Queries & Comments

048

Did Peter Die in Babylon?

To the Editor:

I received my first issue of BAR and was so fascinated that I read it cover to cover the first day.

On “The Death and Burial of St. Peter,” BAR 02:04, could you shed some light on 1 Peter 5:13 which indicates that St. Peter is at “Babylon”. From 2 Peter 3:1, it seems that he is writing to the same group as in the letter known as 1 Peter; and 2 Peter 1:14–16 seems to indicate that St. Peter is in prison by this time, awaiting death. All of this appears to say that St. Peter was in “Babylon” at his death. Perhaps “Babylon” is used allegorically for Rome, but Rome is mentioned many times by name in Acts and many scholars, such as Alfred, find no allegoric meaning in the name “Babylon” as used so simply in 1 Peter 5:13. Can you supply some information on Babylon at the time of Christ? Also when did it become an uninhabited city?

Jack Finegan replies:

It is possible that 1 Peter 5:13 refers to Babylon in Mesopotamia but not likely, because the city seems to have been largely deserted at the time. Strabo visited Babylon during the reign of Augustus (27 B.C.–14 A.D.) and said that the greater part of the city was so deserted that one might appropriately quote concerning it the poetic saying, “The Great City is a great desert” (XVI, 1, 5). It is true that in about 24 A.D. merchants from the Syrian caravan city of Palmyra founded a trading colony at Babylon, and this endured for half a century, but then was moved to the new Parthian town of Vologesia across the Tigris from Seleucia. Soon after that Pliny (Natural History VI, 121f.) stated that the temple of Marduk was still standing in Babylon, but “in all other respects the place has gone back to a desert.” In 116 A.D. the Roman emperor Trajan was in Babylon during the winter while he was campaigning against the Parthians, and Dio Cassius says that “he saw nothing but mounds and stones and ruins,” and that he also offered a sacrifice in the remains of the room where Alexander the Great died. In the second half of the second century the Greek satirist Lucian wrote a dialogue on the vanity of human endeavors, and illustrated his point by saying: “Nineveh has already perished, and not a trace of it now remains. As for Babylon, the city of the magnificent towers and the great circuit-walls, soon it too will be like Nineveh, and men will look for it in vain.”

A second possibility is Babylon in Egypt, for Babylon was the name of a Roman camp and settlement, the remaining fortifications of which are still to be seen in Old Cairo. But, although the Coptic Church has a strong tradition that Christianity was brought to Egypt by John Mark, it is almost certain that Peter died in Rome and not in Egypt.

It still seems most likely, therefore, that Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 is a metaphorical reference to Rome, and this usage seems unmistakable in the book of Revelation.

An Article on Ancient Water Systems

To the Editor:

I just want to add my sentiments of appreciation to the others who have discovered your gem of literary excitement. It’s one publication I read “right now” when I get it!

I am intrigued by the water systems and conservation techniques through the history of this often-arid region. You covered Hezekiah’s Tunnel recently, but Gibeon and 049Megiddo were similar. I’m sure there are others. Masada’s storage cisterns might add to the story. Even the rock-pile dew-collectors of the lower Arabah are curious. Perhaps at a time in the near future your readers might (I certainly would!) enjoy such an article by your able writers.

Thanks again for your excellent contribution to my ministry.

Thank you for the excellent suggestion. We’ll try to follow through.—Ed.

Homer Nods and BAR Does Too

To the Editor:

In the interview with Dr. Matthiae and Pettinato (“The Promise of Ebla,” BAR 02:04) there appears to be an error. The statement I refer to is as follows:

“Over 20,000 texts have already been recovered on more than 16,000 tablets. The enormity of the collection is reflected in the fact that it is already more than four times as large as the entire corpus of tablets previously known from such famous caches as Ugarit, Tell Amarna, Mari, and Nuzi.”

This comparison, on the face of it, is impossible. More than 20,000 tablets were recovered from Mari alone! When combined with Nuzi, Tell Amarna, and Ugarit and others such as Alalakh, Drehem, Tell Abu Salabikh, Nippur, Kish, etc. the numbers far outweigh those uncovered thus far at Ebla.

Actually, I believe Dr. Pettinato restricts his comparison to sites related to the third millennium which would automatically disallow any comparison whatsoever with Ugarit, Tell Amarna, Mari, and Nuzi since none of these represent archives from the third millenium.

We were informed at the conference in St. Louis that among the texts uncovered at Ebla there is a flood story and also a creation story. While the Flood version is apparently closer to the Babylonian version than to the Bible, the Creation story, in Dr. Pettinato’s opinion, is closer to the Biblical account in Genesis 1. If true, this will make the Ebla version the closest extra-Biblical account of the Creation thus far found.

When the Ebla texts begin to be published all of us will profit from a more measured look at what Ebla really has to offer.

To the Editor:

I read with interest your short item concerning “Oldest Hebrew Letters Found Near Tel Aviv,” BAR 02:04.

I should like to make one correction, however. The crucial battle with the Philistines at Ebenezer is described not in Judges 4, as stated in your article, but rather in 1 Samuel 4.

Both my husband and I eagerly look forward to every new issue, and love the new colored photographs.

To the Editor:

Werner Braun’s color pictures in the March 1977 issue (“The Dead Sea Scrolls and the People Who Wrote Them,” BAR 03:01) are stunning. More, more.

BAR and Meteorology

To the Editor:

As a former teacher of meteorology, I want to comment on the abbreviation of your excellent publication: BAR. A bar in meteorology is roughly the weight of the total atmosphere above any sea-level point on earth. To me, this scientific term might be redirected in your case to mean that you have the critical weight of the entire archaeological and Biblical world on your shoulders—the gentle zephyrs along with the hurricanes. There is hardly a “science” or “art” that I know of that is subject to more derogation than Archaeology. Your pragmatic approach in the whole matter is refreshing and very beneficial.

050My congratulations to all the staff of BAR. I hope the enemies you make (and you’ll continue to make them when people’s pet theories are shown to be in question) are more than compensated by the friends you are making by your honesty and fairness in reporting the pros and cons of Archaeology (e.g. Noah’s Ark). All I can say is keep up the good work. Your realistic efforts are much appreciated—and needed!

May I suggest a motto which has been around a long time: fortes fortuna juvat.

The Near East Archaeological Society Responds

To the Editor:

At the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Near East Archaeological Society this fall (1976) the subject of your criticism of our Society in The Biblical Archaeology Review, December, 1975, issue (“Two Cases of Discrimination,” BAR 01:04) came up for discussion. The Board asked me to write you concerning what we thought was an unfair judgment of our Society. Through circumstances, there has been a delay in sending this letter to you. First of all, let me say that we appreciated your remarks that our Society’s publications make a “valuable contribution to the scholarly literature.”

In a free society like ours it is the prerogative for any society to draw up the kind of membership requirements it deems wise, and these to some might seem restrictive. The payment of a membership fee in a society, especially if it is high (as in the case of one society to which I belong), might seem to some too restrictive and keep them from joining.

Now let us consider the case of the Near East Archaeological Society. Though we have a simple statement of faith in commitment to the Bible as requirement for those who become members of the Society, yet, recognizing that ours is a scholarly society involved in archaeological research, we have made provision for those who do not want to become members to be able to obtain our scholarly publications, the Bulletin, the Newsletter, and a Research Series of Monographs, by simply paying the subscription fee for them.

We hope that you will point out then to your readers that they may receive the scholarly publications of the NEAS on the same basis as they do The Biblical Archaeology Review, by paying the subscription fee.

BAR criticized The Near East Archaeological Society for making a condition of membership the signing of the following oath: “The Bible alone and The Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written, and therefore inerrant in The Autographs.”

We then said: “We do not object to anyone who adopts this as his own personal statement of faith. However, we believe it is entirely inappropriate as a condition of membership in an organization devoted to scholarly archaeological pursuits.”

We continue to believe this. On the other hand, we agree with Dr. Mare that “In a free society like ours it is the prerogative for any society to draw up the kind of membership requirements it deems wise.”

We do not question the freedom of The Near East Archaeological Society, but we do question the wisdom of its choice. How would it be if the American Schools for Oriental Research excluded from membership anyone who believed the Pentateuch was written word for word by God? Or if the Israel Exploration Society excluded non-Jews? Or if the Society for Biblical Literature excluded those who would not proclaim faith in God? The factionalism of the Near East Archaeological Society does not set a useful precedent, to say the least.

It is true that in religious pursuits, the faithful may properly exclude non-believers. But for us the study of Biblical archaeology is not a religious pursuit.

Perhaps this is our basic disagreement with The Near East Archaeological Society. In our view, the study of Biblical archaeology may be motivated by a religious commitment, but the study itself should be a scientific, 051secular pursuit, not a religious one. For this reason, it seems to us inappropriate to exclude from a community of scholars in search of scientific truth someone who does not share certain religious beliefs.—Ed.

BAR’s Cover Criticized

To the Editor:

When sound scholarship is combined with good enjoyable writing it makes for an excellent magazine. Congratulations! BAR gives me so much joy I hate to be critical, but:

The graphic quality of the cover of BAR does not come up to the scholarly quality of its content. Intelligent laymen with interest in Biblical archaeology deserve good graphics. Perhaps originally you intended to put through the image of “antiquity” by using the three simulated tablets. You don’t need to “sell” or “popularize” anymore, your content did the selling; it is time to give up this childish device as well as the logotype with its painful attempt to look like some weathered script of past millenia (it does not anyhow). The ochre tone of the paper and the brown ink are alright, but please hire a good graphic designer for a new cover!

If substantial numbers of our readers feel as Professor Macsai does, we’ll change. So let us hear from you.—Ed.

Mixed Reviews

To the Editor:

I agree with the reader who asked that you cease using love letters to yourselves as filler. Wasn’t it in Julius Caesar where he says, “Yon Cassius—He doth like himself too well.”

To the Editor:

I am even more pleased with your magazine than I had anticipated. I subscribe to several archaeology journals, and yours compares favorably with any others I read.

To the Editor:

Your magazine is the very best I have run across in your field, and I don’t want to miss a single issue.

To the Editor:

BAR is both interesting and thought-provoking.

To the Editor:

I received my BAR binder and must congratulate you on such an excellent choice. In fact, the BAR has come a long way from the first issue and it has really become an exceptionally informative and interesting publication.

To the Editor:

Your work in BAR has been outstanding.

To the Editor:

BAR grows better and better with each issue.