(Review is based upon Uncorrected Proof)
While reading this book I felt at times like a field archaeologist, sifting through piles of rubble and dirt to find a few precious artifacts of gold. The gold is there, to be sure, in small nuggets. You just have to be willing to dig for it.
Part travelogue, part human interest story, part crime report, part reporter's notepad, the genre of this book is difficult to pin down. It reminded me in many ways of
Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses (P.S.) (without the religious insight) or
Under the Tuscan Sun: At Home in Italy(without the recipes). My initial annoyance and disappointment with "Unholy Business" was ultimately tempered when I realized that I was not reading a scholarly work on archaeology, history, linguistics or even criminal forensics, but a kind of breezy and highly personalized travelogue. In hindsight this is not surprising, as Nina Burleigh is listed as a staff writer for "People" magazine, which I dip into briefly during almost every visit to my doctor. The writing of "Unholy Business" fits precisely within the human-interest story found in "People." As a history, I would give the book a single star. As human-interest story cum travelogue, it deserves two stars, possibly the three awarded here.
Three supposed archeological artifacts figure prominently in this book: The James Ossuary (supposedly the repository for the bones of James, the brother of Jesus), the Joash Tablet (supposedly bearing an inscription which proved the existence of the First Temple) and a carved ivory pomegranate (supposedly an ornament for a small priest's scepter used in the First Temple). These are--or ought to be--the heart of the book. The problem is that Burleigh spends most of the book talking about background issues--the teeming and corrupt antiquities market in Jerusalem, the 30,000 archaeological sites in Israel, the tension between Orthodox Jews and American Evangelical Christians, and so forth--and only really gets to the crux of the matter in the latter half of the book. Hence, I feel like a digger on an archeological grid, sifting through sand, hoping to ultimately uncover the precious artifacts.
Some additional comments and observations:
1. My chief problem with this book was Burleigh herself and her decision to write this book. I kept asking myself, "What qualifies this person to write a book about the world surrounding the cradle of Judaism, Islam and Christianity?" I never found a satisfying answer. To be sure Burleigh is a fine reporter. Indeed, much of the book reads like a verbatim transcript of a reporter's notebook. But what really qualifies her to write this story? To her credit, Burleigh admits that she has virtually no background in the world of religion. "My own religious training was nonexistent," she says on page 19. Her only admitted contact with "believers" from any religious tradition came from Mennonite missionaries who visited her childhood home in the 1960's and 1970's. "From them I learned that there are some very decent people who live every waking minute in a state of unshakeable faith in an otherworldly power," she wrote. I question whether this fleeting contact with Mennonite missionaries in the United States qualifies her to get into the heads of any "believer" of any tradition. Her true bias against "believers" is revealed by her description of Jerusalem, as the location of "the death match between reason and superstition--monitored by laughing commerce." To her, belief is tantamount to "superstition." I am suspicious of any writer, reporter or otherwise, who presumes to understand a subject as complex as Jerusalem from that smug, self-satisfied height of self-delusional "reason."
2. I also question her understanding of the historical background of her subject. She exhibits a shallow understanding only--a reporter's understanding--of archaeology, of linguistics, of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of politics. For example she says innocently, "No one had ever found an archaeological object linked to the First Temple." (Page 17). My slack-jawed reaction was, "Uhhhh.. you mean, other than THE TEMPLE MOUNT ITSELF!!" Later she says of the Temple, "the remains of the platform that once supported this temple are known as the Wailing Wall or the Western Wall." (Pg. 16). This is ridiculously false and simplistic. The Temple Mount covers many acres. The western wall is only the smallest of the remains of a retaining wall--mostly Herodian--some distance removed from the actual foundation marks of the First Temple, plainly visible under the Dome of the Rock. Later she makes the wide-eyed claim that the purpose of the Temple was solely house the Ark of the Covenant. This is all very Indiana Jones-like in its simplicity, but it fails to do justice to the richness, the depth, the complexity and the profound significance of the First Temple, its environs, its service, its priesthood and everything that flowed out from it culturally, historically and spiritually.
3. On its face, the book appears well-organized. The chapters have appropriate titles, and even insightful and inviting quotations leading into the prose. The chapters are divided into distinct sections, usually focusing on personalities involved in the antiquities trade, scholars, archaeologists, police, etc. But the Prologue and Epilogue are rather jarring and disjointed. The Epilogue ought in some ways to be a satisfying culimination of the Prologue, or its mirror image. The Epilogue ought to bring us full circle, perhaps returning even slightly to the not unsympathetic portrait of Ada, the idiosyncratic epigrapher toiling in her fascinating home. But here Burleigh's epilogue seems unrelated stylistically or thematically with the strong Prologue. This Epilogue is more of a Joe Friday, Dragnet-style denouement: "In 2004 the Jerusalem District Attorney submitted Criminal File 482/04 with the District Court of Jerusalem..." (Page 243). We almost await Joe Friday's laconic voice intoning, "In a moment, the results of that trial."
4. Overall, her multitude of character sketches are beautifully done, but there is also much by way of very lazy description. Particularly annoying were the many character descriptions related to popular culture. When Burleigh gets lazy and can't come up with her own description, she uses the shorthand of popular movies and culture. Some examples of weak personal descriptions: "Her gap-toothed smile and sleepy eyes suggest the sultry actress Ellen Barkin" (Pg.1); "[A]n impish face reminiscent of Joel Grey in the movie Cabaret..." (Pg. 12); "an odd duck--lawyer, crank, P.T. Barnum, and Indiana Jones all rolled into one man" and comparable to "a Saul Bellow character" (Pg. 33); "Seeking a real-life Indiana Jones, one could do worse than visit Seymour Gitin...." (Pg. 91); and "A tanned, jocular man, he greeted us in the standard uniform of the dirt archaeologist--Indiana Jones hat, sweat-stained T-shirt, shorts and sandals" (Pg. 95). If Burleigh mentioned Indiana Jones one more time in her book, I was ready to jump off of the top of the Wailing Wall.
5. Really, this book reads much like the unredacted notepad of a newspaper reporter. We get too much here. There is too much Nina Burleigh here, and not enough James Ossuary. Her prejudices and quirks and likes and dislikes, continually obtrude themselves into the narrative. Examples: "In an interview over rugelach and black coffee at Morty's Deli in Washington..." (Pg. 54); He was "barely into his first cup of Nescafe when he received a call..." (Pg. 64). This is way too much information for my taste.
