Stephen Spielberg Holocaust foundation gives $100,000 for biased Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit

Nowpublic ^ | August 14 | Charles Gadda

[Charles Gadda]

When the San Diego Natural History Museum applied to Stephen Spielberg's foundation for a $100,000 grant to help bring the Dead Sea Scrolls to San Diego and produce a film on the famous Khirbet Qumran site, the foundation was happy to oblige. Did Spielberg know (1) that the museum's scrolls exhibit would be plagued by allegations of bias due to the curator's decision to exclude a major group of Jewish scrolls scholars from the museum's lecture series; (2) that the money would go to a graduate student who is also a minister trained at Pepperdine University, affiliated with the Churches of Christ; and (3) that the aim of the graduate student's film would be to defend the old theory of Dead Sea Scrolls origins in the face of new evidence discovered by Israeli archaeologists? If Spielberg had known, wouldn't he have wondered why the museum wasn't inviting the Israeli archaeologists to participate in the project? For details, see my article.

[Charles Gadda]

Correction: As it appears to be impossible to edit postings once they are up on the site, I need to point out that I did not mean to imply that Robert Cargill, the student who received Spielberg's money, is himself currently affiliated with the Churches of Christ (although he may be). What I meant to say is that Pepperdine University, where Mr. Cargill received his ministerial degree, is affiliated with the Churches of Christ. I know nothing of Mr. Cargill's current affiliations, apart from his association with a professor who serves as an advisor to the "University of the Holy Land" and his desire to defend what has been called a "bizarre, Christologically colored thesis" in the face of mounting contrary evidence put forward by Jewish and Israeli specialists. For further details on the San Diego museum's biased exhibit, see my other article. Charles Gadda

[Alex Murphy]

I need to point out that I did not mean to imply that Robert Cargill, the student who received Spielberg's money, is himself currently affiliated with the Churches of Christ (although he may be). What I meant to say is that Pepperdine University, where Mr. Cargill received his ministerial degree, is affiliated with the Churches of Christ. I know nothing of Mr. Cargill's current affiliations, apart from his association with a professor who serves as an advisor to the "University of the Holy Land" and his desire to defend what has been called a "bizarre, Christologically colored thesis" in the face of mounting contrary evidence put forward by Jewish and Israeli specialists.

Ping to read later

[kawaii]

could you qualify what you mean when you say “Christian Fundamentalists”?

[Augustinian monk]

“Did Spielberg know (1) that the museum’s scrolls exhibit would be plagued by allegations of bias due to the curator’s decision to exclude a major group of Jewish scrolls scholars from the museum’s lecture series; (2) that the money would go to a graduate student who is also a minister trained at Pepperdine University, affiliated with the Churches of Christ; and (3) that the aim of the graduate student’s film would be to defend the old theory of Dead Sea Scrolls origins in the face of new evidence discovered by Israeli archaeologists”

LOL- Yeah sure. A leftist movie director wanted money going to conservative christian groups.

[Charles Gadda]

This is a excellent question--thanks for asking it. I have not explicitly defined the term "fundamentalist" in the article, but the answer is clarified by the "faith statements" and related material that I quote from the different "educational institutions" involved--in particular, the words that I put in bold in some of the quotes, e.g.: "the inerrancy of scripture"; "the Christian faith as it was originally conceived"; "the message of Jesus in its original setting"; "the original first-century Church ... to be followed literally as mandatory practice today"; opposition to "creedal formulations [that go] beyond the Bible itself," etc. The question, of course, is whether the term "evangelical" would be more appropriate. The lines are not always clear, but on account of the "foundational" nature of the various faith statements, I thought "fundamentalist" was the most accurate term.

At any rate, the involvement of these "Christian educational institutions" in archaeology and Dead Sea Scrolls research (already signaled as "fundamentalist" several years ago in the source I quote at the end of the article) should be viewed in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding efforts to raise money for Israel from evangelical Christians. There is a huge literature on this already, a quick google search brought up this article and many others. I am not saying the efforts are wrong, I'm just pointing to the type of issues they raise. The question is always, is there some type of an ideological quid pro quo? In the case of the museum exhibit, this is even more clear, because of the total exclusion of scholars who disagree with the theory favored by Cargill and his associates.

[kawaii]

This is a excellent question--thanks for asking it. I have not explicitly defined the term "fundamentalist" in the article, but the answer is clarified by the "faith statements" and related material that I quote from the different "educational institutions" involved--in particular, the words that I put in bold in some of the quotes, e.g.: "the inerrancy of scripture"; "the Christian faith as it was originally conceived"; "the message of Jesus in its original setting"; "the original first-century Church ... to be followed literally as mandatory practice today"; opposition to "creedal formulations [that go] beyond the Bible itself," etc. The question, of course, is whether the term "evangelical" would be more appropriate. The lines are not always clear, but on account of the "foundational" nature of the various faith statements, I thought "fundamentalist" was the most accurate term.

So these folks would not be confused with Traditionalist Christians?

[Charles Gadda]

My understanding is that “traditionalist Christians” is a general term used to refer to mainstream groups such as Catholics and Baptists. The “Holy Land” organizations involved here appear to have a very particular focus on finding the “true,” i.e., “original,” Jesus (whence their interest in the “Essenes” and the Dead Sea Scrolls), a truth and an originality from which they believe traditional “creedal formulations” have departed. At any rate my basic aim is not to impose a strict definition or attach a label to these organizations, but to point to the issues raised by their involvement in this museum exhibit and by the allocation of money from the Spielberg foundation to a graduate student associated with one of them.

[kawaii]

a truth and an originality from which they believe traditional “creedal formulations” have departed.

Seems to me that given they inherently reject accepted history and are looking for a 'new' history I wonder if revisionists Christians is a more accurate label...

[kawaii]

ping

[Charles Gadda]

Revisionist Christians: that could be, I am certainly not an authority in the field. I did, however, read some basic sources on Christian fundamentalism, and what I saw (the “inerrancy of scripture,” etc.) seemed to fit quite well with the faith statements of these groups. I may also be a mistake on my part to lump them all together as a single current, there could be overlapping doctrines with a common interest. But none of that has any impact on the basic question of whether the Righteous Persons Foundation’s money should have gone to someone associated with them, in the context of such a biased, exclusionary museum exhibit, for the purpose of making this particular film. If the answer is no, then Spielberg and the museum have some explaining to do.

[kawaii]

it does seem the mission of the exhibit is to distort the truth and prevent discourse...

[RobbyS]

Fundamentalist Protestant , since the titles exhibit the mind-set of Luther and Calvin.

[Charles Gadda]

Fundamentalist Protestants: that is certainly true, but they specifically describe themselves as “Christian educational institutions,” and in one case refer to the faith statement of the National Association of Evangelicals. So in choosing the formula I used, I was trying to account for various things. It was, however, a relief to learn that I was not the first to use the term in connection with the organizations backing these Christ-centered archaeologists.

[RobbyS]

“Christ-centered” bothers me. We can see from the writings that there were at that time more than a few Jews who were “
Christ-centered. “ Indeed, there are Christ-centered Jews today, although they deny that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. I agree, though, that one ought to balance the matter with Jews who minimize the messianic teachings to be found at Qumran, in or out of Scripture. But should one include those who tend to reduce all religious messages to the mundane? Idon’t concede any special objectivity to such people. A bit like inviting the color-blind to explain the painting of Monet, imho.

[Charles Gadda]

By describing them as "Christ-centered," I am simply referring to their exclusive focus on this aspect and this interpretation, on fitting the archaeological evidence into this schema at the expense of others. I don't dispute that this is one legitimate avenue of research--nor, indeed, that the individuals in question have the right to defend their theory and to be "included." Whether they should be allowed to set the agenda of a major exhibit, and whether Spielberg's Holocaust foundation money should have been given to one of them under such circumstances, is another question. For the general scholarly background of the dispute, see historian Norman Golb's Forward editorial.

[RobbyS]

Golb makes some good points, but in defense of the “christological” emphasis, I must say that after the discovery of the scrolls, the first interpretations uniformly aimed to discredit Christianity, in part by asserting the lack of originality in Christianity. Indeed, this was nothing more than an continuation of the Enlightenment project, which has been to prove the falsity of Christian claims. Even a concern for history got pushed aside as advocates for this point of view rushed to impress their anti-Christian theories on the public consciousness. I certainly agree that the findings illuminate a very complex world of First Century Judaism, one which was only sketched for us by Josephus. I agree that should be the focus. But the fact is that there is a “war going on between Christians and anti-Christians. It is to be expected that one or the other would try to set the agenda. Unfortunate, but expected.

[kawaii]

Whereas the evangelical attempts still use the scrolls to try to discredit the septuagint... if hebrew copies of the septuagint (which have been found at qumran) were in fact written in jerusalem it would indicate that there was in fact more than one flavor of the hebrew scriptures ‘in play’ at the time of Christ...

[RobbyS]

There are also the targum (sp?), Aramaic versions of Scripture for the “common folk”, for those who knew well neither Greek nor Hebrew. But why anyone would denigrate the Septuagint when the Christian Scriptures obviously made use of it? In any case, ancient Palestine was a multilingual colonial society, where Hebrew was the priestly language, Greek the lingua franca and the language of many Jews as well as Greek colonists, and various dialects of Aramaic. One theory has it that Matthew was written in Hebrew, that the Gospel narrative seems less awkward when it is translated back from the Greek into Hebrew.[ I am with those who still believe in its priority, and that Mark was the last of the three synoptics.] IAC, Matthew was early written in Greek. No doubt(in my wind) that by the year 60 that Greek was the primary language of Christians.

[kawaii]

But why anyone would denigrate the Septuagint when the Christian Scriptures obviously made use of it?

Many protestant groups denigrate the Septuagint to defend the use of the masoretic in most western Bible translations. i dont recal how the jews view it...