Comments on Hammond's Review of Salibi's the Bible Came from ArabiaAuthor(s): John JosephSource: International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 704-705Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/163925 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 00:34

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Journal of Middle East Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:34:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

704 Notes and Comments 704 Notes and Comments

Not until eons later did man evolve, but he quickly got busy and made machines that drank the petroleum from underground."

Department of Economics MANOUCHER PARVIN

University of Akron

COMMENTS ON HAMMOND'S REVIEW OF SALIBI'S THE BIBLE CAME

FROM ARABIA

In his review of Kamal Salibi's The Bible Came from Arabia (August 1990), Philip C. Hammond devotes over 75 percent of his writing to summarize the book. He then informs us that a proper review of it would subject the reader "to a volume far larger than the one being reviewed," and thereby spares us any specific criticism. Instead, he proceeds to con- demn the author's hypotheses and arguments for being "contrary to fact," "unscholarly in the extreme," and "presumptuous," and laments the very publication of the book. For Sal- ibi to assume, writes Hammond, "that similar, or even identical, place names are proof of 'identity' between two places is palpably absurd." What Salibi does argue is that in nearly all cases, the coordinates of the places that actually carry biblical names in Palestine do not conform to the coordinates given to the places by the same name in the Bible, although they do in Arabia.

I am writing not to defend Salibi's scholarship. Perhaps that is best done by the reviewer of another of Salibi's books: in the November 1990 issue of IJMES, we read of Kamal Sal- ibi's "prowess as a historian," whose book on Lebanon is described as "one of the best books on the modern history of any Arab country." Nor is it my intention to defend the the- sis of the book that Hammond has reviewed. Salibi would be the first to admit that his hy- potheses still need to be substantiated by archaeological studies; he does not expect his arguments to be readily accepted. We owe it to ourselves as well as to him, however, to scrutinize his thesis and the mass of detailed evidence that he has carefully gathered to de- fend it.

All that Salibi claims for The Bible Came from Arabia, in my opinion, is that-like Mar- tin Bernal in his controversial book Black Athena-he has made for us "a case to be answered"; it has not been answered yet and certainly not by the IJMES review. In Black Athena, Professor Bernal charges that the evidence he has used was long suppressed and ig- nored "owing to residual racism, anti-Semitism, sheer scholarly inertia, and/or exaggerated respect for authority." Faced with this kind of challenge, by a professor from Cornell Uni- versity, the editors of a classics journal were eventually led to devote a special issue to Black Athena (Arethusa, Fall 1989).

Salibi, faced with some hostile criticism, has refuted his critics, especially those who criticized the book before its publication. In a book published after the one under review, he charges that "Biblical scholars and historians of the ancient Near East have come to form a closed circle which resents unsolicited intrusion into the field. They have built an edifice based on foundations which are in most cases, assumptions which they attempt to pass for facts, while refusing any radical re-examination of the subject matter." In scholar- ship, he argues, there is no orthodoxy and no heresy, but only a search involving reasoned conjecture tested against evidence.

Five years after the publication of this controversial book, perhaps MESA should devote a special issue of its Bulletin, if not of IJMES, to an expert and fair evaluation of Kamal Salibi's arguments and approach. In the meantime, perhaps Hammond would enlighten

Not until eons later did man evolve, but he quickly got busy and made machines that drank the petroleum from underground."

Department of Economics MANOUCHER PARVIN

University of Akron

COMMENTS ON HAMMOND'S REVIEW OF SALIBI'S THE BIBLE CAME

FROM ARABIA

In his review of Kamal Salibi's The Bible Came from Arabia (August 1990), Philip C. Hammond devotes over 75 percent of his writing to summarize the book. He then informs us that a proper review of it would subject the reader "to a volume far larger than the one being reviewed," and thereby spares us any specific criticism. Instead, he proceeds to con- demn the author's hypotheses and arguments for being "contrary to fact," "unscholarly in the extreme," and "presumptuous," and laments the very publication of the book. For Sal- ibi to assume, writes Hammond, "that similar, or even identical, place names are proof of 'identity' between two places is palpably absurd." What Salibi does argue is that in nearly all cases, the coordinates of the places that actually carry biblical names in Palestine do not conform to the coordinates given to the places by the same name in the Bible, although they do in Arabia.

I am writing not to defend Salibi's scholarship. Perhaps that is best done by the reviewer of another of Salibi's books: in the November 1990 issue of IJMES, we read of Kamal Sal- ibi's "prowess as a historian," whose book on Lebanon is described as "one of the best books on the modern history of any Arab country." Nor is it my intention to defend the the- sis of the book that Hammond has reviewed. Salibi would be the first to admit that his hy- potheses still need to be substantiated by archaeological studies; he does not expect his arguments to be readily accepted. We owe it to ourselves as well as to him, however, to scrutinize his thesis and the mass of detailed evidence that he has carefully gathered to de- fend it.

All that Salibi claims for The Bible Came from Arabia, in my opinion, is that-like Mar- tin Bernal in his controversial book Black Athena-he has made for us "a case to be answered"; it has not been answered yet and certainly not by the IJMES review. In Black Athena, Professor Bernal charges that the evidence he has used was long suppressed and ig- nored "owing to residual racism, anti-Semitism, sheer scholarly inertia, and/or exaggerated respect for authority." Faced with this kind of challenge, by a professor from Cornell Uni- versity, the editors of a classics journal were eventually led to devote a special issue to Black Athena (Arethusa, Fall 1989).

Salibi, faced with some hostile criticism, has refuted his critics, especially those who criticized the book before its publication. In a book published after the one under review, he charges that "Biblical scholars and historians of the ancient Near East have come to form a closed circle which resents unsolicited intrusion into the field. They have built an edifice based on foundations which are in most cases, assumptions which they attempt to pass for facts, while refusing any radical re-examination of the subject matter." In scholar- ship, he argues, there is no orthodoxy and no heresy, but only a search involving reasoned conjecture tested against evidence.

Five years after the publication of this controversial book, perhaps MESA should devote a special issue of its Bulletin, if not of IJMES, to an expert and fair evaluation of Kamal Salibi's arguments and approach. In the meantime, perhaps Hammond would enlighten

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:34:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Notes and Comments 705 Notes and Comments 705

those of us who do not have the expertise to judge for ourselves, but have students to teach and seminars to conduct, what at least some of the most "blatant" errors are that he seems to have found throughout the book and correct them. In his review, with the exception of the misrepresentation noted above, he has not identified any.

Franklin and Marshall College JOHN JOSEPH

A REPLY TO JOSEPH

My negative reaction to the publication of the volume as a source for lay-reader enlighten- ment was based upon a disinclination to have those unacquainted with Semitic studies be led down a strictly speculative path. To the non-Semiticist the volume does give the im- pression of involving a great deal of "scholarship." It is that impression that I deny, and that is why I decry the publication of the material presented by Salibi. I did not deny his qualifications as a historian, but that does not make him a linguistic or a competent archae- ologist. In both areas he simply dismisses the "opposition" by declaring them wrong! That is a statement of viewpoint, not a scientific scholarly answer based upon research.

Joseph suggests that "we owe it to ourselves as well as to him [Salibi] to scrutinize his thesis and the mass of detailed evidence that he has carefully gathered to defend it." That was precisely what I did in order to reach the conclusion expressed in my review. As one who has done considerable work, academic and in the field, in the areas of Semitic lan- guages, Middle Eastern history, and Middle Eastern archaeology, I came to the conclusion that the "mass of evidence" Salibi put forward was not evidence, but based upon accidental "look-alikes" and "sound-alikes" between Palestine and Arabia and between Hebrew and Arabic.

I do not wish to intrude on Salibi's "field"; rather I consider myself already in the field he has entered. I argue, on the basis of evidence from Palestinian archaeology-which rests upon rather firm cross chronologies, stratigraphic sequences, ceramic progressions, epi- graphic developments, and other factors-that his hypothesis is wrong. Salibi, on the other hand, simply dismisses those data and their implications and asserts that biblical scholars and archaeologists are wrong and that he is right. That is hardly a scientific argument, no matter how it is bolstered by pages of Hebrew/Arabic and geographical similarities.

I will admit that my review, as Joseph has noted, merely summarized content without presenting details of disagreement. In reading the introduction to the volume I listed some five pages of disagreements in my notes. To have presented them in detail, plus similar line-by-line disagreements with his data in succeeding chapters would indeed have pro- duced a review longer than the book itself. In order to assuage Joseph's feelings regarding that omission, I would like to present some examples of those "disagreements":

That his "remarkable discovery" was made on linguistic analysis of biblical place names, with little reference to geography, because of "disagreement," is hardly a basis for identification of such loca- tions.

That his argument rests on "the assumption that the Hebrew Bible has been consistently mistranslated," because Hebrew "was out of use" by the 5th or 6th century B.C. is fallacious. Hebrew had to have been in use for reading biblical books from Exilic times onward for cultic purposes, and a number of the apocryphal and pseudoepigraphic books were written in Hebrew. This would not have been possible, or even sensible, if the language was not still in use.

That "Jewish" migrations into Palestine "could well" have been caused by civil war between Judah and Israel in western Arabia ignores the Davidic kingdom. The tradition that the break between the two

those of us who do not have the expertise to judge for ourselves, but have students to teach and seminars to conduct, what at least some of the most "blatant" errors are that he seems to have found throughout the book and correct them. In his review, with the exception of the misrepresentation noted above, he has not identified any.

Franklin and Marshall College JOHN JOSEPH

A REPLY TO JOSEPH

My negative reaction to the publication of the volume as a source for lay-reader enlighten- ment was based upon a disinclination to have those unacquainted with Semitic studies be led down a strictly speculative path. To the non-Semiticist the volume does give the im- pression of involving a great deal of "scholarship." It is that impression that I deny, and that is why I decry the publication of the material presented by Salibi. I did not deny his qualifications as a historian, but that does not make him a linguistic or a competent archae- ologist. In both areas he simply dismisses the "opposition" by declaring them wrong! That is a statement of viewpoint, not a scientific scholarly answer based upon research.

Joseph suggests that "we owe it to ourselves as well as to him [Salibi] to scrutinize his thesis and the mass of detailed evidence that he has carefully gathered to defend it." That was precisely what I did in order to reach the conclusion expressed in my review. As one who has done considerable work, academic and in the field, in the areas of Semitic lan- guages, Middle Eastern history, and Middle Eastern archaeology, I came to the conclusion that the "mass of evidence" Salibi put forward was not evidence, but based upon accidental "look-alikes" and "sound-alikes" between Palestine and Arabia and between Hebrew and Arabic.

I do not wish to intrude on Salibi's "field"; rather I consider myself already in the field he has entered. I argue, on the basis of evidence from Palestinian archaeology-which rests upon rather firm cross chronologies, stratigraphic sequences, ceramic progressions, epi- graphic developments, and other factors-that his hypothesis is wrong. Salibi, on the other hand, simply dismisses those data and their implications and asserts that biblical scholars and archaeologists are wrong and that he is right. That is hardly a scientific argument, no matter how it is bolstered by pages of Hebrew/Arabic and geographical similarities.

I will admit that my review, as Joseph has noted, merely summarized content without presenting details of disagreement. In reading the introduction to the volume I listed some five pages of disagreements in my notes. To have presented them in detail, plus similar line-by-line disagreements with his data in succeeding chapters would indeed have pro- duced a review longer than the book itself. In order to assuage Joseph's feelings regarding that omission, I would like to present some examples of those "disagreements":

That his "remarkable discovery" was made on linguistic analysis of biblical place names, with little reference to geography, because of "disagreement," is hardly a basis for identification of such loca- tions.

That his argument rests on "the assumption that the Hebrew Bible has been consistently mistranslated," because Hebrew "was out of use" by the 5th or 6th century B.C. is fallacious. Hebrew had to have been in use for reading biblical books from Exilic times onward for cultic purposes, and a number of the apocryphal and pseudoepigraphic books were written in Hebrew. This would not have been possible, or even sensible, if the language was not still in use.

That "Jewish" migrations into Palestine "could well" have been caused by civil war between Judah and Israel in western Arabia ignores the Davidic kingdom. The tradition that the break between the two

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Fri, 9 May 2014 00:34:40 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions