Kenneth Davis' book about American history needs to be compared and contrasted with other recent American history books such as James Loewen's _Lies Across America_. Davis writes another US history including things which he considers everything you need to know, historical shortcomings. "Truth isn't cosmetically perfect, " he writes. Quite often history is skewed by myths and misconceptions.

Davis writes along the traditional line of history from America's "'discovery' by Europe" to the Bill Clinton administration. His intention is to write a narrative that could be read from beginning to end and debunk myths and misconceptions along the way. In that regard he has done a good job. However Davis has a far gentler attitude than Loewen.

I often think "lie is too strong of a word. In reading history, whether ancient or modern, one gets use to the prejudices of the writer. Ancient Assyrian palaces bent the facts for propaganda purposes. The Egyptian version of the treaty with the Hittites and the Hittite version are both still extant and both portray a different view of the Battle of Kadesh and what it meant.

In this sequel to _Lies My Teacher Told Me_, James Loewen continues his study of the monuments and other artifacts by which we remember our past. He begins with the western side of the US because, contrary to Euro-centricism, that is the side of the US for which there were first immigrants. They came across the Siberian Strait. Likewise Loewen writes that there are more tourists that come to the West Coast than than the East Coast.

I want to balk that not all of the cases which Loewen presents actually represent attempts to purposefully deceive someone else. For example, I don't think anyone in Pittsburg, Texas, really believes that the Ezekiel Airship was an airborne airship before Kitty Hawk. However I cannot vouch the same for all of the monuments that Loewen mentions. Moreover quite often I am inclined to agree with him that the purpose of a certain moument was not only to mislead its reader but to create an alternative fiction. That I would call a "lie."

"Lie" is a strong word, especially with regard to history. I think Loewen has found lies about who we have been and who we are. Perhaps the best part of this book is that Loewen offers us ways to identify these errors.

In an Aramaic grammar of mine is a newsclip that announces that the "language of Jesus" is still spoken in the Middle East. Well... not exactly. Nor are some of the claims made in the preface of George Lamsa's translation of the Bible quite right. The first thing that one needs to know when beginning to study neo-Aramaic is where and when it was spoken and by whom. Wolfhart Heinrichs says that even for readers who have a certain amount of expertise in Semitic studies, this is "mostly terra incognita."

Neo-Aramaic is a term that covers the "contemporary offspring" of ancient Aramaic. Heinrichs divides it into four groups. The first is Western Neo-Aramaic. Northeast of Damascus are three villages each of which has its dialect of Western Neo-Aramaic. The speakers are bi-lingual in Arabic as well. Two of the villages are Muslim while the third has retained a Greek Catholic heritage.

Central Neo-Aramaic has two subgroups: Turoyo and Mlahso. Turoyo is spoken in southeast Turkey by about 15,000 to 20,000 people. The population has been reduced in recent years by immigrations to Sweden and Germany. Most speakers are multi-lingual. They also speak Kurdish, a form of Arabic, and Turkish. Mlahso was spoken in a village near the town of Lice which was "destroyed during the Armenian massacres." Heinrichs says that this dialect should be considered extinct.

The third group is Eastern Neo-Aramaic. there are jewish forms of this dialect which are spoken in Turkish Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Persian (Iran) Kurdistan. Christain dialects are spoken from the plain of Mosul to Turkish Kurdistan to Sanandaj. In the 1830's American missionaries decided to use the Nestorian Syriac script. At the beginning of the 20th century,
nationalist thinking brought about the development of the identity of modern Assyrians.

The fourth group is the Neo-Mandaic. This dialect is spoken by Mandaeans in Khuzistan in Iran but by 1990, no longer in Iraq. There have been some unconfirmed reports that this dialect is spoken by some in the US. The editors of this volume would welcome any new information on this dialect.

These are the peoples who speak one dialect or another of Neo-Aramaic. This volume is a study of their language. It is a scholarly study. It starts out with what was in 1990 the most complete bibliography of everything written on Neo-Aramaic. Following are sections on phonics, phonology, morphology, lexicography, etc. For those readers who are not familiar with these sort of studies, this may yet remain terra incognita.

John Collins is probably the foremost scholar on apocalyptic literature today. Quite rightly Collins begins his book with a definition of this genre. Apocalypticism is "revelatory liturature in a which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient." Is that all? No, there's more that Collins has in mind. This revelation discloses a transcendent reality which envisages eschatological salvation (temporal) and another supernatural world (spatial).

With this definition in mind, Collins excludes much which had been called apocalyptic literature. He excludes Akkadian literature and the more modern political apocalypticism (see
Zimbaro's _Enc of Apoc Lit_) and discounts Persian apocalypticism. Then Collins begins a survey of apocalypticism as he knows it, beginning with the Book of Enoch. The reader is then taken through the Book of Daniel and other 2nd Temple, Diaspora, and Qumran literature until one arrives at early Christianity.

Along the way, what had seemed to be the parameters of a well-defined genre of literature have expanded. When Collins begins to discuss Christian literature, it becomes apparent that that book which had lent its name to Collins' genre of literature was not a pure form of that genre. On page 269 Collins must concede that the Revelation of John is not just an apocalypse but revelation _and_ prophecy.

Collins concludes that apocalypticism was not just the work of one group or movement, but different groups during different situations aand time, and maybe there was no group or movement behind a particular piece of literature at all (p 281).

Some of Spinden's ideas have fallen by the wayside. The most notable idea is that the Classical Period dates from 300-600 AD rather than the 300-900 AD that is now accepted. The crux of this debate hinges upon correlations with the Maya Long Count calendar. To make a complex story short, the Mayans spanned their temple doorways with sopadilla wood beams which have been carbondated. The combination of correlations and carbon-dating prove the Classical Period lasted three more centuries than Spinden thought. (For more, see chapter 8 of Michael Coe's _The Maya_.)

Spinden also thought that the Mayan govt was largely theocratic (p 97). This idea has also fallen by the wayside especially since the further decipherment of the Mayan language. (To which Spinden contributed an insight or two. For example, after viewing a photograph from Piedras Negras, Spinden made the suggestion that inscriptions that began with bat heads
should be read "here follows a name." Decades later he turned out to right.)

In all honesty this is Herbert Spinden's second greatest book. His greatest was _The Study of Maya Art_ (pub in 1913) because in it Spinden gives the first art-historical treatment of the Maya. Readers will see that this book (orig pub in 1928) has much of the same to say as that former one. Though much has happened since this book was written, the art-historical treatment is still the strong point of this book. It is the through this lens that Spinden portrays the history and culture of the peoples who once lived in Mesoamerica.

Jonathan Reed has written a critique of that form of biblical scholarship which is primarily text-centered and where exegesis is the main goal. What is needed instead is not just an awareness of more more artifacts, but an examination of the material culture that impinge upon Christian origins. Reed sees the real value of archaeology as being able to reconstruct the social world of Jesus and his followers.

In Part One, Reed considers the identity of the Galileans. They are not descendants of Israelites of the Northern Kingdom; there is an absence of settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-pileser. They are not Itureans; signs of their settlements may be found in adjacent areas but not in Galilee. The Galileans are primarily Jews; they settled Galilee during the Hasmonean period and used the same domestic space (artifacts and the like) as found in Judea.

Some implications for the Jesus tradition are obvious. The teachings of Jesus cannot be seen as some sort of Galilean Judaism over and against some sort of Judean Judaism. Likewise passages in Q which are supposedly based upon northern tradi-tions cannot be an attempt at reviving centuries old Israelite traditions.

Part Two focuses on two cities: Sepphoris and Capernaum. Though not mentioned in the Bible, Sepphoris is often used by biblical scholars to explain an influence of Hellenistic culture (such as Jesus' use of the word "hypocrite"). However most of the
Hellenization of Sepphoris came after the time of Jesus. Much attention has been given to the house of Peter at Capernaum. Reed focuses on the large fishing and agricultural village which was on the lower end of the economic scale.

Part Three reverses the methodological sequence of the first two parts. Rather than moving from archaeology to text, Reed moves from text to archaeology. Here Reed is attempting to show how texts fit the Galilean background and how situations in Galilee were worked into the text.

Reed is on target in his critique as evidenced by the misidentification of the Galileans. Also his book is well written and amply footnoted for those who want to know more.

All I can say about this book is... be sure to check the index. This book is filled with more info than most of us will ever need. The only problem has been finding it. Well, this book has it someplace in its 760 some odd pages.

In the year 5 BC, the Roman Emperor Augustus was presented with a small oval map of the known world. A larger version was hung in the public colonnade. There the public could see the known world as it stretched from Spain to Britain to India to Arabia to Northern Africa. For its time the map itself was a feat. A team of Roman scientists had poured over the charts of surveyors sent to every corner of the Empire. The map inspired the first tourist industry in the world. The Grand Tour of Antiquity started in Rome, of course, wound through the Greek Isles and Asia Minor, and then sailed up the Nile to Aswan.

Tony Perrottet calls this the "Route 66" of Antiquity and aptly calls the first edition of his book by that name. Inspired by the map, Perrottet decides to make the same trip. This book is a combination of what it was like to travel in Antiquity and what it is like to travel the same route today. Though separated in time by 2000 years, so much of travel is still the same. I cannot help but notice that Perrottet has written about the wilder, crazier, mis-adventurous side of traveling. His travels are like those currently portrayed on the Travel Channel. I cannot help but picture him with a sly grin on his face as he tells the stories of his travels. After this one should read Lionel Casson's _Travel in the Ancient World_ (which Perrottet depends upon quite a bit) just for comparison.

Many readers will remember the great impact that this book had on the question of the relationship of the history of ancient Israel to the biblical text. Though Davies had been preceded by others, it was this book more than any other that sparked the Minimalist-Maximalist debate (see Ziony Zevit in Biblica 83).

Immediately Davies says that the genre of literature of "history of Israel" is obselete. Instead there are three ancient Israels: one is the narrative found in the Bible; one is the history of the inhabitants of Palestine during the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age; and the third is the amalgamation of these former two. For Davies the "ideo-logical structure" of the Bible is the Persian period although a certain amount of material must have survived from earlier times (see page 91).

It is unfortunate that this debate became as volatile as it did. For example, five years before Davies' book came out, Norman Whybray argued that the Pentateuch was a post-exilic document. One might expect Whybray and Davies to be allies in this matter. Yet he and Davies find themselves at odds in V Philips Long's _Israel's Past in Present Research_ which was published seven years after Davies' book.

Davies has a fascinating book. However I hope that any readers will read some more and not think that Davies has settled the matter.

"To paraphrase that venerable corncob connoisseur..." So begins the Foreword to Richard Hacker's book. And out of due reverence, I picked up my corncob pipe, packed it with my favorite tobacco, and began to indulge myself in a pleasure that I have known for years.

Hacker's dedication of this book to Joan reminds me that the first pipe I ever owned was a Father's Day gift. There was a paw print on the card indicating that our dog, Jacob, had given me the gift. I understood. It would be a couple more years before our oldest daughter was born.

Since then the number of my pipes has expanded and some have been retired. Before I read Richard Hacker's book, I knew that I liked to smoke a pipe. But my interest does not match Hacker's by a long shot. What might one want to know about pipe smoking? The origins? How to pick the right pipe? Pipe accessories? Collectable pipes? Hacker puts it all into his book.

Though I smoke a pipe myself, I have to admit that this book is by the ultimate pipe lover.