007

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments about our Winter 2021 issue. We appreciate your feedback. Here are a few of the letters we received. Find more online at biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

Timely Content

I was reading Herman Melville’s epic poem “Clarel,” which describes a 19th-century journey through the Holy Land, when the Winter 2021 issue of BAR arrived. I was pleasantly surprised to find two places Melville describes featured: the Tomb of the Kings in Jerusalem (Andrew Lawler, “Who Built the Tomb of the Kings?”) and the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (“Where Is It?”). Reading the BAR descriptions and seeing the photographs added to my enjoyment of Melville’s challenging poem.

Shapira Scrolls

In your Winter 2021 issue, the two articles on “The Shapira Scrolls” were fantastic! I enjoyed the way both sides were presented, along with corresponding pictures (exhibits). In a time when people cannot seem to agree on anything, it was refreshing to have a debate presented that allowed for both sides to present their arguments. I found it not only educational but also engaging and fascinating! It allows the readers to think and consider while drawing their own conclusions.

Thank you for the wonderful debate about the authenticity (or not) of the Shapira Scrolls. Informative, well argued, with no personal attacks. Decades-long familiar BAR authors Ronald Hendel and James Tabor on opposite sides, paired with reputable scholars new to us, Matthieu Richelle and Idan Dershowitz, added to the seriousness of the discussion.

I really enjoyed the pro/con pieces on the Shapira Scrolls and am challenged to decide which one I find most compelling! The forgery camp seems to base its case on very detailed specifics of paleography, Moses Shapira’s tainted history, and their depiction of the era as one rife with forgeries. The authenticity camp dismisses the paleographic critique by stating that the documents used by the forgery camp to support their claims are patently inaccurate. The literary analysis and the alignment of the scrolls with modern critical theory is fascinating.

My heart wants the authenticity camp to be right, which biases my ability to reach a conclusion, but how exciting would it be if they were authentic?

In the argument over the Shapira Scrolls, it seems that “The Case for Forgery” relies only on paleographic analysis. I, for one, am not convinced. It seems the authors think that ancient scribes created their texts with some sort of ancient typewriter, and that all the letters from the scrolls must conform exactly to standard forms. Graphologists will tell you that nobody writes even their signature the same way twice. It may also be the case that a certain scribe liked the way a letter from another script looked and substituted it for the “official” letter. Then there is the matter of the age of the scribe; young and old scribes no doubt wrote their letters differently. And we must not forget that even an experienced scribe could make errors. I grant that paleography is useful for many cases, but when an argument relies solely or mainly on paleographic analysis, no matter how long or well developed the argument, I tend to ignore it. My “vote,” therefore, is for the authenticity of the Shapira Scrolls.

What I find amazing in the antiquities world is how easily experts allow 008themselves to be fooled by questionable artifacts. I guess the extreme desire to find that one awesome artifact that would change a huge chunk of history is too hard to resist, even when you know the seller (in this case, Moses Shapira) has a long history of selling fraudulent articles. While I actually found the argument for the scrolls’ authenticity compelling, antiquities dealers should be reminded of the fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”: Sell enough fakes and even when you have the real thing, you won’t be believed.

In making their case for authenticity, Idan Dershowitz and James Tabor state, in reference to the Book of Deuteronomy, that certain elements have “an odd literary structure, to put it mildly,” and refer to the book’s “disjointed structure.” This structure may be uncommon in written history but is essential to many types of modern fiction, as well as oral literature, such as folktale, myth, and epic, including Homer’s Iliad. Since this architecture suggests that the Bible’s version is based on oral tradition, it weakens Dershowitz and Tabor’s argument for the precedence and extreme antiquity of the “Valediction of Moses,” which has a linear structure more typical of a later literate tradition.

Not Lost in Translation

Kudos to Elizabeth Backfish for her excellent article “Not Lost in Translation: Hebrew Wordplay in Greek” (Winter 2021). This was a most interesting and insightful article. It brings to mind many fond memories of an evening class I once took with biblical scholar David Noel Freedman (see Bible Review, December 1993). For three hours, at his house, we would read the Hebrew Bible in the original Hebrew. Freedman pointed out wordplay after wordplay, often evoking much laughter from the group. It seemed to me that if any of us had simply written down all the humor he detected in the Bible, we would have had a bestseller. Backfish’s excellent article continues this tradition of bringing out humor in the Bible.

I appreciated Elizabeth Backfish’s article. However, one sentence is in error: “The Hebrew poet’s choice of ‘esoh for ‘I hate’ is a hapax legomenon, meaning that it occurs only this one time in the entire Hebrew Bible.” First of all, ‘esoh is the infinitive construct of the verb meaning “to do”; second, it is not a hapax legomenon. There is a hapax legomenon in the sentence; it is the next word, setim. The word for “I hate” is the following word, saneti.

ELIZABETH BACKFISH REPLIES:

I am grateful to Dr. Bellis for the correction. The infinitive construct originally identified as the hapax legomenon is actually quite common (occurring about 269 times by my count). The hapax legomenon is the plural noun for transgressors, setim, that follows. The case for wordplay is still strong, since setim is part of the wordplay under consideration, and since many other words in the semantic field of setim are more common (such as khatta’t, ‘aon, and pesha‘ ) and do not contain the “s” sound that makes this example of wordplay so pronounced.

Paul of Arabia

Ben Witherington, in his very interesting article “Paul of Arabia?” (Winter 2021), points out that Paul’s Arabia was the kingdom of the Nabateans, located south and east of the Dead Sea. But a little research shows that Nabatea’s borders extended to and overlapped with Idumea, in the regions of southern Judah and the Negev. In fact, Herod the Great’s father, Antipater, was Idumean, and his mother, Cypros, was Nabatean. I point this out because Paul was born a Roman citizen in the wealthy town of Tarsus, the playground of Antony and Cleopatra, with Antony being Herod’s sponsor at the time. All this begs the question, who were Paul’s highborn and ostensibly wealthy parents? If they and he were indeed Herodian, that might explain why Paul would have spent so much time in Arabia after his conversion.

BEN WITHERINGTON RESPONDS:

I don’t think there is any reason to connect Paul with the Idumeans or the Herods. Paul’s family in Tarsus were leather workers. It is likely they obtained their Roman citizenship and wealth from service to the empire, namely the making of tents and other leather products for the Roman troops in Cilicia.

In the article “Paul of Arabia?” Ben Witherington describes the “Paul the basket case” scene as occurring after Paul’s time in Arabia, whereas the referenced Acts 9:25, read in context, clearly states this happened shortly after Paul’s conversion, due to his enthusiastically preaching the gospel for which he had been persecuting believers. Yes, I understand that the author of Acts edited events to smooth over the apparent conflict between Paul and the other apostles, hence some disconnects between Acts and Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. However, there is no evidence of that here.

BEN WITHERINGTON RESPONDS:

In the Acts account of the basket story, Luke does, indeed, compress things and doesn’t know about the trip to Arabia. The basket story, which Paul himself recounts in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 and for which he is the primary source and Luke a secondary one, refers to King Aretas being after Paul through his agent in Damascus. This surely has to have happened after Paul did or tried to do something in Nabatean Arabia. What is not clear is whether Aretas already had control over Damascus when Paul was lowered in a basket down the wall.

006

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments about our Fall 2021 issue. We appreciate your feedback. Here are a few of the letters we received. Find more online at biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

Thankful and Gratified

I have been reading BAR since the 1970s, before there were color pictures and a slick, glossy cover. For me, BAR has been a way to stay connected with the lands of the Bible. What I have appreciated most about BAR is that it provides current information about excavations and new discoveries. This has informed my teaching of the Bible by providing the historical, geographical, cultural, and archaeological background of the ancient Near East.

I was saddened by the passing of BAR’s founder and editor, Hershel Shanks, but am thankful and gratified that the vision and tradition of BAR continues today.

Congratulations on a fascinating issue, which included an illuminating, multi-article thread related to the Canaanite Hyksos kings of Egypt: A news story in Strata described early alphabetic writing found at Lachish (Canaanite adaptations of Egyptian hieroglyphs dating to the Hyksos), and then Rachel Hallote’s article about Joseph in Egypt presented the “No-Date Theory” that the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt (c. 1550 B.C.E.) was the kernel of the Exodus story! No other magazine offers its readers such intriguing speculations. Bravo!

Do a Better Job!

In the Fall 2021 Issue, Editor Glenn Corbett introduces the new “Digging In” feature, designed to highlight “exciting new discoveries, insights, and scholarship.” He goes on to propose that Rachel Hallote’s article “investigates evidence for the Hyksos in ancient Egypt that may shed light on the historical reality of the biblical stories of Joseph and the Exodus.”

Really? Maybe you have dismissed the idea that the Bible has any historical reality. Maybe you have substituted your reality with undeliberate notions. In any case, your logic doesn’t add up. I take the position that the Bible stands as written and does not need to be allegorized or modified to conform to archaeology or recorded history.

Might I suggest that BAR publish articles that actually contain such investigation and evidence instead of Hallote’s brand of convenient subjective conjecture posing as scholarship? Please avoid confusing actual archaeology with self-serving mythology. That approach will eventually reduce your publication to the irrelevant.

While I remain a devoted fan of BAR, I was surprised to read “unprovenienced” artifacts instead of “unprovenanced,” in the Fall 2021 issue (pp. 58–59). I think Hershel Shanks would have demanded better copy editing for his readers.

Admittedly, choosing between “unprovenienced” and “unprovenanced” is a bit tricky. First, unprovenienced was the preferred term of the scholars we interviewed, which relates specifically to objects that lack a secure archaeological context. This formally distinguishes it from unprovenanced, which means an object (usually from a collection) that lacks a documented origin or ownership history. In practice, however, both terms are often used interchangeably.—G.J.C.

Joseph in Egypt

I was disappointed that the Joseph article did not provide an answer to the question in its title, “Does Archaeology Confirm Joseph’s Time in Egypt?” (Fall 2021). The archaeological evidence presented was used to support the hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites in Egypt and not that Joseph himself was ever there. Hallote further makes a faulty, baseless assumption that Joseph’s family practiced the traditions of the Canaanites. However, Joseph was descended from the tribe of Shem, 008while the Canaanites were descended from the tribe of Canaan.

I was struck—as if by a lightning bolt from the storm god Yahweh—by the Egyptian royal names Kamose and Ahmose. Is it possible that the name Mose (Moses) comes from these kings?

RACHEL HALLOTE RESPONDS:

You are on the right track—many Egyptian names, including Kamose, Ahmose, Ramose, and Thutmose, contain the Egyptian word ms, which means “to give birth” or “child (of).” This word often features in theophoric names, such as Thutmose (“Thoth is born”) and Ramose (“child of Ra”). There are even a few cases where “Mose” appears in Egyptian texts as a name on its own, likely as an abbreviation. Moses of the Bible seems to be one of these abbreviated versions. (See Ogden Goelet, “Moses’ Egyptian Name,” Bible Review, June 2003.)

I noticed what seems to be a mix-up. Hallote writes, “The graves at Avaris were constructed from mudbrick, as was typical in Canaan, but unlike the stone tomb construction found in Egypt” (p. 44). Shouldn’t it say that stone tombs were typical in Canaan (where Israelites were buried in caves), and mudbrick construction was found in Egypt, where the enslaved Israelites had to make bricks from mud and straw?

RACHEL HALLOTE RESPONDS:

Although the people of Bronze Age Canaan sometimes buried their dead in tombs (“caves”) dug into the living rock, they just as often cut pits into the earth that they lined with stones or mudbricks—or left unlined. These burials were egalitarian in nature, making it difficult to distinguish tombs of Canaanite rulers from others. This is in contrast with the massive stone and stone-cut tombs common for Egyptian royalty in the periods both before and after the time of the Hyksos.

New Canaanite Temple

I enjoyed reading about the recent discovery of the Northeast Temple at Lachish (“Canaanite Worship at Lachish,” Fall 2021). I would argue, however, that the two corroded figurines found there are none other than Baal and his companion and consort, Anat.

Two almost identical figurines come from Middle Bronze Age Tartus in Syria and are now in the Louvre. They similarly have pegs attached to their feet. The female figurine is dressed for battle; she has a bow and arrows strapped to her chest, is holding a sword in her right hand and an ax in her other, raised hand. The male figurine can be identified as the storm god Baal, wearing his peculiar head ornament.

It is not a coincidence that a bronze ax head with a representation of a bird (denoting femininity) was found in the Holy of Holies. Baal typically had a standing stone (massebah) erected on his behalf, and there 010 apparently were two stones in the main hall at Lachish. I therefore suggest that the temple was built for the worship of the two deities.

ITAMAR WEISSBEIN RESPONDS:

Indeed, figurines of goddesses in a “smiting” pose do appear in the Late Bronze Age Levant. However, they are extremely rare. The few smiting goddess figurines are sometimes naked but more commonly wear long dresses that cover their legs and an upper body that has noticeable breasts. In some cases, they have long hair, like the Egyptian goddess Hathor. They are usually depicted standing or stepping forward, but never in a pronounced marching position like the male figurines.

In contrast, the figurines from Lachish are in a marching pose, they wear short kilts, and seem to have short hair and no noticeable breasts. Therefore, they are both examples of the “smiting god” figurines so common to the period.

Jesus on Bathing

MATTHEW THIESSEN’S ARTICLE “Jesus and Ritual Impurity” (Fall 2021) is very insightful. May I suggest that John 13:6-11 signifies the acceptance and approval of ritual bathing? Peter does not want Jesus to wash his feet. When he changes his mind and enthusiastically wants his hands and head also to be washed, Jesus says that those who have bathed need only their feet washed because they are already clean. For Christians, of course, this has always symbolized the greatest purification in baptism.

Archaeology Debate

In “Biblical Archaeology for the People” (Fall 2021), Eric Cline mentioned that unprovenienced artifacts should not be published and that such objects, because they are either looted or forged, have lost 90 percent of the information that makes them useful to scholars. I wonder what he thinks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were “looted” by non-archaeologists and, by ending up on the antiquities market, were saved from destruction.

ERIC CLINE RESPONDS:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the exception that proves the rule. Although the first manuscripts were looted, and the discovery of the caves was split between archaeologists and looters, in pretty much every case we know where the scrolls came from and their context—especially with those which later came from systematically excavated caves. Those scrolls without known context, such as the ones that appeared on the market in recent years, have turned out to be forgeries, in basically every instance.

008

This issue, we print just a few of your thoughtful letters noting the many contributions of departing BAR Editor Bob Cargill and the recent passing of BAR’s founder, the legendary Hershel Shanks. Even amid these changes, our readers continue to offer impressive insights, reflections, and questions about the many topics covered in the pages of BAR. You can find more letters online, along with a few responses, at biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

A Job Well Done

Your resignation, Mr. Cargill, surprised me (not in a good way!), because you brought BAR to a new level of readability and common sense—especially with the redesign, but also by your insistence on a level of scholarship that transcends those people with a preconceived notion of what they think is truth. I hope that your successor will continue pointing BAR in the right direction!

Bob Cargill, thanks for all you have done in the past three years, picking up the ball from Hershel and running with it. About the only thing I disagreed with was your steadfast rejection of publishing unprovenanced artifacts, though, I understood your reasoning. You are a credit to all Hawkeyes!

Congratulations on your successful tenure as editor, Bob Cargill, and very best wishes on your future endeavors. I drank in every drop of ink off the pages of BAR over the past three years, and I do appreciate the diverse views you brought to the magazine. BAR is my go-to magazine to take to the hospital when visiting a friend. When I leave it behind, it always seems to stir up good conversation. Bon Voyage!

In Memory of Hershel Shanks

My most profound condolences on your loss—and the loss to the intellectual world—in learning of the passing of Mr. Shanks. I was much saddened when he retired as I would so miss his commentary. When he acknowledged his retirement traced to a diagnosis of dementia, my thought immediately was how, even in being impaired, he was sharper than the vast majority of people I have met. To his family, colleagues, and friends: Be well. May your loss be lessened by the fact it is so widely shared.

Diversity Appreciated

Thank you for publishing stories about a wide variety of religions, both past and present. In this world today, we need to be considerate of other peoples and their beliefs more than ever. Your articles about past cultures and the interactions they had illustrate that necessity beautifully.

The more I learn about cultural differences, the more our sameness stands out. We should not be angry with people who believe differently. Rather than feeling threatened by our differences, we should be fascinated by the many ways we find to be human. Archaeology shows us that many wars have been fought over our beliefs. It also uncovers stories of people helping others despite dramatic differences in culture. You approach it all with respect and often a touch of humor.

Where’s “Glossary” Gone?

I was recently reading an old BAR, and I really enjoyed the Glossary section. I appreciated the pronunciations for the proper nouns and thought the pictures helped me better understand the terminology. What happened to this section of the magazine?

Thanks for the excellent observation and question. Indeed, in the late 80s and early 90s, BAR did have a regular department called Glossary that featured straight-forward explanations of key biblical archaeology terms, such as ossuary and massebah, as well as simple overviews of complex topics, such as ceramic dating methods and ancient fortification types. While Glossary faded from the pages of BAR, we have recently started several irregular departments that generally communicate similar content: Field Notes introduce archaeological methods; Archaeology Argot explains archaeological terminology; 009010and Biblical Archaeology 101 articles aim to introduce readers to archaeological basics, subfields, theories, and methodologies. We look forward to bringing our readers more of this informative content in future issues.—G.J.C.

I wanted to express my sadness and condolences to all at BAR on the passing of the founding editor, Hershel Shanks, זייל ,whose writings and insights we were privileged to read (and learn from) over many decades. Yehi zichro baruch. HaMakom yenachem etchem betoch shear avlei Zion veYerushalayim.

BAR-Inspired Poetry

I am sharing my poem “The Archaeologist,” which was inspired by my deep interest in biblical archaeology, nurtured and fed through the years by the wonderful trips into antiquity found in the pages of your magazine. I submit this in appreciation of what you have given me.

Wow, thank you! We are so glad that BAR has nurtured your interest in archaeology, which comes across clearly in your poem, which we have excerpted here. We are posting the full poem on our website.—G.J.C.

For the full poem, go to biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

Jesus’s Infancy Stories

In the “infancy stories” column, the author states that the Hebrew word for “virgin” is bethula (Regina A. Boisclair, “The Whole Christmas Package,” BAR, Winter 2020). The point being that if virgin was meant in Isaiah 7:14, that word would have been used there. According to the article, since the word bethula was not used, “There was no prophecy of a virginal conception in the Hebrew text of Isaiah.” The word bethula, however, appears in Joel 1:8. The young woman (bethula) wails for the “husband of her youth” because of impending disasters. Here, bethula appears to refer to a married woman. Therefore, one cannot argue there was “no prophecy of a virginal conception” in Isaiah 7:14 simply because the word bethula was not used.

REGINA A. BOISCLAIR RESPONDS:

In the Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14, the word is ‘alma, which means “young woman.” There was no prophecy of a virginal conception in the Hebrew text of Isaiah. Matthew used the Septuagint, where the word ‘alma was translated to Greek as parthenos, which means “virgin.” That the word bethula appears in Joel 1:8 is not pertinent to Isaiah 7:14.

Academic Hit Job

THIS RETIRED HARVARD PROFESSOR knows an academic hit job when he sees one, and that is exactly what the authors did in their article attacking Yosef Garfinkel (“Facing the Facts About the “Face of God,” Winter 2020). The authors slam Garfinkel for his prior article, “The Face of Yahweh?” (Fall 2020).

Note that Garfinkel simply asked a question—and a most interesting one for public and scholarly discussion based on the recent findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa and Moza. But the authors’ refutation treated Garfinkel’s question as a declaration and missed the point of his surmise: that the cultic figurines may have permitted acolytes to see the face of their idol in a temple.

The critics failed to offer any insight into what else Garfinkel’s findings could represent. While they don’t know what he found, they somehow are sure of what he didn’t find. Questioning and disagreement are at the heart of science, but non-substantive attacks are unscholarly as well as unhelpful in seeking to piece together a more accurate understanding of history.

Writing on the Floor

I just finished reading James McGrath’s interesting article “The Writing on the Floor” (Spring 2021). He states that the sotah ritual—in which a woman suspected of adultery is subjected to an ordeal—was discontinued under Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai and that Jesus was subtly criticizing this discontinuation. However, is it not possible that ben Zakkai “discontinued” this ritual because it was no longer possible to perform it once the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.? In this case, of course, his decision would have more to do with not replacing the ritual—to leave it abandoned. Is there any reason to date Mishnah Sotah 9:9 011012to four decades before 70? Would he have had the clout to authorize such a change?

JAMES MCGRATH RESPONDS:

I agree completely that it is historically unlikely that Yohanan ben Zakkai (or any other rabbi) had significant influence, if any, on what was done in the Temple. The tradition that he himself stopped the practice is thus anachronistic. The parallel passage in the Tosefta in fact does not attribute the decision to Rabbi Yohanan, but simply connects the tradition about the cessation with him. The context in the Mishnah is a longer list of changes in practice which are not connected with the destruction of the Temple. It is thus plausible that they predate that event.

Lasting Expressions

The Whence-a-Word? column on the translation of Job 19:20 (Epistles, Summer 2020) shows the importance of knowing the original languages and the problem of relying on translations in understanding the biblical text. Though “skin of the teeth” has been commonly used by translations since the publication of the King James Bible (1611), it has by no means been the only way Job 19:20 has been translated. For example, the Douay Version, translated from the Latin, has “nothing but my lips are left about my teeth.” The Matthew Bible of 1537 has “only there is left me the skynne aboute my teth.” The translation by James Moffatt (1922) has “my teeth are falling out,” which is similar to the rendering suggested in Whence-a-Word.

Thank you for including such articles, along with those on archaeology. They are why I love reading every issue from cover to cover.

Praise for Popularizers

Robert Cargill’s First Person in the Winter 2020 issue explained BAR’s role very well. Reading it, I was reminded of a biblical archaeology lecture I attended at a local synagogue, given by some scholar whose name I forget. What struck me was how dismissive the speaker was of BAR, barely deigning to even name it. I have to say, it took me very much by surprise.

However, over the years, I have seen a lot of this sort of dismissive treatment of “popularizers” of science and scholarship. I just do not understand the hate. Those dismissive of popularizers almost never try to explain their fields to the general public. On the one hand, they complain about the public’s ignorance, but on the other, pooh-pooh anyone who tries to explain their field in terms a layman can understand.

BAR serves an admirable purpose and needs to keep up the good work.

No Saint Worship!

The Explication of the Raphael Sistine Madonna painting (Clip Art, Winter 2020) is good—with one egregious exception: No saints are worshiped at San Sisto church—nor in any Catholic church. Saints are revered. Only God is worshiped. In the year 2020, one would think that the false idea of saint-worship in the Church had been cleared up ages ago.

BAR remains my favorite magazine, occasional errors notwithstanding.

Our apologies, and we sincerely appreciate this and other letters that noted and corrected our poor choice in wording to describe the exalted position of saints in the Catholic faith.—G.J.C.

Ancient Cancel Culture

On the Letters page (Queries & Comments, Spring 2021), a writer suggests that “Tutankhamun was possibly the earliest practitioner of cancel culture.” But Thutmose III (r. c. 1479–1425 B.C.E.) erased references to his mother and predecessor, Hatshepsut, more than a century earlier. And I suspect even he was not the earliest to try to blot a name out of the history books of the day.

Altar Aromatics

Your column on the discovery of traces of frankincense and cannabis on two altars in ancient Judah states that “Although frankincense is condoned in the Bible, cannabis is not mentioned at all” (Strata: “High Offerings,” Winter 2020). Actually, frankincense is commanded by the Bible (Exodus 30:34), 013014and cannabis may be referenced in the same context. In the instructions for producing the sacred anointing oil, the following ingredients are included: solidified myrrh, fragrant cinnamon, aromatic cane, cassia, and olive oil. The Hebrew for aromatic cane is k’nei bosem, which has been suggested by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (in The Living Torah [Moznaim, 1981]) to have been cannabis. The recent discovery at Arad might corroborate this, as an altar would have to be smeared with such oil before use.

Last Supper Location

Jonathan Klawans in his “The Other Upper Room” (Site-Seeing, Spring 2021) wrote that the Syrian Orthodox church of St. Mark in Jerusalem claims to contain the room where the Last Supper was held. The room is very small and would tightly hold 13 people. As it appears that Jesus’s mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were present in Jerusalem at the time, this Passover Seder would most likely have included these women. Moreover, it is unlikely that the 13 men prepared the meal, so possibly other women were at the feast. Thus, a room snugly holding only 13 people is unlikely to have been the site of the Last Supper.

Pentateuch Picture

You printed the photo of the Sanaa Pentateuch upside down (A Thousand Words, Spring 2021). Since this is a Hebrew manuscript, then the spine of the book should be on the right. I’m used to my prayer books being in Hebrew, so this jumped out at me right away.

We appreciate your close examination of this beautiful manuscript. We double-checked, and the image is printed correctly, as it shows a right-hand, interior page of the Pentateuch, not the cover, as might be suggested by how the image was cropped. To learn more about the Sanaa Pentateuch, you can read the British Library catalog entry at www.bl.uk/collection-items/sanaa-pentateuch-or-2348#.—G.J.C.

I am blown away with all the content the Library, your online archive, offers! It’s not just archived text but full issues of the magazine (and two more, now discontinued, magazines), including photos and illustrations. As an example, I decided to search for “Antioch,” a place I visited many years ago, to see what was available in the archive. You have tons of information and many, many photos and illustrations. Thank you so much for this great and entertaining educational resource.

008

We’ve learned that readers are not convinced that the “face of God” has been discovered at Qeiyafa. We also note that more letters are coming via email as we now use computers for just about everything. Keep those letters coming, and we’ll try to publish and respond to as many as possible, both here and online (see below). It’s the way you let us know how we’re doing and what you want to see.

Cannot Read This

I want to join the chorus of readers calling for an increase in font size. Please do an analysis of your readers. I am 76 years old, and there are limits on what my reading glasses can accomplish. I have been reduced to looking at the pictures but cannot even read the captions.

We have adjusted the font size throughout the magazine. Thank you for letting us know and for your continued loyalty.—B.C.

Heresy or Curiosity?

It was good to see Bob Cargill’s comments in his editorial of the Winter 2020 issue. He clearly defined the objectives of the magazine as being of interest to general readers and academics alike.

I was amazed that Dan Phillips of Georgia said, “I don’t need to know anything about pagan religions” (Q&C, Winter 2020). To have such a restricted view of biblical archaeology is to suppress everything else that exists. The Bible has influenced almost everything that humankind has ever done. But to understand the Bible, we also need to understand the world in which it was written.

I would like to see BAR look a little further perhaps, to include articles on the development of the monastic world. In the United Kingdom, we have so many monastic sites of interest to archaeologists; their builders and residents were much closer to the biblical texts than we are today. Let’s open up a little, encourage more young people to become interested in biblical archaeology.

I was quite amazed by the letter submitted by Dan Phillips. The letter suggested that BAR stop publishing articles related to non-Israelite religions. I sincerely hope that BAR will continue its reporting on the world of ancient Near Eastern cultures and religions, since the Hebrew scriptures are a product of that cultural environment. I appreciate beyond words the wealth of valuable information provided by your publication. I have not found the solution to how the Bible can be communication from divinity and still be the result of the intersection of Israel and her neighbors, but I have spent the greater part of a lifetime of joyful studies to try to figure it out.

In the Winter 2020 issue, Dan Phillips didn’t appreciate content dealing with “pagan religions.” He summed up his view with the statement that “either it’s from the Bible, or it’s garbage.”

This encapsulates a mindset that I ran into a few weeks ago, when I was accused of heresy after sharing (in one of my Facebook groups) a newspaper story about some pottery found in the traditional burial place of Abraham and Sarah in Hebron. I introduced the story this way: “Was Abraham real? The short answer: It’s hard to say.” The fact is that every effort to find historical evidence has failed, not just for the man himself but also the time period in which he could have lived.

One reader had this response: “Either you believe ALL SCRIPTURE or none of it. This is HERESY.” Another agreed with him, and both indicated they were unsubscribing. Isn’t this symptomatic of a profound intolerance for a deeper understanding of the world we live in—not only in the study of the Bible but also in many other spheres of human experience?

The world is a complicated place. We really shouldn’t expect simple explanations. The Hebrew Bible is an amazing record of the relationship between humanity and the God 009010of Israel. What’s wrong with trying to understand it in its full complexity?

Anatomic Anomaly

Edward P. Miller writes of having a “hang up” with depictions of Adam and Eve with belly buttons (Q&C, Summer 2020). There is no mystery as to why artists painted them with navels. They were not intellectuals; they painted what they knew. Humans of their time had navels, so that’s what they painted. It is for this same reason that Renaissance artists painted figures in biblical scenes wearing Renaissance clothing.

Ankara, not Istanbul

You incorrectly state that “the Republic of Turkey emerged with the glorious city on the Bosporus as its capital” (Strata, Winter 2020). The capital of the new republic was from the start Ankara, not Istanbul.

You are absolutely correct. Ankara (formerly Angora) officially replaced Constantinople (now Istanbul) as the new Turkish capital city on October 13, 1923, 16 days before the Republic of Turkey officially replaced the Ottoman Empire on October 29, 1923.—B.C.

Could It Be a Bee?

Thanks for the ongoing work of BAR. One query: You state that “the only explicit mention of bees’ honey in the Hebrew Bible is in Judges 14:8” (Biblical Bestiary, Fall 2020). Just wondering if Psalm 19:10 falls in that category.

Psalm 19 mentions the honeycomb, but not the bee explicitly.—B.C.

What’s Cooking

Thanks for the great recipe for “Unwinding Stew” (Test Kitchen, Fall 2020). I made it, and my family loved it. I did cheat a little and added chicken for their sake. We will try the soup again. The ancient Babylonians had good taste!

Which Love?

I am pleased to read Ben Witherington’s article on the love of God and the four kinds of love in Greek (Text Arcana: “What ‘God Is Love’ Actually Means,” Fall 2020). He writes, “In the Greek New Testament physical or tangible human love is referred to by the term eros.” Please tell me where! I find only agape and philia as the terms for “love” in the Greek New Testament.

Perhaps you can help me with another pressing question: If agape is “unconditional, self-sacrificial love,” the kind we learn from God, why does Jesus say, “even sinners love (agapontas—a verbal form of agape) those who love them” (Luke 6:32)?

I love (eros?) all the new biblical material I’m finding in the new version of BAR.

Apparently, Ben Witherington has forgotten what most first- or second-year students of Greek are taught: While Greek has at least four terms for love, the New Testament only uses two, philia and agape, and a compound of philiastorge (in Romans 12). It would seem the Septuagint prefers philia and agape (including Song of Songs).

BEN WITHERINGTON RESPONDS:

Thanks for the queries about the word eros. What the sentence in question should say is that eros is the term in Greek literature (not the Greek New Testament) for physical love. I did not catch this error in time to fix it. Interestingly, Eros is the name of the Greek god of passionate love and fertility.

As for Luke 6:32, the author is assuming that even sinners can love self-sacrificially. As Jesus himself reminds us, God sheds his blessings on us all (Matthew 5:45).

Forgotten Pandemics

I’ve been reading BAR for years and want to say how much I enjoy.

I do have a comment on “Pandemics in Perspective,” by Sarah K. Yeomans (Classical Corner, Fall 2020). It was an excellent idea to list the pandemics of the past—a reminder that our current pandemic is not unprecedented. It really isn’t even as severe as those listed. However, one pandemic is missing. It is one that has been overlooked until recent years and is finally being given the attention it deserves. When Columbus arrived on his voyages and was then followed by the conquistadors, they unknowingly brought their diseases with them, 011012especially smallpox. The results were unimaginable devastation. I’ve seen estimates as high as 90 percent fatality. It’s a tragedy that needs to head the list of pandemics.

“Pandemics in Perspective” is an excellent survey, but more could be said. Emerging infectious disease epidemics were identified as a probable cause of the late Neolithic decline in population in the American southwest and northwest Mexico, and probably Europe. The catastrophic effect of diseases unwittingly introduced in the New World by 15th- and 16th-century explorers is well known. Finally, variola virus (smallpox) was identified genetically in northern Europe dating to between 600 and 1050 C.E.—the earliest genetically identified occurrence (although there seem to be archaeological evidence that Rameses V died from a smallpox-like disease).

My only quibble with “Pandemics in Perspective” is the statement that the plague of Justinian was the first occurrence of bubonic plague in Europe. The ancestral clade of Y. pestis was genetically identified at 4,900 years ago in Scandinavia, with connections to central Asia via trade routes. The plague of Justinian was a later occurrence, probably reintroduced from Asia via those same trade routes. All this indicates that epidemic infectious diseases have occurred throughout history and prehistory, generally in situations in which crowding and lack of sanitation encouraged it and in which there was limited immunity. The difference with the coronavirus is that we as a society have become so accustomed to antibiotics that we cannot fathom an infectious disease for which there is no treatment.

I was surprised to read (What’s in a Name? Fall 2020) that Tutankhamun was possibly the earliest practitioner of cancel culture when in your article you wrote, “The name Akhenaten was deleted from official records and systematically chiseled off all monuments.”

Virtual Archaeology

The introduction box of the “Digging Deeper at Tel Hadid” article (Summer 2020) mentioned how a specialized discipline of archaeology includes how some “even reconstruct the site in virtual reality.” What if BAR made arrangements with some of those digs for us to pay a modest fee and go through the BAR website and see some of those? I don’t have much income to spend, but I like BAR and would probably visit the website with electronic access if there were virtual reconstructions of the dig sites.

Great idea. We’ve been planning something similar, and we’ll let you know when it’s ready.—B.C.

Acting Rod

It was very enlightening to read the article “Jesus the Magician? Why Jesus Holds a Wand in Early Christian Art,” by Lee M. Jefferson (Fall 2020). There may be another reason for the appearance of the rod in the hand of Jesus: It may serve as what artists term a “callout.” A callout is usually a short string of text connected by a line, arrow, or similar graphic to a feature of an illustration giving information about that feature. In our case, it would be used much as a “preposition” in a sentence—something functioning to express a relationship between the actor or agent (Jesus) and the object. Without such a marker, how would the uninformed observer understand the scene? A case in point might be the Santa Sabina doors, where Jesus stands beside the multiplied loaves and the water-turned-into-wine—the rod in each case connects, or associates Jesus as the agent responsible for the outcome.

God’s Controversial Portrait

Nowhere in the article “The Face of Yahweh” did I see the basis for the assertion that the heads are male. As an interested and long-standing reader, I can’t see any indications of gender in the illustrations and would appreciate a glimpse of the reasoning.

Thanks for the enjoyment and knowledge I get from BAR, enhanced by being able to read through an article rather than searching for a continuation page.

As usual, your publication stirs up lots of questions and research journeys. I was intrigued by the article “The Face of Yahweh” (Fall 2020). I am curious how it was ascertained (and repeatedly stated) that these figurine heads were male. You mention the facial features and the provenance led to this conclusion. But did the female pharaohs not don beards and male appearances? Or maybe it is the head of a ram or bighorn sheep? I assume that depictions of Yahweh were not permitted even early in the Israelite history. If some of these heads were discovered in a “cult” setting (the site of Moẓa), is it possible that the items discovered there are unique and not along the same cultural patterns as documented in the biblical tradition or other reference points?

I love BAR. It’s the only magazine I’ve ever awaited with anticipation and consistently read cover to cover.

I’m curious why the leap in the “Face of Yahweh” article to assume the figurines are depictions of Yahweh. I appreciate the caveat “may represent,” but it seems like a stretch. What other options were considered? Given the dispersion of these artifacts across multiple sites, could they not just as well be the equivalent of toy soldiers: a representation of 013warriors of the day for children to play with, especially given the child-like construction of the items? On what basis is it assumed that every item fashioned to look like a human face should be the representation of a god? With that assumption, Garfinkel runs down the rabbit hole that it must be Yahweh and iconoclasty against the Second Commandment. This seems wild speculation not worthy of BAR.

The Rebellious Son

I have read your magazine since I was in graduate school for theology. Today, as I began to read the Winter 2020 issue, I started with the letters and noticed something: all men—no letters by women! Can it be? Do no letters come from women? So, I sat down to write one.

In “Gluttony and Drunkenness in Ancient Israel,” by Rebekah Welton, she begins with the passage from Deuteronomy 21, and I was intrigued by her question, what did the English rendering “a glutton and a drunkard” mean in biblical days? As I read about ancient food practices, in the back of my mind was another question: In Matthew 11:18-19, Jesus is called “a glutton and a drunkard.”

As Dr. Welton says, in both cases the criticized activity was not eating and drinking to excess but being religiously deviant. It is obvious that the criticism of Jesus concerns with whom he eats (tax collectors and sinners).

Thanks for all the years of learning and fun.

Herod’s Unlikely Throne

Your Winter 2020 cover places Herod’s throne in the niche. At the same time, it makes a good case that is improbable. The space between the aligned stones is clearly a walkway, or hall. The steps narrow that hallway and would diminish the size of any group in front of the throne. I know of no place where a monarch wants to use architecture to diminish the crowd of admirers. This supposed placement also means that their view from the niche is obscured by the large stone pillars—both for anyone seated on the throne, and for those looking at the throne. The result is that this architectural reconstruction seems to place the throne in an unlikely place.

Superman and Scripture

I enjoy BAR, and I especially appreciated the column by Nicholaus Pumphrey titled “Superheroes and the Bible” (Fall 2020). As a bit of a comic geek myself, I thoroughly enjoyed this comparison of the Superman story to how we may read Scripture. I noticed, however, a slight mistake in the dating of one of the movies mentioned. Donner’s film Superman premiered in 1978, not 1970.

CORRECTION

Istanbul was incorrectly called the capital of modern Turkey in our reporting about Hagia Sophia (Winter 2020, p. 14). In fact, the capital of Turkey moved from Istanbul to Ankara 16 days before the Republic of Turkey had officially been established.

008

We’ve noticed a marked increase in the perspicacity of the letters we’ve been receiving. We attribute this to the greater time we’ve all spent in isolation as a result of the current pandemic. If there is some silver lining to this tragedy, it’s that we’re all working together not only to stay safe but also to keep each other mentally stimulated. Thank you for being such passionate, loyal readers.

Race in Antiquity?

Recent events in the United States and around the world have refocused my attention to issues of race, and how we deal (or do not deal) with them in the disciplines of archaeology and Hebrew Bible studies.

In some ways my thoughts have no place in the reimagining of antiquity and early people groups, since race is a relatively modern human concept that has no basis in biology. Once we divorce concepts of race from any basis in natural science and instead see races as social constructs with roots back to 17th–18th-century C.E. Europe that had profound influence on early American thinking and actions, then it is also impossible to read, see, or reconstruct race in the ancient world. I am not suggesting that there were no differences in outward appearances between ancient people groups—just that the way these differences are considered cannot and should not be essentialized through a modern, biological view of race.

As modern researchers living and working in a racialized society, we need to ensure that the modern concepts do not cloud our thinking, writing, or teaching about antiquity. We also have the moral and intellectual obligation to lift up scholarship by minoritized colleagues and use this work in our own research and in the classroom. This eats away at the implicit biases that white scholars bring to our publications and teaching, and it helps a younger generation understand some of the very concepts that I have already laid out.

One must also be careful of the sin of omission. We know that the powerful Kushite Empire, centered in the region of modern-day Sudan, had political hegemony over Egypt in its 25th Dynasty, c. 760–656 B.C.E. From the perch of Egypt, Kushites influenced the politics and economies of biblical kingdoms in the southern Levant and vied with Assyria for political sway over the region. Kush and Kushites, usually mistranslated as Ethiopia/Ethiopian or Nubia/Nubian, are mentioned almost 80 times in the Hebrew Bible, yet the group—the only sub-Saharan culture with ties to the Hebrew Bible—is literally left out of a recent volume on biblical peoples. This omission is an oversight that prejudices views of the past.

Curricula in Hebrew Bible studies or the archaeology of the Near East rarely consider Kush. We need to embrace the fact that ancient black lives mattered as well as modern. Embracing change in our classrooms and research is one way to reconceptualize and deracialize the past, to create a more just present and equitable future.

Dr. Brody, thank you for this letter. We believe your call to learn more about the Kushites (or, Cushites) is imperative. Please see our article on page 62by Kevin Burrell titled “Representing Cush in the Hebrew Bible.”—B.C.

Comments and Compliments

Thank you for producing a wonderful, highly informative magazine. I am one of your current subscribers with plans to extend my subscription through October 2022. I only wish your publications would come more frequently.

I especially love and appreciate the systematic, insightful, and thorough way in which your authors approach their research and writing. Please continue this outstanding work of yours.

As you know, the Cairo Grand Egyptian Museum opens soon to international acclaim. What better time is there, therefore, to reignite global interest in the narratives leading up to and including the Exodus accounts?

Please stay safe and well during this pandemic.

I’ve been a subscriber to BAR since the mid-1980s and acquired all the previous issues and also the Bible Review magazine. The articles in the Summer 2020 issue are qualitatively different in a positive way. It is the most informative issue I can recall. Congrats. Keep up the good work.

I just want to congratulate and thank you for what your magazine has done. Recently, I have been looking up your biblical references in the articles, and I now find myself actually reading the Bible for the first time in my life. It is fascinating and full of things I never heard about. So thank you for introducing me to a new book in my library.

010

Don’t Care for Pagan

I am becoming more and more disgusted with the filth you people publish, namely dealing with pagan religions. The title of your magazine is BIBLICAL Archaeology Review. I don’t need to know anything about pagan religions. Either it’s from the Bible, or it’s garbage. Please amend your ways!

Apple of His Eye

About “Apple of his Eye”(Epistles: Whence-a-Word, Spring 2020), English translators who authored the King James Bible often consulted Luther’s German translation of the Scriptures for guidance. They did not mistranslate the Hebrew original; they mistranslated Luther’s German. I located the four examples given in the BAR article in a German Bible where I found (four times) the German word “Augapfel.” Apparently, the translators of the KJB wrongly rendered this German word as “apple of the eye.” “Augapfel” means “eyeball.” In all four instances Luther did not use the German equivalent of “pupil,” “die Pupille.”

As Prof. Millard pointed out in his letter last issue, the Geneva Bible also contained “apple of his eye.” However, I wondered why the Geneva translators made the jump from “eyeball” to “apple.” Your suggestion makes perfect sense. Given that Luther published his German translation of the Old Testament in 1534, and that English translators published the complete Geneva Bible in 1560 (both well before the King James Version appeared, in 1611), it appears the English translators over literalized “Augapfel,” the German word for “eyeball,” which literally means “eye apple,” and rendered the more poetic “apple of his eye.” Fascinating! And thank you. I think you solved the riddle.—B.C.

Biblical Belly Buttons

Let me contribute to the debate over Adam’s navel (“Belly Button Brain-Teaser,” Queries & Comments, Summer 2020): I may be a pagan, but even I know that according to the Bible, man was created in God’s image. So, isn’t the real question, why does God have a belly button?

I enjoyed the exchange between Edward P. Miller and Bob Cargill. But, and I hope this doesn’t spoil the fun, the issue of Adam and Eve’s belly buttons was (and for all I know might still be) a hot topic to some Christians. In the middle of the 19th century, the Plymouth Brethren split over the issue, with one group saying, as Mr. Miller and Mr. Cargill do, that belly buttons on Adam and Eve are out of the question, and the other group taking Adam and Eve as the prototypes on which all humans are based and insisting that, because all people must have belly buttons, Adam and Eve must also have had them. Families split on the issue, brothers never speaking again to one another. There is at least one wonderful book that goes into some detail on the controversary—a memoir by the son of the author of the defining book on one side of the issue: Father and Son, by Edmund Gosse. Gosse’s father, Philip, in addition to being a theologian, was also a biologist and an opponent of Darwin. It is a wonderful and very moving read about a difficult father-son relationship.

Early Manuscripts

In his article,“How Old Are the Oldest Christian Manuscripts?” (Summer 2020), Brent Nongbri states, “The radiocarbon analysis of the shroud has thus proven to the satisfaction of sober observers that it is a product of the 13th or 14th century—and not the first century.” I’m curious to know Mr. Nongbri’s views about the work of Susan Benford and Joseph Marino, supposedly confirmed by original Shroud of Turin Research Team member Ray Rodgers that the samples taken for the carbon-14 tests in 1988 did not contain just ancient linen fibers, but were also interwoven with more modern cotton fiber, thought to have been used to repair the original shroud linen in the 16th century, thus polluting the samples.

I have periodically seen reaffirmations of the 1988 C-14 results confidently stated in the media—most recently in Mr. Nongbri’s interesting BAR article—but I have yet to hear anyone state with the same degree of scholarly certainty that the Benford and Marino challenge to those dates has been disproven. Since Mr. Nongbri cites this example, I thought perhaps he might know the answer to my question. Has the Benford and Marino challenge been put to rest, or is the shroud not quite done surprising us?

BRENT NONGBRI RESPONDS:

The 1988 sample was divided and sent to testing facilities in Oxford, Zürich, and the University of Arizona. All three labs concluded that the Shroud of Turin is an artifact of the 13th or 14th century. Once published, these results were vigorously challenged by some.

Although I see no compelling reason to doubt either the soundness of the procedures or the results of the 1988 analysis, I would welcome additional testing of the Shroud with samples taken from multiple areas.

For the unabridged response, go to biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

012

I was just browsing through some recent issues of BAR when I noticed in “The Oldest Christian Letter”report (Strata, November/December 2019) that a horizontal line had been drawn above the Greek abbreviation for “in the Lord.” This being the oldest Christian letter to date, I wondered whether this may not have been the earliest recorded use of the nomen sacrum. Kurt and Barbara Aland’s book, The Text of the New Testament, notes that nomina sacra were introduced by Christian writers when they introduced the codex form, the dating of which has been questioned by others, most recently Brent Nongbri’s God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts.

BRENT NONGBRI RESPONDS:

The Basel papyrus, which can be dated to the 230s C.E., is indeed a very early example of a nomen sacrum abbreviation. Is it the earliest known? Maybe. There are a number of Christian literary manuscripts with nomina sacra that some scholars would say are as early as the second century, but none of them have a secure date. There are also good reasons to think that the famous “Gnostic” Christian inscription of Flavia Sophe, which was found in Rome and contains a nomen sacrum, was made in the second century, but again, we don’t have an exact date.

Thank you very much for the always fascinating forays into the domain of biblical scholarship. Presently living in retirement after 41 years of pastoral ministry in the Church of South India, I thoroughly enjoy all your articles, which are always fresh and elucidative.

I especially commend Brent Nongbri’s contribution in the Summer 2020 issue. The crisp presentation of the critical issues of the New Testament text transmission is well within the grasp of all readers. I look forward to more of such pieces.

Congratulations also on your new layout.

Please forgive this 95-year-old man for bothering you with this letter. A very interesting article in the summer issue—as so many in your magazine—has me puzzled. The last sentence in the sidebar on p. 42 states that the small parchment piece of the New Testament indicates “the end of Luke and the beginning of John.” There seems to be no breaking to indicate the changing of authors. I am aware that much of the writing at that time was done on either parchment or dried animal skin and then “rolled.” Was all writing continuous until the message was ended?

You will find the end of Luke and the beginning of John in the top one fourth of the manuscript page, where one short, centered paragraph says (in Greek) “the Gospel according to Luke,” and another one states “the Gospel according to John.” (In antiquity, titles of literary works could either precede or follow the text; or both.) The two Gospels are separated by a two-line gap. You are quite correct to observe that the text is written continuously, without spaces or marks between the words.—M.D.

Names or Epithets?

Mitka Golub’s analysis of personal names in the biblical and archaeological record (“What’s in a Name?” Summer 2020) is fascinating and points the way to further investigations. We know that some names are the personal name used in daily life, while others are epithets—names earned through personal characteristics and actions. Could many of these names, especially the theophoric names, be epithets instead?

MITKA GOLUB RESPONDS:

Yes, some personal names are epithets—inspired by the person’s physical traits, such as bald (Kareah; see Jeremiah 40:8); occupation, such as wine grower (Carmi; Joshua 7:1); or origin, such as the Cushite (Cushi; Jeremiah 36:14). Such names, however, refer to a person and are secular. By contrast, theophoric names refer to a deity and express gratitude, supplication, or one of the divine characteristics. Many of these names reflect family crises, such as the events connected to birth or the struggle for survival.

Epithets are generally scarce, probably because so many names are collected from artifacts associated with administrative activities, such as seals, bullae, and issuance of supplies, where people tend to use their personal names rather than epithets.

Time Travel Now?

It seems that BAR is now trying to change history via time travel! I was amused to see on page 32 in the very interesting article on Tel Hadid (“Forced Resettlement and Immigration at Tel Hadid,” Summer 2020) that the Byzantine period is listed as the fourth–seventh centuries B.C.E., rather than C.E.

CORRECTION:

The Byzantine period dates given in the article “Forced Resettlement and Immigration at Tel Hadid” (Summer 2020, p. 32) should read “fourth–seventh centuries C.E.,” not “B.C.E.”

008

Many of you wrote in to comment on the new design of BAR. Thank you for the feedback! As you may have noticed, we keep fine-tuning things to make BAR the most enjoyable and enriching experience possible for everyone. We can print but a handful of your letters, but we read them all. For more, go online, to biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

Redesign Reactions

I just received my new issue of BAR yesterday. I’ve already read everything, but I’m going to read it again. By the way, as an “old” guy, I usually am not fond of major changes. However, I think the changes in type and format are outstanding. It is easier to read, and the pictures really “pop.” Somehow it makes the people seem more real. As a practicing Christian, I have always enjoyed the content and believe God wants us to think. Keep up the good work.

Good job on the update. Specifically, I like that we no longer have to jump to the end of the magazine to finish an article, and the front cover is really nice. Kudos on the expanded table of contents and Q&C section, as well as the improved typeface. Thanks for listening and trying to give us the magazine we’re asking for. Hershel did a great job, but you’re working to make it even better—thanks!

I really liked what you said about trying to offer “tidbits of information that you can use in your Bible studies, sermons, and classrooms” (First Person: “Introducing the New BAR,” BAR, January/February 2020). That is exactly why I subscribe. I come to BAR to learn how archaeology enlightens the Bible and biblical world, and I want to add something to my teaching of the Bible in my sermons, church, and classroom. Please keep focusing on these types of things! That is super important.

Thanks for your efforts at improving the magazine!

I’ve been a subscriber since 1983. Much has changed in those 37(!) years, including my eyesight. The recently arrived January/February 2020 issue seems harder to read. The new font seems just slightly smaller than before. My wife and I agreed that the font might be revised to a more readable one—maybe a bit larger, maybe a bit darker. The figure captions seem slightly smaller, but their bold and blockier nature helps a lot.

Admittedly, the problem I am experiencing is my problem, but I’ll bet a not inconsequential proportion of BAR readers and subscribers are in the same age and eyesight situation. That surely was a lengthy note on a rather simple matter, wasn’t it? Imagine if I had a point to make on archaeology or biblical interpretation! Keep up the good work.

The BAR redesign is quite good, but the font is too small for oldtimers like me. How about increasing it a point or two in future issues?

Mr. Cargill, yes oh yes! And thank you, thank you! For the new design and every new content. These 93-year-old eyes found the latest issue such a pleasure and so much easier to read.

I just finished the January/February issue of BAR and wanted to let you know I think you folks did a great job. It felt like reading a whole new magazine. I have been a subscriber for many years and have enjoyed all the issues. But the significant (and much appreciated) evolution that was reflected in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue gave me a spark of new enthusiasm for the ever-changing world of biblical archaeology.

I am not a professional in the field, just an interested and curious 72-year-old who has had a long interest in that world. And this last issue really just blew me away. The reorganization and restructuring is wonderful. It feels and looks “cleaner” and more enticing. I especially like the Epistles section—wonderful articles on topics beyond pure archaeology that are enlightening and do a fine job of transporting me to a world I 010will probably never see in person. All this makes me dig (pun intended) into what that world “means.”

The article “How Magic and Miracles Spread Christianity” was especially intellectually stimulating. Again, just a big thumbs up. Keep up the great and evolving work.

The new design/layout is wonderful. Congratulations to Dr. Cargill and staff. Well done!

I have been a subscriber for many years and have enjoyed the magazine very much. I really like your new layout and format, especially being able to read articles without flipping to back pages. Thank you for making that change! Keep up the good work.

Bob, just a note to say I like the new design in the most recent issue, and I think you’ve responded well to the numerous requests by our readers—though, of course, you can’t please everyone.

Size (and Scale) Matters

I have long subscribed to BAR and enjoyed the quality and wide range of topics covered.

One observation taken from the January/February 2020 issue using the article “The Tale of Tel Moẓa.” The issue here is size and scale. The map on p. 43 has a scale, but the map on p. 42 does not. The horse pictured on p. 41 has no scale, neither do the images on pp. 46, 47, and 48. Only the text gives an approximation of the cult stand size on p. 49. I’m just not sure how big any of these items are. If possible, it would be appreciated that some additional labeling might be done in the future.

This is one of the tricks of the What Is It? puzzle. Please don’t keep me guessing otherwise.

We publish pictures with measuring sticks when archaeologists provide them, but sometimes they don’t, and we try not to alter their images. As for the size indicators in the What Is It? contest, we decided to leave size indicators out because it makes the contest more challenging.—B.C.

What a Miss!

Firstly, I love the new format but was most dismayed to find out in Q&C that the last issue, “By the Hand of a Woman,” never made it to me. As I read the feedback in readers’ letters, I’ve learned what a miss this was! Would it be an imposition to mail me a back issue? I’ve learned a great deal from this publication.

Sure, we’ll send one right along.—B.C.

Ungodly, Thank God

In response to one letter writer, I say thank God and you that your magazine is “ungodly” and “unholy”! I hate religious discussions and you do not engage in them. Keep up the great work.

Magic and Ignorance

Robert Knapp’s article (“How Magic and Miracles Spread Christianity,” BAR, January/February 2020) may have some validity, but his final paragraph suggesting that Jesus could not have imagined the grand movement that happened shows the author’s ignorance of who Jesus really was.

The article by Robert Knapp struck me as unfocused. Only one piece of evidence for magic is referenced—a single amulet that contains both a magic spell and a Christian doxology and symbols. It is dated to the fourth century. But the article claims that magic was a large component of the spread of Christianity before Constantine.

There is no good reason to suppose that magic was particularly used as a vehicle to evangelize, especially in view of the author’s complaints about Christian “elites” being focused on intellectual debate with the polytheists. Isn’t nearly all the evidence related more to persuasion, and not at all displaying magic? And the Bible contains condemnations of magic, yet this fact went unmentioned in the article.

We see Christian people in modern times doing all sorts of syncretistic mashups of Christianity with magic (horoscopes, etc.). We do not see any evidence that contemporary spread of Christianity has anything to do with magic.

The assertion in your headline is not supported by the article.

Golden Eagle of Herod

I note that there was probably only one principal door of entrance to Herod’s Temple that led into the Court of the Women (see Ralf Krumeich and Achim Lichtenberger, “Searching for Portraits of King Herod,” BAR, November/December 2019).

Is it known whether the golden eagle (placed there by Herod, and torn down by students led by their two teachers) was above that door? Or was it perhaps on the inside portal of the passage from upper city of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount (via Robinson’s Arch) and thus 011placed at the extreme western end of the Royal Stoa?

Many thanks—I do enjoy BAR as soon as it appears in my mail, though but an amateur myself.

Achim Lichtenberger responds:

Unfortunately, there is not much to say, because Josephus gives no exact information. We can, therefore, only speculate without foundation (in archaeology or contemporary literature).

Belly Button Brain-Teaser

In my 30 years of self-guided scriptural studies, I have developed a “hang-up” with a detail which appears invariably in graphic representations of Adam and Eve. Looking at “The Creation of Adam” (Epistles: Clip Art, BAR, January/February 2020), my question is: Why does a navel appear on Adam’s stomach? It seems that whenever Adam or Eve are portrayed with a bare midriff, they are equipped with umbilical connection points. Neither is reported to be the offspring of human parents, so why does this misrepresentation appear over and over? I think this detail is a significant error in scriptural interpretation by numerous recognized artists.

I’m with you! “Did Adam have a belly button?” is one of my favorite questions to ask my undergraduate students when talking about the Creation narrative—for the very reasons you articulate.—B.C.

Ah, the People—

The regular appearance of outraged letters in BAR reminds me of my over three decades of training students in astronomy. The college where I taught offered public shows on weekends in its planetarium. I enhanced the annual Christmas show with scenes I photographed of Nazareth, Jerusalem, Jericho, the Sea of Galilee, the Church of the Nativity, and even a carpenter shop in Bethlehem. But when I explained that local shepherds abide with their flocks in the field not in December but in the Spring, people got very upset.

As I warned students: No matter what you say, no matter the facts, some people will be offended, and others will misunderstand.

Survivors Recognized

My commendation to Steven L. Tuck for an engaging study of the survivors from Pompeii and Herculaneum (Strata: Classical Corner, “Rescuing and Recovering Vesuvius’s Survivors,” BAR, January/February 2020). This is a subject rarely addressed, and it creates a more complete picture of the reaction by the Roman government, as well as the geographic inclinations of those who survived. Keep up the wonderful work!

Enlightening the Talmud

I am writing out of delight at the coincidental intersection between my reading of BAR and the Talmud. Having just read the Archaeology Argot column on kernos (Strata, BAR, January/February 2020), I, an intrepid Daf Yomi beginner, was surprised to find the following in the Talmud (Berkhot 14b): “One who recites Shema without phylacteries, it is as if he has offered—a peace-offering without libations.” Sure enough, there they were, in 2 Chronicles 29:35, showing that at least in one instance the Bible does not condemn libations “as part of worship rituals to foreign gods.” What fun!

Bulla Blunder

As I read your latest issue, I noticed in the Strata section a misspelling in the Hebrew reading of the Adoniyahu Bulla. It should be אדניהו, with an aleph, not ayin. The aleph is clear on the photo of the bulla.

Btw, a bulla is not a “seal impression,” it is a piece of clay sealing a document and sometimes it bears a seal impression.

Great catch. Our mistake, and we’ve issued the correction below. Thank you!—B.C.

Adieu, and Be Well

I became a regular subscriber of BAR following my first dig in Israel, in 1984, near Arad, with Professors Cresson and Ben-Arieh. I returned in 1995 to dig at Ronnie Reich’s Western Wall excavation. Although archaeology was not my major (it was ethics), I taught a Bible survey course and used BAR articles extensively. Since retirement, in 2004, I have continued to thoroughly enjoy the magazine.

But now that I’m in my 80s, with all the limitations, I am having to let go of many good things, so that when my subscription expires this summer, I will bid adieu to BAR.

I am so appreciative of what BAR is doing and what it has done for me all these years. I wish you continued great success.

Congratulations to the design team and BAS. You have successfully reached your goal of creating a marvelously modern look for the BAR: crisp, colorful, interesting, and very readable.

I join the many folks who applaud the new design format for BAR. Its articles are intriguing and the update on biblical archaeology is always welcome. Keep up the very good work!

CORRECTION

A word was misspelled in the news piece on the Adoniyahu Bulla (BAR, January/February 2020, p. 14). The top register of the bulla should read לאדניהו, not לעדניהו.

008

Many of you wrote in asking about certain terms used by BAR and its authors. Dating conventions (B.C.E./C.E. vs. B.C./A.D.), place names (Palestine, Shalem), and other terms often connote ideas and evoke feelings that are not contained in the simple denotative definition of a word, nor intended by an author. We were also reminded of just how smart and observant BAR readers are, as you will see below. Keep those letters coming and remember to read additional letters online (biblicalarchaeology.org/letters).

Shalem in Jerusalem

Regarding your editorial (First Person: “From Shalem to Jerusalem,” BAR, November/December 2019), I observed that the LXX and St. Jerome both use “Salem”/Shalem instead of “safely” in Genesis 33:18 (as did Luther and the King James committee later). For those of us who probably aren’t potential buyers of a “highly technical book,” can you clarify which “subsequent ancient translations” didn’t and why did the 16th-century Geneva translators and the 19th–20th-century ones (RV, RSV, etc.) choose to follow them? Did they care about Shalem=Jerusalem?

Howard, while the Septuagint (LXX) rightly read “Shalem” in Genesis 33:18, the Masoretic Text (MT) ultimately did not. This means that those textual traditions that follow the MT over the LXX read “safely,” thereby obscuring the clear reference to Shalem in Samaria, and thus allowing the tradition that Jerusalem is Shalem to develop unhindered by rival claims. Interestingly, the KJV here is an exception in that it (rightly) followed the LXX on this verse.—B.C.

Too Harsh

I was disappointed to read Dr. Sidnie White Crawford’s harsh criticism of the Archaeology Study Bible (ASB) (ReViews: “In the Disservice of Biblical Archaeology,” BAR, November/December 2019). She seems to think that all archaeological literature should provide critical scholarship, and any writing that doesn’t fit that need represents a “disservice.” She doesn’t seem to recognize that there are many different levels of archaeology, scholarship, perspective, and study needs. She acknowledges the narrow, intended audience of the ASB as conservative Protestants who believe in inerrancy, but doesn’t consider that to be a valid audience for an archaeological work.

I’m a nonprofessional who believes that the ASB provides a wonderful introduction to archaeology to an audience who might otherwise never encounter it. Anyone who reads the ASB can easily move on to find other, less conservative perspectives about Joshua and source criticism (Crawford’s examples), and other issues, in more critical works. If anyone wants to hear what critical biblical scholarship has to say, they know where to find it. But if not, the ASB will nicely fill the niche for which it was intended.

Daniel, your argument essentially boils down to this: “Don’t tell us the actual science and scholarship unless it supports the Bible.” While I agree with you that there are different levels of perspective and study needs, I adamantly disagree that there are different levels of archaeology. Archaeology is a science. There is good, methodologically sound archaeology, and there is bad, methodologically suspect, motivationally compromised archaeology. Science is not something we can simply set aside when it is inconvenient. So while I agree that people of differing levels of education, interest, and faith require different study needs, and while I encourage various perspectives, there are not different levels of archaeology that should be used in Bible study. Bad archaeology should be discarded, and good archaeology should be embraced—whether it corroborates the claims made in the Bible or not. It appears Dr. White Crawford was making that very criticism of the archaeology in this “archaeology” study Bible.—B.C.

Errr, Wrong Answer

I received my first issue recently and was very disappointed. I’m one of those Christians that actually interprets the Scriptures through a grammatical 010, historical, and literal hermeneutic. Your suggestion to a 13-year-old boy in response to his letter to the editor that “we don’t know if the Tower of Babel even existed” is contemptuous. Your capitulation of dating nomenclature (B.C.E. instead of B.C.) is offensive to historical Christianity and history in general. Please cancel my subscription immediately, and, if possible, send me a full refund.

Rob, please see our policy on the use of B.C.E./C.E. and B.C./A.D. on page 2. Authors have the option of using either dating convention. As for the historicity of the Tower of Babel, this has been a point of contention between fundamentalists and scholars for well over a century.—B.C.

In response to your answer to Michael (Queries & Comments, BAR, November/December 2019): Genesis 11 does not treat the account of the Tower of Babel as a myth. My Bible says the tower existed, and that settles it. There are parables in the Bible, but this is not one of them.

Thank you for your magazine and the extensive research and study you do to get the information to us.

Thank you for producing a first-class magazine that my wife and I read from cover to cover as each issue arrives.

I read with interest the letter from the young person Michael asking for information related to the Tower of Babel. I can add to your response. In 1978, I lived in Mosul, Iraq, where I taught petroleum technology at the College of Science. This meant that on weekends I had time to move around with a goal of visiting all of the biblical sites. I was able to accomplish this in the company of a very knowledgeable member of the Iraq Antiquities Department. The site that impressed me was the ziggurat at Ur of which only the large mastaba remained. A site that was visible some miles away and, being close to several major trade routes where the intermingling of the various languages would have been heard, could well add up to being the Tower of Babel.

Business Trip to Palestine?

Andrea M. Berlin’s article (“Zenon’s Flour,” BAR, November/December 2019) includes some nice photos, but parts of the article read like a piece of fiction or joke. Specific and anachronistic dates like “November 23, 260 B.C.E.” and multiple references to Zenon’s “business trip to Palestine” call into question the accuracy of everything else in the article. Northern Galilee certainly had a name in 260 B.C.E., but it was not Palestine. As you very well know, Palestine did not exist until the second century A.D. If Berlin insisted on such terminology, BAR editors ought to have cited the correct terms in footnotes. After all, you do not refer to “ancient Turkey” or “ancient Jordan” in articles about those territories.

Andrea M. Berlin’s article mentioned “Palestine” five times as a destination for Zenon 2,260 years ago. This is very interesting, since there was no such place at that time. The area was first considered Palestine in 1516 as a province of the Ottoman Empire and it was officially named a state on the basis of a UN Security Council Resolution #242, in 1988.

The name Palestine was one of the many names used to refer to the region that is now home to the State of Israel in written historical records (if not THE historical record of the time) at least as early as the fifth century B.C.E. Here are the words of the Greek historian Herodotus (The Histories 7.89.1–2), written in 440 B.C.E.: “The number of the triremes was twelve hundred and seven, and they were furnished by the following: the Phoenicians with the Syrians of Palestine furnished three hundred; for their equipment, they had on their heads helmets very close to the Greek in style; they wore linen breastplates, and carried shields without rims, and javelins. These Phoenicians formerly dwelt, as they themselves say, by the Red Sea; they crossed from there and now inhabit the seacoast of Syria. This part of Syria as far as Egypt is all called Palestine [Greek: Παλαɩστίνη].”—B.C.

The sidebar to Berlin’s article lists the amount of flour purchased from different cities, with a total at the bottom—much like a modern-day spreadsheet. In reviewing the list, I thought I might have discovered the oldest documented arithmetic error. The numbers listed in the English translation add up to 69, yet Zenon’s total is 79.

Given that Zenon was clearly a thorough and precise auditor, such an error seemed unlikely. So I decided to research the numbering system used by Ptolemaic accountants and to study the pictured papyrus for myself. According to the papyrus, Zenon purchased 14 (Iota-Delta) artabas of flour in Lakasa, while the English translation lists only 4 (which would be Delta only). There were the missing 10 artabas!

But I am not writing to point out a picky typo. I am writing to say, “Thank You!” No other publication inspires me to learn and research new ideas. Until today, I knew nothing about the Greek numbering system and had never pulled out a magnifying glass to study a papyrus. I’m going to add Greek Arithmetic and Papyrology to my LinkedIn profile 011and wait for the job offers to come pouring in!

Paul, you are absolutely correct (and awesome for doing so)! You would have made an excellent ancient scribe (and a wonderful modern copy editor). The mistake is ours. Somewhere in the publishing process, we lost the original and correct “1” in “14.” And you caught that mistake examining a photograph of an ancient papyrus, once again proving that BAR readers are among the best and brightest! Thanks for the help. And Zenon thanks you too!—B.C.

CORRECTION

The amount of flour listed as collected in Lakasa in the sidebar to “Zenon’s Flour” (BAR, November/December 2019, p. 36, line 7) should read 14, not 4.

Confusing Alphabets

The double issue (BAR, July/August/September/October 2019) was most enjoyable to read. Its female contributors mostly brought a more practical and rational perspective to analyzing the findings of the past than that prevalent in previous issues.

One note: Readers may be confused when BAR presents photos of ancient inscriptions in extinct alphabets, states that they are written in Hebrew, equates them with modern Hebrew text, and gives loose English translations, inasmuch as said inscriptions look nothing like current Hebrew script. Does the bulla on p. 10 contain Hebrew language words written in what I call the Phoenician Hebrew alphabet? Can you provide transliterated letters in the English alphabet?

I suggest that henceforth BAR state exactly the language and alphabet present in each inscription, transliterate each letter of said inscription into readable English, and then provide an English translation.

Irene, for foreign inscriptions, we typically transcribe the characters into their Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text, followed sometimes by an English transliteration, and then offer an English translation. We put Palaeo- or Old Hebrew texts into square Hebrew as the letters are consonantal equivalents, but are easier for most people to recognize and read.—B.C.

Domestic Menorah

The fascinating pottery sherd pictured in “A light in the wilderness” (Strata, BAR, November/December 2019) may indeed show a conventional seven-branched, rather than a nine-branched, menorah. The outer two branches depicted do not appear like the others: They overlap the stem and reach much higher than the other branches, extending beyond the first horizontal line above the menorah. In addition, the other lines form the outline of a circle, unlike the other menorah branches, which are angular.

The prohibition of creating a seven-branched menorah seems to have been honored in the breach. Most authorities limited the prohibition to an actual menorah reproducing that of the Temple in Jerusalem. Seven-branched illustrations can be found on Jewish artifacts throughout history.

I’ve been a subscriber to your fantastic magazine since the 1970s. Keep them coming.

008

We received a LOT of feedback regarding our double issue, “By the Hand of a Woman.” You sent us much praise and thanks, as well as quite a few complaints and a dozen or so “cancel my subscription” requests (notably, only from men. Go figure). We are proud to say that it was one of our best-selling issues. We’ve published some of your letters here, and you can find more letters and responses on our website biblicalarchaeology.org/letters. Thanks to all of you for writing and voicing your opinion. It makes BAR a better magazine.

Gender Equality

Dear Dr. Cargill, please tell us that you were under extreme physical duress and were forced against your will to write your editorial (“The Gender Divide,” BAR, July/August/September/October 2019) and the response to Carolyn Lumsden’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR, July/August/September/October 2019). Which of these two essays fit the statements, “We do not impose our personal religious beliefs on our published content” or “we present only the best biblical and archaeological scholarship”? Probably neither. Too many internal contradictions for personal politics.

I recommend you stick to biblical archaeology and please leave the “non-white,” “non-male,” “non-sectarian” archaeology for another magazine.

What is “religious” about professional gender equality? At BAR, we do not impose personal religious beliefs upon the archaeological data, nor do we favor one religion over another. Rather, we treat all scholars and properly excavated archaeological data equally, regardless of the religion of the one or group that excavated it. Gender should have nothing to do with it. BAR has had a few issues in its past where all of the contributors were male. Few people complained. But now when the reverse has happened, suddenly it’s “politics.” The fact that some react to one and not the other means that this is still an issue, and apparently some men don’t like it at all. I wonder how women feel when it happens to them time and again? With this issue, we wanted to highlight the growing number of highly talented women in our field.—B.C.

I enjoyed the powerful special issue of BAR. Only the prolegomenon seemed self-conscious. I wonder if an issue written only by women, without a breathy invocation, would have been even more powerful. As though a magazine of research chiefly female was not exceptional but a matter of course.

I appreciate Dr. Cargill’s solid presence as editor. I continue to enjoy BAR and will renew my subscription.

Great issue, Dr. Cargill! I applaud your editorial column thoughts and achievement in this special issue. As Carolina Panthers fans say, “Keep pounding!”

DEAR B.C., in your response to a letter from Carolyn Lumsden you say, “Our job is to present archaeological and biblical data from the best scholars in the world.” BUT, considering your editorial column appearing in the same issue, you seem to add a qualifier. How does one put “parity” based on sex (necessarily a mathematically derived standard) ahead of an evaluation of “the best” (in any discipline)?

Charles, I do not see gender equality in our field as taking “substandard” women’s scholarship and elevating it to the level of “superior” men’s scholarship for the sake of meeting a quota. That is the traditional myth driven by the fact that there haven’t been as many women in our field in decades past. Today there are just as many women graduate students and junior scholars in archaeology and biblical studies as men, if not slightly more. Their scholarship is just as good as men’s scholarship. One problem is that those typically senior male scholars who offer the invitations to conferences and edited volumes tend to invite more scholars like themselves, that is, male.

I’m not trying to hit an arbitrary quota; I’m trying to reflect the reality010 that there are a lot of women in the field doing a lot of solid research. The special issue was one way to draw attention to that.—B.C.

My thanks and commendation for your special issue and Jennie Ebeling’s column “Missing from the Picture” (Archaeological Views, BAR, July/August/September/October 2019). I was thrilled to see that she teaches at the University of Evansville (a tiny Midwestern school), where my wife and I both studied. I agree wholeheartedly with her that one of the reasons that American women have found difficulty breaking into the field is that many scholars come out of seminaries. Even in the progressive United Church of Christ, seminary professors were overwhelmingly male until the past couple of decades. And all this while, even in the 1970s, many of our top seminary students were female.

Mazel tov on Mr. Cargill’s “The Gender Divide” and the ten authors of the various articles.

I’m in my 80s, but I’ve been a women’s libber since long before the term entered usage, and I’m glad that I’ve lived long enough to see so many women in various professions.

Not My Views

In response to another reader’s letter asking you to cancel his subscription because you published an article by John Dominic Crossan (“Resurrecting Easter,” BAR, March/April 2019), please do continue my subscription for as long as I am able to read. John Dominic Crossan is one of the most insightful biblical scholars alive today. He, and similar contributors to BAR, make it an outstanding magazine.

Dear Mr. Cargill, your response to Carolyn Lumsden’s letter was absolutely perfect! Something similar should be printed, in all capital letters, in a very prominent spot, in every edition of the magazine. While I’ve known for years that BAR is not a religious publication, many people think it is. I’m sure Mr. Shanks pointed it out numerous times, too, but apparently to no avail. So thank you, and keep up the excellent work!

Cancel my subscription immediately! Most un-Godly, un-Holy magazine I have ever read. Take the Bible off magazine!

YOUR RESPONSE to Carolyn Lumsden was moving. “We not only value the constitutional freedom of religion but also believe that faith is sacred and personal” should be carved in stone. If more people felt that way, there would be less conflict in our world.

I enjoy the educational and scientific aspects of BAR. Keep up the good work.

Temple Mount Embellishment

I RELISHED the article on Herod’s fantastic Temple Mount embellishment, the royal stoa (“Reimagining Herod’s Royal Portico,” BAR, July/August/September/October 2019). But I was drawn to how the portico was characterized in the article, specifically: “Josephus based his description of [it] on a non-Jewish source,” and “failed to give any indication of the building’s function.” Orit Pelig-Barkat also points out that the portico was an architectural derivative of a well-known style of Roman basilica known as caesareum, after Augustus Caesar. How could even Herod have gotten this past the Jewish religious authorities, especially after naming the Roman fort Antonia he’d built overlooking the Temple for his previous sponsor, Mark Antony?

Orit Pelig-Barkat responds:

Josephus’s description of the Royal Portico must be based on a non-Jewish source because (1) it shows a much greater familiarity with classical architecture than other Josephus writings; (2) the foot is used as the unit of measurement (not the cubit, normally used with the Temple Mount); and (3) Herod is reintroduced as “King of the Jews,” despite being mentioned many times previously in the same book.

The use of the architectural model of caesareum didn’t turn the Temple Mount into a caesareum—center of devotion to the emperor (although daily sacrifice for the good health of the emperor continued until the First Revolt). So there was no reason for objections.

Thank you so much for your special issue, “By the Hand of a Woman.” Though I don’t have specific aspirations to becoming an archaeologist, it is very encouraging to see the work of so many scholars in a womanthology like this. It makes the field less intimidating, knowing that others are already out there, making it easier than ever for someone like me to eventually join. I’m nearing the halfway point on my master’s and exploring Ph.D. work. Thank you for the well-timed edification!

Steps to Purity

It was refreshing to read Cecillia Wassén’s article on ritual purity (“Stepped Pools and Stone Vessels,” BAR, July/August/September/October 2019). I have just completed a two-year tour guide training course here in Israel and have become frustrated at the insistence of the instructors and archaeologist on011 identifying these baths as “ritual.”

The fact is that in verse after verse in the Torah the defiled person is instructed to launder his clothes and wash his flesh in water and yet remains impure until the evening. Thus, it is not the immersion in the water that purifies, but the setting of the sun. The individual needs to be hygienically clean before sunset. The Talmud refers to this time of purification as “Ha‘arev Shemesh.”

I agree with Dr. Wassén’s suggestion that Jews of the period preferred to bathe in private rather than in public, which may be the reason for the many private baths found around Judea and the Galilee.

THE ARTICLE on ritual purity mentions “vessels made of dung and unfired earth.” Were dishes really made from dung?

Cecillia Wassén responds:

Yes, vessels made of animal dung and unfired clay are mentioned in the Mishnah. But because they were sun-dried, they are rarely discovered in archaeological excavations. In her book Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), Jodi Magness discusses the use of such vessels and provides photos of several examples from Masada (pp. 75-76, fig. 32). Evidently, unfired clay and dung vessels were cheap, and the materials were readily available. People also used animal dung for mending vessels. It may seem paradoxical that unfired clay and dung vessels were considered ritually clean by ancient rabbis. The reason was that they—just like stone—were made of unprocessed materials.

Mixed-up Freedom

Eva Von Dassow’s “Song of Liberation” (BAR, July/August/September/October 2019) helps establish Archaic Greece’s connection to the world beyond the Aegean, but it does so in a somewhat misleading way. Solon lifted burdens between the haves and have-nots of early sixth-century Athens, thus temporarily reestablishing an equilibrium among the economic classes and mirroring what had occurred earlier in Asia Minor, but his efforts were only a step in the ongoing development of a distinctively Athenian political consciousness and its eventual liberation not only from tyrants but from Solon’s own constitution.

The artificial political institutions set up later by Cleisthenes gave expression to a unique liberation by which the Athenians “ruled and were ruled in turn” by themselves, apart from their social and economic differences. It was the democratic freedom resulting from political self-rule that they defended against the empire-building Persians. That unique achievement was both a military and political fact, not an ideological construct.

I didn’t think there was much room for improvement in BAR, but this double issue showed me! Excellent writing! I can identify with Moses as a misfit being the very person able to receive something new and unifying.

Wise or Wicked?

The article “The Wise Woman of Abel Beth Maacah” (BAR, July/August/September/October 2019) was interesting, but it seems there might be an underlying issue with the woman’s advice, which was basically: “Remove stranger’s head and toss it to the bad guys.” Isn’t that in contrast with the general Near Eastern and Israelite custom of protecting the stranger? I am thinking of Lot in Sodom and the lack of hospitality shown to the strangers (the angels) there.

Thanks for this article and the many others in the new-ish BAR! It is refreshing to consider other viewpoints and perspectives.

Losing a Child

Having read “Baby Burials in the Middle Bronze Age” (BAR, July/August/September/October 2019), I don’t think living in ancient times necessarily lessened the emotional aspect of losing a loved one, children in particular. From more modern times, it appears the need for children to look after aged parents requires a large family. One wonders, given the high mortality rate in ancient times, whether mothers would feel a personal inadequacy in not providing this necessary resource. Would this contribute to domestic violence and subjugation of women? Or did husbands grieve and support their wives? Are there comparisons from today? It would seem circumstances define character and culture, so are there similarities that could validly be taken into account?

Beth Alpert Nakhai responds:

There are no relevant texts from Middle Bronze Age Canaan that would describe parental emotions following the death of their child. The Hebrew Bible is not a personal journal and was written by men, for public purposes. As such, it provides no insights into whether women (or men) felt inadequate without large families or whether they were grief-stricken at the loss of a child or supportive of their spouses in times of sorrow. It does condemn kings for sacrificing children (e.g., 2 Kings 21:6), and it describes King David as mourning and consoling Bathsheba following the death of their first son (2 Samuel 11:26-12:25).

Refreshing Moses

Amanda Mbuvi’s commentary on Moses’s multicultural perspective was creative, brilliant, and a breath of fresh air (Biblical Views: “Multicultural Moses,” BAR, July/August/September/October 2019). This is just the kind of new vision that fascinates me. Brava, dear professor!

008

PIPE MYSTERIES

Ancient Throat Singer

Thanks for the piece on the mysterious Adena Pipe (“Worldwide,” BAR, May/June 2019). With flexed knees, open mouth, and bulging neck, it may represent a “throat singer” in a ceremonial dance. Relying on rhythm and tone rather than tune, throat singing is a “lost” form of music that can still be sampled among remaining ancient cultures and entertainers, such as the Tuvan throat singers. Or just think of the character Froggy, who did “throat talking” on the Spanky and Our Gang TV series. It is a rare ability that not everyone can accomplish; it would have drawn much honor and attention to the practitioner, making him fully worthy of a statue.

WHOSE HERITAGE?

Do Something!

As an archaeologist and conservator of many years who had represented the Egyptian government concerning repatriation of looted and illegally exported objects, I should respond to your editorial (“Who Owns History?” BAR, May/June 2019). While the Met’s return of the coffin is laudable, not all museums, unfortunately, are willing to return artifacts of doubtful provenance.

I would like to suggest that BAR organize and host an international conference about these matters soon, as the issue is more complicated and urgent than ever, with so much of the world’s cultural heritage being destroyed and lost. I hope you can see your way clear to doing that.

Seems Logical

I agree with you when you say that “the Met got it right.” It seems logical that any important historical artifact discovered anywhere in the world should belong to the country where it was found. This particular issue of BAR is superb. Well, they all are, but especially this one.

FILL ME IN

How Many Kings?

For the question “According to the Bible, how many kings ruled the northern kingdom of Israel?” the answer 19 is given (BAR, May/June 2019). According to the chart “A Harmony of the Books of Kings and Chronicles” in my 2011 Life Application NIV Study Bible, there were 20 kings. In addition to the 19 you listed, Tibni served as king in 885–881 B.C.E., between Zimri and Omri. I’m wondering if the difference is simply due to new research done since the publication of this Bible.

I’m a new subscriber and have been enjoying your magazine immensely. Thank you.

According to 1 Kings 16:8ff, King Elah of Israel was murdered in a conspiracy by Zimri (the commander of chariots), and Omri (the commander of Israel’s army) was declared king by all Israel. Omri then took revenge and besieged Zimri in Tirzah. When Zimri realized he was surrounded, he killed himself. Despite the fact that Omri had been declared king by “all Israel” in 1 Kings 16:16, 1 Kings 16:21 states that some people followed another man named Tibni son of Ganath as king of Israel, that is, until the followers of Omri defeated Tibni. Because of this, some lists name Tibni as a king while others list him as an aspiring usurper.—B.C.

PICTURES(QUE) SYNAGOGUE

High Status Is in H

The cover story “Inside the Huqoq Synagogue” (BAR, May/June 2019) mentions that the letter H (Greek eta) on the garments of the figures was “a symbol of high status in the Roman world.” Could you tell us how that became known? In the mosaics of the Arian Baptistry in Ravenna, Italy, some of Jesus’s disciples are also shown sporting the H.

One also finds other late Roman and Byzantine mosaics in Ravenna showing the letters L, C, N, and R, as well as other letters and non-alphabetical symbols on garments. Jesus is wearing what looks like an inverted L in the Arian mosaics of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo. Has anyone determined the significance of these other letters?

Maccabean Revolt Depicted

I was fascinated to read about the mosaic floor at Huqoq and believe there could be another interpretation to the panel showing a meeting of leaders above a seated council, with details of a battle at the bottom.

The upper panel could be showing the representative of Antiochus IV presenting a 010sacrifice animal to the people of Modi’in, thus representing Hellenism’s replacement of Judaism. The local Jewish priest Matityahu stabbed the officer to death (as depicted in the mosaic!) and declared a rebellion for the freedom of Jewish religion (hence his finger pointed up). It is tempting to identify the figures behind him with his five sons (Eleazar, Judah, Simon, Jonathan, and Johanan) and other figures. Matityahu’s sons led several successful battles against Antiochus IV. Accordingly, the lower panel is presenting the defeated Seleucid army, which indeed included elephants.

The middle panel presents eight toga-wearing figures and a seated elder holding a document. Nine oil lamps are lit on top of the building. It is tempting to relate this to the tradition of lighting the Hanukkah candelabra. Is this a presentation of the Maccabean dynasty with Matityahu as its founder? The seated figure looks like the figure above, and the other figures’ hairstyles match the hairstyles of the standing figures of the upper panel.

If this is indeed a presentation of the Maccabean Revolt, it is the first time this subject is found in ancient Jewish art! Apparently, Hanukkah was barely celebrated after the Temple was destroyed—perhaps out of fear of the Romans, who might have considered that as a symbol of a rebellion—and accordingly is barely discussed in the Mishna.

Karen Britt and Ra‘anan Boustan Respond: The mosaic may depict or evoke the Maccabean revolt. However, the discrepancies between the representation and textual sources do not support the suggestion that the elephant panel depicts Mattathias’s refusal to offer a “pagan” sacrifice: The central figure dressed in a military breastplate wears items specific to royalty—the corded diadem around his head and purple cloak—indicating that he is a Greek king, not the king’s officer. Moreover, the Jewish high priest is not shown in the act of stabbing him. Typical depictions of the Modi’in episode differ from our elephant mosaic. A panel painting in the Dura/Europos synagogue that has been interpreted as Mattathias killing an apostate Jew or a military commander depicts the priest holding a sword in one hand and grabbing his opponent with the other. That scene pointedly includes an altar and a tent with idols.

Misis Mosaic on the Move

The Misis mosaic mentioned in “Artistic Influences in Synagogue Mosaics” (BAR, May/June 2019) is labeled “Noah’s Ark”—apparently due to the variety of animals. But the Greek words inside the box refer to a container used to carry animals, and its size is just right for the two doves inside, who would be headed to the Temple to be sacrificed. Despite your authors’ claims, the 23 animals (with only the doves represented twice) cannot depict the Noah’s Ark animals, who came in pairs.

Also, the mosaic is no longer in Yaleapinar; it’s been moved to Adama Archaeological Museum.

Unusual Zodiac

The images on the zodiacal calendar that encircle Helios include both the usual 12 zodiacal constellations and the 12 sons or tribes of Israel. It is unusual that these images are arranged in a clockwise direction.

How Did They Do It?

How did the people of old “glue” the mosaic tiles down? They surely were not just set in place with nothing! Any help or insight would be appreciated.

PS: I have enjoyed your publication for years, keep up the good work!

Karen Britt and Ra‘anan Boustan Respond: For floor mosaics, usually three layers of foundation were laid first: compacted local soil and large stones, then a rough lime mortar with small pebbles, and finally a thin upper layer of a fine mortar. 011On top of this foundation came the setting bed—a thin lime mortar layer that held tesserae in place. The image outline was incised or painted in red on the middle foundation layer. A detailed painting of the complete design on the upper layer served as the underpainting—to keep the mosaicists on track with the overall design.

SLAVERY LANGUAGE

Preaching on Slavery

I appreciated Professor Byron’s article “Paul, the Python Girl, and Human Trafficking” (BAR, May/June 2019). Some years ago, I preached on the topic of human trafficking using the Lectionary readings for the day. The Old Testament reading was the selling of Joseph by his brothers. The New Testament reading was, as Professor Byron noted, about the slave-girl. Joseph was sold (i.e., trafficked). I postulated that perhaps the slave-girl had been sold by her parents, just as too many children are sold across the world today. My congregation received the sermon well.

Thank you for the insights BAR brings to many people.

EARLY CONCERNS

Tower of Babel

I am Michael. I am 13.

I just wanted to ask out of my interest, where is the Tower of Babel? It has been my dream to one day find this site. I want to be a biblical archaeologist. Looking forward to a reply!

Michael, thank you for your email. Believe it or not, I asked the same question when I was in school. Unfortunately, the answer is we don’t know, and we don’t know if the Tower of Babel even existed. However, we do think that the story is based on large structures in southern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) called ziggurats, which were huge pyramid-like buildings used for worship. As for becoming a biblical archaeologist, you’re on the right track. Keep asking questions and keep reading everything you can, including BAR.—B.C.

006

EASTER DILEMMA

Quite Interesting

I found the article “Resurrecting Easter: Hunting for the Original Resurrection Image,” by John Dominic and Sarah Sexton Crossan (BAR, March/April 2019) quite interesting and useful. For the online and printed versions of the Sunday Lectionary readings for my church (St. Paul’s United Methodist, Houston), I select and provide related art, accompanied by a short description. The piece by the Crossans has given me several possibilities for use at Easter.

Not Worth Reading

Mr. Cargill, cancel my subscription, effective immediately. Any magazine that publishes any article by John Dominic Crossan can’t be trusted and isn’t worth reading.

RITUAL PURITY AND DRINKING

Rarely Seen

The March/April 2019 edition of BAR has two articles that you never see written, much less published, at least in archaeological studies. “The Ancient Diet” and “Purity and Impurity” are both just great articles!! Thanks for the info.

Post-Exilic Homes

In “The ‘Four-Room’ House” sidebar (“Purity and Impurity in Iron Age Israel,” BAR, March/April 2019), Dr. Faust says that this house design “disappeared with the destruction of the kingdom of Judah.” What was the design of the houses during post-Exilic times, specifically the Roman era?

Avraham Faust Responds: The four-room house, indeed, disappeared with the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Thereafter we see much variation in house design, and there is no unified house type in the region. This in itself further stresses the uniqueness of the four-room house.

During the Roman period, the great variation of building types continues, but houses were commonly organized around a courtyard, and several households often occupied a single building, sharing facilities in the courtyard.

From Pouring to Bathing

I read with interest “Purity and Impurity in Iron Age Israel.” I was especially intrigued by the recreation of the purification ritual. Was this pouring rite the one also used by Moses in Exodus 19:10, 14 to “sanctify the people”? When and why was a change later made to immersion in a mikveh?

Avraham Faust Responds: Purifying by water appears in various places in the Bible, and most are mentioned in the article. Exodus 19:10, Exodus 19:14, however, refers specifically to the washing of clothes, so it’s somewhat different. The transition to immersion in a mikveh apparently took place only in the late Second Temple period. The earliest evidence we have today is dated to the second century B.C.E., and it seems to fall in the time when the Jewish population became more concerned with the issue of ritual purity, which we can see reflected also in the greater popularity of stone vessels.

Barbaric Drinking

The excellent article by Susan Weingarten (“Biblical Archaeology 101: The Ancient Diet of Roman Palestine,” BAR, March/April 2019) mentions that a common solution to the bacteria in water was to add wine. The Greeks and Romans thought that drinking wine without a significant amount of water was degenerate. Did the Jewish people in Roman Palestine follow the same custom and routinely mix water and wine at dinners and generally when they drank wine?

Susan Weingarten Responds: Yes, Patrick, Jews in Roman Palestine do appear to have mixed their wine with water.

008

SIGN ME UP!

Nurtured by BAR

With my print subscription to BAR expiring, I have renewed as an All-Access Member. Perhaps you would be interested to know why.

In my youth, I wanted to become an archaeologist, but society’s roles for women were very limited. Even if I majored in archaeology, there weren’t many job prospects. I also had to be occupationally practical, as I had the responsibility of helping my widowed mother make ends meet. So, my biblical passion and intended career have really been just a dream that continues to live in my heart—one that for the longest time has been nurtured by BAR. However, engaging with you every two months has only been a tease.

Now, with my BAS All-Access subscription, I have more than 40 years of articles to satisfy my intellectual curiosity and am able to continue to live vicariously through the adventures and insightfulness of these incredible scholars. Thank you for publishing such an outstanding magazine. It means more than you will ever know.

REFUTING THE BIBLE

You Guys Believers?

I was wondering, after all this time reading articles about various and numerous topics, if anyone actually believes in the Bible? It seems when anything is found, your authors want to refute the Bible at every turn. They seemingly want to create doubt in everyone’s mind about the reliability of the Bible. Other sources seem to give precedence to the biblical account. I have wondered many times, and today I decided it was time to ask if any of your editors/staff/writers really do believe there is a God and the Bible is true.

Carolyn, The Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) is a nonprofit, nonsectarian, nondenominational, educational organization. We do not endorse, advocate on behalf of, or argue in opposition to any religious or confessional stance. It is never BAR’s job to tell readers what to believe. That is up to you, the reader. BAS includes people of various religious and nonreligious dispositions. We are Protestants, Catholics, Jews, atheists, and agnostics. We not only value the constitutional freedom of religion but also believe that faith is sacred and personal. We do not impose our personal religious beliefs or lack thereof on the published content. Our job is to present archaeological and biblical data from the best scholars in the world. You’ll like a lot of what you read; you might not like some articles. But you can always trust that what we publish in BAR is credible and designed to inform. What you do with that information is up to you.—B.C.