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 of Shea's works, his published and

available unpublished works have been analyzed and classified

according to the following categories: 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 historical-

contextual 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.

49

5

1

5

6

6

2

63

65

6

9

72

7

5

77

7

8

8

0

82 85

90

9

1

9

3 9

6

10

2

10

2

11

2

11

8

12

2

4. THE IMPACT OF SHEA'S WORKS ON BIBLICAL STUDIES. 125

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

126

12

7

12

8

12

9

13

7

15

7

157

16

3

18

9

18

9

19

3

20

4

20

8

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary . . . . . .

Conclusions . . .

215

21

5

219

APPENDIX

1. HISTORICAL-CONTEXTUAL ARTICLES OF SHEA 222

2. LITERARY ARTICLES OF SHEA 228

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTICLES OF SHEA. . . 232

4 .

EXEGETICAL ARTICLES OF SHEA. . 237

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . ............ 241

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Surnmary of the Impact of Shea's

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

Works among non-SDAs . . . . . . . . . . . .

210

2.

211

3. Combined Surnmary of the Impact of Shea's

Works among SDAs and non-SDAs . . . 212

4. Historical-Contextual Articles of Shea . 223

5.

Literary Articles of Shea. 229

6.

Archaeological Articles of Shea. 233

7. Exegetical Articles of Shea. . . 238

vii

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 H. Shea, the subject of this

dissertation, I am grateful for his friendship,

bibliographical assistance, and for time 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 non-

SDA 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), 589-

612; idem, "Commemorating the Final Breakthrough

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," The

International standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), complete1Y

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 Conquests 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

_________________________

lMerling, xiv.

2Commenting 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

_______________________________

lWilliam 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).

2See the brief review of Shea's dissertation in

Willis, 460-61.

3See, 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.

lSee 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.

2See, for example, Patti Hansen Tompkins, ~Adventist

Raiders of the Lost Ark," Spectrum 13 (June 1983): 49-54.

3See, 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 non-

dogmatic 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.

_____________________________

lWillis, 543.

2Based 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.

3The published work of Willis is the one we will use

throughout this papero

4Willis, 424-25, 452-70, 543-44.

9

Another dissertation that deals with Shea's works

rather briefly is that of Hotma Saor Parasian Silitonga.1

Silitonga placed Shea, among many, as belonging to the

historicist school of interpreters on the book of Daniel.2

According to Silitonga, interpreters who belong 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

___________________________

lHotma Saor Parasian Silitonga, “Continuity and Change

in World Rulers: A Comparative Study and Evaluation of Seventh-

day Adventist Interpretation of Daniel 11" (Ph.D. diss.,

Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2001).

2Ibid., 44-5.

3Ibid., 32.

4Ibid., 83-7.

5Silitonga 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, purpose of the study, justification for the

study, delimitations, and methodology. Chapter 2 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 and career, his involvement in various

doctrinal and theological issues that the SDA Church has

confronted, and his work as an Associate Director of 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

__________________________

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

2William 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.).

3William 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 Adventist church every Sabbath. Through regular

attendance at the church at his neighbors' 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.

_________________________

lShea to Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail.

2Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Shea to Regalado, 20 May 2003, Electronic mail.

6Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8.

15

Education and Career

William Shea's education and career span almost forty-

four years. His education and career were diverse

andremarkable. He went from being a medical student and

medical doctor to study of the Bible, biblical history, and

Semitic languages.

La Sierra College

When he went to college to study for his baccalaureate

degree, he took “both courses in religion 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

__________________________

lIbid.

2Willis,

452.

3Shea, “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

_____________________________

lMerling, “Introduction," xiii.

2Ibid.

3See, 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.

4Edward Heppenstall, Salvation Unlimited:

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

5Merling, ~Introduction," xiii.

6Information 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 ob-

gyn 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) .

lWillis, 452.

2Merling, "Introduction," xiii.

3Willis, 452.


5Willis, 452, n. 4.


7Willis, 452, n . 4.

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 medical profession in these two countries,

where medical 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,

__________________________

1Ibid.

2Merling, “Introduction," xiii; Willis, 452, n. 4.

3Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea,H 8.

4Willis, 452, n. 4.

5Shea, “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

_________________________

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


3Ibid. See, also, Merling, “Introduction," xiii.

4Shea, “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

____________________________

lWillis, 452-53, n.5.

2William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 2 July

2000, Electronic mail.

3Ibid.

4Willis, 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.

5Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.


7Lawrence 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

________________________

lWilliam H. Shea, Early Israelíte Inscríptions from Sínai

(Red Bluff, CA: privately printed, 2000), xv.

2William H. Shea to Ferdinand O. Regalado, 4 June

2003, Electronic mail.

3Merling, “Introduction," xiii; Willis, 453. 4William G.

Dever, ~Excavations at Gezer," Bíblical Archaeologist 30 (May

1967): 54.

5William 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.

6Ibid.

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 four-

part 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

_________________________

lWilliam 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.

2In 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.

3Willis, 424-52, n.5.


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

________________________

lIbido


3Willis, 452-53.

4Merling, ~Introduction," xiv.

5Ibid.

6Willis, 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.

__________________________

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

2Merling, “Introduction," xiv.

3Geraty, 48.


25

Professorships at Andrews

After he finished his doctorate in 1976, Shea began teaching in

the Seminary at Andrews University full-time.1 Beside his

teaching responsibilities, he held different 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] would prefer to remain simply as a licensed

minister."3 Thus, he ~kept that status all 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

______________________________

lWillis, 453.

2rbid., 453, n. 1.

3William 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.).

4Ibid.


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 former doctoral student remarked that Shea's

seminar was indeed ~stimulating, exciting research, and

typical of the kind of creative things that Bill was

continuously investigating."4 One can see 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"¡ available froro

http://www.andrews.edu/ARCHAEOLOGY/museum/ham_history.htm;

Internet; accessed 4 March 2003.

2Ibid.

http://www.andrews.edu/ARCHAEOLOGY/museum/ham_history.htm;

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 at the archives located at the

headquarters of the General Conference of 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 Vice President of the GC, served as the

chairman. 3 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," Ministry, October

1980, 25.

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 form under the same title: ~Daniel and the

Judgment."l The paper was later published in Spectrum, the

official journal of the Association of Adventist Forums.2

According to the editors of that journal, 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.¡ (2) the great redemption of the cross¡ (3) to the last

judgment¡ 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.


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 oí 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 of the Biblical

Research Institute

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 varied from being a semi-

administrator and editor to being a researcher. 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): 171-

80.

37

day. The members of BRI also had publication projects,

which they wrote or edited.1

As Associate Director, Shea also conducted and

participated in different Bible Land study group tours,

requested by people from different countries.2 Through that

activity, he was in constant contact with the many different

Adventists around the world who joined such study tours,

particularly when he was the tour guide. In spite of his

diversified and hectic responsibilities at the Institute, 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 üT, 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 his retirement years are considerably

productive.

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 observation of Shea's publications,

particularly the books he published, 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 know his (Shea's] work, it will not be

surprising that there are so many chapters relating to

the Book [sic] of Daniel since he has also written and

spoken often on 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 Accordingly, this work deserves

commendation in that Shea·did ~creative research ... 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 Inscriptions (whole book).

sIbid., xvi-xvii.

6Ibid., 174.

,. "

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 anti-

Sabbatarian 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 anti-

Sabbatarian 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 of Babylon, ~fit the gap in Cyrus' titulary"

attested "in the business and administrative 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 interests

H (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 Old Testament

scholarship."3 On this basis a study of the so-

_________________________

lGeraty,

46. 2Ibid.,

48. 3Ibid.,

46.

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., 202.

2Willis, 15.

3Ibid., 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.í.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.

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

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, his ~forte was not method, but results.H1

Albright is best known for~his several large-scale

syntheses,H2 in which he 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 protegé, G.

Ernest Wright, "who master-minded the merging of 'Biblical

archaeology' and 'Biblical theology' ."3 It was Wright who

founded the semipopular journal, which he named Biblical

Archaeologist.4 As noted earlier Wright was Shea's rnain

professor at Harvard.

Shea's Place in the Albright School

The place of Shea in the Albright school is

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 of the biblical and the available extrabiblical

materials in arguing for the two-campaign theory of

Sennacherib's invasion of Judah is remarkable. He used 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 Sociéty 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 harmonizes with Willis' conclusion and

evaluation of Shea's works, especially his 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 contextual-

historical 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 articles that Shea wrote may be

considered contextual-historical in nature.2 In these

articles, he put biblical narratives in their 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): 16-

27; 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, Shea is in ~constant search for

enlightenment of contextual details of the biblical

narratives, especially in areas where historical lacunae have

led to critical questioning or rejection

_______________________

26, 27; idem, ~Seal of Approval," Shabbat Shalom, January-

March 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): 169-

72; idem, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 133-49; idem, ~The Neo-

Babylonian 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): 202-

03.

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

für 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. Jifí 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, “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.

http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/Shea.html;

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," 19-

27.

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 oí 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 Bible's historical veracity."2 Shea's use of

archaeology in establishing the historicity of the 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 interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel. The

prophetic parts of the book rest on the accuracy of 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).


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

608

Jehoia- Accession 1st year 2nd year 3rd year

kim's year or

reign "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.


80

Shea also used the Chronicle for Nebuchadnezzar's

conquest of ~the whole of Hatti-country in 605 B.C.1 The

"Hatti or Hittite country," according to the Chronicle,

includes ~all of Syria and Palestine," of which ~the city of

Judah, i.e., Jerusalem" is also a part. Shea concluded that

“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, if critical scholars would simply

acknowledge ~the use of the two Hebrew 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 in Arabia, he 'entrusted the kingship' to

Belshazzar."5 The third primary source is "the 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.


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.


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

conquest¡ 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 that could relate to Daniel, one from

Neriglissar's reign and the other from AmelMarduk's reign.2

Before Shea discussed in detail the content o~ 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 of that event."4 In establishing the

historicity and background of the episode in Dan 3, Shea

presented two extra-biblical texts: the 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 Neo-

Babylonian 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 mourning and

fasting."5 Working on the interpretation of John

_______________________________

lIbid., 30-2; idem, Daniel 1-7, 107.

2Shea, "Daniel 3," 42.


4Ibid.

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

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, and others, Shea suggested the

obstructionist character of Cambyses.3 Then, by presenting

evidence from the Nabonidus Chronicle, Shea asserted the

political authority of Cambyses due to his position as a co-

regent 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 Neo-

Babylonian 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 noted that it "is literally conservative,

theologically insightful," yet it is ~historically

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 opted for the fifteenth-century date of the

Exodus under the 18th Dynasty of Egypt.2 He argued that

archaeological evidence "points to a fifteenth-century date"

rather than to the thirteenth-century.3 Among the

archaeological sites he mentioned to argue his point are

Arad, Hebron, and Warmouth, which "yield no evidence 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 Aa-

cheper-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 et-

Tell 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 “located at the north end of the Wadi Nasib.”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 developed, Shea noticed in these photographs a

number of carved reliefs, which are archaeologically

significant. Upon a closer examination 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, “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 site of Rameses, from where the Israelites

commenced their journey on both 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 non-

occupation 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 normally stated

tentatively as hypotheses since they were often

__________________________

lIbid., 110.

2Ibid.

102

dealing with areas where facts were sparse."l A

representative example of this is his statement in 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 co-

edited 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 seventh-

day 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," 17-

25.

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, “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 Although Shea's main point here is on the

development of the services of the early 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,

______________________

lRegarding 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 Sabbath-related article was on ~a famous

passage in the First Apology of Justin Martyr," 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, “Genesis 1 and 2 Paralleled in an Ancient Near-Eastern Source," 33.

2Ibid., 34. Shea explains in detail how he arrived at

the similarities: “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 a-vowel 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 “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, “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

__________________________

lFor 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 .

2Shea, ~Creation," 420.

116

view of the perspective “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 üT 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 uniqué 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 is to show that the belief in an

“investigative judgment that began in heaven in 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.


2Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 3.


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

________________________


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 followers as represented by its corporate and

religious nature.2 In addition, the people of God will 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 “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, contextual-

historical, 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 non-

SDA circles. The different SDA scholars selected are

representative in terms of their country of origin. The

countries represented are: Croatia, Finland, U.S.A., Czech

Republic, Zimbabwe, South Korea, the 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 Albright in having a conservative view of

Scripture. Shea's attitude toward the Bible 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

literary structure of the text."3

Because of Shea's conservative attitude toward the

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.

Stefanovié 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 Stefanovié'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, “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): 47-

56; 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,


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

Jifí Moskala cited Shea's works, both published and

unpublished, a number of times in his monograph about the

_______________________________

lSüring'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 unclean animals.3 For Moskala, ~the rationale

behind" the Pentateuch's “distinction between 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

_________________________

1Jifí 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, specifically his identification of parallel

chiastic structures in Gen 7:1-5 and Gen 9:1-7 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 references to Shea's works by his former

students substantiate the words of Keith N. 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, n. 1. This can be counted as an

agreement to Shea's position in the area of contextualhistorical

because he agrees to Shea's suggestion that Belshazzar's first

year of reign in Babylon was 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 former colleague of Shea, cited Shea's

perceptive study on the location and significance of

Armageddon in Rev 16:16 where ~Elijah's showdown on Mount

Carmel" has been used as a type of a spiritual “'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 “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 and literary characteristics in the Hebrew

Bible.3 Herr's 1985 paper cited and responded 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' in

Jeremiah 40:14 a Mutilation?H AUSS 23 (Summer 1985): 187-91.

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: Two

Anthropological Characters," AUSS 19 (Autumn 1981): 179-94.

sIbid., 179.

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 2-

3. 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 “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 pre-

Advent 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 “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 7-

9 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 “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,


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 non-

SDA 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, “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 III”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 üT,

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

further reading.4 This book was written by evangélica1

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 as a tool of “quality evangelical

scholarship" that contains a “breadth of coverage and

reflection of trends in modern scholarship."2 .

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

“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, Scáttish 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 “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, “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, Roland E. Murphy, and Tremper Longman 111 made

positive comments on Shea's article.2 Both the 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, “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 üil," 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 üld 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, “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 Zuckerman of the University of Southern

California recognized Shea's contribution 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 “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”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, “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 the three theories that Grabbe reviewed and

evaluated, Shea's theory is the one he argued against 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 oí 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 qiná 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 Adad-

nirari 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 historical-

contextual.

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 second-

invasion."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 about nomenclature and topography, but also

valuable details about the administrative situation in the

kingdorn of Israel under Jeroboam 11."3 Ferdinand E. Deist

invoked some of Shea's interpretations of the 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 §4. 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

ín Bíblical 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 historical-

contextual area.

4Ibid., 36.

185

in his bibliography, without giving any comments.1 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 über 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 historical-contextual.

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.”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 historical-

contextual 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, “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 historical-

contextual 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]," especially the reference to the name of

Artaxerxes in Dan 6:1 in the LXX, Meadowcroft noted in 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 historical-

contextual 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 Although seeming to concur with Shea's

suggestion, Berg pointed out that the ~Shea scenario 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, ~Method in Pentateuchal Source

Criticism," VT 41 (1991): 106. For similar treatment of the same

subject, see, idem, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary,

vol. 1 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 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 of his works, M. O'Connor recognized Shea's

contribution to the literary studies.3 Wilfried 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 W. Bush referred to Shea's article

concerning Esther and history in different places 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, Word Biblical

Cornmentary, vol. 9 (DalIas, TX: Word, 1996), 272, 338, 345,

356, 358. See also, F. B. Huey, Jr., "Esther," The Expositor's

Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1988), 4:795.

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 óh Lí.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): 39-

40. 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 Ford's appIication of the apotelesmatic

principIe. Guro notes that Ford's ~appIication of this

principIe, as Shea points out, is very arbitrary. 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 in the area of biblical interpretation.

Despite the technicaI nature of that 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

________________________


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 non-

SDA 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 OF SHEA'S

WORKS AMONG SDAs

Areas of Number of Times Number of Times No Comment

Infl.uence SOA Schol.ars SOA Schol.ars

Agree wi th Oisagree wi th

Shea's Positions Shea's Positions

Historical- 6 2 1

con textual

Literary 9 O 1

Archaeological 4 3 1

Exegetical 12 2 O

Others 7 O O

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 at Andrews University, his participation in the

Desmond Ford controversy set the stage for many of his

subsequent publications as a scholar. From this 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 conservative in that sense of the word, the

influence of his works may al so be felt most within

conservative circles of biblical scholars who share similar

conservative views with him.

The impact and influence of Shea's works are felt

among his former students and among his fellow 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 non-

SDAs. 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 a

considerable impact in the areas of archaeology, biblical

219

studies, and methods of biblical interpretation. Shea's

irnpact and influence on the defense of the 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 in the area of biblical

interpretation, particularly in the area of prophetic

interpretation. In his employment and defense of the

historicist method of interpretation, he presented strong

arguments to show that it agrees best with the Bible evidence.

Fourth, from the perspective of Shea's conservative

view of the Scriptures, the way he used the 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.

tesis_ferdinand oberio regalado

Documents

impact of sheas works

area of biblical studies

discipline of biblical

nature of sheas

numerous works

sheas place

conservative biblical

impact of william