Date: 13 Jan 1994 21:50:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: request for review
Dear Elie Wardini,
Besides Beeson's review of Professor Salibi's 1985 _The Bible Came From Arabia_,there was a scathing review by Philip C. Hammond in _The International Journal of Middle East Studies_ 22,3 (August 1990: 343-4).
It should not be necessary to point out that Kamal Salibi as well as his hosts here this past fall semester are, and have long been, well aware of these and other denunciations of his published biblical studies.
Ironically, Philip Hammond's review (see above) appeared in the same IJMES volume that would later (November 1990: 474-6) print Rashid Khalidi's rave review of Salibi's 1988 _A House of Many Mansions: The History of Lebanon Reconsidered_.
It is well known that Kamal Salibi made his mark as a scholar in the field of history, and that his later philological/toponymic publications have been as eccentric as his other work has been distinguished. I am not one who can account for the paradox.
Those of us who have known him as a colleague over the past few months have found him warm and soft-spoken, not particularly interested in defending his 1985 book (though he intends to revise it in light of the barrage of criticism received) and came as a Fulbright guest this fall to cultivate acquaintance with American scholars in the field.
The fact is -- and my personal speculation is that much is accounted for by it -- that in the early 1980's in Beirut Salibi was for practical purposes isolated from contact with Hebraists and biblical scholars elsewhere. It can be noted in his Bible/Arabia book that there is virtually no reference to or dialogue with any other scholar at all. Whether this isolation contributed to the tangent he took, or was caused by the latter, or whether the circumstance is relevant at all, I have no idea. It may well have been a vicious circle.
Suffice it to say that over the autumn weeks here in New England Dr. Salibi has been an attentive listener and a reflective respondent in symposiums organized to critique his work.
His theme has been, without rancor or rhetoric, "show me where I am wrong." It was for the sake of exposing him at his request to the widest number and variety of scholars possible that I suggested he participate in the Tell Dan discussion on this ANE list, and I can report that he found it highly gratifying that however sharply respondents disagreed with his readings or comments, with perhaps only one exception, everyone did him the courtesy of eschewing _ad hominem_ denunciations and instead straightforwardly stated their agreement or disagreement, or whatever, with the details of his postings. To the exception, who complained of my "inflict[ing]" the postings on the network, I can say only that no one takes delight in finding himself an affliction.
Sincerely, Bruce Dahlberg