Queries & Comments

018

The Glass Is Half Full

In his survey of the state of the publication of the Jerusalem excavations (“Jerusalem 3,000—A Yearlong Celebration,” BAR 21:06), the editor of BAR described an “empty glass.” However, this glass is at least partly full.

Two volumes of final reports of the City of David excavations have been published in the Qedem monograph series of the Hebrew University. An additional volume is in press and will appear shortly. The manuscript of the fourth volume was recently submitted to the editorial board, and an additional two volumes are in an advanced stage of preparation. All these volumes were written and edited by the City of David staff following the untimely death of Professor Yigal Shiloh.

Following the death of Professor Nahman Avigad, work on the publication of the Jewish Quarter excavations is being carried out under the direction of Mr. Hillel Geva. The first volume is virtually ready to submit to press. This project has limited funding, and work is proceeding slowly.

The Temple Mount excavation publication program was frozen for a good number of years. However, Eilat Mazar and Benjamin Mazar published a Qedem volume that covers all aspects related to the Iron Age finds in this excavation. Since the death of Professor Benjamin Mazar last September, we are investing all possible efforts to raise funds, which, hopefully, will enable us to resume work and to publish the large amount of data from these excavations.

The delay and lack of final technical reports is a professional disease in archaeological research all over the world. In spite of this, many data from the Jerusalem excavations were published in the form of preliminary reports and popular books, in addition to those volumes of final reports mentioned above. These publications serve as raw material to further research and for general books like the fine one published recently by Mr. Shanks.

Let us remember that the directors of all these excavations have passed away, eliminating the driving force behind these projects. The processing and publication of these excavations is a job that we hope to accomplish, though at the time of writing we are greatly hindered by lack of sufficient funds.

The totally negative picture drawn by the editor of BAR does not do justice to what has already been achieved and is in the stages of work.

Celebrating Jerusalem

I was pleased to see the announcement of the year-long emphasis on Jerusalem’s 3,000th anniversary in BAR. Jerusalem has become a favorite city since my wife and I first visited it in 1990. I returned for a short visit in 1992, and the two of us returned again in June 1995 (the 2,999th anniversary?).

Our goal on our most recent trip was to visit as many religious, historical and archaeological sites as possible in one week. But we wanted time to explore them at our own pace. So we planned our own itinerary, including staying at a guest house inside the Old City.

We went on four different half-day, guided walking tours (one by Archaeological Seminars and three by Zion Walking Tours—all excellent) and spent one afternoon at the Israel Museum, where we had a guided tour of the archaeological wing.

The rest of the time we simply walked to various places in and around the Old City following either a guide book (usually the Blue Guide Jerusalem or Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s The Holy Land) or a map (Aharon Bier’s Old City map superimposed on an aerial photograph). Our selection of what we wanted to see was significantly influenced by reading BAR and other BAS publications.

One of the many highlights of the week was visiting the Western Wall Tunnel. Dan Bahat’s excellent article (“Jerusalem Down Under,” BAR 21:06) helped fill in some background information, particularly about the north end of the tunnel.

Two other highlights of the week were 019walking through Hezekiah’s Tunnel¹ and visiting the Chapel of St. Vartan in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.² The latter contains the ancient drawings of a ship and accompanying Latin inscription. It’s normally closed to the public, but an Armenian bishop agreed to let us in.

Much of what we saw during the week is usually not included in group tours. For example, using The Holy Land as a guide, we walked most of the Muslim Quarter streets adjacent to the Temple Mount, plus the inside perimeter of the Temple Mount itself to look at Mamluk buildings with their distinctive architecture. We also explored the entire Ophel area, from Robinson’s Arch around to the straight joint. While there we talked with archaeologist Ronny Reich, who gave us a good description of the work going on in conjunction with the 3,000th anniversary.

The week was a remarkable experience. We can certainly attest to the validity of your comment that “nothing can compare to a trip to the Holy City itself and the opportunity to explore its archaeology on the site.”

We ended our stay with a train ride from Jerusalem to the coastal city of Netanya, where we joined up with a group tour from our home church in California. After a few days in the Galilee area, we came back to Jerusalem for four more days. We felt like we were coming home.

Publication Proposal

I would like to propose a solution to the problem of non-publication of digs, discussed in “Jerusalem 3,000—A Year Long Celebration,” BAR 21:06.

The archaeologists are working on public property and, I assume, by permission of the government. The authorities should require as a condition of receiving permission to dig that archaeologists periodically provide copies of their raw notes to the authorities and that they publish their findings within a limited period of time after the dig is completed. If they fail to do so, they will not be allowed to start any new digs.

020

Western Wall Tunnel

Tottering Temple?

Dan Bahat, in “Jerusalem Down Under,” BAR 21:06, asserts that the Temples, if located north of the Dome of the Rock, where I would place them,³“would have fallen off the northern side of the then-Temple Mount into a deep gulley.”

His assertion can be tested by superimposing the supposed rock contours of the gulley on my plan of the Second Temple. The result is shown in the figure. The set of contours (in brown) is by August Kuemmel,⁴ who attempted to combine the information gathered by the earlier explorers of the Temple area; the contours drawn by Charles Warren are similar.⁵ The northern part of the Temple area, with the octagonal Dome of the Rock on a raised platform, appears in green. The plan of the Temple and Har Habbayit, the encompassing sanctified court (in orange), is a tracing of that given in my book on tractate Middot of the Mishnah.⁶ It includes the chambers abutting on the principal courts of the Temple and the location of the gates.

The superposition shows unambiguously that the bottom of the gulley (the brown dotted line) is to the north of the northern boundary of Har Habbayit, and so the Temple compound stood on high ground south of the gulley.

Dan Bahat refers to a deep moat, now filled in, at the northwestern corner of the Temple area. Leen Ritmeyer calls me to task for completely ignoring “the fosse, or moat, observed by Warren.”⁷ It is not at all clear how Warren was able to examine this moat, since he was forbidden by the Muslim authorities to excavate. According to Warren and Claude Conder, this ditch “can only be seen on the surface: it appears to be 160 feet wide, and may be 20 feet deep.”⁸ Pierre Lagrange⁹ gives the width of the ditch as 6 meters (20 feet) instead of 160 feet, and this figure is repeated by Simons.¹⁰ Granted that there is a hollow of some kind in the northern part of the Temple area; this is precisely what is required of the Temple foundations. Tractate Parah 3, 3 of the Mishnah states: “Beneath Har Habbayit and the principal courts [of the Temple] is hollow [space].” Note further that on Warren’s map of the northern part of the Temple area, just beyond the northern edge of the raised platform of the Dome of the Rock, is written: “Ground sounds hollow here possibly vaults beneath.”¹¹

Dan Bahat replies:

I do not agree with Asher Kaufman’s theory concerning the location of the Temple because I believe that it is impossible topographically. Kaufman fails to prove that the rock incisions, including the rock under the Dome of the Spirit [where Kaufman believes the Temple’s Holy of Holies was located—Ed.], should be dated to the second Temple Period.

Kaufman never refers to the rock formation named the Foundation Stone (under the Dome of the Rock), which is definitely higher than the rock under the Dome of the Spirit. What role did this protruding stone play in Kaufman’s Temple where it was surely seen?

Home for the Sanhedrin?

In reading Dan Bahat’s article, I was struck by the photo and description of the “Masonic Hall.” I wonder if it is possible that it was built by Herod as a meeting place for the Sanhedrin? As Dan Bahat concluded, the hall’s proximity to the Temple Mount, though apart from it, and the quality of its construction do seem to suggest an “extreme religious and public importance.”

Dan Bahat replies:

That the building was a meeting place of the Sanhedrin is certainly a possibility, but, unfortunately, there is no evidence for it at all.

How to Visit the Tunnel

Dan Bahat’s article about the tunnel along the Temple wall is fascinating. But he never says how far the public may go into the tunnel. His pictures show signs that suggest it is a public area. Please let us know how much of what he describes is open and how one may visit it.

022

Dan Bahat replies:

The tunnel is open to the public by appointment only. From the United States, call 011-972-2-271-333 or write to The Western Wall Heritage Foundation, 2 Ha’omer St., Jewish Quarter, Old City, Jerusalem, Israel.

Keeping Our Cool

We “wannabe” archaeologists voraciously devour every word of your two publications. I may not agree always with the articles (and advertisements), but that does not prevent me from enjoying the read. (I have all the issues since 1979).

The November/December 1995 issue, with “Jerusalem Down Under,” BAR 21:06, was especially enjoyable. In March I walked the tunnel and needed the orientation this article provided. Thanks, Dan Bahat.

After three trips as a tourist to Israel, my greatest dream now is to go and dig! But at 72 years, it will need to be sooner rather than later.

Thank you all for a most professionally done publication. And for keeping your cool in light of some of the letters you get.

Death of a Discipline

Hebrew U’s Ben-Tor Responds To Dever

With great concern, I read Professor William G. Dever’s article, “The Death of a Discipline,” BAR 21:05, in which he discusses the present sad state of Biblical archaeology in the United States. I fully agree with his description; and I, and no doubt all my colleagues in Israel, wholeheartedly wish him success in his battle for a better future for our discipline in the United States.

I cannot but wonder, however, whether at least part of the blame lies at home. Until not so long ago, most of the prominent Biblical archaeologists in the United States vehemently advocated a separation between Bible studies and archaeology. “Let them practice their [old] Bible, and let us practice our [new] Syro-Palestinian archaeology” was more or less their motto. Syro-Palestinian archaeology and Biblical archaeology are defined by Dever as two distinct disciplines. Is it not ironic that now the plea for help is directed, to a large extent, to these same “seminaries and church-related groups”?

I definitely agree with Dever about what is happening to our discipline in the United States. Our ways part, however, when it comes to Dever’s remarks about Biblical archaeology as practiced by Israelis. Dever, who knows Israeli archaeologists and archaeology better than most Americans, should know better than to fire such a cheap shot as “[Israeli archaeologists] read the Bible as a kind of ‘national constitution.’” Where is the proof for that statement? What exactly does Dever mean by stating—twice!—that “[Israeli archaeologists] do not understand its [Biblical archaeology’s] role in American religious and cultural life”? The results of my own excavation at Hazor, for example, quite frequently have a bearing on major issues of Scripture. I invite Dever to visit the site and explain what he, or any other American archaeologist, would have done differently to make a contribution to “American religious or cultural life.”

Dever’s patronizing, condescending and sometimes almost hostile remarks about Israeli archaeology are unfortunately a repeated theme in more than one of his recent publications. Could it be that he is jealous not only of the scope, but also of the quality of our research? Or does it merely reflect his frustration at being “reduced to the role of spectators at a game we [=Americans] invented”? I am sure that, deep down, Dever knows that putting down Israeli archaeology is not the right weapon to use in his battle.

The cause for which Dever is fighting—saving Biblical archaeology in the United States from its impending “death”—is of importance to all of us. I am sure that he will find in Israel all the support we can offer.

William Dever replies:

It is relatively easy to answer my old friend and colleague Amnon Ben-Tor because we agree on the fundamental issues. Still, I must correct several misunderstandings.

(1) I have indeed advocated separating Syro-Palestinian archaeology and Biblical studies as disciplines, but there is no contradiction in appealing to Biblical circles for support since for 25 years I have maintained that there should be dialogue and close co-operation between the two fields of study.

(2) I would still argue that Israelis see the Bible and the archaeology of Israel very differently from the way most Americans do, Jewish, Christian or secular—inevitably, and perhaps rightfully. And what is wrong with pointing out when writing for an American audience that Israelis do not always understand our religious situation? I would be the first to say that most of us do not understand the Israeli religious situation or the struggle of Israeli archaeologists with their 024fundamentalists.

(3) Ben-Tor must surely realize that the “Israel school” is not adequately characterized by what he does in digging at the one site of Hazor, that is, about basic method, upon which he and I may well agree. What counts is rather the overall, distinctive thrust of this school, as compared for instance to the typical American approach, in this case to the Bible. And Israeli archaeologists usually deal with the Bible only as history and are either not aware of or not interested in the theological, moral and ethical issues that many Americans connect directly with archaeology—for better or worse.

(4) Finally, my passing remarks about Israeli archaeology were not patronizing since I freely acknowledged its domination of the discipline now; and the suggestion that I am jealous is not worthy of a reply, since for 25 years I have been one of the strongest supporters anywhere of Israeli archaeology.

Amnon Ben-Tor, like many other archaeologists in Israel, depends heavily on American money, student volunteers, large endowments for institutes of archaeology at the universities and organs of publicity like BAR. Surely it is within the purview of myself and other Americans to offer friendly advice and criticism now and then, while at the same time acknowledging our different perspectives and needs. I have to say I am grateful to Ben-Tor for writing one of the strongest of the many letters to my administration that I received from Israeli colleagues. Let us hope that in these desperate days of declining support such mutual cooperation will continue.

How to Recruit Armchair Archaeologists

I read William Dever’s article, “The Death of a Discipline,” with some slight amusement: When he feels his chosen field of endeavor is in danger of evaporating, he reaches out to those same people that have in the past been largely ignored.

Let me provide some recommendations to him in obtaining the armchair archaeologist’s support in increasing awareness of Syro-Palestinian archaeology with the general public. First, have open forums concerning Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I do not mean expensive esoteric seminars similar to those given at the meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR), but rather ground-level introductions to the usefulness of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. As an example, I recently went to a meeting on 17th-century Jamestown, Virginia. For the modest price of $4.00, I learned a lot about the town and what archaeologists had discovered there during the summer excavation.

Second, remember how archaeologists obtained support for their excavations during the late 19th and early 20th centuries: through public forums where finds were displayed and discussed. Syro-Palestinian archaeologists should go on tour to sell the concept and generate the interest needed to obtain the endowed academic chairs. This means that they must be willing to give up some of their valuable time and incorporate such endeavors into their schedules.

Third, create educational training kits with replicas of artifacts from different archaeological periods to assist those who want to generate interest in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Maybe this is something BAS could do. I still remember the day I received the collection of lamp replicas from BAS (I wish you had a wider selection), and I have used them for illustrative purposes in both secular and religious classes.

Fourth, allow “armchair archaeologists” to help with the total archaeological process. We armchair archaeologists have many useful abilities, and we can definitely be trained and educated to perform some of the more tedious tasks required during the analysis stage.

Of course, this takes a bit of faith, but is this not what William Dever is asking from us, faith that our funding will maintain the educational endeavors that enhance our understanding of the Biblical land to which we owe so much?

Dever Admits He Did Not Do Justice

I feel I must comment on William Dever’s “The Death of a Discipline,” in particular on his surprisingly uninformed remarks regarding the American Center of Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman. We simply cannot agree with his assertions that ACOR’s “development projects”—funded through American government agencies—are somehow inadequately funded and insubstantial, and that they “may make headlines occasionally, but they do not contribute much to an understanding of the overall cultural history of the region or the training of the next generation of American scholars.”

ACOR’s Madaba Park Project, Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Program, Temple of Hercules Project and Petra Church Project belie this sort of 025misinformation. Funding for these projects has been continuous and steadfast, from their inception to their successful conclusion: five years for the Madaba Archaeological Park (since 1991), which opened recently; seven years for CRM (since 1987); and two years for the Temple of Hercules. The Petra Church Project, which began in 1992, will conclude this summer with the construction of a high-tech shelter and the final conservation of the mosaics.

None of these projects can be considered “small” in any sense and all of them will result in a substantial scholarly publication. The Great Temple of Amman: The Architecture, produced as part of the Temple of Hercules Project, details the history, architecture and partial restoration of the temple and provides new information on ancient Philadelphia. It is the first complete study and publication of a Roman temple from Jordan and is already a best-seller for this type of scholarly publication! The second volume (in press) details the excavations at the Amman Citadel, also funded by USAID.

The Cultural Resources of Madaba (in press) is a comprehensive study of the town from ancient to modern times. Its contents range from archaeological data obtained from surveys funded by the project to studies of the late vernacular architecture of the town. In some ways, it is culture history at its best.

ACOR’s Cultural Resource Management Program, funded by USAID, resulted in the publication of JADIS, The Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System: A Summary of the Data, perhaps as one of its most enduring and important accomplishments. This landmark publication includes information on some 9,000 sites in Jordan and is now the basic reference work for the serious archaeologist interested in settlement studies and Jordan. The Mosaics of Jordan, by Michele Piccirillo, the publication of which was also funded by USAID, is also now a standard scholarly reference work for ancient mosaic art in Jordan (see review in “Magic Carpets,” in this issue).

Finally, I would like to mention the Petra Church Project, also funded by USAID. This project has generated headlines, but also numerous scholarly articles following the discovery of the fabulous mosaics in the basilica and the spectacular discovery in late 1993 of an archive of 152 Byzantine period papyrus scrolls. Currently undergoing translation, these scrolls are already shedding a brilliant light on life and society in Petra in the sixth century. We hope to have the Petra Church excavations published by early 1997 and the Petra Scrolls just as soon as the transcriptions and translations 064are ready to print, perhaps as early as 1998. I also cannot resist saying that if Dever doesn’t recognize the fabulous contribution of the Petra Church Project and the scrolls to the cultural history of the region, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) certainly does. NEH has already supported this project with emergency funds for the Scrolls’ conservation—even while the agency is being gutted by budget cuts.

I must concur that ACOR’s development projects are not designed specifically to train archaeologists (although this has been the consequence: Over the last few years we have employed and trained a legion of American archaeologists, conservators and other specialists). Instead this is the goal of ACOR’s Fellowship Programs. Since 1986 the number of fellowship opportunities ACOR has been able to offer to archaeologists and others has increased twelve-fold! And ACOR now supports, in numerous ways, an average of 14 American, Canadian and international archaeological field projects each year; this number too continues to grow. This is where the real research and training take place.

Despite Dever’s mistaken implications, ACOR, as an American institution, is undeniably supporting the growth of the archaeological discipline. Surely he should know this. After all, one product of his Arizona program was ACOR’s CRM archaeologist for four years (who has since moved on to a top position at the Getty Conservation Institute) and another product of his program is our assistant director!

William G. Dever replies:

I have talked with Pierre and Patricia Bikai since the BAR story appeared, and I agree that my brief remarks did not do justice to ACOR’s myriad activities. I would still insist, however, that the vastly expanded ACOR Fellowship Programs have been mostly in conservation, preparation of sites for tourism, Islamic studies, and development projects of all kinds in modern Jordan. The few NEH fellowships for archaeology will now end, and many of the other fellowships have little to do with archaeology. A recent ACOR newsletter revealed that a minority of the resident fellows listed were doing archaeology.

As an example of the problem, two young women of my acquaintance, Americans who stayed around ACOR and survived on grants and “soft money” for some ten years, have left archaeology, one for the American Embassy in Amman, the other for a fund-raising firm in Washington. My point was not that fellowship-supported research is unimportant, but rather that all too often it is a dead-end for young people. What will happen to the “legions” that ACOR has admirably helped to train if we cannot—as I was trying to do—create secure academic appointments at home? I am proud that so many of my students have worked in Jordan, with my strong support. I would be prouder still if I knew that some of them may eventually land long-term positions in this country, teaching and helping to raise up the next generation.

Alive and Well in San Diego

I would like to comment on my teacher, mentor and friend Bill Dever’s article “Death of a Discipline,” BAR 21:05 and the discussion it generated in the January/February 1996 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 22:01). From the perspective of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), Syro-Palestinian archaeology is flourishing. Things could not be better. To set the record straight concerning recent National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) funding for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, I feel obliged to inform your readers of some good news. According to Dr. Dever, “While several field projects in Turkey were funded in 1994, there were no NEH grants for excavations in Israel or Jordan … ” In 1995, as principal investigator of the project “Egyptian-Canaanite Interaction in the Nahal Tillah Region, ca. 4,000–3,000 B.C.E., Israel,” I was awarded a large two-year matching grant for archaeological fieldwork in southern Israel.

BAR readers may not know that NEH grants are extremely competitive and peer-reviewed by over 20 scholars and public officials. Before the recent setbacks at NEH, lack of support by NEH for Syro-Palestinian projects reflected only the quality of research projects submitted to the panel. As NEH review panels are made up of archaeologists who work all over the world, NEH funding is awarded only to those projects that “speak” to the contemporary humanistic and scientific issues germane to the world community of academic archaeology today. Thanks in large part to Dr. Dever’s efforts in the 1980s to make American Syro-Palestinian archaeology a “secular” discipline, many of our projects now have broader significance to world archaeology.

UCSD’s commitment to Syro-Palestinian archaeology was initiated by our Judaic Studies Program. Following the Albright tradition, our program is grounded in a broad “Orientalist,” rather than a narrow Biblical, perspective, and our students are 065trained in ancient Near Eastern history, the Bible, Northwest Semitic languages, archaeology and anthropology. We have the eminent Bible scholar David Noel Freedman on our faculty, as well as Richard Elliott Friedman (author of Who Wrote the Bible and The Disappearance of God), William Propp (ancient Near Eastern languages), David Goodblatt (Second Temple studies) and myself (Syro-Palestinian archaeology). Our Near Eastern archaeology program is strengthened by Guillermo Algaze (Mesopotamia) and the eminent archaeologist Robert McC. Adams, formerly of the University of Chicago and Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Prehistorian Brian Byrd, who has carried out extensive research in Jordan, is also a faculty member. Dr. Adams generously donated his private library of over 6,000 volumes and his Mesopotamian survey maps to the UCSD library.

With two NEH-funded field projects in the Middle East (Algaze’s Bronze Age work in southeast Turkey and my work in Israel), our students have hands-on research opportunities at UCSD. This past summer, the UCSD Department of Anthropology moved into a brand new building overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

Thanks to our administration, we were provided with a beautiful archaeological laboratory and a bank of state-of-the-art computers. Thanks to the Israel Antiquities Authority, artifacts from our recent excavations in Israel have been shipped to San Diego and our students are busy helping to process and research these materials. Within the next two years, we plan to hire another tenure-track archaeologist who will strengthen our program even more. In short, while Syro-Palestinian archaeology’s sources have indeed been curtailed by the down-sizing of archaeology at NEH, our situation is far from dead.

Potpourri

Memories of Mazar

Reading both “Jerusalem Down Under,” BAR 21:06, by Dan Bahat and the report of Professor Benjamin Mazar’s passing by Lawrence E. Stager (BARlines, BAR 21:06) brought back some very pleasant memories. For 20 years, from 1970 until 1990, I was a volunteer at many digs in Israel, but my first dig, in front of Robinson’s Arch at the Temple Mount in 1970, was the most exciting. It opened up a whole new world to me. Up to then, I knew practically nothing of archaeology. After that dig I was hooked and over the years worked at many other sites.

I remember how very often Professor Mazar would come by and in his very friendly and gentlemanly manner, would inquire how we were doing. It was truly a delight to see him.

Benjamin Mazar’s Roots

A recent BARlines, BAR 21:06 paid tribute to Benjamin Mazar as one who “pursued his quest for the … historical roots of the Jews.” Besides being a physician, I have spent many years in an avocation similar in some ways to archaeology—the field of genealogy—and have published a number of books, including The Unbroken Chain, which traces Mazar’s ancestry.

Your readers will find it of interest to learn that Benjamin Mazar’s roots go back in an unbroken lineage to the prominent 13th-century Treves and Luria families, who claimed descent from Rashi (10th/11th century), who in turn was descended from Hillel the Great and, earlier, from the royal house of King David.

Mazar was born in 1906 in Ciechanowice, Poland, to Haim Maisler, owner of a publishing house and box manufacturing company in Palestine, and his wife Rebecca, daughter of Haim HaKohen Glickson, son of Elchanan Glickson. Her paternal grandmother (also Rebecca) was the daughter of Rabbi Joseph Chaver (died in December 1875), author of rabbinical books and head rabbi of Knyszyn, in northeast Poland. His father was a noted rabbi, Isaac Eizik Chaver (1789–1842), also an author and head rabbi (successively of a number of Polish towns). Rabbi Isaac’s wife (Rebecca Miriam) was a member of probably the most famous of all Jewish Ashkenazi families—Katzenellenbogen. Her ancestors included Rabbi Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen (died in 1749), who was chief rabbi of Hamburg and his ancestor, Rabbi Meir of Padua (known in the rabbinical world by the acronym MaHaRaM Padova). They too wrote noted rabbinic works held in high esteem by their contemporaries.

From such an illustrious background it is not surprising that Benjamin Mazar continued to take pride in his roots in an attempt to preserve his Jewish heritage.

066

Return to Sender

I hope e-mail is a legitimate way to send a letter to the editor of BAR.

[Yes, it is.—Ed.]

In Steve Deyo’s “From the Good Book to the Good Disk,” BAR 21:06, the URL [Universal Resource Locator, or computer address] for the Abzu project is incorrect. Readers will not be able to connect to this site on the basis of the information given there.

The correct URL is:

http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/DEPT/RA/ABZU/ABZU.HTML

Trash Advertisements

I am sorely disappointed in your choice to allow blatant unbelievers to advertise their trash in BAR.

At this point I am not inclined to renew my subscription.

Slandering Trinity

I am writing to cancel my subscription. While I have generally enjoyed the magazine, I am disgusted with some of the blatant arrogance and false intellectualism that finds its way, most particularly, into your editorials and Inside BAR section. If history has shown us anything, it is that no theory is ever completely correct until proven as fact (if, indeed, this can ever be done). I could have possibly overlooked such childishness, but when BAR gets in the slandering act, enough is enough!

The last straw was your completely unprofessional handling of the issue concerning Trinity’s credentials and its advertising (Queries & Comments, BAR 21:05). The exchange was uncalled for, unrelated to BAR’s business and rife with politics. I have more faith in Trinity’s principles and standards than in yours or in those of the self-appointed expert who began the fuss. Forced to choose, there is no contest. The ideals of a Bible-believing institution like Trinity far surpass the mere intellectual and prideful ravings of man, whatever their true motives.

Homer Nods

I should like to correct, before the readers do, two errors that crept into the last two pieces I wrote for BAR. First, in the memorial for Professor Benjamin Mazar (BARlines, BAR 21:06), please read “[he] helped create the campus at Givat Ram [not Ramat Gan], which served as the center of the [Hebrew] University until 1967 and today houses the division of sciences and the National Library.” Having lived on the Givat Ram campus for two years (1965–1966 and 1983–1984), I’m still not sure how this metathesis of the intial phonemes could have occurred.

Second, please delete “Jewish” before the Murashu family (“The Fury of Babylon,” BAR 22:01). This was a Babylonian family, operating a firm out of Nippur, whose archive included Babylonian and non-Babylonian personal names, some of the latter being Jewish names, presumably belonging to diaspora Jews whose ancestors had been exiled to Babylonia in the days of Nebuchadrezzar. (For further information on this interesting family firm, see Matthew W. Stolper’s Entrepreneurs and Empire: the Murasûu Archive, the Murasûu Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia [Leiden, 1985] and his entry, “Murashu, Archive of,” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, pp. 927–928, as well as Michael D. Coogan’s West Semitic Personal Names in the Murasûu Documents [Missoula, MT, 1976])

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.

The Glass Is Half Full