Queries & Comments

012

No College Grad

I was not fortunate enough to attend college, as some of your editorial writers were. But I have learned a lot about history and archaeology from you. You are the best publication around.

BAR on a Tabloid Kick

The BAR 20:02 is the poorest I have ever seen in terms of archaeological content: an article on a bureaucracy (the Israel Antiquities Authority), a convention of archaeol-ogists, a Harvard Museum controversy and a heavily padded rehash of Dead Sea Scrolls politics.

I think you have lost your rudder. Please go back to the subject in your journal’s title and get off this tabloid kick. I am interested in a journal on archaeology, not on tidbits of gossip and the posturing and politics of the luminaries in the field.

In the Beginning

As a reader of BAR from the very beginning in March 1975, I have always been amused by the letters to the editor saying “cancel my subscription.” During a snowbound weekend I thought it would be interesting to find the first such letter.

It appeared in September 1977 (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:03) from H. Sperry of Wheaton, Maryland. He wrote that you were “just a little too much for an old fashioned conservative” in your comments concerning the Ebla tablets in September 1976 (Queries & Comments, BAR 02:03). In opining that the tablets did not contain the names of the patriarchs because they lived in a period later than the tablets, you wrote: “The patriarchs, if they lived as individuals, lived in the Middle Bronze Age.” H. Sperry quoted Matthew 22:32 to the effect that the patriarchs are living persons and “if they are living now they must have lived then.”

The next “cancellation” letter was in the December 1977 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:04) from T. R. Mutto of Fort Worth, Texas. He wrote that the magazine was mistitled; it should be called “Anti-Biblical …”

Please don’t cancel my subscription.

We are pleased to hear from an original subscriber, and we hope that more 20-year men and women will write to help us celebrate our 20th anniversary next March.—Ed.

David Mosaic Restoration

Why Orpheus?

Thank you for Connie Kestenbaum Green’s fine article, “King David’s Head from Gaza Synagogue Restored,” BAR 20:02. Lovers of the Bible and of art can rejoice that the beautiful Gaza mosaic can once again be seen and appreciated by the public. The Israel Museum conservators are to be congratulated for their outstanding restoration work.

It is possible (if not probable) that the choice of Orpheus as a model for David’s lyre-playing, not only in the Gaza syna-gogue, but also perhaps on the central wall of the Dura-Europos synagogue, was based on the similarity between the purpose of Orpheus’ playing and that of David. As Green notes, an Orpheus myth describes him as using “his music to charm monsters of the underworld when he attempted to retrieve his wife from Hades.” Consider 1 Samuel 16:23: “Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.” A “monster of the underworld” would seem to have at least something in common with an “evil spirit.”

Why didn’t the restorers of the Gaza synagogue mosaic lengthen the second daleth (d) in David’s name and add a serif to it? Had they done so, it would have matched the first daleth, as the original artists apparently intended (if the 014black-and-white photo of the intact mosaic is any indication).

Connie Kestenbaum Green replies:

In restoring the mosaic, we concentrated on areas inaccessible to viewers, those areas that without restoration could not be understood. Thus the greatest efforts were concentrated on David’s face; since the inscription could be clearly read, it did not seem to us to warrant restoration. Since, however, a number of readers have commented on the “imbalance” between the two daleths, I have discussed it with the curators and the matter is now under consideration.

Shades of Grayscale

As a retired professional photographer, I want to advise the restoration staff that the original black-and-white photograph taken at the site was taken on panchro-matic film, which shows color in different shades of the grayscale, and it is very clear that King David’s hair was at least three to four shades darker than they show it.

Old photographers never die, they just keep on developing.

Restoration Horrifies Him

Although “King David’s Head from Gaza Synagogue Restored” was very interesting, the horrifying quality of the restoration calls the entire project into question. Even to my untrained eye, there are glaring inconsistencies in the reconstruction when compared to the 1965 photograph.

Although the picture is in black and white, it is obvious that the halo, King David’s hair and the collar of the tunic have been restored to unreasonably light shades. King David’s neck also appears to be a deeper color (as would be artistically appropriate) in the photo than in the restoration. Also, despite the poor-quality photograph, the facial features are much better defined than in the reconstruction.

More obviously wrong is the shoddy reworking of David’s “harp.” Besides the color differences, it is apparent that the reconfigured harp strings are much too long. In the 1965 photograph, the plectrum extends below the strings. There are 16 “loops” to the right of the strings. The frame of the harp makes a graceful turn under the strings. In the restoration the plectrum ends within the strings, there are 20 “loops” and the harp seems more like a rectangle than is appropriate.

It is difficult to imagine how, using the exacting techniques described in the article, such egregious errors could be made. It seems that the restorer relied on insufficient artistic ability and personal imagination rather than on the evidence before them.

Connie Kestenbaum Green replies:

If Mr. Dubin will reexamine the photos on pages 59 and 60, he will see that the “glaring inconsistencies” are, in fact, completely consistent with the evidence preserved in the mosaic itself. The black-and-white photo (p. 60) was taken in the midst of the excavation, when the mosaic had been only partially uncovered. A portion still lay beneath the sand at that point. The color photo (p. 59) shows all of David (minus the modern-day losses, of course), including the bottom of the harp frame. Since the inner corner of the frame was intact, we were able to restore the missing section of the harpstrings, and to do so in 058full color. We were unable to do the same for the head, halo and upper part of the tunic. Even to convey the lightness or darkness of the shades of gray could have been misleading; without knowing the precise conditions under which the in situ photo was taken (for example, whether the photographer used a colored filter) or developed (areas could have been made to appear darker or lighter during the developing process), the information that could be gleaned was quite limited.And had we painted these areas darker, we would still have had to choose the colors with which to do so.

The purpose of the project was to present to the public an important, unique scene that had been all but lost. We did not attempt to duplicate the original, since some information could not be retrieved. Even without some of the details, however, the restored mosaic now contains all the elements of the original composition as it survived into the 20th century.

Another Photo of Undamaged Mosaic?

“King David’s Head from Gaza Restored” was a fascinating account of the history, discovery and restoration of this magni-ficent mosaic. Comparing the photograph on page 60 with that of the restoration on the cover, I was struck by the naturalness of the former and the stiff flatness of the other. Then I discovered in Land of Our Heritage (Keter Enterprises, Jerusalem), page 62, a full-page, color photograph of the mosaic before it was damaged. The list of credits gives the Keter Publishing House Illustration Archive as its source. Not only does the “restoration” lack the plasticity of the original, but it rearranges David’s features (e.g., the nose and eyebrows). It is regrettable that the photograph in the Keter Archives was not available to the restorers.

Connie Kestenbaum Green replies:

The photo referred to by the reader is of an earlier reconstruction—an attempted replica, really—of the entire mosaic. It was apparently done by a private individual, but who, when and for whom, I have yet to ascertain. I am also attempting to find out where this replica is located today.

It is not without merit as a replica, when the original was in storage for over 25 years, far from the public eye. However, the size, shape and manner of placement of the tesserae in this representation are very inaccurate, as are their colors. In the lyre, for example, the use of rectangular tesserae rather than square ones (like those used in the original), give the object dimensions that are longer and narrower than they should be. The halo is very sloppy and irregular: in fact, the artist ran out of room above David’s right shoulder and couldn’t complete it. The tesserae used for the face and hair are much too big to convey the beauty and subtlety of the original depiction, that which continues, sadly, to elude us today.

Megiddo

Why Not an Israelite Conquest?

Best wishes to Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin in renewing excavations at Megiddo. Their article about the site (“Back to Megiddo,” BAR 20:01) was both interesting and insightful. I suspect, however, that their quick dismissal of the six-chambered “Solomonic gate” and “casemate wall” will prove premature and that they will, in fact, find that Yigael Yadin was correct when he interpreted those structures as having been both simultaneous and “Solomonic.” In the case of the gate, this has already been successfully demonstrated in the pages of BAR in an article that readers will want to be sure to review (“Is the Solomonic Gate at Megiddo Really Solomonic?” BAR 09:05, by Valerie M. Fargo).

I must also admit to some skepticism concerning the authors’ position on Stratum VIIB, destroyed in the late 13th century B.C. “We cannot account for this destruction,” say the authors. “Who did it and why?” They then admit: “We might be tempted to ascribe this destruction to the Israelites—the time period seems to be right—but subsequent levels make this identification impossible.” Really? Why? Why assume a priori that “a prosperous VIIA community just like the VIIB community … rules out the Israelites”? Such a position seems to assume that any Late Bronze site attacked by Israel must necessarily have remained thereafter in Israelite control—an assumption that is not warranted and is most likely untrue.

Finkelstein and Ussishkin ought perhaps to give in a bit to their “temptations” here and leave open the possibility that Megiddo Stratum VIIB was indeed sacked and destroyed by invading Israelites around 1230 B.C. (utilizing Albright’s dating). They might also keep an open mind about Canaanites reestablishing themselves at the site not long after the Israelite attack, due to 060Israelite inability or unwillingness to occupy the mound. This would then answer for the Late Bronze II “C” culture of Stratum VIIA, which endured until another invasion and destruction in the middle of the 12th century B.C. I am quite comfortable with the authors’ conclusion that it was the Philistines/Sea Peoples who then attacked and demolished Megiddo Stratum VIIA around 1150 B.C.

It is significant that this same scenario is discernible at another site in Israel, the ancient city of Lachish, which was excavated, coincidentally, by Ussishkin in the 1970s and 1980s. As I pointed out in the pages of BAR several years ago (“Did the Israelites Destroy Level VII at Lachish?” Queries & Comments, BAR 13:03), Lachish Level VII, an extensive Late Bronze IIB Canaanite phase, was violently destroyed in the late 13th century B.C. (c. 1230), most likely by invading Israelites (see Joshua 10:32—Ussishkin disagrees that this destruction occurred at the hands of Israel, but offers no alternative). The site was soon rebuilt and reoccupied by a similar Late Bronze II “C” Canaanite culture in Level VI, probably because the Israelites were either unwilling or more likely unable, to retain control of Lachish following Pharaoh Merneptah’s 1220 B.C. campaign in the area. Lachish Level VI was then destroyed in the mid-12th century B.C. (c. 1150), according to Ussishkin, by either Israelites or Philistines/Sea Peoples, of which I would be inclined to suspect the Philistines, as in the case of Megiddo.

This pattern, (1) the destruction of Late Bronze IIB Canaanite Lachish and Megiddo circa 1230 B.C., (2) the reestablishment of Canaanite occupation at both sites and (3) the destruction of these Late Bronze II “C” communities by the Philistines/Sea Peoples, circa 1150 B.C., is also discernible at other low-lying sites in the land of Israel, such as Beth-Shean, Tel Sera, Ashdod and Tel el-Farah south (see Amihai Mazar, Archaeology in the Land of the Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1990], pp. 296–300). In this respect, the postulated 1230 B.C. “conquest” of Canaan by Israel was not nearly as successful as some commentators would have us believe. Nevertheless, this pattern can quite legitimately be viewed as supportive of the notion that invading Israelites accomplished a significant and widespread military action in the late 13th century B.C., in addition to their nonaggressive infiltration into the hill country of Ephraim and Manasseh.

At any rate, thanks and good luck to Professors Finkelstein and Ussishkin at Megiddo, and may their efforts there be as the discovery of a thousand cities!

Down the Up Staircase?

In “Back to Megiddo,” there are two photographs on page 42 of a grain silo. The caption includes the following statement: “Two staircases—one presumably for going up, the other for going down—wind their way up and down the sides of this huge silo.” The stated presumption puzzles me. If the silo contained grain, wouldn’t it be unlikely a person would go down one staircase, flounder across the grain to the other side, and go up the other staircase? This procedure seems illogical in that (1) it would slow down, rather than expedite, access to the grain and (2) it would unnecessarily pollute the grain as people swam through it. Wouldn’t it be more 061sensible to form a queue at each staircase and proceed down and up the same staircase, thereby enabling two persons to get grain at a time?

Graham I. Davies replies:

The theory that BAR reader Gary Truman questions was already put forward in Megiddo I by R. Lamon and G. M. Shipton (1939). There may have been some form of wooden framework or decking, which would have made it possible to cross over from one stairway to the other across the grain, but no evidence of that would be expected to survive. The idea that both staircases were used for descending and ascending, however, seems the most likely one to me, as it does to Mr. Truman.

Did Solomon’s Stables Hold Miniature Horses?

Regarding the ongoing discussion of Solomon’s stables at Megiddo: I visited Megiddo in 1991, and I am confused by the size of these “stables.” Either the horses were very small, or they were quartered in a very tight-fitting area or these are not stables. It seems to me that a man of Solomon’s wealth and statue would provide a more liveable space for his horses.

John D. Currid replies:

The dimensions of the tripartite pillared buildings have been well-documented in archaeological literature (see Larry Herr, “Tripartite Pillared Buildings and the Marketplace in Iron Age Palestine,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272 [1988], pp. 47–67, and John D. Currid, “Rectangular Store House Construction during the Israelite Iron Age,” Zeitschrift des deutchen Palastina-Vereins 108 [1992], pp. 100–121). Your comment regarding the size of the side aisles for horses is absolutely correct. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for these buildings to have served as stables because the side aisles are not wide enough to allow the removal of individual horses along the back of the stalls. The horses housed in the back of the buildings would have gotten out only by the removal of all of the horses closer to the door and that would have required a lot of manpower on the part of the Israelites. The Israelites could have saved themselves vast amounts of manpower and money if they had only been smart enough to build wider stables! The fact of the matter is that the tripartite pillared buildings were not designed to allow for the easy removal of individual horses from the side aisles; therefore, it is likely that these buildings were not stables. My own conclusion is that they were storehouses, and I refer readers to my BAR article, “Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01. I have also included a photograph of the tripartite pillared buildings at Beersheba. It demonstrates how small the horses must have been if these were, in fact, stables.

Graham I. Davies replies:

The size problem is often raised by people who have visited the site. The evidence we have suggests that, in the tenth and ninth centuries B.C., smaller horses than now were used for chariots (see especially M. A. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals [1979] and also evidence discussed by me in Palestine Exploration Quarterly 132, [1988]). From about 700 B.C., larger horses apparently began to be used, to judge from evidence from Assyria. See also the article by J. S. Holladay mentioned in my article of 1988, pages 128 and 150, for the view that smaller horses than now were used.

Harvard Semitic Museum

Defends Stager

I would like to comment on Martin Peretz’s appalling implication that Lawrence Stager is somehow guilty of anti-Semitic leanings, and on his description of Stager as a “narrow specialist” (“Turmoil at the Harvard Semitic Museum,” BAR 20:02). I also take exception to the noncommittal attitude of your article. It is non-committal to the point of allowing doubts to linger as to whether Larry Stager is indeed the scheming Haman that Peretz makes him out to be. If I am informed correctly, Hershel Shanks has known Stager for a good many years, works closely with him and publishes Stager’s first-rate articles regularly in BAR. I assume that Shanks would not collaborate with someone who is suspected of anti-Semitism, and Shanks is in an ideal position to endorse Stager’s character and his quality of scholarship in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Larry Stager has been my advisor, inspiring mentor and good friend for the past 20 years. We met in 1973 when he began to teach at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and I became a graduate student. Throughout all these years, I have come to know Stager very well indeed. In all the many intense conversations, scholarly discussions and off-hand chats we had, I have never detected even the faintest bit of anti-Semitism, or any prejudice, racial or otherwise. I know of his high interest in and extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, the history of Israel and the surrounding lands, and of his great ability to synthesize and to put matters in perspective. Stager’s openness to new and different ideas, and the skill with which he integrates them into his body of work, are entirely admirable. To call Stager a narrow specialist is to make a ludicrous statement, and to hint that he may be anti-Semitic is wrong and utterly unfair.

I entirely agree with this letter’s characterization of Larry Stager. Stager has not an ounce of anti-Semitism in him and is a superb scholar, able to synthesize the smallest details into a major tapestry—an increasingly rare quality these days. Peretz owes Stager an apology.—Ed.

062

Jacob Schiff’s Mandate

As a long-time member and supporter of the Harvard Semitic Museum, I found your extensive article interesting and timely. Your article dwelled on the extreme polarities in the argument, yet you made only passing reference to the mandate for this museum by Jacob Schiff, who donated it to Harvard. This occurred at a time of blatant anti-Semitism at Harvard, and it was intended to “promote sound knowledge of Semitic languages and history.” The anti-Semitism at Harvard was later well documented in a museum exhibit on “The Jews at Harvard.”

As you noted, the abuse of Mr. Schiff’s mandate continued into recent history until the museum was rededicated under the administration of Derek Bok and Henry Rosovsky. At that time, Dr. Carney Gavin seized the opportunity to build bridges, not only among Jews and Christians, but with the Arab world as well, creating a free, open environment among scholars and also with the Harvard and Greater Boston com-munities. At a time when Jews and Arabs had few opportunities for free exchange of ideas and scholarships, this museum was a bastion of freedom. Much good will was nurtured and developed, only to be subjected to acrimony and heavy-handed pragmatism in this latest affair.

The mandate by Jacob Schiff still seems valid to better understand the Semitic heritage at Harvard. The new approach in that direction seems to be off to a false start.

Potpourri

Let’s Celebrate the “Pass-ivity”

Several interesting criticisms of Christmas celebrations have appeared in recent issues of BAR. There is surely no scriptural support for the inclusion of things like trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, yule logs, tinsel and the like in the remembrance of Christ’s birth.

Indeed, the whole Christian world may have been off by a country mile in the dates in December or January for remembering Christ’s birth. Walter Liefeld (The Exposition’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, p. 845), Leon Morris (The Gospel According to St. Luke, p. 84) and John A. Martin (The Bible Knowledge Commentary, N.T., p. 208) all state that there is some evidence from the Gospel of Luke to support a spring date at Passover time. In Luke 2:8–18 we have the well-known incident of the shepherds keeping watch over their flocks by night in the open fields near Bethlehem. These writers point out that Passover is the most likely time of the year for there to have been large numbers of flocks and shepherds temporarily located out in the fields close to Jerusalem. Tens of thousands of paschal lambs would be required in the capital at that time. Josephus estimates one lamb was required for every 10 persons for a population of 200,000 to 250,000.

Could it be that a Divine Providence had hoped we would be bright enough to grasp that an important relationship existed between the birthday of a nation (Passover) that has been searching for “peace” for millennia and the birthday of a baby whom many claim to be the “Prince of Peace”? Perhaps some brave soul might propose a combined Passover and Nativity celebration. Perhaps call it “Pass-ivity”? That would be some progress over the feelings that the celebrants of the two feasts have often had for each other in the past!

Paid Labor Still Used

Regarding Kenneth Atkinson’s article (“Diggers—From Paid Peasants to Eager Volunteers,” BAR 20:01), your readers may be unaware of the fact that university-sponsored excavations, such as most of those listed among the excavation opportunities in BAR, constitute only about 30 percent of all the excavations that take place annually in Israel. The other 70 percent are mainly salvage excavations conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority. While volunteers are employed on most university excavations, paid laborers are still the norm on salvage excavations. These workers come from varied backgrounds—new immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia, and Israeli Arabs and Jews. It is also true that university excavations often supplement their volunteer labor force with hired laborers, mainly for wheelbarrow work or large earth-moving projects. Thus, Atkinson’s comment that volunteers virtually eliminate the need for a paid work force needs to be understood in this wider context.

By the way, the volunteer seen in the top photo on page 70 doesn’t seem to be carrying precious glass, as the caption states, but rather a gooffah of earth.

Five-Branch Menorahs

In the outer courtyard of the Temple model (Kathleen Ritmeyer, “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05), shown on pages 1, 62 and 67, all of the menorahs have only five branches. To my knowledge, there has never been a five-branched menorah in Judaic history. There should be seven branches. I would like to compliment Alec Garrard on this very beautiful model, but I am puzzled about the menorahs.

Kathleen Ritmeyer replies:

Mr. Goldberg’s puzzlement arises from the fact that he understands the candlesticks (or lampstands, as they should more properly be called) that stood in the Court of the Women to be synonymous with the seven-branched menorah, described in Exodus 25 and kept in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple. The model lampstands were, in fact, built according to the description given in the tractate Sukkah (5, 2–3) of the Mishnah: “At the close of the first Festival-day of the Feast [of Tabernacles or Sukkot] they went down to the Court of the Women where they had made a great amendment. There were golden candlesticks [menorot] there with four golden bowls on the top of them and four ladders to each (candlestick) and four youths of the priestly stock and in their hands jars full of oil holding a hundred and twenty logs which they poured into all the bowls. They made wicks from the worn out drawers and girdles of the priests and with them they set (the candlesticks) alight, and there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that did not reflect the light of the Beth ha-Sh’ubah.” This quote was omitted from the final version of the article, “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05, due to lack of space.

Okay, We’ll Do It

I would greatly appreciate an inclusion of a glossary of terms and pronunciations. I believe this was done a few years back, but was discontinued.

We will include glossaries and pronunciation guides in future articles as needed.—Ed.

In Defense of the Jewish New Testament

In a letter published under the heading, “Against Proselytizing Ads” Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06, Florence M. Horn describes my 063translation, the Jewish New Testament, as having “one purpose and one purpose only: to diminish Jewish belief and to proselytize,” and concludes by claiming that BAR’s advertisement for it “shows a disrespect” for BAR and its readers.

Ms. Horn seems to be an intelligent person—except for one thing: Her remarks are based entirely on prejudice, not on reality. I say this because her letter contains no evidence that she knows anything at all about either me or my books, let alone my purpose in writing them. Ms. Horn wants to put me in her pre-formed anti-proselytization box, but I won’t let her do it.

My purpose in preparing the JNT and its companion volume, the Jewish New Testament Commentary, was to present to both Christians and Jews the New Testament as the Jewish book it was and is. I show disrespect for neither Judaism nor Christianity as I make my case for Messianic Judaism (Judaism that accepts Yeshua/Jesus as Israel’s Messiah). I challenge Ms. Horn to prove otherwise from my writings (and not by citing a lengthy but irrelevant 20-year-old interview with Rabbi Abraham Heschel).

As for the propriety of wishing others to believe as oneself, I think the forum of ideas should be open to all using legitimate means to persuade others of the rightness of their beliefs. In a noncompulsive intellectual marketplace, I trust consumers to buy or not buy as they see fit. I hope Ms. Horn shares this trust.

BAR’s response is positive in some respects, notably in its willingness to continue our advertising if we choose. Nevertheless, Ms. Horn’s description of my work as “directed to Jews, doubtless with the intent of converting them,” misses not only my point—that a Jew can remain Jewish while believing the New Testament message and thus need not “convert” to an alien religion—but also my equal and opposite direction to Christians, where a major aim of mine is to diminish anti-Semitism, and particularly to cut the ground from under anyone who would misuse the New Testament to justify it (see page xi of my introduction to the JNT). It likewise misses my stated desire to heal the greatest and most tragic schism in the history of the world, the break between the messianic community (i.e., the Church) and the Jewish people (see page xii of the same).

When Was the Babylonian Destruction of Jerusalem?

BAR and Bible Review are enjoyable and thought-provoking magazines. Consequently I eagerly await each issue, reading them cover to cover.

In one of your old issues, it states that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. In certain religious publications (most notably those of Jehovah’s Witnesses), Jerusalem is said to have been devastated by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E., with all its inhabitants carried off to Babylon.

Is there a significant amount of archaeological evidence to prove exactly when the city was destroyed by the Babylonians? Or is the date 607 as nearly correct as 586?

The following reply was prepared for us by Siegfried Horn, dean emeritus of Andrews University, before his recent death. We continue to mourn his loss:

The Bible contains two passages that clearly date the fall and destruction of Jerusalem to the fifth month of the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:12–13).

The chronology of the Neo-Babylonian empire is well established by numerous dated legal and economic cuneiform tablets as well as by some such documents that contain records of astronomical observations. For example, a cuneiform tablet in the Berlin Museum (VAT4956) contains a series of astronomical observations made in the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar, which unmistakably locates that year to 568–567 B.C.E. Hence it is easy on the basis of this tablet alone to compute Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year, 586–585 B.C.E., as the year in which Jerusalem was captured and destroyed. The fifth month of Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th regnal year (called by the Babylonians Abut, by the Jews Ab) began August 8 and ended September 6,586 B.C.E.

An authoritative work on this subject is the following: Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein,Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956).

Traveled, Lived, and Dug with BAR

I have been a subscriber now for seven years. I have saved every issue, traveled, lived and dug in Israel—and dragged your magazines with me all the way. Thank you for a publication that gives me greatest pleasure, in-depth information and a Queries & Comments column that keeps me constantly amused.

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.

No College Grad

I was not fortunate enough to attend college, as some of your editorial writers were. But I have learned a lot about history and archaeology from you. You are the best publication around.