Queries & Comments

014

Is BAR Changing Its Spots?

How refreshing to read in Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer’s article on “Akeldama—Potter’s Field or High Priest’s Tomb?” BAR 20:06, the following statement:

“As we do not believe that Scripture contradicts itself … ”;

In Anson Rainey’s article on “The ‘House of David’ and the House of the Deconstructionists,” BAR 20:06:

“Davies represents what he and a circle of colleagues call the ‘deconstructionist’ approach to Biblical traditions. … Their view that nothing in Biblical tradition is earlier than the Persian period, especially their denial of the existence of a United Monarchy, is a figment of their vain imagination”;

In Ben Witherington III’s review of What Has Archaeology to Do with Faith? Books in Brief, BAR 20:06:

“There is a common assumption that the critical historian or archaeologist must approach Biblical data with a certain amount of skepticism. Frankly, I would challenge the assumption. What is needed is an open mind … intellectual curiosity … not an adherence to a strange credo that amounts to ‘justification by doubt,’ as if that is what distinguishes a critical scholar from an uncritical one. … Scholars tend to assume, mistakenly, that because they cannot demonstrate that something happened, then it must not have happened”;

And in Martin Abegg’s article on “Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT,” BAR 20:06:

“Some scholars have suggested that Paul misunderstood the Jewish teaching of his day or, at the very least, that he created a straw man to bolster his own teaching regarding faith versus law. …MMT demonstrates that Paul was not jousting with windmills, but was indeed squared off in a dramatic duel. …”

Four articles by five authors in a single issue of BAR—and all supporting the reliability of the Scriptures! Is this the “new” BAR? (I hope so.)

I and thousands of other readers who trust the Word of God say: “Thank You!”

Rainey vs. Davies

Rainey’s Spleen Is More Impressive Than His Scholarship

I have appreciated what many of your correspondents said (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:06) in response to my article “House of David Built on Sand,” BAR 20:04. Usually they have tried to offer some arguments, which, even if I don’t accept them, I can appreciate.

But I was disappointed that you published the piece by Anson Rainey (“The ‘House of David’ and the House of the Deconstructionists,” BAR 20:06). Your journal is lively and informative, and this piece of disinformative abuse, though typical of Rainey, did not help either the debate or the reputation of BAR. By all means let him defend his Israeli colleagues, but I doubt that Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh will be flattered by this sort of thing (see “‘David’ Found at Dan,” BAR 20:02).

Let me put Rainey and your readers straight. First, deconstruction is a literary philosophical approach to texts associated with Jacques Derrida. I do not use the term, nor have I ever heard it used of my work. If Rainey wants to call names, he ought to get his terms right. There are plenty of scholars I know who regard him as a fundamentalist, but they wouldn’t stoop to saying so in print. Second, I must be the only “amateur” with a degree in Semitic languages from Oxford!

I am sorry that you have allowed Rainey to drag the tone of the debate down to where he feels happier. If he wants BAR readers to ignore what I say and take his word instead, he ought to credit them with a little more intelligence and offer them some reasons why bytdwd must mean “House of David” and 016couldn’t mean anything else (which is what he is trying to say). To assure them that he, the great expert epigrapher, knows best and they have nothing to worry about looks to me rather patronizing towards your readers, and a very odd ploy from a self-styled “opponent of the ‘authority figure syndrome.’”

I can assure your readers that scholars know Rainey’s spleen to be more impressive than his scholarship. But they have now discovered this for themselves! They might like to ask themselves why he gets so angry about what is a highly disputed and extremely important scholarly issue. Does he really sound like a scholar? Are they in the future going to accept this man’s judgment on anything?

Rainey’s Smear

It was with considerable disappointment that I read the attack you published on Philip Davies by Anson Rainey. Rainey has every right not to like what Davies has written; he also can and should disagree with him and certainly he is free to assert that Davies’s methods are inferior to his own. However, this attack oversteps the boundaries of legitimate truculence and nastiness. It flirts with libel. It attempts to smear the reputation of a young scholar who has a considerable international reputation in the field of Biblical studies.

Davies is not only about 15 years younger than Rainey, he has published much more and is more widely respected than is his critic, for both his critical scholarship and his integrity. He has also made significant and major contributions to the field of epigraphy, with considerable solid work on original texts. British universities rarely give full professorships to dilettantes, and Sheffield has just recently so recognized Davies’s extensive contributions to the field. His work on Qumran places him among the leading scholars in this field. Certainly in the sub-discipline of epigraphy, Davies ranks along with Ernst Axel Knauf and Joseph Naveh. On Davies’ reading of the bytdwd inscription, Rainey—if he is aware of the literature in the field—should have pointed out that Ernst Axel Knauf, Alan de Pury, Thomas Roehmer, Ehud ben Zvi, Niels Peter Lemche, Frederick Cryer and I have all agreed with Davies, reading this as a place name.

As for Rainey’s promise of revelations about my incompetence, this is not his first attempt to slander me. He not only disrupted Society of Biblical Literature 018sessions to make his anger known, but he has frequently accused me of being anti-Semitic. BAR’s entry into yellow journalism should change to sincere apology and a return to articles that deal with archaeological evidence.

What’s Bad for the Goose Is Bad for the Gander

The unmoderated attack by Anson Rainey on the integrity of Philip Davies’s scholarly qualities—and at the same time on Thomas L. Thompson’s—transgresses all rules of interplay among scholars. In fact, in the September/October issue you yourself severely criticized Jacob Neusner’s habit of personal attacks on scholars—evidently siding with the people who had been attacked by this gentleman (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:05). Therefore it comes as an unpleasant surprise to see you publish something that belongs in the same garbage basket as the quotations from Neusner, a contribution far below the usual standards of BAR.

I cannot imagine that you can and will support the attitude present in Anson Rainey’s contribution—which should never have been published. Besides, it is a fact that Rainey is absolutely wrong, that he distorts his evidence and, on top of it, that he is dishonest. Together, this should have stopped the publication of his note—or is it your intention that Rainey’s style should set a new standard for scholarly interchange?

A Temple to the Beloved David?

One can usually recognize a weak position by the shrillness of its defenders and the ease with which they resort to ad hominem argument. Judging by his attack on Philip R. Davies’s brief article about the Tel Dan inscription, Anson Rainey’s position must be very weak indeed. But of course, the position that there was an historical King David is extremely weak from the archaeological point of view. Indeed, the Tel Dan and Mesha inscriptions are the only scraps of archaeological evidence that even indirectly attest to the supposed king’s existence. No wonder then, the desperate invective leveled against scientific critics of the traditionalist, tourism-promoting interpretation of these artifacts!

Even without the evidence of a missing word-divider, however, bytdwd as the name of a town is more to be expected at Dan than the name of a dynasty. We know that Adonis/Tammuz was worshiped in the north as “the beloved” of Ishtar/Astarte and it would only be expected that somewhere in the region there would be a cult center for this deity. Beth-Dod or Beth-Dawid—“Place of the Beloved”—would be a perfectly good name for the town. Although the name is hitherto unattested, so is the ninth-century use of byt in the clear sense of “dynasty.”

As for the alleged appearance of “House of David” in the Moabite Stone: If Lemaire’s restoration is correct, a more reasonable reading for btdwd—given the context of a list of temples in which it occurs—would be “temple of Dod/Dawid.” That “the Beloved” should have both towns and temples named for him should not be surprising. That “David” began as a god and ended as a man was argued by many eminent authorities of the last century and the early part of this century. But I must not fall into the fallacy of “appeal to authority,” which Rainey commits so adroitly in the course of disingenuously disavowing it!

020

Please Don’t Disturb the Gorilla

The tiny inscription fragments from Dan, chiseled more than a hundred years after the alleged event, are presently the nearest there is to written evidence of the existence of the great King David and the even greater King Solomon. If I might borrow a popular phrase, Professor Rainey and his highly professional colleagues in academe are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the corner, which is the fact that thousands of tenth-century B.C.E. ostraca and artifacts have been found confirming the existence of minor neighboring kingdoms that were contemporary with David and Solomon, but there is nothing, not one potsherd, not a scrap, to confirm the greatness of the founders of the United Monarchy.

There’s Merit to the “Deconstructionists”

I read with great disappointment Anson Rainey’s reply to Philip Davies on the reading of the recently excavated Dan inscription. Can Rainey really believe that the deconstructionist school (his “circle of dilettantes”) is out to corrupt the “lay audience” or that they “can safely be ignored by everyone seriously interested”? Rainey also expresses “aversion to the ‘authority figure syndrome’” while in turn mentioning that he is writing reviews for scholarly publications on Davies’ and Thompson’s recent books.

Indeed can this “school of deconstructionists” be ignored? The implications of this school are of utmost importance in any type of Biblical study. Other experts in Syro-Palestinian archaeology and related studies (who can in no way be considered members of the deconstructionist “ilk”) certainly do not agree with Rainey. The new President of the W. F. Albright School of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, J. Maxwell Miller, in his review of T. L. Thompson’s book, Early History of the Israelite People from the Written and Archaeological Sources (Brill, 1992), states, “The importance of this book is that it reminds us again of how speculative are all modern treatments of the history of ancient Israel. It does this by exposing methodological weaknesses in even the most cautious treatments and by presenting a plausible scenario which is compatible with the available archaeological and epigraphical evidence” (Journal of Biblical Literature 1994, vol. 113, p. 510). Robert B. Coote, in his review of Davies’s book, In Search of “Ancient Israel” (JSOT, 1992), writes, “In this reader-friendly polemic Davies brilliantly addresses an essential issue and at numerous points represents a vanguard in Biblical studies. It is indeed time for people to ‘reorient themselves away from a notion of “ancient Israel” and its “traditions”…’” (Interpretation1994, vol. 48, p. 192). Thus, while not agreeing on many ideas with Davies and Thompson, these scholars obviously believe that the “deconstructionist fad” has merit and not only should but must be discussed. Rainey’s position that lay persons should not be exposed to current, though highly debatable, issues is untenable.

Of Minimalists and Maximalists

Professor Philip R. Davies’s caustic response to Professors Biran and Naveh’s treatment of the recently discovered Tell Dan fragment (“‘House of David’ Built on Sand,” BAR 20:04) is illustrative of the scholarly tug-of-war that has been going on for some years between historical minimalists and maximalists concerning the interpretation of the Bible. In the 1970s this debate centered on the historicity of the Genesis patriarchs. During the 1980s and into the 1990s, the debate shifted to problems surrounding the origins of Israel in Canaan.

During the past two decades the minimalists have certainly dominated the discussion, reacting largely against the more maximalist tendencies of the Albright school, which dominated Biblical and archaeological studies from the 1940s through the 1960s. Some of the leading minimalist voices are John Van Seters, Thomas Thompson, Giovanni Garbini, Gösta Ahlström, Niels Peter Lemche and Philip R. Davies. The result of their scholarly investigations has been that virtually all that the Bible has to say about the early history of Israel has been rejected, and cornerstone events and famous individuals have been reconstructed out of history. Gone are Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and now even David. The Egyptian sojourn and exodus stories, along with the Sinai wanderings and Joshua’s military entry into Canaan, have been reduced to retrojections or inventions by later Biblical 022writers. Lemche describes the material on early Israel as “a fiction written around the middle of the first millennium.”¹

Davies and all historical minimalists “stubbornly insist that Biblical stories, like any other ancient accounts, ought to be verified before being accorded the status of facts,” to use his own words. The minimalists approach an ancient text, to use a juridical analogy, as “guilty until proven innocent,” whereas the maximalists accept what appears to be a historical statement unless there is evidence to prove the contrary (i.e., the presumption of innocence). Because of his skeptical approach to a text, the minimalist falls prey to the “fallacy of presumptive proof,” which in historian David Hackett Fischer’s words, “consists in advancing a proposition and shifting the burden of proof or disproof to others.”² Davies dismisses the historical worth of the reports on David in 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles, and without evidence asserts that the writings are inventions.³ Based on this gratuitous assumption, Davies shifts the burden of proof to the maximalist. The fallacy is self-evident.

Secondly, Davies claims to treat the Hebrew Bible “like any other ancient accounts.” While some minimalists indeed read all ancient texts with skepticism and place the burden of proof on the ancient source (or its maximalist defenders), most tend to be minimalists with the Bible and maximalists with other Near Eastern documents. For instance, in the current debate on the origins of Israel in Canaan, the Joshua accounts have been marginalized because of their theological and ideological composition (in the works of Ahlström, Lemche and Thompson, for example). However, these same scholars take very seriously the Egyptian military campaign with the Libyans recounted in the Merneptah Stela, despite its theological and ideological dimensions. This hieroglyphic text even tells us that a “great miracle happened” that led to Merneptah’s victory. Egyptologists treat the segment of the stela on the Libyan war as historical despite the mention of a miracle. The same courtesy is not usually extended to the Bible when divine intervention is reported in connection with the Israelites’ departure from Egypt or in the Joshua narratives. The double standard is evident. Fischer calls this practice the “fallacy of statistical special pleading” that “occurs whenever an investigator applies a double standard of inference or interpretation to his evidence—one standard to evidence which sustains his generalization and another to evidence which contradicts it.”⁴

Davies bristles at being called a “minimalist” and wants to rid himself of the label. But it is descriptive of his methodology for reading a Biblical text. Back in 1977, Professor William Dever of the University of Arizona, who likely would call himself a “minimalist,” used these terms⁵ which subsequently Professor William Hallo of Yale University, himself a “maximalist,” supported in order to avoid employing more emotionally charged terms like “orthodox” and “nihilist” to describe these divergent positions. He avers, “If we must resort to labels at all, let it be the fairly innocuous maximalist and minimalist.”⁶ Being a minimalist has nothing to do with carefully reading a text or utilizing the best philological techniques, as Davies implies when he complains, “If being a ‘Biblical minimalist’ means refusing to see what is not there, then I prefer to remain a minimalist, though I resent the inaccurate and sneering epithet.” The term as applied to Davies is neither sneering nor inaccurate. After all, it is his own statement about David being “as historical as King Arthur” that shows Davies is a Biblical minimalist.

For more on Davies’s analysis of bytdwd, see the article by David Noel Freedman and Jeffrey C. Geoghegan, “‘House of David’ Is There!” in this issue.—Ed.

Akeldama

Has Akeldama Come Full Circle?

It never ceases to amaze me that some intelligent people just love to create controversy by trying to put doubt in the minds of believers concerning the validity of the Bible based on what would, at first glance, appear to be facts grounded in archaeological finds.

Why, in Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer’s article entitled “Akeldama—Potter’s Field or High Priest’s Tomb?” BAR 20:06, do they bother to put a question mark on the title when the entire article is obviously and totally skewed against the traditional Biblical burial place of Jesus’ disciple, Judas. While the bulk of the article was well-written and is a fascinating study of the area and burial customs over a 600-year period, they failed to take into consideration what the tomb findings taught them! By their own account, the excavation of the Akeldama site proved, once again, that it was common practice in ancient times for burial sites to be used over and over again by the following generations. The article cited Jews being buried in a tomb, followed by Romans, followed by still other burials during the Byzantine period.

A perfectly acceptable scenario would be as follows: Judas returns the 30 pieces of silver, walks to a deserted area on what was then the outskirts of the city (a potter’s site) and hangs himself. The Priests, not able to put “blood money” back into the Temple treasury and hearing of Judas’ suicide, decide to buy the area (perhaps an acre) and bury Judas literally where he hung. The area is used only briefly as a burial place for transients. The town is growing and land that was once cheap on the outskirts of the town is now prime real estate. Unfortunately, because it has served as a makeshift graveyard, the area, by custom, must be left as such. No problem. Several wealthy families, seeing a real deal because of site value, conspire to have the area quickly and discreetly “cleaned up.” Next, they 023have masons carve elaborate entrances into the sides of once humble caves and rock outcroppings and overnight, an obscure and lowly graveyard for the poor is transformed into a high profile and grand resting place for the rich and famous for years to come. And now, today, it has once again returned to serving literally as a dump site. Akeldama has come full circle.

Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer reply:

We are sorry to see that our article has given a wrong impression to Mr. Brown. We firmly believe in the truth of Scripture. All our article proved was that the place traditionally known as Akeldama could not have been where tradition has placed it. This does not mean, of course, that Akeldama never existed. It must simply have been somewhere else. In the original version of our article we had even suggested a possible location further to the south of Jerusalem, where, near the approach road from that direction, larger clay deposits can be found.

Mr. Brown is actually not a careful reader of the Bible himself, for he writes that the priests, after Judas hung himself, bought the plot and buried him there. The Bible says nothing about who buried Judas and where. It seems more likely that Judas’ family would have collected the body and buried him in their family tomb, which would be located near the village where he lived. (Compare the story of Ahitophel, who was a type of Judas [2 Samuel 17:23]). He would never have been buried in the plot of land bought with the betrayal money, as that field was used to bury strangers or non-Jews. It was and still is forbidden for Jews to be buried in a Gentile cemetery. Brown’s own scenario, which included the pre-existence of humble caves in the area, also shows that he did not read our article very carefully, as it shows that very elaborate burial tombs dating from the First Temple period already existed there (see the distyle in antis tomb).

Rosettes or Sunbursts?

The “metopes” or “rosettes” mentioned in the article on Akeldama by Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer (“Akeldama—Potter’s Field or High Priest’s Tomb?” BAR 20:06) would appear to have additional significance as to Judeo-Christian burial and religious practices. From the sunburst of today’s Catholic Monstrance used in Mass, the tonsures of priests, sunbursts in St. Peter’s Cathedral, sunbursts over the doors of Christian monasteries, halos in Christian art, all the way back to sun worship by the Jews, Egyptians and Babylonians, we have seen many versions 024of this symbol. King Gudea of Babylonia protected temples by placing sunbursts at their entrances to honor God and to ward off evil spirits. When some Israelites blended their religion with Baal, they used sun wheels or “chariots of the sun” as deity symbols (2 Kings 23:4–11). I would surmise that the symbols at the entrance of St. Onuphrius Monastery are sunbursts. The “Mammoth Rosette” shown in the ceiling photo of the triple-gated tomb (p. 32) is clearly a sunburst. To call such sunbursts “rosettes” does not give them the full import of their significance. The ceiling sunburst on p. 33 shows an ancient solar design similar to the round “host” bread used in communion ceremonies.

Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer reply:

Most of the rosettes are found together with naturalistic designs. In the frieze of “The Refuge of the Apostles,” the two central metopes are decorated with grape bunches. The corners of the ceiling with the “Mammoth Rosette” are decorated with acanthus leaves. Olive leaves and olives, lotus leaves and flowers, pomegranates, etrogs, pine cones and myrtles are among the common naturalistic motifs found on decorated surfaces from the Second Temple period—on tombs, sarcophagi, ossuaries and buildings. It seems farfetched to see sunbursts in these botanical designs, which were apparently intended to comply with the Mosaic prohibition on the portrayal of human or animal forms.

Inscription Badly Misread

The article of Gideon Avni and Zvi Greenhut on Akeldama (“Akeldama: Resting Place of the Rich and Famous,” BAR 20:06) was interesting and pertinent in view of recent discoveries of important Second Temple-period tombs in the area of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, Israeli field archaeologists often fail to consult ancient historians and experts on Greek epigraphy before they publish their finds. From the photograph of the inscription on the ossuary, one may adequately read Pepo™hmen ’Azaberou’toõ which translates “Azaberoutos made it,” and not “Eleazar of Beirut has made it,” as fantastically discussed by the authors.

Dr. Tal Ilan, professor of Jewish history at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, replies:

In answer to Dr. Kokkinos’ remark that “Israeli field archaeologists often fail to consult ancient historians and experts on Greek epigraphy before they publish their finds,” I would like to respond that the excavators of the Akeldama burial caves consulted me before publishing their results. I appear as a co-author in a somewhat more extended presentation on Akeldama (“Three New Burial Cave of the Second Temple Period in Akeldama (Kidron Valley),” in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem 1994), pp. 206–225 and particularly p. 210). I may not be the most authoritative classicist or epigraphist, but I do know something about ossuaries and ossuary inscriptions in Jerusalem, and particularly about names found on ossuaries.

Concerning Kokkinos’ specific remark, it was not a random and careless decision to read the name of the person as Eleazar of Beirut. I am well aware that there are two basic difficulties in this reading. The first is that the name Eleazar is not found there, only three Greek letters that could be deciphered in two ways: either LZA or AZA. If the first (which is the more likely reading) is correct, it makes no sense by itself, but it could be an abbreviation of a very popular Jewish name at the time (E)l(ea)za(r) = (E)l(ea)za(r). In Palestinian texts this name is often rendered Lazar, without the initial a, or E. This was the interpretation I preferred. If the second reading is correct, I still think this is an abbreviated form of a name—Azariah. I have shown this inscription to several classicists in Israel and not one of them suggested a more convincing reading. I would of course be glad to accept other suggestions, but Azaberoutos is not a solution because it is not a name I know. It looks like a weird combination of a Greek and Semitic name, and anyone who claims this is the correct interpretation will have to furnish proof for his argument.

I am also aware of the fact that reading Bdroutoõ as “of Beirut” is problematic. Again I debated with myself and consulted others about other possibilities (such as the Roman name Vorus) but decided finally on this interpretation because it seemed most probable. All these complications and uncertainties will be discussed in detail in the final publication of Akeldama, which will appear in 1995 in the journal Atiqot.

Supersessionism

Hate Forum

I have chosen not to renew my subscription to BAR, and I would like to tell you why.

The letter from Jerry Meng, published in the November/December issue under the heading “Judaism Is Defunct,” is so deeply offensive that its ugliness lingers on to blight the entire publication (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:06). And if that were not enough, you saw fit to print similar letters from Leroy Spinks and Michael S. Burrier in the same issue. I have difficulty in understanding your fascination with the monstrous issue of supersessionism or your motivation in letting it continue to befoul the pages of BAR.

Yes, I support the free exchange of ideas, lively discourse and the freedom to disagree. Such dialogue is not only desirable; it is absolutely necessary. However, there is a line of acceptability, and you crossed over it. At best you showed insensitivity or a serious lack of judgment. Perhaps your motivation is less innocent. In any case, what possible good can come of allowing BAR to become a forum for hate?

I am neither a Jew nor a Christian. As a Hindu I was taught to respect the validity and the common divine inspiration of all religions. Because of BAR’s apparent willingness to give voice to the most vicious sort of intolerance, I can no longer support the Biblical Archaeology Society. When my subscription to your sister publication, Bible Review, comes due, don’t expect a renewal there either.

Hate the Faith/Love the Person

I believe it fair to describe the general religious focus and orientation of BAR as a Christian one. Nevertheless, the quality and scholarship of your publication is such that it has (at least from my perspective) appeal to a broad spectrum of individuals, including an Orthodox Jew such as myself.

For this reason, I was surprised and offended by the tone of several letters you opted to publish in your November December issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:06).

As a person, I am defined and guided by my faith. I am a Jew, pure and simple. To say that someone can consider my faith grossly in error (or even dead, as did one letter), but to say that this same person will not be negative or hateful towards me as a “person,” is disingenuous at best. Far too many of my people have suffered terribly from this “hate the faith/love the person” nonsense.

Sirs, while I respect your desire to give your readers a forum in which to express themselves freely, I would politely suggest that you perhaps be a bit more selective in what you print or, at the very least, make it clear to your readers of all faiths that you do not subscribe to the diatribes you sometimes print.

Would BAR Open Its Pages to the KKK?

By interviewing John Strugnell (“An Interview with John Strugnell,” BAR 20:04), Hershel Shanks conferred on this 028avowed anti-Semite an honor he doesn’t deserve. Even worse, Shanks and BAR encouraged a slew of anti-Semites to come out of the woodwork and furnished them with a forum in which to spew their venom.

Would BAR have provided space to a KKK spokesman for the expression of anti-Black views? The publisher wouldn’t have dared.

To Learn the Truths of Christianity

To Mr. Burrier and Mr. Meng (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:06): I would not demean your religion as you have mine. I can only hope that you will study and learn the truths of your religion and live by them. Also I recommend that you study the Talmud, especially that portion known as the “Ethics of the Fathers,” so that you may learn some of the basic tenets of Christianity and it may make you a better Christian.

Anti-Jewish Is Anti-Jesus

John Strugnell calls Judaism “a horrible religion.” His appeal that he is not anti-Semitic will play only in the theaters of those with similar convictions. One of those who would not be amused by Strugnell’s denigration of his religious beliefs would be Jesus himself, who lived and died a practicing Jew.

In short, if Strugnell is not an anti-Semite, he will do until the real thing comes along.

Dead Sea Scrolls

MMT and the NT

MMT is even more revolutionary for New Testament studies than Dr. Martin Abegg may imagine (“Paul, ‘Works of the Law’ and MMT,” BAR 20:06). Some of us (including my own Worldwide Church of God) have long maintained that “works of the law” in Paul’s epistles does not refer to the keeping of the Ten Commandments (including the Sabbath), nor the statutes, judgments and Festivals that depend on them, but only to the “Holiness Code”: those precepts (ceremonial, sacrificial, etc.) that set Israel apart from the “nations.” MMT would seem to confirm and clarify this, and verses such as Ephesians 2:14–15 as well. Paul was not against “the keeping of the commandments of God,” but against the use of “works of the law” (including circumcision) to justify a person (1 Corinthians 7:19; Acts 13:38–39; etc.).

Dr. Abegg may be interested to know that the Franz Delitsch and the Salkinson-Ginsberg Hebrew New Testaments (both published early this century, I believe) used ma’ase ha-Torah to translate “works of the law.” The modern Hebrew New Testament owes its translation in large measure to these excellent, earlier works.

Martin Abegg replies:

Concerning the extent of the phrase “works of the law,” MMT only clarifies the fact that it could refer to issues broader than simply circumcision or kashrut (the kosher laws). Paul was certainly not against keeping the commandments of God, but, I might add, neither was he against circumcision or kashrut; his point was in reaction to the teaching that the doing of any of these things was required to make one righteous before God (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8).

Return to Sender

I agree with Martin Abegg’s semantic renderings of MMT. However, I think the direction and intent has been misunderstood. MMT is written from a very legalistic point of view, and espouses a Pharisaical indoctrination.

It is a letter to believing Jews of the Christian faith, which would explain why six copies of MMT were found at Qumran—not that they were letters written at Qumran to be sent out, but letters received (possibly from Jerusalem) at Qumran. It was meant to instruct the departed group to continue the Rabbinic practice of Judaistic law and remain in the “legal rulings of the Torah.”

This may also explain why Paul wrote such epistles as Galatians: To re-teach those who were being turned back to Judaism and firmly establish that God saves by grace through faith in Christ, and not by works of the law.

The MMT author is not the one who departed from mainstream Judaism and Pharisaism—but the addressee!

Martin Abegg replies:

Just what personages or groups might be represented by the author or addressee of MMT is certain to be an ongoing topic of discussion. However, there is little to recommend the conclusion that either of the parties were “Christians.” The six copies of the letter are almost certainly to be dated no later than the first century B.C.E.

Although I too see a resemblance between MMT and Paul’s letter to the mostly Gentile Galatian assemblies, the relationship may be envisioned as a snapshot to its negative. MMT is written with a stringent view of the law to a group that had evidently been influenced by a less stringent interpretation, while Paul was writing of a faith (alone) in the messiah Jesus to those who had been influenced by a teaching of the necessity of certain legal stringencies.

The Molten Falcon

If the Miqsat Ma’ase Ha-Torah had been Masaqat Ma’ase Ha-torah it would have fit in perfectly with your comparision of the scroll with the Maltese Falcon. This is because the falcon was a masaqah, a molten image.

Were the Scroll Caves a Genizah?

Is it possible that the Dead Sea Scrolls were already in fragments when they were left in the caves at Qumran? Could they not have been placed in this repository because Jewish sacred scrolls—anything containing God’s name—are traditionally not thrown away when they become pasul (worn, torn or otherwise marred), but rather are stored until they can be buried?

Lawrence F. Schiffman, of New York University, replies:

Mr. Halevi’s letter raises the possibility that the caves of Qumran might have been a genizah, a storage place for books no longer usable but which, because of their holiness, had to be treated with respect. If true, this would mean that those who hid the scrolls considered them unfit, and such a conclusion would radically change our view of the community which lived at Qumran and hid the scrolls.

But his suggestion, already raised in the scholarly literature, cannot be sustained. The scrolls were placed in the caves in antiquity while still intact. The research of Hartmut Stegemann (see his “How to Connect Dead Sea Scroll Fragments,” Bible Review, February 1988), based on the shapes of the surviving fragments and the nature of their deterioration, shows that the scrolls deteriorated and rotted in the caves. Further, those scrolls placed in large jars (the “scroll jars”) survived almost completely, showing that the materials were well preserved when first hidden.

030

The greatest deterioration was in cave 4, that closest to the building complex at Qumran. In our view, this artificially constructed cave served as the library of those who inhabited the buildings. Here there had originally been wooden shelves supported by beams. These in turn were resting in holes that are found regularly positioned around the inside of the cave. It is impossible to view this cave as a chance hiding place disconnected from the ruins of Qumran, because it was clearly dug over a long period of time and designed to serve those who lived at the site, members of a Jewish sect of Second Temple times.

It had been earlier suggested by Roland de Vaux, the excavator of Qumran, that Roman soldiers ripped up the scrolls when they discovered the cave 4 library after destroying the site of Qumran in 68 C.E. This view is also impossible since the destruction is the result of decay and rot, not of random destruction.

However we view the scrolls, we have to reckon with the notion that they represent a collection of writings held very dear to those who copied them and collected them. There is no escaping the conclusion that these scrolls were used by a community that occupied the Qumran building complex.

Publication Failures

Giving Grades to Dig Reports…or Lack Thereof

I am happy to see that BAR has finally decided to stop flogging the dead horse of the Dead Sea Scrolls and move on to the real issue of which the scrolls are only the tip of the iceberg. I am referring the disgraceful state of publication of many archaeological excavations in Israel (“Archaeology’s Dirty Secret,” BAR 20:05).

Part of this problem has to do with archaeological wanderlust, the need, among some archaeologists, to start a new excavation before an old one is properly published. There is little a single individual can do about this problem.

One can only hope that the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) will cut off the digging permits of excavators (its own included) who do not produce real, adequate, yearly preliminary reports of their work, and not allow them to open a new excavation until a final report of the old one is in press. Sir Flinders Petrie’s reports may have problems, but at least he produced something, if only a catalogue of finds. Many excavators today do not produce even that much. Many of the “old boy” excavations are never going to see the light of day.

Another part of the problem is the tendency of dig directors to steal from Peter to pay Paul. Most non-IAA excavations are financed by the monetary contributions of the volunteers, who also make up most of the work force of modern digs. The directors count on these funds to finance the intra-season processing of the excavated materials. Inevitably not all the material from the previous season is processed before the next season begins, and so there is a slow accumulation of “unfinished business” from season to season. When an excavation finally closes down, there remains a huge backlog to process and little or no new funding with which to do it. Publication is thus delayed, or worse, never happens at all.

What can BAR do about this? Play the role of gadfly at which it has proved so superlative! I suggest compiling a yearly registry of dig directors listing all the excavations (past and present) for which they are responsible and the state of their publication. Perhaps a four-rank system would suffice: 0 = no publications at all, 1 = short notices and/or one general article (e.g., in BAR), 2 = preliminary reports and general articles, 3 = full publication. Each director would have his/her own ranking. This registry should be published in BAR’s January/February issue, the same issue that contains the year’s volunteer dig opportunities. Hopefully publication of this registry will “encourage” directors who are lagging in their publications to take this responsibility more seriously, prompt the IAA to be stricter in its licensing, and, most important of all, help steer potential volunteers away from digs that may never be published (thus wasting their efforts).

The Tetragrammaton

How God’s Name Was Pronounced

Professor Rainey has presented the usual four arguments given for the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as “Yahweh,” (“How Yahweh Was Pronounced,” Queries & Comments, BAR 20:05) but he has overlooked some important primary data that negates the customary conjecture.

1) Among the magical papyri the name appears as iawouhe (Ya-oh-oo-ay-eh), but it is difficult to know how much this pronunciation had to do with the Tetragrammaton because the prayers and incantations in these papyri mix all kinds of sounds together, some meaningful, some nonsensical, so it is not certain how many of these syllables were thought to belong to the name. At least, however, it has more syllables than two, and the central vowel is not omitted, as is done in Yah-weh.

2) Clement of Alexandria spelled the Tetragrammaton iaoai (Ya-oo-ai), (Ya-oo-eh), and iao (Ya-oh). In none of these is the central oo or oh vowel omitted.

3) Rabbis often deduced the meaning of a word by taking the word apart and interpreting each part. A modern equivalent would be to determine the meaning of “insect” by the meanings of both “in” and “sect.” This might, then, be defined as a religious sect that is in some place. This methodology is called “etymology” and is not always accurate, but it was followed by rabbis, Clement of Alexandria, and some authors of Scripture (Genesis 28:10–22; 21:15–34; 26:17–34). By this logic Clement argued that the Tetragrammaton had the same consonants as the verb “to be,” so it meant the one who caused things to be, but he did not pronounce the word according to any form of that verb. His conjecture was homiletically thought-provoking, but not scientifically or historically correct. The verb “to be” would deserve the extensive comparative analysis it has been given only if it could be shown from the Scripture to be related to the Tetragrammaton, but that is not the case. Reams of paper and gallons of ink have been expended over the years justifying a pronunciation Westerners deduced on the basis of Clement’s conjecture. It may all be irrelevant to the subject. There are other places and ways to look for the correct pronunciation. These are found in the Scriptures and associated texts. The following are some of the materials to consider:

Among the caves of Qumran was a Greek text that included a few Greek words of Leviticus (4QLXX Lev), one of which was the Tetragrammaton. It was spelled IAW (Ya-oh). This is apparently a two-syllable word, but the second syllable is only a vowel. There is no way that it could be rendered “Yah-weh.” This was a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya-ho (why). It is the same spelling given in the fifth century B.C. Aramaic papyri. From the Aramaic alone this word could be pronounced either Ya-hoo or Ya-hoh.

Some of the words in the Dead Sea scrolls were pronounced and spelled in the scrolls with an aspirant, ah, which is lacking in the Masoretic text. For example, Masoretic words like hoo (awh) and hee (ayh) are spelled hoo-ah (hawh) in the scrolls. Arabs pronounce these words the same way that they are spelled in the scrolls, but Arabs do not spell the final aspirant with a consonant. They indicate the aspirant with only vowel pointing, which was not used in early Biblical texts. The word spelled Ya-hoo or Ya-hoh may have been pronounced Yahowah or 031Yahoowah, but in no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as “Ya,” but never as “Ya-weh.” This can be illustrated further by studying the proper names of the Bible that were based on the Tetragrammaton.

The Hebrew for the name “Jonathan” is Yah-ho-na-than (÷tnwhy), “Yaho or Yahowah has given.” When this name was abbreviated it became “Yo-na-than (÷tnwy),” preserving the vowel oh. John was spelled “Yaho-cha-nan” (÷njwhy), “Yaho or Yahowah has been gracious.” Elijah’s name was Eli-yahoo (whyla), “My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah.” Ancients often gave their children names that included the name of their deity. For other examples, Ish-baal is “the man of Baal,” and Baal-ya-sha means “Baal has saved.” In both cases the name “Baal” is probably correctly pronounced in the name of the person involved. The same is true with the Tetragrammaton. Anyone who cares to check the concordances will find that there is no name in the entire Scriptures that includes the Tetragrammaton and also omits the vowel that is left out in the two-syllable pronunciation Rainey upholds.

There is still one other clue to the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton—Hebrew poetry. For example, from the poem of Exodus 15, read aloud verses 1, 3, 6, 11, 17 and 18, first pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as “Yahweh” and then read it again, pronouncing the same word as “Yahowah.” Notice the rhyme and poetic beat of the two. In this way the reader can judge which one is the more likely pronunciation used in antiquity.

The name “Yahowah” is not a ghost word, as Rainey declared. Clement of Alexandria’s conjecture that the Tetragrammaton was based on the verb “to be” overlooks the pronunciation of the proper names in the Scripture that include some portion of the Tetragrammaton. Clement did not have access to the scrolls and may never have seen the Aramaic Papyri. Nevertheless, he spelled the Tetragrammaton in Greek employing the central vowel that Rainey omitted in his determination that the proper name was Yahweh.

When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was “Yah” or “Yo.” When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been “Yahowah” or “Yahoowah.” If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been “Yaho,” but even this spelling may have been pronounced with three syllables, including the final aspirant, because Hebrew had no vowel points in 100Biblical times. Biblical theologians should start with this data and reach their belief regarding the character of the deity from the descriptions given in the texts, rather than trying to deduce it from some possible etymology of the word. This data and logic do not refute the suggestion that God is the one who “causes to be,” but it means that belief cannot be proved on the basis of words conjectured to be part of the name.

Preservation

Gezer Is Not the Only Neglected Site in Israel

I read with interest your open letter to me, published in the May/June issue (“Memorandum: Re Restoring Gezer,” BAR 20:03).

I was pleased to read that you support the huge efforts currently made by us in the excavation and restoration of Caesarea National Park and of Bet She’an National Park. I would like to add, for the information of your readers, that similar activity is currently under way in 17 additional national parks.

I would like to invite you and your readers to visit the Megiddo, Sepphoris, Avdat and Mamshit national parks as well, and get a first-hand impression of the momentous activity there.

I totally agree with you about the importance of Tel Gezer. Unfortunately, Tel Gezer is not the only site in Israel not being taken care of. There are many similar places like it in Israel, which has many archaeological sites.

The Israeli National Parks Authority has been in existence for about 30 years. During that period it has developed 43 sites, restored them and opened them to the public. I will not bother you and your readers by describing the cumbersome process of opening a site to the public—legal issues, bureaucratic problems, time-consuming archaeological excavation, research, planning and development for the admission of the public.

I really appreciate your concern about Tel Gezer, and I share your opinion about the importance of the site and its potential for being a national park, which would enable us to start developing it.

I hope that the Israeli National Parks Authority can count on your support, and we, on our part, will keep you posted about progress in the various procedures.

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.