Queries & Comments

008

From Strength to Strength

Thank you for the many years of enjoyment your magazine has given me. I look forward to the new one (Archaeology Odyssey) that is in the process of birth.

I would like to see someone design a Biblical Archaeology Society membership pin.

Add Nine Parts Perspiration …

I have for years been meaning to write and thank you for Biblical Archaeology Review. Today, on finishing work, I refreshed myself reading the September/October issue, with its particularly illuminating articles on Lawrence of Arabia and Josephus. So—at last—I thank you!

I don’t know how you do it, but BAR gets better and better.

The author is a distinguished novelist, whose works include The Tree of Life and In the Reign of Peace.—Ed.

A Museum of Ersatz Experience

Hershel Shanks has proposed the construction of a Biblical archaeology museum in the United States, including a replica of Solomon’s Temple (First Person, BAR 23:05). He notes the great success of “cultural tourism” in such unlikely places as Orlando, Florida, Bisbee, Arizona, and Fresno, California, and asks why not do the same for the Bible. It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

First, the right name for this proposal is “cultural imperialism,” the appropriation of the culture of another country. If tourists want to experience the land of the Bible, surely the appropriate place is Israel. What possible reason is there to build Solomon’s Temple in Bisbee, or even Washington? If Israel built some icon of American history in Israel, like the original Capitol in Washington, which the British destroyed, everyone would think we were crazy. Well, it’s just as crazy to build Solomon’s Temple in the United States.

Second, Solomon’s Temple is probably the most sacred shrine in Judaism. It is one thing to build a small-scale model in order to investigate how it really looked and worked. It is quite another thing to build a full-scale ersatz replica à la Disney for purposes of cultural tourism. Judaism deserves a little more respect from BAR than this.

Third, why shouldn’t a serious magazine encourage tourists to experience the real thing? While Solomon’s Temple cannot be seen, tourists can come to Jerusalem and see the foundation of the Temple Mount at the Kotel (Western Wall). At the same time, they can see numerous other sites of deep significance to Judaism and Christianity. There is no reason to spend tens of millions of dollars to create a fake experience. If this kind of money is available, a Biblical museum (without Solomon’s Temple) can be built where the events occurred and where it would resonate in an authentic way.

Despite all these negative thoughts, after thinking a little more about Mr. Shanks’s proposal, I wondered whether he has not gone far enough. The heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict relates to Jerusalem. If we can build Solomon’s Temple in the United States, why not rebuild all of Jerusalem—the Kotel, the Old City, the archaeological sites, even the new shopping mall? Then, if the Immigration Service is willing, we can move the Jews to the New Jerusalem in Bisbee or Fresno. What a wonderful way to resolve the problem of two people claiming the same land.

Of course, I am joking. However, Mr. Shanks was joking, too. Wasn’t he?

A Capital Idea

As always, receiving BAR is a pleasure. I was thrilled, though, at your comments about a museum. Yes, its time has come, 010and you are right on target. I believe that a national museum of antiquities is more in keeping with Washington, D.C., with Biblical archaeology as a major component, taking whatever form, size and budget it needs. I am thinking of larger parameters to include a highly defined and visible working institute that is well funded, not only for Biblical archaeology, but for other cultures and antiquities.

A Moveable Feast of Artifacts

I read with great interest your editorial subtitled “America Needs a Museum of Biblical Archaeology.” I have long proposed an alternative: a traveling exhibit from the great institutions in our country that have significant collections of Biblical archaeological material. I’ve worked closely with the Brooklyn Museum, to which I have donated ancient Hebrew inscriptions and pottery. It contains the only collection of papyri from Elephantine, Egypt, in the United States. Its great Egyptian collection contains many items related to Biblical history.

In the United States, Yale and Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago and the Jewish Museum of New York have fantastic collections of important items relating to Biblical archaeology. There are also many important items in private collections and other institutions.

Starting a new museum and attempting to put together a first-rate collection might be impossible at this point. Instead, I think it would be quite feasible to have our great American institutions loan their best items for a traveling exhibit that would get great attention. Perhaps foreign institutions would also like to be involved.

Lawrence of Arabia

Another Network of Spies

I found Stephen Tabachnik’s article on Lawrence of Arabia’s career as an archaeologist and sometime spy (“Lawrence of Arabia As Archaeologist,” BAR 23:05) to be very enlightening. In all the accounts of his life, this part of his career is too often overlooked. There can be no doubt his explorations were an essential ingredient in his work in the Intelligence Department in Cairo when World War I broke out. The essay reminded me of the work of another intelligence operation at the same time in Turkish-ruled Palestine. Composed of Palestinian Jews who felt that the British would support them against Turkish oppression, the spy network was called the NILI group, after the Hebrew phrase in 1 Samuel 15:29, “Netzach Yisrael lo y’shaker,” “The glory of Israel will not lie.” Led by Aaron Aaronsohn, the NILI spies, at great cost (several were killed, including his sister Sarah Aaronsohn), provided vital information to the British, including the news of the weakness of the defenses at Beersheba, knowledge that made possible Sir Edmund Allenby’s victory there in 1917.

Aaronsohn and the NILI group were formally brought into British Intelligence in 1915 by Lawrence’s mentor, Sir Leonard Woolley. After the war, at the Paris Peace Conference, Aaronsohn worked, too, to bring about the Weizmann-Prince Feisal 012understanding for Jewish-Arab coopera-tion, which Lawrence tried so hard to implement.

On a final note, the NILI network was deeply interested in the Crusader castles, as was Lawrence. Their headquarters were in the ruins of the Crusader castle at Atlit, the Templars’ Chateau Pelerin, on the seacoast near Haifa, which Lawrence wrote about at great length in his Crusader Castles! Lawrence describes the castle at Atlit as the Templars’ “chief stronghold.” It would be fascinating to know if these two Middle East master spies ever met.

Stephen Tabachnik responds:

John F. Murphy, Jr., is certainly right about the interest and importance of the NILI network. Aaron Aaronsohn was an ardent Zionist and brilliant agriculturalist who discovered wild wheat in Palestine. As the head of NILI, he met Lawrence several times, starting in February 1917 in Cairo. At first they did not get along because Aaronsohn felt that Lawrence was insufficiently supportive of Zionism. But Lawrence’s support of Zionism grew, and the two worked together at the Paris Conference before Aaronsohn’s accidental death in May 1919. Sarah Aaronsohn, who played no less heroic a role in NILI activities than did her brother, committed suicide while being torured by the Turks. She was once thought to be the “S.A.” to whom the introductory poem of Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom is dedicated. But most authorities now believe that “S.A.” was Salim Achmed (Lawrence’s servant Dahoum), and it is very unlikely that Lawrence and Sarah ever met. For further details, see Anita Engle, The Nili Spies (London: Hogarth Press, 1959), which is the authoritative source on NILI [and a great read—Ed.].

Saladin’s Proper Title

The caption to the photograph of Pharaoh’s Island in the article “Lawrence of Arabia As Archaeologist,” BAR 23:05, refers to Saladin as “the Moslem caliph.” The word “caliph” designates the nominal successor to the prophet Mohammed, the secular and religious head of the Islamic world. Saladin never laid claim to that title. He deposed the Fatimid caliphs of Egypt, whom he considered usurpers and heretics, and gave his allegiance to the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad. At the height of his power, Saladin was the sultan of Egypt and Syria. He should properly be referred to as “the Moslem sultan Saladin.”

Mizpah

How Devastated Was Judah?

I was delighted with Jeffery Zorn’s fine report on his discoveries (“Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” BAR 23:05), but take exception to conclusions about Stratum 2 in an accompanying sidebar and caption (pp. 34–35). I find no grounds in Zorn’s article or in the scriptural texts for the assertion that “the apparent prosperity of the town and the continuing use of Israelite four-room houses in this [Babylonian/Persian] period is at odds with the Biblical account of an exile of all but the poorest Jews.”

As to the mysterious cause of the stratum’s destruction, c. 400 B.C., may I offer a guess? In his Antiquities (11.7), Josephus recounts the high priest’s murder of his own brother (the Persian favorite for the office) and the resultant crackdown of Bagoses (a general of Artaxerxes II), who “made use of this pretense to punish the Jews seven years.” With the new king seeking to consolidate his power in the region, these Persian reprisals may have been severe enough to include the destruction of Mizpah (a convenient target). In view of the western incursions confronting Artaxerxes from Sparta, from the Greeks of Asia Minor and from his own brother Cyrus, such harsh measures in Judea would not be surprising.

Jeffery Zorn responds:

Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., 2 Kings 25:11–12 and Jeremiah 52:15–16 specifically note, Nebuzaradan, the captain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard, left behind some of “the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and plowmen.” Already, in the earlier exile of 597 B.C., we are told that many of the elite of sixth-century Judean society had been carried away to Babylon (2 Kings 24:14–16). The author of Kings is thus at some pains to depict a depopulated and devastated Judah and Jerusalem. This general image is underscored by the complete silence of our sources on historical events in 013Judah after the immediate follow-up to the murder of Gedaliah. It is important to remember that many of our Biblical sources were put into final form during the Exile or later, and those editors/authors believed that the returnees were the purified people of God, as compared to those who had remained in the land and had not experienced the Exile. Any mention of events in Judah during the Exile might have been construed as a tacit acknowledgment of those people and their beliefs. Thus, the less said about events in Judah the better, especially if what little is said paints a gloomy picture. The archaeological materials from Tell en-Nasbeh show clearly that conditions were not as bad as some of our sources would lead us to believe.

I do not wish to hazard a guess regarding the agent behind the destruction of Tell en-Nasbeh (Biblical Mizpah) at the end of the fifth century. There are far too many possible candidates, but no clear claims can be established for any of them.

Pronunciation Guide

Jeffery Zorn’s article on Mizpah was well done, but I must point out that the name of the Judean province during the Persian period, according to the Aramaic vocalization, was Yehud, not Yahud. In fact, the Aramaic was Y’hud, which led to the Greek transcription IOUDA. The name YHD on the stamped jar handles was surely pronounced Yehud in Aramaic. The conventional English spelling is thus Yehud.

The Real Josephus

Did Josephus Make Up the Mass Suicide at Masada?

It was somewhat surprising that Steve Mason’s article (“Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up?” BAR 23:05) did not discuss what may be Josephus’s greatest fabrication, the famous suicide of the defenders of Masada. Almost 25 years ago, Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin asserted that Josephus’s account was fictitious, a theory she also presented in the Jewish Spectator (Spring 1981), the journal she edited for many years. Dr. Weiss-Rosmarin noted that the classical historian H. St. John Thackeray concluded that the speeches of Eleazar as recounted by Josephus were an ancient literary device and were purely imaginary. The ideas spouted by Eleazar concerning the immortality of the soul, the futility of life, etc., were very current in Greek and Roman literature but were not central themes of first-century Judaism.

Dr. Weiss-Rosmarin also noted that it is unlikely that battle-hardened guerrillas would have abandoned the fight, as Josephus claimed they did. The defenders of Masada could not have defeated the Roman attackers, but they were capable of inflicting heavy losses. The defenders were well equipped, in good physical condition, and had the advantage of being elevated above their attackers and protected by Masada’s inner defenses. The Romans would have had to engage in hand-to-hand combat once they breached the fortress’s outer defenses and would doubtless have lost many men. Josephus stated that Masada’s 960 defenders killed themselves, but only 28 skeletons were found, with no proof that these were even the remains of the defenders. It is just as likely that they died in battle.

Why would Josephus invent such a fable? Josephus’s physiological makeup must be considered. He was a man who, as Mason points out, “arranged for his comrades” to kill themselves while he, as one of the last survivors, surrendered to the Romans, an act that, he asserted, was unconscionable. Living with the guilt of luring 39 men to their deaths, Josephus may have relieved his conscience by glorifying mass suicide and thereby, in his own mind, convinced himself that he, in Dr. Weiss-Rosmarin’s words, “bestowed immortal glory upon them.”

There is not a shred of independent evidence confirming Josephus’s account. It is unlikely that we will ever know what truly happened on Masada. It seems most likely, however, that the seasoned fighters of Masada, who had been engaged in their “hopeless” battle for three years, did not die by their own hands but rather inflicted as many casualties as they could on their enemies and emulated Samson’s cry, “Let me die together with the Philistines.”

014

Steve Mason responds:

First, I did not write the words that you quote from me in your third paragraph: These are the words of Josephus’s comrades at Yotapata, who were (he says) bent on suicide. What Josephus “arranged” was a way for himself to survive. Second, I discussed Masada as an example of archaeologically grounded debates over Josephus’s reliability.

Weiss-Rosmarin’s disputes with Yigael Yadin (who supported Josephus on Masada) in the 1960s were followed both by further challenges to Josephus and responses to those challenges. See, for example, the discussion I mentioned in my endnote 5.

I find Weiss-Rosmarin’s arguments weakest in these areas: Her appeal to later Jewish history is irrelevant in determining the actions of a first-century sect; it did not redound to the Romans’ glory that the Sicarii killed themselves (better to claim that the Sicarii gave them a terrible battle, if one wished to praise the Romans), so the “sellout” Josephus had no obvious motive for inventing this; Josephus’s commendation of the Sicarii for their brave suicide goes against his general tendency to condemn them (and such a departure from an author’s patent biases is a good, though hardly infallible, index to historicity); and it would have been difficult for Josephus to convince his intended Roman readers that the rebels killed themselves if they had not done so, since the outcome of Silva’s campaign was still recent (about six years previous) and well known. The archaeology does not prove either a mass suicide or a final battle on Masada.

I have no quarrel with your statement “It is unlikely that we will ever know what truly happened on Masada.” Since we do not know, I see little basis for accusing Josephus of outright fabrication here. He did make some demonstrable errors in describing Masada (e.g., on the orientation of Herod’s palace), but these are relatively minor and consistent with his having seen the place from a distance rather than inspecting it closely at first hand.

What Did Josephus Know and When Did He Know It?

Thank you for Steve Mason’s well-conceived and important article “Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up?” BAR 23:05. The author has clearly accomplished his goal of improving our view of the intentions of Josephus. By narrowing the traditionally presumed gap between the motives behind the Jewish War, on the one hand, and the later Antiquities and Contra Apion, on the other, Mason presents the ancient apologist as a committed and adept advocate of Judaism even in his earliest, most controversial work. By reading the Jewish War in context (as a work directed to non-Jews and written after the facts, in Rome in 75 C.E.), Mason correctly calls into question the adequacy of representing Josephus as the quintessential “Jewish historian” of the ancient world. The degree to which his work resembles that of his Greek and Roman contemporaries is remarkable. The reliance of his account upon non-Jewish sources, especially when discussing the Judean phase of the war with Rome, is often overlooked.

It is here that I have something to add to Mason’s account. A proper understanding of Josephus’s use of his sources is crucial, the question of his reliability often resting upon just this. When writing about the past, Josephus follows the “historical” practices of his day by seldom questioning, much less “footnoting” the accounts of his predecessors. Where they are wanting, Josephus too stumbles. In the Jewish War, he generally acts more like a modern-day journalist (albeit one with an agenda), making numerous inquiries into what actually took place in a given situation. The main problem he faces, however, is not having been at the scene of the events. He must rely upon witnesses whom he can question in Rome, most notably Nicolaus and the Roman imperial commentators. Josephus is, of course, more able to spot problems with these sources than others, having some acquaintance with the geography and many of the events that transpired. Yet he continually falters just where we might have expected a Roman to have done so.

On the issue of Josephus’s accuracy regarding the Essenes, Mason states that the famous description of the Essenes in the Jewish War 2.119–161 is entirely a “literary creation”. To what extent might it have depended upon another’s account of the Covenanter’s community? Surely, this alternative must be considered in light of the existence of a longer and less embellished, though similarly ordered, version of this same passage preserved separately in Hippolytus’s Refutation 9.18–28. In Mason’s appraisal of Josephus’s reliability, he states that the “scrolls provide an increasingly doubtful base of information about the Essenes.” Is it not wiser to assume that the scrolls written in the “Qumran practice”¹ describe perfectly well the community that produced them and that it is Josephus who often depends upon Greco-Roman descriptions of the mislabeled, little understood group?²

Josephus’s Sources

In “Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up?” BAR 23:05, Steve Mason includes an item that must be challenged. On page 62 he says: “For Antiquities, Josephus used the Bible, which he trusted implicitly, along with old and respected texts such as Aristeas, 1 Maccabees, various works by gentile authors, Roman state documents and other plausible accounts.”

I have no problem with Aristeas, 1 Maccabees, Roman state documents or other plausible accounts. There is no indication, however, that he was drawing from any of these when he wrote of Moses and the Exodus. That leaves only the Bible, and there is something very wrong with this.

In his Life³ Josephus tells us that he was given the “holy books” of the Temple when the soldiers of Titus destroyed the building in 70 C.E. Clearly, when he was later writing Antiquities, he had whatever material was contained in these books at his disposal. Was that material limited to the Bible? How can Steve Mason, or anyone else, claim that it was? Where is the proof, or even a good argument?

The alternate position, that those books included a number of non-Biblical traditions, would credibly explain such deviations from the Bible as (1) Moses as an Egyptian general in Ethiopia; (2) the transfer of Egyptian weapons to Israel following the parting of the seas; (3) the death of Moses.

Steve Mason responds:

Your “challenge” depends upon your inference that I made the Bible Josephus’s exclusive source for Antiquities 1–11. But the sentence you quote from my box, “How Reliable Is Josephus?” obviously does not make your point. As the context and language (“trusted,” “plausible,” “such as,” “other”) there reveal, I was talking about his method in using sources and not trying to list all of his sources for Antiquities.

You seem to have missed the passage in the article where I actually do talk about the sources he used for Antiquities 1–11, and quite open-endedly: His main source was scripture in various Greek and Semitic versions, 015along with “apocryphal” material and many oral traditions about the characters of the Bible; he also cites Greek and oriental authors liberally. So your claim that I had him using only the Bible for Antiquities 1–11 is erroneous.

Since I did not mention the rolls that Josephus rescued from the Temple, your question—How could I have “limited [their contents] to the Bible”?—is misguided.

The examples you cite of non-Biblical material in Josephus’s Biblical paraphrase could be multiplied in the hundreds. Some of it may have come from the different versions of the Bible that he used; some of it came from extra-Biblical oral tradition; some of it he made up.

Does He Have a Right to Be Confused?

Josephus’s book is entitled The Jewish War. I’m confused by this title. I thought it was centuries later that the terms “Jew” and “Jewish” came into use. In Josephus’s time, was the land not called Judea and the people called Judeans? And what happened to the term Hebrews? Am I not right to be confused by all this?

Steve Mason responds:

In Josephus’s time there were neither Jews nor Judeans; there were Ioudaioi (in Greek), Iudaei (in Latin), Yehudim (in Hebrew) and so on. The question is how best to translate these terms into English. I agree with those who think that the closest parallel in English to what first-century Greek speakers heard in Ioudaios and parallels is “Judean,” with its obvious connection to the place Judea (Greek, Ioudaia). Hardly anybody spoke of Ebraioi (“Hebrews” in Greek), and Josephus only does so when he wishes to designate the ancient inhabitants of the land.

Which Translation?

Steve Mason does not specify which translation he uses for Josephus. I am using The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston, undated, published by David McKay. The typeface is very ragged (it appears to have been done on a manual typewriter with bent keys) but readable. And unless I am missing something, the numbering system in my book is different from Mason’s referenced extracts.

This may be a loaded question since Mason is preparing his own translation, but which existing translations are considered acceptable, and are they still readily available?

016

Steve Mason responds:

Good question. “Acceptable” is a difficult criterion in a context of scarcity. Best by far—and the only English translation of all Josephus in this century—is the Loeb Classical Library edition. A series of translators worked on it from the 1920s to the 1960s. The main problem is cost: about $200. Because of that, perhaps also because the Loeb’s Greek is unnecessary for many readers and because that edition requires nine or ten volumes, Whiston’s one-volume 1737 translation is still the most popular. It is difficult to read, however, both for the reasons you mention and because of its archaic English. Hendrickson Publishers has fixed some of the problems you note in their 1987 reprint. They have inserted the newer reference system and set the text in clear type. And you can buy the complete works for the cost of a single Loeb volume! Other affordable and worthy translations exist for parts of Josephus, notably G. Williamson’s War (Penguin), but not for the whole thing. For fast bulk reading, I use the Loeb; sections that matter, I translate myself.

Potpourri

Yes, Virginia There Is a Prehistory

A letter in the May/June 1997 BAR (see Queries & Comments, BAR 23:03) objected to an entry in last year’s Dig Issue (“Any Time, Any Place: A Dig for Every Interest,” BAR 23:01) that described a site as prehistoric. The letter’s author, Ronald Martin, of Athens, Wisconsin, wrote, “There will be no ‘prehistory’ dig in 1997. This year marks approximately 6,000 years since the world’s history began, when God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1). The terms ‘prehistory,’ ‘Paleolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ are a mockery of God’s word, the Bible.”

I, however, would like to inform readers that in 1997 there was a dig of a village that flourished between 7,500 and 7,000 years ago, and there will be another in 1998—at Sha’ar ha-Golan (see “Site Gazette” in this issue for details). The site, of which I am the excavation director, is the largest prehistoric art center in Israel. We have uncovered flint arrowheads and blades, seashells (see photos) from the Mediterranean, some 35 miles away, a remarkable planned village with monumental buildings and streets, and—our prize find of the 1997 excavation season—a 2-inch-tall, baked-clay figurine of a woman (see photo).

A word about dating the site. Archaeologists normally rely on carbon-14 tests to date prehistoric objects. Alas, we have not been able to perform such tests on any artifacts from Sha’ar ha-Golan because no organic matter has been preserved on them. However, the flint items and figurines that we have found are identical to those found at several other sites from which we do have carbon-14 dates. Those other sites have been dated to about 5500 to 5000 B.C.E.

I hope this will whet readers’ appetites for more. Come dig with us this summer!

Before You Ask …

After calling for more final excavation reports, your editor, by his own admission, is “never satisfied” (First Person, BAR 23:04). And he then neglects to refer to the new publication of the third volume of the final reports of the City of David excavations in Jerusalem between 1978–1985 (City of David IV). Yet in the Strata, BAR 23:04, section, he includes blurbs on the loomweights chapter (by Orit Shamir) and the ceramic figurines chapter (by Diana Peretz) from this very volume, which he neglected to mention earlier.

Under the heading “Go Figure,” BAR 23:04, he asks some questions he describes as being rarely asked. In fact, these questions are often asked by professional archaeologists and, in some cases, even answered. Here are some of the questions and answers.

“What is going to be done with all these figurines [found in the City of David excavations]? Where will they be stored?”

Before City of David IV was published, the figurines, along with all the objects published in the volume, were “divided” between the owners (the State of Israel) and the excavating institution (the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem). The majority of the finds stayed in the hands of the state, while a small portion was ceded to the institute’s study collection.

“How long will they be stored? Forever?”

Emphatically, YES, forever!

“How will they be made accessible to future researchers? Will they simply get lost in 10 or 20 years, as so often happens? What should be done?”

All of the objects published in the volume (those in the state’s hands and those ceded to the university) have been entered into the computerized database of the Israel State Treasures, administered by the Israel Antiquity Authority (IAA). The objects are eminently accessible, and details of them should even be available electronically (at “The End of the Paper Trail,” BAR 23:04, to quote the title of the editor’s First Person column) soon on the IAA Web site.

“Is there a better way?”

Yes. Do your research before going to print.

072

Dial “M” for Muddled

The “sundial” included in your Strata section (BAR 23:04) fails a simple credibility test—twice. The “inner circle for winter … and the outer circle for summer” is backwards: In winter the shadows are longer, reaching all the way to the outer circle, while in summer the shadows tend to be shorter, likely to reach only as far as the inner circle. However, since there appear to be no textual markings on the disk identifying which seasons go where, I attribute this error to a hasty and inadequate analysis by (I presume) Adolfo Roitman (curator of the Shrine of the Book). Which led to the further realization that the photograph seems to show markings 073all around the full 360 degrees of the circles. Does Roitman suppose that this sundial was used at the north pole? Only in extreme northern (and southern) locations does the sun’s shadow traverse the full 360 degrees of a sundial—and then only in summer (winter has no shadow at all, for the sun never rises).

A third problem is not as serious, because the maker of a sundial might, for idealistic reasons (perhaps under the influence of Greek philosophy?), consider a circular dial more aesthetic—but the optimal shape of a practical sundial is not circular, precisely because the shadow never traverses the full circle, but an elongated semi-ellipse.

Now if you could give us a better look at the markings on the rings, we might be able to make a more educated guess at what this disk really is.

Adolfo Roitman responds:

Mr. Pittman is right in noting an error concerning the engraved circles and their interpretation. According to the interpretation of the circles advanced by Professors Albani, Glessmer and Grasshoff (and contrary to the description in BAR), the inner ring may have been used in summer, the middle ring in spring and autumn, and the outer ring in winter.

BAR’s article states that the sundial is from the third century B.C. I do not know the source for such a date, but as far as I know, no date was advanced by the scholars.

For further information on the sundial, I recommend U. Glessmer and M. Albani, “An Astronomical Measuring Instrument from Qumran” in Technological Innovations, New Texts and New Reformulated Issues, International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, July 15–17, 1996, ed. D. Parry and Eugene Ulrich (forthcoming); and Albani, Glessmer and G. Grasshoff, “An Instrument for Determining the Hours of the Day and the Seasons (Sundial),” in A Day at Qumran, ed. Adolfo Roitman (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1997), pp. 20–22.

Thirty-Nine Lashes with a Wet Noodle

The September/October 1997 issue, BAR 23:05, again provides several instances of deplorably sloppy editing.

The most egregious concerns the caption to the picture of the 1665 Dutch edition of Josephus’ collected works (see “Will the Real Josephus Please Stand Up?” BAR 23:05). The illustrated title page clearly reads “Flavii Josephi hoochgeroemde Joodsche Historien,” which translates as “Flavius Josephus’s highly praised Jewish Histories”; the caption mangles this, purporting to read “Flavius Josephus, Jewish Historian!” (A bit of Latin grammar helps here.) [A little Dutch, too.—Ed.]

074

In “Lawrence of Arabia as Archaeologist,” BAR 23:05, Stephen Tabachnik, referring to events of 1913, describes a site “where the Turks had built a larger fortification on the border with British Egypt.” Now Egypt may have been under strong British official influence at that time, but it was still part of the Ottoman Empire, whose sovereignty was not terminated until 1914; perhaps “British-controlled Egypt,” though not strictly correct, might have been acceptable.

Someone Is Bound to Be Offended

I would like to respond to Cindy Smith’s request (Queries & Comments, BAR 23:04, that to avoid offending Catholics you call those books not in the Protestant canon “Deuterocanonicals” rather than “Apocrypha.”

The question of what writings constitute canon or apocrypha has been a point of contention from the days of the early Church Fathers through the Middle Ages and the Reformation to the present. The current canon of the Roman Catholic Church was only finally adopted by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.^a The issue is complex and may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all denominations. Considering that people of other faiths believe as strongly in the validity of their canons as Ms. Smith believes in hers, it would be virtually impossible to avoid offending someone when discussing the issue. The question that then needs to be asked is, “Since someone is going to be offended, whom is it acceptable to offend?” Ms. Smith believes it is unacceptable to offend Catholics by calling the books “Apocrypha,” but doesn’t seem to see that calling them “Deuterocanonicals” can be just as offensive to Protestants and Jews. There are also the Eastern Orthodox and Armenian churches to consider. Do their sensibilities matter?

The answer, of course, is yes, but where belief and feelings are strongly held on differing points of view, someone is bound to be offended by something.

Is an Earthquake Really Predicted for Megiddo?

I thoroughly enjoyed the article “Earthquake!” BAR 23:04, by Amos Nur and Hagai Ron. It was well researched and contained much information both valuable and interesting.

However, I do question a comment made in the opening paragraph: “Here [Megiddo], according to the Revelation to John (also known as the Apocalypse), the final conflict between good and evil before the millennial age will occur amidst ‘a violent earthquake, such as had not occurred since people were upon the earth’ (Revelation 16:18).”

Does the Book of Revelation really prophesy an earthquake for Megiddo? Revelation 16:12–16 sets the stage for the destructive final battle in that area as a result of the sixth angel pouring out his bowl of judgment, but verse 17 starts a new section with the seventh-bowl judgments, and the Bible doesn’t seem to indicate Megiddo as the site of the events of verses 18 and 19.

It appears that the destruction of the assembled armies at Megiddo will be by the direct supernatural intervention of the Messiah (Revelation 19:21) and will not be attributable to natural causes. The remainder of the world’s population will know, without a doubt, that something spectacular has just occurred!

James Tabor, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, responds:

Mr. Valentine raises an interesting point. Many interpreters of the Book of Revelation, both ancient and modern, have understood the events of chapter 16 (the Seven Bowls of Wrath) as successive and sequential. Accordingly, the gathering for the battle at Megiddo (verses 12–16), associated with the sixth bowl, would not necessarily be connected, either in time or geography, with the seventh bowl (verses 17–20, which report the severe and unprecedented earthquake). Indeed, the epicenter of this apocalyptic earthquake appears to be a city known cryptically as “Babylon the Great,” taken by most interpreters to be Rome (see 1 Peter 5:13), or by a minority as Jerusalem (compare Revelation 11:8, where the holy city is seen as utterly corrupt), and its effects are foretold to be worldwide—surely not confined to the narrow valley of the Megiddo area.

On the other hand, I do not think the article’s authors were necessarily implying that Megiddo was the precise site of the earthquake, according to the Book of Revelation, but were making a more general point—that the final conflict between good and evil is centered in this area and occurs in the context of this predicted great earthquake. I found it to be a fascinating lead-in to an equally fascinating article on ancient earthquakes in light of the archaeological data.

It is worth noting that Revelation does not, strictly speaking, mention a “battle of 076Armageddon.” Rather, as in most prophetic texts of the Hebrew Bible, the actual battle takes place in and around Jerusalem (see Zechariah 14; Joel 3:1–16; Isaiah 66:15–24; Ezekiel 37–38), where the geographic features of the Kidron Valley, the Mount of Olives and the Valley of Hinnom are mentioned specifically. What the author of Revelation appears to envision is a gathering of the enemy forces at Megiddo (see Revelation 16:14) for the march south toward Jerusalem, where the actual battle takes place. Of course, this scenario of the enemy coming toward Jerusalem from the north had played itself out repeatedly in the past (the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman invasions) and became burned in the prophetic imagination as a kind of apocalyptic template for the events of the End. The Hebrew prophets often associate an earthquake with this march from the north—notably in Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 38–39, both of which are tightly connected linguistically to Revelation 16 and 19.

God Will Not Be Mocked

In the Strata story “The First Artists,” BAR 23:05, you claim that a figurine is 250,000 years old. Dates like these are the figment of evolutionists’ imagination. Unbiased scientists have established that the world cannot be more than some 10,000 years old, which agrees reasonably well with the Bible. Evolutionists have no facts to support their ramblings. They claim to be scientific, but evolution is a religion. There is no science there. Stop reporting dreams as fact.

In “How Reliable is Josephus?” BAR 23:05, in the same issue, you state that “We might answer [whether God created the world in six days] ‘no.’”

You seem to be intent on trying to discredit the Bible. Shape up! God will not be mocked!

Eek!

One peripheral feature of your exciting publication that always tweaks my interest is the puzzle What Is It? I am regularly lured into the guesswork. There are lots of “experts” behind the scene, I’m certain, who determine the correct “answer.” How then do I, as a mere nonexpert reader, dare to disagree or wonder, How in the world did they decide on that? In the September/October 1997 issue, the What Is It? BAR 23:05, puzzler was directly facing the “First Artists,” BAR 23:05, news item. This article’s positive spin of speculation (or assumed expertise) sent me into giggles.

A “voluptuous woman” or a well-worn hunk of rotund volcanic rock? If you are into Freudian interpretations of inkblots, 078you would necessarily see the old gal. But no way, no how, could I squint and see the 30,000-year-old “horse.” Venus—maybe; Trigger—no! With the earliest engraving of a horse, my eye caught the negative space on the stone plaque rather than the proposed equine positive.

Enclosed is what, in my nonexpert opinion, is the oldest-to-date Cave Mouse cartoon. This “finding” will not change history, but it suits my visual sense more satisfactorily.

004

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.

From Strength to Strength

Thank you for the many years of enjoyment your magazine has given me. I look forward to the new one (Archaeology Odyssey) that is in the process of birth.