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available unpublished works have been analyzed and classified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.
copyright © 2004 by Ferdinand Oberio Regalado
All rights reserved
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.
4Merling, "Introduction," xiii.
5Willis, 452, n. 4.
6Merling, "Introduction," xiii.
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.
2Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 8.
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.
6Merling, "Introduction," xiii.
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.
4Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.
23
the other," he left Harvard because he ~did not want to do
that."l Meanwhile, while studying at Harvard, he ~received an
invitation to join the faculty of the Seventh-day Adventist
Theological Seminary."2 However, he did not accept the
invitation at that time because he and his wife needed to go
back to Trinidad to resume their medical work. He continued
his medical missionary work in Trinidad, until he accepted
the previous offer of the Seminary in 1972.3 From 1972 onward,
Bill Shea taught part-time in the Seminary while at the same
time pursuing his doctorate at the University of Michigan.
University of Michigan
"[T]he Sheas returned to Trinidad for another two
years [1970-1972]"4 to continue their medical mission. In
1972, the family arrived at Andrews, while Bill Shea started
studying at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.5 In that
same year, "he joined the faculty of Andrews University."6 As
noted earlier, he was teaching part-time
________________________
lIbido
2Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 9.
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.
4Shea to Regalado, 2 July 2000, Electronic mail.
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.
5Shea, “Dr. William H. Shea," 9.
26
As a professor at the Seminary he was ~noted for his bow tie,
hard exams, and easy marking."l Shea has been described as a
~good-natured and distinguished scholar."2 One of his former
Ph.D. students recalls a typical way in which Shea taught and
conducted a doctoral seminar class. He writes:
[O]ne of the highlights of my [doctoral] study program
was an archaeology seminar 1 took with Bill. In that
seminar we did such diverse things as struggle through
paleo Hebrew of the Izbet Sarta [sic] abcdary [sic] to
discover a possible reference to Hophni and Phinehas, to
restudying Egyptian history for possible links to the
Exodus, to looking at the first and second temples. 3
That same 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.
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.
2Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 42.
3Ibid., 41, -42.
35
and Daniel 8:14 that has created the very controversy which
he says he has proposed it to solve."l
Ford's Glacier View manuscript was later published
under the title: Daniel 8:14--The Day of Atonement and the
Investigative Judgment, published by Evangelion Press in
1980.2 Shea, on the other hand, continues publishing on the
issue that Dr. Ford raised against the traditional belief of
the SDA Church. For example, in the book Symposium on Daniel,
volume 2 of the Daniel and Revelation Cornmittee Series of
the Biblical Research Institute, Shea wrote a
____________________
lIbid., 43. Ford replied that he did not ~refuse to
apply the apotelesmatic principIe to Mark 13. Both the Daniel
cornmentary and my Glacier View sanctuary manuscript do so
apply. (See pp. 49 and 293 of Daniel, and pp. 284ff. of the
recent Sanctuary manuscript.) My Manchester thesis makes no
references to the apotelesmatic principIe at any point, for,
as all know who ha ve done exegetical work for non-Christian
universities, examiners there are only interested in the
initial meaning of a passage in biblical
literature--what it meant for contemporaries. . . . My recent
manuscript strongly links the apotelesmatic principIe with
another principle--that of conditionality. The latter is
clearly affirmed in the Manchester thesis, and repeatedly
so." Ford further argued that when he does ~apply the
apotelesmatic principIe, I endeavor to do so with
consistency. That is to say, a prophecy by means 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.
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).
3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.
4See also Jer. 25:1.
Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.
79
1956 to harmonize this seemingly historical problem in
Daniel,l Shea presented two important historical accounts in
that Chronicle to further contribute to the issue at hand.
First, he narrated how Pharaoh Neco of Egypt put Jehoiakim
on the throne in place of Jehoahaz in "the fall of New
Year."2 From this installation point, he concluded that
"the first official year of Jehoiakim's reign began in the
fall of 608 B.C. The period of time before that fall New
Year was known as the 'accession year' or Year O." It
follows then that "Jehoiakim's third year, mentioned in Dan
1:1, began in the fall of 606 B.C. and extended to the fall
of 605 B.C."3 The arguments of Shea can be outlined
schematically in this manner:
Fall of 608-607 607-606 606-605
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.
2Shea, Daniel 1-7, 39.
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.
3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 40.
4Ibid.; idem, "History and Eschatology," 197.
5Shea, "History and Eschatology," 197. See also
idem, "The Neo-Babylonian Setting of Daniel 7," 31-6.
6Shea, "History and Eschatology," 197.
82
which ~mentioned that the senior king spent ten years livin
in Arabia."l The fourth and the last cuneiform text that
alludes to the historicity and kingship of Belshazzar is th
Nabonidus Chronicle. The text not only mentioned about the
political and governmental role of Belshazzar while his
father Nabonidus was away in Arabia,2 but also stated that
Nabonidus was out ~in the field fighting" with the Persians
~near the Tigris River" at the time Babylon fell to Cyrus'
arroy.3 Correlating the latter event with the event in Dan
5, Shea suggested that the reason Nabonidus was not present
during Belshazzar's banquet was that he was out in the fiel
fighting withCyrus' army at Opis.4 Shea concluded, ~this
small, seemingly insignificant, detail [in Dan 5] reveals
just how historically accurate Daniel was in the case of
Belshazzar. "5
Darius the Mede
As previously noted, the supposed M.A. thesis of
Shea at Harvard, according to Willis, was published in a
_______________________
lIbido
2Shea, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 133; idem, Daniel 1
7, 40.
3Shea, ~History and Eschatology, 197.
4Shea, ~Nabonidus, Belshazzar," 140-43; idem,
~History and Eschatology," 197; idem, Daniel 1-7, 41.
5Shea, Daniel 1-7, 41.
83
four-part series in Andrews University Seminary Studies,l which
was actually an extensive research, as Shea admitted, ~in
pursuit of the elusive Darius the Mede of the book of Daniel
(Dan 5:31) ."2 Shea studied different published cuneiform
tablets from the early Achaemenid period in detail. According
to his findings ~it is clear that Cyrus did not carry the title
'King of Babylon' for the first year after the Persian
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.
3Shea, Daniel 1-7, 108.
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.
lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.
2Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 3.
3Shea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 37.
4Ibid. See also, idem, Selected Studies on
Prophetic Interpretation, 1992 ed., 24.
120
Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle to which he had come
down in the pillar of cloud in the sight of all Israel."l
Among the cases of judgment in the OT, ~the closest in
character to that which Adventists have posited for the
judgment that began in heaven in 1844," according to Shea,
is ~the one described in Ezekiel 1-10."2
In one of the chapters in his book, Selected Studies
on Prophetic Interpretation, Shea discussed in detail the
concept of judgment in Dan 7.3 Taking the historicist
approach to the interpretation of the chapter, Shea dealt
exegetical detail a number of significant issues in Dan 7
such as the literary and poetic structure of the chapter, the
date of the judgment of the chapter, and the nature of the
judgment. On the basis of ~the logical order of the
prophecy"4 under the method of historicist interpretation,
~the commencement of judgment described in Daniel 7"
apparently happened ~sometime after 1798."5 Concerning the
nature of the judgment in Dan 7, it is found that ~the
________________________
lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 57.
2Ibid., 38. See also, idem, Selected Studies on
Prophetic Inte~retation, 1992 ed., 28-9; idem, ~The
Investigative Judgment of Judah," 15-23.
3Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Inte~retation,
1992 ed., 111-53.
4Ibid., 140.
5Ibid., 143.
}
121
judgment of Daniel 7:9-10 in heaven is investigative in
nature."l According to Shea, such judgment could not be limited
merely to the little horn but also includes the little horns'
leaders and 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,
Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.
IV (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1980),
xxiv.
3Süring, ~The Horn-Motifs of the Bible and the
Ancient Near East," AUSS 22 (1984): 327-40. The above
statement of Süring can be counted as agreement to Shea's
personal character.
4Ibid., 332.
133
identification of the horns in Dan 7 and 8, she cited Shea's
study to help interpreters identify them.1
Another former student of Shea, Randall W. Younker,
the director of the Institute of Archaeology at Andrews
University, showed in his article Shea's influence upon him by
citing his former teacher's works.2 In one section of his
article, Younker suggests that excavations of different towers
in the ancient Ammonite territory ~reveal that they were built
no earlier than Iron Age 11, perhaps sometime between the
eighth and sixth centuries.n3 In support of his suggestion, he
cited, in a footnote, Shea's 1979 study on the Amman Citadel
Inscription suggesting that round towers had been built as
defensive structures for the city.4
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,
Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol.
XI (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1987), 15-6.
See also, ibid., 339.
2Ibid., 15-6. The covenantal literary structure of
Shea as used by Paulien in his monograph without any
opposition can be counted as agreement to Shea's position in
the area of literary studies.
3Angel Manuel Rodriguez, Esther: A Theological
Approach (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press,
1995), xii. Rodriguez' appreciation of Shea's help can be
counted as agreement to Shea's personal character.
4Ibid., 7.
sIbid.,8. See, ibid., 8, 117, n . 43,118, n , 58,
119, n. 67, 128, n. 89. In various place s Rodriguez concurs
with Shea's historical reconstruction during the time of the
Persian period that corroborates the accounts in the book of
157
Among non-SDA
The impact of Shea's works on biblical studies among
non-SDA scholars can be seen in the articles he wrote for 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
________________________
lShea, ~Daniel and the Judgment," 40.
2Ibid., 40-1. For a surnmary of the year-day
principIe, see, Holbrook, 219-29.
209
biblical scholars who shared similar conservative views with
him.
The impact and influence of Shea's works are felt among
his former students and among his fellow SDA scholars. His
personal characteristic of being helpful and humane also made a
lasting influence upon them. This personal characteristic of
Shea has been acknowledged even among the non-SDAs. Sorne 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.
}