Two More (Online) Publications

I ended my previous post on the subject pointing to some colleagues from Hopkins who have also contributed. I’ll end this post, instead, with a word of caution. The questions asked in the polls for statistical analysis are not always easy to interpret, or even relevant, for the particular time, region, etc., under discussion. In looking at other essays, I realize that the questions can be interpreted in different ways, especially if there is no easy binary “yes” or “no” answer. For example, in writing on ancient Israelite religion in the Iron Age (which comprises proto-Israelites of the Iron I period as well as the inhabitants of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah of the Iron II period, all of which is under debate), I far too often found myself answering a binary “yes-no” poll with something like this: “It depends. There’s no evidence in the archaeological or inscriptional record of the Iron I period or in northern kingdom of Israel, but there is this one story about this one thing in the Hebrew Bible as it was redacted by Jerusalem scribes in the later Iron Age, so I guess that indicates it was believed by some Judahites, at least in this very particular situation.” One such example is whether previously deceased human spirits can be seen by living humans. Obviously, this question is more applicable for religions which have a more fleshed-out ghostology (Buddhism; Hinduism) and not as applicable for Iron Age Israel. The easy answer, then, is “no.” But then again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there is that one story about Saul conjuring up Samuel from the dead wherein the (living) spirit medium “saw” (ראה) previously deceased Samuel—at least according to a story which was believed by some relatively influential-enough people to be preserved in their scriptural tradition. So, the formerly easy answer “no,” is more accurately answered “unknown, but probably no, but also kinda (?)”.