Queries & Comments
012
Qimron and Shanks Fight Like Children
Your comments about Professor Elisha Qimron (Hershel Shanks, “An Open Letter to John Strugnell and Elisha Qimron,” BAR 19:05) were a bit childish. And Professor Qimron is being a bit selfish with his work and a bit vindictive by obtaining that court order to keep you in Israel (
You: Mom! Billy won’t share his toy!
Qimron: I had it first!
You: He shared it with Bobby and Jane but wouldn’t share with me!
Qimron: It’s mine, and I can do what I want!
It sounds to me like he just dangles the toy [MMT] in your face, and you run yelling to Mommy. Why don’t you just go on with your life?
This letter probably won’t be printed. Truth hurts sometimes.
Steve Robinson
Portland, Michigan
There is much wisdom in this letter. We wish we could have extricated ourselves long ago from this devastatingly expensive suit. We made the innocent mistake of referring to “Strugnell and a colleague” as having worked on MMT, instead of “Strugnell and Qimron.” That is what riled Qimron, we are told. After that, it was all over: A legal suit was instituted without so much as a phone call or a letter. Once the lawyers got it, there was no way out. So far, it has cost us over$100,000 and counting. Qimron says he would like to put us in jail if he could. Maybe he will. To carry on with your analogy, BAR is now sitting in a corner crying bitter tears and Qimron has a big smile on his face and a lollipop in his mouth.—Ed.
Todah Rabah
As a long-time, avid subscriber to BAR, I have followed the Dead Sea Scroll saga with great interest since the initial articles in early 1985 made the world aware of the academic travesty taking place. With the fervor of an armchair quarterback, I applauded BAR’s steadfast commitment to the eventual release of the hoarded scrolls.
Although I had championed the dauntless efforts of Hershel Shanks and the BAR staff, I was recently reminded of our debt to them while visiting “The Dead Sea Scrolls: Ancient Civilization/Modern Scholarship” exhibit at the New York Public Library. We arranged for the 102 cadets at our School for Officers’ Training to visit this extraordinary display. As we viewed ancient scroll fragments and artifacts that had been buried for 2,000 years and sequestered for 45 more, I was again reminded of the debt we owe Hershel Shanks and BAR for prying the scrolls free from the Dead Sea Scrolls Committee.
We join your host of supporters in saying—todah rabah [“Thank you very much” in Hebrew].
Lt. Colonel William W. Francis
School for Officers’ Training
The Salvation Army
Suffern, New York
New Encyclopedia
How Would We Treat a Place Where Washington May Have Slept?
I have never agreed with you more than with your impression of the “Archaeological Encyclopedia for the ’90s,” BAR 19:06!
The omission of a subject index is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The publisher should promptly offer a booklet with such an index. I’m sure we will buy it promptly when offered. The print and pictures lack contrast, and compare well with rather cheap paperback publications.
The City of David received insufficient coverage. I wonder if there is a reason? Just try to visit the royal tombs as I did less than one year ago—it’s not easy. What nation on earth has the probable resting place of its kings dating back 3,000 years? We would not find such neglect of any probable, possible, and not-so-possible “Washington slept here” places.
The editors should consider themselves lucky that you were in one of the pictures and not Professor Qimron. Can you imagine how much Qimron would sue them 014for—for something that really belongs to him—his face!
In summary: the encyclopedia is essential, but disappointing.
Ludwig G. Kempe, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Charleston, South Carolina
Two Colors: Black and Gray
Thank you very much for your long and thoughtful review of the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Hershel Shanks, “Archaeological Encyclopedia for the ’90s,” BAR 19:06). It is a very personal review, and it merits additional information and, in some cases, clarification.
When you note, “The major strength of this encyclopedia is that it conveniently collects an enormous amount of data,” you get right to the core, as our main efforts were directed to creating the largest possible data bank on the subject. Thus, the New Encyclopedia cannot easily be compared to the much lighter work done on the previous edition in more leisurely times.
These enormous additions account for the tight regimen of typography and the small margins. Even so, the type we used is larger than, for instance, that used in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Anchor Bible Dictionary, and there is more space between the lines.
The paper is a high-quality coated art paper (which accounts for its considerable weight) with a matte finish, the very best produced in Israel, and the printing of the text is crisp. It is certainly more expensive paper than that of the old edition.
Lastly you mention the quality of picture reproduction and use of a second color. The encyclopedia has been printed in two colors throughout. For a second color, we chose an unobtrusive gray that complements the work’s scholarly intent. Any other color would have been too prominent to define large bodies of water.
Using color to enhance pictures, many of which are unique but amateur photos, often makes them less clear and always adds considerable expense and delays publication.
Having read your review many times, it is obvious that you appreciate the color photo of “the gorgeous silver goblet” facing page 305. Ironically, in the earlier edition, which is open on my desk (facing page 361) it looks like a gold goblet. So much for “enhancement.”
Emanuel Hausman
Chairman
Carta, the Israel Map and Publishing Company, Ltd.
Jerusalem, Israel
Christmas
Christmas Is Christian
Warren Carlson proved too much (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06) in attempting to prove that December 25 is not Christian! Christmas, the feast, betrays its Christian, Roman and English origins by its very name. “Christmas” means the “Mass of Christ,” just as St. Michael the Archangel’s feast was known as Michaelmas and the Feast of the Purification in February was known as Candlemas because candles for church use were blessed on that day.
Fir trees, yule logs, tinsel, candles and so on, are hardly Christian in origin, and need not be. They were adapted for use by Christians because in themselves they were harmless, and as symbols, their meaning could be easily changed and adapted.
As Mr. Carlson quotes from the monumentally discredited The Golden Bough by James Frazer, there was a winter solstice feast in pagan Rome, and it is true that history does not tell us of a date for Jesus’ birth. To supplant the Roman feast of Sol Invictis and to use the symbolism of light—reflecting the 016Baptist’s words, “He [Christ] must increase, and I must decrease” (John 3:30; for days become longer after the winter solstice)—Christians placed their celebration at that time of year (never mind that our calendar is off a few days by now).
Christmas is most assuredly Christian. The fact that its date and many of the trimmings associated with it come from many cultures and sources does not make the feast un-Christian. If Christmas is not Christian because of its date or trimmings, maybe the red, white and blue of our flag is un-American because those colors are also used by the British and French.
John J. Looby
Dannemora, New York
Christmas Transcends Its Symbols
The dollar is not American, the “Halls of Montezuma” is not a part of the Marine Corps, and the “Star-Spangled Banner” is not the national anthem. The foregoing follows from Warren Carlson’s arguments (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06) about why “Christmas is not Christian.”
He correctly points out that many of the accidentals of Christianity, those things that are not fundamental, were borrowed from other institutions. What Carlson does not add, and should, is that these borrowed elements are often so greatly modified that their origins are hard to recognize in the new state.
I hope Carlson is pulling our collective leg. Human institutions are conservative. New institutions are all built on the past, except for the central ideas that give birth to the new institutions.
The dollar came from the Hapsburg’s Austria, but is now fully American. The tune of the Marine hymn is no longer recognized as a French light opera number, nor is the tune of the “Star-Spangled Banner” any longer a student’s drinking song.
The early Christians found a need to have a Christian celebration while the pagan majority was having their Saturnalia, but the new celebration was Christian. If Christmas were held at any other time of the year, a clever person such as Mr. Carlson might find some other pagan holiday that fell on the same date and therefore say it’s not Christian. However, an institution stands or falls on its content, not on what came before it.
Donald Stoffey, Ph.D.
Salinas, California
Establishing the Date of Christmas
Warren Carlson’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06) repeats the theory that the date of Christmas was adopted to coincide with the winter solstice and the Roman festival of the Unconquered Sun. This proposal was first suggested in the 13th century and developed in the 19th and early 20th century by history of religion scholars such as James Frazer. Research in liturgical history has cast much doubt on it.
The Roman festival was established by the emperor Aurelian only in 274 A.D. Observance of the Nativity on December 25 may precede this. More important is how that date was chosen.
The central festival of the Christian year, and the first to be observed, is that of the death and resurrection of Christ. After some controversy, the observance of the Resurrection was fixed, according to a lunar calendar, on a Sunday related to the time of the Jewish Passover. Thus its date in the solar calendar varies from year to year.
It was also considered important to determine the actual date of the Passion in the solar calendar. In the west by the time of Hippolytus (170–c. 236), this was taken as March 25. In an eastern calendar from Asia Minor, it was established as the equivalent of April 6. Since Christ was considered to have lived a perfect life, it was deemed appropriate that his conception would have been on the same date. Nine months from those dates would be, respectively, December 25 and January 6 (also considered appropriate for his baptism).
The Armenian church still keeps the Feast of the Nativity on January 6. The rest of the Eastern church eventually adopted the Western date of December 25 for the Nativity, but kept January 6 as the observance of Christ’s baptism. In the West, January 6 came to close the “twelve days of Christmas” with the festival of the Magi (Epiphany).
A full discussion of the matter may be found in Thomas J. Talley’s The Origins of the Liturgical Year, 2nd edition (College-ville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), pp. 9–10, 85–103.
Rev. Edwin C. Webster
Eros, Louisiana
Jesus Was Born, Who Cares When
Regarding Mr. Warren Carlson’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06), wherein he states that “no matter how thick the camouflage, Christmas is not Christian,” I think that Mr. Carlson completely misses the point. It makes little difference to me (and, I suspect, most Christians) whether Christ was born on December 25, June 18, or for that matter, July 4. The point is, He was born, and for this I am grateful. Moreover, I feel that His birth is indeed a cause for celebration.
The fact of the matter is that whether or not we have the date exactly right, we are celebrating the birth of Christ and that, I submit, is very Christian.
Arthur J. Smith, Jr.
Camden, North Carolina
Ammonites
Was King Nahash a Snake?
In referring to King Nahash of the Ammonites (“What Ever Happened to the Ammonites?” BAR 19:06), Professor Larry Herr adds parenthetically, “the name must be an Israelite caricature; it means ‘snake.’”
Indeed it does. But the American connotation of snake, “a treacherous or deceitful person,” is far from the Biblical or Hebrew connotation. The snake in the Garden of Eden was considered the wisest among animals. Moreover, nachash (and its variant forms) has quite a few meanings in Hebrew: nachash (with patach/patacha) means magic, sorcery, divination. With kamatz/kamatz, it is a snake. With segol/kamatz, it is both a diviner and a coppersmith. Nachoshet is copper. Nachush means brazen (in both senses of the English word). Nichush is a guess.
I remember my first exposure to Biblical archaeology at a lecture given some 40 years ago in Eilat by Nelson Glueck, discoverer of the copper-smelting installations at Etzion-Geber, on the Eilat shore. Glueck had, of 018course, also investigated scores of copper-mining and smelting sites in Transjordan—Moab and Edom for certain, and perhaps even in Ammon.
Glueck explained the associations of the three major meanings of nachash as follows: The production of copper was seen in the Bronze Age as conferring magical powers on the smelter. When the smelted copper, or molten brass or bronze, was poured out into the sand, it would form a long, sinuous ingot of metal—the brazen snake or serpent that became the symbol of his magic.
King Nachash was no snake. He was, perhaps, a smelter of copper (or an importer of copper from the lands to the south of Ammon), perhaps a soothsayer or diviner, perhaps simply a smart man.
It was not only in Judah, Israel, Ammon, Moab and Edom that copper and its serpentine associations were assumed to have magical powers. The Greek caduceus with its two brazen serpents was the symbol of Mercury’s power, and later of the medical profession. In rabbinic Hebrew, Nachushtan is the serpent of brass that Moses (and Aaron) used to impress Pharaoh’s sorcerers (who had, apparently, learned similar magic from the coppersmiths); in modern Hebrew, nachushtan means caduceus.
We haven’t come all that far: Many people still view their doctor as a diviner with magic powers.
I trust Professor Herr will forgive this layman’s brazen (metzach nechusha—copper forehead in Hebrew) comments to his insightful article.
Michael Bernet
Brooklyn, New York
Larry G. Herr replies:
Although reader Bernet is correct in the variety of meanings the Semitic root nachash (written nahash in English) can have, I still favor my pejorative reading.
Any king who threatens to gouge out the right eyes of the Israelites, as Nahash did, is not going to be thought of with favor by the Bible writers. That event became one of the excuses to make Saul a hero (1 Samuel 11), as he responded by beating Nahash back. Nahash’s evil, along with the consensus among grammarians that the name derives from the root meaning “snake” (as opposed to the derived roots meaning “divination” and “copper”), lead me to favor my interpretation. But there is no way I can prove it.
All of Mr. Bernet’s suggestions are possible. Note also that Nahash apparently becomes David’s fast friend, possibly out of a common hatred of Saul. Indeed, David may have been related to him (if the Abigail in 2 Samuel 17:25 is the same as David’s wife)!
020
Although it is true that a snake symbolized life forces in the ancient world (perhaps because when a snake sheds its skin it seems to be born anew) and the same imagery continues today in the caduceus, the symbol of the medical profession, I cannot think of other ancient people who carried names with the word for “serpent” in them. Certainly, there are none among the approximately 200 other Ammonite names we know. I don’t think well-meaning parents would have given a child a name like that.
Mr. Bernet calls attention to the serpent in the Garden of Eden as a wise animal. That was a one-time event. The curse in Genesis 3:14–15 places snakes in exactly the same position of dislike most humans have for them today. They bite us in the foot, and we bash them in the head.
Bible writers, moreover, did not cringe from using derogatory epithets for people whom they did not like—or even for people whose backgrounds they did not like. Both of Saul’s two surviving sons, although treated well by David, were given names by the Bible writers that no loving mother and father would have tagged them with: Ish-bosheth (Man of Shame) and Mephi-bosheth (From the Mouth of Shame). Both lived at the same time as Nahash.
Was Nahash a coppersmith, a copper importer, or a diviner? Biblical characters aren’t normally named after their jobs. Anyway, Nahash was a king.
I neglected to mention in the article some people whose help should not be overlooked: (1) Melville Andrade helped Todd Sanders draw the ‘Umeiri ostracon pictured on page 32; (2) Sanders’s publication of his decipherment of the ostracon, “An Ammonite Ostracon from Tell el-‘Umeiri,” will appear soon in Madaba Plains Project 3 (he does not suggest that the ostracon may have been a letter to the king; that is purely my idea); and (3) the wonderful aerial photograph on page 31 was taken from a balloon by Willy and Ellie Myers for our project. I apologize for omitting this information from my article. They deserve more than a letter to the editor for their valued input.
Copper Scroll
History Contradicts Fanciful Hypothesis
Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann’s article, “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” BAR 19:06, is exceedingly interesting reading and very original in thought. It defies conventional wisdom about the Copper Scroll, as well as about the famous Nerva sestertius coin. A review of the available literature on ancient Judaic numismatics unfortunately leads me to conclude that this excellently composed article is at best a flight of clever fancy, at least as far as the Nerva coin is concerned. Dr. Lehmann believes that this coin commemorates the Romans’ discovery of buried Jewish treasure in Judea, treasure from the Jewish priesthood’s collection of Temple tax on Jews long after the Temple’s destruction, to prepare for rebuilding it. Per Dr. Lehmann, this would have constituted a severe insult to all Rome, and Nerva’s coin proclaims this Jewish plot’s demise.
One must look at the historical circumstances to see how wildly illogical is this hypothesis. Before the First Jewish Revolt, and before Christianity spread, close to one-third of the 22 million people in the Roman empire may have been either Jews or Judaizers (people who believed in the one omnipotent deity, but were not Jews by conversion). Judaism had become so popular in the empire that laws were passed forbidding Romans’ conversion. This was especially so among the upper classes of Rome. It is thought that Nero’s wife Poppaea was such a Judaizer, also called a God-fearer. The First Jewish Revolt (66–70 C.E.) changed much of this, making for exceedingly bad feelings between the average Roman and Jew. Roman casualties were severe, and Jewish victims were even more numerous. This revolt could have led to far more extensive civil unrest throughout the empire, because of the large numbers of Jews and Jewish sympathizers that existed, and Roman authorities were well aware of this possibility.
After the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E., Vespasian instituted a vengeful tax on the Jewish population of the empire. Before the destruction of the Temple, every Jew would donate one-half shekel each year towards its maintenance. Vespasian decided to collect this money for Rome instead. Not only would the province of Judea continue to be taxed as were all other non-Roman parts of the empire, but each individual Jew would be taxed in addition. The manner in which this tax was to be collected was meant to be degrading and demeaning to the Jewish population. To prove that a man was Jewish, and thus subject to this uniquely discriminatory tax, special tax collectors who received bounties on what was collected would forcibly expose a man’s nakedness in public, often under the eye of his family. Informers proliferated. This indecency reached a peak under the harsh rule of Vespasian’s son Domitian, who was Nerva’s immediate predecessor. Then, 27 years after the fall of Jerusalem, the emperor Nerva, wishing to avoid further conflict, attempted to bring peace and healing to his diverse subjects.
The noted historian Michael Grant, in his The Jews in the Roman World, states that “Nerva, during his brief reign (96–8), decided to remove certain abuses relating to the Jewish tax (fiscus Judaicus). His measure was celebrated by the principal brass denomination 073(sestertius) of the roman coinage, on which a palm-tree, symbol of Judaea and the Jews, is accompanied by the inscription FISCI IVDAICA CALVMNIA SVBLATA. This indicates the elimination of the wrongful accusations (or perversions of justice) concerning the fiscus Judaicus.” Grant notes that “To be singled out for commemoration on these official coins, the reform must have been regarded by the Roman government as very important … ”
The highly respected authority on ancient Jewish coins, David Hendin, makes this point in his Guide to Biblical Coins and quotes the Roman historian Seutonius, who says, “More than any other, the Fiscus Judaicus was administered very severely; and to it were brought, or reported, those who either had lived the life of a Jew unprofessed, or concealing their origin, had not paid the tax imposed upon the people. I remember that it was of interest to me during my youth when a 90-year-old man was brought before the procurator and a very crowded court to see whether he was circumcised.”
Domitian’s assassination was no doubt due to these kinds of excesses. Nerva initiated many reforms to correct the evils of his predecessor, and this was one of the first. The actual discriminatory tax continued to be collected, however, but was simply enforced with more civility. This tax remained until Julian the Apostate (361–363 C.E.), in a deed of kindness, burned the tax rolls.
From a Jewish perspective, Dr. Lehmann’s concept of Jews still collecting their own Temple tax after its destruction, in addition to the vindictive Fiscus Judaicus and other Roman taxes, is fanciful. Any Jewish money available would certainly have been used to ransom the hundreds of thousands of Jews thrust into slavery by the revolt. With Roman garrisons all over Judea, it is dubious that such a fortune would have been collected from an impoverished and beaten populace, and doubly dubious that it could have been concealed from the vigilant Romans. Furthermore, the sums listed are far too large for a devastated post-war Judea to have collected after only a few years, at the rate of one-half shekel, or 7 grams of silver, per adult Jew per year.
The Copper Scroll may indeed represent treasures of the Second Temple period that were subsequently found by the Romans, or by other conquerors who came to Judea later on. Some or all of it may still lie buried. However, Nerva’s famous sestertius has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Jonathan A. Herbst, M.D.
President, Westchester Chapter
American Israel Numismatic Assn.
Rye Brook, New York
Would Romans Be Insulted That Jews Taxed Themselves?
It may be necessary to throw some cold water on the interesting but speculative article, “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” , by Manfred R. Lehmann. The author is obviously a scholar who has done much research, but he used a forced and unacceptable interpretation of the Fiscus Judaicus coin to support his conjecture that the Copper Scroll is truly a treasure map. The coin is described as being the key to understanding the Copper Scroll and as proof that the Romans had already recovered and seized all the gold and silver listed.
Unfortunately, this is a rather far-fetched interpretation coaxed from the legend in order to reinforce Dr. Lehmann’s argument. It is not supported by numismatic or historical scholarship. The word “calumny” in Latin and in English clearly refers to a false accusation or slander. Numismatic scholars since at least 1798 (see Joseph Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum) have said that this famous coin of Nerva records the ending of an evil and shameful practice, common in Rome at that time, of falsely accusing citizens of being Jews and of not paying the Fiscus Judaicus. Literally and precisely, the legend on the coin states that the false accusations or slanders (calumnia) occurring through the Fiscus Judaicus have been lifted or removed (sublata). Under the emperor Domitian, 81–96 C.E., a bureau of government spies sought out and denounced individuals who were suspected of evading the Fiscus Judaicus. These spies used ugly, inquisitorial methods and frequently accused people of being Jews simply to make trouble for them.
Taking the article’s theory at face value, would the pragmatic, hard-nosed Romans have been insulted by the fact that the Jews were taxing themselves and sending the money to Jerusalem? As Dr. Lehmann himself points out in the article, “the Jews collected several types of taxes.” Philo tells us that the emperor Augustus, by an edict, permitted the Jews in the empire to collect their own taxes (offerings) and send them to Jerusalem (Philo, De Legatus ad Gaium XXIII, 157). It appears that as long as the Fiscus Judaicus received two denarii each year, about two days’ wages for a workman, from each adult Jewish male in the empire, the treasurer was content and no insult would result.
Marvin Tameanko
Toronto, Canada
074
The Genitive Singular of Second-Declension Nouns
I have just read with interest Manfred Lehmann’s article on the Copper Scroll, “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” BAR 19:06. Being a complete novice on the subject, I found the argument prima facie convincing. I was, however, amazed at the author’s contention that the inscription on a coin of Nerva, Fisci Iudaici Calumnia Sublata, contains the phrase Fisci Iudaici in the plural. Even an elementary Latin student should know that the genitive singular and the nominative plural of a second-declension masculine noun (such as fiscus judaicus) are the same (ending in –i), and would realize that in the inscription in question the word can be construed only as a genitive singular. This realization does not affect Dr. Lehmann’s main argument, but it destroys his secondary point that the Romans realized that the Jews were maintaining several separate illicit funds.
Eugene N. Lane
Professor of Classical Studies
University of Missouri
Columbia, Missouri
It’s “Trickery” That Was Abolished
Dr. Lehmann accounts for the fate of the “Temple treasure” by the evidence of the inscription on a sestertius of Nerva: Fisci Judaici Calumnia Sublata, where he translates calumnia as “insult.” However, the original meaning of the word is simply “trickery” and, in the case of prosecution, “false accusation” or abuse of the judicial process. We know that Domitian had persecuted the Jews by enforcing the collection of the tax to a degree that Seutonius had found unreasonable (Domitian 12); Dio Cassius says one of the reforms under Nerva was that “no persons were permitted to accuse anybody of treason or adopting the Jewish way of life” (68:1.7). Since there are other coins of this type commemorating the remission of burdens on special sections of society, it would make sense to issue a coin celebrating the removal of false prosecution in collecting the tax on Jews.
Rev. Donald Hendricks
Buchanan, New York
An Egregious Grammatical Error
It is a shame that an article on the Copper Scroll with an otherwise interesting point should self-destruct on an egregious grammatical error in reading the Latin legend of the Nervan coin. Despite what Manfred Lehmann claims, the legend 076cannot refer to “Jewish taxes” in the plural but only to a single tax. Fisci Judaici is the genitive singular of fiscus Judaicus, not the nominative plural as Lehmann supposes. That must be so because fisci Judaici is dependent upon calumnia, which in turn is the subject of the past participle, sublata. To put it all in English, “the trickery (or ‘pretense’ or ‘misrepresentation’) of the Jewish tax [singular] is lifted.” Lehmann’s hypothesis about an ongoing collection of the Temple tax would appear to fall at the same time; at the very least, Nerva’s coin cannot be used as evidence of another parallel tax collected by Jewish authorities which had to be abolished by the Roman authorities.
The more intriguing question is why Nerva minted such a coin. It is obvious, first, that in his short reign Nerva began to establish a reformist approach to governing the empire, after the difficulties experienced by several groups in Domitian’s last years. His coin legends give clear evidence of this. Second, the coin in question is a deliberate revision of the Judea capta coins. It is important to note that the two symbols of the subjugation of the Jewish peoples that figure prominently on many of the issues of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian have been eliminated on Nerva’s coins: Neither the victorious Roman soldier nor the weeping Jewish woman flank the palm tree—only the tree, a symbol of Judea, remains. Third, while the legend could mean that the Jewish tax, now collected for the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome instead of for the Temple in Jerusalem, was abolished (i.e., “That offensive Jewish tax has been lifted”), it is likelier that the legend means only that some offense has been abrogated (i.e., “The trickery associated with the Jewish tax has been lifted”), for there is artifactual evidence that the Jewish tax continued to be collected even after Nerva minted his coin.
Insofar as Lehmann’s views on the Copper Scroll are based on the Nervan coin, he is altogether wrong. The coin in fact expresses a change in Flavian policy towards Judea; the legend refers to a positive action on Rome’s part with respect to the collection of the tax, not a negative action as Lehmann’s suggestion requires. Indeed, I believe that the coin actually created a hope among Jews—whether only fancied or officially sanctioned I cannot be sure—that the tax would cease to go to Rome and would be directed once again toward the Temple of Jerusalem. That is, the coin led to the rekindling of a hope that the Temple would be rebuilt. Exactly the same expectation is expressed at exactly the same time in the Epistle of Barnabas 16:3–4, though in a hostile fashion as one might expect of a Christian writer. It need hardly be added that nothing came of this hope.
Prof. Peter Richardson
Centre for the Study of Religion
University of Toronto
Toronto, Canada
Numismatic Argument Not on the Money
I have read with interest “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” BAR 19:06, by Manfred R. Lehmann. Dr. Lehmann’s numismatic statements are in error, demonstrating that a scholar should stick at all costs to his own area of expertise.
On pages 42 and 43, Dr. Lehmann discusses a large Roman coin of Nerva. Emphasizing the importance of this coin, he twice calls it “huge,” erroneously stating that the coin in question “was one of the largest Roman coin issues ever struck” and that it was struck during the same period in which Rome was striking coins commemorating the defeat of the Jews. Dr. Lehmann lacks essential knowledge of Roman numismatics. The coin in question is simply a normal example of a Roman brass sestertius minted during the first century (there is nothing whatever unusual about the denomination of the sestertius or of this coin’s size as a sestertius—a common coin denomination of nominal value during the period). Although Dr. Lehmann states that Roman coins commemorating the defeat of the Jews were minted by Vespasian, Titus and Domitian over a period of 50 years following the war (thus spanning the extended period up to the early 120s), it is clear that such coins were minted only by Vespasian and his son Titus (who were both dead by the year 81) and not also by his son Domitian, who had no role at all in the war and who died in the year 96. Domitian did not mint coins bearing any legend having anything whatever to do with the war or the defeat of the Jews. The IVDEA CAPTA and IVDEA DEVICTA to which Dr. Lehmann points were issued only by Vespasian and Titus. Some coins of the Roman administration during the time of Domitian (81–96), minted in Caesarea, do bear reverse images of the personification of victory, but they bear no inscription related to the war or its aftermath.
On page 42, Dr. Lehmann declares that the second coin illustrated on that page (also a normal-sized sestertius) “bears Vespasian’s profile.” The obverse legend of that coin is IMP T CAES DIVI VESP F AVG PM TRP PP COS VIII. That legend clearly identified the fact that the coin bears 078the portrait of Titus and not Vespasian, something that should be immediately apparent, upon viewing the portrait alone, to anyone who is familiar with first-century Roman iconography. The legend gives the name and titles of Titus in the standard abbreviated form, which spelled out is as follows: IMP(ERATOR) T(ITVS) CAES(AR) DIVI VESP(ASIANI) F(ILIVS) AVG(VSTVS) P(ONTIFEX) M(AXIMVS) TR(IBVNICIA) P(OTESTATE) P(ATER) P(ATRIAE) CO(N)S(VL) VIII. The legend therefore identifies the emperor Titus, inter alia, as son of Vespasian, who was deified by the Senate following his death in the year 79 (DIVI VESP F). For that matter, the legend demonstrates that the coin was minted in the year 80 during Titus’s eighth consulship. Further, Dr. Lehmann has misunderstood the meaning of the reverse of that coin. It does not depict a Roman soldier but Titus himself, known by his accoutrements and stance, the commander who reduced Judea to the status of capta.
Of central interest, however, is Dr. Lehmann’s misunderstanding of the legend to be found on the reverse of the sestertius of Nerva, which appears to be the linchpin of his argument respecting the whereabouts of the Temple treasure. Dr. Lehmann translates the reverse legend FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA as “the insult of the Jewish taxes has been annulled”). Fisci Judaici is not Latin for “Jewish tax” in either the singular or the plural. Fisci Judaici, the genitive singular form, means “of the Fiscus Judaicus.” Fiscus meant purse in Latin. The word was used for certain purposes to mean money, but in the sense of “privy purse” (of the emperor) rather than general state tax funds (aerarium). In short Fiscus Judaicus was simply the name of that process or department of the Roman government that collected the tax of one didrachm on the Jews imposed originally by the emperor Vespasian in lieu of the Temple tax after the Temple was destroyed in the year 70. Secondly, the Latin word calumnia has been mistranslated by Dr. Lehmann as “the insult.” Calumnia in Latin, however, means false accusation. Nerva simply ended the false accusation process of collecting the tax so that henceforth the tax was imposed only on persons who admitted being Jewish. The correct translation is therefore “false accusation of the Fiscus Judaicus annulled.”
Edward A. Caine
Rosslyn, Virginia
Manfred Lehmann replies:
It is disappointing to me that all readers so far have only commented on the Nerva coin and its Latin text. That aspect of my article was of only secondary importance. No reader has commented on the main thesis, which is the relevance of the Talmudic legislation for identifying the terms used in the Copper Scroll and the identification of the Temple contributions involved. This shows again the regrettable lack of knowledge of the rabbinic sources among most Dead Sea Scroll students. It is on the basis of Talmudic sources that I have been able to identify the contents and purposes of the scroll, relating them to various categories of Temple gifts and thereby establishing that it was written after, not before, the destruction of the Temple. Since the scroll mentions another copy of the list, which evidently was lost, it is likely that the Romans, or whoever else helped himself to these hoards, found that copy and used it to locate the treasures.
I urge serious students of the Dead Sea Scrolls to familiarize themselves with the Talmudic sources that are contained in my article, plus the ones listed in my original Revue de Qumran paper. If my article would lead to such studies, I feel that my publication will have served its main purpose.
A Lot of Money in a Short Time
The articles about the Copper Scroll and its list of gold and silver (Manfred R. Lehmann’s “Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” BAR 19:06, and James E. Harper’s “26 Tons of Gold and 65 Tons of Silver,” BAR 19:06) raise as many questions as they answer.
Harper is persuasive that the huge amounts of buried treasure listed in the 080scroll are not outrageously high when compared with other known treasures of the ancient world, and that if the figures in the scroll are real, the hoard “must have been connected with the Temple at Jerusalem.” The trouble is that the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E., after a siege of Jerusalem, and there’s no record that any of its treasure was rescued by the Jews before it fell. Indeed, it would be difficult to tell how large that treasure was before its destruction, for Paul Johnson in his A History of the Jews (New York: Harper & Row, 1987) relates that Roman rulers often raided the Temple treasury for allegedly unpaid taxes and that one of the reasons for the Jews rising against the Romans starting in 66 C.E. was that the Roman procurator Florus had again taken money from the Temple treasury (p. 136).
The unique part of Lehmann’s article is his contention that the treasure was discovered and confiscated by the Romans during the short, undistinguished rule of the aged emperor Nerva, who died in 98 C.E., and that this discovery and the end of the process of collection was commemorated by a coin issued during Nerva’s rule. But would it be possible for 26 tons of gold and 65 tons of silver to be collected, hidden and buried during the tumultuous period in Palestine between 70 and 98 C.E.? After the fall of Jerusalem, Jews were massacred, sold as slaves, transported—not all, but in great numbers. Jewish life and its religious organizations must have been in disarray throughout Palestine. Centers of resistance stood for a brief while, but they, too, succumbed, such as Masada in 73.
First the Sadducees (if it was they, as Lehmann believes) would have to convince a great many fractious Jews that the halakhah should still be observed, in the way proposed by Lehmann. How widely would their authority be accepted? Second, were there enough Jews either in Palestine or elsewhere willing to be taxed and make offerings in the amounts listed in the Copper Scroll? (Harper’s article compares the amount to the annual income of the Persian kings, but they ruled over a large empire and had abundant tax-collectors.) Third, it would take a great deal of organization and especially time to amass such a treasure under the noses of the Romans, let alone to hide and bury it.
Yet Lehmann allots only 28 years to its amassing, hiding, burial, and then discovery, for he says that the process was ended during the reign of Emperor Nerva (96–98 C.E.). One would think that the uncovering for Rome of 26 tons of gold and 65 tons of silver from the troublesome Jews would be the subject of great rejoicing and worthy of a clear and specific commemoration of that event by the emperor, yet Lehmann himself calls Nerva “relatively unknown.” Nerva was an old man who reigned barely 16 months after a life as a Senator of distinction; he was 081not acclaimed for any great feats of glory.
At the beginning of his article, Lehmann emphasizes that the Copper Scroll’s writing and language are later than the other scrolls, which may be dated as no later than 68 A.D., and he puts it closer to the Hebrew of about 200 C.E. But then he drops the matter. Writing and language do change over time, but to support Lehmann’s thesis—that the Copper Scroll lists a vast treasure collected between 70 C.E. at the very earliest and 98 C.E. at the latest—wouldn’t such a change have to come in an astonishingly short period?
Thomas McEnroe
San Clemente, California
Manfred Lehmann replies:
“Would it be possible for 26 tons of gold and 65 tons of silver to be collected, hidden and buried during the tumultous period in Judea between 70 and 98 C.E.?” Yes, absolutely, especially if you consider that very large Jewish communities existed outside of Judea—in nearby Alexandria, from where affluent Jews would send their gifts to the Temple, too.
Fishing In Jesus’ Time
Caught His Interest
Mendel Nun netted me immediately with his marvelous article on fishing in Jesus’ time (“Cast Your Net Upon the Waters,” BAR 19:06). What a delight for an old fisherman like me (fly fishing, though, not nets) who has loved the stories of the fishing apostles. Thank you, thank you for the excellent explanations, pictures, and drawings of fish, nets and techniques used, some even today.
Dr. S. Thomas Niccolls
Hiram, Ohio
He’ll Have None of Nun
In the first paragraph of “Cast Your Net Upon the Waters,” BAR 19:06, Mendel Nun relates how his vocation of fisherman inspired him to adopt the Aramaic letter nun (N) as his surname (nun means fish in Aramaic). I might suggest a final paragraph extending the world play just a bit further. The transliteration of nun is the first letter of the English word “none,” which describes the value of Mr. Nun’s feeble explanation of the miraculous catch of fish in the Gospel of Luke.
Rev. Roy Allebach
Pennridge Full Gospel Tabernacle
Blooming Glen, Pennsylvania
Did He Hook a Musht?
I read with great interest Mendel Nun’s article (“Cast Your Net Upon the Waters,” BAR 19:06). I give him high marks for his treatment of nets and net fishing in the Sea of Galilee. I agree that the methods of netting fish today are probably basically the same as those of Jesus’ time, if a bit more refined due to overall advancement in technology. The article was very enlightening, and it taught me a great deal about the use of nets, fishing boats and the various species of fish that inhabit the lake.
But that is not the main thrust of my inquiry. I have included a photograph of a fish I caught in the Sea of Galilee, along with a dozen others, all alike, some larger, some smaller. They were caught on the western shore adjacent to Kibbutz Ginnosar early one morning while I was fishing with a fly rod and dry flies on the surface. These fish did not hesitate at rising and taking an imitation #14 White Miller. And they were still hitting when I finally decided to stop fishing. I released all but two fish, which I froze in a deep freezer and brought home to be mounted as mementos of my trip to Israel. The chef at the kibbutz cafeteria identified them as St. Peter fish, having seen many of them.
If this fish is not a St. Peter fish, what is it? If it is, then Mr. Nun made an error on page 51, paragraph 2, where he states, “However, this cannot have been the fish Peter caught with a hook and line. The reason is simple: Musht feed on plankton and is not attracted by other food. It is therefore caught with nets, and not with hook and line.”
As a sport fisherman for over 40 years, I have learned never to state categorically what any fish will or will not do in any given circumstance. They are notorious for doing the unexpected. For instance, I have caught bottom-feeding carp and catfish at or near the surface on bait, artificial lures and bass plugs. I have caught pre-spawn run salmon, both Pacific and Atlantic on lures, flies and live bait. And on rare occasions I have caught certain kinds of bass and perch on a bare hook! Could not Peter have done the same? Or, could it be that Peter was also a fly fisherman?
BAR is great! Even the protests are refreshing. It whets my appetite for the next edition. Keep up the good work. I’m hooked! By the way, I like Mr. Nun. He looks like a nice man. I’d like to write to him. Better yet, I’d really like to go to Israel and fish with him from a boat in the fashion he so aptly described in BAR.
Bill Adlong
Englewood, Colorado
Mendel Nun replies:
I have no doubt that the fish you caught is a Tilapia zillie, popularly called adadi, and not a Tilapia galilea, or musht. The differences between these two fish are great: Musht, the pride of the Kinneret, are white and can weigh up to 4.4 pounds. The native adadi is a slender fish, weighing no more than 5.3 ounces. It is yellow-gold and has wide brown stripes. (I must add that the picture on p. 46 of my article—which was not in accordance with my choice—depicts fish bred in ponds, a dark pink crossbreed of two species of Tilapia.)
The adadi, the smallest non-commercial Tilapia in our lake, is popular with sport fishermen, who wrongly call it “musht.” This fish has many interesting habits: We say here that it dies of laughter when fishermen mistake it for musht.
I am certain that when you return for a visit and we go fishing together you will immediately recognize your catch for what it really was.
With best wishes from one fisherman to another.
“Mother Fish”
Mendel Nun derives the Hebrew name of St. Peter’s Fish,
Actually,
Rabbi Milton H. Polin
Kingsway Jewish Center
Brooklyn, New York
Temple Model
A Mixed Assessment
I was intrigued by Kathleen Ritmeyer’s “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05. I should say at the outset that I have not yet seen Mr. Garrard’s model of the Second Temple, and so my comments are restricted to the article and the accompanying photographs.
Tractate Middot of the Mishnahb and the writings of Josephus rightly served as basic sources. However, the article gives no details of this written record. Was an English translation of Middot used, or did Alec Garrard refer to the standard Hebrew printed text of this tractate? I have had the privilege of composing an ancient version of Middot from 31 manuscripts (some from before the tenth century) and early printed texts.1 One of the main results of my 082investigation is that one can rely entirely on the dimensions quoted in the standard Hebrew text of the tractate. On the other hand, here and there the “ancient version” offers a description quite different from the standard text, and this may affect Temple plans.2 Likewise, the Greek original version of Josephus and its variant texts3 should be checked. Was this done, or was a reliable English translation of the Greek used?
Mrs. Ritmeyer points out that the information that Middot and Josephus supply is, at times, contradictory. In my view nearly all the apparent differences can be reconciled, in that the two accounts are describing different features, thus supplementing one another.
I am pleased that Mr. Garrard concluded that the dimensions of the ‘Azarah (Inner Court) are internal and so the chambers abut on this court externally. However, this would appear to be obvious on examining Middot 5, 1–2.
There are differences in the photographs. For example, the facade of the Hekhal (House of the Lord) in the extended photograph (pp. 64–65) displays a Tympanum gable (triangular surface near the roof); this is missing in the photograph on page 62. It may be that the former arrangement is nearer to the truth, in that a gable roof can be seen on the facade of the Hekhal on a piece of gold glass found in Rome.4 Nevertheless, the photograph on page 62 is correct in showing alternating rows of oak beams and masonry above the Porch entrance (Middot 3, 7).
The model is described as “the largest, the most detailed and the most accurate model of Jerusalem’s Second Temple ever built.” There is no doubt that this model is very beautiful and that great effort was expended in making it. Other models are not mentioned by name to offer comparisons. For example, did Mr. Garrard know of the model of the late Mr. Yehudah of Safad that was displayed at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York? Or the model to a scale of 1:500 made by a schoolboy, Ran Yaqir, of Kibbutz Tel Yosef in 1983? Perhaps the most famous group of models of the Tabernacle in Mosaic times and the Temples of Jerusalem is that by Conrad Schick5 The new model of the Second Temple by The Western Wall Heritage Foundation, under the direction of Rabbi Zalman Koren, approaches the size of Mr. Garrard’s. It was built to a scale of 1:125 and is presently housed in the enclosed area adjoining the Western Wall.
The claim that this is the most accurate model is questionable. It seems from the photographs that in certain features it contradicts tractate Middot. For example, Middot 2, 4 informs us that the eastern wall of the Temple was lower than the other walls. This is not obvious from the photographs. The balcony erected for the women is mentioned in Middot 2, 5. The Hebrew word used for the balcony is kesosterah, which is a transliteration of the Greek (
The caption to the photograph on pages 64–65, in stating that “Jewish females could not get any closer to the Temple than the Court of Women” requires qualification. Toseftac‘Arakhin 2, 1 states: “A woman is never seen in the ‘Azarah (Inner Court) except when she brings her sacrifice.”
Asher S. Kaufman
Jerusalem, Israel
Garrard’s Model Is a Must
Thanks to your article “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05, by Kathleen Ritmeyer, I spent an informative, inspiring hour with Alec Garrard in November. His meticulous, generous tour of the Temple is a must for clergy and laymen.
I’m going back in 1994.
Rev. D. B. Brown
Ambler, Pennsylvania
084
Potpourri
Thomas Never Disavowed It
It is a sad day when archaeologists can “prove” their point only by name calling. Mary Kwas and Robert Mainfort’s comments (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06) about a nonarchaeologist not being able to comprehend archaeological matters (i.e., “The opinion of an economist seems no more germane to the matter than that of a plumber or a physician”) is condescending and amateurish. It is a practice of boorish persons to presume omniscience, simply because they have a degree. (I hope neither Kwas nor Mainfort attempts to fix a clogged drain.)
As I recall, some of the most eminent archaeologists in history didn’t have an archaeological degree. If intellect required that piece of paper, then many of the accomplishments in world history would never have come to pass. Kwas and Mainfort have used the same illogic to support their disbelief concerning the Bat Creek Stone. There is not a shred of evidence anywhere that Cyrus Thomas ever disavowed the authenticity of the inscription. I always thought that, in the scientific community, hearsay is heresy. Obviously, I was wrong. How can you pretend to know what Thomas thought upon the subject of the Bat Creek inscription? Yes, he maintained silence. Perhaps he just had nothing else to comment upon the matter. Perhaps Cherokee inscriptions just weren’t that big of a deal back in the late 1800s (after all, American Indians weren’t in favor among the average white person.)
Gerald A. Smith
Montgomery, Alabama
When Was the World Created?
According to Bishop Ussher’s famous calculation, based on the Bible, the world was created in 4004 B.C. That is 5,998 years ago. The Hebrew calendar is supposed to begin with the creation of the world according to the Bible. Yet the date according to the Hebrew calendar is only 5754. Can you give me an explanation for this discrepancy?
Jerry Maltz
New York, New York
Lloyd Bailey replies:
Since the Bible relates many of its events to one another, it is easy to derive a relative chronological history from it. It states, for example, that Solomon began to build the Temple in Jerusalem in the 480th year after the exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). An absolute chronology is a bit more difficult to derive, but it can be done from creation downward beginning with the statement that Adam became the father of Seth in his 130th year (Genesis 5:3). The idea would be to link events in this relative way until one of them can be placed in the framework of the modern calendar (B.C./B.C.E.–A.D./C.E.).
The most famous attempt to do this is Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti (published in 1650–1654), by Anglican Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), published as The Annals of the World (1658). Events were dated in elapsed time since creation (ab creatione mundi, “from the creation of the world, abbreviated A.M. for anno mundi, “the year of the world”), and thus the date of Seth’s birth was A.M. 130. This process was continued until he came to an event that could be dated by extra-Biblical means to the Selucidian Calendar or the “Julian Period” and hence with the modern calendar. That event was the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the beginning of the reign of Evil-Merodach of Babylon, in other words, 562 B.C.E. (see his “Epistle to the Reader”). Since this event was, in his calculation, A.M. 3442, the total of the two figures indicates that creation took place in 4004 B.C.E.
This and related dates were placed in the margins of English Bibles beginning with Lloyd’s edition in 1701 and continued (e.g., the Douai Version) into the 19th century.
Also well known is the traditional Jewish calendar in which creation is placed at A.M. 3760/3761. Mr. Maltz’s letter to BAR seeks an explanation of this discrepancy. The traditional Jewish reckoning had its origins in the rabbinic work entitled Sedar Olam Rabbah from the second century C.E. (Its title means “The Large [volume on] the Order of the World.” Those who desire details should consult Edgar Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology [1956], or more briefly, the article “Seder ‘Olam Rabbah” in The Jewish Encyclopedia.)
Unfortunately, for such computations, the Biblical data is ambiguous or provides options. A single example will suffice here to illustrate the problem and to account (in part) for the difference of 244 years between Archbishop Ussher’s system and the traditional Jewish system. According to Genesis 11:26, Terah’s heirs, consisting of Abram, Nahor and Haran, were born in his 70th year. (Taken literally, this would seem to suggest triplets.) According to Genesis 11:32, Terah lived a total of 205 years, and Genesis 12:1 may be taken to mean that Abram set out at age 75 after Terah’s death (Genesis 12:4), in which case Abram was born when Terah was aged 130. Thus, there would be a discrepancy of 60 years. According to the former calculation, Abram was born in A.M. 1948, and according to the latter, in A.M. 2008. Archbishop Ussher elects the latter date and Seder Olam Rabbah the former.
All such uncertainties considered, more than 100 different dates for anno mundi 1 (creation) have been suggested by interpreters of the Bible.
005
A Note on Style
B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by some of our authors, are the alternative designations for B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.
Qimron and Shanks Fight Like Children
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Footnotes
Before eating the Sabbath meal on Friday evening, the wine and then the bread are blessed. Saturday evening, the bread is blessed, the last Sabbath meal eaten, and at the Sabbath’s conclusion, the wine is blessed.
Endnotes
For a more detailed examination of this problem see “Dates, Discrepancies, and Dead Sea Scrolls,” The New Christian Advocate, July 1958, pp. 50–54.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews XV.ii.1; VS.x.4; XVII.ii.4. The film, “Jesus of Nazareth,” erroneously followed Ramsay’s weak argument in an at tempt to harmonize the Gospels, because it showed the Romans taking a census in Herod the Great’s reign.