Queries & Comments

048

Storm Over Buchanan’s Life of Jesus

To the Editor:

I read with interest George Wesley Buchanan’s “Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01, which chided Wendell Phillips for his naive fundamentalism. Not only was Phillips characterized as the “last of the great nineteenth century explorers although he lived entirely in the twentieth,” but his book was described as belonging “among the numerous nineteenth century lives of Jesus.” It appeared to me as I read Professor Buchanan’s article, that his perspective is basically that of a nineteenth century liberal, and that he is still fighting the nineteenth century battles.

From the early Church Fathers to the present, varying answers have been given in explanation of the differences in the Gospels. In the nineteenth century, Bible scholars sought their answers through the quest for the historical Jesus. Such questers were divided into conservative and liberal camps. Conservatives sought to harmonize the discrepancies found in the various Gospel accounts. They did their utmost to preserve all the details, and bring them into one continuous narrative. Liberals, on the other hand, tended to cut away material they considered to be late or legendary accretions.

Albert Schweitzer pointed out the futility of the quest for the historical Jesus. All the efforts of critical scholars to describe the historic Jesus and identify his authentic words have been dead-end streets. In the final analysis, we know Jesus only in the interpretation given him in the Bible.

Today, a new breed of scholars have shifted their attention to the editorial aspects of the Gospel authors. They no longer feel compelled to harmonize, or pare down, the Gospel narratives. They are carefully examining the similarities and differences in a quest for the message or purpose of the authors. They no longer are asking such questions as “What was the last word spoken by Christ on the cross?” “What was the exact wording of the inscription over his head?” Rather they ask “What impressions did the life and death of Jesus make on the Gospel authors, and what message are they trying to convey to their readers about Jesus?” In other words, they are willing to let Luke be Luke, and Matthew be Matthew. Such scholarship has left behind the old nineteenth century battle between fundamentalist and liberal.

To the Editor:

Thank you for an enlightening magazine. I have just finished reading the second issue since subscribing and I find your articles are filled with interesting information.

However, the article, “Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01, by George Wesley Buchanan was a misfit. I found it to be an unkind and unscholarly attack upon another author’s book and faith in the Scriptures. In amazing contrast to your usual articles, this one contained virtually no research documentation other than page references to passages with which Mr. Buchanan disagreed. His critique was almost entirely his own unscientifically supported opinion. He never proved a single allegation or premise with any substantiated evidence.

All individuals are entitled to opinions and beliefs, including your editorial staff, but I must say that I was surprised at the unscholarly caliber of Mr. Buchanan’s article and now of his inclusion on your advisory board.

To the Editor:

As an admirer of both your magazine and George Wesley Buchanan’s commentary on To the Hebrews, I admit to a great deal of 049disappointment over the article “Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01.

Professor Buchanan justifies his superior attitude towards Phillips and other “nineteenth century scholars” by what seems to be a rather uncritical faith in the objectivity of modern form-critical methodology. However, in the space of two pages he shows how the mere identification (tentative though it may be) of a literary form can be used in one case (typology) to deny the historicity of a Biblical passage and in another instance (responsive chreia) to support historicity. This is at least as great a logical inconsistency as any Phillips is accused of and indicates that lack of “theological commitments” may be just as great a barrier to objective research as too much commitment.

Professor Buchanan might profit from a re-reading of Matthew 7:1–5 with an eye to the substance as well as the form.

To the Editor:

I have been a charter subscriber to BAR and have always been glad to get my copy because of an interest in things Biblical and archaeological. I suggest that you stick in the future to things Biblical and archaeological.

The article by George Wesley Buchanan, “Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01, was neither. I have not read Wendell Phillips’ book, but I think that Dr. Buchanan’s attack on Phillips tries to picture him as unlearned, unscientific, and unscholarly. In short, a fool.

I could by the same methodology attack Hershel Shanks article, and Yigael Yadin’s speculations about the placement of the horned altar at Beer-Sheva, as bearing the same epithets by simply stating that Yadin’s quotation from 2 Kings contains an interpolation or addenda from some later redactor.

I suggest that BAR lay aside Buchanan’s thinly veiled defense of the historical-critical method and stick to what is much more interesting and a lot more illuminating, archaeology in the Biblical context. Dr. Buchanan must have been upset by reading Gerhard Maier’s “The End of the Historical-Critical Method,” and had to take it out on someone, this time banging away at poor dead Phillips.

To the Editor:

I have been very impressed with your magazine—it is informative and interesting without being overly technical. The pictures, particularly in the March issue, are excellent.

I would prefer articles dealing directly with archaeology to material such as George Wesley Buchanan’s “Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01. Mr. Buchanan exhibits a scornful attitude toward Wendell Phillips (described as “blissfully unaware of ancient historiographical methods”) and others who take the Bible seriously: ( … “conservative, pious, Christian layman, who … grew up in a fundamentalistic community.”)

Mr. Buchanan is entitled to his views about the Bible, but it is unfortunate that he feels compelled to represent people who disagree with him as uneducated clods. I am glad that Jesus didn’t accept or reject people on the basis of their intellect. But then, according to Mr. Buchanan, maybe Jesus never said things like “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden … ” Probably some orator who didn’t understand what Jesus was trying to say just added those words.

No doubt Mr. Buchanan is a scholar who has “done his homework” and deserves respect as such. However, I can’t help wondering why he has devoted his life to studying a document which (in his view) has so little truth in it.

I would prefer that you devote BAR’s pages to articles relating directly to archaeology, but if you get into the field of Biblical criticism, it seems only fair to present other views—perhaps an article by a conservative scholar from an evangelical seminary (such as Trinity at Deerfield, Illinois) would be in order.

It may be that you had already planned to give equal time to another view. I was impressed that in recent issues of the magazine you followed an article about Yohanan Aharoni with one about his “arch 050rival” Yigael Yadin, which indicates that you are interested in presenting more than one point of view.

To the Editor:

It is rather surprising to me that you should include such an article in what I have considered to be an exceptionally good magazine.

May I suggest, in fairness to the many evangelical ministers who no doubt subscribe to your magazine, that you now present the case for the New Testament’s authenticity by including an article by a modern scholar of the conservative persuasion? Buchanan, while a professor at one of my own denominational institutions, does not represent the general scholarship of our time. If I may suggest it, he apparently has not kept up with the trends of today’s scholars who in many cases have serious reservations concerning form criticism and other earlier styles of Biblical criticism.

When Was Jesus Born?

To the Editor:

The BAR is becoming magnificent.

Professor Buchanan’s article (“Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01) prompts me to ask whether a notion I have been suggesting to classes and other audiences is worth your notice. This is simply that the conflict in the birth years of Jesus may be explained by assuming that the earlier date, “In the days of Herod the King” may be correct for John the Baptist, and the later indication, to whatever year it be assigned, is correct for Jesus.

Jesus’ early preaching seems very John-like, and there were disciples of John surviving in Paul’s time.

I don’t know whether this is my own idea, or picked up from my reading or listening, but it may be of interest to some of your audience or contributors.

George Wesley Buchanan replies:

Professor Rockwell has made an interesting suggestion, but, unfortunately, there is no scriptural evidence to support it. According to Luke, both Mary and Elizabeth became pregnant in the days of Herod, king of Judaea (38–4 B.C.) (Luke 1:5, 26). This implies that both John and Jesus were born within a few months of each other during the reign of Herod the Great. But then Luke says that Jesus was born in the days of the first enrollment, when Quirinius was the Roman governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), which, according to the contemporary historian Josephus, was in A.D. 6/7—ten years after the death of Herod the Great. Since pregnancies do not ordinarily last ten years, scholars have had problems dating the birth of Jesus.¹

Ramsay’s suggestion² that Quirinius was twice appointed governor of Syria, once during Herod’s reign and the second time in A.D. 617, has no direct evidence to support it, and also creates many problems.³ A Roman census in Herod’s reign would be inconsistent with the political relationship that existed between the Roman Empire and the Jewish nation before Herod’s death (4 B.C.). Herod had the right to carry out his own taxation. He could even remit taxes if he chose. After Herod’s son, Archaelaus, had been deposed, then Judaea was reduced to a Roman province, and the taxation of Quirinius makes sense.

051If we are to accept A.D. 6/7 as the date for the birth of Jesus, however, there are still further problems. Luke also said Jesus began his ministry when he was about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23), which would be about A.D. 36–37 if he were born in A.D. 617, but this implies that he was crucified before he began his ministry, because his death occurred when Pontius Pilate was the local Roman ruler of Judaea (A.D. 26–36).

Matthew also indicates that Jesus was born in the days of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Matthew, Jesus was taken to Egypt until Herod died and Archaelaus was made ruler to Judaea and Samaria (Matthew 2:19–22).

Clearly, the Gospel writers did not agree precisely on the date of Jesus’ birth, but instead probably deduced it from tradition, scripture, and their knowledge of history.

According to the Zadokite Document from the Cairo Genizah (CD 14:8–9): “The superintendent of all the companies shall be from 30–50 years old” (see also IQSa 1:13 in the Dead Sea Scrolls). This age qualification for leadership seems to have been known by the Gospel writers, none of whom give Jesus’ exact age when he began his ministry. Luke says Jesus was about thirty (Luke 3:23), and John says he was not yet fifty (John 8:57). It seems that on this basis Gospel writers then conjectured Jesus’ birth to have occurred 30–50 years before his ministry, his ministry having occurred in the days of Pontius Pilate (A.D. 26–36).

Matthew chose for Jesus’ birth date sometime in the reign of Herod the Great (38–4 B.C.), because Matthew also conjectured Herod’s slaughter of male infants in Egypt, just before the Exodus (Exodus 1:8–22). Luke, however, chose a different date for Jesus’ birth in order to correspond to another important event—the taxation of Quirinius (A.D. 6/7)—because he had to explain how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem when his home seems to have been in Galilee. Luke of course is the only Gospel writer who places Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem. (Although Luke says that Jesus was conceived during Herod the Great’s reign, Luke probably confused Herod the Great with his son Herod Archaelaus; otherwise Mary would have had a 10-year pregnancy at least (from Herod the Great’s death in 4 B.C. to Quirinius’ enrollment in A.D. 6/7).

The Gospel writers evidently were not eye-witnesses to the events they narrated. They compiled sources and utilized their knowledge of history, scripture and tradition to deduce events in Jesus’ life of which they had no direct evidence. One of these conjectured reports is the narrative of events surrounding Jesus’ birth. The Gospel writers evidently did not know exactly when John and Jesus were born, and neither can we. Their conjecture that Jesus was probably 30–50 years of age when he began to run for a political office is probably correct. Since he was crucified sometime while Pilate was prefect (A.D. 26–36), we too can subtract 50 years from A.D. 26, and 30 years from A.D. 36, and conjecture quite accurately that Jesus was born sometime between 26 B.C. and A.D. 6.

How Big Are Meter Sticks?

To the Editor:

I have a question that betrays my ignorance. So be it! In pictures of archaeology excavations, frequently there are measuring rods to give readers a good idea of comparative size of objects—e.g. your article in the March 1977 issue of BAR (“Yigael Yadin Finds a Bama at Beer-Sheva,” BAR 03:01). I presume these rods are one meter in length and the black and white bands are each 10 cms.

Is this standard procedure? Are these black and white bands always 10 cms. unless otherwise specified? Does this hold true also on pictures where, because of restricted or confined areas, a shorter measuring stick is used and fewer than 10 bands are visible?

Some years ago I swallowed my pride and asked this same question of an expert archaeologist. He just laughed at me and then consented to say “that depends” but added no explanation.

Your presumptions are correct. The rods (or meter sticks, as they are called) in the article you refer to are one meter in length, divided into ten black and white bands of 10 centimeters each. You are also right that in confined areas a half-meter stick, divided into five bands is used.

In pictures of smaller objects, the stick is 052divided into black and white bands of one centimeter each. Whether the black and white bands are one centimeter each or 10 centimeters each is usually obvious from the object pictured.

We’re glad you asked. If the question troubled you, it probably troubled many other readers, too.—Ed.

From the Mid-Pacific to Izmir

To the Editor:

By no stretch of the imagination could I even conceive of myself as actually being an archaeologist. I am more skilled at digging holes to put things into than taking things out of. However, if archaeologists can help keep us from burying ourselves in heresy, then it is worth taking a look at their findings, opinions, evaluations, and re-evaluations. Where else could an interested party ever get someone to dig up whole cities, sift through mounds of pre-television literature, and put their results into reasonably understandable English for only $8.50 a year? I thank God for pick-and-shovel nuts like that. Press on!

To the Editor:

You may be interested in knowing that I first saw and read your recent Review in my son’s library at Izmir, Turkey.

To the Editor:

I do not know how you came into possession of my name and to send me a brochure to subscribe. With mixed feelings, I did subscribe. Your first issues have arrived and I cannot express the pleasant surprise and delight that I received from BAR. My regret is that I was not aware of this journal sooner.

Cancellations and Renewals

To the Editor:

Please cancel my subscription. You’re just a little too much for an old-fashioned conservative; for example, “If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really lived as individuals” (Queries & Comments, BAR 02:03); compare Matthew 22:32 “He is God of the living Abraham, living Jacob and living Isaac.” If they live now they must have lived then.

I am in a small craft of faith; should I abandon this for a great sea of uncertainty?

To the Editor:

If, in this day of liberation, one may still claim the prerogative of changing one’s mind, may I change mine? I had decided I had too many subscriptions and cancelled my order for the BAR, but the first issue came anyway and I really enjoyed it so … Enclosed please find $8.50.

To the Editor:

As a charter member I have enjoyed the growth from Vol. I, No. 1 through my recent copy, Vol. III, No. 1. The growth of quality and quantity of material is amazing; it is well written and easy to understand by layman or student. I only wish that this historical information which is the foundation and support of Biblical history, could be put into the hands of more people who would have a broader view of the closeness of all religions. Excavations dig out artifacts in support of the truth, and these clues, when assembled by men of knowledge, give truth to previous theories and speculation.

Keep up the good work, but start a subscription campaign to get your publication into more hands for “to know the truth shall set you free.”

053To the Editor:

I anticipated the arrival of the first issue of the BAR with great expectations—but after reading this issue my expectations were tinged with disappointment.

I was hoping for an unbiased scholarly journal that would report the facts of archaeological discoveries without making a judgment either way as to the reliability of Biblical accounts.

Those who believe the inerrency of the Bible will not be convinced otherwise—those who are on the fence must only conclude that there must be more truth to scripture than meets the eye, since such effort is expended to discredit it.

After all, who tries to prove that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist.

Therefore, please cancel my subscription.

Source of Slides

To the Editor:

Regarding your request for sources of slides, I offer the following:

Budek Films and Slides Division
Avid Corporation
Post Office Box 4263
East Providence, Rhode Island 02914

The firm has sets of some 40 slides on art and architecture of the Near and Middle East as well as Mesopotamian Art. The sets come with lecture films. Cost is $22 a set.

Many thanks for the very interesting March issue of BAR. Keep it up.

Zeitlin and the Scrolls’ Authenticity

To the Editor:

What a marvelous periodical you have put together! Your broad focus has helped so much to fill the lacunae left by the Biblical Archaeologist, Israel Exploration Journal, etc. I can’t express my gratitude adequately.

Could you please comment on Solomon Zeitlin’s long-standing challenge to the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls? What is your evaluation of his arguments? And has he continued to challenge the Scrolls since Yadin’s discovery of an identical “Songs of sabbath sacrifices” scroll in Masada?

Solomon Zeitlin died in December 1976 without retreating from his position that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written no earlier than medieval times. His arguments were based principally on his belief that certain words and word-forms which appear in the Scrolls were not used earlier than the medieval period. Instead of concluding that these key words and word-forms were used earlier than he had previously supposed, Zeitlin concluded that the Scrolls were medieval forgeries.

Zeitlin was a brilliant talmudist, historian and philologist. But he was not competent to deal with the archaeological and palaeographic evidence by which the Scrolls were securely dated. (See Frank Cross’s article “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the People Who Wrote Them,” BAR 03:01.) Zeitlin took his extreme position before all the archaeological and palaeographic evidence was in and thereafter struggled unsuccessfully to defend what was essentially an indefensible position.

As Quentin Quesnell of Marquette University has recently stated, “Most scholars would agree [that Zeitlin’s attacks on the Dead Sea documents are absurd]”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 38, p. 202 (1976).

Of Zeitlin’s last “assault on the Dead Sea documents,” Morton Smith of Columbia University has stated, “Zeitlin has more recently made himself more ridiculous.” (Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, Harvard University Press, 1973, p. 89, n. 1).—Ed.

To the Editor:

The article on “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the People Who Wrote Them,” BAR 03:01, by Frank Moore Cross was excellent—and the color photographs superb! Keep it up!

054Horus for Sekhmet

To the Editor:

In the article by Norma Kershaw “The Bible Comes to Life at the Jewish Museum,” BAR 03:01, there is a photograph identified as “the Egyptian God Horus with a lion head and an elaborate crown … ” To my eye, this appears to be the Egyptian goddess Sekhmet—part human and part lioness—wearing the Hemhemet crown.

Could either Ms. Kershaw or someone connected with the collection of Joseph Ternbach explain why this statue is identified as Horus.

Norma Kershaw replies:

Your correct identification of the Sekhmet statue is testimony to your keen eye and certain knowledge. It is she, indeed, as Mr. Ternbach’s records show. However, somewhere along the way to publication the spirit of Horus took over and overpowered the weaker Sekhmet!

Question’s Peter’s Relics

To the Editor:

First of all, I have a high regard for Jack Finegan’s scholarship, and made good use of his The Archaeology of the New Testament. Consequently, I read his article “The Death and Burial of St. Peter,” BAR 02:04, with interest. At the beginning of the article he states: “Literary tradition is clear that St. Peter was crucified in Rome at a place called Vatican. Archaeology has confirmed that the Church of St. Peter was built above, and to commemorate, the place of his burial.” Further on, he observes: “On the Red Wall and probably not much later than the wall and the Aedicula, a graffito was found with the name of Peter and a word possibly meaning ‘within’, thus a scratched notation by some worker or visitor that Peter is buried inside.” Accordingly, the Aedicula probably marked the last resting place of Peter.”

I have had an interest in the recent excavations leading to the purported recovery of the bodily remains of Peter. When it was announced that a portion of his skull had been found my interest was considerably increased, because Peter’s skull and Paul’s skull have been the chief treasures of St. John Lateran since the fourteenth century. According to an article in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, p. 15, “In the upper part of the baldicchino are preserved the heads of the Apostles Peter and Paul, the great treasures of the basilica, which until this shrine was prepared to receive them had been kept in the Sancta Sanctorum.”

Accordingly, upon reading that a portion of Peter’s skull had been found at the Vatican site, I wrote to the archaeologists inquiring about what they would do with the skull of St. John Lateran. The reply was to the effect that the skull there possibly was incomplete, and that the piece they found at the Vatican might be from it. I suggested in reply that they might see if this were true, and that they might see if there was a match. I received no reply to this suggestion. I, of course, question that either the skull at St. John Lateran or the bones found at the Vatican are Peter’s relics. I suggested that the carbon 14 test be applied to a portion of the skeleton, but this sacrilegious suggestion was also ignored.

Caution on Yadin’s “Bama”

To the Editor:

I have just received my first copy of BAR (March 1977). It was exciting and informative!

Having dug at Beer-sheva in the summers of ‘73 and ‘75 under Dr. Yohanan Aharoni and Dr. Anson Rainey I was fascinated by the lead article on Beer-sheva (“Yigael Yadin Finds a Bama at Beer-Sheva,” BAR 03:01). In ‘75 I dug on the western portion of the City Gate only a few yards from the spot where Yigael Yadin locates the “bama.”

I would think that an awful lot of caution should be exercised in placing the “bama” at any particular place at the moment. I found Dr. Aharoni to be a very careful scholar and did not detect in him any desire to 055rush into print with the sensational for the sake of publicity. It would be interesting to have Dr. Anson Rainey’s assessment of this situation [see “Beer-Sheva Excavator Blasts Yadin—No Bama at Beer-Sheva,” in this issue.—Ed.].

As for the article by George Wesley Buchanan (“Exploring The Life Of Jesus,” BAR 03:01), could it be that Paul had him in mind when he wrote: “Be careful that nobody spoils your faith through intellectualism or high-sounding nonsense. Such stuff is at best founded on men’s ideas of the nature of the world, and disregards Christ!” (Colossians 2:8, J. B. Phillips translation).

I find BAR to be extremely helpful and share much of it with my class in archaeology.

Join the Inner Circle

To the Editor:

I enjoy BAR immensely. I knew next to nothing about archaeology before subscribing, but continue to feel I am being drawn into an inner circle of extremely knowledgeable people who want to share their treasures with the rest of us.

Thanks for an extremely helpful publication.

To the Editor:

I have just received my first issue of BAR and it certainly lived up to your advertisement. I teach high school and a college course, and this will be an invaluable resource. I like the way the articles are laid out and written. It is a very fine periodical.

To the Editor:

It is a great pleasure just to sit back and enjoy reading about archaeology without either a magnifying glass or a Hebrew lexicon at my side. I am delighted to have found a way to keep up with recent events in the field without sacrificing impossible amounts of time from my pressing duties as a minister.

Storm Over Buchanan’s Life of Jesus
To the Editor: