040
In 1923, the sociologist Max Weber characterized Israel during the period of the Judges as a warring confederation over which Yahweh guaranteed the social order and insured prosperity. “Israel”, he said, was the name of a religious league which perhaps had “amphictyonic” rites.1 Later Martin Noth expanded this comparison and gave the thesis its definitive form.2
A study of the different tribal lists in the Bible reveals that, despite changes, the number 12 is invariable. Within this larger configuration, the six Leah tribes, the first to come to Canaan, form a constant group.
The Greek amphictyonies and the Italian leagues suggest an analogy which must be considered. Through an oath, they unite twelve (or six) peoples or cities around a common sanctuary, where they periodically assemble for religious celebrations. The members of these leagues retain their political independence, but their delegates oversee the observance of certain rules and take common action against their violation.
Noth finds these elements in Israel during the period of the Judges: According to him, “Israel” is the name of a league of twelve tribes which had a central sanctuary, where the ark was placed. The ark was first at Shechem, then at Bethel, Gilgal, and finally at Shiloh. At Shechem, according to Joshua 24, the tribes recognized Yahweh as their God, they united themselves with God through a pact and received statutes and laws. At the annual religious celebrations, for which they gathered together at the central sanctuary, the tribes discussed their common affairs through their delegates, the twelve nesi’im [plural of nasi, traditionally translated “princes”; the New English Bible calls them “chiefs”] of which Numbers gives the list on several occasions. They were governed by an amphictyonic law, which in part is reflected in the Covenant Code of Exodus 21–23 and an unwritten law. Transgressions of the law were punished; and the tribal action against Benjamin after the Gibeah crime (Judges 19–20) must be interpreted as an amphictyonic war. Thus Martin Noth.
Noth’s views have had considerable influence, his thesis has been widely accepted. With often less prudence than he himself used, the amphictyonic thesis has been used by others supposedly to clarify the religion of Israel and its worship, as well as its laws and institutions.3 The light this thesis sheds, or appears to shed, on a very obscure period and on so many aspects of Israelite life, makes it very attractive indeed. However, doubts as to the solidity of its foundations have been expressed, at first timidly, but recently these have given way to rather strong opposition.4 The problem requires fresh examination.
In Greece, an amphictyony was an association of those who have established themselves around a common sanctuary. Many such associations must have existed, but the ancient sources speak explicitly only of a few of them and give little information about them.
The best known and most important is the Delphic amphictyony. Although its origins are obscure, it appears initially to have been established by several villages located around the Demeter sanctuary of Anthela, at Thermopylae. Beginning probably not before the 6th century B.C., it included Delphi, whose Apollo sanctuary and the Pythian oracle insured the prestige of the amphictyony. It then grouped together twelve peoples from central Greece each of which sent two delegates, or hieromnemons, to the Amphictyonic Council. Membership in this amphictyony varied, but the number twelve was maintained until the changes imposed by the Roman Empire. The Amphictyonic Council met twice each year—once in Thermopylae and once in Delphi.
041The Council’s principal role was to protect and administer its two federal sanctuaries. The members of the league took an oath in which “they promised not to destroy any village of the amphictyonic league, not to intercept, either during time of war or peace, the water which irrigated them, and if someone violated these regulations, to march against him, to destroy his towns. In effect, they promised that if someone pillaged the god’s treasures, or was responsible for a profanation, or wanted to attack the sacred objects, they would unite their hands, feet and voices, and all their forces to punish him.”5
The amphictyonic law of 380 B.C. found in Delphi, provided that the hieromnemons were to mete out just sentences at the trials, but then emphasized the limited and specifically religious character of their jurisdiction: survey the sacred plain and punish those who cultivate it, take care of the religious statues, oversee the condition of Apollo’s Temple and Athena Pronoia, insure the maintenance of the roads and bridges which permit the pilgrims access to Delphi, and manage the god’s finances.
The fundamental characteristics of the Greek amphictyony can be seen in the Delphic example: they were local or regional institutions which had an essentially religious character. They exerted political power only indirectly or occasionally, when they served as instruments of ambitions of one or another of their more powerful members. They were never a stage towards the establishment of a political unity larger than that of the city.
Although the leagues of Greek cities of Asia Minor, also grouped around a sanctuary, were not called amphictyonies by the ancient sources, comparisons may also be made with them. The most important of these was the league of ten Ionic cities established in the 8th century B.C. The number of members was increased to twelve by the inclusion of the Isle of Chios and the Isle of Samos. The league’s central sanctuary was dedicated to Poseidon. Further north, twelve cities of Eolide grouped themselves around the sanctuary of Apollo in Grynion; their number was reduced to eleven when Smyrna fell into Ionian hands. In the South, in Rhodes and on the neighboring coast, six Dorian towns who worshipped Apollo, formed a league at Triopion; their number fell to five when Halicarnasse was excluded from the league. We are not well informed on the history and functions of these leagues.
In Italy, a league of twelve small Etrurian states met each year in the sanctuary of the goddess Voltumna, probably in the Volscian territory. They formed the “councilium Etruriae” and elected a chief who was initially called “king”, then “priest”. The list of these twelve peoples is never given by the ancient authors. We know nothing about how this league functioned. In pre-Roman Italy, the Latin authors note in passing the “twelve peoples” of Brutium, of Iapyges, of Messenia and Poedicules, we are sure neither of the religious nor the political nature of these groups, nor of how they functioned. We also hear, vaguely, about the “thirty tribes” of Latium.
Some parallels might also be drawn from other regions and other periods. In Scandinavia, prior to the arrival of the Vikings, Sweden had leagues of “ten regions” which were federated between themselves and had a central sanctuary in Uppsala, where their union was solemnly renewed every nine years. A fundamentally religious institution, the supreme authority was exercised by a priest. Equivalents are also found in Denmark.
We are therefore dealing with an institution which, in various forms, seems to have been widespread throughout Indo-European peoples. But the first examples which are known to us are later than the first millennium before our era. The system of the twelve tribes of Israel belongs to a different and older ethnic and cultural environment. It is unwise to use a different civilization and period of time to explain the grouping of the twelve tribes of Israel and to reconstruct an Israelite amphictyony in its image.
The vast Semitic domain has known all sorts of political and religious institutions, but has produced nothing which resembles a Greek amphictyony. It will be useful to see if the comparisons which have been made with the Greek amphictyony or their equivalents in Italy are valid.
In the figure 12, the thesis of the Israelite amphictyony finds its origin, but this number does not have the importance attributed to it. Among the leagues which the texts explicitly refer to as amphictyonies, only that of Delphi strictly held its numbers 042to 12, from the 6th century B.C. through the Roman period, despite the inconveniences which this rule involved due to historical changes; but its nucleus, the Anthela amphictyony, began with only several numbers. The Calauria amphictyony had only seven members, and we do not know the composition of the others. In Asia Minor, the Ionian league at first had ten members; the Dorian league had six then five; the Eolian league had 12, then 11. Much later, in Scandinavia, the Swedish league consisted of ten, eight and four members. In Italy, we do not know who were the “twelve peoples” of the Etruscan league, or of the other leagues, and it is possible that this number was only symbolic. The number 12, which is that of the months of the year and the signs of the Zodiac, expresses plenitude. In Greece, groups of 12 persons, animals, or things, frequently appear in literature, legend and worship: Aeolus and Nelee had 12 children, 12 cows were dedicated to Athena, 12 bulls to Poseidon, there were the 12 works of Hercules, 12 Titans, 12 great gods of the Pantheon, the 12 Arvale brothers, 12 Lupereues, the law of the 12 Tablets, etc.
The 12 sons of Jacob and the 12 tribes of Israel find better parallels in the Semitic surroundings and in the Bible itself than in Greece. There are 12 Aramaean tribes named after the 12 “sons” of Nahor, eight born of his wife Milka and four of his concubine Reuma (Genesis 22:20–24). There are 12 sons of Ishmael, who were 12 chiefs of as many tribes (Genesis 25:12–16). There are 12 descendants of Esau, (Genesis 36:10–14), by eliminating Amalek (see Genesis 36:12). Other than these strict parallels, the figure is used elsewhere in the Bible with the same symbolic value as in Greece and in Rome: the 12 bulls under the Temple basin known as the Sea (1 Kings 7:44), and twelve lions on the steps of Solomon’s Throne, (1 Kings 10:20). Elisha works with 12 yoke of oxen, (1 Kings 19:19). Twelve servants of Benjamin and 12 servants of David confront each other near the pool of Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:15). Solomon has 12,000 horses (1 Kings 5:6, 1 Kings 10:26). The figure of 12,000 warriors frequently appears (Joshua 8:25; Judges 21:10; 2 Samuel 10:6; 2 Samuel 17:1; Psalms 60:2). Without leaving the Semitic cultural domain, we could add examples from the New Testament, especially from the Apocalypse,6 and from Jewish literature.7
The Israelite amphictyonic pact was supposedly concluded at the Shechem assembly described in Joshua 24. But the historical recollection contained in the redaction of Joshua 24 is not a recollection of twelve tribes. According to the most likely interpretation of the material contained in this chapter, the pact was concluded between the northern tribes, which had not participated in the Exodus and Sinai experience, and Joshua’s group which proposed placing their faith in Yahweh. It is certainly true that this was a religious alliance (Joshua 24:23–24) and involved the obligations of statutes and laws (Joshua 24:25). But it did not obligate the twelve tribes, which were not yet completely formed and some of whom did not even have representatives at Shechem. Finally, this pact manifests none of the specific characteristics of an amphictyony.
A central sanctuary is the necessary condition for an amphictyony: it precedes it, explains its creation, and justifies its existence 043and even its name. It is “around” this sanctuary that it is created, it is there that the communal religious feasts are celebrated and that the Amphictyonic Council meets, and the ordinary role of this council is that of insuring protection and maintenance of the sanctuary. In the thesis that we are examining, the central sanctuary of the Israelite “amphictyony” was believed to be that where the ark, the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, God of the alliance, was placed, and where the alliance worship was celebrated. Since the ark was moved, the central sanctuary was therefore successively in Shechem, where the amphictyony was created, then in Bethel, Gilgal and finally in Shiloh.8 This hypothesis has been widely accepted and used. It has also been seriously criticized.
Such an itinerant central sanctuary would set Israel apart from all known amphictyonies. The Delphic amphictyony is not a valid parallel: the amphictyonic sanctuary did not move from Thermopylae to Delphi, but the Delphi sanctuary was added on to that of Anthela; the case moreover is unique.
But this general objection to an Israelite sanctuary is not the most serious. It can be shown that none of the cited Israelite sanctuaries played the role of central sanctuary for all the tribes. We know nothing about the presence of the ark in Shechem. It does not appear in Joshua 24, which supposedly tells of the creation of an amphictyony. One might conjecture, in support of the amphictyonic thesis, that the central sanctuary and the ark were transferred from Shechem to Bethel, perhaps following the Abimelek episode.9 While it is true that Judges 20:27b–28a notes the presence of the ark in Bethel under the guard of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, this notice is certainly a late gloss. Of course this late gloss may contain an ancient memory, but it is far more likely that the gloss was intended to justify, by the presence of the ark and a Levite of authentic origins, the religious role which the Bethel sanctuary, later condemned by the orthodox priesthood, plays in this narrative (Judges 20:18, Judges 20:26–28; Judges 21:2). Moreover, Bethel does not appear in the oldest strata of the narrative, in which Mizpeh is the rallying point where Israel unites to fight against Benjamin (Judges 20:1–3; Judges 21:1–5, Judges 21:8).
A reference to the transfer of the central sanctuary from Shechem to Bethel can be found, we are told, in Genesis 35:1–7, where Jacob and his family go from Shechem to Bethel. The trip begins with a cultic act (Genesis 35:2) and is completed by the construction of an altar at Bethel (Genesis 35:7); the transfer was then commemorated by a pilgrimage.10 The “divine fear” which strikes the cities on the way (Genesis 35:5) signifies, we are told, that the ark was involved in the journey.11 But, if the pilgrimage did take place, that would prove that two sanctuaries were used at the same time, at Shechem and Bethel, not that Bethel had become the central sanctuary. As for the “divine fear”, it is not exclusively connected to the presence of the ark. There is really no indication that Bethel was at any time during the period of Judges a central sanctuary of Israel, nor that any amphictyonic type of worship was celebrated there.
The Gilgal sanctuary, on the other hand, was, for a time, the home of the ark. This is reflected in the structure of the narratives in Joshua 3–4. Furthermore, these accounts, with the double explanation of the twelve stones, also presuppose a religion which united the twelve tribes. One may think that after Shechem (and Bethel), Gilgal was the “amphictyonic” sanctuary.12 However, this suggestion encounters serious difficulties. Gilgal was the first sanctuary of the Israelites 044entering Canaan after passing through the Jordan, and the first location of the ark, if one concedes that the ark was brought by the Israelites who came through the desert. But Gilgal could not then have been the central sanctuary of all twelve tribes since they were not then unified. Gilgal plays no role at all in the entire book of Judges.13 It is only under Saul that Gilgal appears as the special location of the tribal assemblies (1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel 11:14–15; 1 Samuel 13 passim; 1 Samuel 15:12, 1 Samuel 15:21–33). But the ark was then in Kiryat Jearim under the control of the Philistines.
More of a case might be made for Shiloh, the last location of the ark, according to Noth. (Certain other writers contend Shiloh was the only central sanctuary during the period of the Judges14). Here the situation is not as clear. The presence of the ark in Shiloh is verified by the two independent accounts of Samuel’s childhood (1 Samuel 3:3 and 1 Samuel 4:1–7:1). From Shiloh the ark was taken to the Aphek battlefield, where it fell into the hands of the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:3–6, 1 Samuel 11–17). At Shiloh the ark was placed in a sanctuary (hekal) (1 Samuel 1:9; 1 Samuel 3:3) called the “house of Yahweh” (1 Samuel 1:7, 1 Samuel 1:24; 1 Samuel 3:15). The sanctuary was a building and had a door (1 Samuel 1:9) which was opened in the morning (1 Samuel 3:15). This was the first temple of Yahweh.15 Unlike Shechem and Bethel, Shiloh was not connected with any patriarchal tradition and it is not known when this sanctuary was founded. It is true that, according to Joshua 18:1 (cf. Joshua 19:51), the Meeting Tent was erected in Shiloh the day after the conquest and the territory of the seven tribes who had not yet received their land (Joshua 18:8–10) were drawn by lot “before Yahweh” at Shiloh, as were the towns reserved for the Levites (Joshua 21:1–8). At Shiloh also, the Transjordanian tribes took leave of the rest of Israel (Joshua 22:9). There too all of the community of Israel united to make war against these tribes after the erection of the altar at the Jordan River (Joshua 22:12). But all of these texts belong to a priestly edition of the book of Joshua dating from the period after the exile.16 Judges 21:19–21 speaks of an annual celebration of the pilgrimage to Shiloh, when the local girls danced in the vineyards; this “Yahweh celebration” might be the great autumn celebration ordered by Exodus 23:16, but it particularly recalls the Canaanite festival of gathering grapes in Shechem (Judges 9:27). The episode presupposes the existence of a sanctuary and it could be placed rather early during the period of Judges, but its historical foundations are rather poorly indicated.
In fact, the Shiloh sanctuary appears with relative clarity only at the end of the period of the Judges. This sanctuary for the ark was then officiated over by a Levitic family, Eli and his two sons Hophni and Phinehas. There the priest rendered oracles (1 Samuel 1:17) and God manifested himself to Samuel (1 Samuel 3). Sacrifices were offered (1 Samuel passim; 1 Samuel 2:12–17, 1 Samuel 2:19). Samuel’s father came each year with his family (1 Samuel 1:3, 1 Samuel 1:22; Judges 21:19–21 also speaks of an annual pilgrimage). But neither the ark, nor the Levitic priest, nor the oracles, nor the sacrifices and the pilgrimage suffice to make Shiloh the central sanctuary of an amphictyony. The annual visit of Elkanah and his family is not connected to a religious celebration which would have assembled all of the tribes; it was a private or family devotion, which leads Elkanah to a sanctuary renowned by his tribe: Shiloh is in Ephraim and Elkanah is an Ephraimite (1 Samuel 1:1). The story of Judges 21:15–23, can be understood only as a regional celebration: the dancers are girls only from Shiloh; the Benjamites did not come as pilgrims, they are spoilers in disguise.
In the account of the Philistine War, the ark is taken from Shiloh after an initial defeat 045(1 Samuel 4:3–4); it did not come with the army and nothing indicates that the army was initially concentrated in Shiloh. Shiloh was not even the center of a military league against the Philistines. If one puts aside the obvious glosses in Judges 21:12, Shiloh appears nowhere as a meeting place for the tribes during the period of Judges. According to the account in Judges 19–21, Mizpeh has a better claim than Shiloh. It was at Mizpeh that all of the Israelites united before Yahweh and gave a solemn oath (Judges 20:1–3; Judges 21:1–5, Judges 21:8). It was there also that Samuel called together all of Israel (1 Samuel 7:5–12); a libation was made before Yahweh, there was fasting, a sacrifice was offered and Samuel “judged” Israel there. According to 1 Samuel 10:17ff, it was at Mizpeh that Saul was designated King by drawing lots and consulting Yahweh. But Mizpeh does not seem to have ever sheltered the ark, which is considered the central object of worship of the Israelite amphictyony.
Thus, it cannot be shown that the tribes had a central sanctuary during the period of Judges. On the contrary, what is striking is the multiplicity of the worship locations: Shechem; Bethel; to which can be added Beersheba (cf. 1 Samuel 8:2, where the memory of the Patriarchs was retained); Gilgal, with the memory of the entry into Canaan; Shiloh; Mizpeh; also Ramah (cf. 1 Samuel 7:17; 1 Samuel 9:12–25, whose origin is obscure); Ophra and Dan (whose founding is told in detail in Judges 6 and Judges 18). There are certainly many others, without counting the domestic sanctuaries such as that of Micha (Judges 17). The presence of the ark, or its geographic location, or the memories attached to it might have given one or another of these sanctuaries a particular importance which attracted followers from a great distance; and it is very likely that some of them were frequented by several tribes. But none of the sanctuaries mentioned during the period of Judges can be defined, at any time, as the central sanctuary and the “amphictyony” of all the tribes.
The delegates to the supposed Israelite “amphictyonic” council were the “nesi’im” which is generally, but incorrectly, translated to mean “princes”. According to a possible etymology, they were those who “raised” their voices, “spokesmen”. There was one per tribe (a list of their names is given in Numbers 1:5–16; cf. Numbers 2:3–29; Numbers 7:12–83; Numbers 10:13–27; Numbers 13:2–15; Numbers 34:17–29). They were the representatives of the tribes and supposedly correspond to the hieromnemons of the Greek amphictyony.17 This comparison is not well based.18
The word “nasi” is most frequently found in Ezekiel and in the sacerdotal passages of Exodus and Numbers. The word took on a particular meaning in the language of Ezekiel, who distinguishes “nasi” from “melech” (king) and who always gives this title (but never king) to the chief of “future Israel”. The Bible does not reserve the title nasi for Israelites only: Genesis 25:13–16 gives the names of the twelve nesi’im of the Ishmaelites; Numbers 25:18 speaks of the “nasi” of the Midianites: Joshua 13:21 lists the five “nesi’im” of the Midianites, whom Numbers 31:8 calls “kings”. The Covenant Code states: “You will not blaspheme your God, nor speak ill of a nasi of your people” (Exodus 22:27). Despite the sacred character 046given to all authority in Israel, the nasi was a secular and not a religious leader. In Genesis 34:2, Hamor is nasi of the region of Shechem, which had a Hivvite population and constitution different from those of the small Canaan domains.
All of this indicates that at Israel’s origins, the nasi was neither a religious functionary nor a prince, but rather a leader chosen by a tribe or faction within the tribe. The best equivalent, in a similar social environment, is the sheikh in Arabia, who governs his tribe, or his faction, along with the principal leaders of the family; he is chosen for his personal merits, although the responsibility generally remains in the same family. In the Pan-Israelite perspective of Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, the tribal chiefs represent all the peoples and act collectively, but in no text are they given the attribute of functions of the hieromnemon of the Greek amphictyony. The only passages which put them into a relationship with the sanctuary are Exodus 35:27–28 and Numbers 7: the nesi’im make offerings at the sanctuary, but they do not administer it. They play no role in the Shechem assembly recounted in Joshua 24, which would be the constitutive act of an Israelite amphictyony; and they are not once mentioned in the book of Judges, which is supposed to cover all of the period of this amphictyony. The nesi’im cannot be considered members of an amphictyonic council.
An amphictyonic law is also alleged to have existed in Israel. It is supposedly preserved in part in the Covenant Code, in particular in its “religious and moral prohibitions”19 (Exodus 22:17 through Exodus 23:9). Its influence is supposedly found in later books as well, in Deuteronomy 12; 26, and Leviticus 17–26. These laws were supposedly published regularly when the tribes would gather in the central sanctuary; the “judge of Israel” was supposedly in charge of publicizing it, explaining it and insuring its observance, by adapting it to new situations (a list of these judges is retained in Judges 10:1–5 and Judges 12:8–15).20
It is true that the Covenant Code represents the laws and customs of the tribes in Canaan, united under the same Yahwistic faith, but this does not give it the character of an amphictyonic law. The comparison with the Greek amphictyony is particularly deficient here.21 The Greeks never had a magistrate comparable to a “judge of Israel”. A certain judicial power was exerted by the hieromnemons, but they only judged crimes against the sanctuary of the god. Moreover, one cannot speak about an “amphictyonic law” in Greece, where there was never a law common to several cities.
In Greece, collective action by the amphictyony could be taken against a member or against the enemies of the sanctuary. Such an eventuality was foreseen by the amphictyonic oath, and Greek history has known several of these “holy wars”, in which the religious motive was no more than a pretext masking political aims. Noth finds a parallel to these wars in the tribal war against Benjamin to punish the crime of Gibeah (Judges 19–21). It is, he says, “The tale of an amphictyonic war against a member of the amphictyony who openly transgressed the amphictyonic law.”22 Gerhard von Rad goes so far as to say that all of the “holy wars” during the period of Judges were “in principle an amphictyonic reaction, even if the whole of the tribes did not take part:”23 he even speaks of an “amphictyonic army.”24 This distorts the meaning of the term. No war during the period of the Judges involved all or even a majority of the tribes. Even the battle of Deborah (Judges 5) involves only six tribes. (The prose account of this same battle (Judges 4) mentions only two tribes.) The wars of the period of the Judges are indeed “holy wars”, but they do not have an amphictyonic character. Except for the war against Benjamin, they are not directed against a member of the “amphictyony”; they are not decreed by a tribal council; they do not have a religious motive. Moreover, even in the war against Benjamin, it was not to defend the prerogatives of a central sanctuary. In fact, it is an episode in Ephraim’s struggle for supremacy (compare Judges 8:1–3; Judges 12:1–6). The pretext for this was the sexual outrage committed by the peoples of Gibeah, but nothing justifies reading this outrage as a violation of an “amphictyonic law”.
All of this research leads to the same conclusion: The proposed connection between the organization of the tribes of Israel and the Greek amphictyony is unjustified. The essential characteristics of an amphictyony are not found in Israel. The existence of a 047central sanctuary cannot be established, nor can a council of tribal delegates be shown. There are no examples of concerted action by all of the tribes. The tribes of Israel adhered to the same laws and customs, but it was not an “amphictyonic” law. If it has been shown that there was a principal judge of all the tribes, he exercised an authority unknown to the Greek amphictyony. When applied to Israel, the use of the word “amphictyony” only creates confusion and gives rise to a false conception of the relations among the tribes. Its use should be abandoned.
042
A Growing Family
As of this writing, subscribers to the Biblical Archaeology Review number more than 11,000. This is the count midway into our third year. At the end of our first year, we had 3,000 subscribers. So in a year and a half we’ve more than tripled our circulation.
We’re frankly astonished at this phenomenal growth. We are also absolutely delighted. We shall continue to do our very best to merit your interest and loyalty. Our continuing goal will be to inform the intelligent layman in understandable language of what is happening in the exciting world of Biblical archaeology, without sacrificing accuracy or depth. We especially appreciate hearing from our readers—both the praise and the criticism. Those of us who put out the BAR feel very close to you. We hope you reciprocate the feeling—and that this will continue as BAR continues to grow.
043
Thank You, Wallace Morton
In the September 1976 BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 02:03), Wallace Morton, a reader from Franklinville, North Carolina suggested in a letter to the editor that a periodic index of BAR articles be prepared, including both subjects and Scripture references. As a result of this letter, a professional indexer, Joyce Bartels of the Midwest College of Engineering in Lombard, Illinois, has offered to prepare a complete index to Volumes I–III of the BAR. This useful index will be ready shortly after the completion of Volume III.
044
Greenfield Named Editor
BAR Editorial Advisory Board member Jonas Greenfield has been named editor of the prestigious Israel Exploration Journal.
Professor Greenfield, one of the world’s leading scholars of Semitic languages, teaches at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is co-editor of New Directions in Biblical Archaeology.
045
Biblical Numismatic Society Organized
A new organization has been formed by leading experts in Biblical numismatics that will offer its members clear, concise information on coins of the Biblical period. The Biblical Numismatic Society will also assist members who wish to acquire genuine 2000-year-old coins.
Members of the Biblical Numismatic Society will receive a monthly newsletter, “The Augur,” edited by Mel Wacks, numismatic consultant to the Judah Magnes Museum. A full color Biblical Coin of the Month 35mm slide will arrive with each issue of “The Augur.” Charter members will also receive the 40-page illustrated Handbook of Biblical Numismatics by Mel Wacks.
Charter memberships are available for $8.00 for the year.
Write Biblical Numismatic Society. 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, California 90210. Subscribers who mention that they read about the Society in BAR will receive a gift of a Shekel-token.
