Mythic trope in the autobiogr by La Biblia en la Historia

Mythic Trope in the Autobiography of William Foxwell Albright Author(s): Burke O. Long Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, Celebrating and Examining W. F. Albright ( Mar., 1993), pp. 36-45 Published by: American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210359 Accessed: 06-01-2016 03:01 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Mythic Trope of William

the Autobiography Foxwell Albright

by Burke 0. Long

When

he was about55years

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Biblical ArcIaeoIlogist 56:1 (1993)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

ON:

Johns Hopkins Professor Albright exam-

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

Vl?::-

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

low*-

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

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

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

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

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions