Queries & Comments

047

Prof. Zeitlin’s Last Words on the Authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls

To the Editor:

In his last will, the late Professor Solomon Zeitlin appointed me as his literary executor. Sorting out his old papers I found the enclosed, which I deem important for you to publish immediately in light of your remarks on “Zeitlin and the Scroll’s Authenticity” in the September 1977 issue of BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 03:03).

On the BBC Broadcast of February 10, 1957 one well known archaeologist said, “When one or two scholars now living, including Professor Zeitlin, have passed away, then the controversy will be completely at an end so far as the dating of the Scrolls is concerned.”

Scholars are mortals, but why should the archaeologists and the theologians wait until I pass away to refute my arguments? If the scholars who maintain the antiquity of the Scrolls finally contravene my arguments in a scholarly manner I shall readily admit that I have been mistaken. But under no circumstances will the case be lost by default. Conscience will not be silenced. People die but the truth lives. It cannot be suppressed forever.

—Solomon Zeitlin

In Defense of Professor Avigad

To the Editor:

When I received my first issue of BAR, I eagerly read the article by Prof. Nachman Avigad (“How The Wealthy Lived in Herodian Jerusalem,” BAR 02:04). I was particularly interested in reading his writings since my husband and I had the privilege of meeting this knowledgeable man during our near five-year stay in Israel. The occasion was the initial discovery of the wall in Jerusalem in the upper city. Prof. Avigad believed this is what Nehemiah called “the Broad Wall” in Nehemiah 3:9.

We are avid Bible students: My husband has authored several books including Israel, God’s Key to World Redemption, with the introduction by the noted scholar Prof. David Flusser of the Hebrew University. We found Prof. Avigad extremely kind and cooperative in allowing us to take pictures of himself and his discovery which we published in our Bible Light Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 1. Summer ’71.

This seems to be quite contrary to your opinion of him in your editorial of the BAR, Vol. III, No. 2 (“A Plea for Information,” BAR 03:02).

We yield to no one in our admiration for Professor Avigad as a scholar and as a warm, kind human being.

On the matter of his refusal to release pictures of his finds, however, we must take a stand.

On this question, it is not a matter of kindness, warmth or wisdom. It is a question of fact.

The fact is that Professor Avigad has still not released pictures of the “Justinian” inscription (which he found last year), pictures of the Jerusalem Cardo which shows its full expanse (which he found at least two years ago), or pictures of the arrowheads shot by the Babylonians during the siege of Jerusalem (which he found at least three years ago). Indeed, Professor Avigad refuses even to release a picture of his Broad Wall (found in 1970) which portrays it in its setting. The only picture Professor Avigad will give to Biblical Archaeology Review is a view of the wall looking directly into the hole where it was excavated (the wall itself is no longer open to view). Our readers would get a much better feeling for this stupendous find if Professor Avigad would release a picture which shows it together with its background. How long must we and our readers wait for such a picture? The answer, according to Professor Avigad, is until Professor Avigad completes his book on his excavations. We can only hope that this book will be published soon.—Ed.

Suggestions for BAR T-Shirts

To the Editor:

BAR’s T-shirts are great. May I make another suggestion: “Biblical Archaeologists Never Throw in the Trowel.”

To the Editor:

For another BAR T-shirt, how about “Biblical Archaeologists Dig Deeper”.

048

More on the Nea Church

To the Editor:

Some additional pictures may help visitors to Jerusalem locate and understand the remains of the Nea Church described in detail in my article in the December 1977 BAR. (“Found After 1400 Years—The Magnificent Nea,” BAR 03:04). Unfortunately these pictures did not reach you in time to be printed with my article. In addition some small errors appear in the article as a result of an editorial process carried on over 6000 miles and these errors should be corrected.

As printed, my article states that the Nea had a central nave flanked by an aisle on either side. Possibly there may have been two aisles on either side. We cannot be sure. I have drawn the enclosed plan with two aisles on either side.

We found destroyed walls, not simply foundations, of the buildings adjacent to the Nea.

The reference to the Sephardi Hospital should have been to the Sephardi Yeshiva “Porat Yosef.”

050

The Nahariya Figurine and King Asa’s Wife

To the Editor:

In the discussion of Professor Moshe Dothan’s cult-complex excavation at Nahariya (“A Jerusalem Celebration—of Temples and Bamot,” BAR 03:03), mention is made of “a mold for a figurine, most probably the goddess worshipped at the shrine” which was among the offerings found on the platform and steps leading to a Canaanite temple or bama. A figurine made from the mold, pictured in the article, is described in the caption as a “Canaanite goddess—probably Asherah—naked except for an unusual horned headdress,” and as appearing “to be more of a sexual symbol rather than a fertility symbol.”

It may well be that the mold found at the Canaanite bama at Nahariya is of the same type as the one from which Maacah “made an abominable image for an Asherah,” on account of which iconoclast King Asa “removed her from being queen” (2 Chronicles 15:16). Talmudic commentary on the Scriptural passage suggests that Maacah’s “abominable image” was an obscene sexual object.

To the Editor:

I read your interesting and informative account of the Jerusalem Colloquium on “Temples and High Places in Biblical Times” (“A Jerusalem Celebration—of Temples and Bamot,” BAR 03:03), which included a description of the cult complex at Nahariya that I excavated. You did not, however, include a bibliography of the Nahariya excavation. For those who are interested in going further, the following references might be useful:

1. I. Ben Dor, QDAP 14 (1950), pp. 1–41

2. M. Dothan, IEJ 6 (1956), pp. 14–25

3. M. Dothan (in): Western Galilee and the Coast of Galilee, Jerusalem 1965, pp. 63–75 (Hebrew)

4. M. Dothan (in): Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. III, pp. 908–912

Where Were Tarshish and Ophir?

To the Editor:

I found the article by Lois Berkowitz (“Has The U.S. Geological Survey Found King Solomon’s Gold Mines?” BAR 03:03) identifying Ophir with Arabia interesting, although not entirely convincing. In regards to the ships of Tarshish and Hiram’s fleet, the article suggested that both probably put in at the same port along the Arabian coast, and here picked up their exotic cargoes from India, Africa, and the Far East.

If a Mediterranean location is assumed for Tarshish, how did its ships reach the west coast of Arabia on the Red Sea? The ancient canal built by the pharaohs connected the Nile River (not the Mediterranean) to the Red Sea, and was probably not open to foreign ships. Thus, the ships of Tarshish would have had to circumnavigate the continent of Africa. True, a few hundred years later Phoenicians at the bidding of Pharaoh Necho circumnavigated Africa, but I know of no evidence that this was done earlier, and on a regular basis.

I’m personally inclined to identify Tarshish with southern Spain, and believe the ships crossed the Mediterranean to reach Israel. If this is true, the apes mentioned in 1 Kings 10:22 might very well be the Barbary ape (Macaca Sylvanus) of Gibraltar and northern Africa. All the products carried by the ships of Tarshish (except peacocks) could have come from Spain or the African hinterland. In fact, the silver, iron, tin, and lead mentioned in Ezekiel 27:12 being carried to Tyre from Tarshish sounds very much like Spain. As for the peacocks native to India and Ceylon, this is a questionable translation of the Hebrew tukkiyyim. Some scholars believe the word has an Egyptian affinity, and should translate “monkeys.”

I can’t completely discount the possibility that almug wood could have been brought to Ophir where it was picked up with the gold, but it seems a more direct reading of 1 Kings 10; 11 would indicate that both almug wood and gold were products of Ophir. Some scholars have suggested that the almug tree is the red sandalwood of India, thereby associating the land of Ophir with India. Supporting this contention is the fact that Josephus, Jerome, and the Septuagint identify Ophir with India. Could Ophir then be India? There is insufficient evidence to base a conclusion. On the other hand, is the presence of gold and early mining activity enough to link Ophir with Arabia?

On the Ship in the Holy Sepulchre

To the Editor:

I was very pleased, indeed, to see in your December issue, devoted to Jerusalem, Magen Broshi’s piece on a fourth-century votive bearing a picture of a merchant ship (“Evidence of Earliest Christian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land Comes to Light in Holy Sepulchre Church,” BAR 03:04). This votive was first published several years ago in an article in the 051International Journal of Nautical Archaeology in which the Latin inscription was, for some reason, completely misread. Now, thanks to your article, we have not only the correct reading but a placing of the votive in its proper historical context, and on top of all this, a splendid color reproduction.

(The writer is the author of Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Princeton (1971).)

Symbols of Northern and Southern Egypt Confused

To the Editor:

“An Ancient Boat’s Modern Ordeal,” BAR 03:04, by Sidney C. Lippman is certainly interesting, but it contains a glaring error which appears not once but three times. I refer to the reference of the papyrus as the symbol of Southern Egypt and the lotus as the symbol of Northern Egypt.

The Northern kingdom of Egypt adopted the papyrus as its heraldic plant because it was so plentiful in the swamps and marshes of Lower Egypt, the Delta area. The plant of the Southern kingdom or Upper Egypt has not been identified botanically, but is popularly referred to as the lily or the lotus. One reference for this correct version is When Egypt Ruled the East, by George Steindorff and Keith C. Steele, page 11.

On Rising Costs

To the Editor:

I would like to point out to those who complain of BAR’s rising cost that publication costs are squeezing out a number of small, specialized publications. The now-defunct Fort Hood, Texas Archaeological Society gave up the ghost because of our inability to finance publication of our finds.

Unable to Go on BAR Tour

To the Editor:

I regret to tell you that I will not be able to go on any of your tours. I am only fourteen years old. I will always dream of the tours, though. Maybe in five or ten years. I want to be a Biblical archaeologist. I really enjoy the Biblical Archaeology Review.

Views on BAR

To the Editor:

I find BAR lacking both in the application of scientific analytical principles and in the minimum confidence one might expect any true Christian to have in his God. It may be that this is characteristic of archaeology which seems to depend more on a good lively imagination than on hard factual analysis for conclusions.

To the Editor:

As a Bible student and a lover of the word of God, I look forward to receiving my BAR very much. As a recent visitor to the Holy Land, I can enjoy reading the BAR even more. It’s the most amazing little periodical to be printed yet.

To the Editor:

As I approach the end of my first complete draft of a popular book on archaeology entitled Digs and Documents, I sat down to re-read all of the back copies of the BAR. It has been most helpful. One or two articles contained information I had not found anywhere else in all of my digging into the scholarly material.

To the Editor:

Usually I enjoy BAR very much (except when it seems to remove God and His Son from history and life); it seems to enlighten the reality of Christianity and Judaism before it. Your magazine is one of the few ways that I, a semi-shut-in, will ever visit the Holy Land.

To the Editor:

I belong to a Bible Study group that is using the BAR as our text this year and the members are all very enthusiastic about these lessons.

052

The Patriarchal Narratives as History

To the Editor:

I read with appreciation Nahum M. Sarna’s summary and critique of John Van Seters’ work, Abraham in History and Tradition (“Abraham in History,” BAR 03:04). I remain curious, however, as to why Prof. Sarna omitted any reference to Thomas L. Thompson’s earlier Beiheft to ZAW, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (New York: de Gruyer, 1974).

In this work, Dr. Thompson analyzes much the same evidence as Van Seter, and seemingly comes to similar conclusions, some even more “radical” in tone. For example, speaking of the Amorite invasion, he writes:

This chapter (No. 7) will attempt to examine the extent to which the interpretation of archaeological finds has been affected by this erroneous view of contemporary history. When taken by itself, does the archaeological evidence really reflect the arrival of new groups into Palestine coming from north of Palestine and ultimately from South Mesopotamia? (p. 146)

It would be interesting to have Professor Sarna’s comments on the Thompson work, especially since it came out a year previous to Van Seters’. Is there a new “American school” of archaeology emerging to challenge the Albright-Speiser-Gordon school?

Nahum M. Sarna replies:

The assignment I received from the editor of BAR was to review Van Seters’ book, not Thompson’s. The latter’s title is The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives with the subtitle, The Quest for the Historical Abraham (1974). It is far more extensive in its critical examination of current theories than is the work I reviewed, and it deserves independent treatment. Whether or not a new and debunking American school is emerging will probably be largely determined by the interpretation and evaluation of the Ebla texts. In the meantime, there are several points that ought to be kept in mind when dealing with Biblical scholarship.

First, there is no field of human endeavor more strewn with the debris of discarded theories than that of Biblical scholarship, and this observation will doubtless retain its validity also in respect of the new theories.

Second, the inability to fit the patriarchs into a historical framework according to the present state of our knowledge does not necessarily invalidate the historicity of the narratives.

Third, it must never be forgotten that the Biblical stories are not “historiography” as we understand the term, but rather “historiosophy” i.e., the didactic use of historical material. Exclusive concentration on the criterion of historicity obscures the intent, meaning and message of the narrative which, after all, are its enduring qualities. If Abraham’s migration can no longer be explained as part of a larger Amorite migratory stream from east to west, it should be noted that what has fallen by the wayside is a scholarly hypothesis not the Biblical text. Genesis itself presents the movement from Haran to Canaan as an individual, unique act undertaken in response to a divine call, an event, not an incident, that inaugurates a new and decisive stage in God’s plan of history. The factuality or otherwise of this Biblical evaluation lies beyond the scope of scholarly research.

Prof. Zeitlin’s Last Words on the Authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls

To the Editor: