Queries & Comments

010

Jesus Cover

Phenomenal

Your November/December cover [of a composite Jesus] is phenomenal.

Educational Cover

Your very striking November/December cover would be a fine educational image for a confirmation class. How can I get reprints?

A high-resolution file can be downloaded at biblicalarchaeology.org/jesuscover to make reprints for personal use (commercial use is not permitted).—Ed.

Virgin Mother in Modern Art

An Excuse to Print a Naked Lady—or Worse?

The Biblical Views column in your November/December 2010 issue (“Virgin Mother in Modern Art with Traditional Christian Values,” BAR 36:06) praises a disgusting sculpture that author Mary Joan Winn Leith is trying to pawn off as a piece of art with deep theological truths. (Gag.) Does BAR simply want an excuse to print a picture of a naked lady—or something worse?

Drivel Jeopardizes Their Subscription

My wife and I have been loyal readers of BAR for several years and have considered ourselves to have been enriched by the process. After reading Mary Joan Winn Leith’s spew in the current issue, however, we are totally nonplussed. For a publication struggling to maintain readership, it appears to us that you took an unjustified risk in publishing such drivel. We don’t question that every assertion she made in her article on religious art history may be correct and consistent with Christian theology, and she is entitled to her personal opinion on what constitutes art. Our primary complaint is that her column appears to have been intentionally written to offend the general readership. Our continued subscription is in jeopardy.

Holmes vs. Conan Doyle

In the editor’s November/December First Person (“Shakespeare, the Earl of Oxford and Morton Smith,” BAR 36:06), I read the following sentence: “Among those convinced by such arguments [that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare’s plays] were Sherlock Holmes …”

Sherlock Holmes is a fictitious character and was never “convinced” of anything, except in the mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

In a 1929 review of The Complete Sherlock Holmes Short Stories the poet T.S. Eliot observed: “Perhaps the greatest of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries is this: that when we talk of him we invariably fall into the fancy of his existence.”

What you say is true, but here Conan Doyle spoke in the voice of the famous detective. It was Holmes who concluded that actually the Fifth Earl of Rutland wrote Shakespeare’s plays.—Ed.

Sean Freyne Interview

Scripture Affirms the Truth

I really enjoy BAR. I don’t agree with everything, but for the most part, I thank you for the publication.

However, I do have a problem with the interview with Sean Freyne (“Jesus of History vs. Jesus of Tradition,” BAR 36:06). To the question “Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?” Freyne responds with “My sense would be no. He was born in Nazareth, I believe.”

If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, then the Scriptures in Micah 5:2 [“But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.”] were not fulfilled. God would be a liar and untrustworthy. If this portion of Scripture was wrong, then who is to say any of it is true?

BAR’s Variety of Viewpoints

I have been a subscriber to BAR for many years and have enjoyed each issue and have learned many things. I have also been challenged by many of the articles. I have never before responded to any of these, but I feel compelled to comment on your interview with Professor Sean Freyne.

It is clear that Professor 011012Freyne rejects the Church’s formulations expressed in the early ecumenical councils that affirm Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the Lord God of Israel: Our Lord is a true human being, but he is also the divine Son of the Father.

The question of the Resurrection is critical. The actual Resurrection of our Lord Jesus (“physical,” “actual,” “bodily” or whatever term you want to use) is necessary for the Christian faith. Resurrection is not simply the “resuscitation of a corpse,” as Professor Freyne puts it. The tomb was empty. So, what happened? The Resurrection appearances tell us what happened. The earthly body of our Lord Jesus was glorified, transformed—a reality prefigured in his transfiguration. He is the first of the new creation in which all believers will share. He is able to appear and to disappear at will, yet his body has substance, as his eating and drinking shows. As St. Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:14: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.”

I am not going to ask to cancel my subscription! I find an article such as the interview with Professor Freyne stimulating—stimulating because it makes me think and defend the truth of the Christian faith. Of course, if Professor Freyne was the preacher and teacher in my congregation, I would leave that congregation and seek one that is orthodox. But, fortunately, he is not. And, I suppose, it is not BAR’s mission necessarily to defend the catholic and apostolic faith, but to present a variety of viewpoints to which the readers can react and respond. So, keep them coming!

Jesus’ Birthplace Isn’t Confusing

With all due respect to Professor Sean Freyne, why should one be so confused as to believe that Jesus of Nazareth could be born in Bethlehem? I was born and raised in a city in Pennsylvania where I lived for 17 years. But since then, I have relocated to Minnesota, where we have resided for more than half of my life. Therefore, people might know me as “Ken of the Twin Cities.”

Faith Is Not Built on Lies

I was deeply disappointed by your November/December interview with Sean Freyne.

To denigrate the apostles’ veracity, as Freyne does, is to conclude that the faith that has sustained uncounted millions from every land and time has been built on lies and deception. This I am unwilling to do.

Interview Answers His Prayer

I received your request for emergency financial help and put it aside till I had time to pray about how much to give. Having just finished reading Sean Freyne’s interview, I have my answer.

Please cancel my subscription.

BAR Should Be Ashamed

I have to crack up that people like Sean Freyne think that their opinion means anything to anyone except a small group 013014of other scholars who like to hear themselves talk. The audacity that some latter-day professor has the real knowledge that Christ never was resurrected bodily, was not born in Bethlehem and that the virgin birth is a story would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. It’s what happens when men such as Freyne like to have the title and worldly knowledge of “emeritus professor of theology,” but their heart is far from God. God help him.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Many Literary Virgin Births

In the interview with Professor Freyne, a caption says “there are no exact parallels for the story of the virgin birth of Jesus.” This isn’t true; there are several virgin birth stories in several ancient cultures.

For example, in the Persian birth story of the first Zarathustra, his virgin mother walks into the waters of a sacred lake and when the water reaches the level of her abdomen, she is impregnated by a holy spirit and later gives birth as a virgin mother to Zarathustra. In the ancient Persian manuscript The Book of the Bee, a prophecy of another incarnation of Zarathustra says “a child shall be conceived in the womb of a virgin and shall be formed in her members.”¹

Tickling the Gray Cells

The interview with Sean Freyne was interesting. You do tickle the “little gray cells.”

Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot

How easy it is to reconstruct the “Jesus of History.” One simply takes the New Testament, eliminates all the supernatural events, and presto! The “real” Jesus Christ!

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If the Resurrection had really happened, how else should it have been described in the writing and reporting of it?

Jesus of Judea

In the table of contents blurb to your very interesting interview “Jesus: History vs. Tradition,” you ask a question: “Was his message unique in first-century Palestine?”

The name Palestine was used for the first time by the Romans, after the second Jewish uprising against Rome (the Bar-Kokhba revolt, 132–135 C.E.), when the Romans changed the name of Judea (and of Jerusalem also—to Aelia Capitolina) in order to erase any memory of the Jews. So they “invented” Palestine=Philistines.

In other words, a first-century Palestine never existed. Jesus was not born in Palestine, but in Judea.

015016

Mt. Gerizim

Was the Samaritan Temple at Gerizim Rebuilt?

I was excited to read about the evidence of a Samaritan temple during the Persian and Hellenistic periods on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria (“Bells, Pendants, Snakes and Stones,” BAR 36:06). Author Yitzhak Magen states that this temple was destroyed by John Hyrcanus (in about 110 B.C.E.) and that “the temple at Gerizim was never rebuilt.” What then is the temple with staircase atop a mountain shown on many city coins of Neapolis [Shechem, now Nablus] from the Roman era (second–third century C.E.)? That design is usually identified as a pagan temple of Zeus.

Yitzhak Magen responds:

Mr. Gibson answers his own question: The temple on the coins he refers to is indeed a pagan temple of Zeus. These coins appeared toward the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius in 160 C.E. down to the third century. They show two peaks. The higher peak, site of the Samaritan temple, is topped only by an altar, not by a temple. The temple on the lower peak is a temple to Zeus. Two paths ascend from the foot of the mountain, one a staircase to the temple of Zeus and the other a path to the altar where the Samaritan temple had stood.

Samaritans Are Alive and Well

While Yitzhak Magen presents the exciting discoveries from Mt. Gerizim that illustrate the rich past of the Samaritans, BAR readers should also know that the Samaritans are very much “alive and kicking” today too! They number approximately 700 and live in two communities—around Mt. Gerizim and in Holon, a suburb southeast of Tel Aviv.

Not many will feel safe driving to Mt. Gerizim (near Nablus), although I have done so several times with no incidents, but their Holon center is easily accessible and the Samaritans are very pleasant and welcoming. Recently I visited their Holon community center, and outside their synagogue they were having a very happy wedding. While the inscriptions above the entrance way were in traditional Samaritan script, the wedding was very modern, and included balloon decorations, modern dress, and loud up-to-date Israeli and Mediterranean music.

A highly recommended experience!

Does Temple Mount=Mt. Moriah?

In the November/December issue, Yitzhak Magen made a comment in the article about the Samaritans that threw me a curve. He states, “The Jews held that Jerusalem’s Temple Mount was Mt. Moriah where Abraham had offered to sacrifice his son before divine intervention stayed his hand.”

Do many people actually view the current Temple Mount as the possible/probable Mt. Moriah?

See 2 Chronicles 3:1.—Ed.

Ugarit

Daniel Was No Teenager

I found Dr. Greenstein’s insights on the parallels between Ugaritic language/culture with Biblical texts to be very helpful (“Texts from Ugarit Solve Biblical Puzzles,” BAR 36:06). However, I disagree with his emphatic assertion that Ezekiel 14:14, 20 is certainly not referring to the Daniel of the Bible based on his (Daniel) being a teenager at the time of this oracle, in which the noted characters of Noah, Daniel and Job are portrayed as having children. While I am not certain that Ezekiel was referring to the Daniel of the Bible, our author’s appeal to a 074chronological problem would appear to be unfounded on the following grounds:

(1) Daniel 1 and 2 portray Daniel as a deported Jewish youth in exile (c. 605 B.C.E.) transitioning to the role of the wisest man in Babylon and ruler of that empire’s capital province by the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (c. 603 B.C.E.). As most scholars would concur, it would certainly be difficult to conceive of Daniel being any younger than 18 to 20 years of age by the end of this period.

(2) According to Ezekiel 1:1–3, it may be reasonably concluded that Ezekiel’s ministry did not commence until 593/592 B.C.E., five years into a second Babylonian deportation involving King Jehoiachin and other citizenry from Judah that occurred in 597 B.C.E. By the time Ezekiel began prophesying among his fellow Jewish exiles along the Chebar River, Daniel would have probably been in his late twenties. By this age, he would have had ample time to start a family. Furthermore, his reputation for wisdom and righteousness as one of Nebuchadnezzar’s leading officials would have had ten years to circulate from the capital city to the habitations of his fellow countrymen some 100–200 miles away along the Chebar.

We do not know when Ezekiel prophesied the words of chapter 14. However, we can safely conclude from the chronological observations noted above that they were spoken at least ten years after Daniel became established as one of the highest ranking statesmen in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. He was certainly not a teenager as Dr. Greenstein asserts. Therefore, I would suggest that there is no sound chronological reason to doubt that Ezekiel 14 may refer to the Biblical character of Daniel.

Edward L. Greenstein responds after the following letter.

“Daniel” in the Septuagint

I am not inclined to buy without reservation that the spelling of “Daniel” in Ezekiel necessarily links this “Daniel” with the Ugaritic “Danel.”

As Professor Greenstein well knows, the Jews who produced the Septuagint [an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] linked the “Daniel” of Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 28:3 with Daniel of the Book of Daniel, but not with the Ugaritic Danel.

Edward L. Greenstein responds:

In my BAR article I did not delve into the chronological problems concerning the identification of the hero of the Book of Daniel 075076and the name Danel in Ezekiel. My careful and thoughtful readers wish to press me on this matter, and I am pleased to respond. First, even if the character Daniel of the Book of Daniel were old enough to have had a family threatened with destruction, he would hardly meld with Noah and Job, who are both ancient non-Israelite figures, like the Canaanite hero Danel (Ugaritic Dana’ilu). Second, in any critical introduction or encyclopedia article on the Book of Daniel, the reader will find (a) that the history related in Daniel is all jumbled (Nebuchadrezzar did not besiege Jerusalem until 598/597 B.C.E., it was King Jehoiachin and not Jehoiakim who was taken into exile, there is no Darius the Mede, and more) and (b) that the Book of Daniel was written in the Hellenistic period and completed in the time of the Maccabees (the heroes of Hanukkah) around 165 B.C.E. Of course, the Greek translator of Ezekiel, like others in the Hellenistic period and later, identified Ezekiel’s Danel, who was by then forgotten, with the hero of Daniel, who was by then famous. It is possible that the Biblical hero Daniel 077was named for the old Canaanite hero; but the name Daniel was popular among Jews in the Persian and Hellenistic periods (e.g., Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:7), so the similarity may be no more than coincidence.

Garden Lingo

What language was spoken by Adam and Eve?

We have no idea.—Ed.

Correction

In “Why Paul Went West” (BAR 37:01) the image of the Septuagint on page 50 should have been identified as the Codex Sinaiticus, not the Codex Alexandrinus.

Jesus Cover

Phenomenal
Your November/December cover [of a composite Jesus] is phenomenal.