Queries & Comments

008

Agreeing to Disagree

Thank you for this wonderful magazine.

I don’t always agree with some of your writers, but I love to disagree.

Praise the Lord and Pass the Prozac

I received my first copy of BAR yesterday and was most pleasantly surprised. I did not expect such an attractive publication, both graphically and editorially.

On the other hand, you seem to have quite a few angry readers, don’t you? Skimming the Queries & Comments section, I was astounded by the hostility and narrowmindedness of some of your correspondents. The idea of Christian charity (or, on the other hand, of plain old common courtesy on the part of non-Christian readers) seems as wanting as rain in the desert. I suggest that your angry readers get some counseling to determine why they are so deeply hostile. They’d probably have better relations at home, as well as at work, too.

Qumran

A Debate with Respect

The scholars who participated in the “Enigma of Qumran” discussion (January/February 1998) were far more professional and showed more respect for opposing viewpoints than the participants in the debate between the minimalists and the maximalists. The Qumran discussion was obviously much more informative, too—and a pleasure to read. We need more such discussions!

The Two Lives of Qumran

I read with interest your debate on “The Enigma of Qumran.” It may be that both sides are correct. Why is it not conceivable that Qumran was originally built as a fortified farm, as Yizhar Hirschfeld suggests, and then later sold to, or taken over by, a sectarian community that (largely) stripped the buildings of their ornate decorations and furnishings? The archaeological evidence shows that the main courtyard was subdivided and other structures added on. This seems very much in line with the hypothesis that the buildings were changed from their original purpose.

Also, the description of the large mikveh (ritual bath) (#71 on the plan) caught my attention. Something about its location outside the main compound seemed oddly familiar. Sure enough, the May/June 1997 issue of BAR describes in detail the mikva’ot (plural) of the Essenes of Jerusalem and explains why they were located outside the city walls. (Bargil Pixner, “Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway—Where the Community Lived in Jesus’ Time,” BAR 23:03). Instead of (or in addition to) hypothesizing that the mikveh was for arriving visitors, wouldn’t this be both a likely explanation for the mikveh’s location and more evidence for the identity of the inhabitants of Qumran?

Thank you for many enjoyable years of reading. I’ve been a loyal reader for nearly 20 years and wouldn’t cancel my subscription for anything!

010

Did Qumranites Regard the Earthquake as Punishment?

What a great discussion on Qumran!

I was struck by Yizhar Hirschfeld’s comment that it doesn’t make sense that after an earthquake the inhabitants would live at the site with some parts of it destroyed. Surely it makes sense if the inhabitants regarded the earthquake as an act of God rather than a natural phenomenon. If they believed that a punitive God destroyed a pantry and a cistern because for some reason these were no longer ritually pure enough, then it would make sense that these structures were covered over or filled in rather than repaired and used again.

West Side Story

Your story on Qumran piqued my interest. In “Home Sweet Home,” the plans of five forts are shown. Each fort has a tower and a courtyard; four out of five have the tower on the west side of the fort. The other (Aroer) has the tower placed due south. It struck me that there may be a pattern here. Could this have a religious significance, or was there some sort of military (sun glare) strategy involved? Does someone out there have a good explanation?

Yizhar Hirschfeld responds:

The placement of the towers on the western side of the four sites probably has to do with winds in Israel, since most of the year the most pleasant winds comes from the west. I assume that the owners of these manor houses lived in the towers, which allowed them to enjoy a cooling breeze.

Ancient Funeral Parlor

I was surprised that in the debate over the nature of the Qumran settlement the participants verged on what looks like the obvious explanation, but no one pursued it—that the site was an Essene necropolis and, in conjunction with that, a designated burial place for worn-out or outmoded holy writing.

In that context, the site would be an installation rather than a settlement. The people living there full time would be staff instead of a full-fledged community. The oversized mikveh could have been used by the staff after performing funerary functions or by the family and friends of the deceased. The inhabited caves may have been off-site housing for those who regularly handled the dead. The refectory may have been used for funeral meals and the putative second story as housing for family and friends.

The staff of Qumran needn’t have been very large. The family of the deceased could have brought their own food and done their own cooking, with only the space and tableware provided for them. There probably was some food grown on-site, but there needn’t have been an extensive agricultural operation. And Qumran could have become self-supporting, at least to a certain extent, by virtue of fees charged for burial services and manuscript burial. So while there may have been some incidental trade, which would account for the odd luxury item found at the site, Qumran would not have needed it to survive as a necropolis. And if there was just a small staff, that would explain why they found it easier to cover the earthquake damage and rebuild rather than undertake the more complicated task of restoration.

For manuscript burials, Qumran would have needed resident potters to make containers for scrolls that arrived for burial with no containers of their own. And in their downtime, these potters would probably also have made whatever ceramics the installation needed. Similarly, the installation would have needed at least one scribe to handle whatever record keeping was required—thus, the inkwells.

Perhaps the installation was originally founded by a group of Jerusalem-based strict-constructionist Essenes who considered Qumran—described in you article as “remote but not isolated”—an ideal spot to bury their dead. And Qumran may later have been expanded as it took on the additional function of manuscript burial. It may even, for a while, have been considered a fashionable place to be buried because of the holy manuscripts buried there—hence the secondary burials found in the cemetery and the few architectural embellishments found at the site.

The facts in the article seem to fit this hypothesis very well. And if it’s true, then it suggests that the only thing the Dead Sea Scrolls have in common with each other is that as holy writings they’d all gone out of use, either because they were old or because they were no longer considered relevant. Of course, there could well be some connections among some of the scrolls in terms of the sects 012that created them or the textual variations they display.

Edward E. Cook put forward a related theory—that Qumran was a ritual purification center for Essene priests from Jerusalem (see “What Was Qumran?” BAR 22:06).—Ed.

A Matter of Scale

Each map and diagram in BAR should have a scale bar (as well as a “north arrow”). This would avoid the problems that some of the figures in “The Enigma of Qumran,” BAR 24:01, create. For example, I’m unable to determine the dimensions of the square in the Qumran plan (p. 31) without resorting to scaling it from the size of the people in the aerial photograph on page 24. As to the five plans on page 33, I’m unsure whether they show relative geometries only or whether they are drawn to the same scale. A real problem arises when one attempts to compare these unscaled structures to the unscaled plan of Qumran. The two maps on page 27 are likewise problematic.

Here’s to better clarity through scale bars!

Hear, hear! We will take your point to heart.—Ed.

Exodus

Malamat Is a Heretic

Greetings in Jesus’ name from Missouri. We just read the article by Abraham Malamat, “Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go,” BAR 24:01. Why do you print such trash? Why is that man an instructor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem? He is a full-fledged heretic. His article disallows the validity of the Scriptures, calling the Exodus a “folktale.” Such articles can do untold damage to the faith of believers by distorting the truth. Apparently Mr. Malamat has no belief in the Bible.

The Bible is God’s instruction book to us. Why should we fill our brains with stories by heretics like Malamat, and why in the name of common sense do you print such articles?

Don’t Expect to Find the Exodus in the Historical Record

Abraham Malamat asks, “Is the Exodus story merely the product of later, primarily theological, contemplation, or was it a historic event?”

In the very next sentence he says, “To decide, we must first recognize that the Exodus story is a folktale.” So, immediately he makes an a priori conclusion that it is not a historic event.

Why the Biblical account of Exodus is not found in Egyptian records is obvious and is hinted at in this very article when we learn that Pharaoh Ramesses II put a heroic face on the Battle of Kadesh, where his forces were actually routed by the Hittites. Pharaoh would not likely have permitted an account of such a humiliating defeat as the Exodus to enter the historical record. Many examples exist of edited, changed or outright omitted historical accounts that do not favor current rulers or regimes.

If It Looks Like a Myth…

Even though archaeological research has, so far, failed to substantiate the Exodus as recorded in the Old Testament, BAR has not abandoned hope. Through the years, articles have been published that have changed the date, changed the route, changed the pharaoh, abandoned the Red Sea, etc.

And now Abraham Malamat suggests that the Exodus occurred a little at a time, perhaps over hundreds of years, a “telescoping process.” He even goes so far as to label the Biblical account of the Exodus a “folktale.” This, in my opinion, does not uncover the “kernel of historical truth” he seeks.

Another name for folklore is mythology. According to collaborators Robert Graves and Raphael Patai: “Myth is a traditional religious charter validating laws, customs, rites, institutions and beliefs. Or explaining human institutions and natural phenomena, and taking the form of stories, believed to be true, about divine beings and heroes” (Patai, Robert Graves and the Hebrew Myths: A Collaboration [Detroit, MI: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1992], p. 428).

013

Perhaps this is where the answer lies. We do not deceive ourselves that the myths of other cultures are history, as we understand history to be, but we are reluctant to admit that the Bible falls largely in this category of literature.

An Egyptian Record of the Plagues?

Abraham Malamat completely overlooks The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, commonly known as the Papyrus Ipuwer. That record sets forth a series of disasters so close to those described in Exodus that they must surely be referring to the same events.

Papyrus 2:2—The river is blood.
Exodus 7:20—The river was turned to blood.

Papyrus 2:6—Blood is everywhere.
Exodus 7:21—Blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

Papyrus 2:10—Gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Exodus 9:23–24—And the fire ran along the ground.

Papyrus 4:14—Trees are destroyed.
Exodus 9:25—And the hail … brake every tree in the field.

Papyrus 9:11—The land is not light.
Exodus 10:22—And Moses stretched forth his hand … and there was a thick darkness.

Papyrus 2:13—He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.
Exodus 12:30—For there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Even if Mr. Malamat does not consider this independent proof of the plagues leading up to the Exodus, surely it must be considered very strong indirect proof.

Biblical Archaeology Museum

Better than a Biblical Archaeology Museum

In light of BAR’s recent call for a national museum of Biblical archaeology, your readers may want to know that the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology will be opening a new permanent gallery, Canaan and Ancient Israel, on October 17, 1998. Of course, this is not a museum of Biblical archaeology as described in your editorial, as it is built around the collections and field projects of the university museum and, as it happens, we have not excavated Solomon’s Temple. However, our gallery will contain much of interest to BAR readers, such as our very exciting collection of Bronze Age and Iron Age material from excavations in Israel (Beth Shean, Beth Shemesh), the West Bank (Gibeon), Jordan (Tell es-Sa‘idiyeh, Baq‘ah Valley) and Lebanon (Sarepta). Furthermore, the location of the gallery—close to the museum’s Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Mediterranean galleries—and our focus on exploring cultural identity in the Biblical world will give your readers a chance to understand ancient Israel in a context, and from a perspective, that could not be achieved in a museum solely dedicated to Biblical archaeology.

014

Take the Show on the Road

Your editorial on a museum of Biblical archaeology (First Person, BAR 23:06) was interesting. I don’t have the kind of money that it would take to finance such a project, but I have an idea: a contained traveling exhibit. Two trucks back to back with aisles and displays along both sides and the center, with a large case at the end of one or both trucks. Since most items are small, two aisles might be feasible. Slide-out cases might be an answer to exhibiting some larger items. Photos of sites might also be included.

I’m sure many churches and synagogues would provide space in their parking lots for such a marvelous exhibit as BAR’s mobile Biblical archaeology exhibit.

A Temple Model Grows in North Carolina

Your recent interest in a Biblical archaeology museum came at a major juncture in my life. I am finishing construction of a model of the Herodian Temple Mount, built with specifications, elevations, ground plans and numerous photos from Alec Garrard of Suffolk, England. His model was the subject of a BAR article by Kathleen Ritmeyer (“Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05). I purchased the copyright to build one model from him, and we have become personal friends and collaborators.

Many other BAR articles have contributed also, starting with Benjamin Mazar’s great one in July/August 1980. Dr. Leen Ritmeyer and Dr. Dan Bahat graciously examined my photos of the model and gave me invaluable directions for changes and future efforts. I have finally also finished a 34-page paper full of background and teaching materials.

My expense (carefully recorded for the IRS) in building the model is now around $51,000, not including 2,600 man-hours of work.

When I have placed the model in its permanent location, I will build a wood rack in three sections for Mt. Moriah, place the sections on it and attach them neatly to each other and to the several heights of the rack, showing much rock formation on the outside edges. The model now contains around 100 human figures, and I have completed nearly 300 more that cannot be placed until the floors are fastened down.

Marie Antoinette Syndrome

I found the rather belaboring tenor of the letter from Bruce J. Terris of Jerusalem (Queries & Comments, BAR 24:01) an obvious exercise in national self-service. His opposition to the construction in the United States of replicas of such ancient buildings as the Jewish Temple seems elitist, as he did not take into consideration the thousands, even millions, of American Jews and Christians, as well as others with an interest in history, who will never be able to afford the journey to Israel to visit ancient and historical buildings and sites.

I am grateful that I have been able to visit Israel and the Near East not once, but twice. Although I have visited the Parthenon in Athens, I have also watched with delight the wonder in the faces of visitors to the replica in Nashville.

I, for one, refuse to say to my deserving neighbors, friends and family who cannot afford to visit Asia and Europe, “Let them eat cake!”

Mr. Terris’s motive seems rooted in inspiring tourism to Israel rather than meeting cultural needs in the best way.

Terris, Get Real

Bruce J. Terris writes of Hershel Shanks’s proposal for a Biblical archaeology museum, “the right name for this proposal is ‘cultural imperialism,’ the appropriation of the culture of another country.” Get real! If 064such a museum is objectionable, then it would seem that the inclusion in any museum of artifacts or replicas that are not native to that area would be problematic. Does Mr. Terris propose that we remove Biblical and Near Eastern displays already in our museums? Or perhaps courses in Biblical or Near Eastern archaeology should be taught only in Israel! Or maybe no one should attempt a replica of Solomon’s Temple because Solomon may have appropriated some Phoenician designs!

Banias

Mistaken Identity?

It was interesting to read the new interpretation of the finds from the dig at Banias by John Wilson and Vassilios Tzaferis (“Banias Dig Reveals King’s Palace,” BAR 24:01). It now seems likely that the excavated building complex marks the location where the Herodian palace once stood. No doubt Agrippa II lived here and renovated this building when he renamed the city Neronias (not mentioned by the authors). But was he the original builder? A coin of Agrippa II “found lying on the floor in one of the vaulted rooms,” proves an occupation date, not the foundation date. I cannot see why the construction of this palace is not attributed to Philip the Tetrarch. Philip was the great builder in this area, as his coins stress (KTISTHS), and he was the one who named the city Caesarea in honor of Augustus (the city came to be known as Caesarea Philippi, after him).

Some of the dates of the rulers of Banias, as given by Wilson and Tzaferis, are inaccurate. Philip died in September 33 C.E. (not in 40 or 41 C.E.), and his tetrarchy was temporarily put under the control of the Roman governor of Syria. It was claimed by Antipas, brother of Philip, in the troubled period 34–37 C.E., after which Philip’s tetrarchy was given to Agrippa I by Caligula. However, Agrippa I lived at Banias only between 38 and 39 C.E. During his full reign of 41–44 C.E. Jerusalem was his base (with stays at Tiberias and Caesarea Maritima (on the coast). Agrippas II’s reign at Banias began in 53 C.E. (although he is attested in Syria only from the end of 54 C.E.), but he, too, was based primarily in Jerusalem until the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt. He died at Banias in 100 C.E., not 93 C.E.

Also, the two coins illustrating the article are not the most appropriate. Both belong to the time of Agrippa I, and only one (with a young man riding a horse) seems to have been minted at Banias. Although both coins are identified as depicting Agrippa II, the rider may actually be ill-fated Drusus, brother of Agrippa II.

For all relevant evidence, readers interested in the history of the Herods should consult my Oxford thesis: The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse, now available as a book by Sheffield Academic Press.

John Wilson responds:

Nikos Kokkinos’s suggestion that the palace at Banias was built by Philip the Tetrarch is theoretically possible. However, unless or until an inscription is found specifically mentioning the builder of the complex, scholars will have to depend on the cumulative plausibility of circumstantial evidence. On this basis, attribution to Agrippa II seems more likely.

Dr. Kokkinos’s reference to Philip as a “great builder” lacks archaeological or literary evidence. Most scholars think of his reign as a rather modest one in comparison to his fellow Herodians’. Though he “founded” two cities (Caesarea Philippi and Bethsaida-Julius, on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee), there is no indication that he built particularly impressive structures at either of them (see Rami Arav, “Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987–1993,” in Arav and Richard A. Freund, Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee [Thomas Jefferson Univ. Press, 1995]). Ancient rulers often “founded” (usually refounded) cities, but this could mean little more than that they gave an existing settlement a new name. Recent 066numismatic scholarship shows that the word ktisis (founder) on a coin of Philip dated 30 C.E. most likely refers to his founding of Bethsaida-Julius, not Caesarea Philippi, and so is irrelevant in attributing the palace (see Fred Strickert, “Coins of Philip,” in the work cited above, pp. 182–183). Furthermore, Josephus specifically notes that Philip had a kind of mobile administration that held court at various places in his kingdom rather than exclusively in the capital. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that the palace was “renovated” during the time of Nero, as Dr. Kokkinos speculates. Indeed, one of its most striking characteristics is the integrity of its plan. Changes can be observed only when the building was converted from a palace to a bathhouse after the death of Agrippa II.

True, a coin lying on top of a floor does not date the floor, but our dating of the palace is based on other considerations. For example, Josephus specifically refers to major building projects by Agrippa II at Banias (Josephus, The Jewish War 3.514). The fortresslike style of the complex suggests a builder who had a stormy relationship with his subjects. Philip, from all indications, was well liked, while a significant portion of Agrippa’s subjects “hated him” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.211–212). Philip was a ruler of rather modest means, while Agrippa II enjoyed close friendship with the Flavian emperors and presumably was the recipient of their support and largess.

Dr. Kokkinos must be given credit for an eagle eye in catching our inadvertent error in oversimplifying the chronology and thereby listing Philip’s death as 40/41 C.E. instead of 33 C.E. But he apparently failed to notice our footnote on p. 58, which acknowledges that many scholars believe the date of the death of Agrippa II to be 100 C.E. (This is a complicated issue; for an extensive discussion, see Daniel R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity [Mohr, 1991], pp. 243ff. He concludes that Phoius’s date [3rd year of Trajan=100 A.D.] is probably correct.) We weren’t claiming that the Herodians necessarily lived in Banias during their reigns, only that they controlled it, so some of Dr. Kokkinos’s comments on chronology are not relevant.

Whether the coins illustrating the article are “appropriate” is a matter of taste, we suppose. They were selected because most numismatic experts think they “may” (our word; see p. 56 of the article) depict Agrippa II. We appreciate Dr. Kokkinos’s careful and critical reading on the article and look forward to further discussion of the issues he raises. But, until better evidence to the contrary emerges, we’ll stick with our thesis!

Potpourri

Anath May Indeed Have Been a Cannibal

BAR provides a valuable service in publicizing scholarly findings. But it is vulnerable to the journalistic tendency to turn the gray complexities of a scholar’s presentation into the black and white that makes for easier reading. An example is your report in Strata, BAR 23:06, “Goddess Cleared of Cannibalism.” Professor Lewis, who is quoted by you secondhand from a newsbite, rather than from his article in Biblical Archaeologist 59 (1996), does indeed point out that in the recent high-tech photographs of the West Semitic Research Project, the first word of the famous Ugaritic text in which the Canaanite goddess crudely eats her brother’s flesh without a knife and drinks his blood without a cup does not read ‘nt, “Anath,” but rather ‘nn, which does not correspond to any word we know. Some have proposed that it refers to “the Eye,” a female demon, although no such one is elsewhere evidenced in ancient Northwest Semitic.

Lewis has shown that the first word of the text does not read “Anath,” but, as he is careful to indicate in his article, he has by no means eliminated the possibility that the scribe had meant to write “Anath.” Many Ugaritologists will agree with the alternative view that the scribe did intend to write “Anath,” but instead of writing nt, he committed a very common type of error and wrote n twice. The passage in question is merely the torso of a text, devoid of context, and is probably nothing more than a scribal exercise, perhaps nothing more than a scribe’s kidding around. On the reverse of the tablet is, not another mythological text in the alphabetic cuneiform used to write Ugaritic, but the most routine type of scribal drill in syllabic cuneiform (used generally to write Akkadian): tu ta ti, nu na ni, bu ba bi, etc.

Some scholars have suggested that Anath eating her brother may be nothing more than a figurative expression of love. It may also be nothing more than a musing.

BAR in the Bedroom

Hey guys, love your publication, but you’ve got to lighten up on the heavy-paper tab ad inserts; they are making it 067impossible to read. The ad inserts in the January/February 1998 issue have reached the offensive point of a medical/science journal, but because of the way they are stuffed, you can’t even tear them out easily without pulling the publication apart. Last night, as I settled into bed to read, I pulled out so many tabs (a dozen by my count) my wife got upset because of all the ripping noise. I love the controversies in your publication, but I don’t want to create any—especially in the bedroom—just to read it.

Let the Artifacts Be Appreciated

The photo above shows the artifact archives at the ancient site of Pompeii. Note the huge amphorae stacked up like so many spent fuel bottles, the smaller pieces in plastic trays piled up like shoe boxes in a discount sneaker store—and this is only one of many rows of archive shelving!

This visit to Pompeii put me in mind of Hershel Shanks’s editorial “Sell the Dump,” BAR 22:06, and the related conflict over the sale of antiquities. Take the amphorae pictured here, for example. Many lovers of classical antiquity would gladly pay several thousand dollars to have one of these vessels in their possession. Instead, they sit here in large numbers, catalogued and archived, commonplace articles from first-century Roman sites. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to settle for cheap souvenir reproductions, and archaeologists have to leave projects incomplete, excavated sites poorly protected against damage, and reports unwritten, all for want of funding.

Now let’s assume that after documentation of amphora #212 and determination that it is scientifically unremarkable, this vessel is sold. The archaeological institution makes some money, the black market crowd is out of business, a buyer is ecstatic and, best of all, the artifact is appreciated and held in awe by all those who admire it in someone’s living room. A single 2,000-year-old amphora can have a much greater impact on a person up close in a private setting than many of them lined up behind glass in a public museum.

With the more significant items, a certificate of traceability could be issued, allowing scientists to contact the item’s owner should scientific questions arise in the future. An added benefit to archaeology would be the greater public awareness of its value through the more diversified physical presence of artifacts.

Where Credit Is Due

Please allow me to add an acknowledgment to our article “Earthquake! Inspiration for Armageddon,” (with co-author Hagai Ron; BAR 23:04) to credit the work of University of California at Berkeley classics professor Andrew Stewart, which apparently was not clear inmy paper.

Professor Stewart was the first to recognize not only the local but the regional archaeological evidence for an earthquake in c. 1000 B.C. In his article “A Death at Dor,” BAR 19:02, he describes the evidence for an earthquake at Dor, where he excavated for several seasons. There he discovered the skeleton of a woman crushed by earthquake collapse. He pointed out that similar evidence of destruction at about the same time has been found at other sites, such as Beth-Shean and Megiddo. Says Stewart, “Most important for our purposes … was the discovery [by Yigael Yadin at Megiddo] of numerous bodies that had been crushed under the collapsed mudbrick walls. Earthquake was not considered as a factor; perhaps it should be.”

This was one of the events we referred to in our article, in which we showed that the geological fault system that created the topographical uniqueness of Megiddo is seismically active, as is the nearby Dead Sea fault system. This activity must have led to repeated destruction at Megiddo. Stewart’s elaboration on the c. 1000 B.C. earthquake in northern Israel is one beautiful example of such events.

068

He Wouldn’t Want His Son to Marry One

So you made me a professor of archaeology (Queries & Comments, BAR 24:01)! My archaeological colleagues will not be happy! Actually, I am a professor of ancient Near Eastern cultures and Semitic linguistics. I consider myself an experienced excavator (25 or so seasons in the field), having probably done more excavating (hands on) than most of my contemporaries in the United States (who had Jericho technical men to do the actual digging, finding walls and floors, etc.), and I’ve almost certainly drawn more balks (sections) than the Kenyonist balk-fetish worshipers of the 1960s and 70s, but I do not, repeat, do not, teach archaeology. In fact, as I’ve said in public, some of my best friends are archaeologists—but I wouldn’t want my son to marry one!

Points Us in the Right Direction

I very much look forward to each issue of your magazine. Excluding the usual, but alas unavoidable, advertising rubbish, the material is well written, excellently illustrated and fun to read.

Occasionally, however, slip-ups appear in your illustrations. In the photo of the 12th-century fortress of Saladin on Jezirat Faroun (“Lawrence of Arabia,” BAR 23:05), the view is from roughly SSE towards NNW, and in the distance we see one of the fault-bound sedimentary grabens that decorate the western, rather than the eastern (as you claim), Red Sea coast. The eastern coast of the Gulf of Aqaba is about 6 miles away and to the right of the viewer.

The Pitfalls of Computer Technology

David Fleming states well the advantages of paper over computers (Queries & Comments, BAR 23:06). With all the hype surrounding computer applications in archaeology and Biblical studies, his points need to be heard.

I can only reinforce what he said by adding a note of serious caution regarding the headlong rush to archive data on computer. This caution must be taken especially seriously given the marketing hype and monopolistic control surrounding computers, and given the way that most computer marketing takes advantage of the 069ignorance and fear of the average user.

I am making these comments not as some kind of computer-phobic Luddite, but as the developer of what many users and reviewers consider to be the most advanced software available for Biblical studies. We must always keep in mind computers’ limitations, especially with respect to archival issues.

After all, printed material is much easier to learn to use and much more comfortable to read. It is not subject to the problems of incompatibility that plague electronic media. There is no fear that printed material will unexpectedly crash, as occurs far too often with electronic media. And perhaps most importantly, printed material does not trap one into a critical dependency on the fortunes of any single software or hardware company.

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.

Agreeing to Disagree

Thank you for this wonderful magazine.

I don’t always agree with some of your writers, but I love to disagree.