Queries & Comments

046

When Was the Exodus?

To the Editor:

Professor Siegfried H. Horn’s article in the June 1977 BAR (“What We Don’t Know About Moses and the Exodus,” BAR 03:02) exhumes once again, the weakly supported and generally discarded theory of the Exodus having taken place during the 18th Dynasty reign of Thutmose III. Dr. Horn’s major premise would seem to be based more on romantic conjecture than on the evidence.

Dr. Horn does not refer, at all, to Exodus 1:11, which mentions the building “for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Ramses”. Archaeologists generally agree that the “Ramses” mentioned in the text refers to Ramses II’s new capital of Per-Ramses, which he erected on the ancient site of the Hyksos capitol of Avaris, and that the Biblical Pithom is quite probably a city of Pe(r)-Atum (the House of Atum), which is quite possibly Tell el-Maskhutah in Wadi Atum, the actual location of Goshen. Based on this evidence, Dr. John Bright, in his History of Israel (second edition, Westminster Press), hypothesizes that “it is plausible that Sethos the First, who initiated that restoration of Avaris was the Pharaoh who began the oppression of Israel and that Ramses II was the Pharaoh in whose reign the Exodus took place.”

Furthermore, Abraham Malamat, in The History of the Jewish People (Harvard University Press), mentions a letter by an Egyptian official under Ramses II, (Papyrus Leiden 348), which refers to construction work by the “Apiru” who “transport stones to the great pylon of Ramses.” He theorizes that if any historical importance is to be attached to the mention in Exodus 2:23 of the death of Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites, the Exodus would have taken place under his successor, Merneptah. Malamat, therefore, theorizes an even later departure from Egypt, rather than an earlier one.

Jack Finegan, in Light From The Ancient East (Princeton University Press) further supports the Exodus during the 19th Dynasty, and all theorize that the oppression of the foreign elements in Egypt grew out of the conflict between the Hittites and Ramses II, which had an influence on the suppressed nomadic elements who took advantage of the event to escape from Egypt.

Further evidence of a Biblical nature supporting a 19th Dynasty Exodus which is not mentioned by Professor Horn, appears in Numbers, Chapters 20 and 21, which mention the detour of the Israelites through Edom and Moab. Neither of these kingdoms had been established until the 13th century, and were, therefore, not in existence during the 18th Dynasty.

Nearly all authorities are agreed that the 480 year period mentioned in Kings 6:1, and which appear to be the keystone of Dr. Horn’s theory, was, in all probability typological and represented a rounded number of a 40 year generation. If a generation were considered to be 25 years, as is generally accepted, one would have the same 12 generations totalling 300 years, and by using the same formula, the mention in Judges 11:26 of 300 years would be reduced proportionately, causing dates to fall within the 19th Dynasty Exodus and still allow a date of 1220 for the confrontation with Merneptah. Professor Horn seems to take issue with the computation of the numbers in census lists in Exodus 12:37. He does not, however, take issue with the 480 year date in Kings 6:1.

It would appear one cannot have it both ways.

The overwhelming evidence supports an Exodus during the 19th Dynasty and in the absence of any astounding archaeological discovery to the contrary, it would appear that Professor Horn’s theory is simply another example of the intellectual exercise—of which scholars are so fond.

047Siegfried Horn replies:

My article as originally submitted said very little about the “Date of the Exodus.” It simply expressed surprise that the authors of all three books under review had adopted a 13th-century-B.C. date of the Exodus, hardly mentioning the fact that this date is not absolutely certain. One could have expected that a book of 368 pages, such as Dewey Beegle’s Moses, would have spent more than 2¼ pages on this question. I also suggested that it is high time that the whole question of the Date of the Exodus should be thoroughly treated again since that has not been done for many years.

After submitting my article, the Editor asked me to add a few paragraphs listing some of the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence which points to a 15th-century Exodus. I did this reluctantly because I knew that I would open a Pandora’s box of opposition, since—as I clearly stated in my article—“much historical and archaeological evidence points to a 13th-century-B.C. date for the Exodus for which reason the majority of scholars currently accept this date.” Having made these preliminary remarks in order to let you know that my article was not written to present a pet-theory, I will now briefly deal with your questions.

The mentioning of the name Ramses as that of a store city in Exodus 1:11 and elsewhere in the books of Exodus and Numbers is no proof that the city in question possessed this name at the time of the Exodus. It could have been a modernization of the name made by a later copyist or point to a late source when the earlier city name was no longer used. There are many parallel cases found in the Bible of which I will present two as examples: (1) In Genesis 47:11, it is said that Joseph settled his relatives “in the land of Ramses.” I am sure that very few scholars would want to take this text as evidence that Joseph sewed Pharaoh Ramses II, and that Jacob and his family entered Egypt during that king’s reign. (2) In Genesis 14:14, Abraham is said to have pursued the enemy as far as Dan. But from Judges 18:27–29 we learn that the city of Dan did not get this name until several centuries later, when, in the period of the Judges, the Danites conquered the city of Laish in northern Palestine and changed its name to that of their ancestor.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that Ramses of Exodus 1:11 is called a store city while the city known from 19th-dynasty texts as Per-Ramses was either the capital or residence city of Ramses II. It’s location is still not known. Five sites have been proposed in the past, and scholars are still not certain whether Tanis, which was the Hyksos capital of Avaris, was Per-Ramses or Qantir (see for a full bibliography of the dispute J. D. Schmidt’s Ramesses II [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973], pp. 142–143). I agree with you that Biblical Pithom is “probably” Per-Atum, but I am not so sure that it’s identification with Tell el-Maskhutah in the Wadi Tumilat is correct, because the name Per-Atum is found only on very late inscriptions at Tell el-Maskhutah, namely on those of Osorkon II and Ptolemy Philadelphus, while the inscriptions of the earlier periods found at Tell el-Maskhutah call the place Tcheku. E. P. Uphill therefore, after discussing the evidence at great length, identified Pithom or Per Atum of Exodus 1:11 with Heliopolis (JNES, 27 [1968], 292–299). Anyway, regardless of which sites may have been Pithom and Ramses—Heliopolis, Tell el-Maskhutah, Tanis or Qantir—these places existed long before the 13th century B.C., and no proof has been found that any of them were built by the Israelites. For this reason the mention of the building of the store cities of Pithom and Ramses in connection with the Exodus story is no evidence for either a 15th- or 13th-century date of the Exodus and cannot be used to bolster one theory or the other.

You then refer to the Apiru mentioned in Papyrus Leiden 348 (the same text is also found in Papyrus Leiden 349). According to these texts Apiru were engaged in the transportation of stones for the great pylon of Ramses II. From a study of all pertinent texts mentioning the Apiru it is evident that Apiru was a term used in the second millennium B.C. to designate “Displaced Persons” all over the Near East, including the Hebrews, as long as they did not yet have a recognized homeland and therefore fitted the 048meaning of the designation Apiru. The Apiru of Ramses II’s texts to which you refer may have been Israelites, but not necessarily so. Apiru are also mentioned in texts of Thutmose III as servants straining out wine, and one Apiru is referred to as a prospective thief. Furthermore, King Amenhotep II claims in his Memphis Stele to have captured 36,000 Apiru during his military campaign in Asia, and these people were certainly not Israelites. (See for a convenient collection of all references to the Apiru in Egyptian texts Moshe Greenberg’s The Hab/piru [New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society, 1955], pp. 55–57).

In this connection I would like to point out that Asiatic slaves are mentioned in inscriptions of the reigns of Thutmose I (Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, p. 29) and Thutmose III (Ibid., p. 293). Those of Thutmose III’s time are depicted as Semites in the process of brick making. Yet I would not use this material as evidence to claim that these people were Israelites, although the possibility exists that they were.

What you say about Jack Finegan’s hypothesis that the oppression of the Israelites may have grown out of Ramses II’s conflict with the Hittites cannot be proven to be correct or incorrect. Therefore I shall pass this argument over without commenting on it.

Much weightier arguments in favor of a 13th century B.C. date of the Exodus are some archaeological findings, which caused me to say in my BAR article “that much historical and archaeological evidence points to a 13th century B.C. date for the Exodus.” In the first place, the findings of Nelson Glueck must be discussed to which you refer (in connection with Moab and Edom) without mentioning his name. Glueck on the basis of his surface explorations of hundreds of Trans-jordanian sites, carried out over a number of years, came to the conclusion that Trans-jordan did not have a sedentary population between the 20th century B.C. and the 13th century. The conclusion was thus reached that since the kingdoms of Edom and Moab did not exist before the 13th century, the Israelites could not have encountered them earlier than the 13th century on their way to the promised land. (See Nelson Glueck, The Other Side of the Jordan [New Haven, Conn.: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 1940] pp. 145–149.)

Other archaeological evidence favoring a 13th-century Exodus are the excavation results at Tell Beit Mirsim, where the destruction of Stratum C which had taken place between 1250 and 1230 B.C. was taken by W. F. Albright to have been caused by the invading Israelites (Albright, BASOR, No. 74 [April, 1939], 23 and references found there), and at Hazor, where the destruction by fire of Stratum XIII in the 13th century is interpreted by Yigael Yadin to have been carried out under Joshua (Yadin, Hazor [Schweich Lectures; London: Oxford University Press, 1972], p. 200). Also the excavations of Lachish and Bethel have provided corroborating evidence for this date (Albright, The Biblical Period [New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963 ed.], p. 27).

But even this rather formidable evidence for a 13th-century conquest of Palestine, east and west, has not universally been accepted. G. Lankester Harding, the former director of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that Glueck’s exploration results are occasionally contradicted by new discoveries (PEQ, 80 [1948], 118–120; 90 [1958], 10–12; The Antiquities of Jordan [London: Butterworth Press, 1963], pp. 32–33).

With regard to Tell Beit Mirsim also, a different interpretation than that presented by Albright can be given. Instead of considering Stratum C2—destroyed between 1250 and 1230 B.C.—as representing the city conquered by Joshua, one can identify Stratum C1, which was destroyed in the first half of the 14th century, with the city captured by the Israelites under Joshua.

Furthermore it has been pointed out that Stratum XIII at Hazor may possibly have been destroyed by Deborah-Barak in the Judges period (Judges 4:23–24) and not by Joshua (B. Mazar, HUCA, 24 [1952–53], 80–84), so that one could consider Stratum XIV, whose destruction Yadin attributes to Sethi I (Hazor, p. 200) to be the remains of the city which Joshua destroyed.

I could go on and list other evidences pro and con a 15th-century Exodus and pro and con a 13th-century Exodus. But enough space has already been used to answer your interesting letter. My BAR article did not have the purpose to prove a pet theory, but to point out that we are still far removed from knowing exactly when the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan took place. We must keep an open mind to some of the difficult problems of Biblical history and our subject matter is one of them.

049Jesus Running for Political Office

To the Editor:

Incredible! I can’t believe you did it. You, with straight face, printed Buchanan’s comment that Jesus was running for a political office (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:03).

I can’t believe he said it. I can’t believe you printed it. Is all you believe about Jesus Christ, Saviour of the world, that he was only running for a political office? What office?

George Wesley Buchanan replies:

I am sorry to have offended Ms. Weakley. That was not my desire, at all. I did not say that Jesus was “only running for political office.” I made no attempt to discuss the theological issues, but only to analyze the historical aspect of Jesus’ life. The historian has no data by which he can test God’s activity in any given situation or person. This is a matter of conviction which cannot be proved, historically. Of course, if a person believes that Jesus was not a human being at all, then any historical analysis is invalid, and archaeology itself is pointless, so far as Jesus is concerned. If, however, in addition to his divine aspects, you consider Jesus to have been a living human being who occupied a certain place in time and space, then the tools of the historian can be applied to discover whatever can be known about this human being, the time in which he lived, and his contribution to the society to which he belonged.

In this study, even the casual reader will quickly discover that Jesus was related in some way or another to a political office. “What office?” Ms. Weakley asks. “The office of being King of Israel.” What is there to suggest this? In the Gospels, Jesus was called a King, Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David, and Messiah. He was inviting others to join with him in his movement to receive the kingdom about which he was concerned. Most people think of a king as a political office, and, a kingdom as a political area, ruled by a king. In New Testament times, other kings were called sons of God. In Israel, the one who was expected to rule from Jerusalem as king was called the son of David. The term “son of Man” is used in Daniel, Enoch, and the Gospels only in contexts which describe the activity of one who functioned as a king, i.e. a political leader. (On this see To the Hebrews [Garden City: Doubleday, 1972], pp. 38–51; see also The Consequences of the Covenant [Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1970], chapter I).

The word “Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew “Messiah.” There were only two figures in Israelite or Jewish culture who were introduced into office by the action of anointing. These were the king and high priest. Since a son of David did not qualify as a high priest, it is quite obvious that Jesus was called “Messiah” by those who were addressing him as a king. As in the United States, the president can be called “the president of the United States,” “The resident of the White House,” “The commander-in-chief of the armed forces,” or “the chief,”—so Jews of Jesus’ time referred to their king by such titles as “king,” “messiah,” “son of God,” “son of Man,” or “son of David.” Since a king is a very important political officer, and since Jesus was called all these royal titles, it seems reasonable for the historian to assume that he either was, or was trying to become, a king. This is what I meant when I suggested that Jesus was “running for political office.”

I did not discuss what it meant to be called “the Savior of the world” in those days, much less, try to understand what it means today in various communities.

It seems to me that Christians and Jews should respect each others’ beliefs in theological matters, so long as these beliefs are not injurious to others. In the field of history, however, the most objective and accurate tests should be applied to uncover the past to the best of our ability. Religious people should never be afraid of facts. A true faith can stand the test of truth. A faith that is dependent upon a distortion of facts is very weak and insecure. I am not trying to impute a weak faith or any other insult to Ms. Weakley, but to explain why I would dare to suggest that Jesus was somehow related to politics. I hope that she is not offended by my reply.

050To the Editor:

I get almost as much enjoyment reading the Letters to the Editor as I do reading the articles in the BAR. I was especially intrigued with the reply of George Wesley Buchanan to the question of “When Was Jesus Born?” in the September 1977 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:03). Much as I hesitate to question a man of such immense erudition, I must point out a mathematical error in the determination of the presumed birth dates.

Professor Buchanan asserts that the Gospel writers conjectured “that Jesus was probably 30–50 years of age” when he began his ministry. It is important to keep this 20 year difference in mind in trying to determine proper dates. He also states “since he was crucified sometime while Pilate was prefect (A.D. 26–36), we too can subtract 50 years from A.D. 26 and 30 years from A.D. 36, and conjecture quite accurately that Jesus was born sometime between 26 B.C. and A.D. 6.” The problem is that adding 26 B.C. years to 6 A.D. years gives us 32 years, not the 20 years pointed out above.

What should be done is first to subtract 50 years from 26 A.D. which would make it 24 B.C. (not 26 B.C.) and 50 years from 36 A.D. which would result in 14 B.C. Then subtract 30 years from 26 A.D. which gives us 4 B.C. and 30 years from 36 A.D. which results in a figure of 6 A.D. We can now conjecture that Jesus was born either between 24 B.C.–4 B.C. or between 14 B.C.–6 A.D. in either case preserving the 20 year difference noted earlier.

If he were born 24 B.C. he would have been 50 years old during Pilate’s first year as prefect, and if born 4 B.C., he would have been 30 years old during Pilate’s first year. If he were born in 14 B.C. he would have been 40 years old in Pilate’s first year, and if born 6 A.D. he would have been 30 years old during Pilate’s last year in Jerusalem.

George Wesley Buchanan replies:

George Kline is 100% correct. I appreciate his astuteness in catching my careless mathematical blunder.

On Virginity in the Bible

To the Editor:

In reference to your article by Charles D. Isbell entitled “Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?” BAR 03:02. I am appalled and disgusted that anyone would or could question the perpetual virginity, not temporary but permanent virginity, of Mary. This article thoroughly ruined an otherwise quite enjoyable issue. As a Catholic, I felt that I had to comment on this article. One more article like this and I will cancel my subscription.

Professor Isbell did not question the virginity of Mary in his article, only whether this doctrine was proclaimed in the Gospel of Matthew. According to Professor Isbell, “It is the Book of Luke which … provides the basis for the early Church doctrine of the virgin birth”.—Ed.

To the Editor:

I must start my letter by telling you how very much I’ve enjoyed the three issues of BAR we’ve received so far. As a teacher of the writings of the great prophets, who chastised the people of their times for worshipping at the bamot throughout the land of Israel, I found particularly interesting—and most useful in the classroom—your article about Yigael Yadin’s finding a bama in Beersheva.

I did, however, take exception to the article of Charles D. Isbell in your June 1977 issue (“Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?” BAR 03:02). Professor Isbell tries to prove that the language of the Bible has no single word that actually means “virgo intacto”, and he cites three examples to illustrate his point—which is that the Hebrew word bethulah, when used alone, did not denote virginity.

The words of the Bible are very precise indeed, and replete with meaning. A yaldah is a girl child, technically under twelve years old; a na’arah is a girl between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half; and an ’almah is a young woman.

The word bethulah, as used throughout the Hebrew Bible, always meant a virgin, as 051we understand the term today. Marcus Jastrow, in his definitive dictionary of Hebrew and Aramaic terminology, explains that the word is probably derived from a Hebrew root meaning separate and untouched.

I would like to illustrate my point, using the very examples that Professor Isbell employed in his attempt to prove that the word bethulah was ambiguous. His first example was from Esther 2:17–19. Verse 17 states, “The King loved Esther more than any of the women, and she found more favor in his eyes than any of the bethulot (plural of bethulah)”. The two halves of the sentence are speaking about two different groups of women; those who were already his concubines, and those with whom he had not yet spent a night, referred to as bethulot, who were awaiting their turn but were never called upon. Verse 19, which states, “And when the bethulot were gathered a second time”, certainly does not refer to the king’s concubines. These were fresh new faces, brought before the king, either in an attempt to make Esther feel jealous and insecure, so that she would divulge the secret of her people and her birthplace (please note the following sentence in the text), or simply because King Ahasuerus had an insatiable appetite for women. None of the ancient rulers were expected to forever remain satisfied with the wives or concubines they had at any given time. Though I feel the above explanations are self-evident, I should perhaps mention that I’m paraphrasing the commentary on the Book of Esther of Rabbi Moses Alshich, a sixteenth century scholar of note.

Isbell’s next example was from Joel 1:8: “Lament like a bethulah girded in sackcloth for the husband of her youth.” The prophet Joel was describing the most awful, the most poignant and disastrous type of mourning imaginable, and according to the authoritative 12th century commentator on the Prophets, Rabbi David Kimche, the prophet here is describing a virgin who is mourning a husband who died before the marriage was consummated, a girl who had to change her wedding finery and adornments for sackcloth.

The example given from Deuteronomy shows an almost incredible misunderstanding of the scriptural lesson on the part of Professor Isbell. He wrote, “According to Deuteronomy 22:13–21, a woman whose marriage had already been consummated in sexual intercourse with her husband might in certain cases need to go to court and have herself declared officially a bethulah of Israel.” The Bible actually is speaking of a husband who accuses his wife of not having been a virgin when he married her. The husband claims, “I did not find in her bethulim (signs of virginity)”. This was a very serious charge and would, if proven true, seriously damage the reputation of the wife and of her parents, who were held responsible for her moral behavior before marriage. If the woman and her parents can prove the charge to be a false one, the court declares her publicly and officially to have been a virgin before her marriage.

In all three instances bethulah refers to a virgin.

Why, then, you may ask with Professor Isbell, did the Bible find it necessary to be so explicit, and seemingly redundant, in reference to Rebecca? Genesis 24:16 describes Rebecca as “a bethulah, and no man had known her.” The answer to this question has been handed down in the ancient Midrashic Literature (The Sifre), and is quoted by the classic Biblical commentator, Rashi. It would seem that Rebecca lived in immoral times. The young women of her day, while careful to remain physically intact, to be, as it were, “technical virgins”, nevertheless did indulge in every physical intimacy with men without marriage, short of intercourse. The Bible wished to tell us that not only was Rebecca technically a virgin, like many other women of her time, but she was truly pure and worthy of marriage into the holy family of Abraham. When the same type of seeming redundancy is employed elsewhere in Genesis, and in the book of Judges, it is for similar reasons.

Charles Isbell replies:

Let me begin by stating my appreciation for the traditional rabbinical interpretations on which Ms. Borow relies. However, in all fairness, I should say that for me the value of these traditions lies almost exclusively within the area of the history of exegesis. This is far different from the acceptance of them as normative or even crucial for one’s interpretation of Scripture. This basic difference between Ms. Borow and me regarding the authority of midrashic opinions or 052rabbinic points of view should be kept in mind as one reads my point by point answers to the objections she has raised.

First, I do not share her optimism about our ability to discover the precise ages of persons described by the Biblical words Yaldah, na’arah, and ’almah. For example, at least one yaldah was old enough to be married (see Genesis 34:1–4); and, although her precise age is not given, a girl “under twelve years old” seems unlikely in the context. However, the major objection against the assignment of strict age distinctions to these terms as used in the Bible is the fact that a single individual may be described by more than one term at the same time. Rebeccah is called both a na’arah and an ’almah in the same story (Genesis 24:14, 16, 28, 43). Incidentally, she is also referred to by the very general term ’ishah, “woman,” in verses 5, 7, 39, and 40 of the same chapter. All of these terms, as well as bethulah, refer to Rebeccah at one age in her life! Similarly, the three month old Moses may be called both a yeled (masculine of Yaldah) and na’ar (masculine of na’arah) in one sentence (Exodus 2:6): “She (Pharaoh’s daughter) saw the yeled and, lo, the na’ar was crying!” These and numerous other examples show clearly that precise age distinctions may not be based upon single vocabulary words alone, despite the way in which Biblical terms came to be defined later in post-Biblical Judaism.

Second, regarding Esther 2, I note the following points. Each na’arah who had completed the required twelve month beauty and cosmetics course (vs. 12) had a chance to spend the night with Ahasuerus (vs. 14). Following that experience, she returned to “the second (experienced?) harem,” not to see the king again unless called for by name (vs. 14). Granted that the bethulot in verse 17 could be those who had not yet had a turn with Ahasuerus, the point is that in verse 19 an entire group of women, called bethulot, gathered together to attend a royal banquet. I see no reason for assuming that these women included only those residing in the first or preparatory harem. And I see no reason to assume that Esther was not among them, especially since it was her own banquet. Incidentally, there are reasons for questioning the authenticity of verse 19a (e.g., the Septuagint omits it). But the point is simply that the present Hebrew text uses bethulah to describe a group of women some of whom, including Esther, had spent the night with a Persian monarch at least once.

Third, regarding Joel 1:8, I believe it is simplest to note that the bethulah in question had lost a husband (ba’al) not merely a bridegroom (hatan). There is no hint at all in the text that the marriage had not been consummated.

Fourth, regarding my analysis of Deuteronomy 22, there are two major points. The first is simply that it was possible for a wife to be certified as a bethulah after the consummation of her marriage, as I believe verses 13–19 show. The second is the fact that we do not know what the term bethulim means. In Deuteronomy 22 (as in Leviticus 21:13 and Judges 11:37–38), the bethulim apparently refer to legal evidence of a wife’s fidelity (note that the time span in verse 13 is unspecified). Elsewhere, the term is used as a synonym of ne’urim, the period of one’s youth (see Ezekiel 23:3, 8). In these cases, the point of virginity or lack of it is not addressed.

Fifth, regarding Ms. Borow’s view of the phrase, “no man had known her.” The Biblical way of describing sexual intercourse is to say simply that a man “knew” his wife. Thus in Genesis 4:1, the phrase, “then Adam knew his wife Eve,” is followed by the notice that, “she became pregnant” (wa-tahar). Obviously, Eve did not conceive merely as a result of “fooling around.” Real intercourse is plainly intended. One can surely assume that if knowing a woman means having sexual intercourse with her, not knowing her would mean the opposite. There is, moreover, a straightforward way to describe physical intimacy which stops short of actual intercourse. One example is found in Genesis 26:8, where Abimelech looked through a window and “saw Isaac fondling (metsaheq) his wife Rebeccah” (Jewish Publication Society Translation). Is it not plausible, if Ms. Borow’s interpretation be correct, that we should expect Rebeccah to be described as bethulah we’ish lo’ tsiheq ’itah, “a virgin with whom no man had (even) fooled around”? Incidentally, the Mishnah itself, which admittedly uses bethulah to mean “virgin” many times, can also use phrases such as “(a woman who) remains in her 053sanctity” (ba-qidushatah, in Keth 3.2; see also 1.3) to specify the legal status of virginity in certain troublesome cases.

Before closing, I would like to call attention to the excellent article by H. M. Orlinsky in which the words bethulah, parthenos, and ’almah are studied (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement, pp. 939–40). Prof. Orlinsky sets forth more compactly and precisely what I first argued in a scholarly paper in 1973, and what many Biblical scholars had recognized for a long time before that.

Thus I repeat my assertion that it is time to move beyond our own modern conceptions of virginity which are so often read into Biblical words in certain sensitive passages and accept at face value a Biblical view in which the concept of virginity is simply not as significant as we would like to make it.

To the Editor:

I have read with interest Dr. Charles Isbell’s article “Does the Gospel of Matthew Proclaim Mary’s Virginity?” BAR 03:02.

In 1953, I dealt with the subject in Journal of Bible and Religion XXI, pp. 106, 240–241. After documenting the essential facts, I concluded on p. 241: “Neither ’almah nor betulah nor parthenos means necessarily what ‘virgin’ means in English. The birth of Jesus is according to Matthew 1:18–25 supernatural, not because v. 23 identifies Mary with the ’almah/parthenos of Isaiah 7:14, but because v. 20 specifies that she had conceived of the Holy Spirit and not of Joseph.”

Ugaritic Textbook, 1965, pp. 377–378 contains my lexicographical essay on btlt (= Hebrew betulah) with some additional material and the conclusion that “there is no word in the Near East languages that by itself means virgo intacta.”

Shocked With BAR’s New Price

To the Editor:

I was shocked to see that the subscription price for BAR has jumped to $14.00 per annum (or $9.75 for those who renew now). It was my feeling that BAR was appealing to people who found ASOR’s Biblical Archaeologist somewhat esoteric and expensive. I had even made a special pitch to friends and students to subscribe to BAR. I am sure the new price will serve as an effective deterrent for students especially.

Have I missed hidden extras here? More photographs? Thicker issues? I sincerely hope your stated goal of making the world of Biblical archaeology available in accurate yet popular format for intelligent laypeople will not founder on the reefs of rapidly rising subscription prices.

We’re truly sorry we have to raise BAR’s subscription price so substantially. To protect our old subscribers, however, we’re offering them an opportunity to renew—for as many years as they wish—at just $9.75. This is only $1.25 more than last year.

In our—and our printer’s—defense, it should be pointed out that the first issue of BAR (three years ago) consisted of only 16 pages with a single black and white picture. As the saying goes, “We’ve come a long way, baby.”

However, as a result of your letter, we will offer BAR subscriptions to students at the same price we are offering it to old subscribers—$9.75 a year.

So please continue to recommend us.—Ed.

Authentic Replicas Misnamed

To the Editor:

I would like to object strongly to the term “forgeries” used by your reader, Jonathan P. Siegel, in his letter to BAR in March issue (see Queries & Comments, BAR 03:01). Dr. Siegel used this word to refer to the authentic authorized replicas which my workshop, Antiquities of the Holyland Ltd. manufactures, each of which is marked to identify it as a replica.

Dr. Siegel did accurately note, despite his grossly inaccurate choice of word, that our “simulation materials” or replicas are being included in a Biblical archaeology teaching package currently being prepared for marketing.

054

BAR’s Cover—Pro and Con

To the Editor:

A letter from Professor Macsai in your June issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:02) took the graphic quality of your cover to task. I agree with Professor Macsai. When I received my first issue of BAR, I was disappointed with it at first glance. The cover is not at all attractive. I wondered if I had squandered my money. Please work on a better design. One that will be more attractive and eye catching to those browsing in a church library.

I have enjoyed the contents. I especially appreciate the fact that you have not cluttered the articles with vocabulary known only to archaeologists and seminary professors. Your attempt to keep the articles in “English” is well done.

P.S. When did de Vaux die? 1977? (picture) or September 10, 1971?

1971.—Ed.

To the Editor:

I agree your cover should be changed. It looks like a tract, not a scholarly magazine.

To the Editor:

Please, please—do not spend any precious funds on a different cover. I think it is just fine. Rather, give us more of the excellent color center pictures such as in the June issue!

Your journal is one of my favorites.

To the Editor:

I agree with the unfavorable criticism of the clumsy graphics on your cover.

Also, there are too many self-congratulatory letters from readers favorable to BAR. This space could be better utilized.

To the Editor:

I have been reading BAR for some time and can no longer resist some comments. The content of the magazine is excellent, a welcome oasis from the often dry scholarly publications through which I must plod in the course of my studies. Your magazine is just the right combination of facts and readability. The color photographs are also a welcome addition.

However, I find I must agree with the criticism of John Macsai concerning the graphic quality of the magazine. I would much prefer a more formal or professional appearance to the magazine. For example, a cover with a logo and table of contents in a simple format would contribute to that end. Or perhaps the color photographs could be incorporated into the cover. Whatever format adopted toward that end would no doubt be acceptable; a change is definitely in order!

I would also agree with Bernard Seltzer in the same issue concerning the ‘praise’ letters. Surely this space could be used more advantageously!

The articles are above criticism. I was especially pleased to see an article by Dr. Charles Isbell, a fellow-student a few years ago at Bethany Nazarene College. I hope the quality of articles will remain as high as they have been in the past.

To the Editor:

I agree with John Macsai that your cover leaves something to be desired. There is something about it that gives an amateurish quality to the journal. Though not as much as do those letters of self-aggrandizement. I can’t imagine anyone subscribing to your review because of those letters from satisfied customers. As a psychologist I would like to 055suggest that this may actually turn subscribers away. They may think that a journal which has to stoop to this may be of little intellectual merit. Your review deserves better than this.

To the Editor:

I felt that I must let you know how much I enjoy my subscription. I have been with you from the start and it is wonderful to see the giant steps you have taken to make this an interesting and informative review.

As to the cover, I am more interested in the contents and am quite satisfied with BAR as it is right now.

The photographs are lovely and really dress up the articles.

Keep on blowing your own horn and printing letters from your fans. You deserve it.

To the Editor:

I see no reason to change the cover of BAR! I subscribe to BAR because of its content. No doubt a fancier cover would also raise the price of BAR.

To the Editor:

I hope I am not alone in feeling that Prof. Macsai should continue designing his buildings or rooms or whatever, and let the BAR continue to service its readers in the format it has developed.

Your cover has been sufficiently distinctive to allow instant and pleasant recognition. I doubt if anyone other than the professor looks on it as “selling” or “popularizing”. The United States in recent years has lost a great variety of trademarks and industrial logos, ones which have offered comfortably familiar identification. These have been replaced largely by color blobs and stylized and/or misshapen bold letters.

The BAR has its work cut out for it—there is absolutely no need to spend time, money and energy on a graphic designer who is likely to equate you with the Madison Avenue norm of non-distinction.

As a charter subscriber, I would like to add: Keep Up the Great Work. And best wishes for your continuing success.

To the Editor:

I find your journal exceedingly well written, well edited, and well laid out. Although your June issue contained a letter of criticism regarding your cover layout (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:02), I personally find it quite appealing. The cover format seems to me to symbolize well the content of the journal, and it is certainly preferable to the staid cover that one finds today on most journals of a scholarly nature. Certainly, if you had the budget of Architectural Forum, you could do much more, but considering the nature of the audience and the intentions of the staff and the editorial advisory board, I urge you to maintain your present format, layout, and paper stock color.

We have received enough critical letters concerning our cover to make us re-think the matter. What the outcome will be, we can’t say.—Ed.

BAR and Its Uses

To the Editor:

Last November the Jewish Community Center in Mobile held an Israeli Expo.

The highlight was one of the three copies of the Book of Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls acquired by the Israel Museum, and borrowed from the Jewish Community Center in St. Louis.

Besides heading the setting up of the exhibit, I did the lecture on the origin of the Scroll, the archaeological pieces we showed, and of Israel in general.

It should be of interest to you that a major part of that success is due to my reading the 056BAR from inception.

Though I did live in Israel for almost a year, and did touch upon many of the archaeological sites in all parts of the land, and did research on those visits from materials available in Israel, the BAR brought the ancients into clearer focus.

To the Editor:

Let me say how much my undergraduate students and I have enjoyed reading BAR. We have found your many articles intriguing and stimulating for further research. Your scholarly articles coupled with such a readable presentation add to student interest in the field.

The best testimony that I can offer you is that my wife is going to Israel this summer as a member of the volunteer staff at Tell el-Hesi—a digger turned on by BAR!

To the Editor:

Enclosed is my check for renewal. BAR has not lived up to my expectations, but I’m willing to give you another chance.

We intend to do better.—Ed.

To the Editor:

This is the first issue of your magazine I have seen. I believe you have mistitled the publication. It should be called “Anti-Biblical … ” I do not want this in my home. Please cancel my subscription.

To the Editor:

As a new subscriber, I want to express my praise and appreciation. I wish I had known about your magazine earlier.

If you will allow me as an amateur to comment on Leonard H. Weiner’s query in your March 1977 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:01) which referred to the article by R. David Freedman, “Put Your Hand Under My Thigh”—The Patriarchal Oath,” BAR 02:02: The root of our own words testimony, testify, attest, etc., come from the Latin testes, so it seems that the Romans also had a similar oath or method of swearing.

Did Hadrian Feel Remorse—After 1800 Years—For Jewish Persecution?

To the Editor:

I am the amateur archaeologist who discovered the bronze head of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, while I was in Israel in July 1975.

I read the article “Rare Bronze Statue of Hadrian Found by Tourist,” BAR 02:04, written by Suzanne Singer and I would like to point out several errors that appeared in it.

First of all, I had permission to look on the Kibbutz by the area archaeologist and therefore, I did not “dig illegally” as stated in the article.

Secondly, I did not use a spade to dig up the head. When I go out looking, I always use a Boyscout knife for convenience, and safety.

Third, I did not “leave the pieces” at the Kibbutz. I was living on the Kibbutz at the time at the home of my sister Susan and her husband Yitzchak and her family who are members of Kibbutz Tirat Zvi. I had all the pieces in my possession until I turned them over to Dr. Gideon Foerster.

I could not leave the head in situ as there was a tractor on the nearby field and I was afraid he would ride over this field, as he had done earlier, and destroy the head. I had no choice but to take the head back to the Kibbutz and turn it over to Ruthy and the Kibbutz.

Ruthy is also an amateur archaeologist and I knew she would appreciate the beauty of the head. We, therefore, decided, since it was too late to call Jerusalem before the Sabbath, to put the head in a showcase for the entire Kibbutz to see and enjoy. I am happy to say the Kibbutzniks enjoyed seeing it.

Last July was the 40th year celebration of 057Kibbutz Tirat Zvi and in honor of the occasion, the museum brought the head under armed guard to be put on exhibition for two nights. Over 2,000 people came and enjoyed the festivities. Hadrian sitting there in all his grandeur and watching this gathering must have felt some remorse for what he had done to the Jews some 1,800 years earlier.

The Chaldeans and Haldi

To the Editor:

Re: Cyrus Gordon’s “Where Is Abraham’s Ur?” BAR 03:02: One of the national gods of Urartu, just northeast of Urfa, was Haldi. Would Professor Gordon consider a misinterpreted garbling of Haldi to come out as Chaldees?

Cyrus Gordon replies:

Mr. McDougall’s query is well taken. The resemblance of “Chald-” to “Hald-” has been noted in Journal of Near Eastern Studies XVII, 1958, page 30.

There are two Chaldeas quite distant from each other. Xenophon refers to the northern Chaldea several times. Thus the Chaldeans are a warlike people blocking the way to Armenia (Anabasis iv.3.4) and are neighbors of the Armenians but at war with them (Cyropaedia iii.1.34). He also mentions them in connection with the Carduchi (= Kurds) in Anabasis v.5.17. The Land of the Chaldeans in Isaiah 23:13 is associated with northern Assyria, not with southern Babylonia.

While the phonetic similarity and geographic proximity of “Chard-” and “Hald-” are striking, it has not yet been demonstrated that these two names are simply variants of the same word. But in any case, there is no reason for regarding either as a corruption of the other. Phonetic coincidences are common enough, and new discoveries as a rule confirm the correctness of the ancient sources.

When Was the Exodus?
To the Editor: