Queries & Comments

Tzvee Zahavy

Professor, University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minnesota

J. M. Power

Memphis, Tennessee

Richard C. Chabot

Organ, New Mexico

Carolyn Terry

Cannington, Ontario

Henry N. Claman, M.D.

Denver, Colorado

Richard L. Heinrich

Hartland, Wisconsin

Peter W. Pick, Ph.D.

Dean, School of Arts and Sciences

San Rafael, California

Rev. Gustav A. Wuestefeld, P.E.

Southampton, New Jersey

Alan Crown and Lena Cansdale reply:

In Leviticus 24:5–9 we read that God ordered that twelve loaves of bread were to be baked and “sprinkled with pure frankincense” as a Sabbath offering. We read further: “This is a covenant for ever, it is the privilege of Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat the bread in a holy place, because it is the holiest of holy gifts. It is his due out of the food-offerings of the Lord for all time.” Leviticus 2:1–3 contains the instruction for frankincense to be added to offerings of grain, part of which is to be burnt together with all the frankincense. The matter is comprehensively discussed in Gus W. Van Beek’s “Frankincense and Myrrh,” Biblical Archaeologist 23:3 (1960), pp. 70–95.

Making Everyone Happy

The debate continues. It seems the authors of “Qumran: Was it an Essene Settlement?” and “Qumran: A Hub of Scribal Activity?” are missing an important point: Life is not simple and does not fit into convenient, segmented slots. Instead of each side being all right or all wrong, maybe they all have a portion of the truth.

Here’s the scenario: Qumran was built as a commercial port (Dead Sea with the water level 65 to 80 feet higher than today) and then discovered by travelers as a winter haven (hence the Herodian pottery). As an important port it was protected by a garrison of troops (the fortified tower), but later overrun (broken walls) and abandoned. The Essenes then moved in and turned it into a commune (hence the inkwells). With the threat of destruction by the Romans, they hid the scrolls (the abandoned scrolls from the time Qumran was a port, as well as the Essene scrolls) in nearby caves.

All have saved face, no one has room to boast and everybody’s happy. Now we can go on to more important matters.

The Scrolls Are Still Essene

The article, “Qumran—Was It an Essene Settlement?” actually attempts to address two different questions: (1) Were the inhabitants of the Qumran settlement Essene? And, (2) Were the writers of the Qumran scrolls Essenes?

The ideas of Alan Crown and Lena Cansdale would have been more convincing had they limited the article to the title’s question. There was no need to deal with the second question at all, since they believe the scrolls were “brought from elsewhere for safekeeping.”

Their arguments against the Essene origin of the scrolls betray a somewhat superficial understanding of the genre of the Qumran writings. For example, the contrasting of peace-loving Essenes with the “warlike” scrolls is like stating that “Christians are depicted as peace-loving, while Jesus said, ‘I have come to bring, not peace, but a sword’” (Matthew 10:34).

Furthermore, the Essene movement (as the article points out) was not limited to a single monastic community, but was in fact scattered throughout Palestine. This fact weakens Crown and Cansdale’s contrasts on celibacy, owning of private property and treatment of slaves. The wider the movement, the more room for variation.

As to the question of oaths, to equate 014swearing with the annual renewal of adherence to the community referred to in the scrolls is like saying that Jesus’ teaching against swearing (Matthew 5:34) rules out renewal of Christian baptismal vows. Too much has been written in favor of the Essene origins of the scrolls to be wiped out by a few paragraphs of such superficial arguments.

I would also like to offer the following observations on Crown and Cansdale’s theory on the nature of the settlement:

(1) The presence of grain storage facilities does not prove that the people of Qumran did not farm the nearby land. Such facilities could have been for storage of their own produce.

(2) If the cemetery at Qumran was for merchants who died en route from Jerusalem, then it must have been an extremely dangerous route, given the number of skeletons found there. Not only that, but the presence of bones of women and children might suggest that merchants were quite willing to take their families along with them on business trips over that treacherous path!

(3) If the scrolls were brought from elsewhere for safekeeping and were stored in pots taken from the Qumran settlement, then how did they hide them without the notice of the travelling diners who were busy gazing out the dining-room window, “enjoy[ing] the view toward the south”?

Alan Crown and Lena Cansdale reply:

(1) Frank M. Cross and Jozef T. Milik, who investigated the land of the Buqei’a, the only land suitable for the growing of crops in the vicinity of Qumran, found that this area was not farmed in the Hasmonaean and Hellenistic periods, exactly those periods when Qumran was inhabited. Grain would thus have had to be brought in from a distance and stored.

(2) The route from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem passing the Qumran settlement was not a one-way passage but was used frequently in both directions—coming up from the Dead Sea to Jerusalem for trade or pilgrimage, and descending from Jerusalem to the Jordan and beyond. It was not a particularly dangerous route and merchants and other travellers may well have been accompanied by wives or female servants. Of course the cemetery was not only for transients; people lived and worked in Qumran, and they too would have been buried there. Also an outbreak of plague may have decimated a large caravan, resulting in many burials in the adjacent Qumran cemetery. Further examination of the cemetery is vital to understanding the function of Qumran.

(3) The necessity for evacuating the scrolls from Jerusalem and hiding them in a safe place would have come about at a time of great unrest and stress, such as an imminent attack on Jerusalem or the final siege of the city. In these times it is unlikely that there were many travellers on the road who would make use of the facilities at Qumran. As to the scrolls being concealed within view of the dining room, the opening of the wall was towards the south, and the nearby caves are to the west and north. Moreover, any sensible person wishing to conceal valuables would not do so under the gaze of strangers; great precautions to avoid observation would surely have been taken, perhaps under cover of darkness.

Exodus Itinerary

Mixing Fact and Fancy

Professor Charles Krahmalkov presents an interesting theory in his “Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence,” BAR 20:05.

One of the main problems with reconciling the Biblical account of the Exodus with the archaeological evidence is, when did the Exodus occur? The date is still unknown. The author does not address the problem, merely stating that it occurred in Late Bronze Age II (c. 1400–1200 B.C.E.).

The author’s main objective is to confirm the accuracy of the Biblical account. However, he is only concerned with the latter portion of the Exodus route. The Old Testament writer(s) were, in his opinion, presenting a factual account.

I leave the validity of the professor’s view to the experts. I would only comment that it is unfortunate that the Old Testament historians of the earlier account of the Exodus from Egypt to Sinai and the route thereto were not as reliable. The actual location of Mt. Sinai and the route to it is still not definitely known. Further, these earlier writers failed to record the name of the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Had they done so, the Exodus date could have been determined to within a period of a few years.

The author relies on a “witness who knows the truth, Egypt.” His Egyptian sources are the basis of his case to 016establish Biblical accuracy as to the latter part of the Exodus route, and rightly so. However, Egypt fails to confirm the accuracy of the Biblical account concerning the earlier events leading up to and following the Exodus—Moses, the plagues, the Red Sea event, etc. No evidence appears to exist, or has been found, confirming these events in Egypt. Some will say, of course, that such evidence simply didn’t survive the centuries.

I would suggest that an Exodus of some type did occur, but minus the supernormal events recorded in the Book of Exodus. Even a legend usually has some basis in fact. Consider Schliemann’s discovery of Troy. The “experts” knew that Troy never existed since the Iliad was only a “legend.”

A Questionable Equation

Tell me, what am I missing? I enjoyed Charles Krahmalkov’s excellent article, but why do both the text of the article and the picture description quote Judges 5:21 as saying, “The River Qishon is the River Qedumim”?

Although Judges 5:21 mentions the River Qishon twice, in neither the Hebrew nor in any English translation I checked is there any mention of a River Qedumim. Is this someone’s conclusion, based on corroboration with other material, which has mistakenly found itself enclosed in quotation marks or is your Biblical source text different from mine?

Charles R. Krahmalkov replies:

Translators and commentators, ancient and modern, have debated how one is to understand the difficult Hebrew nachal qedumim nachal qishon that follows the half-verse (Judges 5:21a) “The River Qishon swept them away.” Since “qedumim” could conceivably be rendered roughly “ancient things,” one early Greek translator proposed “River of ancient times”; this line of translation is followed and embellished in the Targum: “The river where signs and mighty acts were accomplished for Israel from ancient times.” But qedumim could also conceivably be taken as “that which goes/comes in front, meets” or the like; and so we find translations, new and old, like “the river of (hostile) confrontations” or “the onrushing river,” that is, the river that proceeds in front of one. Many present-day translators prefer to change the vowels in qedumim to qiddemem and translate “it (the river) confronted them (in battle).” Some ancient translators, however, took (as I do) qedumim to be a name; thus, in the Vulgate (Latin) we find Cadumim, in one ancient Greek version Kademim and in the Syriac Qrmin (The Syriac reading has an r instead of a d). As I tried to show, Ramesses II in fact tells us that west of the city of Qishon there was a Qerumin; considered in the light of the ancient Hebrew text of Judges 5:21, this Qerumin could well be the name of the River Qishon or some part of it. Incidentally, I did not mention in the BAR article that Ramesses III (1182–1151 B.C.E.) cites the Ramesses II list, but he writes Qedumim, with a d as in the received Hebrew form. How one is to understand Judges 5:21b is still not altogether clear to me. My translation “The River Qishon is the River Qerumim” is in the form of an ancient clarification of the identity of the Qishon mentioned in 5:21a; however, we could also translate simply “The River Qishon swept them away,/Yea, the river Qerumim,/The River Qishon.”

Mithraic Mysteries

Stiff Competition for Jesus and Yahweh

The article by David Ulansey on the “Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05, wins a perfect ten from this reader. It is informative, interesting, exciting, engrossing, tightly written, nicely documented with pictures and graphics, and well told. The material is a tour de force of what I call “forensic archaeology.” Forensic archaeologists don’t dig. They are eclectic readers, they research archives, they travel the region, they walk the sites, they interview everybody and they think a lot before they write. The Ulansey article is like a virtual reality expedition with Indiana Jones in search of the Secret of Mithra. Thanks to a well-told story, the reader is able to put aside modern sophistication for the moment and personally experience the visceral rush felt by ancient initiates to the cult.

A god with sufficient cosmic power and presence to visibly move the entire universe must have been pretty stiff initial competition to the meek Jesus and the provincial Yahweh. Mithra lost out, I suspect, to the later Christian claim of the conquest of death through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross. Power over personal death had more appeal to the common man than power over the cosmos, and unhappily it still does.

018

The Ancients Knew Only Five Planets

I was impressed and intrigued by “Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05. Ulansey’s interpretation is certainly coherent and plausible, and I enjoyed it very much.

But I must take issue on two points:

A caption in the article says “Around Mithras’s head seven stars symbolize the seven planets.” The problem is that only five planets were known in the ancient world; and this number was only expanded with Sir William Herschel’s discovery of Uranus in 1781. Trying to add the sun and moon as the other two would seem to be ruled out by the fact that they are already represented elsewhere in the relief. Earth, of course, as the supposed center of the universe, would not even be considered in the same class as the rest of the planets. The lack of a convincing numerical link to actual astronomical bodies leaves me wondering if the exact number of stars in the relief is really significant.

The second point I take issue with is in the concluding paragraph, in which Ulansey writes “Perhaps, then, the figures of Jesus and Mithras are to some extent both manifestations of a single deep longing in the human spirit for a sense of contact with the ultimate mystery.” Lumping these two together overlooks a most obvious and basic difference between them: Jesus actually existed; Mithras did not.

David Ulansey replies:

Mr. Cahill is correct that the ancients knew of only five planets; however, it was standard practice in Greco-Roman astronomy and astrology to include the sun and moon among the planets, making a total of seven.

Cahill also questions the validity of my comparing the figures of Jesus and Mithras, since “Jesus actually existed; Mithras did not.” It is certainly true that Jesus actually existed and Mithras did not, but note that I did not compare Jesus and Mithras but rather the figures of Jesus and Mithras. That is, I compared Mithras not with the historical Jesus, but with the image of Jesus that is presented in the Gospels: an image that is in large part the result of mythological and legendary amplification. Thus, while Jesus certainly existed, it is not true that the heavens were torn open when he was baptized, since there were no “heavens” to be torn: The idea that the heavens could “tear” depended on the ancient belief that the sky was a solid canopy surrounding the earth, which of course we now know is not the case. The image of the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus is a purely mythical motif expressing a belief that Jesus had a connection with the realm beyond the heavens: a belief very similar to that which the Mithraists held about the transcendent power of their god Mithras.

Another Explanation for the Seven Stars

As an amateur astronomer and armchair archaeologist I was delighted to read David Ulansey’s “Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05.

There is one issue I would like to open up for discussion though; it concerns the caption to a picture in the article. The picture shows a marble relief of Mithras killing the bull Taurus and various other astronomical imagery. The caption states that the seven stars about Mithras’ head represent the seven planets. I propose a different explanation for those seven stars.

Those seven stars more probably represent the Pleiades, a loose open cluster of seven stars visible to the naked eye situated right at the shoulder of Taurus. Looking at the constellation in the sky, the Pleiades represent the bull’s left shoulder, but looking down from outside the celestial sphere, as Ulansey tells us this perspective is, the Pleiades would be the bull’s right shoulder, corresponding to where the knife is being inserted.

When you view all seven stars with the naked eye, they appear to form two groups, one of four stars and one of three. This orientation would match the marble relief shown in the picture.

If Mithras is thrusting a knife between the bull’s shoulder blades (a sure kill spot), then the Pleiades could represent the bull’s heart and add further to the imagery of the death of Taurus.

For a more complete discussion of the Pleiades, I recommend Burnham’s Celestial Handbook vol. 3, by Robert Burnham Jr. Lastly, if you want to see a representation of the Pleiades, just drive behind a Subaru and look at the emblem. Subaru is Japanese for Pleiades.

David Ulansey replies:

Mr. Drizner is correct in pointing out that the knife of Mithras is entering the bull’s body at exactly the location of the Pleiades. A discussion of the role of the Pleiades in Mithraic iconography will be found in my book, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford Univ. Press, revised paperback edition, 1991) on pp. 57–58 and p. 131, note 3. However, the seven stars most likely represent the seven planets, since the seven planets played a crucial role in numerous aspects of Mithraic thought. To take just one example, we know that each of the seven grades of initiation in the cult was connected with one of the seven planets.

Earthy Secret

David Ulansey’s excellent article demonstrates the significant role astral-based beliefs and philosophy played in the classical world. Most importantly, we see that the ancients had a sophisticated perception of the skies.

Let me now draw attention to the Mithraic references to the Earth. We see that Mithras was born out of the stone of the Earth and that the mithraeum was subterranean. Even some reliefs of the tauroctony (bull-slaying) are depicted as happening within the Earth. These allusions to the Earth strongly suggest that the ancients believed that the source of Mithras’ power was from the Earth. This agrees with the fact that the precession of the equinoxes is caused by the Earth’s motion. Perhaps the secret of Mithraism was more than the precession of the equinoxes; it may have been that the force driving the precession originated from the Earth. I am not implying that the ancients understood the physics of precession, just that the Earth was the source.

David Ulansey replies:

As I mentioned in my article, we have good evidence that the Mithraic cave was understood as an image of the cosmos. While this might seem puzzling at first, one need only recall the famous myth of the cave in Plato’s Republic, where the cave represents the entire phenomenal universe. In Plato’s myth, the key moment is when the prisoner is able to leave the cave and apprehend what is beyond all sensible perception: that is, what is not contained within the phenomenal universe represented by the cave. This earlier myth in Plato’s Republic may lie behind the Mithraic understanding of the cave as being equivalent to the cosmos.

Something’s Fishy

Thank you for your most informative and fascinating article on Mithras worship.

The article raised two questions in my mind:

(1) The discovery that the spring equinox had left Taurus (the bull) and was presently in Aries (the ram) was made 072at a time (128 B.C.E.) when the equinox was poised to enter the next constellation, Pisces. By the time Mithraism was well established, the equinox was indeed occurring in Pisces. Would it not be more reasonable, then, for the chief icon to have been the slaying of the ram rather than the bull?

(2) Early Christianity was closely identified with the sign of the fish. Could there be a connection with this and the fact that the equinox by that time had recently moved to Pisces?

I very much appreciate your wonderful magazine. Keep up the great work.

David Ulansey replies:

Several answers (too complex to be repeated here) to Martin Cohen’s first question can be found in my book (pp. 90–93). However, two additional points should be made here. First, there was a deeply rooted belief in Greco-Roman culture that spiritual power was located in the distant past—one need only recall the omnipresent myths of the great “Golden Age” that was believed to have existed in remote antiquity. Thus, for example, in order to give themselves legitimacy in the eyes of a pagan audience, early Christians found it necessary to emphasize the great antiquity of the traditions of Judaism and of the Hebrew Bible out of which their new religion had emerged.

Second, it is actually not the case that the spring equinox was “poised to enter … Pisces” at the time the Mithraic mysteries began. For the fact is that although today we know that this shift occurred around the first or second century C.E., this would not have been the opinion of astronomers and astrologers at the time. The reason for this is that there was a nearly universal tradition throughout the Greco-Roman period and late antiquity that the spring equinox was located at 8 degrees Aries (see Otto Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy [New York, Heidelberg, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1975], pp. 594–8). Since Hipparchus had estimated the rate of precession at 1 degree per century, this meant that there were still eight centuries (8 degrees times 100 years) left before the equinox would leave Aries and enter Pisces. Thus the next shift of equinoxes was hardly so imminent that the Mithraists would have been compelled to focus on it.

This also provides the answer to Cohen’s second question. Since during the first few centuries of Christianity astronomers and astrologers still located the spring equinox firmly in Aries, the fish symbolism of early Christianity is unlikely to be connected to the constellation Pisces, unless the early Christians were looking into the distant future. It is also important to note that while explicit astronomical imagery permeates Mithraism, making plausible an astronomical interpretation of its iconography, there is almost no astronomical imagery in early Christianity.

The Connections Between Mithraism and Christianity

“Solving the Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05, raises an interesting speculation.

The “conversion of the Roman soldier” is a frequent motif in early Christian stories. Mithras worship was prevalent among Roman soldiers.

Was the Christian theme of the sacrifice of God as lamb (Aries) at the equinox (Pesach) and subsequent resurrection under the sign of the Pisces (ichthys) amplified (1) to show that the Christians were also aware of these dramatic events in the heavens; 074(2) to convert Mithraic worshipers; (3) by Mithraic converts, to justify their conversion to a more powerful God; (4) as an acculturation of Mithras worship into Christianity?

Is there any evidence in favor of any of these hypotheses?

David Ulansey replies:

There is no convincing evidence for an astronomical interpretation of either the lamb or the fish symbols in early Christianity. On this question, see my response to Martin Cohen above for further details.

It’s a Fake

The woodcut in “Solving The Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05, is indeed well known. It’s also not authentic, as attested by a variety of clues. The sphere of the fixed stars is innermost, not outermost as it should be. The stippling on some of the hills was done with a technique not in use when the woodcut was supposedly made. Most revealing are the two crossed wheels in the upper left corner, probably a reference to Ezekiel’s “wheel in a wheel” (Ezekiel 1:16). The wheels are shown accurately foreshortened as geometrically correct ellipses. Even the angles between the spokes are accurately foreshortened. This representation is far beyond the technical capabilities of any medieval artist.

Problems with the authenticity of the woodcut were first unearthed by Ernst Zinner in 1957, who attempted to trace the woodcut back to its origin but could not find illustrations of it dating from earlier than 1906. Historians Arthur Beer and Bruno Weber independently investigated the problem and concluded that the probable author of the woodcut was the French astronomer Camille Flammarion. Flammarion was not only a distinguished scientist, but a noted popularizer of science and a skilled illustrator. He had the scientific, historic and artistic knowledge necessary to create a convincing imitation. There is no evidence that Flammarion intended to deceive anyone; thus, the term “imitation” is more appropriate than “forgery.” Rather, Flammarion wanted to depict the medieval conception of the cosmos. What he actually depicted was the modern stereotype of the Middle Ages.

David Ulansey replies:

The woodcut in my article illustrating the concept of the “place beyond the heavens” is indeed either by Flammarion (1842–1925) or by a contemporary of his. However, I disagree with Dutch’s implication that the woodcut does not accurately evoke the tone (if not the precise details) of ancient and medieval cosmology. As E. C. Krupp says in Beyond the Blue Horizon (Oxford Univ. Press, 1992), p. 10, this woodcut “attempts to convey an earlier concept of the universe and harbors some of the meaning the sky once held for our ancestors.” Certainly the woodcut conveys a vivid sense of what I was using it to illustrate—the longing for cosmic transcendence.

Who Are the Other Guys?

I have been reading BAR 20:05 and have a question. You describe Mithras and the animals in great detail but I was wondering who the young men are on the right and left side of Mithras killing the bull. In “Mithraic Mysteries,” BAR 20:05, the man on Mithras’s left side looks like he is attacking the dog with his torch.

I have enjoyed BAR for years. Happy 20th anniversary.

David Ulansey replies:

The two men holding torches in the Mithraic bull-slaying scene represent the equinoxes. The one holding the torch up symbolizes the spring equinox, when the force of life is on the increase; the one holding the torch down represents the autumn equinox, when the force of life is decreasing. The crossed legs of the torch bearers appear to represent the famous cross formed by the zodiac and the celestial equator, at the intersection points of which are the equinoxes. (Note: In the bull-slaying scene in my article, the torch-bearer on the left is a modern restoration and is incorrect—his torch should be pointing up.) For a complete discussion, see my book, pp. 62–63 and pp. 112–115.

Archaeology’s Dirty Secret

Our First Applicant

I am very intrigued by your call for creation of a position called archaeology editor/writer as discussed in the September/October issue of your magazine (see “Archaeology’s Dirty Secret,” BAR 20:05). As a communications professional with more than 25 years’ experience (ranging from newspaper reporting; corporate and nonprofit writing, editing and photography; high school, 076technical college, corporate and university teaching; to all aspects of corporate and nonprofit public relations) and a great passion for Egyptology, who is trying to determine a way to combine the two fields, I would be very interested in further exploring this opportunity.

I would like to be involved in any efforts to make it a reality. Has this idea been taken any further than your article?

At this point, it remains a mere suggestion. Whether it will be adopted remains to be seen. Ultimately, it is up to the professional archaeological community—and the availability of funding.—Ed.

Vandals of Another Stripe

I read “Archaeology’s Dirty Secret,” BAR 20:05, with interest. Your idea of training special archaeology editor/writers sounds like a good long-term solution.

However, this crisis must be dealt with on a short-term basis as well. Archaeologists who do not include in their budget both money for the dig and for subsequent study and publication should not be allowed to dig.

Furthermore, people who dig up a site, and then do not study and publish the results, destroy the site more thoroughly than any pure vandals could! This archaeological knowledge is lost forever.

Withholding Permits from Laggards

“Archaeology’s Dirty Secret,” BAR 20:05, proves that you are still the world’s foremost launderer of archaeology’s dirty linen. I commend you on publishing this report and ask you to please follow up on this in future issues.

To solve the problem, someone must put in place a system of rewards and punishments that encourages publication. The most likely someone is the government of Israel. They have the power to grant or withhold permits to dig. They are the ones who must see to it that archaeologists who dig in Israel live up to their commitments to publish their findings.

Self-Indulgent Excavations

There is no excuse for failure to publish. Archaeologists are granted special privileges denied to others. Archaeologists believe that only they, and certainly not the great unwashed, should be allowed to dig, because only they know how to do it right and preserve the record. OK, then a very special responsibility goes with their privilege.

If a dig goes unpublished, the digger will have destroyed forever information contained at the dig site without having transmitted that information to others. Digs are often financed with public moneys, so the taxpayers or whoever supported the dig will have been defrauded of their supporting funds, while the rest of us will have been robbed of irreplaceable archaeological data. How can people who do this kind of thing complain about unauthorized traffic in antiquities? At least the unauthorized traffickers aren’t taking public money in exchange for nothing.

History has shown that each generation develops better techniques and the ability to glean more information from a dig. Digging in excess of publication robs us of the information that could in the future have been obtained by advance techniques, presently unknown to us. That is not to say, “Don’t dig, because better methods will be available in the future.” It is to say, “If you won’t share what you have already found, don’t mess up a future generation’s dig sites!”

Money is no excuse. If the cost of publication is not budgeted and financed at the outset, the dig should not take place. Further, if there is money for a new dig, but no money to write up an earlier one, where is the shortage of money? So, I agree with those who suggest dig privileges be denied those with unpublished work.

Granted one personality may be better at supervising a dig and another at writing it up, so the concept of a team effort can solve many problems, but the basic principle remains. In my opinion, an excavator who fails to share his/her finds is simply self-indulgent, a kid playing in the sandbox pretending to be a scientist. Let him/her apply for a job as a gofer. Y’dig?

It’s Time to Name Names

If you want to do something about the lack of publication, you should reject the philosophy of not mentioning any names. You do indeed want to embarrass some people. It might be a bit much to have a list each issue of “Lazy Loafers,” but something just a tad more polite might well encourage some action. You might consider an annual list of “Upcoming” (overdue) publication reports, listing when the dig was conducted (long ago) and when (if) the author promises 078(promised) to have the report ready, maybe with a space for comments on progress in the past year. An annual query might get a few reports finished just to get you off their backs.

This would allow the scope of the problem to be easily viewed, and for corrections to be made. The statement “We all know who they are” makes it too easy to simply grumble about the unmentioned “they,” who thus escape all punishment.

Potpourri

200,000 Years Is Too Old

I was disappointed with the content of my first issue of BAR. The article regarding the Pool of Siloam (Dan Gill, “How They Met,” BAR 20:04) referred to the formations within the caverns as over 200,000 years old (if I recall correctly). I thought that all persons who respected the Bible as a factual book inspired by God would never adhere to such an earth age. It is beyond me how an intellectual who spends years of archaeological research on data that, without exception, corroborates the accuracy of the Scriptures could continue to hold to an “ancient earth” belief.

I did find the material, overall, very informative and interesting. My concern is that those persons who are struggling with coming to grips with the reality of a Living God and who have been inundated by atheistic dogma on evolution during their public school and university education will find it difficult to reject a “scientific” statement in a publication with “Biblical” in its name.

Syriac Peshitta Supports Translations of Tsinnor as “Dam”

I am in full agreement with Terence Kleven’s statement (“Up the Water Spout,” BAR 20:04), “In short the evidence from Aramaic supports the translation of tsinnor in 2 Samuel 5:8.” However, I humbly differ from his interpretation of the Peshitta translation of tsinnor as “shield” (skr’), under the box, “Linguistic Dispute.”

In the early centuries no vowel signs were used in Syriac to express vowel sounds. The vowel letters Olaf, Wau and Yodh served to indicate vowels. The insufficient representation of vowel sounds was gradually made up for by points above or below a letter. It was only about 700 A.D. that the clearer system of vowel designation by small Greek letters set above or below the line came into being. Prior to the development of this notation, words with different meanings and pronunciations were spelled with the same letters. For example, abodo, which means work, and abdo, which means slave, were spelled identically. The meaning of the word has to be interpreted based on context. For instance, the Syriac word domek generally means “sleeps”; another meaning is “dies.” Thus 1 Corinthians 7:39 reads, “If the husband domek, the wife is free to marry another.” Consider how ridiculous it would be if one were to assign the common meaning to domek in this context.

The Peshitta Syriac word for tsinnor as translated in 2 Samuel 5:8 has the letters Semkath, Kof, Resh and Olaf. In the absence of vowel signs, there is the possibility of pronouncing it as either sakro or skoro. The former means “shield” while the latter means a “stopping, dam.” In this context, the word sakro seems inappropriate. The word used in Psalms 42 for tsinnor is nosko, which means “fount,” “well-head” or “flood-gate.”

In the light of the above, the accurate interpretation of the Syriac translation of the word tsinnor is not sakro (shield) but skoro (dam).

Editor’s Note

In our September/October 1993 issue, we published an article by Kathleen Ritmeyer entitled “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05 describing an extraordinary model of Herod’s Jerusalem temple made by Alec Garrard of Suffolk, England. Thereafter (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:02), we printed a letter from Asher Kaufman of Jerusalem^a who raised a number of questions about the model, although he had not seen it. Kaufman has since visited the model and has written Garrard as follows:

“[Your model] is the most elaborate and detailed model that I have seen, and more than likely, that was ever built. You have shown a love and care unsurpassed. I still have reservations about the accuracy.”

On a second matter, Terence Kleven, the author of “Up the Waterspout,” BAR 20:04, teaches at Queen’s College, St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada. His academic affiliation was misstated in “Inside BAR.” Research support for Dr. Kleven’s articles was provided in part by a grant from the Yad/Hanadiv Barecha Foundation.—Ed.

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.