai

Inscriptions that establishes the historicity of the Exodus and the Conquest.4 This monograph describes recent discoveries of various early inscriptions in the Sinai area that appear to connect Egyptian history with the biblical Exodus.s This work contains more than ~sixty photographic plates"6 and forty-six line drawing figures. It shows early Israelite inscriptions that describe the narrative of the Exodus and other related stories in the Bible, such as sorne Patriarchal stories. The monograph suggests that Thutmose _____________________ lBennett, 32.

2Ibid.

3The doctoral thesis of Silitonga has noted that Shea's approach in the book of Daniel is both historical and literary.

See Silitonga, 83-7.

4Shea,

Early

Israelite

sIbid., xvi-xvii.

6Ibid., 174.

Inscriptions

(whole

book).

,. "

44 11 was the Pharaoh of the Exodus based on reliefs discovered in

the

Sinai

area.1 If

confirmed

by

other

scholars~

the

research on these reliefs would become a potent extrabiblical evidence in support of the historicity of the Exodus and the Patriarchs.

This monograph demonstrates that the main interest of

Shea

is

to

establish

the

historicity

of

biblical

narratives through the use of ancient Near Eastern data, which are continuing to become available to

USa

This assertion

will be substantiated in the following discussion of his published articles.

Published Articles Much of Shea's writing was in the form of articles and book reviews, which number more than two hundred. The subject of his articles has a wide range, from creation to chronology. His style of writing varies from the popular to the highly technical. However, the majority of his articles dealt with the book of Daniel and its historical setting.

From the very start of his writing career, Shea's method included the utilization of sources outside the Bible _____________________________ lIbid., 61-5. This view of Shea differs with the traditional and long established view of the SDA Church.

Siegfried H. Horn, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., ed. Don F. Neufeld, Commentary Reference Series, vol.

8 (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1979), S.v. "Exodus."

45 either to establish one of its theological themes or to confirm its

historicity.

For

example,

in

1966

his

first

published

article dealt with the historical milieu and motive for the 15th chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas, known as the antiSabbatarian

chapter.1 Shea

concluded

that

the

Sunday/Sabbath

issue is attested in the early second century (the time the Epistle of Barnabas was written) confined merely within the localities of Alexandria, where the epistle was written, and not in all of the Christian churches as sorne authors claim.2 Another example is a series of four articles published in

1971-72

in

Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS).3 In

these articles Shea established in a very _____________________ lWilliam H. Shea, ~The Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas,H AUSS 4 (1966): 149-75. Shea argued that the antiSabbatarian attitude of the author of that epistle is evident from his much wider anti-Judaistic attitude. This kind of attitude is clearly revealed in the context of the texto Shea wrote: ~(T]he anti-Sabbatarian 15th chapter cannot be viewed apart from the rest of the book, but must be taken in its context, and that context is one of unrelenting anti-JudaismH (ibid., 174-75).

2Ibid., 174-75.

3William H. Shea, ~An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: Part 1,H AUSS 9 (1971): 51-67; idem, ~An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: Part 11,H AUSS 9 (1971): 99128; idem, ~An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: Part 11I,H AUSS 10 (1972): 88-117; and idem, ~An Unrecognized Vassal King of Babylon in the Early Achaemenid Period: Part IV,H AUSS 10 (1972): 147-78.

46

creative way that references to Ugbaru/Gubaru, the unrecognized vassal

king

attested

"in

of

Babylon,

the

~fit

business

and

the

gap

in

Cyrus'

administrative

titulary"

texts"

of

the

Achaemenid period.l In other words, Ugbaru may have served as king for a very brief period of time as indicated by a lapse during which Cyrus did not use the title "King of Babylon, King of Lands" but only "King of Lands."2 Although in these articles ~no hint was given of a relationship between Ugbaru and 'Darius the

Mede,'"3

yet

in

one

of

his

subsequent

articles,

Shea

admitted that the extensive study he spent on them was done "in pursuit of elusive Darius the Mede of the book of Daniel."4 Certainly, he is interested in the search for the historicity of the

biblical

story,

and

this

"is

an

example

of

a

largely

contextual study involving the type of hypothesizing necessary for the progressive research."5 It appears, then, that the interest of Shea early his

career

as

a

biblical

scholar

was

to

relate

biblical

history and the history of the ancient Near East through ____________________________ lShea, ~An Unrecognized Vassal King [111]," 117.

2See Willis, 424-25, n. 3.

3Ibid., 425.

4William H. Shea, "Nabonidus Chronicle: New Readings and the Identity of Darius the Mede," JAT5 7 (1996): 1.

5Willis, 425.

47 help

of

current

archaeological

findings.

Shea

himself

states: My particular interest . . . has been in the area of history and archaeology as it has related to the first and second temple periods. I am interested in biblical history, and 1 am interested in the history of the Ancient [sic] Near East, especially in Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, and Canaan. I am especially interested when these two main disciplines [i.e., biblical history and the history of the ancient Near East] converge. 1 In

this

particular

interest,

Shea

follows

William

Foxwell Albright, known as the dean of biblical archaeology,2 who, according to David Noel Freedman's evaluation, aimed ~to place biblical tradition and biblical religion in the context of ancient Near Eastern religion.H3 A1brigbt and Bis School Tracing the roots of the Adventist centrist approach to the Bible, Lawrence T. Geraty, a graduate of Harvard, writes: _________________________ lShea, ~Dr. William H. Shea,H 12.

2See, Leona G1idden Running, ~The Dean of Biblical ~rcheologists,H Ministry, September 1975, 18-21.

3David Noel Freedman, ~W. F. Albright as an Historian,H in The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright:

An Appraisal, ed. Gus W. Van Beek (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989), 35. ~At a very early stage in his career it seemed clear that Albright's primary interest was' ... the twin foci . . . the Bible on the one hand, and . . . the religious ideas of the ancient Near East on the other. In all his subsequent major undertakings, he attempted to combine or blend these interestsH (ibid., 34).

48 His [Albright's] approach to Old Testament studies, making use of the data being recovered from the Near East to interpret the Bible in its original ancient Near Eastern context, gave academic substance to a centrist approach to the Bible that already characterized Adventism. So it is no wonder that a whole generation of Adventist scholars sought to receive their training in the ~Albright School" of the Old Testament scholarship.l The influence of the ~Albright School" on Adventist Old Testament scholarship can be traced to Siegfried Horn, a student of Albright at Johns Hopkins University. From Horn, the Albright approach was passed on to his students, of which Shea was one.

Geraty further states: Horn continued to influence the direction of Adventist biblical scholarship because of the legacy he created. He inspired numerous ~successors." Three of his students (Lawrence Geraty and William Shea . . . and Larry Herr ... ) went on to Harvard University to study with Albright's students, G. Ernest Wright, Frank M. Cross, and Thomas O. Lambdin.2 Geraty

clearly

implied

that

Shea,

through

the

influence of Siegfried Horn, George Ernest Wright, Frank Moore Cross, George Mendenhall, and David Noel Freedman, received his

training

~in

the

'Albright

School'

of

scholarship."3 On this basis a study of the so_________________________ lGeraty, 46.

2Ibid.,

48.

3Ibid.,

46.

Old

Testament

49

ealled "Albright School" in its proper eontext is in order here to see whether Shea was influenced to sorne extent by it.

Origin of the Albright School The terrn "Albright sehool" is rnerely another terrn used for what Albright hirnself ealled the "Baltirnore sehool," referring to the loeation of Johns Hopkins University, where he taught for 29 years. Albright prefers the terrn Baltirnore sehool out of rnodesty "so that he would not have to refer to hirnself so often."1 The term serves "to identify with those of his

[Albright's]

students

who

earried

on

his

tradition."2

Accordingly, "one of Albright's best historians," John Bright, published a book, History of Israel (1959),3 whieh took "the basic

views

of

the

'Baltirnore

sehool,'

i.e.,

'Albright

sehool.'"4 This Albright sehool grew in the rniddle thirties arnong the few young students of Albright who were enthusiastic about their ____________________________ lThe words of John Bright, one of Albright's students, quoted in the book, Leona Glidden Running and David Noel Freedrnan, William Foxwell Albright: A TwentiethCentury Genius (New York: Two Continents Publishing Group, 1975), 198.

2Ibid.

3John Bright, A History of Israel (Philadelphia: Westrninster, 1959).

4Running and Freedrnan, 199.

50 "exciting new worlds of scholarship" as introduced by AJbright to them, "and who considered his ideas and methods tremendously persuasive and . . . 'incredibly fascinating.'"l Hence, it is evident that the "Albright school" refers to the "tradition" that his students carried on and to the "basic views" and methods that he handed down to his former students.

Willis indicates that Albright's years of teaching at Johns Hopkins "contributed to his unconscious development of a 'school' of archaeological and OT scholarship."2 Then he added: [T]he best-known members of his school were and are John Bright (1908- ), Frank Moore Cross, Jr. (1921- ), J. Mitchell Dahood (1922-1982), David Noel Freedrnan (1922), Nelson Glueck (1900-1971), George E. Mendenhall (1916), and G. Ernest Wright (1909-1974).3 One can notice that four of the names mentioned above are former teachers of William H. Shea. George E. Mendenhall and David Noel Freedman were teachers of Shea at the University of Michigan, while G. Ernest Wright and Moore Cross, Jr. taught him at Harvard.4 These former ______________________

lIbid., 2Willis, 3Ibid.,

202.

15.

15-6.

4See Geraty, 48.

51

teachers might well have passed on the Albright tradition to some extent to Shea during his graduate studies.

Concerning the extent of the legacy that Albright left in ancient Near Eastern, biblical, and archaeological studies, William G. Dever speaks of "the house that Albright built."l He argues that Albright's creation of his "'school' was absolutely deliberate,

even

prograrnmatic."2

This

was

evident,

Dever

maintains, through Albright's "lifelong intent to shape all our disciplines, not just archaeology--indeed (to use his word), to 'revolutionize' them."3 Dever then discussed the components of the

house

that

Albright

built

under

two

subject

headings,

methods and results.

Methodology of the Albright School Concerning methodology, Dever declares that Albright was an empiricist, positivist, and conservative. These three descriptions

best

characterized

Albright's

methods.

Dever

maintains that Albright's empiricism "drew him irresistably to archaeology with its promise of new, objective,'external evidence'--the realia of which Albright _______________________ lWilliam G. Dever, "What Remains of the House That Albright Built?" EA 56 (1993): 25.

2Ibid.

3Ibid. Italics his.

52

often spoke so optimistically."l As to Albright being positivist, Dever puts it this way: 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. Most 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 the history.2 Quoting Albright's typical statement of his own views, goes on to prove the positivistic tendency of Albright. He explains that "Albright himself states that his syntheses are based on two postulates":3 (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 modern scientific and philosophical analysis to reconstruct the steps by which men have learned to use their minds more effectively.4 That statement leads to the last aspect of his method.

"Albright was a conservative," Dever argues, "in the sense that his whole career was a reaction against what he regarded as the radical and unjustified rewriting of ____________________________ lIbid., 26. Italics his.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 27.

4W[illiam] F[oxwell] Albright, History, Archaeology, ~nd Christian Humanism (London: A. and c. Black, 1964), 271, as cited by William G. Dever, "What Remains of the House That Albright Built?" EA 56 (1993): 27.

53

Biblical history by Welhaussen and his followers."l Again, Dever quotes Albright in full as representative of his conservative viewpoints: 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 without 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 h.Ă­.s t.o ry ;" Although Albright was a ~'conservative' in the true sense" of word, according to Dever, yet his ~conservatism did not amount to Fundamentalism."3 It has been observed that Albright's conservatism was a religious and not a theological one, which was based primarily on his view of the Bible. At the same time "Albright's conservatism was more a matter of temperament and personal conviction than of _____________________ lDever, ~What Remains of the Rouse," 27. 2W[illiam] F[oxwell] Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Baltimore: The Johns Ropkins University, 1935), 137, 138, quoted in William G. Dever, ~What Remains of the Rouse That Albright Built?" BA 56 (1993): 27. his.

3Dever, ~What Remains of the Rouse," 27. Italics

54

theological orthodoxy.Hl This seems evident from his ~little formal interest in theology~H2 At any rate, Albright's methodology was based on the use of an external data, such as recent archaeological findings, in search of the historicity of the Bible and its historical records.3 This approach of Albright stemmed from his attitude towards archaeology, which he considered as being not a separate and isolated discipline apart from others but as one that should be integrated and in constant dialogue with other disciplines.4 That is why he preferred to be called primarily an Orientalist.5 He was more of an Orientalist than an archaeologist because, as Dever ____________________________ lIbid., 28.

2Ibid.

3See Freedman, 38.

4See Dever, ~What Remains of the House," 28. Frank Moore Cross, Jr., echoes the same concern of not restricting archaeology into itself. He notes: ~I think you lose more by being a narrow specialist. . .• For the generalist, there is the possibility of synthesis, of seeing aspects that the specialist cannot see ...• I don't like the narrowing of archeologists into technicians, which is the tendency in Israel I deplore--and which Mazar deplores, by the way. . . . The narrow specialist who knows Middle Bronze I exceedingly well restricts himself ultimately from seeing any relationship between archaeology and history. Archaeology in a historical period must interact with history." Hershel Shanks, ~Frank Moore Cross: An Interview, Introduction," Bible Review 8 (August 1992): 21.

5Frank Moore Cross, Jr., ~William Foxwell Albright: Orientalist,H BASOR, no. 200 (December 1970): 8; J. M. Sasson, ~Albright as an Orientalist," BA 56 (1993): 3-7.

55

believes, Albright

his is

~forte best

syntheses,H2

in

was

known which

not

method,

for~his he

results.H1

but

several

large-scale

proficiently

merged

~archaeological, linguistic, and philological data to reconstruct cultural history.H3 Gus W. Van Beek well describes

the

synthesis

that

Albright

competently

established and its noteworthy results: No other scholar of his time or of our time controlled so many of the diverse streams of information flowing from the disciplines of archaeology, languages, and literatures of the Near East, and managed so successfully to unite these streams to form a mighty river. Integrating information from these disciplines, Albright developed a holistic view of the cultures of the ancient Near East, addressing not only walls and pots, but also the range of political and cultural histories, technological triumphs and intellectual achievements. The synthesis thus created became an independent structure that, in turn, paradoxically enhanced its parts. It gave new meanings to the basic ________________________________ _ lDever, ~What Remains of the House,H 28. Italics his.

Dever further noted that there was no evidence that Albright ~ever read, much less was influenced by, such pivotal theoretical works in Americanist archaeology as Walter Taylor's A Study of Archaeology (1948). Indeed, for all Albright's breadth (which impresses us in our own small circle), he never moved in the mainstream of archaeology; he made few if any contributions to archaeological theory; and in the handbooks that treat the history of American or worldwide archaeology he invariably goes unmentioned" (ibid.).

2Dever, ~What Remains of the House,H 31.

3Gus W. Van Beek, ~W. F. Albright's Contribution to Archaeology," in The Scholarship of William Foxwell Albright: An Appraisal, ed. Gus W. Van Beek (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1989), 68.

56

data and produced additional fresh insights with varying degrees of probability.l With Abright's biblical and historical synthesis, "we must be permanently grateful to Albright and his creation: biblical archaeology."2 This tradition of synthesis was carried on and even broadened by Albright's forrner student and protegĂŠ, G. Ernest Wright, "who master-minded the merging of 'Biblical archaeology' and 'Biblical theology' ."3 It was Wright who founded

the

semipopular

Archaeologist.4

As

journal,

which

earlier

Wright

noted

he

named

was

Biblical

Shea's

rnain

school

is

professor at Harvard.

Shea's Place in the Albright School The

place

of

Shea

in

the

Albright

important for appropriately describing the nature of his works in biblical studies. In his 1978 book review of a work edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, Shea hinted that he carne from the Albright school, especially in his ___________________________ lIbido 2Freedman, 40.

3Dever, "What Rernains of the House," 28.

4However, in the passage of time, the name Biblical Archaeologist was changed in 1998 under a new name, Near Eastern Archaeology. The title was changed because, according to the editor then, David Hopkins, the topics should not just be limited sornething about the Bible but ones that "embrace the ancient worlds from Mesopotarnia to the Mediterranean."

David C. Hopkins, "From the Editor," Near Eastern Archaeology 61 (March 1998): 1.

57 approach to the biblical history. He signified that he was evaluating

the

book

from

the

standpoint

of

the

Albright

school's ~historico-archeological positivist approach.H1 From that standpoint, Shea, in his summary, concluded that the book ~represents a clearcut presentation of historical writing in the finest traditions of the Alt-Noth school [of the German school].H2 He asked ~why scholars in this school even bother to write the history of this period [i.e., from Abraham through Judges], since [they themselves claimed that] there was none."3 A

quick

survey

of

some

of

his

articles

shows

a

synthesis of historical and biblical data, which is the essence of the approach of Albright and his followers. For example, his synthesis materials

of in

Sennacherib's

the

biblical

arguing invasion

and

for of

the

the

Judah

is

available two-campaign remarkable.

extrabiblical theory He

used

of the

latest archaeological findings to give further support to his theory. In 1985, when he first propounded and expanded the Sennacherib's two-campaign theory,4 he ______________________

lWilliam H. Shea, review of Israelite and Judaean History, by J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, eds., AUSS 16 (1978): 414. See also, Willis, 459.

2Shea, review of Israelite and Judaean History, 416.

3Ibid.

4Actually there are earlier scholars who proposed this theory. See the sources cited by Shea in all of his

58 broke

new

ground

by

utilizing

and

synthesizing

Assyrian,

Palestinian, and Egyptian texts combined with the exposition of pertinent biblical texts.l In 1997, taking up the same issue, he supported further his theory with the new discovery of the so called Tirhakah text discovered at Karnak in 1990. 2 In 1999, talking about the same topic, he gave supplementary evidence

for

his

theory

by

utilizing

the

recent

archaeological findings of the Reich-Shukron excavations of the

~second

outer

wall"

located

in

the

~eastern

side

of

Jerusalem near the floor of the Kidron Valley"3 dated during the time of Hezekiah. To quote his words: ______[A]fter Hezekiah obtained temporary relief by agreeing to pay tribute in 701 B.C., he undertook a long-term project to supplement the city's water supply in case ________________ footnotes at Shea, ~Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign," Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) 104 (1985): 401-18. lIbido 2Shea, ~The New Tirhakah Text and Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign," AUSS 35 (1997): 181-88.

3William H. Shea, ~Jerusalem Under Siege: Did Sennacherib Attack Twice?"BAR 25 (November/December 1999): 43. Regarding the Reich-Shukron excavations in Jerusalem, see, Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, ~Light at the End of the Tunnel," BAR 25 (January/February 1999): 22-33, 72; Hershel Shanks, ~Everything You Ever Knew About Jerusalem Is Wrong (Well, Almost)," BAR 25 (November/December 1999): 20-9; and idem, ~I Climbed Warren's Shaft (But Joab Never Did)," BAR 25 (November/December 1999): 31-5.

59

the Assyrians returned. His work was completed in time for the second Assyrian campaign in 688 B.C.1 Then Shea quoted in full the parallel account of 2 Kgs 18:13 (and Isa 36:1) with 2 Chron 32:2-5 that describes ~Hezekiah's preparations

for

the

city's

defense

against

Sennacherib's

[second] attack.n2 However, in the succeeding article, he is more cautious in his study. He admitted that to solve sorne of the

discordant

details

of

the

issue,

~the

chronological

problems of the early 25th Dynasty of Egypt need further work.H3 He further noted that if Sennacherib's annals for the years 688-681 B.C. are ever recovered, ~then we may have a more definitive

answer

to

the

question

whether

Sennacherib

campaigned against Judah once or twice.n4 Again, in 2001, he opened the discussion of the issue by saying that ~the case for the defense of the second campaign theory does not rest yet.ns His attitude is one that believes in progressive research: __________________________ lShea, ~Jerusalem Under Siege,n 43.

2Ibid.

3Shea, uHezekiah, Sennacherib and Tirhakah: A Brief Rejoinder,n Near East Archaeological SociĂŠty Bulletin 45 (2000): 38.

4Ibid.

5Shea, uThe Murder of Sennacherib and Related Issues," Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 46 (2001): 40.

60

As long as new discoveries like the Tang-I Var inscription from Sargon, the new text from Taharqa and the new excavations around the Gihon Spring come along, we may expect that new information will continue to illuminate this problem, one way or another, for sorne time to come.1 It is no wonder Shea's attitude is sometimes compared to that of Albright. Donald J. Wiseman observes: ~Like Albright, Shea is always prepared to enlarge his interpretations in the light

of

new

linguistic

and

confirmed

archaeological

evidence. This is a mark of sound and humble scholarship."2 One of the striking features of Shea's works is the use of primary sources in most, if not all, of his works. 3 In reply

to

Lester

L.

Grabbe's

critique

of

his

published

article, he reiterated the importance of using the primary sources.

He

pointed

out

that

~since

Grabbe

has

not

introduced any new primary sources into this discussion,1 ________________________ lIbido 2Donald J. Wiseman, ~Statement on the back cover of the book," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997).

3Probably this was influenced by one of the Albright's students, George Ernest Wright, who was the former teacher of Shea at Harvard that encourages his students to look and use ~primary source material" in their studies so that they would be in the ~~rontiers of knowledge." See William G. Dever, ~Wright as a Teacher," BA 50 (March 1987): 17.

61

would to like introduce twO."l Using these primary sources, the Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC 3765) published by R. P. Dougherty in 19292 and the other published by K. Oberhuber in the

Archaeological

Museum

of

Florence

(no.

135),3

Shea

hypothesized that the name Belshazzar in those two texts may be the original Babylonian name of Daniel rather than what may

be

a

~corrupted"

Babylonian

name

of

Daniel,

Bel(te)shazzar. He concluded: [T]wo extrabiblical references to Daniel by his original Babylonian name of Belshazzar have now be en found in cuneiform sources that date to 560 B.C. These may therefore be taken as contemporary references to the biblical Daniel while he was personally active in Babylon.4 In conclusion, it can safely be said that Shea carried on to sorne extent the tradition of the Albright school.

This

evaluation

of

harmonizes Shea's

with

works,

Willis'

conclusion

especially

his

and

use

of

archaeology as comparable with that of Albright: _________________________ lWilliam H. Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar," AUSS 26 (1988): 72.

2R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar, Yale Oriental Series, vol. 15 (New Haven, CT: n.p., 1929), 67-70.

Quoted in William H. Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar," AUSS 26 (1988): 76.

3K. Oberhuber, Sumerische und Akkadische Keilschrifdenkmaler des Archaologischen Museums zu Florenz, Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft, Supplement 8 (Innsbruck, 1960), 95, no. 135. Quoted in William H. Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar," AUSS 26 (1988): 76.

4Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar meets Belshazzar," 81.

62

Shea studied under G. Ernest Wright at Barvard and under Mendenhall at the University of -Michigan. Bis comparative parallels and historical exploration are somewhat reminiscent of the approach and contributions of Albright, though his attitude to Scripture is much more conservative. Shea's support for the two-campaign theory concerning Sennacherib further strengthened the position of Born and Bright, and illustrates the manner in which he repeatedly underlined the historicity of the OT.1 The information above establishes Shea's place in the Albright school, and the remarkable features of his works in relation

to

the

Albright

school.

It

is

now

fitting

to

describe in full the nature of his works in biblical studies.

Nature of Shea's Works in Biblical Studies

In

reading

the

volurninous

materials

that

Shea

produced, it is apparent that the primary nature of his works is basically contextual-historical. As has been shown above, this approach is rooted in the Albright tradition, which he indirectly carried on. More importantly, it is based on his own personal interest in the subject early in his career, an interest

that

he

personally

adrnitted

when

he

was

interviewed.2 Although his works are primarily contextualhistorical studies, many of his published and unpublished articles reveal that the nature of his works is ________________________ 1Willis, 544.

2Shea, ~Dr. William H. Shea,H 12.

63 multiplex--eontextual-his~orical, archaeological, literary,

and exegetical--and combines a number of different approaches.

That is why he is described as a ~most prolific and creative scholar."l Contextual-Historical More than fifty considered articles,

articles

contextual-historical he

put

biblical

that in

Shea wrote may nature.2

narratives

in

In

their

be

these proper

historical context in the history of the ancient Near East.

The biblical stories of Adam, the Patriarchs, David, the Israelite and Judahite kings, Daniel, and Esther,3 are ___________________________ lJames E. Miller, review of To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. by David Merling, AUSS 37 (1999): 136.

2See, appendix 1.

3William H. Shea, ~Adam in Ancient Mesopotamian Traditions," AUSS 15 (1977): 27-41; idem, ~Joseph in Sinai," Adventist Perspectives 5 (1991): 32-6; idem, ~New Light on Exodus and Construction of the Tabernacle: Gerster's Protosinaitic Inscription No. 1," 73-96; idem, ~A Potential Historical Connection for the Death and Burial of Jacob in Genesis," Catastrophism and Ancient History 13 (1991): 5-12; idem, ~The Tomb of David in Jerusalem," AUSS 34 (1996): 28791; idem, ~Adad-nirari 111 and Jehoash of Israel," Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30 (1978): 101-13; idem, ~Ahab at the Battle of Qarqar," Ministry, May 1979, 20, 21; idem, ~Assyria's End," Ministry, May 1980, 24-6; idem, ~The Date and Significance of the Samaria Ostraca," Israel Exploration Journal 27 (1977): 1627; idem, ~The Last Years of Samaria," Ministry, January 1980, 26-8; idem, ~Menahem and TiglathPileser 111," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978): 439; idem, ~A Savior from Assyria," Ministry, September 1979,

64 examples that Shea put in their ancient Near Eastern contexto Some

historical

lacunae

in

Egypt

have

been

filled

up

by

Shea's historical and contextual reconstruction.1 He also gave light to the Sabbath issue on why Jesus asked his disciples to pray that their flight on the coming war should not fall on

Sabbath.

Shea

approached

the

issue

from

a

contextual-

historical approach.2 Indeed, according to a recent evaluation of

his

publications,

enlightenment

of

Shea

contextual

is

in

~constant

details

of

search

the

for

biblical

narratives, especially in areas where historical lacunae have led to critical questioning or rejection _______________________ 26, 27; idem, ~Seal of Approval," Shabbat Shalom, JanuaryMarch 1989, 8-9; idem, ~The Military Strategy of Sheshonq/Shishak in Palestine," Chronology and Catastrophism Review 10 (1988): 2-10; idem, ~Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10," AUSS 2 (1983): 225-50; idem, ~Darius the Mede," AUSS 29 (1991): 235-57; idem, ~A Further Note on Daniel 6: Daniel as 'Governor'," AUSS 21 (1983): 16972; idem, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 133-49; idem, ~The NeoBabylonian Setting of Daniel 7," 31-6; idem, ~Esther and History-1," Ministry, July 1982, 27; idem, ~Esther and History-2," Ministry, September 1982, 27; idem, ~Esther and History," AUSS 14 (1976): 246; idem, ~Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia," 84-9. lShea, ~'So,' Ruler of Egypt," AUSS 30 (1992): 20203.

2Shea, ~The Sabbath in Matthew 24:20," AUSS 40 (2002): 23-36; idem, ~The Sabbath in Extra-Biblical Sources," Adventist Perspectives 3 (1989): 17-25; idem, Sabbath in the Epist1e of Barnabas," 149-75.

65

biblical data."l This shows that Shea pursues contextual and historical studies to underscore the historicity of the Old Testament.2 Literary Sorne of Shea's colleagues and former students attest that he is interested in literary studies.3 His own writings and works support the above affirmation. In the following discussion, his works that show his literary leaning in dealing with the biblical and extrabiblical texts are delineated. __________________________ lWillis, 544.

2See

Ibid.

3See Richard M. Davidson, "The Chiastic Literary Structure of the Book of Ezekiel," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museurn, Andrews University, 1997), 71; Zdravko Stefanovic, "The Presence of Three and a Fraction: A Literary Figure in the Book of Daniel," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museurn, Andrews University, 1997), 203, n. 3; Larry Herr, "Polysemy of Rua~ in 1 Kings 22:19-5," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museurn, Andrews University, 1997), 29.

66

Shea

noted

that

in

studying

the

Bible

the

interpreter should be aware of its literary form. 1 He said that what he meant by literary form is the method called structuralism. He categorized structuralism as ~a type of philosophical

linguistics,

the

order

and

way

in

which

biblical thought was expressed."2 He cited different examples in the Bible to illustrate this approach. He al so noted the ~poetic

technique

parallelism"

used

by

various

biblical

authors not only in the poetic part of the Bible but also in the ~biblical prose."3 Shea pointed out the importance of being aware of the inverted parallelism called as ~chiasmus"-from the Greek letter chi, ~which looks like an X."4 He explained: The technique is really an inverted parallelism.

Normal and direct parallelism would follow the order A:B::A:B. Chiasmus reverses the internal elements in relationship to each other, yielding the order of A:B::B:A. This technique in English literature is called palindrome. The technique was common in ancient Semitic literature.5 __________________________

lThis is different from ~form criticism"--one of goals of the historical-critical method in its approach the Bible.

2William H. Shea, ~How Shall We Understand the Bible?" Ministry, March 1996, 10.

3Ibid., 10-1l.

4Ibid., 11. sIbid.

67

He

indicated

that

not

understanding

this

literary

characteristic of the biblical texts would lead ~to sorne misinterpretations."l

For

Shea

recognizing

the

literary

nature of the biblical texts is significant.

The books in the OT on which Shea has made literary analyses are the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Psalms, Daniel, Song of Songs, Lamentations, and Zechariah. 2 _________________________ lIbido 2Shea, ~The Unity of the Creation Account," Origins 5 (1978): 9-38; idem, ~The Structure of the Genesis Flood Narrative and its Implications," Origins 6 (1979): 8-29; idem, ~Literary Structural Parallels Between Genesis 1 and 2," Origins 16 (1989): 49-68; idem, ~A Comparison of Narrative Elements in Ancient Mesopotamian Creation-Flood Stories with Genesis 1-9," Origins 11 (1984): 9-29; idem, ~Genesis 1 and 2 Paralleled in an Ancient Near-Eastern Source," Adventist Perspectives 4 (1990): 30-5; idem, ~Esodo 11:1-12:36: Critica e Struttura Letteraria," Adventus 1 (1988): 32-44; idem, ~Literary Form and Theological Function in Leviticus," in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 131-68; idem, ~Qinah Meter and Structure in Ps 137," Hebrew Annual Review 8 (1984): 199-210; idem, ~The Poetic Relations of the Time Periods in Dan. 9:25," AUSS 18 (1980): 59-63; idem, ~Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4," AUSS 23 (1985): 193-202; idem, ~Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5, and the Broader Relationships within chapters 2-7," AUSS 23 (1985): 277-95; idem, ~The Chiastic Structure of the Song of Songs," Zeitschrift fĂźr Altestamentliche Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 378-96; idem, ~The Qinah Structure of the Book of Lamentations," Biblica 60 (1979): "103-07; idem, ~The Literary Structure of Zechariah 1-6," in Creation, Life and Hope: Essays in Honor of Jacques B. Doukhan, ed. JifĂ­ Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000), 83-100.

68

In particular he rnade a literary analysis of David's larnent (2 Sarn 1:19-27).1 In addition to his literary analysis of sorne books of the Bible, he also analyzed one of the ancient Near Eastern pictures.2 Shea's literary studies in the book of Genesis rnostly argue against the clairns of source criticismo To sorne extent, this is also his purpose in his literary study of the book of Daniel,3 but sorne literary studies in Daniel have the purpose of helping to find the therne of a passage.4 Shea has also done literary

analysis

in

the

NT,s

especially

in

the

book

of

Revelation.6 In OT, the books of Genesis and ________________________ lShea, ~David's Larnent," BASOR 221 (1976): 141-44; idern, ~Chiasrnus and the Structure of David's Larnent," Journal of Biblical Literature (March 1986): 13-25.

2Shea, ~Artistic Balance Arnong the Beni Rasan Asiatics," BA 44 (1981): 219-28. The picture analysis of Shea is a thernatic analysis of the arrangernent and pattern of the pictures of the group of rnen, weapons, and clothing portrayed in the Egyptian rnurals.

3For exarnple, Shea, ~Further Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 4," 193-202; idern, ~E'urther Literary Structures of Daniel 2-7: An Analysis of Daniel 5, and the Broader Relationships within chapters 27," 277-95.

4Shea, ~Unity of Daniel," in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 165-255. sShea, ~Outline of Mk 13 in footnote of article by S. Joseph Kidder," AUSS 21 (1983): 209, diagrarn 2.

6See, e.g., Shea, ~Chiasrn in Therne and by Forrn in Revelation 18," AUSS 20 (1982): 249-56; idern, ~Revelation 5

69

Daniel are the prirnary focus of his literary studies. There are 26 articles of Shea that could be long to the literary study cat.eqor-y ."

Archaeological There is sorne overlap between this category and the contextual-historical works of Shea. This is because Shea uses archeological data to place the Bible and its history into their proper contexts. However, in this section, only those articles of Shea that are prirnarily archeological in nature will be set forth.

Before proceeding further, it is in order to briefly discuss

Shea's

views

concerning

archaeology.

For

hirn,

archaeology is a tool for ~understanding the Bible."2 He gives the exarnple of the discovery of Paul-Ernile Botta's excavations in Nineveh in 1842, which upholds use of the narne of an Assyrian king, Sargon, in Isa 20:1. He further noted other excavation done ~in the early 1960s" in Ashdod that support the historicity of the conquest of Sargon of ________________________ and 19 as Literary Reciprocals," AUSS 22 (1984): 249-57; idern, ~The Parallel Literary Structure of Revelation 12 and 20," AUSS 23 (1985): 37-54; idern, ~Controversy OVer the Commandments in the Central Chiasrn of Revelation," JATS 11 (2000): 216-31; idern, ~Literary and Theological Parallels Between Revelation 14-15 and Exodus 19-24," 164-79. lSee, appendix 2.

2Shea, ~How shall we understand the Bible," 12.

68256

70

that

city

as

narrated

in

Isa

20:1.1

Indeed,

for

Shea,

"archaeology has shed a lot of light upon the biblical history as we know it"2 from the biblical texto No wonder, it is so apparent that in his works he connected the evidence from the biblical texts with the witnesses from archeology. As Willis puts it, Shea "has most frequently written on topics which indicate a broad contextual interest in the ANE [ancient Near East)

from

the

perspective

of

Scripture."3

However, he

has

written a number of articles dealing primarily with archaeology without necessarily connecting it with the Bible as presently shown.

The

articles

and

works

of

Shea

which

could

be

considered as primarily archaeological in nature number than fifty.4 The topics he dealt with are varied. They range from the general

topie

of

archaeology

to

specific

ones

such as

the

existence of Noah's ark, the Eastern canal in Egypt, the route of the Exodus, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the location of Gomorrah, Ebla, and others.5 A majority of _____________________ lIbido 2Ibid.

3Willis, 469.

4See, appendix 3. sWilliam H. Shea, "Archaeological Discoveries," Minister's Digest (Australia), 1987, 13-21; idem, "Where is Noah's Ark?" Ministry, May 1975, 24, 25; idem, ~The Screen Search for Noah's Ark," Ministry, October 1977, 35; idem, ~

71 his

archaeological

works

are

reconstructions

and

new

readings of different ancient Near Eastern inscriptions.1 At times, his new readings of inscriptions shed light on ________________________________ Review of Recent Data From the Region of the Ark-Shaped Formation in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey," Origins 8 (1981): 77-92; idem, ~Noah's Ark?" Archaeology and Biblical Research 1 (Winter 1988): 6-14; idem, ~Statement by William H. Shea"; available from http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Shea.html; Internet; accessed 26 June 2003; idem, â&#x20AC;&#x153;A Date for the Recently Discovered Eastern Canal of Egypt," BASOR 226 (1977): 31-8; idem, ~La Ruta del Exodo: Desde Rameses hasta Sinai," Theologika 6 (1991): 272-313; idem, ~Leaving Egypt: The Starting Point," Adventist Review, 17 May 1990, 8-10; idem, ~Leaving Egypt: The Way Out," Adventist Review, 24 May 1990, 12-4; idem, ~Leaving Egypt: Encounter at the Sea," Adventist Review, 31 May 1990, 16-8; idem, ~Amemhotep [sic] 11 as Pharaoh of the Exodus," Bible and Spade 16 (2003): 41-51; idem, ~Numeirah: Was this Gomorrah?" Archaeology and Biblical Research 2 (Autumn 1988): 12-23; idem, ~Two Palestinian Segments from the Eblaite Geographical Atlas," 589-612; idem, ~The Calendars of Ebla: Part 1: The Old Calendar," AUSS 18 (1980): 127-37; idem, ~The Calendars of Ebla: Part 11: The New Calendar," AUSS 19 (1981): 59-70; idem, ~The Calendars of Ebla: Part 111: Conclusions," AUSS 19 (1981): 115-25; idem, ~Mutilation of Foreign Names by Bible Writers: A Possible Example from Tell el-<Umeiri," AUSS 23 (1985): 11115; idem, ~Commemorating the Final Breakthrough of the Siloam Tunnel," in Fucus: A Semitic/Afrasian Gathering in Remembrance of Albert Ehrman, 431-42; idem, ~Adon's Letter and the Babylonian Chronicle," BASOR 223 (1976): 61-3; idem, ~Historical Implications of the Archaeology of South-Western Judah in the Late Eight Century B.C.," pp. 1-18, unpub1ished paper, 2003. lFor examples, Shea, ~The Siran Inscription: Arominadab's Drinking Song," PEQ 110 (1978): 107-12; idem, ~The Inscribed Late Bronze Age Jar-Handle from Tell ~alif," BASOR 232 (1978): 78-80; idem,~Milkom as the Architect of the Natural Defenses of Rabbath Aromon in the Aroman Citadel Inscription," PEQ 111 (1979): 17-25; idem, ~The Kings of the Melqart Stela," Maarav 1 (April 1979): 159-76; idem, "The Aroman Citadel Inscription Again," PEQ 113 (1981): 105-10.

72 biblical stories and personalities.1 His íresh interpretation of the ancient Ncar Eastern data gives light on the conquest of Canaan.2

In

another

case,

Shea

responded

to

the

rnisuse

of

archaeology especially to certain clairns without archaeological basis.3 Although sorne of Shea's works on ancient Near Eastern inscriptions are directly connected with the Bible, most are noto This rnakes the works of Shea in the area of archaeology sornewhat technical.

Exegetical Shea also dealt with exegetical studies.4 In dealing with certain passages, he used a combination of linguistic, exegetical, historical, and literary structural approaches. ______________________ lShea, ~The Burial of Jacob: A New Correlation Between Genesis 50 and an Egyptian Inscription," Archaeology and Biblical Research 5 (1992): 33-45; idern, ~Samson and Delilah in a Philistine Text frorn Ashkelon," DavarLogos 2 (2003): 73-86; idern, ~Solomon Depicted in the Narne oí Gezer on a Block in the Outer Wall oí the Solornonic Gate at Gezer," 1-5.

2Shea, ~The Conquests of Sharu~en and Megiddo Reconsidered," 1-5; idem, ~The Inscribed Tablets froro Tell Deir <Alla: Part I," AUSS 27 (1989): 21-37; idem, ~The Inscribed Tablets froro Tell Deir <Alla: Part 11," AUSS 27 (1989): 97-119.

3Shea, ~'Salting' the Mounds: Did Soloroon's Sailors Ever Do New Mexico?" Liberty Magazine, May-June 1993, 2.

4See, appendix 4.

73

A rnajority of Shea's exegetical studies focused on the book of Daniel.! Be also wrote on sorne other books of the OT

such

as

the

Psalms,

Job,

and

Ezekiel.2

Shea

did

his

exegetical study not only in the OT but also in the NT. In the NT, he only dealt with the book of Revelation.3 ______________________ lWilliarn H. Shea, ~Spatial Dimensions in the Vision of Daniel 8," in Symposium on Daniel: Introductoryand Exegetical Studies, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 497-526; idem, ~The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 3. (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 75-118; idem, ~When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?" JATS 2 (1991): 115-38; idem, ~When Did the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9:24 Begin?" in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Book 1, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 375-94; idem, ~The Relationship Between the Prophecies of Daniel 8 and Daniel 9," in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf, and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, oc: Review & Herald, 1981), 228-50.

2Shea, ~The Good Shepherd," Adventist Review, 30 April 1992, 23; idem, ~O God, How Great Are Your Works!" Ministry, July-August 1995, 14-7; idem, ~Job: God's Suffering Servant," Lake Union Herald, July 1980, 8, 9; idem, ~The Investigative Judgment of Judah, Ezekiel 1-10," in The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies, ed. Arnold V. Wallenkampf, and W. Richard Lesher (Washington, oc: Review & Herald, 1981), 28391. See also, idem, Selected Studies on Prophetic

In terpretation, 1992 ed., 15-23; idem, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 38; idem, ~Daniel and the Judgment, 1980," 1927.

3See, e.g., Shea, ~The Location and Significance of Armageddon in Rev 16:16," AUSS 18 (1980): 157-62; idem, ~The Mighty Angel and His Message," in Symposium on Revelation:

Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Book 1, ed. Frank B.

74 There are specific issues that Shea took which call for an exegetical analysis. These issues are the use of wine in the OT, the justification of harboring refugees and the cities of refuge, and the literalness of the creation we e kv ' The various topics considered above dernonstrates that sorne of Shea's works are exegetical and in thern he applied different approaches such as, historical, literary, linguistic, and others that are irnportant in the interpretation of the biblical texto It is to be noted, however, that the rnost prorninent approach he used in his exegesis is literary. ________________________________ Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 279326; idern, ~Tirne Prophecies of Daniel 12 and Revelation 1213," in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Book 1, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 327-60; idern, ~Zechariah's Flying Scroll and Revelation's Unsealed Scroll," JATS 14 (Autumn 2003): 95-9. lShea, ~Beer & Wine: The Bible's Counsel," Signs of the Times, November 1988, 2-4; Herbert Kiesler and Williarn H. Shea, review of Wine in the Bible, by Samuele R. Bacchiocchi, Ministry, November 1990, 26; Williarn H. Shea, ~Cities of Refuge: Are They a Biblical Warrant for Giving Sanctuary to Illegal Aliens?" Liberty Magazine, May/June 1985, 11; idem, ~How Long was the Creation Week?" 22-4, 40.

75 Shea's Use Qf Ancient Near Eastern Data

Before delineating Shea's use oĂ­ ancient Near Eastern data, it is helpful to look first at sorne issues involving the use of archaeological or ancient Near Eastern data in order to illuminate biblical data. One of the issues involved in the use of archaeology is the common "norm among archaeologistsH that "archaeology

is

the

reality

check

of

ancient

documentsH1

including the Bible. This use of archaeology to the exclusion of other uses might lead to the notion that archaeology becomes an "evidence against the Bible,H which may be employed "to disprove

the

reliability

of

the

Bible."2

Gerhard

F.

Hasel

argues that "the Bible must not be interpreted on the basis of the ancient Near Eastern milieu and culture at the expense of its own internal witness."3 In reviewing Edwin R. Thiele's __________________________ lMerling, "The Relationship Between Archaeology and the Bible," 232.

2Ibid., 233.

3Hasel, Understanding the Living Word of God, 119.

Angel Manuel Rodriguez notes: ~The meaning of a biblical text is, then, determined by its own biblical context because it is only there that we are informed about the way God used the ancient Near Eastern background. By acknowledging that God was directly involved in the process of rejecting, polemicizing, adapting, reformulating, and incorporating sorne of the cultural, religious, cultic, and legal practices of the ancient Near East, we can honor the di vine nature of Scripture and justify the need to subrnit to its authorityH (Rodriguez, "Ancient Near Eastern Parallels to the Bible and the Question of Revelation and Inspiration," 64).

76

procedure of establishing the chronology of the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, Kenneth A. Strand, observes: Although Thiele was well versed in the history of the ancient Near East, he determined not to allow that knowledge to influence his work. . . . No dates whatever--either the biblical or extra-biblical--were placed in his charts until he had established a pattern of internal consistency based solely on the biblical data.

From the discussion above, it can be seen that the Bible must be its own primary witness and interpreter and should not be subjected to archaeological interpretation alone. If that is the case, what is the role of archaeology or ancient Near Eastern data then?

Randall W. Younker lists some positive contributions of archaeology

despite

some

of

its

weaknesses.2

One

is

that

archaeology "provides corroborative evidence for the existence of specific people, places and even events mentioned in the Biblical writings." Corroboration, according to Younker,"simply [means an] additional evidence or perspective on something that is already accepted as _________________________ lKenneth A. Strand, ~Thiele's Biblical Chronology a Corrective for Extra-biblical Dates," AUSS 34 (Autumn 1996): 297.

2Randall W. Younker, ~The Bible and Archaeology," in Christ in the Classroom: Adventist Approaches to the Integration of Faith and Learning, vol. 26-B, Syrnposiurn on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship, compiled by Humberto M. Rasi (Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Christian Teaching, 2000), 457-77.

77 true."

This

method

of

corroboration

would

~help

the

unbeliever who is challenged by claims that the events and people of the bible [sic] are totally fictitious."l Another positive contribution of archaeology, according to Younker, is ~refuting the challenges that critics have laid against

the

archaeology

Bible's in

historical

establishing

the

veracity."2 historicity

Shea's of

the

use

of

book

of

Daniel and the Exodus event would fit in these categories.

In Establishing the Historicity of the Book of Daniel Shea

emphasized

the

importance

of

upholding

the

historicity of the book of Daniel. For him, it is crucial to the

correct

prophetic

interpretation

parts

of

the

of

book

the rest

prophecy on

the

of

Daniel.

accuracy

of

The the

historical parts. He noted, if the historical accuracy of the book

can

be

impugned,

its

prophecies

need

not

be

taken

seriously."3 Thus, he argued that ~if we can demonstrate that Daniel's historical sections are accurate and __________________________ lIbid., 466.

2Ibid., 469.

3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 37.

78

dependable, then we must take seriously what he says in the prophetic sections as well."l This section of the paper is selective in dealing with alleged

historical

~errors"

in

the

book

of

Daniel.

It

is

designed to show how Shea dealt with them by using ancient Near Eastern data or archaeology to validate biblical statements. 2 The Date of Dan 1: 1

Dan 1:1 records that ~Nebuchadnezzar's first siege of Jerusalem"3 happened in the third year of king Jehoiakim of Judah. Critics of the book of Daniel claimed that it was not the third year of Jehoiakim's reign but the fourth year as the historical record indicates.4 The fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign

is

605

B.C.s

Although

others

have

already

used

the

Babylonian Chronicle published by D. J. Wiseman in __________________________ lIbido Italics his.

2For other Adventist authors who dealt with the issue of the historicity of the book of Daniel, see, Gerhar F. Hasel, "The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Person and Chronology," AUSS 19 (1981): 37-49; idem, "The Book of Daniel and Matters of Language: Evidences Relating to Names Words, and the Aramaic Language," AUSS 19 (1981): 211-25; Arthur J. Ferch, Daniel on Solid Ground (Washington, oc: Review & Herald, 1988).

3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.

4See

also

Jer.

25:1.

Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.

79 1956 to harmonize this seemingly historical problem in Daniel,l Shea presented two important historical accounts in that Chronicle to further contribute to the issue at hand.

First, he narrated how Pharaoh Neco of Egypt put Jehoiakim on the throne in place of Jehoahaz in "the fall of New Year."2 From this installation point, he concluded that "the first official year of Jehoiakim's reign began in the fall of 608 B.C. The period of time before that fall New Year was known as the 'accession year' or Year O." It follows then that "Jehoiakim's third year, mentioned in Dan 1:1, began in the fall of 606 B.C. and extended to the fall of 605 B.C."3 The arguments of Shea can be outlined schematically in this manner:

Fall of

608-607

607-606

606-605

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

608 Jehoia-

Accession

kim's reign

year or "Year O"

lSee, for example, Siegfried H. Horn, "The Babylonian Chronicle and the Ancient Calendar of the Kingdom of Judah," AUSS 5 (January 1967): 12-27, especially, 20-7; Hasel, "The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology," 47-9.

2Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.

80 Shea conquest "Hatti

of

or

also ~the

used

the

whole

of

Hittite

Chronicle

for

Hatti-country

country,"

according

Nebuchadnezzar's in

to

605 the

B.C.1 The Chronicle,

includes ~all of Syria and Palestine," of which ~the city of Judah, i.e., Jerusalem" is also a part. Shea concluded that â&#x20AC;&#x153;the kingdom of Judah was included in all of the territory conquered in 60S.u This date of conquest, (605) was the same as Jehoiakim's third year "according to the standard Judahite practices of accession year reckoning and their fall to fall calendar."2

Thus,

acknowledge

~the

if use

critical of

the

scholars two

Hebrew

would

simply

chronological

principIes, accession year reckoning and the fall calendar,"3 Shea argued, there is no historical inaccuracy here as they claimed.

Be1shazzar's Kingship

According to Shea, until 1861, the book of Daniel was the only primary historical source attributing kingship to Belshazzar.4 Scholars who questioned the historicity and _____________________ lShea, "History and Eschatology,U 195.

2Ibid.

3Shea, "A Review of the Biblical Evidence for the Use of the Fall-to-Fall Calendar,u 158.

4Shea, "History and Eschatology," 197; idem, Daniel 1-7, 40.

81

kingship of Belshazzar advanced different theories.1 Although other scholars

have

written on the issue

of

Belshazzar in

Daniel,2 Shea is probably the only one who noted different ancient Near Eastern tablets "discovered in recent years which reveal the role that Belshazzar played in political and military events of Babylon in the sixth century B.C."3 The first is the cuneiform text published in 1861 that contains the name Belshazzar.4 The second text, "known as the Verse Account of Nabonidus," published in 1924 by Sidney Smith, "mentions that when Nabonidus went off to spend a prolonged time

at

Tema

Belshazzar."5

in

Arabia,

The

third

he

'entrusted

primary

source

the is

kingship' "the

to

Harran

inscriptions of Nabonidus" published by C. J. Gadd,6 _________________________ lShea, Daniel 1-7, 40. For the different proposals advanced, see, H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires of the Book of Daniel: A Historical Study of Contemporary Theories (Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1935), 10.

2See, for example, A. R. Millard, "Daniel 1-6 and History," Evangelical Quarterly 49 (1977): 67-73: Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1949), 115-19: and Hasel, "The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology," 42-5.

3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 40.

4Ibid.;

idem,

"History

and

Eschatology,"

197.

5Shea, "History and Eschatology," 197. See also idem, "The Neo-Babylonian Setting of Daniel 7," 31-6.

6Shea, "History and Eschatology," 197.

82 which ~mentioned that the senior king spent ten years livin in Arabia."l The fourth and the last cuneiform text that alludes to the historicity and kingship of Belshazzar is th Nabonidus Chronicle. The text not only mentioned about the political

and

governmental

role

of

Belshazzar

while

his

father Nabonidus was away in Arabia,2 but also stated that Nabonidus was out ~in the field fighting" with the Persians ~near the Tigris River" at the time Babylon fell to Cyrus' arroy.3 Correlating the latter event with the event in Dan 5, Shea suggested that the reason Nabonidus was not present during Belshazzar's banquet was that he was out in the fiel fighting

withCyrus'

army

at

Opis.4

Shea

concluded,

~this

small, seemingly insignificant, detail [in Dan 5] reveals just how historically accurate Daniel was in the case of Belshazzar.

"5

Darius the Mede

As previously noted, the supposed M.A. thesis of Shea at Harvard, according to Willis, was published in a _______________________ lIbido 2Shea, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 133; idem, Daniel 1 7, 40.

3Shea, ~History and Eschatology, 197.

4Shea, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 140-43; idem, ~History and Eschatology," 197; idem, Daniel 1-7, 41.

5Shea, Daniel 1-7, 41.

83

four-part series in Andrews University Seminary Studies,l which was

actually

an

extensive

research,

as

Shea

admitted,

~in

pursuit of the elusive Darius the Mede of the book of Daniel (Dan

5:31)

."2

Shea

studied

different

published

cuneiform

tablets from the early Achaemenid period in detail. According to his findings ~it is clear that Cyrus did not carry the title 'King

of

Babylon'

for

the

first

year

after

the

Persian

conquestยก none of the tablets written then assign that title to him."3 In other words, ~someone el se was functioning as king under vassalage to Cyrus"4 at that time. Shea suggested that the vassal king during the early period of Cyrus could have been Ugbaru, ~the general who conque red Babylon for Cyrus,"5 as indicated in the Nabonidus Chronicle.6 He al so suggested that the name Darius the Mede could be a ~Babylonian throne name for Ugbaru."7 The Nabonidus Chronicle also notes that Ugbaru appointed __________________________ lWillis, 424, 452, n. 5.

2Shea, ~Nabonidus Chronicle," l.

3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 42-3.

4Hasel, ~Persons and Chronology," 46.

5Shea, ~History and Eschatology," 197.

6For a detailed discussion, see, Shea, ~Darius the Mede: An Update," 235-47.

7Ibid. For the practice of assuming a throne name in the ancient Near East, see, idem, Daniel 1-7, 118-19.

84

governors,l which fits well with the account in Dan 6 that Darius the Mede appointed ~governors in Babylon."2 It

appears,

then,

as

Shea

intimated,

that

the

cuneiform tablets in the early Persian period indirectly attest

to

the

identity

of

Darius

the

Mede,

while

the

Nabonidus Chronicle directly identified Ugbaru as the most likely candidate for Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel.

In spite of these indirect and direct evidences from the ancient

Near

Eastern

data

regarding

the

identity

and

historicity of Darius the Mede, Shea admitted that ~what we still lack is a contemporary text identifying him [Darius the Mede] in that post more specifically."3 _________________________

lShea, ~Nabonidus Chronicle," 9-10. See also, idem, ~A Further Note on Daniel 6: Daniel as 'Governor'," 169-72.

2Shea, ~History and Eschatology," 197. For Shea's recent view regarding Darius the Mede with some changes regarding the duration of Darius' reign, see, idem, ~The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede,H 97-105.

3Shea, ~History and Eschatology," 197. There are different views concerning the identification of Darius the Mede aside from the suggestion of Shea. Rere are the following suggestions: (1) Astyages, (2) Cambyses, and (3) Cyaxeres 11. For the surnmary of the different views, see, ~Additional Note on Chapter 6" (Daniel 6), The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (SDABC), rev. ed., ed. Francis D Nichol (Washington, DC: Review & Herald, 1976-80), 4:814-17 However, the SDA Bible Commentary favors the view that Darius the Mede is Cyaxares 11. See also, Ellen G. White, The Story of Prophets and Kings: As Illustrated in the Captivity and Restoration of Israel (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1917), 523, 556, 567.

85 Other Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel

There are a number of historical issues that Shea has taken up to substantiate the historicity of the book of Daniel in the light of available ancient Near Eastern texts. First is the issue of Nebuchadnezzar's seven years of madness. Shea recognized a cuneiform text that could possibly relate to the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar. Rowever, the text is ~so badly damaged that the connection is not entirely clear."l The text is from the British Museum and was published by A. K. Grayson.

It contains ~some very strange actions of Nebuchadnezzar."2 These

actions

can

be

gleaned

from

the

following

lines

translated from the Babylonian tablet: ~he does not show love to son or daughter [ ... ) ... family and clan does not exist [ ... ] his attention was not directed towards promoting the welfare of Esagil [and Babylon]."3 Unfortunately, the continuation

and, perhaps, the

climax of the content of that tablet ends abruptly because the

tablet

is

badly

damaged.

Shea,

however,

ended

his

discussion of that text with optimism: ~Perhaps sorne day a __________________________ lShea, "History and Eschatology," 196.

2Ibid.

3A. K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: n.p., 1975), 89, lines 11-14, quoted in Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology," AUSS 19 (1981): 41-2.

86 duplicate of this text may be found that is not so badly damaged."l The second historical issue that Shea has dealt with concerns the identity of Daniel as an historical person. There are two cuneiform

tablets

Neriglissar's Before

Shea

reign

that and

discussed

could the in

relate

other

detail

to

from the

Daniel,

one

AmelMarduk's

content

o~

from

reign.2

these

two

tablets, he suggested that Daniel's correct Babylonian name was not Belteshazzar but Belshazzar.3 The name Belteshazzar could be considered as an alteration of Belshazzar due to the latter's identification with the Babylonian god Bel, i.e., Marduk.4 If Belshazzar was the real Babylonian name of Daniel, these two cuneiform tablets could be used as extra-biblical references to Daniel.

The

reference

to

Belshazzar

from

these

tablets

is

significant because its date, as indicated in the texts, was around 560 B.C.s The identity, the time period of holding ________________________ lShea, "History and Eschatology," 196.

2Shea, "Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar," 77-8. 3This view has been disputed by Yoshitaka Kobayashi, Syllabus for OTST 572/672 Daniel, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, Silang, Cavite, Philippines, 2002, p. 8, n. 5.

4Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar," 72-6. sIbid., 78-9.

87 office, and the title used for this Belshazzar will not fit Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidus. This Belshazzar was described in the cuneiform texts as

amel

saqu sarri (the chief officer of the

king).l Shea concluded his study in this manner: [T]woo extra-biblical references to Daniel by his original Babylonian name of Belshazzar have now been found ,in cuneiform sources that date to 560 B.C. These may therefore be taken as contemporary references to the biblical Daniel while he was personally active in Babylon.2 The third historical issue that Shea took up was not only the historicity of the episode recorded in Dan 3,3 but al so

~the

background

historicity

and

presented

two

of

that

background

event."4

of

extra-biblical

the

In

establishing

episode texts:

in the

Dan

the

3,

Shea

first

is

Nebuchadnezzar's chronicle, and the second is an undated clay prism, which is now deposited in the Istanbul museum.s Shea used the date of the rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar in 595/594 B.C. recorded

in

his

chronicle

to

explain

the

nature

of

the

convocation on the plain of Dura. In the ____________________________

1According to Shea, this post of Daniel "in the NeoBabylonian government" may be a "political post," which "is not reported in the book of Daniel" (ibid., 80).

2Ibid., 81.

3Shea, "Daniel 3," 29-52.

4Shea, "History and Eschatology," 196.

Shea, ~Daniel 3," 30, 37.

88 light of such a rebellion, Shea suggested that the purpose of the convocation could be a calling for a loyalty oath.1 Shea utilized the comprehensive list of numerous officials and kings in an undated clay prism to give further support to his theory of the nature of the convocation. In the text, there is a list describing the appointments of these royal officials. In view of these appointments, Shea further suggested that "these appointments were made in response to the threat, realized or potential, of disloyalty and rebellion among the ranks of the Babylonian

civil

servants."2

This

"oath

of

allegiance,"

according to Shea, "took a religious form."3 Bowing down and worshiping "the god of Babylon" may also symbolize a pledge of allegiance to "his earthly representative, the king."4 The fourth and last historical issue that Shea has contended with was the historicity of an account in Dan 10.

Shea wanted to establish "the person and the issue with which the

angels

were

struggling

while

Daniel

was

fasting."5 Working on the interpretation of John _______________________________ lIbid., 30-2; idem, Daniel 1-7, 107.

2Shea, "Daniel 3," 42.

3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 108.

4Ibid.

5Shea, "Wrestling with the Prince," 250.

mourning

and

89 Calvin, who suggested that it was Cambyses who was a ~Prince of Persia,"l Shea proceeded by supporting Calvin's interpretation through

the

presentation

of

extra-biblical

sources

and

evidences.2 By citing the works of ancient classical writers, like

Herodotus,

Strabo,

obstructionist

character

evidence

the

from

and of

Nabonidus

others,

Cambyses.3

Shea

suggested

Then,

by

Chronicle,

Shea

the

presenting

asserted

the

political authority of Cambyses due to his position as a coregent of Cyrus to exercise the power to halt the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.4 Shea's own summary in establishing the historical chapters

of

Daniel

can

be

appropriately

used

here

to

conclude our study in this part of the paper: _______________________________ lIbid., 235.

2Shea recognized other interpretations of the identity of the ~Prince of Persia." One of them is that the ~prince" refers to ~the guardian angel of Persia" (ibid., 231). See, ~Prince" (Dan 10:13), SDABC, 4:859; and White, 571, 572. Another refers to Cyrus as the prince. Shea, "Wrestling with the Prince," 235. For the different reasons why Shea considered these two mentioned interpretations as ~less than satisfactory," see, Shea, ~Wrestling with the Prince," 234-35.

3Shea, ~Wrestling with the Prince," 235-39.

4Ibid., 239-46.

90 [W]ith each discovery of historical documents from the NeoBabylonian period, more illumination has been shed upon the historical chapters of Daniel, confirming their historicity in so far as they address events that are mentioned in Daniel.1 In Establishing the Historicity of the Exodus Shea affirmed the importance of the Exodus event.

He noted, ~One of the great historical events of Old Testament times was the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt."2 Commenting on the recent commentary on the book of Exodus written by Peter Enns,3

Shea

theologically

noted

that

insightful,"

it

"is yet

literally

conservative,

it

~historically

is

inconclusive."4 Shea affirmed that "Enns is certainly right that one can derive spiritual and theological value from the book without knowing the precise historical setting."S However, Shea argued that recognizing the historicity of the book of Exodus will help people appreciate more of its theological message.

After reviewing _____________________________ lShea, ~History and Eschatology," 197.

2Shea, ~Leaving Egypt: The Starting Point," 8.

3Peter Enns, Exodus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).

4Shea, ~Amemhotep [sic] 11 as Pharaoh of the Exodus," 41. sIbid., 42.

91

several books and publications that deny the historicity of the Exodus, Shea was still optimistic: [O]ther works are coming out which have provided a closer attention to Egyptian archaeology and sociocultural history, as findings from those fields present a background for the book of Exodus and the events that it describes. 1 One particular example he cited was the ~interim reports on the excavations

at

Tell

el-DabCa,"

which

according

to

Shea,

"provide archaeological evidence that bears on the setting of the Israelite Sojourn that led to the Exodus."2 Indeed, he could point out archaeological evidence for enlightening the Exodus event. This part of the paper, will show how Shea used ancient Near Eastern data to help increase understanding of the events

surrounding

the

Exodus,

and

thus

establish

its

historicity.

Date of the Exodus

Shea recognized the challenge of dating the Exodus.

He observed, ~The date of the Exodus is one of the most debated topics in OT studies because of the ambiguous nature of the evidenee."3 However, he cited Merneptah's stele as one of the archaeological evidences to help clarify the __________________________ lIbid 2Ibid 3Shea, ~Exodus, Date of the," 2:230.

92 issue of the date of the Exodus, which mentioned "Israel, as a people, among names that otherwise refer to places. " this stele's information, Shea concluded that "Israel was established in Canaan by at least 1220 B.C.H1--the date attributed to the stele.

Shea Exodus

under

opted the

for 18th

the

fifteenth-century

Dynasty

of

Egypt.2

He

date

of

argued

the that

archaeological evidence "points to a fifteenth-century date" rather

than

to

the

thirteenth-century.3

archaeological

sites he mentioned to

Arad,

and

Hebron,

Warmouth,

which

argue

"yield

Among

his point no

evidence

the are of

thirteenth-century occupation, and thus," he argued, "these towns do not support a late date for the Exodus. " He further noted that Hazer "has destruction levels at the end of the 15th, 14th, and 13th cent[urie]s" that "would seem [to indicate] that one of the earlier destructions was a result of the Conquest." Other sites such as "Lachish and ___________________________ lIbid.

2Ibid., 233.

3Ibid., 238. In 1982, Shea dated the Exodus ca. 1450 B.C. (ibid., 233). However, in his recent work in 2000, Shea dated the Exodus in 1479 B.C., which according to him, still placed "the Exodus in the fifteenth century under the eighteenth dynasty, not later" (Shea, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 19).

However, the SDA Bible Commentary specifically dated the Exodus in 1445 B.C. See, "The Chronology of Early Bible History," SDABC, 1:191-92.

93 Megiddo were destroyed early in the 12th cent., too late for a thirteenth-century Exodus and Conquest."l The date of the Exodus is one of the implications Shea

has

derived

in

the

light

of

his

new

reading

of

Gerster's Protosinaitic inscription no. 1: In terms of chronological effects, this interpretation of this inscription supports the lower date for the development of the Protosinaitic script, in the sixteenth or fifteenth century B.C., and it supports a higher date for the Exodus, in the fifteenth century as opposed to the thirteenth century.2 Subsequently, in 1989, Shea made minor changes in his previous reading of the said inscription.3 In spite of this new reading, he still maintained his previous view concerning ~the date of the Exodus."4 Persons of the Exodus

Perhaps the most extensive work of Shea that deals with the validation of different persons in the Exodus through archaeological evidence is his recent monograph entitled: Early Israelite Inscriptions from Sinai, which was ________________________

lShea, ~Exodus, Date of the," 2:238. ~Shea, ~New Light on Exodus and Construction of the Tabernacle: Gerster's Protosinaitic Inscription No. 1," 95.

3Shea, ~A Further Reading for the Hobab Inscription from Sinai," AUSS 27 (1989): 193-200. His new reading, in a more freely and paraphrase way, is this: ~The Mighty One who resides between the cherubim is for the congregation of Israel and Hobab" (ibid., 199-200).

4Ibid.

94 mentioned

in

the

first

section

of

this

chapter.

The

first

archaeological evidence he cited was the inscriptions carved on a

large

flat

slab

in

one

of

the

northern

ridges

of

the

traditional Mount Sinai. According to Shea the writing used on the

relief

is

the

Proto-Sinaitic

script.1 Among

the

names

mentioned in that relief are Thutmose 11 ~through the use of his nomen of Thutmose (spelled Dudmesew) and his prenomen of Aacheper-en-Re."2 Other names carved on the relief in that slab are w~admsw (Wadjmose), ~ynhwtyp (Arnenhotep), mwshyh (Moses), and

Cacharon

(Aaron).

3

In

this

relief,

~Thutmose

11

is

identified here as the Pharaoh of the Exodus," the Pharaoh who ~died in the sea."4 Correlating the information from the relief with Egyptian history and biblical chronology, Shea maintained that Thutmose 11 was really the Pharaoh of the Exodus.5 Four more reliefs in the same area were found by Shea, which he named as relief on Pharaoh's First Ridge, __________________________ lShea, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 11.

2Ibid., 19.

3Ibid., 7-10, 20. Shea identified the unnamed singer figure on the slab as Miriam based on the context (ibid., 6, 9-10).

4Ibid., 7-8. sIbid., 11-9.

95

relief on Pharaoh's Peak,l eighteenth dynasty relief, and relief on Pharaoh's Second Ridge.2 These four reliefs further support the view that Thutmose II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Two archaeological evidences outside of Sinai were mentioned by Shea to support the belief that Thutmose II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.3 Shea concluded, ~thus there are seven different lines of evidence identifying Thutmose II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus."4 Aside from indicating that Thutmose II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, _____________________________ lIbid.,

32-56.

2Ibid., 134-72.

3These two archaeological evidences are two stele from Khirbet el-Maqatir, ~a site located just southwest of etTell and southeast of Beitin on the west bank north of Jerusalem and Ramallah" (ibid., 56).

4Ibid., 176. Shea, in his 1982 encyclopedia article, took the position that the Pharaoh of Exodus was Thutmose III. Then, in 1999, Shea proposed that the Pharaoh of Exodus was actually Amenhotep II (idem, ~Convergence of Evidence from Egypt and the Bible to Propose the Preferred Pharaoh of the Exodus," paper presented to the regional meeting of the Adventist Theological Society, Andrews University, 14 May 1999, 1-17; published as Idem, "Amernhotep [sic] II as Pharaoh of the Exodus," Bible and Spade 16 [2003]: 41-51). In 2000 privately printed work, Shea wrote that it was Thutmose II who was really the Pharaoh of the Exodus (idem, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 7-73). SDA Bible Commentary, however, took the position that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amenhotep II. See, ~The Firstborn of Pharaoh" (Exodus 12:29), SDABC, 1:554-55.

96 other Egyptian names in the Eighteenth Dynasty are also mentioned on those reliefs.1

Other Issues Surroundinq the Exodus In the same book of early Israelite inscriptions, Shea suggested

that

the

actual

Mount

Sinai

is

the

modern

Jebel

Nasib, which is â&#x20AC;&#x153;located at the north end of the Wadi Nasib.â&#x20AC;?2 Shea

presented

four

lines

of

evidence

to

argue

his

case,

asserting that, . . . [1] the known Proto-Sinaitic inscription, [2] the possibility of additional inscriptions of this type, [3] the evidence for extensive metal smelting in the area, and [4] its proximity to a known route into Sinai in ancient times--have been converged to suggest that this could have been the area when the Israelites encamped during their one-year stay in Mount Sinai.3 From 1998 to 1999, Shea visited the place for three times and took photographs of the mountain and the area. As the photographs number

of

significant.

developed, carved Upon

Shea

noticed

reliefs, a

closer

which

in

these are

examination

photographs

a

archaeologically of

the

apparent,

inscriptions on the relief, he discovered several carvings and inscriptions that depict ~the events immediately after ________________________

lThe Egyptian names are: Seqenenre, Kamose, Ahmose, and Amenhotep l. Shea, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 16768.

2Shea, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 180.

3Ibid.

97 the Exodus."l According to Shea, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the reliefs carved there are smaller in scale and required less time to carve and they deal more

specifically

with

episodes

that

occurred

at

Mount

Sinai."2 With this new discovery at hand, Shea concluded ~that Mount Sinai of Exodus 20 is best located at Jebel Nasib."3 Shea al so noted pertinent archaeological findings in Egypt that locate different geographical sites related to the time when the Israelites carne out of Egypt.4 They are: Rameses, Succoth, Etham, Pi Hahiroth, Baal-zephon, and Migdol.

Included

in

these

specifically

identified

sites

is

the

location where the Israelites crossed, the Red Sea. However, his identification of this site is simply the effect of his identification of the aforementioned sites.

Shea challenged the traditional view that Tanis is the

modern

commenced

site their

of

Rameses,

journey

on

from

where

both

the

Israelites

geographical

and

archaeological grounds.5 As the geographical and ____________________________ lIbid., 230.

2Ibid., 231.

3Ibid., 232.

4Shea, ~Leaving Egypt," Archaeology and Biblical Research 3 (1990): 98-111. sIbid., 100, geographically, Tanis is located on the west bank of the ancient eastern branch of the Nile called the Pelusiac branch. If that is where Tanis is located,

98 archaeological evidences weaken the candidacy of Tanis as Rameses, Shea suggested that modern Tell el-Dab<a is the most likely candidate. Tell el-Da~a is located geographically on the east bank of the ancient Pelusiac branch. On archaeological grounds, archaeologists found evidence of a Semitic culture in one of the occupational stratum in that site dated in the second millennium B.C. Ancient Egyptian writers indicate that the Hyksos, who were Semites, "established their capital at a place

named

Avaris."

It

is

also

indicated

in

the

Egyptian

writings Avaris "was the place where Rameses 11 later built his delt residence." With this fact, Shea noted that "if we find Avaris, therefore, we would also have found Rameses, and vice versa." Tell el-Dab<a therefore, Shea suggested, is "the place from which the Israelites departed Egypt."l The next site identified is Succoth. From its (Heb. Sukkoth), it is apparent that it is the equivalent to _________________________

then the Israelites would be in need of using a barge or boat in ferrying all "their livestock across the Pelusiac branch."

On archaeological grounds, the inscriptions found by the archaeologists there are unusual in the sense that "the inscriptions on those blocks were not displayed in such a way as to make them easy to read. Some were upside down, some were hidden completely, and none of them provided any continuous texts." Based on this findings "the archaeologists concluded that these blocks had been removed from some other site and brought to Tanis as mere building materials."

1Ibid.

99 the

modern

site

known

as

Tell

el-Mashkuta.

Based

on

the

excavations there, it is found that a certain occupational phase in one of the strata from the time of the Exodus during the 15th century B.C. was missing.l This discovery ~has been taken as an argument by some that this portion of the Exodus account is historically inaccurate." However, Shea contended that this nonoccupation of the place is in harmony with the biblical account, for the Israelites used the place as a temporary camping ground.

Also, it fits with the biblical records because, according to the Bible, the Israelites did not encounter any threatening forces of the Egyptians' when they encamped in this place. Shea concluded that ~archaeological findings at this site do not imply any significant arguments against the historical elements in the biblical record of the Exodus."2 Based on linguistic grounds, Etham means ~fort."

This is probably one of the forts ~distributed in a northsouth line across the Isthmus of Suez."3 This place is the third site identified by Shea based on Egyptian records that describe how the ~scribes posted at such forts kept day books in which they recorded the numbers of persons who came ___________________________ lIbid., 106.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 107.

100 by their posts." Based on the biblical record of the Israelite movement from Rameses to Succoth, Shea suggested that Etham must be ~located at the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat."l 8hea

identified

three

more

places:

Baal-Zephon,

Pi

Hahiroth, and Migdol. He pinpointed these places somewhere in the north of Etham as evident from the linguistic meaning of these places and from the archaeological evidence. BaalZephon means

~Baal

of

the

North,"

which

could

be

~located

at

the

northern end of the Isthmus of Suez."2 Pi Hahiroth, means ~mouth of the canal," which could be referring to the mouth of the ancient canal that ~was dug into the earth" that ~ran from the eastern

end

of

the

Wadi

Tumilat

north

of

the

Mediterranean

Sea."3 Such a canal must have ~posed a barrier for them [the Israelites] to surmount in one way or another."4 Migdol, on the other hand, simply means in Hebrew ~fort." This fort could be ~located at the western end of the coastal road, and at the northern end of the line of forts across the Isthmus of 8uez."

According to Shea, this fort could be specifically identified with the modern ____________________________ lIbid.

2Ibid., 108.

3Ibid. See also, idem, ~A Date for the Recently Discovered Eastern Canal of Egypt," 31-8.

4Shea, "Leaving Egypt," 108.

101 Qantara Sharq, a fortress city located in the town of Qantara, which is situated ~very near to the point where the modern road from Gaza to Cairo crosses over the Suez Canal."l The effect of the identification of these sites as located in the north is the identification of the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds as Lake Ballah. Shea suggested: Since the Israelites were encaroped in the north, according to the understanding of Exodus 14:2 proposed here, they would have been encamped nearest to Lake Ballah. Their passage to the east was thus blocked here by the fort at Qantara Sharq, the canal that passed by it as it ran north, and Lake Ballah immediately to the south.

To exit from Egypt, then, the Israelites had to traverse one of these three barriers. God chose the Sea or Lake Ballah for their way out of Egypt. With the construction of the Suez Canal, Lake Ballah has been partially drained but parts of it remain as swampy marshes, revealing its character as a Sea of Reeds.2 From the forgoing discussion on the historicity of the Exodus and the archaeological evidences that support it, it appears that Shea used the available ancient Near Eastern data and

how

it

could

possibly

shed

light,

either

directly

or

indirectly, on the biblical data. However, it should be noted that

his

archaeological

interpretations

are

tentatively as hypotheses since they were often __________________________

lIbid., 110.

2Ibid.

normally

stated

102 dealing

with

representative

areas example

where of

this

facts is

were his

sparse."l

statement

in

A his

monograph on early Israelite inscriptions at Sinai: What has been reported here can only be called a survey.

Granted, this survey has brought to light a number of details from the time of the Exodus and preceding it, it cannot be said to exhaust the possibilities in the area.

There is still a lot more, that can be done with the reliefs that have already been identified in terms of examining them in closer detail by mountain climbing and more powerful techniques . 2

Dominant Themes in Shea's Works Three

theological

dominant

themes

are

evident

in

the

writings of Shea. They are the Sabbath, Creation, and Judgment themes. They are dominant from the viewpoint of the amount of pages he wrote on them. This section of the paper looks at how Shea dealt with these theological themes, which are especially significant to the Seventh-day Adventists.

Sabbath The Sabbath is the first topic presented in his first published works in 1966,3 and Sabbath is the last topic, so far, on which he wrote in 2002 in Andrews __________________________ lWillis, 469.

2Shea, Early Israelite Inscriptions, 177.

3Shea, ~Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas," 149-75.

103 University Seminary Studies. The only book that he coedited with non-SDAs is also on the topic of Sabbath.

In his first published article in 1966, Shea took up the subject matter of the Sabbath in the Epistle of Barnabas.

The epistle is dated, according to Shea, "to the first third of the 2d century."l In the 15th chapter of that epistle, it is clear that the author is abrogating the Sabbath in the context of his anti-Judaism attitude.

Interestingly, Shea enumerated "the reasons" the author of the epistle "did not give" for nullifying the Sabbath: 1. He did not cite any teaching of Christ to discontinue Sabbathkeeping. ~ 2. He did not cite any command or example of the Apostles to discontinue Sabbathkeeping.

3. He did not cite any change in or abolition of the Law as a reason for discontinuing Sabbathkeeping.

I 4. He made no mention of the Sabbath as being a ceremonial type that was fulfilled and terminated at the cross.2 Shea further argued that "the strongest support of the Sabbath from this epistle" is the "thoroughly unbiblical basis" which the author of the epistle used to support his anti-Sabbatarianism argument.3 Shea's most extensive research in regard to extra-biblical evidences for observance of the seventh-day ______________________________ lIbid., 149, n. 2.

2Ibid., 171.

3Ibid.

104 Sabbath is the article he wrote in 1989.1 In that article he traced back from the NT, the Intertestamental, to the OT periods a number of references to the seventh-day Sabbath within and outside of the Bible. Some of these references had been noted already by some scholars in the field, whose writings he simply reviewed with some additions as he deemed necessary. The new evidence he presented is from the Tell Deir cAlla clay tablets discovered in that place. What interested him in these tablets are the remaining seven tablets that ~had a series of dots incised

into

them."2

Shea's

interpretation

of

these

dotted

tablets is that ~these tablets were used to keep track of the days

of

the

week

and

they

would,

therefore,

al

so

have

demarcated the Sabbath."3 According to Shea, if this suggestion is correct, ~we may possibly take a recognition of the seventhday Sabbath back as far as the late thirteenth century B.C."4 In the book about the Sabbath he co-edited with other scholars, he responded to two of the papers presented _____________________________

lShea, ~The Sabbath in Extra-Biblical Sources," 1725.

2Ibid., 23.

3Ibid.

4Ibid., 24.

105 there, by Professors L. Hoffman and J. Baldovin.1 In response to Hoffman's paper, Shea cornmended the historical scheme that Hoffman put forward in his discussion of the development of the Jewish search for meaning of the Sabbath. Taking that general framework set by Hoffman, he compared sorne parallel phases of the Adventist's search for the Sabbath with that of the Jewry.2 Shea concluded: If one looks at the variations in these groups in the light of Hoffrnan's paper one might say that they reveal more about the attitudes of members toward the God of the Sabbath than about their attitudes toward the Sabbath per se.3 Concerning Baldovin's paper, Shea presented sorne lines of evidence that would fill in the gap for Baldovin's paper, He argued,

~to

turn

to

that

earlier

period,

which

one

might

consider to be a gap in Baldovin's paper, I would cite but one text and one experience of the church." Shea noted that the text he was referring ~to is the famous and much-discussed or debated letter of Pliny to Trajan, written about 112."4 From careful examination and reading of the text from Pliny, â&#x20AC;&#x153;it looks as if these early Christians had ________________________ lShea, ~A Response to L. Hoffrnan and J. Baldovin," in The Sabbath in Jewish and Christian Traditions, ed. Taroara C. Eskenazi, Daniel J. Harrington, and William H. Shea (New York: Crossroad, 1991), 230-35.

2Ibid., 231.

3Ibid. Italics his.

4rbid., 233.

106 selected some of the Ten Commandments upon which to swear their

oath."l

development

Although

of

the

Shea's

services

main of

the

point

here

early

is

on

the

church,

he

was

indirectly suggesting that the Sabbath commandment was part of the swearing of an oath in the early church.2 In his 1992 book article, Shea made a suggestion pertaining to the identification the Lord' s of the Qumran material s-. 3 This article' s main discussion was

focused

on

the

nature

of

the

heavenly

sanctuary

as

described in the Qumran scrolls, which is comparable with the description of heavenly sanctuary in the book of Revelation.

However,

in

the

last

part

of

this

article,

made

an

implication about the identification of the Day in Rev 1:10. In the light of the pervasive use of sevens and the use of the Sabbath in that scroll as datelines, Shea suggested that the Lord's Day in Rev 1:10, ________________________

lIbido ~Since the Ten Cornmandments are sometimes referred to as the Ten Words of the Covenant in the Hebrew Bible, the resemblance here is quite strong" (ibid.).

2~Some other aspects of the oath may also be relat to other commandments" (ibid.).

3Shea, ~Sabbath Hymns for the Heavenly Sanctuary (Qumran)," in Symposium on Revelation: Exegetical and General Studies, Book 2, ed. Frank B.Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 1 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research, 1992), 391-407.

107 which

is also

used

as

the

dateline

in

the

book

of

Revelation, could be also be the seventh-day Sabbath.1 In 1994, Shea wrote another article that related the Sabbath to an extrabiblical

source.2 This is the Azekah's Inscription,

which ~cannot be so late as 701 B.C."3 According to one of the specific

accounts

in

the

text,

Sargon's

army's

~final

breakthrough from the siege ramp of the city of Gath ~took place.'in his seventh (time)' or ina 7-SÚ."4 According to Shea, the meaning of the phrase, “his seventh (time)' or ina 7-sú," refers to Hezekiah's ~seven" and ~not to Sargon['s] ."5 Shea concluded in this study that in the ~Azekah text, Sargon is bragging that he had conquered the city of Gath from Hezekiah's troops on ______________________________ l~The parallel literary structure of this extrabiblical work that emphasizes sevens and the Sabbath provides an additional reason why the 'Lord's day' in Revelation, a work that also deals with a series of sevens, is best interpreted as the Sabbath" (ibid.).

2Shea, ~Sargon's Azekah Inscription: The Earliest Extrabiblical Reference to the Sabbath?" AUSS 32 (1994): 247-51.

3Ibid., 248.

4Ibid., 250. sIbid. This ~seven" that Hezekiah possesses refers to the seventh-day Sabbath.

108 Hezekiah's seventh-day Sabbath.n1 Such “attack against the Jews on their Sabbath makes very good military sense.”2 In his 2001 article in the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, Shea used earliest Rabbinic sources from Jacob Neusner's published book, Midrash Reader, to discuss some issues regarding the Sabbath.3 Shea noted the misunderstanding of some regarding 1 Cor 16:2 ~to indicate that the first day of the week or Sunday was observed by Corinthian Christians as a holy dayn4 in which the offering is to be brought on that day of worship.

Shea noted that ~the text actually says the oppositenS as indicated by a Rabbinic source, namely, ______________________ l

Regarding the possibility of interpreting this Sabbath as “a sabbatical year" and ~not the weekly Sabbath,H Shea argued that if “the text firmly anchored to Sargon and the year 712 B.C." that ~possibility is basically ruled out.n He further argues: “Working back from Roman and postexi1ic inscriptions and literary references, Ben Zion Wacholder has compiled a complete table of sabbatical years as far back as 513 B.C. Reckoning from that time backwards requires only simple computations which reveal that the sabbatical years of the late eight century fell in 716 and 709 B.C. Assuming that the calculations are correct, 712 would not have been a sabbatical year and Sargon's reference to Hezekiah's 'seven' should be taken as a reference to the Sabbath dayn (ibid., 251).

2Ibid.

3Shea, ~Three Notes on Relations Between Early Rabbinic and Early Christian Sources,n 216-31.

4Ibid., 78. sIbid.

109 Mekhilta attributed to Rabbi Ishmael 53. The source

.

mentions the idea of storing or “saving something up" for the Sabbath, an action that ~begins on Sunday, the first day of the week."l In other words, the same practice of saving for the Sabbath that starts on Sunday 150 years after Pau1 is similar to the idea of saving up for the Sabbath in 1 Corinthians.

Another argument against the keeping of the Sabbath is a

different

interpretation

of

the

text

in

Matt

28:1.

Accordingly, the phrase, ~first of the (new) Sabbaths" is an indication that the Sabbath in genitive form in the text is referring

to

the

weeks

(sabbaton).

According

to

this

view,

“Sunday was the first of the new Sabbaths, and Sabbath thereby took

the

place

of

the

seventh

day

Sabbath."

Shea,

however,

contended that not only “the Didache and other early Christian sources" reveal the ~practice of numbering the days of the week according

to

the

Sabbath"

but

al

so

ear1y

Rabbinic

source

written in ~the period ca. 200,"2 which was also the practice during the NT period.

Shea's

2000

artic1e

on

the

book

of

Revelation

contributes to the discussion on the identification of the _________________________

lIbid., 79.

2Ibid.

111 Shea “because Sunday had no place in that ancient cultic calendar."l Another passage

in

the

Sabbath-related First

Apology

of

article Justin

was

on

Martyr,"

~a

famous

which

~has

commonly been taken as clear evidence for weekly Sunday worship conducted by Christians in Rome in the middle of the second century A.D."2 Based on his analysis of the internal contents of the passage and in comparison with the other writings of Justin Martyr, he concluded that this passage “does not belong with Justin's First Apology:"3 It was placed there later by some anonymous author who wished to enhance the acceptance of Sunday by reading it back into the time of Justin in the middle of the second century. We do not know who did this or when it was done, but one might estimate that it occurred sometime during the third or fourth centuries A.D., when the spread of the Christian Sunday took on greater proportions.4 Shea's recent article on the Sabbath in Matt 24:20 supports the view of the sanctity of that day even during the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.5 It is _________________________ lIbid., 147.

2Shea, “Justin Martyr's Sunday Worship Statement: A Forged Appendix," 1.

3Ibid., 15.

4Ibid.

5Shea, “The Sabbath in Matthew 24:20," 23-35.

112 worth noting that this article shows Shea's use of the prirnary historical rnaterials to argue his case.

Creation In addition to the topic of the Sabbath, Shea has al so dealt with the Creation theme in his works. Although Shea has written a number of articles either directly or indirectly related to the Creation theme,l his most extensive discussion on the topic is the one published in the Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist

Theology.2

This

paper

therefore

discusses

that

article at length, highlighting some aspects of the subject that are fresh and especially important. New insights from some of his other articles are _________________________

lShea, "Adarn in Ancient Mesopotarnian Traditions," 27-41; idern, "The Unity of the Creation," 9-38; idern, "A Cornparison of Narrative. Elernents in Ancient Mesopotarnian Creation-Flood Stories with Genesis 1-9," 9-29; idern, ~Literary Structural Parallels," 49-68; idern, "Genesis 2 Paralleled in an Ancient Near-Eastern Source," 30-5; ~O God, How Great," 14-7; idern, ~Controversy Over the Cornmandments," 227-29; idern, "How Long Was the Creation Week?" 22-4, 40.

2Shea, "Creation," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. George W. Reid, and Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000), 418-56. This article has been described as "a convenient and concise overview of biblical references to creation," Frank M. Hasel, "Living with Confidence Despite Sorne Open Questions: Upholding the Biblical Truth of Creation Amidst Theological Pluralisrn," JATS 14 (Spring 2003): 230, n. 2. Such a description rnay suggest that Shea's discussion of a theological therne like Creation is evidently and prirnarily biblical in nature.

113 also discussed to complement the total picture of Shea's approach to the subject of Creation.

A

majority

of

Shea's

articles

contend

against

the

literary critical approach to the creation story in the book of Genesis.

Bis

typical

approach

was

to

present

comparative

materials from the ancient Near East that shed light on its compositional and authorial unity, consistency, uniqueness or originality, and authenticity. The primary arguments he used are literary and linguistic. However, there are a number of fresh insights and innovative interpretations Shea sets forth in his creation articles that are noteworthy.

One is the similarity of the name of the Babylonian god Weila to the biblical God Yahweh Elohim in both of their creation accounts. Shea suggested: [T]his unique, unusual, and otherwise unknown name for god [i.e., We-ila] in this Babylonian text is a survival, somewhat mutilated, of the name of the true God of the Bible who was actually involved in that creation.1 The similarities can be put this way, according to Shea:2 _____________________

lShea, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Genesis 1 and 2 Paralleled in an Ancient Near-Eastern Source," 33.

2Ibid., 34. Shea explains in detail how he arrived at the similarities: â&#x20AC;&#x153;In order to get from one form of this to the other, all that needed to happen was that the name of the God of the Bible lose its first syllable in the transmission. The writing of we-e with a long e-vowel in this name is essentially equivalent to the -weh in the second syllable of the name of this god in the Babylonian story. It is also linked with ilu or ila which can be

114 Babylonian:

(

...

)we-e ila

Biblical: (yah) -weh ~elohim Although

he

recognized

that

his

suggestion

is

apparently speculative in nature, he pointed out that the reconstruction does fit all the phonetic elements present here, and none of them is unexplained. Only a missing first syllable, which would have been dropped in the course of transmission, need to be posited.1 Shea's

Handbook

article

covers

a

wide

range

of

discussion starting from OT references to Creation to Ellen White

comments

concerning

Creation.

After

he

surveyed

"the

biblical texts [both in the OT and the NT] which bear upon the doctrine of Creation,"2 he outlined various theological and practical lessons for modern readers. Then he the historical development of the understanding of the doctrine of Creation outside of the Bible--from the ancient Near East to the Age of Rationalism, down to the twentieth century, which includes contributions of SDAs during that _____________________

equated with ~elohim in the Biblical [sic] story. Even the avowel here could be explained as an earlier form of the o vowel in the Biblical [sic] name, since that is commonly the way in which those vowels related. This would be a better explanation than trying to explain an unusual accusative-case ending here.

The only thing that is missing is the first syllable of the first name of the Biblical [sic] God" (ibid., 33-4). lIbid., 34.

2Shea, "Creation," 440.

115 century. He mentioned in particular George McCready Price and Harold W. Clark as the earliest contributors to creationism from the SDA Church. The last two sections of his discussion focused on the SDA view of creation and end with views of Ellen G. White on the doctrine of Creation.

Some important points that Shea has advanced in his Handbook article could be mentioned here in view of the current discussion on some aspects of the doctrine of Creation.1 One of the important points he discussed is the meaning of the phrase ~the heavens and the earth."2 He mentioned that â&#x20AC;&#x153;some have taken the

'heavens'

as

a

reference

to

the

universe."

However,

according to Shea ~the word 'heavens' does not focus upon the universe, but rather upon the atmospheric heavens that surround this earth." He concluded, â&#x20AC;&#x153;thus the focus of the use of the phrase 'heavens and earth' in Genesis 1 is upon this earth, not the universe or the starry heavens." After this conclusion, Shea emphasized

the

proper

point

of

view

from

which

one

should

understand and interpret the creation account in Genesis in __________________________ l

For example, recently, Richard M. Davidson of Andrews University, suggests that the phrase ~heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1 refers to ~the entire universe" as one of the effects of his taking a position of the ~passive gap theory." See Richard M. Davidson, ~The Biblical Account of Origins," JATS 14 (Spring 2003): 4-43, especially 19-25, 324 .

2

Shea, ~Creation," 420.

116 view of the perspective â&#x20AC;&#x153;from which" the creation account ~was written": Oriented to the scientific method, modern thought comes to this account thinking of an observer of the earth standing outside of it or looking down upon it. That is not the point of view from which this narrative was written. The Creation acts were revealed and recorded as if they had passed before an observer positioned upon the earth, not outside of its systems. That point of view makes some elements in the narrative more understandable.1 Another important point that Shea discussed was the date of Creation. Working from the known date of ~the beginning of the reign of Solomon" ca. 970 B.C.,2 and other chronological markings in the Bible, he attested the date Creation to be ca.

5600

B.C.,

.based

on

the

Septuagint.

Recognizing

~the

difficulties of using genealogies to compute chronology, the problems of the texts, and the differences between the Greek and

Hebrew

recensions,"

Shea

suggested

that

the

~earth's

history probably began in the fifth millennium B.C."3 On the question of the existence of light on the first day while the sources of light, namely the luminaries, were not created until the fourth day, Shea noted two possible answers.

The first is that these luminaries were _____________________

lIbido 2Ibid., 436.

3Ibid.

117 already there on the first day but were covered ~by a dense cloud" and ~watery firmament."l Then on -the fourth day these elements of nature that covered the luminaries were ~reorganized to make more visible the astronomical bodies involved." However, Shea

observed,

~at

present

there

is

no

direct

evidence

to

support it." Shea signified, on the other hand, his acceptance of the second answer to the foregoing question. He noted that ~the light present upon the first three days of Creation week carne directly from God Himself." Then on the fourth of the Creation week, ~He subsequently delegated that task [of giving light] to the astronomical bodies." He cited Rev 21:23 as a support to this theory, noting that ~the New Jerusalem will not need light from the sun or the moon because God Himself will provide light."2 In that same Handbook article, he wrote that Ps 104 ~provides an answer to the long-standing question about the source of light on the first day of Creation." He suggested that ~the light that surrounded the person of God provided light for the earth."3 These are the points gathered from the Handbook article of Shea that seem importante The next section ______________________

lIbid., 420.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 430.

118 proceeds to the third and last theme that Shea dealt with to a great extent in his writings.

Judgment Shea's

interest

on

the

book

of

Daniel

entails

a

preoccupation with the theme of judgment. This is so because the book of Daniel evidently talks about judgment as seems apparent

from

the

meaning

of

the

name

Daniel

in

Hebrew.

Perhaps, another reason for Shea's interest in the theme of judgment is that one of the unique and important doctrines of the SDA church deals with preadvent investigative phase of judgment.1 Shea's discussion of the theme of judgment can be seen in his published books and articles on the book of Daniel. Bis most extensive treatment of that subject is paper on the teaching of the SDA church on judgment. That paper was presented in a dialogue between Lutherans and SDAs during the years 1994-1998.2 ________________________

lShea's extensive study of the investigative judgment in the ĂźT was called forth because of the issue raised by Desmond Ford. Not only because of Ford's question on the investigative judgment, but also because of Adventists' ~rather narrow views on" the subject. To many Adventists, the investigative judgment ~is completely and utterly uniquĂŠ and without parallel" (Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37; idem, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, 1992 ed., 3).

2Shea, ~Seventh-day Adventist Teaching on the Judgment," in Lutherans & Adventists in Conversation: Report and Papers Presented 1994-1998 (Silver Spring, MD: General

119 In a number of his articles concerning the book of Daniel, Shea dealt with other parallels for the investigative judgment in the OT. The purpose of the parallel study of these investigative

judgments

“investigative

judgment

is

to

that

show began

that in

the

heaven

belief in

in

an

1844" 1

as

depicted in the book of Daniel is not ~completely and utterly unique."2 After surveying the theme of judgment in the three divisions of the Hebrew Bible--the Pentateuch, Writings, and the Prophets--Shea found that ~God has judged in times past" and that “God resides in His sanctuary."3 With these findings, Shea concluded that ~the place where God has judged and from which He has issued His judgments is His sanctuary, whether earthly or heavenly."4 Further, he noted that “some of the judgments in the Old Testament were investigative in nature" like the cases in the book of Numbers (i.e., Numbers, chapters 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 20, 27), “in which the matter was presented before ____________________________

Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and Geneva, Switzerland: The Lutheran World Foundation, 2000), 154-375. lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.

2Shea, Selected Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 3.

Studies

on

Prophetic

3Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.

4Ibid. See also, idem, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, 1992 ed., 24.

120 Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle to which he had come down in the pillar of cloud in the sight of all Israel." l Among the cases of judgment in the OT, ~the closest in character to that which Adventists have posited for the judgment that began in heaven in 1844," according to Shea, is ~the one described in Ezekiel 1-10."2 In one of the chapters in his book, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Shea discussed in detail the concept

of

judgment

in

Dan

7.3

Taking

the

historicist

approach to the interpretation of the chapter, Shea dealt exegetical detail a number of significant issues in Dan 7 such as the literary and poetic structure of the chapter, the date of the judgment of the chapter, and the nature of the judgment.

On

the

basis

of

~the

logical

order

of

the

prophecy"4 under the method of historicist interpretation, ~the

commencement

of

judgment

described

in

Daniel

7"

apparently happened ~sometime after 1798."5 Concerning the nature of the judgment in Dan 7, it is found that ~the ________________________ lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 57.

2Ibid., 38. See also, idem, Selected Studies on Prophetic Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 28-9; idem, ~The Investigative Judgment of Judah," 15-23.

3Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 111-53.

4Ibid., 140.

5Ibid., 143.

121 judgment

of

Daniel

7:9-10

in

heaven

is

investigative

in

nature."l According to Shea, such judgment could not be limited merely to the little horn but also includes the little horns' leaders

and

religious

followers

nature.2

In

as

represented

addition,

the

by

its

people

corporate

of

God

will

and be

included in that judgment ~to determine whether through Christ they are worthy to enter into" the kingdom of God.3 Shea's paper presented in a dialogue between Lutherans and SDAs traced the concept of judgment in various creedal and denominational statements on divine judgment as presented in the OT and the NT. This paper is different with Shea's other papers on the subject because this was the first time he extensively dealt with the NT concept of the judgment. He proceeded by discussing

the

determination

of

rewards

in

the

context

of

judgment. He noted that ~the decision made in heaven for those rewards only ratifies what we have experienced in our lives here on earth."4 But he quickly added, ~this inheritance/reward is solely upon the basis of grace through faith, it is not a result of ____________________________ lIbid., 153.

2Ibid., 152.

3Ibid., 153.

4Shea, ~SDA Teaching on the Judgment," 264.

}

122 righteousness by work."l The location of this "judgment of God" is the "temple in heaven" as revealed both in the OT and the NT.2 He continued discussing the distinctive Adventist view of the preadvent investigative judgment in the book of Daniel using

the

historicist

approach

of

interpretation.

In

his

summary and conclusion, Shea noted: Seventh-day Adventists fully accept the principIe stated so often in the creeds reviewed at the beginning of this paper: When Christ returns to earth He comes to judge the quick and the dead. We add only one further biblical principIe to that statement: that the inheritance which He brings at that time has been decided upon by a preadvent judgment in heaven. Ultimately the way in which we decide for or against Christ will determine what kind of inheritance He will bring for us when He comes.3 Summary The survey of Shea's biblical studies corpus, which is composed of four books and monograph and more than two hundred articles and book reviews, revealed that he dealt mostly with the book of Daniel, using historical, literary, archaeological, and exegetical approaches. His biblical studies corpus al so betrayed his primary interest in relating biblical history to the history of the ancient Near Eastern through the help of current archaeological findings ___________________________ lIbido 2Ibid.

3Ibid., 375.

123 This particular interest of Shea was influenced to some extent by the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Albright School." It was handed down to Shea by his former teachers both at Harvard and at the University of Michigan,

who

were

Albright

students.

Shea

continued

the

Albright tradition. This is revealed in his approach to the Bible which used primary archaeological data to shed light upon it, if not to establish its historicity.

Shea's work in biblical studies as demonstrated in his voluminous

articles,

suggest

that

their

nature

is

primarily

contextual-historical. His works also reveal that their nature is

multiplex,

namely,

contextual-historical,

archaeological,

literary, and exegetical in which he combined all of these approaches.

The nature of his works is further shown in his use of the ancient Near Eastern data in establishing the historicity of

the

book

of

Daniel

and

the

historicity

of

the

Exodus.

However, it should be noted that some of his archaeological interpretations are stated tentatively as hypotheses because of the sparsity of the facts.

In dealing with the themes of Sabbath, Creation, and Judgment, Shea used different approaches such as, contextualhistorical, archaeological, literary, and exegetical to fully discuss these important theological themes. However, one can note that in dealing with these theological themes, Shea either supported or supplemented

124 the traditional position of the SDA Church concerning these theological themes. The following chapter investigates the impact of Shea's works on biblical studies.

CHAPTER 4 THE IMPACT OF SHEA'S WORKS ON BIBLICAL STUDIES This chapter seeks to determine the impact of Shea's works

on

biblical

studies

by

considering

the

way

in

which

scholars from the discipline of biblical studies and related subjects cited the works of William H. Shea either to lend support to their study or to critique his study.

This research does not claim to be exhaustive and definitive concerning Shea's impact within SDA church and nonSDA

circles.

representative

The in

different terms

countries

represented

Republic,

Zimbabwe,

of

are:

South

SDA their

Croatia,

scholars country

selected of

Finland,

Korea, the

are

origin.

U.S.A.,

The

Czech

Netherlands, Germany,

Sweden, Argentina, Australia, Ghana, Algeria, and Puerto Rico.

The list of non-SDA scholars who cited Shea's works mentioned in

this

paper

is

not

exhaustive

either.

In

effect,

the

approach taken here is both representative and illustrative.

125

126

Shea's Place in Biblical Studies

"As pointed out in the previous chapter, Shea came from the Albright tradition. Although he belongs to the Albright

school,

yet

he

could

be

considered

as

more

conservative than Albright, as Willis notes: His [Shea's] comparative parallels and historical exploration are somewhat reminiscent of the approach and contributions of Albright, though his [Shea's] attitude to the Scripture is much more conservative. 1 From the above statement, it can be seen that Shea differs

from

Scripture.

Albright

Shea's

in

having

attitude

a

toward

conservative the

Bible

view

of

can

be

appraised in his own words when he was interviewed. the Bible is ~the Word of God," ~the objective revelation of GOd."2 He further stated: This means that the Bible is true whether 1 have an experience with it or not. We may believe the Bible, or we may choose not to believe it; but from an objective point of view, it is still true regardless of the attitude of the reader.3 According to Shea, the Bible contains historical records that are accurate.4 ~Inscriptions and reliefs and statuary" from the ancient Near East attest to the ____________________________ lWillis, 544.

2Shea, ~Dr. William H. Shea," 11.

3Ibid.

4Ibid., 13.

127 historical accuracy of the Bible.1 He also indicated that the approach he used in studying the Bible is ~what has been called the

historical-grammatical

method."2

This

method

not

only

analyzes ~the words present in the original language" but also takes

into

consideration

~the

historical

setting

and

the

toward

the

literary structure of the text."3 Because

of

Shea's

conservative

attitude

Bible, it is clear that he is a ~conservative" as opposed to having a critical view of the Bible. If he is conservative because of his high view of the Scripture, then the influence of his works may also be felt within the conservative circles of

biblical

scholars

who

share

similar

conservative

views

concerning the Bible.

The Impact of Shea's Works on their Readers David Merling observes that ~William Shea is one of the most creative and best published of Adventist scholars. He is

well

respected

by

both

Adventist

and

non-Adventist

scholars."4 However, as noted earlier, his impact is _____________________ lIbid.

2Ibid., 9.

3Ibid.

4Merling, ~Has Noah's Ark Been Found," 15, n. 7.

128 probably greater among conservative biblical scholars both in SDA and non-SDA" circles.

The impact of Shea's works on biblical studies can be seen

from

the

articles

he

wrote

in

both

SDA

and

non-SDA

publications. At the same time, his influence can be seen al so in the number of SDA and non-SDA scholars who responded to his published articles. As Norman H. Young indicates, ~The greatest respect an author can receive is when another scholar offers a rejoinder to one of his articles."l A number of Shea's articles are

being

responded

to

by

several

scholars.

These

various

rejoinders are examined in detail below to help demonstrate the extent of the impact of Shea' works on biblical studies. What follows is a description o Shea's influence in both SDA and non-SDA groups.

Within the SDA Church Within the SDA church, Shea made a lasting impact o both his students and colleagues. During his teaching stints at Andrews, Shea influenced many of his students and colleagues not

only

through

his

teaching

and

personal

life

but

also

through his published works. Not all of Shea's students can be mentioned here; only those who have published. The enumeration of his students is ________________________ lNorman H. Young, ~The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement? The Old Testament Background to Hebrews 6:1920 Revisited," AUSS 40 (Spring 2002): 61.

129 representative, not exhaustive. This applies al so to the list of his colleagues in the SDA church.

Among His Students

Shea's influence on his students can be seen from a number of doctoral dissertations he directed and the various topics

represented.

There

are

seven

dissertations

that

he

directed.1 They are the dissertations of José M. Bertoluci, Zdravko Stefanovié, K. Merling Alornia, Lewis O. Anderson, Jr., David Merling, Sr., Gnanarnuthu S. Wilson,2 and Dale ___________________________ lThat is, according to the Dissertation Abstracts at Andrews University Seminary Studies, and published dissertations of Shea's forrner students.

2See José M. Bertoluci, ~The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of the Controversy Between Good and Evil," AUSS 28 (1990): 149; Zdravko Stefanovic, ~Correlations Between Old Ararnaic Inscriptions and the Ararnaic Section of Daniel," AUSS 26 (1988): 85; K. Merling Alornia, ~Lesser Gods of the Ancient Near East and Sorne Cornparisons with Heavenly Beings of the Old Testament," AUSS 27 (1989): 133; Lewis O. Anderson, Jr., ~The Michael Figure in the Book of Daniel," AUSS 35 (1997): 241; Gnanamuthu S. Wilson, ~A Descriptive Analysis of Creation Concepts and Thernes in the Book of Psalrns," AUSS 36 (1998): 282. David Merling's dissertation is not abstracted in AUSS but was published under the new title: David Merling, The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.

23 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1996). The original title of Merling's dissertation is: ~The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Use in Discussions of the Israelite Conquest and Settlement and the Relationship of Archaeology and the Bible."

130

DeWitt.1 The topics include the fall of Satan from heaven, a comparative study of Old Aramaic inscriptions and the Aramaic of Daniel, a study comparing the ancient Near Eastern heavenly beings with those of the OT, the Michael figure in Daniel, creation concepts in the book of Psalms, the relationship between archaeology and the Bible in the issue of Joshua's conquest, and a literary study of the Jephthah tradition.

StefanoviĂŠ and Merling published their whole dissertations.2 Stefanovic noted that among the lasting influences of Shea on his study of the Bible are Shea's ~literary insights on various biblical passages."3 This influence is ___________________________ lDale Surnmer Dewitt, ~The Jephthah Traditions: A Rhetorical and Literary Study in the Deuteronomistic History" (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1987; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International, 1988). Mabel Bowen to Ferdinand O. Regalado, November 13, 2003, Electronic mail. Mabel Bowen is the Administrative Assistant for the PhD/ThD and MTh Programs at the SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University.

2Merling's published dissertation has already been cited, while StefanoviĂŠ's dissertation is published under this new title: Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the Light of Old Aramaic, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Suppleroent Series 129 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1992).

3Stefanovic, ~The Presence of Three and a Fraction," 203, n. 3. This stateroent of Stefanovic can be counted as an agreement to Shea's position in general in the area of literary studies. This could be an agreement because there is nothing in Stefanovic's literary studies which contradict or disagree with his former teacher's position.

131 evident among the published articles of Stefanovic that deal with a literary study of the Bible.1 Merling,

acknowledged

the

influence

of

Shea's

personal life on him, such as his openness to his students. He writes: My own academic career is an example of how Dr. Shea's openness was shared with his students. At one point in my doctoral program, I found myself without an adviser. Even, after trying to get me to switch topics, he took me as a student, badgered me more than anyone el se at my oral defense, then wrote a highly supportive letter (one I will always treasure) that led to publication of my dissertation.2 Merling referred to Shea's position concerning the location of Noah's ark. Merling writes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;To this day he __________________________

lSee, for example, Zdravko Stefanovic, ~'Go at Once!' Thematic Reversals in the Book of Esther," Asia Journal of Theology 8 (1994): 163-71; idem, ~The Great Reversal: Thematic Links Between Genesis 2 and 3," AUSS 32 (1994): 4756; idem, ~Daniel: A Book of Significant Reversals," AUSS 30 (1992): 139-50; idem, ~Daniel: A Book of Significant Reversals," 144, n. 10.

2Merling, ~Introduction," xiv. He further notes, ~He [Shea] came to my rescue when I was an orphaned student in need of a mentor. While my topic was not his first choice, he has supported and aided my research in every possible way."

Idem, The Book of Joshua: Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 23 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1996), xi. This statement of Merling can be counted as an agreement to Shea's personal character.

132 [Shea] believes that the question of the location of Noah's ark is unsettled."l A former student of Shea, Margit L. Süring, indicated the help she received from him ~in the field of iconography" and ~his readiness to share some of his views from forthcoming publications."2 Her indebtedness to Shea's help in the field of iconography can be seen in her article in the AUSS published in 1984.3 She cited a forthcoming article by Shea as an example of ~how idol-worshiping countries influenced the Yahweh concept."4 In the same article, Süring cited Shea's study, when she

took

up

the

interpretation

of

~horns"

in

Apocalyptic

literature, particularly in the book of Daniel. In the _____________________________

lMerling, ~Has Noah's Ark Been Found," 15, n. 7.

See also, idern, ~Has Noah's Ark Been Found-2," 16-7. This can be counted as agreernent to Shea's position in the area of archaeology because Merling used a particular quotation frorn Shea to argue against the theory that Noah's ark had already be en found.

2Margit L. Süring, The Horn-Motif in the Hebrew Bible and Related Ancient Near Eastern Literature and Iconography, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.

IV (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1980), xxiv.

3Süring, ~The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the Ancient Near East," AUSS 22 (1984): 327-40. The above statement of Süring can be counted as agreement to Shea's personal character.

4Ibid., 332.

133 identification of the horns in Dan 7 and 8, she cited Shea's study to help interpreters identify them.1 Another former student of Shea, Randall W. Younker, the

director

of

the

Institute

of

Archaeology

at

Andrews

University, showed in his article Shea's influence upon him by citing his former teacher's works.2 In one section of his article, Younker suggests that excavations of different towers in the ancient Ammonite territory ~reveal that they were built no earlier than Iron Age 11, perhaps sometime between the eighth and sixth centuries.n3 In support of his suggestion, he cited, in a footnote, Shea's 1979 study on the Amman Citadel Inscription suggesting that round towers had been built as defensive structures for the city.4 JifĂ­ Moskala cited Shea's works, both published and unpublished, a number of times in his monograph about the _______________________________ lSĂźring's particular use of Shea's study in the book of Daniel can be counted as an agreement in the area of exegesis because she seems to agree with Shea's identification of horns in Dan 7 and 8.

2Randall W. Younker, ~Arnmonites," in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 293-316.

3Ibid., 312.

4Ibid., 312, n. 59. Younker's citation of Shea's study on Arnman Citadel Inscription can be counted as agreement to Shea's position because Younker concurs with Shea's conclusion that the round towers mentioned in that inscription was built as a defense for the city where the inscription was found.

134 laws

of

clean

and

unclean

animals

in

Lev

11.1

Moskala

utilized Shea's summary of the death-life antithesis' theory2 for the prohibition of the unclean animals. However, Moskala demonstrates that this particular theory o Shea is inadequate to explain the rationale behind the Pentateuchal prohibition of

eating

behind"

unclean

the

animals.3

Pentateuch's

For

Moskala,

â&#x20AC;&#x153;distinction

~the

between

rationale clean

and

unclean animals lies in creation theology."4 Another

utilization

of

Shea's

works

in

Moskala's

monograph is found in a section that deals with the literary structure of Lev 11 in its larger literary context.5 Moskala has shown through the literary study of Shea in Leviticus that there is a chiastic pattern underlying the _________________________ 1JifĂ­ Moskala, The Laws of Clean and Unclean Animal of Leviticus 11: Their Nature, Theology, and Rationale (An Intertextual Study), Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series, vol. 4 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 2000).

2Ibid.,

129-30,

n.

1. 3Ibid., 130-31.

4Ibid., 363. This is Moskala's clear disagreement to Shea's theory of death-life antithesis concerning the rationale for the prohibition of the unclean animals.

5Citing Shea's study in support of his argument, Moskala wrote that ~the Book of Leviticus takes the center position in the Pentateuch" (ibid., 162).

135 whole book.1 Also, Shea's literary study on the flood narrative in

Genesis,

chiastic

specifically

structures

in

Gen

his

identification

7:1-5

and

Gen

of

9:1-7

parallel with

some

modifications and adaptations, was used by Moskala to point out that it was the deliberate intention of the author of the Flood story to connect the distinction between clean and unclean animals with the instructions for man's diet after the Flood.2 Another former student of Shea who cited his work is Joel

Nobel

Musvosvi

from

Zimbabwe.

Musvosvi

notes

the

~pioneering work" of Shea along with other scholars concerning ~the covenantal structure of Revelation."3 Musvosvi was also indebted to Shea in identifying the chiastic structure of Rev 16:6-7.4 Also, Musvosvi concurs with Shea's suggestion of the correspondence between the seven seals of Rev 6-8 and the judgments of Rev 18.5 _____________________________ lIbid., 163.

2Ibid., 245. Moskala's use of Shea's position concerning the literary structure of Leviticus and Genesis can be counted as an agreement to Shea's position in literary studies.

3Joel Nobel Musvosvi, Vengeance in the Apocalypse, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. XVII (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993), 33, 260.

4Ibid., 238-39. sIbid., 245. This is a clear example of Musvosvi's agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

Hence, this counts as agreement to Shea's

136 Daegeuk Nam, a former student of Shea who is from South Korea, has cited Shea's works in three different places.

The first is when he referred to Shea's work that dealt with one of the different issues in Dan 7.1 The second is when he referred to Shea's study on the establishment of the first year of King Belshazzar in Dan 7.2 The third place is when he quoted Shea's study on the purpose of judgment in the vision of Dan 7.3 The students

references

substantiate

to

the

Shea's words

of

works

by

Keith

N.

his

former

Schoville,

Professor Emeritus of Hebrew and Semi tic Studies at the University

of

Wisconsin-Madison,

in

his

commendation

for

Shea's Festschrift: This collection of essays by former students, colleagues, and friends of Dr. William H. Shea reflects both the breadth of his scholarly interest and the position. ____________________________

lDaegeuk Nam, The "Throne of God" Motif in the Hebrew Bible, Korean Sahmyook University Monographs Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 1 (Seoul, Korea: Institute for Theological Research, Korean Sahmyook University, 1989), 409-10, n , 4.

2Ibid., 411, 412, agreement to Shea's position because he agrees to Shea's year of reign in Babylon was

n. 1. This can be counted as an in the area of contextualhistorical suggestion that Belshazzar's first dated during 550/49 B.C.

3Ibid., 425, 426, n. 2. Nam's use of Shea's position in the exegesis of Dan 7 concerning the judgment of the professed people of God and the little horn can be counted as another agreement to Shea.

137

impact [italics supplied] of his innovative ideas upon the writers.1 Indeed, works published by Shea's former students reflect his

influence

upon

them.

The

impact

of

Shea

on

his

colleagues is considered next.

Amonq His SDA Colleagues

The word ~colleague" is defined in this paper rather broadly and refers to Shea's colleagues at Andrews and the BRI as well as other SDA scholars who are in the same area of discipline and interest as he. The impact of Shea

on his

colleagues can be assessed by how his works have been quoted or cited.

Hans K. LaRondelle, professor emeritus at Andrews University

and

a

perceptive

study

former on

the

colleague location

of

Shea,

and

cited

Shea's

significance

of

Armageddon in Rev 16:16 where ~Elijah's showdown on Mount Carmel" has been used as a type of a spiritual â&#x20AC;&#x153;'battle of Armageddon' in Revelation."2 Another idea of Shea that _________________________ lKeith N. Schoville, statement at the back cover of the book, To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997).

2Hans K. LaRondelle, Chariots of Salvation: The Biblical Drama of Armageddon (Washington, D.C.: Review & Herald, 1987), 35. He concurs with Shea's suggestion that Har Mageddon or Mount Megiddo in Revelation is identified with Mount Carmel (ibid., 184). Because of evident

138 LaRondelle

quoted

is

on

the

investigative

judgment

in

Ezekiel. As a symbol of his final decision b~ who will be saved or not on the impending doom of Judah, God put a mark on the foreheads of those righteous people. Putting a mark on righteous people is an activity of God in the context of an investigative judgment in Ezekiel.1 Among Shea's colleagues, Richard Davidson, who is now

the

J.

N.

Andrews

Professor

of

OT

Interpretation

at

Andrews, and also a former student of Shea, noted the impact of

Shea's

works

in

his

own

publications.2

Also

he

noted

Shea's typological study that links Ezekiel with the book of ___________________ agreement of LaRondelle to Shea's suggestion concerning the identity of Har Mageddon in Revelation, this can be counted as agreement to Shea in the area of exegesis. lIbid., 16l.

2His own article on the literary structure of the book of Ezekiel is inspired by Shea's literary study on the book, especially his ~groundbreaking insights into Ezekiel 1-11 and 40-48," Davidson, ~The Chiastic Literary Structure," 71. He further notes, ~My own research on Ezekiel's literary structure began as a result of reading Shea's analysis of the opening and closing matching sections of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:11 and 40-48), as mentioned above (and to be detailed below). The hypothesis presented itself that if Ezekiel 1:11 was the counterbalance to Ezekiel 40-48, perhaps these sections formed the outer members of a detailed chiastic structure that encompassed the whole book" (ibid., 74). This statement of Davidson can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

139 Daniel concerning an investigative or trial judgment as well as the final judgment described in both books.1 Davidson

does

not

concur

implicitly

on

Shea's

view

concerning his interpretation of â&#x20AC;&#x153;the heavens and the earth" in Gen 1:1. According to Shea ~the word 'heavens' does not focus upon the universe, but rather upon the atmospheric heavens that surround the earth."2 Davidson maintains, however, that Gen 1:1 ~refers to the creation of the entire universe, which took place 'in the beginning' prior to the six-day creation week of Gen 1:3ff."3 Gerald A. Klingbeil referred to Shea as his ~friend."

Shea wrote the foreword of his published dissertation and had been his external examiner.4 What Klingbeil appreciated much, among other things, is Shea's personal character as one who is always willing to help. Shea's influence on Klingbeil's work can be seen in the way _____________________ Davidson,

~the

Chiastic

Literary

Structure,"

89-90.

2Shea, "Creation," 420.

3Davidson, "The Biblical Account of Origins," 33.

This can be counted as disagreement to Shea's position on the reference to ~heavens" in Gen 1 from Davidson's clear position.

4Gerald A. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369 (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998), xi-xiii. sIbid., xiii. Klingbeil's appreciation of Shea's helpfulness can be counted as agreement to Shea in the area of personal character.

140 he employed Shea's works in his book. Klingbeil utilized Shea's study on Gerster's protosinaitic inscription no; 1 to maintain that the historicity of the Tabernacle "cannot be denied in view of extra-biblical material from the ANE.H1 He notes that Shea's presupposition that the protosinaitic inscription should be dated between the 16th and 15th century B.C., . . . would corroborate the claims of the biblical wilderness account--especially concerning the building activities (including smelting activities) of the different objects of the Tabernacle and the Tabernacle itself. The study [of Shea] provides an example of the high probability of the historicity of the Exodus narrative.2 Larry

Herr,

a

professor

of

biblical

archaeology

at

Canadian University College, recognized Shea's sensitivity to archaeological Bible.3

Herr's

and

literary

1985

paper

characteristics cited

and

in

responded

the

Hebrew

to

Shea's

archaeological article.4 In the light of the Ammonite spelling of the name ba~lyis~ or ba~lyasaC on the seal _______________________

lKlingbeil, 146.

2Ibid., 146-47, n. 106. The aforementioned statement of Klingbeil and his use of Shea's suggestion concerning the date of the protosinaitic inscription can be counted as agreement to Shea in the area of archaeology.

3Herr, ~Polysemy of Ruao,H 29. Herr's statement on Shea's sensitivity to archaeological and literary qualities of the Bible can be counted as no comment in the area of literary studies and archaeology in general.

4Larry G. Herr, ~Is the Spelling of 'Baalis' Jeremiah 40:14 a Mutilation?H AUSS 23 (Summer 1985): 187-91.

in

141 impression in Tell el-<Umeiri, Shea suggested that ~the name of Baalis in Jer 40:14 stems from a deliberate alteration made by the author himself for theological reasons."l Herr did not seem to agree with Shea's suggestion. Herr indicates that Jeremiah did not intentionally modify ~the spelling of Baalis."2 Herr presented different cases in the Bible in which ~names with foreign

theophoric

elements"

were

retained

~by

the

Bible

writers, including Jeremiah."3 In his 1981 article, Niels-Erik Andreasen noted Shea's paper on the similarity between the Mesopotamian Adapa myth and the biblical Adam story.4 He considered Shea's study as one of the “renewed attempts at showing an essential parallel between Adam

and

Adapa."S

However,

Andreasen

disagrees

with

Shea's

suggestion that there was a ~parallel" between the Mesopotamian myth and biblical Adam story. Andreasen argues that the word “parallel" is “inappropriate and quite inadequate" because the contrastive _______________________

lShea, ~Mutilation of Foreign Names," 114. 2Herr, ~Is the Spelling of 'Baalis' in Jeremiah 40:14 a Mutilation," 191.

3Ibid., 188. This is an obvious disagreement of Herr's position from Shea's suggestion. Hence, it can be counted as disagreement in the area of archaeology.

4Niels-Erik Andreasen, ~Adam and Adapa: Anthropological Characters," AUSS 19 (Autumn 1981): 179-94. sIbid., 179.

Two

142 e1ements between the two stories are much more evident than their similarities.1 A former colleague at Andrews and now the president of La Sierra University, U.S.A., Geraty, commended Shea's interpretation of a bilingual ostracon from Khirbet el-Kom. Shea's interpretation, which Geraty considered as “novel and appealing” is that ~the actions described in the two halves of the text are reciprocal.”2 Geraty is not persuaded

by

Shea's suggestion by preferring ~to see both halves of the el-Kom

bilingual

ostracon

as

referring

to

the

same

transaction on the same day.”3 A study by the late Strand on the covenantal form in the book of Revelation4 is influenced by Shea's study on the ________________________ lIbid., 179-80. Andreasen's clear disagreement to Shea's suggestion can be counted as such.

2Lawrence T. Geraty, ~Recent Suggestions on the Bilingual Ostracon from Khirbet El-Kom,H AUSS 19 (1981): 139.

Geraty is referring to Shea's unpublished paper entitled, ~The Receipts of the Bilingual Ostracon from Khirbet el-Kom.H Geraty notes that the description is reciprocal, according to Shea, because of ~the chronological problem inherent in the ~ext.

3Ibid., 139-40. Italics his. Geraty adrnits that he is almost persuaded by Shea's suggestion if not for two reasons. The first one is ~the order of the transaction's record, and the second one is ~the two different languages used" in the transaction (ibid.). Geraty's obvious difference of position from Shea's suggestion can be counted as disagreement in the area of archaeology.

4Kenneth A. Strand, ~A Further Note on the Covenantal Form in the Book of Revelation," AUSS 21 (1983): 251-64. Strand's study is a further analysis of the

143 covenantal form of the letters to the seven churches in Rev 23. Strand wrote, William H. Shea has presented an illuminating discussion of the ancient covenant form as it appears in the letters to the seven churches in Rev 2-3. His analysis is one with which I fully concur, and the purpose of this study has been simply to take a look at a broader express ion in the Apocalypse of the same pattern-an expression of it that I consider to be, in a sense, constitutive.1 Alberto R. Treiyer's monograph on the Day of the Atonement and the heavenly judgment from the Pentateuch to Revelation2 quoted and cited Shea's works in different places.

This is quite natural because of the nature of the topic of Treiyer's monograph. The number of occurrences where Shea is edited indicates the impact of Shea's works on

covenantal form in a much broader sense as apparent in the whole book of Revelation, not only in the specific chapters of Rev 2-3 as Shea had shown. ______________________________

lIbid., 264. Strand's clear concurrence with Shea's position concerning the covenantal structure in Revelation can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies. Strand's study concludes by making implications on the concept of the ~ehureh's covenant relationship with her Suzerain, the Lord Jesus Christ," in which ~vassal obligation . . . is built upon the prior goodness of the suzerain" (ibid.).

2Alberto R. Treiyer, The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment from the Pentateuch to Revelation (Siloam Springs, AR: Creation Enterprises International, 1992).

144 Treiyer's work.1 Treiyer agrees to all of Shea's works he utilized In his article concerning divine judgment, the late Hazel, a former colleague of Shea at Andrews University, cited Shea's work on the spatial dimensions in Dan 8.3 He is further indebted to Shea's study on the time in which the heavenly judgment occurred in Daniel.4 The chronological factors involved in the prophecy of Daniel, according to ____________________ lSee, ibid., 186, n , 164, 273, n. 33, 274, n , 34, 305, n. 7, 308, n. 16, 314, n. 38, 315, ns. 41 and 43, 334, n.

97, 336, n. 104, 337, n. 112, 338, n. 117, 339, n. 120, 350, n.

145, 353, n. 149, 355-56, n. 155, 358, ns. 166 and 167, 359, n.

172, 356-66, n. 3, 366, n , 4, 442, n. 303, 475, n. 107, 485, n. 139, 508, n. 230, 616, n. 568, 667, n , 13.

2This can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of exegesis because in all cases that Treiyer quoted Shea, he agrees to all of Shea's positions. For example, Treiyer agrees to Shea's suggestion that the translation of Hebrew phrase hammiqdas hamma~z (Dan 11:31) is the temple fortress" or the temple, that is, the fortress" (ibid., 339, n.

120).

3Gerhard F. Hazel, ~Divine Judgment," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. George W. Reid, and Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000), 81556. Hazel emphasized, by citing Shea's article, that the place of the pre-Advent investigative judgment as portrayed in Dan 8 is in heaven. Citing Shea's works, Hazel noted that ~'the climax of the vision is its focus on the conflict between the Prince and the little horn' over the heavenly 'sanctuary and its ministration'" (ibid., 842).

4Hasel noted that ~the divine heavenly judgment of the Ancient of days takes place after the war of the little horn against the saints of the Most High and before the saints of the Most High receive the eternal kingdom" (ibid., 834-35).

Italics his.

145 Hazel, have found fulfillment in ~literal historical time on the basis of biblical data" as demonstrated by Shea in one of his studies on the topic.1 Elsewhere in the same article, Hazel was indebted to Shea's extensive study on the establishment of the date 457 B.C. as the year of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;decree" of Artaxerxes, which resulted in "the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem."2 Hazel also cited

Shea's

work

concerning

the

matter

of

persons

and

chronology in the book of Daniel.3 ________________________ lIbid., 835. Thus, Hazel concluded that ~according to this evidence the heavenly pre-Advent investigative judgment of the saints takes place before 1798 and the Second Advent" (ibid.). In three places that Hazel used Shea's study can be counted as one agreement to Shea's position in the area of exegesis.

2Ibid., 839. The date 457 B.C. has been established based on the study of Shea, as acknowledged by Hazel, from ~classical historical sources, an Egyptian astronomical source, a Babylonian astronomical source, Egypto-Jewish historical sources, and Babylonian historical sources" (ibid.).

3Gerhard F. Hazel, ~The Book of Daniel: Evidences Relating to Persons and Chronology," AUSS 19 (1981): 37-49.

Hazel cited Shea's work in this way: ~W. H. Shea, in investigating the known cuneiform tablets relating to the time under discussion, has discovered that for a period of about nine months after the capture of Babylon in 539 by the combined forces of Medo-Persia, Cyrus the Great did not bear the title 'King of Babylon.' The title which Cyrus carried during those nine months is 'King of Lands,' and he carried that title only" (ibid., 45). With that information from Shea, Hazel suggests that there must be a vassal king other than Cyrus who was occupying the position of being the ~King of Babylon." Then based from the account of Nabonidus Chronicle, Hazel believes that ~Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium and general under Cyrus" that ~conquered Babylon" matched to Daniel's description of Darius the Mede (ibid.).

146 Another

former

colleague

of

Shea

at

Andrews

University, William G. Johnsson, lauded Shea's thorough study on "the day-for-a-year principle."l This particular study of Shea

helps

Johnsson

to

argue

that

the

historicist

interpretation of ~the apocalyptic chapters of Daniel' and Revelation"

concerning

the

principle

of

~a

symbolic

day

signifies a literal year,"2 is correct Johnsson noted that Shea had ~established that the year-day principle was known and applied by Jewish interpreters during the second centur B.C. and down to the post-Qumran period."3 Robert D. Bates cited Shea's works in response to the latter's ~critique and evaluation of" his ~article."4 The subject matter they were discussing pertains to Sennacherib's second Palestinian campaigns. Related to that __________________________ Based on this use and quotation of Shea by Hazel can be counted as one agreement to Shea's suggestion in the contextual-historical. lWilliam G. Johnsson, ~Biblical Apocalyptic," in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. George W. Reid, and Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000), 798.

2Ibid.

3Ibid. Shea's exegesis of the passage in Dan 8 coupled with historical-contextual study of the passage came up with the conclusion of the year-day principle in which Johnsson concurs with. Thus, one can count this as agreement to Shea's position in the area of exegesis.

4Robert D. Bates, ~Could Taharqa Have Been Called t the Battle of Eltekeh?: A Response to William H. Shea," Nea East Archaeological Society Bulletin 46 (2001): 43.

147 issue is whether or not Taharqa was present in the Battle o~ Eltekeh

in

701

B.C.

Bates

pointed

out

that

Shea's

chief

contention for disputing the appearance of Taharqa in 701 B.C. ~is his belief that the Kawa IV inscription contains a full pharaonic titulary for Shebitku."l However, Bates argues that ~there is no full pharaonic titulary on the Kawa IV inscription nor

is

he

referred

to

as

pharaoh."2

In

any

case,

Bates'

citation of Shea's four published articles and the extent he spent in responding to Shea's argument indicates the impact of Shea's works in his study.

Joel Badina cited Shea's article on the comparison between the structures of Rev 12 and 20.3 Because of Shea's study of some parallel elements in ~the middle section" of both Rev 12 and 20, which refers to ~events occurring in _______________________________

lIbid., SI. 2Ibid. Bates apparent disagreement to Shea's position in the issue at hand can be counted as disagreement in two areas of contextua1-historical and archaeology. Disagreement in contextual-historical because Bates disagrees with Shea's historical reconstruction during Egypt's 25th Dynasty.

Disagreement in archaeology because Bates disagrees with Shea's interpretations of some passages in Kawa IV Inscription. For Shea's response to this article, see, William H. Shea, ~What's in a Name (or Cartouche)? Another Response to Robert D. Bates," pp. 1-6, unpublished paper, 2003.

3Joel Badina, ~The Millennium," in Symposium on Revelation: Exegetical and General Studies, Book 2, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 7 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 241, n , 47.

148 heaven,"l Badina was able to conclude that the locus of the millennium described in Rev 20:4-6 is in heaven. In other words,

the

millennium

in

Rev

20

refers

to

a

heavenly

millennium and not to earthly millennium as some scholars have assumed.2 Beatrice S. Neall was indebted to Shea's works in her study of the sealed saints and the tribulation.3 She cited Shea's works on the covenantal form of the ~messages to the seven churches."4 She writes: As William H. Shea has pointed out, all the elements the covenant are found in Reve1ation: identification the suzerain king (1:5), recital of his acts of benevolence entitling him to the loyalty of his vassals (vs. 5), stipulations or commands demanding loyalty to him a10ne (2:10), provisions to deposit the treaty document and read it (1:3), and blessings and curses upon those who keep or violate the covenant (the promises and threats to the seven churches).s After citing Shea's works, Neall recommended that there is need for further study on ~the development of the covenant _____________________________

lIbid., 241.

2Badina's use of Shea's study on the literary structure of Rev 12 and 20 can be counted as agreement in the area of literary studies as it is clearly shown in the above statement.

3Beatrice S. Neall, ~Sealed Saints and the Tribulation," in Symposium on Revelation: Exegetical and General Studies, Book 2, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 7 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 245-78.

4Ibid., 247. sIbid., 247, n. 2.

149 theme in the rest of Revelation."l Neall was equa11y indebted to Shea's

1988'unpublished

manuscript

concerning

the

literary

structure in the book of Revelation.2 In particular, she adapted Shea's chiastic structure of the seals in the historical and eschatological parts of the book of Revelation. The structures being presented suggest that ~there are judgment scenes both at the Second Advent and at the end of the thousand years, in which the rebellious world stands arraigned before God on His throne."3 Warren H. Johns, citing Shea's work on the Exodus, considered acceptance of the fifteenth-century date of the Exodus as ~a more recent triumph of Biblical chronologists."4 Johns adds, Building upon [Edwin R.] Thiele's monumental work, William H. Shea, another Andrews University professor, has taken seriously the statement of 1 Kings 6:1 that fixes a time period of exactly 480 years between the Exodus and Solornon's fourth year.s _____________________________

lIbid.

2Ibid., 249, n. 9.

3Ibid., 252. From Neall's use of Shea's literary studies in Revelation can be counted as agreement in the area of literary studies. The agreement is very apparent in Neal's citation of Shea's literary works.

4Warren H. Johns, ~How Accurate Is Biblical Chronology?" Ministry, March 1984, 13. sIbid. Johns' acceptance of the fifteenth-century date of the Exodus and his mentioning of the name of Shea along with Thiele can be counted as agreement to Shea's position concerning the date of the Exodus in the area of

150 Norman Gulley in his book, Christ is Coming!,l quoted and cited Shea's works in different places in support of his arguments. The first reference Gulley mace to Shea's works was Shea's conclusion concerning who will be included in the preAdvent judgment. Gulley, citing Shea, writes, It would seem reasonable that the judgment includes: (1) ~All persons (of whatever communion) who profess a relationship to God," as Bill Shea concludes; and (2) the little horn, as a counterfeit system, because it masquerades as Christian, taking ~the name of Christ. "2 This quotation from Shea was used to support Gulley's argument that those who will be included in the pre-Advent judgment are both genuine and pseudo-Christians. These pseudo-Christians are representatives of a system of the little horn."

Gulley

appears

to

be

in

agreement

with

Shea's

conclusion that there is not much need ~to investigate the little horn as a system, for its actions are blatant against God and His saints."4 Besides, according to Shea â&#x20AC;&#x153;the only historical-contextual. ______________________________

lNorman Gulley, Christ is Coming!: A Christ-centered Approach to Last-Days Events (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 1998).

2Ibid., 413.

3Ibid., 412.

4Ibid., 415.

151

question to be decided is the manner of its [judgment's] execution."l In establishing the content sequence of materials found in Dan 7-9, Gulley invokes Shea's study to argue for the Eastern way of the effect-cause sequence of the chapters: W. H. Shea has demonstrated convincingly that chapters 79 are arranged in an "effect-cause" sequence, the inverted order to that which we follow in the West. The Eastern mind goes to the result first, and then into the factors that lead up to it.2 This effect-cause sequence is apparent, as Gulley pointed out, in the judgment that the little horn received in Dan 7 as an effect of his attack on ~the heavenly sanctuary ministry"3 described in Dan 8 and 9.4 In his monograph on Daniel, Brempong Owusu-Antwi5 from Ghana utilized Shea's works, especially those that __________________________

lShea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, 1982 ed., 124. See also, Gulley, 424, n. 24.

2Gulley, 420.

3Ibid., 421.

4All of Gulley's use and mentioning of Shea's works in Revelation and in Daniel can be counted as one agreement in the area of exegesis. From the above statement it is very apparent that Gulley agrees to Shea's various exegetical positions.

5Brempong Owusu-Antwi, The Chronology of Dan 9:2427, Adventist Theological Society Dissertation Series, vol. 2 (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society Publications, 1995).

152 dealt with the book of Daniel. His first direct use has to do with the meaning in extra-biblical literature of the Hebrew word hatak found in Dan 9:24.1 The second relates to similarity between Dan 9:25 and Dan 9:26 based on the poetic analysis by Shea.2 He also cited Shea's work concerning the ~word" reported in Dan 9:25.3 The fourth use of Shea's works is on the relationship between the decrees given to Nehemiah and to Ezra.4 Jacques B. Doukhan, a former student and colleague of Shea at Andrews University, published a recent book on Daniel entitled, Secrets of Daniel.s Doukhan emphasized the universal nature of Daniel,6 yet, he was trying to reach his fellow Jews by emphasizing the spirituality embedded in the _________________________ lIbid., 123. 2Ibid., 165, 167.

30wusi-Antwi quoted Shea as saying, ~Thus the 'word' of [Dan 9] vs 25 is neither the word of the Lord to Jeremiah in vs 2 nor the word of the Lord through Gabriel to Daniel in vs 23.

It is something to be fulfilled in the future" (ibid., 335-36, n. 13).

4These various uses of Shea's studies on Daniel by Owusi-Antwi can be counted as one agreement in the area of exegesis. The reason for agreement is very obvious. sJacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Daniel: Wisdom and Dreams of a Jewish Prince in Exile (Hagerstown, MD: Review & Herald, 2000).

6Ibid., 11.

153 book.1 In spite of Doukhan's purpose in writing that book, he could not avoid citing some historical facts that would give light to the stories of Daniel. In the matter of historical details, he cited Shea's works in two places.

Emphasizing Nebuchadnezzar's purpose in erecting the imposing statue at the plain of Dura, which was to impose unity in his kingdom, and citing Shea in the endnote, Doukhan writes, We can better understand his obsession for unity in the light of a recent archaeological finding of a cuneiform tablet dating from the ninth year of his reign (595594).

The tablet relates a certain insurrection that threatened the kingdom's unity.2 In another place, he cited the works of Shea concerning the identification

of

Darius

the

Mede.

Doukhan

believes

that

~Gobryas is none other than Darius the Mede."3 He cited Shea to establish his view and supplement it with historical facts.4 In an earlier book Doukhan al so cited Shea's works _____________________________ lDoukhan writes: ~Undeniably, the book of Daniel is first and foremost a religious book. However, its spiritual depth seems to pale next to its fantastic and dazzling apocalyptic visions and miracles. In reality, the structure of the book of Daniel closely links the sensational to the daily rhythm of prayer. The book mentions seven prayers" (ibid.,9).

2Ibid., 46. See also, ibid., 59, n. 5.

3Ibid., 86.

4~According to ancient chronicles, Gobryas died a year and three weeks after the fall of Babylon, thus explaining why Cyrus did not take the title of ~king of Babylon" until ayear later, and why Daniel 6:28 mentions

154 in different places.1 This fact and the examples discussed above are enough to suggest the impact Shea's works have made on Doukhan.

The late C. Mervyn Maxwell, a former colleague of Shea at Andrews University, in his commentary on the book of Daniel, cited Shea's works on two different places. The first is on Shea's suggestion that Belshazzar was in reality a king as recorded

in

Daniel.2

The

second

is

on

Shea's

study

which

identified Darius the Mede as Gubaru.3 In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Maxwell also noted _____________________________

him as the irnmediate successor of Darius" (ibid.). See also, ibid., 87, n. 15. These and other uses of Shea's works in the area of historical-contextual by Doukhan can be counted as one agreement in such area. The reason for counting it as agreement is that Doukhan agrees with Shea's position that Darius the Mede was Gobrayas and that the convocation in the plain of Dura was convened because of a certain rebellion as reconstructed historically by Shea. lSee Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 3, 77, 79, 88, 92, 116, n , 5, 118, n , 4, 128, n. 70, 139, n. 133, 141, n , 141, 142, n. 148, 145, n. 161, 147-48, n , 176.

2C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares: The Message of Daniel for You and Your Family, vol. 1 (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1981), 92, 93, n. 10.

3Ibid., 104-05. This can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of historical-contextual in that Maxwell concurs to Shea's suggestion that Darius the Mede was Gubaru and that Belshazzar was a real king as mentioned in Dan 7. These historical facts were suggested by Shea in his works on Daniel.

155 Shea's suggestion that Mount Megiddo (Armageddon) is Mount Carmel.l Ranko Stefanovié of Yugoslavia, who is currently teaching at Andrews University, cited Shea's work on the covenantal form of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Citing Shea's work on that part of Revelation helps

Stefanovié

in

laying

out

the

foundation

for

his

discussion of the covenant concepts in the book.2 Jon Paulien of Andrews University used Shea's study on the covenant motifs in Revelation as he laid the setting for his monograph that would argue for the OT background in _____________________________

lC. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares: The Message of Revelation for You and Your Family, vol. 2 (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1985), 451, n. 13.

2Ranko Stefanovié, The Background and Meaning of the Sealed Book of Revelation 5, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 22 (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1996), 292-93, n. 1. See also his 1atest book, Ranko Stefanovié, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary of the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI:

Andrews University Press, 2002), where he cited in various places Shea's works on Revelation. R. Stefanovic's use of Shea's study on the covenantal form of the letter to the seven churches can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies. On the other hand, his different uses and quotations of Shea's exegetical study on Revelation in his 2003 book can be counted as another agreement to Shea's position in the area of exegesis.

156 Revelation.1 He notes that the covenant is one of the OT concepts used in Revelation.2 A former colleague at the BRI, Rodriguez from Puerto Rico, in his monograph on the book of Esther, was indebted to Shea in different ways. Rodriguez acknowledged the help of Shea in reading â&#x20AC;&#x153;the first draft of the manuscripts" and for providing ~excellent comments and advice."3 He also utilized Shea's historical reconstruction of the episodes in the book of Esther. One of Shea's suggestion he used is the proposal that while Xerxes was in Sardis in ~the winter of 480 B.C.," he issued a decree to choose a new queen.4 This suggestion helped Rodriguez in arguing for the historicity of the Esther story.5 ________________________ lJon Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.

XI (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 15-6.

See also, ibid., 339.

2Ibid., 15-6. The covenantal literary structure of Shea as used by Paulien in his monograph without any opposition can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

3Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Esther: A Theological Approach (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1995), xii. Rodriguez' appreciation of Shea's help can be counted as agreement to Shea's personal character.

4Ibid., 7. sIbid.,8. See, ibid., 8, 117, n . 43,118, n , 58, 119, n. 67, 128, n. 89. In various place s Rodriguez concurs with Shea's historical reconstruction during the time of the Persian period that corroborates the accounts in the book of

157 Among non-SDA

The impact of Shea's works on biblical studies among non-SDA scholars can be seen in the articles he wrote for nonSDA publications and how these articles are used, cited, and responded to by non-SDA scholars. Below is the description of Shea's articles in non-SDA standard reference works, followed by his articles in the non-SDA publications.

Articles in Standard Reference Works

Shea's article concerning the date of the Exodus in the

1982

edition

of

the

International

Standard

Bible

Encyclopedia (ISBE), has been used to indicate that the Exodus took place in the fifteenth-century B.C. According to Bimson and Livingston, â&#x20AC;&#x153;William H. Shea has offered an attractive scenario (though not without a problem) for a date of 1450 B.C., at the end of the reign of Thutmosis IIIâ&#x20AC;?1 The same article of Shea on the date of the Exodus has been

referred

to,

along

with

John

J.

Bimson's

monograph,

______________________________

Esther. This can be counted as agreement to Shea's study in the area of historical-contextual. lBimson and Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," 45.

Bimson and Livingston, however, did not elaborate why Shea's proposal for the date of the Exodus is problematic. Because of mentioning that there is a problem in Shea's suggested date, this statement can be counted as disagreement to Shea's position in the area of historical-contextual.

158 in a book on the introduction of the OT,l as a study ~that present[s]

cogent

arguments

for

a

date

in

the

fifteenth

century."2 In spite of the referral for Shea's artic1e that argues for the fifteenth-century Exodus, the authors apparently accept the thirteenth-century date.3 Another

book

on

the

introduction

of

the

ĂźT,

recommended Shea's article on the date of the Exodus for further

reading.4

This

book

was

written

by

evangĂŠlica1

authors.s The use of Shea's article on the Exodus in a non-SDA reference work such as the ISBE, attests to the impact of such artic1e on many readers.6 Accordingly, the ISBE is ______________________________ lWilliam Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic Wm. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

2Ibid., 753, n. 27.

3Ibid., 60. This can apparently be counted as disagreement to Shea's position concerning the date of the Exodus in the area of historical-contextual.

4Andrew E. Hill and John H. Wa1ton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 118. Since the authors did not comment anything about the merit of Shea's work on the date of the Exodus, this can be counted as no comment to Shea's position. sIbid., xiii-xiv.

6For other evangelical authors who referred to Shea's article on the date of the Exodus, see, R. K. Harrison, Numbers: An Exegetical Commentary, Wycliffe Exegetical Cornmentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 24, n.

40; Mark W. Chavalas and Murray R. Adamthwaite,

159 highly regarded for being “consciously international" in nature and “maintaining an attitude of reasonable conservatism.u1 It has

been

described

scholarship"

that

as

a

tool

contains

a

of

“quality

“breadth

of

reflection of trends in modern scholarship."2

evangelical

coverage

and

.

Publication of Shea's article written in such an evangelical encyclopedia helps to show the impact of his writings.

Another

article

of

Shea

published

in

a

non-SDA

reference work, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible 2000 edition, deals with the chronology of the OT.3 Shea noted the difficulty of settling the chronology of the early period of biblical history.

His

presentation

of

the

OT

chronology

is

based

primarily on “the three landmark personalities of Abraham ca.

2000, David ca. 1000, and Ezra ____________________________________ ~Archaeological Light on the Old Testament," in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 88, n.

134. Harrison's, and Chavalas and Adamthwaite's use oí Shea's work on the Exodus can be counted as no comment. lLinda L. Belleville, review oí The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, gen. ed., Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (June 1980): 153.

2Ibid., 157.

3William H. Shea, ~Chronology of the Old Testament," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 244-48.

160

ca. 450."1 He discussed the OT chronology in reverse order starting from the Persian period and working backward to the period of the Patriarchs. The reason for this approach is that ~the historian works from the well known to the less known."2 Shea showed his non-dogmatic attitude toward the date of the Exodus and the sojourn of the Israelites to Egypt. Shea states, “Thus far archaeological evidence illuminating this period

has

been

minimal.

The

question

remains

open

until

further evidence is discovered which bears upon the question."3 One can note that throughout the article Shea made a balanced presentation by providing alternative views regarding specific dates for some periods of OT history.

The fact that the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary 2000 edition contains articles that offer “fresh and authoritative, even

provocative

assessments

by

leading

scholars

in

their

fields,"4 attests to the influence Shea's article had on the area

of

biblical

studies.

As

one

author

comments,

“The

positions taken in the articles tend not be ______________________________________

1Ibid., 244.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 248.

4Peter Machinist, a short statement on the back jacket of the book Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

161 eccentric, and the standard is consistently high."l It has been

noted

that

the

~quality

of

scholarship"

of

this

particular Bible dictionary ~is superb, with contributions from the most senior scholars in the field and from some of the rising young scholars who will greatly impact the field.

"2 Another

article

of

Shea

written

for

the

non-SDA

reference work is about Menahem.3 He identified King Menahem as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the 17th king (including Tibni) of the northern kingdom of Israel"4

who

reigned

for

ten

years.

He

further

discussed

Menahem's ancestral origin and how he became king over Israel.

He reviewed a number of significant facts such as, Menahem's style of rulership, the historical background _______________________________ lSirnon Gathercole, review of Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. in chief David Noel Freedman, ScĂĄttish Journal of Theology 55 (2002): 124.

2Walter Brueggemann, a short statement on the back jacket of the book Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). See also, Fred W. Burnett, review of Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Religious Studies Review 27 (October 2001) : 409. He observes that this work ~is an extremely impressive one-volume biblical dictionary . . . [andl an invaluable and trustworthy one-volume dictionary for a wide audience of students and theological constituencies."

3William H. Shea, ~Menahem," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, completely rev. and reset ed.

(1979-88), 3:317-18.

4Ibid., 317.

162 surrounding his reign, especially the rise of power of Assyria, and the composition of the people of Israel during his reign.

Likewise, he addressed the problem of the date of Menahem's tribute to Tiglath-pileser 111. After presenting the different proposals and citing their weaknesses, he opted for the date 740 B.C. as the most likely date when Menahem paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser 111.1 With his proposal of the date of the tribute, Shea assigned Menahem's years of ~reign from 747 to 737 B.C."2 Shea dealt with the topic of famine in his article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.3 The fact that this article was edited in Gene McAfee's article on theology and ecology in the story of Israel's origin,4 is an indication of the impact of this particular work of Shea. McAfee cited Shea's study in support

of

his

suggestion

that

~the

frequent

references

to

famine in the patriarchal narratives reflect a _______________________________ 1Ibid., 318. For a detailed discussion of the issue see, Idem, ~Menahem and Tiglath-Pileser 111," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 37 (1978): 43-9.

2Shea, ~Menahem," 3:318.

3William H. Shea, ~Famine," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2:769-73.

4Gene McAfee, ~Chosen People in a Chosen Land: Theology and Ecology in the Story of Israel's Origins," in The Earth Story in Genesis, ed. Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 2000), 158-225.

163 historical memory of the last major shift in the climate of the ancient

Near

East,

a

sustained

dry

period

extending

from

roughly 2300-2000 BCE."l Artic1es in non-SDA Ptib1ications

In this section, Shea's articles written and cited in non-SDA periodicals and publications are set forth. These periodicals and publications further show the extent to which his works influenced non-SDA scholars.

In reply to Baruch Halpern's position that Thutmosis 111 ~recounts his destruction of Megiddo in 1468 B.C.," John J. Bimson cited the study of Shea published in Israel Exploration Journal regarding the conquest of Sharuhen and Megiddo which shows that there was really no destruction at all at Megiddo done by Thutmosis 111 because it was contrary to his policy.2 Hence, Bimson argued that â&#x20AC;&#x153;Halpern is therefore quite wrong to claim that the destruction of LB 1

Megiddo 'is universally

attributed to Pharaoh Thutmosis 111' ___________________________________ lIbid., 164-65.

He notes, ~Support for this possibility comes from the existence of a large number of Egyptian texts concerning famine that date from roughly the same period" as does the study of Shea (ibid., 65). With this comment of McAfee concerning the importance of Shea's study of famine in that period can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of historical-contextual.

2Bimson, ~A Reply to Baruch Halpern," 52, 55, n. 7.

See also, idem, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 3d ed.

(Sheffield, England: Almond Press, 1981), 125-26, 240, n.

5a.

164 and that it 'can be absolutely dated to 1468 B.C.'"l The same article of Shea was used by Bimson and Livingston to argue that there is a ~lack of evidence" regarding ~Egyptian campaigns in Canaan" during the Middle Bronze 11 period, and Bimson writes, ~William

H.

Shea

has

al

so

written

of

the

need

to

find

alternative destroyers for the Middle Bronze 11 cities."2 In his commentary on 1 and 2 Samuel, Ronald F. Youngblood, presented the interpretation of Shea of ~the first four lines" of the ´Izbet Sartah ostracon, which, according

to

Youngblood,

â&#x20AC;&#x153;remained

undeciphered

until

recently."3 Youngblood wrote that if Shea's reading holds up under further analysis, the lzbet Sarteh ostracon contains the earliest known _________________________

lBimson, ~A Reply to Baruch Halpern," 52-3. lt is very clear from the above statement that Bimson concurs with Shea's suggestion that destruction in Megiddo in Late Bronze 1 cannot be attributed to Thutmosis 111. This can be counted therefore as agreement to Shea's position in the area of archaeology.

2Bimson and Livingston, ~Redating the Exodus," 51.

This can be counted as agreement to Shea's suggestion concerning Late Bronze 1 destruction of Megiddo in the area of archaeology as well the Shea's suggestion concerning Egyptian campaigns in Canaan during Middle Bronze 11 period based on Egyptian sources.

3Ronald F. Youngblood, ~1, 2 Samuel," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 596. Youngblood seems to concur with Shea's interpretation of Clzbet $artah ostracon, which can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of archeology.

165 Extra-biblical references to an OT event (the capture of the ark by the Philistines) and an OT person (Hophni).l Victor

Sasson's

article

on

the

Aroman

Citadel

inscription2 is not actually a rejoinder to Shea's previous article, but simply additional comments on some appropriate points where he diverged from Shea's interpretation. Sasson explains the background of the publication of his article: Having completed this article and submitted it to the [Palestine Exploration] Quarterly, 1 was informed by the Editor that William H. Shea had submitted an article on the same inscription (see PEQ, 111 (1979), 17-25) and it was suggested to me that it would be useful to see it before its publication and to comment on it in my study.3 In any case, Sasson's overall interpretation is quite different from Shea's suggestion. To Sasson this inscription is ~an oracle of divine protection and assurance,"4 which was used ~as a sort of talisman" for the protection of ~the citadel and city-walls."S The fact that Sasson took time to comment on Shea's work is an indication ________________________ lIbid., 596-97.

2Victor Sasson, ~The (Aroman Citadel Inscription as an Oracle Promising Divine Protection: Philological and Literary Cornments," PEQ 111 (1979): 117-25.

3Ibid., 117.

4Ibid. sIbid., 118. Because of Sasson's different views concerning the interpretation of the Aroman Citadel inscription, this can be clearly counted as disagreement to Shea's position in the area of archaeology.

166 of the impact Shea had on Sasson's paper. Sasson was very gratefu1 to Shea for sharing his article ~in manuscript form" and for encouraging him ~to express" his “views on" Shea's “interpretation in any way" he “saw it fit."l Shea's literary study on the Song of Songs published in

Zeitschrift

für

Altestamentliche

Wissenschaft

has

been

cited, quoted by a number of non-SDA scholars who wrote on the Song of Songs. André LaCocque, John G. Snaith, Jill M. Munro, positive

Roland

E.

comments

Murphy, on

and

Shea's

Tremper

article.2

Longman Both

the

111

made

words

of

Murphy and Snaith are representative of positive comments attributed to Shea's work. Murphy writes, “Another noteworthy attempt to discern an overall literary design in _________________________ lIbid., 117. In spite of his disagreement with Shea's position, Sasson's appreciation of Shea's kind gesture can be counted as agreement to Shea's personal character.

2André LaCocque, Romance, She Wrote: A Hermeneutical Essay on Song of Songs (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998), 190-91; John G. Snaith, Song of Songs, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall Pickering, 1993); Jill M. Munro, Spikenard and Saffron: The Imagery of the Song of Songs, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 203 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1995), 19, 155; Roland E. Murphy, The Song of Songs: A Commentary on the Book of Canticles or the Song of Songs, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 63; and Tremper Longman 111, Song of Songs, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 56. See also, Dianne Bergant, Song of Songs: The Love Poetry of Scripture, Spiritual Commentaries (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1998), 15, 166.

167 the text of the Song has been offered by William Shea."l Snaith remarks, The fact that verses near the beginning of the Song and others near the end of it share a similar theme gives substance to Shea's views on chiastic structure, and suggests that the collection of these poems was not as random as some suggest.2 Michael

V.

Fox,

on

the

other

hand,

found

Shea's

method's in finding literary structure on the Song of Songs to be less careful, specifically on the parallels between 1:8-11 and 8:11, which are, according to Fox, based on ~the scantiest similarities."3 David A. Dorsey of the Evangelical School of Theology in Pennsylvania commended the seminal article of Shea on the literary analysis of the Song of Songs, along with J. Cheryl Exum. Dorsey writes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Of the macrostructural studies devoted to Canticles the analyses of J.

Cheryl Exurn and William Shea

are in my opinion the most successful.,,4 ______________________ lMurphy, 63.

2Snaith, 126. Because of positive comments made by LaCocque, Snaith, Munro, Murphy, and Longman to Shea's literary studies on the Song of Songs, these can be counted as five agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

3Michael V. Fox, The Song of Songs and the Egyptian Love Songs (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 207, n. 11. Fox's apparent negative appreciation of Shea's literary study on the Song of Songs can be counted as disagreement in the area of literary studies.

4David A. Dorsey, ~Literary Structuring in the Song of Songs," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46

168 After recognizing six literary units delineated by Shea, Dorsey went on by augmenting the number of units to seven and arranging the boundaries a slightly different way from Shea. In conclusion, Dorsey observes that the entire book ~is so arranged, as are six of the book's seven units. In all but one of these, the chiasm is septenary."l Shea's 1976 article in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research on David's lament in 2 Sam 1:19-27 was given attention by a number of different noted scholars. The scholars are: P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., A. A. Anderson, Wilfred G. E. Watson, Anthony R. Ceresko, Victor P. Hamilton, Allan R. Millard, to name only a few.2 _______________________ (1990): 81. This comment of Dorsey can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies. lIbid., 95.

2p. Kyle McCarter, Jr., II Samue1: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, vol. 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 46, 70, 71; A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 11 (DalIas, TX: Word, 1989); Wilfred G. E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classica1 Hebrew Verse, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 170 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1994), 358; Anthony R. Ceresko, Psa1mists and Sages: Studies in 01d Testament Poetry and Religion, Indian Theological Studies Supplements 2 (Bangalore, India: Institute Publications Sto Peter's Pontifical Institute, 1994), 40; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990),419; and A[llan] R. Millard, ~Saul's Shield Not Anointed With Oil," BASOR 230 (1978): 70.

169 Citing Shea's work, along with the work of Freedman, Anderson prefers to retain the MT reading of 2 Sarn 1:21

because, according to him, ~it makes a reasonable sense and is semantically possible."l Hamilton, on the other hand, appears to disagree with Shea's suggestion that magan in the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere should be translated as “shield.”2 Ceresko observes the chiastic arrangement of the lament as analyzed by Shea

to

~point

out

the

diversity

of

approaches

which

the

sophistication of the poem makes possible."3 McCarter suggests to amend the text since “no satisfactory interpretation ... has been achieved."4 Yet, McCarter is aware that Shea is against such emendation.5 __________________________ lAnderson, 18. Since Anderson simply cited Shea's work on 2 Sam 1:19-27 without clear indication whether he agreed or not, this can be counted as no cornment in the area of literary studies. So is the work of Watson.

2Hamilton, 419. This statement of Hamilton can be counted as no cornment to Shea's position because it is not clear whether he disagrees or noto 3Ceresko, 40, n. 12. This can be counted as agreement to Shea's position because he cited Shea's work to point out that Shea's work shows one of the other ways of approaching the poem of 2 Sam 1:19-27 without disagreeing with Shea's position at all in his following sentences.

4McCarter, II Samuel, 70. sIbid., 71. Because McCarter emended the text of the poem of 2 Sam 1:19-27 which is against Shea, this can be counted as disagreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

170 Shea's raising of "the cultural question of what is meant by anointing a shield"l was the focus of Millard's 1978 article in the same journal.2 Millard explains that anointing a leather shield was a common practice in ancient times to keep it in good condition. So in the case of David's lament to Saul, the owner of the shield was dead and "no one would care of it."3 Hence, the hill where the shield was lying "was spurned" by David.4 Both Tony W. Cartledge and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold5 acknowledged the contribution of Shea in a new reading of the Melqart stele. The contribution made by Shea in particular is his reading of dalet after the word ~r in line 2 of the Melqart stele.6

Reinhold

concurs

but

with

a

slight

correction.

He

writes, "1 now read this as an _______________________ lShea, "David's Lament," 142.

2Millard, "Saul's Shield Not Anointed With 端il," 70.

31bid.

41bid. The study of Millard on the same poem can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies because Millard expanded the view of Shea in that poem and supplemented it instead of contradicting Shea's view.

STony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, Journal for the Study of the 端ld Testament Supplement Series 147 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1992), 124-25; and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold, "The Bir-Hadad Stele and the Biblical Kings of Aram," AUSS 24 (1986): 115-26.

6See Shea, "Kings of the Melqart Stela," 161, 166.

171 unambiguous example of the dalet, but would suggest that its tail is shorter than has been copied by Shea."l In any event, this reading of the text helps Reinhold in his suggestion that the Bir/Ben Hadad who inscribed this stele is most likely the son of Ben Hadad 11 (Adad-'Idri [11] in the Assyrian annals), and

therefore

~should

be

identified

as

Ben

Hadad

111."2

Cartledge, on the other hand, simply rnentions Shea's variant reading compared to other readings that give implication on the dating of the stele.3 In his 1998 article, Lawrence J. Mykytiuk of Purdue University in Indiana, U.S.A., wrote a critique of Shea's article concerning the identification of biblical Hophni in the CIzbet $artah ostracon. Mykytiuk states, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The potential for an identification

of

a

biblical

personage

in

a

late-second-

millennium inscription merits a close look at the evidence."4 Among the other scholars who studied the ostracon, Mykytiuk notes that ~only Shea finds the name ______________________________ lReinhold, 118.

2Ibid., 125.

Reinhold's concurrence to Shea's interpretation of the said stele and his positive comment on Shea's work can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology.

3Such kind of citation of Shea's work by Cartledge can be counted as no comment in the area of archaeology.

4Lawrence J. Mykytiuk, ~Is Hophni in the <Izbet $artah Ostracon?" AUSS 36 (Spring 1998): 69-70.

172 Hophni."l Mykytiuk further points out that all scholars read heth in the ostracon: The other scholars, however, find only one other letter, not two, between the heth and the aleph. It could be pe or gimel, which closely resemble each other, and here it is difficult to distinguish between them. Shea reads this letter next to the heth as pe. He also finds a nun, henceforth called Shea's nun, lying slightly above this pe.2 With

this

statement,

Mykytiuk

writes,

“Shea

is

commended for his diligence in observing and recording possible letter on the ostracon." However, he points out that ~there is still not enough intelligible information in the inscription to specify a particular Hophni." Given the fact that there is an absence of a patronyrn specifying the identity of Hophni in the inscription and the possibility of other “Hophnis in that time and place," Mykytiuk concludes that ~the reading of the name Hophni, although possible, is doubtful in the extreme."3 P. T. Crocker's article on the tablets from Deir “Alla and Joshua's conquest cited Shea's works in great _______________________________ lIbid., 77. zIbid.

3Ibid., 79. Such cornrnents of Mykytiuk against Shea's interpretation of <Izbet $artah ostracon can be counted as disagreement in the area of archeology.

173 length.1 Crocker utilized “Shea's linguistic analysis and translation of three inscribed tablets from Deir )Alla"2 to argue his case concerning Joshua's conquest.

Bruce California

Zuckerman

recognized

of Shea's

the

University

contribution

of

Southern

regarding

the

~analysis of· the stichometry of the Nora Stone."3 Zuckerman's line arrangement of the text of the Nora Stone is similar to Shea's proposed line arrangement. However, Zuckerman does not agree with Shea's nautical interpretation and reconstruction of the text, for the stone is evidently speaking in a military context.4 In any case, Zuckerman was grateful to Shea for calling his attention to Shea's unpublished study on the Nora Stone

and

giving

him

a

copy

of

the

study.

Shea

in

turn

published his study on the Nora __________________________ lp. T. Crocker, ~The Tablets from Deir )Alla: A Record of Joshua's Conquest?" Buried History 26 (1990): 1620. Crocker's extensive use of Shea's study on Deir )Alla tablets can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of archaeology.

2Kathleen S. Nash, abstract of ~The Tablets from Deir 'Alla: A Record of Joshua's Conquest?" by P. T. Crocker, Old Testament Abstracts 13 (1990): 245, no. 805.

3Bruce Zuckerman, ~The Nora Puzzle," Maarav 7 (1991): 284, n. 41.

4Ibid., 284-99. This is a clear disagreement to Shea's interpretation of the Nora Stone in the area of archaeology. sIbid., 285, n. 41. Zuckerman's appreciation of Shea's kind gesture of lending him the manuscript can be

174 Stone, concurring this time with Zuckerman's interpretation.1 Lester L. Grabbe, a professor at the University of Hull in England, has considered Shea's search for the identity of Darius the Mede in Daniel from the historical texts in Babylon

as

â&#x20AC;&#x153;evenhanded

and

carefully

researched."2

Grabbe

further notes, Although the gap in the appearance of the title 'king of Babylon' for Cyrus had been frequently noted before, Shea's is the first thorough study of the situation and seems to prove his case. His argument that the Ugbaru and Gubaru of the Nabonidus Chronicle are the same individual seems convincing, even though there remains a measure of uncertainty.3 ____________________________________________

counted as agreement to Shea's personal character.

1

â&#x20AC;?In an earlier unpublished study 1 reconstructed the missing first line on the basis of what may be called the maritime interpretation of the text According to this understanding Milkaton's ship was blown away from Tarshish in a storm and it was cast up on the coast of Sardinia, where he and his troops were saved. 1 ha ve since returned to the military interpretation of this text advanced by Cross ....

Independently, B. Zuckerman of the University of Southern California reported a similar approach to the inscriptions section of the Society of Biblical Literature in December 1984.

1 subsequently shared my similar results with him." William H. Shea, ~The Dedication on the Nora Stone," Vetus Testamentum (VT) 41 (1991): 243-44.

2Lester L. Grabbe, ~Another Look at the Gestalt of 'Darius the Mede,'" Catholic Biblical Quarterly SO (1988): 199.

He al so notes, ~Shea's study, which for practical purposes constitutes a monograph, is not widely known among OT scholars.

This is a pity because it has certainly deserved more attention than has been given to it in the last decade or so" (ibid.).

3Ibid., 201.

175 Grabbe was referring to Shea's four-part series of articles in the AUSS in 1972 that argued for one-year gap in the use of Cyrus' titulary formula, which suggests that ~someone else had been appointed to this traditional office."l Although

Grabbe

noted

that

Shea's

~arguments

are

thorough and convincing,"2 he proceeded in showing some flaws in Shea's arguments. Grabbe's position concerning the issue is that Cambyses is the one who was referred to as Darius the Mede in Daniel. Grabbe argues, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Once it is recognized that Gubaru did not reign and that the 'unknown king' is actually Cambyses, Shea's argument simply evaporates."3 However, it is noteworthy that

among

evaluated,

the Shea's

three theory

theories is

the

that one

Grabbe he

reviewed

argued

against

and in

greatest detail. Other theories are dismissed outrightly. This fact suggests the considerable effect of Shea's works on the issue regarding the identity of Darius the Mede.4 In the 1988 issue of AUSS, Grabbe critiqued Shea's article that tackles the issue of the identity of Belshazzar _______________________________ lIbid., 199.

2Ibid., 200.

3Ibid., 204.

4Grabbe's clear disagreement to Shea's theory concerning the identity of Darius the Mede in Daniel can be counted as disagreement in the historical-contextual.

176 in Dan 5.1 Grabbe noted that the evidence presented by Shea in his artic1e "is predicated on the assumption that Dan 5 is historically accurate. In other words, a good deal of Shea's discussion assumes what he is attempting to prove!"2 Then Grabbe went on by contending in some detail with Shea's article in four points.3 Grabbe concluded his study by noting "that the most likely

theory

is

that

D[a]n

5

draws

on

certain

historical

remembrances of Belshazzar but is itself largely an unhistorical account whose aim is primarily theological."4 Grabbe's position is typical of those scholars who are "critical of the Daniel account."5 The article of Shea in Biblica on the qina structure of Lamentations has been cited, referred to, and used by a number of scholars. Delbert R. Hillers listed the work of Shea on Lamentations in the bibliographies of both his ___________________________ lLester L. Grabbe, "The Belshazzar of Daniel and the Belshazzar of History," AUSS 26 (1988): 59-65.

2Ibid., 59.

3The four points are: "(1) the death date of Belshazzar, (2) the Hebrew view of the coregency date in Dan 7:1 and 8:1, (3) the offer to Daniel to become the third ruler in the kingdom, and (4) the identity oĂ­ the queen mother in the narrative of Dan 5" (Shea, ~Bel(te)shazzar Meets Belshazzar," 67).

4Grabbe, ~The Belshazzar of Daniel," 66. Italics his.

SKenneth A. Strand, "Response Articles: Editors Note," AUSS 26 (1988): 57.

177 commentary and an article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.l R." B.

Salters

examines

Shea's

view

of

suggested

forms

in

Lamentations, among other works, and finds weakness in it.

Salters suggests that to better analyze the book is to compare it with laments in the book of Psalms, and to take into consideration how the book is referred to in the early period of biblical interpretation.2 Johan Renkema in his commentary on Lamentations,3 however, argues ~for the unity of the five songs

on

the

qinรก

structure

of

the

Book

of

Lamentations

proposed by W. H. Shea."4 These examples show _____________________ lDelbert R. Hillers, Lamentations: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2d and rev. ed., The Anchor Bible, vol. 7A (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 57; idem, ~Lamentations, Book of," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:141. Hillers' way of simply citing Shea's work on Lamentations in his bibliography can be counted as no cornment in the area of literary studies.

2R. B. Salters, ~Searching for Pattern in Lamentations," Old Testament Essays 11 (1998): 93-100. Such cornment of Salters against Shea's literary study can be counted as disagreement to Shea in the area of literary studies. See also, Robert D. Haak, abstract of ~Searching for Pattern in Lamentations 1," by Robert B. Salters, Old Testament Abstracts 24 (2001): 127, no. 518.

3Johan Renkema, Lamentations, Historical Cornmentary on the Old Testament (Leuven: Peeters, 1998). Renkama's use of Shea's literary study on Lamentations to argue for the unity of the book can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of literary studies.

4Xuan Huong Pham, abstract of Lamentations (Historical Cornmentary on the Old Testament), by Johan Renkama, Old Testament Abstracts 23 (2000): 177, no. 662.

178 the impact of Shea's article on Lamentations published in non-SDA journals.

Shea's

1978

article

in

the

Journal

of

Cuneiform

Studies1 has been cited by William C. Gwaltney, Jr., a professor at Milligan College, in support of his position that the western campaign of Adad-nirari 111 to Damascus, as recorded in the Rima Stele, could be dated to 805 B.C.2 Gwaltney indicates that this campaign could be synchronized with the fifth or sixth year of the reign of Jehoash in Samaria, which seems to lie behind the statement in 2 Kings 13:5 that Yahweh gave Israel a deliverer and they escaped from the hand of the Syrian."3 In his commentary on 2 Kings, T. R. Hobbs cited Shea's works in a number of places.4 He mentioned in _________________________ lShea, nAdad-nirari 111 and Jehoash of Israel," 10113.

2William C. Gwaltney, Jr., nAssyrians," in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 90.

31bid. See also, ibid., 95, n. 73, n. 74.

Gwaltney's use of Shea's historical-contextual study of Adadnirari 111 and Johoash of Israel to argue his case about the date of Adad-nirari 111's campaign to Damascus can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the area of historicalcontextual.

4T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 13 (Dalias, TX: Word, 1985), 187, 194, 196, 198, 220, 230. Hobb's agreement to Shea's suggestion of date of the Assyria's invasion in 740 B.C. can be counted as agreement

179 particular Shea's revision of the chronology of Assyria's invasion of Israel during the time of Tiglath Pileser 111 and Menahem, which Shea dates to 740 B.C.1 Raymond B. Dillard cited three different works by Shea on three different occasions.2 The first is Shea's dissertation on famines in the ancient Near East, the second is Shea's study on the Ben-Hadad stela, and the third is on Shea's views on Sennacherib's second Palestinian campaign. These examples show the impact of Shea's works on their readers.

The

impact

of

Shea's

article

on

Sennacherib's

two

Palestinian campaigns is seen in the number of scholars who either cited and commended Shea's study on the subject or responded and criticized his work.3 Frank J. Yurco examined ___________________________ in the area of historical-contextual. lIbid., 198.

2Raymond B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 15 (DalIas, TX: Word, 1987), 49, 125, 227.

Such kind of Dillard's citation of Shea's works can be counted as no comment in the area of historical-contextual.

3Frank J. Yurco, ~The Shabaka-Shebitku Coregency and the Supposed Second Campaign of Sennacherib Against Judah: A Critical Assessment," JBL 110 (1991): 35-45; W[illiam] S [anford] LaSor, ~Sennacherib," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, completely rev. and reset ed. (1979-88), 4:394-97; Christopher Begg, ~'Sennacherib's Second Palestinian Campaign': An Additional Indication," JBL 106 (1987): 685-86; Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 237, n. 14; Mordecai Cogan, ~Sennacherib's Siege of

180 in detail and thoroughly criticized each line of evidence advanced by Shea. Yurco noted that Shea uncritically accepts the redating of documents ~done by other scholars" and shows ~a misunderstanding of basic wartime situations."l Mordecai

Cogan

argue

against

Shea's

proposal

of

Sennacherib's two Palestinian campaigns. Cogan's analysis of the ~biblical traditions and Assyrian annals in the broader context of Assyrian expansion in the early seventh century B.C.E. argues for one and only one campaign of Sennacherib against Judah."2 Baruch Halpern simply referred to Shea's study as representative of a ~lower dating of the campaign."3 The late William Sanford LaSor of Fuller Theological Seminary, cited Shea's same article in a rather positive way.

He wrote: ~W. H. Shea took up three sets of data from _______________________ Jerusalem: Once or Twice?" BAR 27 (January/February 2001): 40-5, 69; and Dillard, 2 Chronicles, 227. lYurco, 45. A clear disagreement to Shea's position in the area of historical-contextual. For Shea's response, see, Shea, ~The New Tirhakah Text," 181-87.

2William J. Urbrock, abstract of ~Sennacherib's Siege of Jerusalem: Once or Twice?" by Mordecai Cogan, Old Testament Abstracts 24 (2001): 244, no. 931. Cogan's clear disagreement to Shea's position concerning two campaigns of Sennacherib in Palestine can be counted as disagreement to Shea in the area of historical-contextual.

3Halpern, 237, n. 14. It is not clear whether Halpern disagrees or not to Shea's view concerning two campaigns of Sennacherib against Judah. Thus, this can be counted as no comment in the area of historical-contextual.

181 Assyria, Palestine, and Egypt that appear to support a secondinvasion."l LaSor summarized Shea's evidences from each of the three sources mentioned. However, concerning Shea's Palestinian evidence, LaSor wrote that ~the evidence is supportive but not fully convincing."2 In conclusion, LaSor observed, ~It is not yet possible to claim that the basis for two campaigns is beyond dispute."3 Christopher

Begg

adds

another

evidence

in

favor

of

Shea's suggestion of Sennacherib's second Palestinian campaign.

Begg associates 2 Kgs 19:18a (=Isa 37:18a) with a record of destruction

(from

Sennacherib's

annals)

of

~cultic

entities"

during the campaign of 689.4 In conclusion, Begg suggests that if the verse thus does indeed allude to the Assyrian sack of Babylon in 689, one has an additional indication in favor of Shea's view that the context, that is, 2 Kgs 18:17-19:37 deals with a second, post701 Palestinian campaign by Sennacherib.5 ________________________________

lLaSor, 4:396.

2Ibid.

3Ibid. LaSor's appreciation and summary of Shea's presentation of the evidences from Assyria, Palestine, and Egypt to argue for two campaigns of Sennacherib can be counted as agreement in the area of historical-contextual. However, LaSor was cautious in his conclusion and continued to open the discussion on the issue of Sennacherib's two campaigns in Judah.

4Begg, 685. sIbid., 686. Begg clearly indicates that he agrees to Shea's position concerning Sennacherib's second

182 Shea's article on the Samaria ostraca published both in

Zeitschrift

des

Deutschen

Palastina-Vereins

and

Israel

Exploration Journal, made an impact to some scholars as shown in the way they cited his work. Mark S. Srnith1 referred to Shea's

work

on

the

background

of

the

Samaria

ostraca.2

J.

Alberto Soggin referred to his study on the ostraca as he discussed the importance of such material not only in giving ~information valuable

about

details

nomenclature

about

the

and

administrative

kingdorn of Israel under Jeroboam invoked

some

of

Shea's

topography,

but

situation

11."3 Ferdinand

interpretations

of

the

also

in

the

E. Deist

ostraca

in

support of his suggestion _________________________________ Palestinian carnpaign. Hence, this can be counted as agreernent to Shea in the area of historical-contextual. lMark S. Srnith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (New York: HarperCollins, 1990). By citing Shea's work on Samaria ostraca, Srnith seerns to agree with Shea in that regard for he did not make any negative cornments on it nor criticized it. Thus, this can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology.

2Ibid., 65, n. 3.

3J. Alberto Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament: From Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon, rev. ed. (London: SCM, 1980), 477, 483 ยง4. Soggin seems to concur to Shea's study on Samaria ostraca for it sheds light on the historical context of the kingdom of Israel during the time of Jeroboam 11. Since Shea's work that was cited was on ostraca, this can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology.

183

that the laborers narrated in 1 Kgs 9:20-22 were indeed Israelites.1 Jeremy

Hughes'

monograph

on

biblical

chronology

mentioned Shea's works in different places.2 Although Hughes criticized some of Shea's suggestion concerning different dates in Israelite chronology, yet the fact that he mentioned Shea's works in a number of places is an evidence of the impact Shea had made on his study. Hughes' negative evaluation of Shea's chronological reconstructions is understandable because of the former's position that ~the chronology of Kings might not be a straightforward species of historical chronology after all."3 John H. Walton has cited Shea's work at great length in his book.4 Walton mentioned Shea's work concerning the _____________________________ lFerdinand E. Deist, The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction, ed. with a preface by Robert P. Carroll (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 2000), 175. By invoking Shea's study on the ostraca to argue his case, Deist apparently agreed to Shea's position in that case and thus can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology.

2Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History Ă­n BĂ­blical Chronology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supp1ement Series 66 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1990), 182, n. 53, 197, n. 69, 198-99, n. 74, 223.

3Ibid., v. This can be clearly counted as disagreement to Shea's position in the historical-contextual area.

4John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Study of Parallels Between Biblical and

184 similarities between “the Adapa epic and the story of Adam."l Walton writes, Certainly Shea is right to the extent that he posits a “functional shift" between the biblical material and the Mesopotamian epic. The story of the fall of man in Genesis and the epic of Adapa serve entirely different functions, ha ve different purposes, and as discussed in the articles already mentioned, have many differences, both large and small.2 David Toshio Tsumura of Japan cited Shea's work in a positive

way.

Tsumura

mentioned

Shea's

analysis

of

the

similarities and differences between the Adapa Epic and ~the account

of

Adam

in

Genesis

2-3."3

He

also

quoted

Shea's

suggestion that these two accounts attest to “a common event."4 In his commentary on Genesis, Hamilton simply put Shea's study on Adam among ancient Mesopotamian traditions ____________________________ Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989). lIbid., 63.

2Ibid., 64-5. Such positive comments of Walton on Shea's study on the Adapa epic and Adam story can be clearly counted as agreement in the historical-contextual area.

3David Toshio Tsumura, ~Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood: An Introduction," in "I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic ~proaches to Genesis 111, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 35-6. This is a clear agreement to Shea's position concerning the Adam and Adapa epic in the historicalcontextual area.

4Ibid., 36.

185 in

his

bibliography,

without

giving

comments.1

any

So

did

Gordon Paul Hugenberger, who simply put Shea's works on a footnote along with other works that show ~literary parallels between Genesis 1-11 and various ancient Near Eastern creation accounts

and

other

myths.fl2

In

view

of

these

literary

parallels, Hugenberger argues that the narrative in Gen 2-3 was written ~to offer a normative paradigm for marriage.fl3 He adds that Gen 2-3 ~may even serve to foster the pervasive anti-pagan polemical intent.fl4 The impact of Shea's artic1es on the book of Daniel has been acknowledged and noted by a number of scho1ars.

Scholars who cited Shea's study on the literary structures of Dan

2-7,

among

others,

are

Bob

Becking,

John

Goldingay,

Reinhard Gregor Kratz, and Klaus Koch.5 Becking, Koch, and ___________________________ lHamilton, The Book of Genesis, 96. See also, idem, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 56.

2Gordon Paul Hugenberger, Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage Developed from the Perspective of Malachi, Supplements to Ve tus Testamentum, vol. LII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 154, n. 120.

3Ibid., 153.

4Ibid., 154. Both the works of Hamilton and Hugenberger that cited Shea's study in that way can be counted as no comment in the area of historical-contextual.

5Bob Becking, ~'A Divine Spirit Is In You': Notes on the Translation of the Phrase raa~ ~lahin in Daniel 5,14 and Related Texts,fl in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New

l86 Kratz seem to appreciate Shea's 1iterary analysis.1 Goldingay, on the other hand, considered Shea's literary scheme as less convincing.2 In his commentary on the book on Daniel, Goldingay cited Shea's works in various places.3 In most cases, Goldingay disagrees

with

Shea's

suggestion

from

the

literary

to

the

historical issues. There is one place, however, when he seems to agree with Shea's suggestion that the convocation on the plain of Dura was a ______________________________

Findings, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude, Bib1iotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniesnsium CVI (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 516; John Goldingay, ~Story, Vision, Interpretation Literary Approaches to Daniel," in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude, Bib1iotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniesnsiurn CVI (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 30S-09; Reinhard Gregor Kratz, ~Reich Gottes und Gesetz im Danielbuch und im Werdenden Judentum," in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theo1ogicarum Lovaniesnsium CVI (LAuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), 449; and K1aus Koch, ~Gottes Herrschaft 端ber das Reich des Menschen Daniel 4 im Licht Neuer Funde," in The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, ed. A. S. Van Der Woude, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theo1ogicarum Lovaniesnsium CVI (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), SO-l. lBecking, 516; Koch, SO-l; Kratz, 449. These three authors, Becking, Koch, and Kratz agreed to Shea's position concerning literary analysis of Dan 2-7. In that regard, this can be counted as three agreement to Shea's position i the literary area.

2Goldingay, 30S-09.

This would count as disagreement to Shea's position in the literary area.

3John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Cornmentary, vol. 30 (DalIas, TX: Word, 19S9), li, 63, 69, 77, 99, 108, 112, 119, 141, 224, 229, 236, 271.

187

loyalty oath to Nebuchadnezzar, which Shea has connected with Jer 51:59-64.1 In

his

work

on

Daniel

in

the

New

Century

Bible

Commentary, Paul L. Redditt,2 cited and quoted Shea's works in various places.3 The significant one in which he agrees with Shea is when Redditt cited Shea's chiastic structural analysis of both Dan 4 and 5 with some modifications and adaptations.4 In his published doctoral thesis,5 T. J. Meadowcroft of Bible College of New Zealand, cited Shea's articles in a number of places that deal with the book of Daniel. He cited Shea's article in support of his references to ~the propensity of Nabonidus to collect foreign deities."6 Meadowcroft further mentioned Shea's work in regard to ___________________________ 1Ibid., 69. This would count as agreement of Goldingay to Shea's position in the area of historicalcontextual.

2Paul L. Redditt, Daniel, New Century Bible Commentary (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1999).

3See e.g., ibid., xxiv, 90, 92, 172.

4Ibid., 75-6, 88. Because of adapting Shea's suggested literary structure of Dan 4 and 5, Redditt can be counted as one of the scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the literary area.

ST. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 198 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1995).

GIbid., 62, n. 13.

188 evidence from the works of Herodotus and Xenophon, which mention "a feasting king killed by the Persians" who would probably fit to the identity of "Belshazzar as chief officer of Nabonidus."l Yet, he noted that "the historicity of this incident is much debated."2 Meadowcroft seems to agree with Shea's suggestion that Belshazzar's name is Daniel's correct Babylonian name because the Septuagint (LXX) "reflects this.â&#x20AC;?3 He maintained that the king

"prefers

to

remember

Daniel's

non-Babylonian

origins

rather than his function in his father's court, and his Judean name rather than the one given him by a predecessor

c

The above discussion and other references of Shea's works in Meadowcroft's monograph5 suggests the impact of Shea's works in his study of Daniel. ____________________________ lIbid., 63, n. 14. In that case, this would count as one disagreement to Shea's position in the historicalcontextual area.

2Ibid.

3Ibid., 65, n , 20.

4Ibid., 65. This is a clear agreement on the side of Meadowcroft to Shea's position in the historical-contextual area.

5See Meadowcroft, 74, n. 39, 80, n. 52, 253, n. 15.

189 Areas of Shea's Influence The broad areas in which Shea exerted an influence can be divided into three: archaeology, bib1ica1 studies, and method of biblical interpretation. These three areas have been chosen on the basis of citations and usage of Shea's works in these areas by other scholars and authors.

Archaeology Bryant G. Wood, a visiting professor in the department of Near Eastern studies at the University of Toronto, acknowledged the perceptive suggestion of Shea that when the wall of Jericho crumbled, â&#x20AC;&#x153;the collapsed mudbricks themselves formed a ready ramp for an attacker to surmount the revetment wall."l This suggestion fits the biblical account, as Wood believes, because according to the record (Josh 6:20) the Israelites "went up into the city."2 Shea's 1977 article concerning the eastern canal in Egypt published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research has been cited and referred to by a number _____________________________ lBryant G. Wood, ~Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?: A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," BAR 16 (March/April 1990): 56, 58, n. 47.

2Ibid. Italics his. Wood agreed to Shea's suggestion that the collapsed mudbricks was used by the attackers of Jericho as a ready ramp for the revetment wall. In that case, this can be counted as agreement to Shea's suggestion in the archaeology area.

190 of scholars in the field. Most considered the study to be a seminal

contribution

in

the

area

of

archaeology.

Among

the

scholars who referred to Shea's work are John S. Holladay, John R. Huddlestun, James K. Hoffmeier, Eliezer D. Oren, and G. l.

Davies.1 In his book monograph, Israel in Egypt,2 James K. Hoffmeier of Wheaton College, noted Shea's suggestion "that the idea for the eastern canal could go back to 'Merikare,' _________________________________ lJohn S. Holladay, "The Wadi Tumilat Project, a New ASOR Research Project in Egypt: Excavations at Tell elMashhuta, 1978," BA 43 (Winter 1980): 51, for the appraisal of Shea's article on the Eastern Canal in Egypt; John R. Huddlestun, "Red Sea," The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 5:640, in which Shea's same article is cited without any cornments; James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Eliezer D. Oren, "Migdol: A New Fortress on the Edge of the Eastern Nile Delta," BASOR 256 (1984): 7-44; and G. l. Davies, "The Wilderness Itineraries and Recent Archaeological Research," in Studies in the Pentateuch, ed. J. A. Emerton, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. XLI (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990), 167, who observes the availability of the knowledge concerning the ~ancient waterways in the eastern Delta and the Suez isthmus" that would help us clarify the route of the ancient Israelite ~along the Mediterranean coast." Holladay's citation of Shea's study on the eastern canal of Egypt can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology.

This is so because he used the study of Shea as a background study. Huddlestun's way of simply citing the work of Shea without cornment can be counted as no cornment in the area of archaeology. Davies can be counted as one of the scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the area of archaeology fer he used Shea's study to. point out that it would help identify the ancient route of the Israelites along the Mediterranean coast.

2Hoffmeier, 173, n. 40.

191 and its construction may have begun at that time, but it was not completed until the early Twelfth Dynasty (ca. 1900 B.C.) ."1 Hoffmeier seems to agree by citing classical writers to support Shea's suggestion.2 Eliezer D. Oren of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, cited Shea's works to argue that the canal that served as a defensive structure ~along the Egyptian frontier on the east . . . was already completed by the early reigns of the Middle Kingdom."3 He further argues that ~an early date for the construction of the Eastern Frontier Canal is further supported by the discovery of Middle and New Kingdom sites along its traced course."4 James R. Fisher, cited Shea's suggestion regarding the function of a trench that was excavated in stratum 19 from the Iron I period at Heshban. According to Shea, as quoted by Fisher, the trench served ~as an attempt (aborted perhaps) by the original builders (whom he [Shea] identified as Sihon's contemporary Amorites) to fortify the settlement ____________________________ 1Ibid., 168.

2Ibid., 169. This is a clear agreement of Hoffmeier to Shea's position concerning the date of the eastern canal in the area of archaeology.

30ren, 9.

4Ibid., 9-10. Oren seems to concur with Shea's study on the eastern canal for he used it to argue his case about the early date of its construction. Thus, this would count as agreement to Shea in the area of archaeology.

192 by carving out a dry moat.”1 However, Fisher notes that “the evidence is still too inconclusive to support a definitive decision” as to the view of Shea and other proposed views.2 Fisher notes that he shared a similar conclusion with Shea, although

"in

different

line

of

reasoning,H

concerning

the

destruction layers of Heshban's Stratum 19 dated during the Iron 1 Age.3 The destruction layers in this particular stratum could be attributed to the Ammonites, who tried to secure their southern

boundary,

which

includes

Heshban,

before

attacking

Gilead in the north.4 A statement by John J. Collins in his commentary on Daniel reflects the contribution and impact of Shea in the area of

archaeology

and

ancient

Near

Eastern

studies.

Collins

mentioned the name of Shea, among the names of Donald J. Wiseman and Kenneth A. Kitchen, as one of the scholars who "tried to marshal the resources of ancient Near ______________________________ 1James R. Fisher, "Heshban and the Ammonites During the Iron Age,H in Hesban After 25 Years, ed. David Merling and Lawrence T. Geraty (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, 1994), 86.

2Ibid., 87.

3Ibid., 94-5, n. 2.

4Ibid., 90.

Fishers agreement to Shea's view concerning the destruction layers of Heshban's Stratum 19 can be counted as agreement in the area of archaeology. Fisher belongs to SDA scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the area of archaeology.

193 Eastern studies in support of the conservative cause" that pertains to the book of Daniel.1 He al so mentioned Shea, among

others,

whose

studies

on

Daniel

exhibit

"the

conservative defense of Danielic authenticity."2 Daniel

l.

Block,

in

his

commentary

on

Ezekiel,

recognized Shea's suggestion that the name Sodom was found "on an Eblaite text." He cited Shea along with the work of D. M. Howard, Jr., for the ~biblical and archeological evidence for the location and fate of Sodom."3 Biblical Studies Edwin M. Yamauchi of Miami University pointed out the ~many innovative and important contributions of William H. Shea especially to the study of the biblical books set in _________________________ lJohn J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 122.

2Ibid., 26, n. 256. Collins' detailed comments in his commentary on Daniel disagrees with Shea's position in matters related to historical-contextual aspect of Daniel. For example, he disagrees with Shea's view concerning the historicity of Darius the Mede and King Belshazzar. In that regard, Collins can be counted as one of the scholars who disagreed with Shea's position in the historical-contextual area.

3Daniel l. Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 124, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 508, n. 260. Block apparently agreed to Shea's study concerning the name Sodom in the Ebla texts that establishes the historicity and reality of the place.

Thus, this can be counted as agreement to Shea in the area of archaeology.

194 the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras."l Not only has Shea's works in these areas been acknowledged, but also one of his personal traits was noted in which he "has been most generous in

sharing

unpublished

materials"

that

he

~has

allowed"

Yamauchi ~to utilize."2 Yamauchi further notes that one of the influences that Shea has had in the area of biblical studies is ~the intriguing suggestion that Cambyses may have been the figure identified as the 'Prince of Persia' mentioned in Daniel 10:20."3 This is intriguing because, as Yamauchi indicates, "Cambyses does not appear in the Old Testament."4 In one of his books entitled Persia and the Bible, Yamauchi noted Shea's ~attempt to resolve the problem" of ________________________ lEdwin Yamauchi, ~Greece and Babylon Revisited," in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed.

David Merling (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University, 1997), 127. This comment of Yamauchi concerning Shea's contribution can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the general area of historical-contextual. This is shown in the detailed discussion of Yamauchi in which he utilized Shea's study in that area to argue his case.

2Ibid. This statement of Yamauchi can be counted as agreement to Shea's personal character, which is under the area of others in Table 2.

3Ibid., 131.

4Ibid. By concurring to Shea's suggestion that Cambyses may be identified with the Prince of Persia in Dan 10:20, this can be counted as another agreement of Yamauchi to Shea in the area of historical-contextual.

195 the identification of Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel (Dan

5:31;

6-12;

9:1-2;

11:1)

"in

a

carefully

argued

article."l Among the various proposals, only Shea's proposal was summarized and dealt with extensively in Yamauchi's book.

Yamauchi enumerated six points given by Shea that matched ~the careers

of

Gubaru

I

and

Darius

the

Mede."2

Shea's

identification of Gubaru I, ~the conqueror of Babylon,"3 as Daniel's Darius the Mede was given importance by Yamauchi.

Shea's contribution to the identification of Darius the Mede has also been recognized with approval by Klaus Koch.4 Koch agrees that Darius the Mede is Gubaru the Gutium.s David Howard, Jr. of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, cited Shea's theory about the identity of Darius the Mede. After surveying different theories, Howard noted: _______________________ lEdwin Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, foreword by Donald J. Wiseman (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 59.

2Ibid .

3Ibid .

4Klaus Koch, "Dareios, der Meder," in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 288-90.

5This is clear agreement of Koch to Shea's position concerning the identity of Darius the Mede in the historicalcontextual area.

196 Perhaps the most plausible suggestion, however, identifies ~Darius the Mede" with Gaubaruwa (Gubaru), a governor under Cyrus who conquered Babylon on his behalf and who ruled Babylon with royal authority (thus, his description in Daniel as 'king'). The details of ~Darius the Mede's" life fit those of Gaubaruwa very closely, and ~Darius the Mede" may simply have been an alternative title for him.1 Meadowcroft cited Shea's previous position concerning the identity of Darius the Mede. Shea's previous position was that Darius the Mede was Cyrus the Persian.2 Although he stated that ~there are historical problems around the person of the king

[Darius],"

Artaxerxes

in

especially

Dan

6:1

in

the the

reference LXX,

to

Meadowcroft

the

name

noted

in

of a

footnote that Shea outlines a number of literary characteristics that support Wiseman's identification of Cyrus with Darius, and suggests that these features are a 'harmonizing solution' of a historical problem on the part of author or redactor of Daniel MT.3 Yamauchi

used

the

argument

advanced

by

Shea

regarding the beginning of the coregency of Cambyses and _________________________

lDavid Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books (Chicago: Moody, 1993), 287-88. Problems still remain with such an identification. However, this can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in the historicalcontextual area, in which Howard plainly agrees with Shea.

2Shea, "Darius the Mede in His Persian-Babylonian Setting," 235-57.

3Meadowcroft, 86, n. 5. Meadowcroft apparently agrees with Shea's suggestion that Darius the Mede was Cyrus the Persian. Thus this would count as agreement to Shea in the historical-contextual area.

197 Cyrus. He wrote that ~most scholars have assumed that this coregency occurred during the first year of Cyrus .... On the other hand, William Shea argued that the coregency, as was normally the case, should be dated to the very end of Cyrus's life."l

Thus,

Yamauchi

concludes

that

~'the

first

year'

of

these inscriptions would refer not to Cyrus's first year over Babylon but to the first year of the coregency."2 Orley Berg, in his book, Treasures in the Sand,3 noted Shea's contribution concerning the identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus. Indicating that Shea's suggestion is ~a revised scenario," Berg notes, According to Shea, Thutmose 111, who reigned fifty-four years including his coregency with Hatshepsut, met his death on March 17, 1450 B.C. This would correspond to the time of year that the Passover was instituted on the night of Israel's deliverance and their Exodus from Egypt.4 Berg referred to another suggestion by Shea that there was a coregency between Thutmose 111 and his son Amenhotep 11 during that time. Citing Shea's work, Berg continued, ~the year before the Exodus, Amenhotep 11 was ___________________________ lYamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 95.

2Ibid. This can be counted as another agreement on the side of Yamauchi to Shea's position concerning the coregency of Cambyses and Cyrus, which can be counted in the area of historical-contextual.

30rley Berg, Treasures in the Sand: What Archaeology Tells Us About the Bible (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1993).

4Ibid., 79.

198 sent on an expedition into Syria to quell a rebellion."l When he carne back after the Exodus, he found that his oldest son and his

father

Thutmose

111

had

died.

This

explains

why

"the

inscriptions of Amenhotep's later years reveal an intense hatred for

Semites."2

suggestion,

Berg

Although pointed

seeming out

that

to

concur

the

~Shea

with scenario

Shea's is

a

subject of debate among scholars."3 In his 1991 article, Gordon J. Wenham cited Shea's work on parallel elements between the Mesopotamian flood story and the biblical flood story. In support of his ~contention that what source critics traditionally split between J and P is in fact a single tradition," Wenham used Shea's work along with P. D. Millers. Wenham writes, In a new translation of the Sumerian flood story T. Jacobsen drew attention to the parallels between it and the P material in Gen. i-xi. But as W. H. Shea and P. D. Miller pointed out independently, the Sumerian flood story as reconstructed by Jacobsen resembles much more closely the present outline of Gen. i-xi.4 _____________________________

lIbid. 2Ibid., 80.

3Ibid. See, ibid., 70, 72. Because Berg did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or not with Shea's position concerning the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this can be counted as no comment in the historical-contextual area. Berg is counted in Table 1 among SDAs for he is an SDA. 4G[ordon] J. Wenham, Criticism," VT 41 (1991): 106. subject, see, idem, Genesis vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987),

~Method in Pentateuchal Source For similar treatment of the same 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, xxxix-xli.

199 With that information, Wenharn notes that "there are some 'speculative elements in Jacobsen's reconstruction of the Surnerian Flood Story."l In conclusion, Wenharn suggests: But whichever view one ultimately opts for, all must acknowledge that critical theories are based on the weighing of probabilities. There are very few certainties in the world of biblical criticisrn.2 In the area of literary studies, Shea has been cited and quoted by scholars, who either agreed or disagreed with his work.

In

two

contribution

of to

his the

works, literary

M.

O'Connor

recognized

studies.3 Wilfried

Shea's

Warning,

a

graduate of Andrews University, disagrees with Shea's "chiastic structuration" of the book of Leviticus _______________________ lWenharn, "Method in Pentateuchal," 106.

2Ibid., 108. This is very clear that Wenharn agrees to Shea's suggestion on the similarity of Sumerian flood story to the literary outline of Gen 1-11. Because of such study of Shea, the arguments for the JEDP theory are weakened. Thus, this can be counted as agreement to Shea in the literary area

by Wenharn.

3M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 26; idern, "The Pseudosorites: A Type of Paradox in Hebrew Verse,H in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 40 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1987), 163, 171, n. 7, ~W. H. Shea suggests as examples of the sorites Amos 5.3 (+ 6.9) and 5.19, noting the eight-century date of both Amos and Hosea as a possible point for the further consideration in the history of Israelite dialectic.H Such comment df O'Connor on Shea's study can be counted as agreement in the literary studies.

200

because of the ~conceptual rather than on a terminological foundation"l on which Shea based his structural. analysis.

Different scholars who both utilized and criticized Shea's contextual study of the book of Esther intimate the impact he generated in that area. Yarnauchi is indebted to Shea's unpublished paper that supplements the historical context of the book of Esther. In Shea's unpublished paper, he showed parallels between sorne Persian names in the book of Esther and sorne found in Elamite Persepolis texts.2 Elsewhere, Yarnauchi cited Shea's work on Esther's becoming a queen during the time of

king

Xerxes.

Yamauchi

notes:

~Shea

suggests

that

if

Amestris/Vashti's brutality had occurred in Susa just after Xerxes' return frorn the west, it would have provided the king with a further reason to find another chief wife."3 _______________________________ lWilfried Warning, Literary Artistry in Leviticus, Biblical Interpretation Series, vol. 35 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1999), 14. This a clear disagreernent and reason for disagreement by Warning against Shea's position in the literary area.

2Edwin M. Yamauchi, ~Mordecai, the Persepolis Tablets, and the Susa Excavations," VT 42 (1992): 273-74, 275, n. 5.

3Yamauchi, Persia and the Bible, 231-32. See also, idem, ~Persians," in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yarnauchi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 117. For the last time, Yamauchi can be counted as one of the non-SDA scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the area of historicalcontextual, specifically on the background study of the book of Esther.

201 Frederic concerning

Esther

W.

Bush

referred

and

history

in

to

Shea's

different

places

article in

his

commentary on Esther.1 Bush noted the contribution of Shea in establishing the context of the events in the Esther story, especially concerning the history of the Persian empire.2 Howard

cited

Shea's

works

in

support

of

the

historical accuracy of the book of Esther.3 In particular, he cited Shea in order to discuss the identification of Vashti with Amestris as presented by Herodotus. He writes, "Shea works out the chronology in detail to fit both the biblical and Herodotus's evidence."4 Howard argues (citing Shea again), "the

fact

that

Amestris

functioned

as

queen

mother

after

Xerxes's death does not require us to see that she remained during his life as the principal queen."5 _______________________ lFrederic W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, Cornmentary, vol. 9 (DalIas, TX: Word, 1996), 356, 358. See also, F. B. Huey, Jr., "Esther," Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein Zondervan, 1988), 4:795.

Word Biblical 272, 338, 345, The Expositor's (Grand Rapids:

2Bush can be counted as one of the non-SDA scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the area of historicalcontextual for he cited Shea's work on historical context of the book of Esther to argue for its historicity.

3Howard, 319, 320, 321, 322.

4Ibid., 321, n. 27.

5Ibid., 322. Another clear agreement and reason for the agreement made by Howard to Shea's contextual study on Esther.

202 On the other hand, Ida Frohlich noted that Shea's attempt, along with George Ernest Wright, "to identify the name

of

Vashti

with

Amestris

.

.

.

is

fraught

with

difficulties."l J. Webb Mealy, a Catholic scholar, cited and referred to Shea's works in different place s in his monograph.2 It is especially significant that he cited Shea's work clarifying the seemingly contradictory imagery of judgment presented in Rev 20:7-10 and Rev 11-15. Alluding to Shea's work, Mealy notes that the two opposing imageries "are simply alternative pictures for a single final fate: the second death of the resurrected person."3 _______________________ lIda Er 贸h L铆.ch , 'Time and Times and Half a Time': Historical Consciousness in the Jewish Literature of the Persian and Hellenistic Eras, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 19 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1996), 136, n. 100. Frohlich apparently disagrees with Shea's position on the identity of Vashti. Thus, this can be counted as disagreement to Shea in the historical-contextual area because Frohlich believes that the story of Vashti is merely "an introduction to the story of Esther" (ibid., 136).

2J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 70 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1992), 20, n. 2, 25-6, n. 2, 48, n. 2, 62, n. 1, 231, n. 2, 244, n. 1.

3Ibid., 179. Mealy's use of Shea's exegetical study on Revelation can be counted as agreement to Shea's position because it helps Mealy to argue his case that there was no contradiction at all between Rev 20:7-10 and Rev 11-15.

203

The impact of Shea's works on the book of Revelation can be seen in the way they are used, cited, and quoted by biblical scholars. Shea's studies on the meaning of Armageddon and the covenant form of the letters in Revelation have be en cornmended by a number of scholars.1 Jean-Pierre Ruiz, however, did

not

approve

Shea's

chiastic

structuration,

along

with

Strand's work, on the book of _________________________ lSee, e.g., Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed., The New International Cornmentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 65, 301; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Cornmentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 88-9, 227-28, 840-41, 926; Jan Fekkes 111, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplernent Series 93 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1994), 201-02; Maurice Carrez, ~Harmaged6n, Lieu de l'Affrontment Final," Le monde de la Bible 59 (Mai-Juin-Juillet 1989): 3940. On the other hand, Robert W. Wall, Revelation, New International Biblical Cornmentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 280, simply put in his bibliography the literary article of Shea, without giving any cornments. Mounce, Beale, Fekkes 111, and Carrez can be counted as four scholars who agreed to Shea's position on sorne issues in Revelation such as the covenant forrn letters and the meaning of Armageddon. This can be counted in the exegesis area of study. Wall and Bergant can be counted as two scholars who did not rnake any cornments on Shea's study on Revelation for they rnerely cited Shea in their bibliography.

204 Revelation

because

Shea

has

~inappropriately

impose[d]Hl

chiastic patterns on the book.

Method of Biblical Interpretation Samuel

Koranteng-Pipim,

former

student

of

Shea

at

Andrews University, wrote a book entitled, Receiving the Worcf that deals with some issues surrounding the interpretation of the Bible. In it he quoted and cited his former professor in several places that discuss biblical interpretation. He noted that Shea is correct in emphasizing that the difference between the

historicalcritical

method

and

the

historico-grammatical

method involves one's presuppositions about the nature of the Scriptures.3 Further, Koranteng-Pipim referred to Shea's book, Selected

Studies

on

Prophetic

Interpretation,

as

one

of

the

important studies that address ~the concerns often ____________________________

lJean-Pierre Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16, 1719, 10, European University Studies: Series 23, Theology, vol. 376 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1989), 244, n. 12. Ruiz's disagreement and the reason for the disagreement to Shea can be clearly counted in the area of literary study.

2Samuel Koranteng-Pipim, Receiving the Word: How New Approaches to the Bible Impact OUT Biblical Faith and Lifestyle

(Berrien Springs, MI: Berean Books, 1996).

3Ibid., 36, 40, n. 16.

205 raised against the historic Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary. "1 Roberto Guro of Sagunto Adventist Theological Seminary in Spain recognized the contribution of Shea's study in tracing the roots of the apotelesmatic principIe of interpretation as coming from ~astrological predictions based upon the reading of horoscopes" in CIassical Greek times.2 He acknowledged Shea's argument

against

principIe. principIe,

Guro as

Ford's notes

Shea

appIication that

points

Ford's

out,

is

of

the

apotelesmatic

~appIication

very

arbitrary.

of

this

What

it

finaIIy proves is that it is not a principIe at all.,,3 TackIing the issue of Ford's use of EIIen White's writings, Guro notes that ~as Shea indicates, EIIen White is not here using the apotelesmatic principIe, which would require two or more former rains and two or more Iatter rains. ,,4 ____________________________

1Ibid., 178, n. 14. Koranteng-Pipim's approval of Shea's positions in different pIaces on the subject of prophetic and bibIical interpretation can be counted as agreement to Shea in the area described as ~others" in TabIe 1 among SDAs. 2Roberto Guro, ~The Apotelesmatic PrincipIe: Grigin and AppIication," JATS 9 (1998): 328, n. 6.

30uro, 338.

4Ibid., 339. Guro can be counted as one of the SDA scholars who agreed to Shea's position in the area of prophetic and bibIical interpretation and described in Table 1 as ~others." This can be considered as agreement because he used Shea's research on the origin of apotelesmatic

206

The foregoing discussion gives examples of how Shea made an impact on the area of biblical interpretation, specifically in the area of prophetic interpretation. His monograph entitled, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, which is used and cited by various SDA scholars around the world,l attests to his

contribution

Despite

the

in

the

technicaI

area

nature

of of

biblical that

interpretation.

monograph,

Shea

has

popularized the essence of that book by writing on the same subject in a number of semipopular journals of the SDA Church.2 principle of interpretation. _______________________ lSee, for example, Gerhard F. Hasel, ~Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks," in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and ReveIation Cornmittee Series, vol. 3.

(Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 7, n. 10, 62, n. 154; William G. Johnsson, ~Conditionality in Biblical Prophecy With Particular Reference to Apocalyptic," in The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed.

Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series, vol. 3. (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Institute, 1986), 279, n. 25; Richard M. Davidson, ~Sanctuary Typology," in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Book 1, ed. Frank B. Holbrook, Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series, vol. 6. (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 103, n. 6. Holbrook apparently agreed to Shea's study on the

year-day principle in the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible. This can be counted as one of the agreements to Shea in the category under ~others" in TabIe 1.

2See William H. Shea, ~Making Sense of Bible Prophecy," College and University Dialogue 5 (1993): 5-8; idem, ~Historicism, the Best Way to Interpret Prophecy," Adventists Affirm 17 (Spring 2003): 22-34.

207

Related

to

the

historicist

interpretation

of

apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible is the application of the year-day principIe which Shea firmly established. From the words of Frank G. Holbrook, former colleague of Shea at the BRI, one can see that there is indeed a significant connection between the year-day principIe and the historicist method: . . . the year-day principIe is an integral presupposition of the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, a method which sees the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation unrolling in fulfillment across the centuries from the times of Daniel and John until the establishment of God's eternal kingdom.1 Shea provided solid support for employrnent of the year-day principIe in the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible,2 specifically in the book of Daniel. Shea presented not only evidence ~from Hellenistic Jewish literature, Qumran documents, and rabbinic literature in support of the year-day principIe, "3 but al so evidence from the biblical materials, in particular from the book of Daniel. ___________________________ lFrank B. Holbrook, The Atoning Priesthood of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society PubIications, 1996), 219.

2Kenneth C. Newport, Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), lO, n. 26, refers to Shea's historical study of the year-day principIe. 3Bennett, 32.

208

Concerning evidence of the year-day principIe in the book

of

Daniel

itself,

Shea

argues

that

since

the

~time

elements" in Dan 8 and 11 ~span the same historical period," and Dan 11 refers to ~years" while Dan 8 uses ~days," the ~years of chapter 11 should be utilized in interpreting the days of chapter 8."1 Shea concludes, ~Daniel itself provides us with the year-day principIe, and it is most directly connected there with the prophecy of the 2,300 days. "2 Summary

The impact and influence of Shea's works on biblical studies have been shown by examples of the ways in which practitioners of the discipline cited his works, either to lend support to their own studies or to critique his study. Shea's place in the discipline of biblical studies depends largely on the impact and influence of his works.

Although he is situated in the Albright school, as seen above, Shea belongs among more conservative scholars who have a high view of the Scriptures. Since he is conservative in that sense of the word, the influence of his works may also be felt most within conservative circles of ________________________ lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 40.

2Ibid., 40-1. For a surnmary of the year-day principIe, see, Holbrook, 219-29.

209

biblical scholars who shared similar conservative views with him.

The impact and influence of Shea's works are felt among his former students and among his fellow SDA scholars. His personal characteristic of being helpful and humane also made a lasting influence upon them. This personal characteristic of Shea has been acknowledged even among the non-SDAs. Sorne nonSDA scholars, however, have criticized his works in a quite antagonistic manner because they do not share his conservative views and presuppositions. But the fact that they spent a large portion of their articles in critiquing Shea's works, and took time to evaluate and analyze them, suggest that Shea has also had a considerable impact on them.

This

chapter

al

so

showed

that

Shea

had

a

considerable impact in the areas of archaeology, biblical studies, and methods of biblical interpretation. However, Shea's defense of the historicist method of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible and the application of the

day-for-a-year

principIe

in

interpreting

apocalyptic

prophecies of Daniel may have made the most important and lasting impact in the Adventist church.

The data in this chapter is surnmarized below in quantitative form, by the use of tables based on the use of

210 and agreement or disagreement with Shea's works by other scholars and some of his former students.1 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT WORKS AMONG SDAs

OF

SHEA'S

Areas of

Number of Times Number of Times

Infl.uence

SOA Schol.ars SOA Schol.ars Agree wi th Oisagree wi th Shea's Positions Shea's Positions

No Comment

Historicalcon textual

6

2

1

Literary

9

O

1

Archaeological

4

3

1

12

2

O

7

O

O

Exegetical Others Total.

38

=

79.2%

7

=

14.5%

3

=

6.3%

From the selected SDA scholars who either quoted or cited Shea's works, as summarized above in Table 1, it can be observed that Shea had made a significant impact on them by the percentage of times these scholars agreed with his position (79.2%) in comparison to those who did not agree with him (14.5%). It is also evident that in the area of exegesis, Shea had an impact, based on the number of times

lFor the sake of statistical presentation of this chapter, different SDA and non-SDA authors who quoted or cited Shea's works were counted. Their agreement or disagreement with Shea's positions or conclusions were also computed.

213

of archaeology and exegesis.1 In general, these scholars agreed with most of Shea's positions or conclusions when selectively asked about the two areas mentioned. In the area of exegesis, all

agreed

with

Shea's

position

concerning

the

heavenly

sanctuary in Dan 8, based on his analysis of different spatial dimensions in that chapter. One scholar notes, however, that non-SDA scholars would also ~agree that the language [in Dan 8] is vertical, but they would take it strictly metaphorically in reference to the assault of Antiochus IV Epiphanes on the temple of YHWH in Jerusalem." This is understandable because, as one scholar also observes, ~this is an area in which SDA's teaching is rather unique."

Archaeologists who were asked about sorne of Shea's positions or conclusions in their area, agreed with most of his

positions.

Concerning

their

rough

estimation

of

the

general reaction outside of the SDA community to sorne of Shea's positions, they stated that the reactions are rather mixed. One SDA scholar observed, however, that Shea's theory of Sennacherib's two invasions is very influential _______________________ lThe names of these Adventist scholars are withheld because of the conditions agreed upon between these scholars and me. Survey forms were sent to 20 SDA archaeologists and exegetes asking their opinion on sorne of Shea's positions. The number of those who responded was not enough to make the data statistically significant. Their cornments are kept and quoted here as valid opinions, however.

214 with non-SDA scholars. He wrote that Shea ~has written a lot on this, and many people cite him for it even if they don't agree." Shea's published analysis of a Philistine ostracon found in Ashkelon, on which he found an account of Samson the Hebrew, has received unfavorable reactians frarn these SDA archaeologists.

Sorne

cornmented

that

this

particular

interpretation of the inscriptions is ~very fanciful, even outrageous," or that it ~borders on the crackpot." As one scholar points out, Shea ~tries to see almost every inscription as referring to a biblical event."

Disagreernents

apart,

the

notion

that

Shea

had

a

considerable impact on both SDA and non-SDA scholars in the area of biblical studies has been validated in this chapter. As seen above, three times out of four scholars tended to agree with him in the samples examined for this papero

CHAPTER 5

, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study is to set forth the nature and impact of William H. Shea's works on biblical studies. This purpose entails the following questions: What is the nature of William H. Shea's works on Biblical Studies? To what extent and in what ways, if any, have his works influenced the discipline of Biblical Studies? The approach taken in this paper to answer the questions posed is both descriptive and analytical.

Summ.ary

From the study of Shea's life, it has been shown that at the outset of his career, especially when he volunteered to teach in the Caribbean, his primary interest has been on how archaeology or ancient Near Eastern data could shed light upon the

Bible,

either

directly

or

indirectly.

This

particular

interest was enhanced more when he studied at Harvard and at the University of Michigan as a preparation for teaching Bible, biblical history, and archaeology. At these schools, he was taught under

215

216 professors who had been students of Albright. When he was a professor Desmond

at Ford

subsequent

Andrews

University,

controversy

publications

set

as

a

his

the

participation

stage

scholar.

for

From

many

this

in

the

of

his

brief

life

sketch of Shea we can see his background which influenced the nature and impact of his works on biblical studies.

The survey of Shea's biblical studies corpus, which is composed of four books and one monograph, and more than two hundred articles and book reviews, revealed that he dealt mostly with

the

book

of

Daniel,

using

historical,

literary,

archaeological and exegetical approaches. Bis biblical studies corpus also betrays his primary interest in relating biblical history to the history of the ancient Near East with the help of current archaeological findings.

This

particular

interest

of

Shea

was

influenced

to

sorne extent by the ~Albright School." This influence was handed down to Shea by his former professors, both at Barvard and at the University of Michigan, who were Albright students. In turn, Shea

carried

on

the

Albright

tradition

as

revealed

in

an

approach to the Bible that used primary archaeological data to shed light upon it, if not to establish its historicity.

The nature of Shea's works in biblical studies as demonstrated in his numerous articles and his frequent use of the ancient Near Eastern data to illuminate the Bible,

217 either

directly

or

indirectly,

suggests

that

his

works

are

primarily contextual-historical. It has be en shown that the nature

of

his

works

is

multiplex

and

combines

contextual-

historical, archaeological, literary, and exegetical approaches.

The nature of Shea's works is further shown in his use of ancient Near Eastern data to establish the historicity of the book of Daniel and the Exodus. It is to be noted, however, that

his

archaeological

interpretations

are

often

stated

tentatively as hypotheses because of a sparsity of facts.

In dominant themes in his works, namely the Sabbath, Creation, and Judgment themes, Shea further revealed the nature of

his

works.

He

used

contextual-historical,

archaeological,

literary, and exegetical approaches to expound these important theological themes. However, it can be noted that in dealing with these themes, Shea either supported or supplemented the traditional positions of the SDA Church concerning them: he did not alter them.

The impact and the influence of Shea's works in the discipline of biblical studies have been shown in the way in which scholars cited his works, either to lend support to their study or to critique his study. However, Shea's place in the discipline of biblical studies depends largely on the impact and influence of his works.

218 Shea's place in biblical studies could be situated within the ~Albright school." But Shea belongs among more conservative scholars who have a high view of the Scriptures.

Since

he

is

influence

of

conservative his

works

in may

that al

sense so

be

of

the

felt

word,

most

the

within

conservative circles of biblical scholars who share similar conservative views with him.

The among

his

impact former

and

influence

students

and

of

Shea's

among

his

works fellow

are

felt

Adventist

scholars. But his personal characteristic of being helpful and humane had made a more lasting influence on them than his innovative and influential works. The same impact of Shea's personal characteristics has been acknowledged even among nonSDAs. The influence of Shea's works among scholars is felt considerably by those who share his conservative views. There are

non-SDA

scholars,

however,

who

responded,

cited,

and

criticized his works in a quite antagonistic manner because they do not share his conservative views and presuppositions.

But the fact that they spent a large portion of their articles in criticizing Shea's works, and took time to evaluate and analyze them, suggests that Shea has also had a considerable impact on them.

It

has

also

been

demonstrated

that

Shea

had

considerable impact in the areas of archaeology, biblical

a

219

studies, irnpact

and and

methods

of

biblical

influence

on

the

interpretation.

defense

of

the

Shea's

historicist

rnethod of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies in the Bible, and the application of the day-for-a-year principIe to the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel in particular, has been well acknowledged by a number of SDA scholars.

Conc1usions

In the light of the preceding summary, sorne general conclusions can be rnade concerning the nature and impact of Shea's works on biblical studies. First, his participation in the Desrnond Ford controversy seems to have influenced and perhaps shaped to sorne extent his subsequent publications.

Frorn this perspective, the volume of his articles and books that dealt with the book of Daniel and other issues surrounding the

sanctuary

doctrine

of

the

Adventist

church

is

understandable. Thus, there appears to be a relationship between the Desrnond Ford controversy and Shea's extensive publications on the book of Daniel.

Second, the nature of his works can be understood against the backdrop of his student days at Harvard and at the University of Michigan. Because of his contact with forrner Albright students in these universities, Shea's approach to the Bible, especially his use of the ancient Near Eastern or archaeological data, is a reflection of the

220 Albright tradition. However, he differs with Albright due to his high view of the Scriptures. Thus, he could be considered as conservative. As such his influence in the discipline of biblical studies is confined mostly to the scholars who share his views concerning the Bible.

Third, Shea's high view of the Scriptures contributed significantly

to

his

influence

interpretation,

particularly

interpretation.

In

historicist

method

his of

in

in

the

the

employment

interpretation,

area area

and

of of

biblical prophetic

defense

he

of

presented

the

strong

arguments to show that it agrees best with the Bible evidence.

Fourth, view

of

the

from

the

Scriptures,

perspective the

way

he

of

Shea's

used

the

conservative ancient

Near

Eastern or archaeological data i3 understandable. Because of his attempt to establish either the historicity or authenticity of the Bible and the nature of the archaeological texts, Shea, sometimes, revised his position in matters of interpretation and the reading of ancient Near Eastern texts. However, it is important to note that he did not change his position concerning his

interpretation

of

the

biblical

data

nor

alter

his

standpoint in matters of exegesis.

Fifth, combining the data from the SDA and non-SDA camps, it can be seen that Shea had an impact in the

221 historical-contextua1 and literary areas as seen in the number of those who agreed with his positions and conclusions. In view of this, Shea will probably be remembered most in the area of biblical studies through his works in the historical-contextual as well as in literary studies.

Last, because of Shea's high view of the Bible, he remained faithful to the fundamental beliefs of the Adventist Church and even became one of the primary bastions against the inroads of the historical-critical view of the Scripture in the Church. In this way, William H. Shea has proved himself both as a renowned scholar and a dedicated believer.

}