Queries & Comments

016

B.C.E. Loses Christian Readers (or Does It?)

Thank you for the invitation to receive a trial subscription. Because your journal uses B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) rather than B.C. (Before Christ), however, I will not subscribe.

What “scholarly” reason would any author have for using B.C.E. rather than B.C., other than that the author does not wish to recognize Jesus Christ as the most important personage in human history, so important that the calendar itself was changed by His existence?

I write as a lover of history and archaeology to voice my intellectual rejection of B.C.E. over B.C. and to let you know that this policy will not help you gain Christian readers.

A little tolerance and respect, Pastor Freeman. Not all our readers are Christians. As our Note on Style (which we print in every issue) states, we leave to each individual author the decision whether to use B.C. or B.C.E. Even many of our deeply committed Christian authors prefer the common scholarly designation B.C.E. Some do not, and we respect their right to use B.C. Many of our writers, however, prefer the designation common in scholarly literature not only out of respect for our non-Christian readers, but also because BAR is not a theological journal. We would hope that, as a leader of your good Christian flock, you could accept scholarly information about the Bible and archaeology from a non-theological, non-denominational magazine written by authors, and addressed to readers, of all religions and even of no religion.—Ed.

A Lesson from the Astronomers

I, like you, don’t think one can over-emphasize the need to share data in a timely manner. Readers may be interested in a quote from a recent issue of Science (January 26, 1996, vol. 271, p. 450). The author, Donald Goldsmith, writing about photographic data from the Hubble telescope, states: “While HST [Hubble Space Telescope] results are ordinarily kept under wraps for a year to give the scientists who proposed the observation a chance to analyze the data, the HDF [Hubble Deep Field] team regards the data as a resource for the astronomy community and is making it available to all comers [emphasis mine]. ‘The sociology should be very interesting,’ says Mark Dickinson, a member of the working group, ‘because you’ll have all these astronomers competing to see who can derive the most significant conclusions.’”

Some scholars’ noses might be improved by a thorough rubbing in this statement and the spirit in which these highly competitive scientists are working!

BAR and Bible Review are my favorite magazines. I feel deeply grateful to you for your creations and believe you are accomplishing something of great value for many people and many different cultures.

God-Directed Pennies Will Not Be Stolen

In reference to the item “Pennies from Heaven (Lots of Them)” (Queries & Comments, BAR 22:01) [in which we thanked an anonymous donor for a gift but asked that in the future cash not be sent in the mail—Ed.]: Thee of little faith! If God Almighty instructed this person to do this, who are you to question the person about sending cash? If the good Lord told this person what to do, the devil himself could not have stolen the offerings from the mail.

Unplugged

Steve Deyo’s review of computer-aided Bible study resources (“From the Good Book to the Good Disk,” BAR 21:06) was well meaning and informative, but Johannes Gutenberg is spinning in his grave, all the same.

For those of us who are obliged to spend our days gazing at computer screens, the thought of techno-Bible-reading is the supreme horror. “You can no longer conduct serious Bible study 017without a computer,” says the editor in the same issue. As useful as computers may be, such elitist attitudes betray a serious misunderstanding of the message of the Scriptures. Leave us book lovers in peace, please!

Only today, I placed an order for the Hendrickson Interlinear Bible (described in the catalogue as “the only complete, one-volume interlinear Bible available”). Are there any other interlinear Bibles that technophobic, paper-oriented gentlefolk like me ought to acquire? What I would dearly love to have is a modern-day printed version of the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–1517). Does such a version exist?

Jerusalem 3,000

Herion’s Double Standard

Given the past two thousand years of unceasing efforts to de-Judaize Judea the place and Jews the people, I find Gary Herion’s dire concerns about approaching contemporary Middle Eastern archaeology with a Jewish bias to be rather disingenuous (“Anchor Bible Editor ‘Burns’ BAR,” Queries & Comments, BAR 22:01).

Historically, Christians and Muslims have held that the Jews (portrayed in their writings as a ragged shadow people) had been banished from the world stage, leaving the Jewish tradition (though not necessarily its moral demands) to be adopted as a mantle by their own cultures and sacred Jewish land to be imbued with purely Christian or Muslim religious significance. As such, for people like Mr. Herion, the notion that the Jews not only survived the oppression visited on them by Roman, Christian and Muslim empires but now claim a place (if a modest one) in the ranks of nations is apparently too much to swallow.

Mr. Herion needs to understand that the Jews have never bought into the idea of Christian or Muslim supersession. The Jews didn’t relinquish their hold on Judea because they believed themselves to be evicted by G-d, but because it was twice overrun by the forces of the world’s most powerful empires. Jews came to live as a persecuted minority in their own national home (now renamed for a small culture that occupied a coastal strip of Canaan for about 600 years) not because they had lost interest in their national identity, but because they did not have the military resources to overcome a historical succession of powerful Christian and Muslim empires. And at the first moment in history when it was possible, they returned to claim their heritage.

If the national heritage of the Jews is buried under the rubble of their oppressors, it is the right and duty of the Jews to explore it and treasure it. If the information gained from this process enriches the religious perspectives of modern Christians (like many of the people who read BAR), so much the better. If this upsets the Herions of the world, who cares?

BAR’s Politics

Your answer to Dr. Gary Herion shows that you don’t see or do not want to see the political implications of the (alleged) 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Furthermore, in an advertisement in the January/February issue you invite readers to celebrate the 3,000th anniversary … with a travel/study tour in Jerusalem. You combine the invitation with a photo of the Dome of the Rock and the Holy Sepulchre. This is a very biased combination, since it is surely not a celebration for local Christians and Muslims but a political manifestation of the State of Israel. In another excellent photo of the Dome of the Rock, by Garo Nalbandian (“The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon’s Temple,” BAR 22:01), you have, with or without the permission of the photographer, included the Jerusalem 3,000 logo in the photo. What you are dealing with is nothing more than partisan political statements. Cancel my subscription immediately.

Two Can Play the Cancellation Game

I always enjoy the letters section of BAR, particularly the “cancel my subscription” letters from right-wing Fundamentalists who object to some “naughty” picture in your advertisements. While I also classify myself as a Fundamentalist, I welcome the exposure to the range of views expressed in BAR, both in its articles and in its advertising.

Your January/February issue (see Queries & Comments, BAR 22:01), however, reaches a new high (or low) with a letter objecting to an ad regarding the Jerusalem 3,000 celebration and cancelling the writer’s subscription because of his objection to the ad. The pro-Palestinian bias of the writer, Anchor Bible Dictionary editor Gary Herion, seems clear from the letter. Following his own reasoning, I conclude that his political position is bound to influence the content of the material he edits. Therefore, you may cancel my subscription to the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

We have forwarded your letter to Doubleday, publisher of the Anchor Bible Dictionary.—Ed.

A Ruin by Any Other Name

No one would contest Gary Herion’s right to express his anti-Zionist, anti-Israel views. But I am appalled by his use of the title associate editor, Anchor Bible Dictionary, to reinforce his declaration. I find it incredible that a prestigious publishing establishment such as Doubleday would endorse the views expressed in Gary’s letter. Doubleday certainly has an obligation now to clarify its position on this matter.

For my part, I retracted the articles that I had submitted to Gary and his young associates because of what I considered improper interference in the expression of my own academic ideas. After the volumes appeared, I was greatly relieved that my name was not associated with the Anchor Bible Dictionary. The reason is their sophomoric editorial policy regarding the names of antiquity sites.

In the modern State of Israel, antiquity sites (places where ancient remains are known to exist) usually have at least two names. First, there is the Arabic name recorded by scholars and explorers in the 19th century. These are names given to the respective sites by the native, Arabic-speaking population. Every Middle Eastern nation has established official lists of such sites. In Israel, the recording of antiquity sites was started by the British Mandate authorities and continued by the State of Israel. However, during the course of research and development in archaeology, the Israeli authorities have usually established a Hebrew name for each of these sites. Often it is a Hebraization of the Arabic name; sometimes it is the application of an ancient Biblical geographical name (sometimes justified, but not always). In any case, both the Arabic and the Hebrew names are officially recorded in appropriate government publications.

018

Now it happens that many Arabic names begin with the component Khirbet (Ruin of); the Hebrew translation of that term is H|orvat. Throughout the Anchor Bible Dictionary, the editors have used the Arabic component Khirbet, followed by the Hebrew name! The resulting forms are hybrids, part Arabic, part Hebrew. Such place names have no official existence, and the editors of the Anchor Bible Dictionary do not have the authority to establish such hybrids as the official names to be used in scholarly literature. The ignorance and lack of professionalism reflected in this practice make me thankful that my name does not appear among the contributors to the dictionary.

As I said above, Gary Herion has the right to think and say whatever he pleases about Zionism and the State of Israel.

His remarks do not, however, reveal a particularly exact and precise understanding of the problem he raises. At a time when Palestinians and Israelis are engaging in a meaningful and painful dialogue, does it really behoove young associate editors to inject their own prejudices into the controversy? As a resident of Israel (formerly of Jerusalem) who never mixes politics with historical geography, I personally resent Gary’s attempt to use his editorial title to add an aura of authority to his completely non-academic letter.

Doubleday declined our request for a response.—Ed.

U.S. News Is as Bad as BAR

Quite a letter Mr. Gary Herion wrote! Too bad it’s not worth much. U.S. News and World Report (December 18, 1995) had a cover story on Jerusalem’s 3,000th anniversary. Maybe Mr. Herion should write them a letter too.

Get a Life!

I was amazed at the long letter from Gary Herion, whining and complaining about the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. All I can say to him is, get a life! Aren’t there more important things to worry about?

While many of the letters in Queries & Comments are entertaining, they have no place in a scholarly journal.

How about yours?—Ed.

Where the Ark Stood

What’s the Cave For?

I lack words to express fully my admiration for Leen Ritmeyer’s keen observation and brilliant deduction in precisely locating the site of the Holy of Holies and the resting place for the Ark (“The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon’s Temple,” BAR 22:01). It must be one of the most exciting archaeological discoveries ever.

Only one question bothers me. What was the function of the cave directly under es-Sakhra, the Even ha-Shetiyah (Foundation Stone), and what symbolism or significance was attributed to it? I am not aware of any reference to this cave in the Jewish tradition, in Biblical or Talmudic literature, or in the liturgy (though I vaguely recall hearing some tales referring to the space under the Ark as a conduit for souls and as a source of the waters of the Earth).

Can any of your readers elaborate on the Jewish traditions concerning this cave and explain why Judaism has virtually ignored its existence?

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

The cave appears to be a natural cave that was enlarged by the Crusaders. The so-called “Tongue” is actually the right side of the original opening. As the south wall of the Holy of Holies was built over the cave, in order not to destroy it, it appears that the cave was already in existence when Solomon built the First Temple. The cave could have been used as a granary, as Araunah’s threshing floor was located nearby (see Leen Ritmeyer, The Temple and the Rock [Harrogate, 1996,] pp. 45–47). According to Jewish tradition, the Temple treasures were stored in this cave. For a useful compilation of legends on this subject, see Zeev Vilnay, Legends of Jerusalem (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1973).

It has been suggested that the cave was a Middle Bronze Age I burial cave (see Rivka Gonen, “Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11:03), but I find it difficult to accept that the Temple was built over a tomb, which is essentially an unclean place (Numbers 19:13–19). Another cave, known as Bir el-Arwah, or Well of Souls, is supposed to lie below this cave. Observations made in 1959, however, show that no such cave ever existed.

020

Didn’t It Sit on the Floor?

The Bible describes the construction of Solomon’s Temple and the holy objects that were placed in it in considerable detail. It reports that the floor of the Temple was covered “with boards of cypress” (1 Kings 6:15) and “overlaid with gold in the inner and outer rooms” (1 Kings 6:30). The Ark thus stood directly on the finished floor, eliminating the need for any markings on the rock. If there had been a special foundation stone for the Ark, protruding above the floor, it would surely have been mentioned.

Then what could have been the purpose for the rectangular depression? Ritmeyer already rejected the idea that it could have been a base for a Roman column or statue. In the Second Temple, it may have been the seat for the Foundation Stone, on which, as Ritmeyer reported, the High Priest used to place the fire pan with incense on the Day of Atonement. Or it may have been the seat for the High Altar of the church built by the Crusaders. Each of these objects could have been given the well-known dimensions of the Ark.

Let us hope that some day further exploration will be allowed by the authorities to explore es-Sakhra in more detail; to examine, inter alia, its surface area and micro-topography; and to map the depth to bedrock under the floor and outside the Dome of the Rock (nowadays possible by non-destructive geophysical means).

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

Most English translations of the Hebrew Bible give the impression that there was a wooden floor in the Holy of Holies. Careful reading of the Hebrew text, however, shows that only the Holy (or main hall, outside the Holy of Holies) had a wooden floor, overlaid with gold. First Kings 6:15 refers to the Holy as “the house” (Bayit), whose walls were covered with boards of cedar from the ground (karka) of the house to the walls of the ceiling: In other words, the walls were covered with boards from bottom to top. The karka of the house (Holy) was then covered with planks of fir (broshim). Karka means merely “ground,” whether made of rock or soil. In verse 16, which relates to the Dvir (Holy of Holies), no such floor is mentioned. It says only that the walls were covered with boards from the karka (ground). Verse 30 says that the karka of the house was covered with gold, within and without. This can only refer to the floor of the Holy, whose wooden planks were covered on all sides with gold before they were laid. There is therefore no reference to an artificially made floor in the Holy of Holies, so the Ark of the Covenant could only have stood on the karka, that is, the Rock, in the place that Solomon had prepared (1 Kings 8:6, 21). If there had been a floor in the Holy of Holies, there would have been no need for a special place, as the Ark could have been put anywhere on the wooden floor.

Which Cubit?

Leen Ritmeyer has done us a great service with his intriguing article on the location of the Ark of the Covenant. However, he leaves some questions unanswered: On what basis does he figure the dimensions of the Ark by the royal cubit, 20–21 inches, rather than the regular cubit, which is usually figured at about 18 inches? Even if it could be shown that Solomon’s and/or Herod’s Temple was constructed according to the royal cubit, that would not mean the Ark itself was measured that way.

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

I have deduced the length of the cubit from the dimensions of the 500-cubit-square Temple Mount (Leen Ritmeyer, “Locating the Original Temple Mount,” BAR 18:02). This cubit was in use, along with a shorter one, during the First Temple period, as the dimensions of many rock-cut tombs around Jerusalem confirm (see, for example, Gabriel Barkay, “Measurements in the Bible,” BAR 12:02). The archaeological evidence from the 500-cubit measurement shows that the long cubit of 525 millimeters, or 21 inches, was used in the building of the Temple. According to 2 Chronicles 3:3, the cubit used in the Temple was the cubit “after the first measure.” This indicates that it was the older cubit, or the one used previously. The previous building was, of course, the Tabernacle, built by Moses, who would have used the Egyptian cubit, which is well documented. Additionally, according to Mishnah Kelim 17.9, the cubit inscribed on the Shushan Gate was the “Cubit of Moses,” i.e., the one used for the construction of the Tabernacle. If the Tabernacle was made after this cubit, we have no reason to doubt that the Ark of the Covenant was made using the same cubit.

Polar Questions

I really enjoyed Leen Ritmeyer’s article. However, three points puzzled me.

First, in rationalizing the orientation of the postulated placement of the Ark, he notes that for the poles to be removed 066from the Ark, they needed to be parallel with the side walls of the Holy of Holies rather than the back wall. However, according to Exodus 25:15, the poles were to remain in the rings of the Ark and were not to be removed. So isn’t it likely that physical removal of the poles was not a factor in their orientation?

Second, 1 Kings 8:8 states that “the poles were so long that the ends of the poles were seen from the holy place in front of the inner sanctuary.” How can this be if the poles were only 10 cubits long, as stated in the Talmud, and given the postulated location of the Ark?

Third, Ritmeyer reasons that the orientation of the poles establishes the orientation of the Ark. But couldn’t the poles have passed through the rings on the shorter sides of the Ark?

See the reply following the letter from Zev Paretzky.—Ed.

The Long and Short of It

In his article, Leen Ritmeyer tells us that, according to the Talmud, the staves of the Ark were 10 cubits long. Thus, he explains that “the only way to remove the staves was by keeping the short side facing the partition that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place.” I am not certain why Mr. Ritmeyer is convinced that the staves were removed. According to Jewish law, the removal of these staves was prohibited, as stated explicitly in Exodus 25:15. Removal of the staves (even after the Ark was placed in the Temple) is counted as a negative commandment punishable by lashes.

More important, though, is the fact that, according to Mr. Ritmeyer, the Ark was situated with its short side toward the partition. This is in direct contradiction to the Talmud (Menachot 98a), which clearly states that the Ark was situated with its long side toward the partition.

Mr. Ritmeyer is correct that the staves of the Ark pointed in the direction of the partition. However, he assumes that the staves were affixed to the long sides of the Ark. The Talmud (Menachot 98b) explains that the staves were actually affixed to the short sides of the Ark. The reason for this was that four men carried the Ark, two in the front and two in the rear. All four walked between the staves (with each of the two on the left bearing the left stave on his left shoulder and each of the two on the right bearing the right stave on his right shoulder). The length of the short 067side of the Ark, 1.5 cubits, would not have provided enough room for two men walking abreast. Thus the staves were placed on the short sides of the Ark, giving the men the 2.5 cubits of the Ark’s long side to stand in as they carried it on its way through the desert.

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

The quote in Exodus 25:15 does not alter my conclusions on the former location of the Ark of the Covenant. The Ark could have stood in the depression with the staves still attached.

As shown in the drawings below, the staves could not have been longer than 10 cubits as that was the size of the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. On withdrawing the staves in Solomon’s Temple, they would have projected 1.25 cubits (half the length of the Ark) into the Temple’s Holy (or main hall, outside the Holy of Holies); therefore, the doors, which were made of olive wood, had to be opened. That, I believe, was how “the ends of the staves were seen out in the Holy before the oracle” (1 Kings 8:8). The staves were then put next to the Ark, after which the doors were closed, and then “they were not seen without.”

A superficial reading of 1 Kings 8:8 may seem to contradict the Mosaic prohibition on the removal of the staves. However, I believe that the staves remained in place only until the Ark of the Covenant reached its final resting place in Solomon’s Temple. Did the Ark of the Covenant not go before the children of Israel in the three days’ journey, “to search out a resting place for them” (Numbers 10:33), and did King David not say “Arise, Lord, into thy rest; thou and the Ark of thy strength” (Psalm 132:8)? Once the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the Temple, it had reached its final resting place; therefore it is written in 1 Kings 8:8 that the staves were drawn out. King Josiah said also, “Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build; there is no burden upon your shoulders” (2 Chronicles 35:3), implying that only when the Ark was being carried from place to place (as in the wilderness wanderings or in times of danger, such as during the reign of Josiah’s predecessor, Manasseh) was it necessary for the staves to be attached to the Ark.

I have received a number of letters quoting Talmud Menachot 98a, saying that the staves were on the short side of the Ark of the Covenant. This statement in the Talmud needs to be examined. First of all, the Talmud was written approximately a thousand years after the last sighting of the Ark, during the reign of Josiah. It is doubtful whether memory can stretch so far. The Talmud differs from the Mishnah, which records the minutiae of the Temple and which was being compiled when there were still some survivors from the period it describes. Most important, however, is the fact that the Ark was originally made to fit into the Tabernacle (Mishkan). An examination of the structure of the Tabernacle will show that it would have been impossible to place the Ark in the Tabernacle if the staves were on the short side.

In Exodus 40:18 we read that Moses first raised up the Tabernacle and the pillars and afterwards (verse 20) put in the Ark. For the Ark to be placed in the Holy of Holies, it had to pass two curtains. The first one, called masach, was supported on five pillars, and the second, called parochet, hung on four pillars and was located between the Holy and Holy of Holies. For our purposes, it is sufficient to deal with the first hanging only, which was located at the entrance to the Tabernacle. To divide the weight equally, the five pillars would have to be spaced at equal distances. In the plan (upper right), we have placed the side pillars against the boards of the Tabernacle to create the maximum width for the four openings between the pillars. The width of the pillars is not given in the Hebrew Bible, but some width has to be taken into consideration. The spaces between the pillars would measure 10 cubits minus the width of five pillars divided by four, which is always less than 2.5 cubits.

This simple calculation shows that the Ark of the Covenant could never have been brought into the Tabernacle if the staves were affixed to the short sides, as the Ark itself was already 2.5 cubits long. The statement in the Talmud saying that the staves were affixed to the short sides apparently did not take this calculation into consideration.

Also, there is no reason to assume that there were only four Ark carriers and that they walked between the staves; there may well have been eight and they probably stood on the outside of the staves, as pallbearers do, for instance, when bearing a casket.

Cuttings and Slabs

Leen Ritmeyer’s new proposal of the location of the Ark of the Covenant leaves three points undiscussed.

The Crusader cuttings to the east of the presumed depression for the Ark indicate that a hump of some magnitude stood directly in front of the Ark, possibly even hiding it from the veil. How could the depression, as the Foundation Stone, be three fingers higher than any surrounding rock? Or was another stone placed in the depression?

Charles Warren, in Underground Jerusalem (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1876, pp. 402–407), gives a dramatic account of his prying up a slab measuring 3 by 2.5 by 3 to 4 inches (a second one was also mentioned but not described) and covering a 2-foot-wide by 3-foot-deep by 11-foot-long north-south cutting, blocked at the north end by 068rough masonry. As the northern portion of the rock is singled out, the western scarp does not seem to be the area described; though it runs north-south, it is much longer. Was this ever covered by slabs? If so, how was the slab held up on the missing west edge? Are any other slabs currently in the northern area?

The Mishnah (Middot 1:3) indicates that the High Priest would look east over the Susa Gate from the Mount of Olives into the Heichal [the main hall in front of the Holy of Holies]. No gate is known in this line of sight. The Susa Gate is believed to be under the present Golden Gate (see James Fleming, “The Undiscovered Gate Beneath Jerusalem’s Golden Gate,” BAR 09:01).

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

An examination of the bedrock structure in the northern part of es-Sakhra will show that no hump of any magnitude stood before the emplacement of the Ark of the Covenant. At most, the Crusaders quarried a layer off the eastern slope about a foot deep. In order to build the Temple, Herod first laid a foundation, or podium, which measured 6 cubits high. This huge podium, including the paving of the Holy, would have been slightly lower than the top of es-Sakhra, so that it only projected three finger breadths above the level of this podium.

The two slabs mentioned in Warren’s account are clearly visible on my plan of the es-Sakhra on the lower northern shelf at a distance of 10 feet to the east of the western scarp. They cover a narrow channel 2 feet wide. A few years after Warren’s adventure in the Dome of the Rock, Charles Clermont-Ganneau observed restoration works in the Dome of the Rock (Archaeological Researches in Palestine During the Years 1873–1874, vol. 1, London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1899). He saw the northern continuation of this channel below the floor of the Dome of the Rock, where it was built and not cut in the rock. As both parts form one integral channel, it cannot be dated earlier than the construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691 A.D. and therefore has no relevance to the Temple.

The Mishnah does not say that the eastern Shushan (Susa) Gate, through which the High Priest who burnt the Red Heifer went out to the Mount of Olives (Middot 1.3), was the one he looked through to see the entrance of the Sanctuary. It merely says that the eastern wall was low: “All the walls [of the Temple Mount] were high, save only the eastern wall, because the [High] Priest that burns the [Red] Heifer and stands on the top of the Mount of Olives should be able to look directly into the entrance of the Sanctuary” (Middot 2.4). In Parah 4.2 it says that the blood of the Red Heifer had to be sprinkled “in the direction of the entrance [of the Sanctuary or Holy of Holies].”

In the drawing in my article, two dotted lines are indicated. These are the top and bottom lines of vision from the top of the Mount of Olives, which go exactly through the Nicanor Gate, the only obstruction between the top of the Mount of Olives and the entrance to the Sanctuary. Figure 23 in my book, The Temple and the Rock, also shows that this line of vision crosses the eastern wall at right angles. This means that when Solomon’s Temple was constructed the longitudinal axis was aligned between the emplacement of the Ark of the Covenant on es-Sakhra and the highest peak of the Mount of Olives. This topographical design is, I believe, a strong confirmation of the location of the Holy of Holies over the Rock inside the Dome of the Rock.

The arch below the Golden Gate, found by James Fleming, cannot have belonged to an earlier gate. The bedrock inside the eastern wall rises so sharply that there would have been no room for an underground passageway. I believe that the arch, which is a typical Herodian arch, was the top and northernmost of a series of arches rising from the south and built alongside the eastern wall. The purpose of these arches was to provide a base for a stairway to reach the sill of the Shushan Gate, whose monolithic side posts are still preserved inside the Golden Gate. Robinson’s Arch was reached by a similar stairway.

No Need for Cotton in Your Ears

I have enjoyed each of the articles by Leen Ritmeyer regarding the Temple Mount and found his latest one fascinating. Perhaps he could answer a few lingering questions.

How was the rectangular depression on rock cut as the site of the Ark? First Kings 6:7 says, “The house was built so that neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron was heard in the Temple while it was being built.” And how was the rectangular depression determined to have the dimensions of the Ark? Did Muslim authorities allow some kind of optical measuring device to be taken to the gallery above the rock?

Does the Herodian master course, mentioned in Dan Bahat’s article “Jerusalem Down Under,” BAR 21:06, line up with Ritmeyer’s location for the Holy of Holies?

Leen Ritmeyer responds:

First Kings 6:7 means that when the Temple was constructed it was assembled from pre-cut stones, which did not need any further adjustment. The stones were, of course, prepared in a distant quarry using the usual instruments. Only during the assembly of these prefabricated stones “neither hammer nor axe nor any [quarry] tool of iron was heard in the house, while it was in building” (i.e., being assembled). The cutting of the emplacement of the Ark of the Covenant, as well as the cutting of the foundation trenches, must have taken place before the assembly of the stones.

The master course to the south of Warren’s Gate does not line up exactly with the Holy of Holies. In the tunnel described by Dan Bahat is a little arch, just to the north of Warren’s Gate, with a modern plaque saying that this place is exactly opposite the Holy of Holies. This would be in accordance with my findings.

As far as measuring the dimensions of the depression is concerned, I have used all conventional methods at my disposal to reach my conclusions, i.e., pacing and taking measurements from existing plans and photographs. I hope to be able to refine these measurements by obtaining more photographs of es-Sakhra and by using computer programs to get a more accurate plan of es-Sakhra.

Ashkelon’s Destruction

A Matter of Scale

Reading “The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction,” BAR 22:01, by Lawrence E. Stager, and “The Ark of the Covenant: Where It Stood in Solomon’s Temple,” BAR 22:01, by Leen Ritmeyer was pure joy. Both of these articles were so clearly and intelligently presented, that I, a non-scholar, grasped and understood what was written with great ease and absolutely no difficulty. Thanks. I cannot say that about many scientific or scholarly treatises I read.

On the map in “The Fury of Babylon,” shouldn’t the scale for the distance shown be 400 kilometers and 250 miles instead of the other way around?

Yes.—Ed.

Where the Philistines Came From

The item by Frank Moore Cross (“A Philistine Ostracon from Ashkelon,” BAR 22:01) in the January/February 1996 issue discusses the Hebrew-Phoenician connections of the script, but it appears that the language is Hebraic. Does this not put into question 069the Aegean as original home of the Philistines? Why would they not speak the language of the Aegean and use a “Greek” script?

Frank Moore Cross responds:

The Philistines, as has been argued increasingly by Near Eastern archaeologists, were among the tribes of the so-called Mycenaean Greeks. On their arrival in Philistia, they brought the styles of Mycenaean Greek wares and, most likely, a writing system identical with or derived from so-called Linear B. This is a syllabic writing system in which Mycenaean Greek (related to Arcado-Cypriot dialects) was written in the Late Bronze Age. Alas, we have not yet found Linear B tablets in the early levels of Philistine cities. There are some tablets found in Tell Deir ‘Alla in the Jordan valley that have many earmarks of Cypro-Mycenaean writing systems. The tablets are few and thus cannot be deciphered. They are not identical with any known system, but could well be a writing system devised when the Aegean systems came into contact with Canaanite alphabetic scripts. So it has been suggested.

The Philistines assimilated to the local Canaanite-Phoenician culture with extraordinary speed. Their language evolved from the local South Canaanite dialects; their religion was assimilated to the local Canaanite-Phoenician pantheon; and their culture after the first centuries of the Iron Age takes on the look of those of its neighbors. We have surviving only a small handful of personal names that are non-Semitic and presumably Mycenaean.

For that reason, we have called the script and language of the Ashkelon ostraca neo-Philistine or Hebreo-Philistine, reserving the term Philistine for the Aegean-style script and language that we one day expect to find in Philistine tells. The language of the seventh-century ostraca has isoglosses with both Phoenician and Hebrew but is identical with neither. The language was probably closer to Phoenician; the script and orthography, remarkably enough, are closer to Hebrew.

While I am commenting on the ostracon, let me correct a misprint of the last line of the ostracon. It should read:

]‘[.]‘br [.] spn½[

017

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.