Queries & Comments

008

The Scrolls Belong to Us

I wish to express my respectful disappointment and disagreement with the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court (“Qimron Owns Dead Sea Scroll Copyright, Israeli Court Holds,” Strata, BAR 26:06).

The scrolls belong to humankind and not to a single scholar. We ordinary people who are not scholars but who have the right to be informed should all be grateful to Hershel Shanks, John Marco Allegro and the others who have dedicated their time and efforts (frequently unrewarded) to fighting the ignorance of a few fellows who selfishly want to keep secret what is a common interest.

Scrolls are not Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, they are simply history, our history.

Give Us the Dirt

I have been much blessed to receive a complimentary subscription to your magazine. I look forward to each issue. Many times I share things I have picked up in BAR in my own teachings. I’ve made it through the storms of controversy—attacks back and forth concerning the Bible and questions about its inspiration and accuracy—that have played out in the pages of the magazine. I am one of those far-out individuals who hold the Bible to be divinely inspired and verbally inerrant, but I find it instructive to see the reasoning of those who view it differently. But the one thing I fervently wish for is that somehow, someday, BAR could rise above the controversies and just fill its pages with accounts and beautiful pictures of … (are you ready?) … digs! There is always at least one article about a dig, but I dream of a BAR with three or four articles on digs: articles that tell us what is being uncovered and where—and if there is a connection with the Bible, so much the better. I can make up my own mind (or, in any case, I will!) about the meaning, so the debates and controversies do not bother me. It’s just that what I am most interested in is the archaeology. I can read a newspaper to find out about the desecration of a religious site (whether its authenticity can be verified or not, it seems to matter little). But only in BAR do I find one or two articles (and wish for more) on what is being unearthed at archaeological sites.

Doesn’t Mind a Little Outrage

I enjoy all three of your magazines (Biblical Archaeology Review, Bible Review and Archaeology Odyssey) and the sometimes spirited, if outraged, discussions in the letters to the editor. Just so long as we keep asking questions and trying out new theories, we will be learning. Keep up the good work.

Shroud Pollen

Face on Shroud Should Be Distorted

Another Shroud of Turin article (“Does Pollen Prove the Shroud Authentic?” 010BAR 26:02)! For those still not convinced by Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr.’s well-reasoned article, I would like to add my two cents: The image of “Jesus” on the Shroud of Turin is an obvious fabrication because it is a full frontal portrait view. If the shroud had been draped over the body or wrapped around the body, the image would appear distorted—the face, for example, would appear to be spread out, and the sides of the face would appear to be in the same plane with the front of the face. Where are the sides of the arms and the body? Where is the top of the head? Of course, if the shroud was real and was distorted this way, Jesus would look like a bearded Alfred E. Newman. This would not inspire solemn awe and would never have made it as a holy relic.

Shroud Has Few Pollen

Again, I have to butt in on the shroud problem. Remember that I examined the 65 sticky tapes taken by Max Frei as well as 32 other tapes taken for me by Ray Rogers of Los Alamos, New Mexico. There were very few pollen on these tapes (about 1/cm2, as admitted by Max and as observed by me). This would indicate a total of about 200 pollen on Max’s 65 tapes and about 80 more on Ray’s 32 tapes.

Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr., quotes Uri Baruch to the effect that 37 pollen on the Frei tapes came from Israel or Turkey. I have reason to doubt this conclusion because I doubt the shroud was ever in Israel or Turkey. At the microscopic level, the shroud image is observed to be entirely paint (red ochre and vermilion in a gelatin binder). I believe the bishop in Lirey, France, who was quoted in about 1355 as saying that he knew the artist who painted it. The carbon date for the linen canvas was reported in 1988 to be 1325, in good agreement with the bishop’s date of 1355.

For more on McCrone’s views, see his article “The Shroud Painting Explained” (BAR 24:06).

Prejudiced Against the Shroud

Vaughn Bryant’s article seems fraught with bias. He states, “These [medieval] dates were immediately challenged by the faithful … ” This suggests that in Bryant’s opinion any scientist who offers evidence to support the authenticity of the shroud does so on the basis of faith, while those who offer contrary evidence are the only real scientists, thus belittling one set of scientists.

Bryant also writes, “I do not have access to all of the original German and Italian notes, manuscripts and obscure publications.” How can he be sure of his point of view when he isn’t the one who did the research?

One statement is telling: “And rarely have I seen so many try to cast so much doubt on the character and professional integrity of others working on a project.” I wonder if he includes himself among those who do so.

It appears to me that BAR is presenting a view weighted to one side of this scientific debate. If you want to present both sides of the evidence, why not ask the scientists who did the research to provide you with an article about their findings? If the editors intend to take sides, why hide behind subtle propaganda?

011

Gordon Interview

No Consensus on Bat Creek Stone

Thanks for your most interesting interview with Cyrus Gordon (“Against the Tide: An Interview with Maverick Scholar Cyrus Gordon,” BAR 26:06). I have just two small quibbles with it: First, in your introduction, you refer to Gordon’s “continued belief in the authenticity of North American inscriptions (such as the Bat Creek inscription from Tennessee) that would place Semites in the western Hemisphere in about 800 B.C.” You repeat the 800 B.C. date twice in the article. However, Gordon has never placed so early a date on any of the three objects mentioned in the interview that he still stands by—the Bat Creek 012stone, the Los Lunas Decalogue inscription from near Albuquerque, New Mexico, or the Newark, Ohio, Decalogue stone. As your photo caption points out, Gordon dates the Bat Creek letters to the first or second century A.D., and a C-14 date rules out any earlier century. In an article in the journal Orient ([1995], p. 72), Gordon gives the Byzantine period as the most likely age of both the Newark and Los Lunas inscriptions. My own view is that the modified “square Hebrew” letters in the former, and the use of a few classical Greek letters (tau, delta, omicron and zeta) in place of their Hebrew counterparts in the latter, despite its generally “Old Hebrew” script, would rule out a First Temple date for either.

Second, in the interview you state that “The scholarly consensus today is that it [the Bat Creek stone] is not authentic.” While it is true that Prof. P. Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins (“Let’s Be Serious About the Bat Creek Stone,” BAR 19:04) and Prof. Frank M. Cross of Harvard (as quoted in my article, “The Bat Creek Inscription: Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?” BAR 19:04) are on record against it, neither Prof. Gordon nor Prof. Robert Stieglitz of Rutgers (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06) has a problem with the possibility that it might be authentic. I am not aware of any other Hebrew scholars who have spoken out about it, either pro or con. Two out of four can hardly be said to constitute a “consensus.”

Let’s hear from other Semitic scholars about all three of these intriguing artifacts! Photos may be viewed on my Web site at www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html.

Gordon Was Right

Congratulations on the fascinating interview with Cyrus Gordon (“Against the Tide: An Interview with Maverick Scholar Cyrus Gordon,” BAR 26:06).

Thirty years ago, Gordon, in Before Columbus: Links Between the Old World and Ancient America (New York: Crown, 1971), wrote about Roman contacts with America in about 200 C.E., and described a Roman pottery head found by Mexican archaeologists at the pyramid site of Calixtlahuaca. Recent thermoluminescense testing has confirmed Gordon’s dating of the artifact.¹ The authors state that “these findings permit the acceptance of the figurine as the first hard evidence 013of transoceanic contacts between the ancient Mediterranean and Mesoamerica.”

Follow the Road Where It Leads

I equate BAR with letters from my grandchildren and apply the Hebrew maxim akharon khaviv—“saving the best for last.”

I was overjoyed with your article on Cyrus Gordon (“Against the Tide: An Interview with Maverick Scholar Cyrus Gordon,” BAR 26:06). I have been a follower and disciple of his, but unfortunately never his student. I have always applied his idea of following the material in the direction it takes you, even if you make trips down side roads you never expect and never come back to where you started. That is the honest historian’s way and, for me, the only route to go.

On the Level

The photograph with the caption “Surveying at Tell Beit Mirsim” in the article “Against the Tide: An Interview with Maverick Scholar Cyrus Gordon,” BAR 26:06, is in error. The instrument shown is an engineer’s level, not a theodolite. Cyrus Gordon is taking a level rod reading, not steadying the instrument, as indicated. The tripod does that.

Why Gordon Is Wrong

Though I have great respect for Professor Gordon’s many achievements, I feel it necessary to correct his misreading of Minoan Linear A (see sidebar, “Is Linear A Semitic?” BAR 26:06).

Gordon’s interpretation of the wine pithos inscription from Knossos is a misreading. The second symbol, based on the accepted values of Mycenaean Linear B, is not “ne” but “si.” The likelihood is that “ya-si” is a designation for a variety of wine. This sign group appears twice in the Linear A index; “ya-ne” does not occur at all.

The reason that most scholars do not agree with Gordon’s theory that the Minoans are a Semitic people is that there is no archaeological evidence to support his thesis. Linguistic borrowings are a natural outgrowth of trade over a long period of time. It is uncertain from which language many of these terms originated. Was “ku-ro” borrowed from the Semites by the Minoans, or was it the other way around?

Holy Sepulchre

A Holy Sepulchre in Portugal?

The Castle of the Knights of Christ, in Tomar, Portugal—also called the “Convento do Christo”—contains a central-plan sanctuary built in 1160 by the Order of the Templars. The central altar is contained in an octagonal prism surrounded by a 16-sided ambulatory. The design is said to be based on the Church 014of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. I was surprised that Robert Ousterhout did not mention it (“The Church of the Holy Sepulchre [in Bologna, Italy],” BAR 26:06). I am familiar with the one at Bologna—which is wonderful—but the Portuguese example is, in my opinion, far more majestic.

Robert Ousterhout responds:

The Convento do Christo is indeed a majestic building, the design of which certainly reflects a knowledge of the monuments of Jerusalem. However, the central features of the Portuguese building—the raised octagonal sanctuary surrounded by a continuous ambulatory—might recommend the Dome of the Rock as the more pertinent prototype. The Dome of the Rock, which was transformed into a Christian church during the Crusades, was of great interest to the Templars, as they believed it marked the site of the Jewish Temple, after which their order was named (see Warren Woodfin, “The Holiest Ground in the World: How the Crusaders Transformed Jerusalem’s Temple Mount,” Archaeology Odyssey, September/October 2000, p. 26). In the imaginations of the faithful, the general form of the Convento do Christo would have recalled both the Temple and the Sepulchre, and in more general terms, the city of Jerusalem. There is a small pilgrimage church in Eunate, Spain, which may also be a copy of the Dome of the Rock.

For years, I have been collecting “Jerusalems”—architectural reflections of the city and its monuments—and I continue to find new ones. It was common in the Middle Ages for pilgrims and Crusaders to build a church or chapel dedicated to Jerusalem or to the Holy Sepulchre upon their return to Europe. Often these contained relics brought from Jerusalem, and often they became pilgrimage destinations in their own right. I mentioned only a few of these in my article, but there are dozens of other examples, including some rather unusual ones in Ethiopia, Armenia, Russia and Mexico. For those readers who cannot travel to Europe, there is even a copy of the Holy Sepulchre, replete with relics, in Washington, D.C., at the Franciscan Monastery, constructed in 1899.

That’s No Lady

There is a misidentification in the November/December 2000 issue (The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (in Bologna, Italy) BAR 26:06). On page 32, the enlarged tin-lead flask is reported to show “three women at the Tomb.” The figure on the right is not a third woman, but an angel. Note the lack of a head covering, the clearly visible wing—the real giveaway!—and the staff in his hand, each feature comparable to those of the unmistakably angelic figure shown in the cover photo of the same issue, middle panel.

Thank you for the correction.—Ed.

Egyptian Temple?

Ghost of a Temple

The Dominican Monastery of St. Étienne in Jerusalem seems to possess what is 015more commonly associated with castles in Scotland: something like a ghost. At least, if we believe the repeated assertions by Gabriel Barkay, who tells us again and again that he’s seen it (“What’s an Egyptian Temple Doing in Jerusalem?” BAR 26:03).² It appears to him in the shape of a Late Bronze Age Egyptian temple that he wants us to believe was, or at least could have been, located on the site of the Byzantine and Crusader churches just north of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Others have been fiercely rejecting his suggestions,³ and I have myself tried to prove that there is no ghost.⁴ The evidence presented by Barkay as Egyptian, including architectural fragments, is in part Byzantine or later, and what remains as genuine Egyptian makes as much a temple as the nightly noise of an old castle’s door makes a ghost. To put it in very simple words: The slab of stone simply bears no resemblance to Egyptian offering tables (ask any Egyptologist!). I must confess that the comparison with a “similar installation” from Late Bronze Age Hazor leaves me just helpless: Even when I turn the photos upside down, I can only see utterly different objects from two very distant epochs. Having examined the slab from the Byzantine church myself, I know what can also be distinguished from your photo: It is made of grayish structured marble, which was unknown in pre-classical Egypt or Palestine. It is the very same marble as countless other fragments from the same Byzantine church, which are stored in the magazines of the École Biblique. The second piece of so-called architectural evidence, the “lotus-shaped capital,” is essentially different from any known Egyptian column type (again, ask any Egyptologist!). It does have close parallels, however, among the wide spectrum of Byzantine as well as Crusader capitals that can be found in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the Levant.

On the other hand, the alabaster vessels may be classified as Egyptian or egyptianizing. They do, of course, predate classical periods, though I would be careful about being more specific. Barkay himself has studied the Iron Age necropolis on the very same site, which can provide a perfectly fitting context for the two vessels. He states that similar vessels have been found in other tombs in Jerusalem and elsewhere. The same may be true for the Egyptian-style statuette. While I cannot see how it could represent either Amun or Ptah, nor how it can be confidently dated to the New Kingdom, I would have less of a problem locating it in secondary use among the funerary equipment of the same necropolis.

The “What’s It Say?” stone, presented as “unusual” and puzzling, is yet another fine, if not embarrassing, example of the forced accumulation of not really existing evidence. The stone, very probably also from the same excavation of the Byzantine (or Crusader) church, obviously shows a cross. The rays and circles between its lines are well attested for many periods. How far can wishful distortion go when someone takes a Byzantine stone with a depiction of a cross to an Egyptologist, a Northwest Semitic epigraphist and a cuneiformist, who remain, of course, “stymied”?

We are left with three more-or-less Egyptian objects without any meaningful archaeological context. The “architectural fragments” are of Byzantine or later date. The site does have Iron Age tombs, and 067a Byzantine and a Crusader church, which provide safe background for all its objects. There is no need to construct an Egyptian temple there.

Gabriel Barkay is a renowned Israeli archaeologist with uncontested achievements. When I discussed this “phantom temple” with him years ago, at his home in Jerusalem, he defended his position, insisting that it was his duty as an archaeologist to interpret finds and provide solutions for open questions. While archaeology is full of open questions, here an issue has been raised where there was no question, and it has been pushed far beyond what the evidence can support. Making up ghost stories is not an archaeologist’s duty. While a ghost story can be good entertainment, it may also lead to serious consequences: If you tell it over and over again, there will always be some people who will start to believe it. Thus the “phantom temple” has, alarmingly enough, materialized in several publications on the history of Jerusalem (for example, in Dan Bahat’s Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem), and it is to be feared that the Monastery of St. Étienne might never get rid of its ghost.

Minimalist Egyptology

I would like to comment on some of the photos in “What’s an Egyptian Temple Doing in Jerusalem?” BAR 26:03. You are certainly correct in pointing out that the slab of stone is Canaanite in nature and not Egyptian, where there is no parallel. (It is probably a device to gather spills and return them to the well.) The same applies to the slab from Hazor, which is also not Egyptian.

The capital can be considered egyptianizing, but it is not Egyptian. As for a date, I would assume that it is considerably later than the Egyptian 19th Dynasty. The statuette cannot depict Ptah or Amun. Ptah has a mummiform body, which necessitates his standing, as there are no sitting mummies, and there is no representation of Amun in an ankle-length dress. Nothing else can be said on the basis of the photograph.

Alabaster vessels have been found at various places and of different dates. They prove nothing without archaeological context.

As for the fragmentary stela, it is obviously a reuse. The reverse has a partially preserved group of signs that commonly close divine statements and mean “[living] like Re’ [eternally].” It very likely is part of a religious statement, most likely from a larger stela or a temple. The fragmentary condition makes it difficult to read the hieroglyphs, especially from a photograph.

There is nothing in the offered material that points to an Egyptian temple in Jerusalem. The stela fragment is small and could have been moved. Nothing is known about the archaeological context in which it was found. In short, the article is minimalist Egyptology and maximalist speculation.

Potpourri

The Shrine of the Book—The Curator Responds

In his November/December 2000 First Person column (“First Person: Ushering in the Future at the Shrine of the Book,” BAR 26:06), BAR editor Hershel Shanks wrote of the positive changes initiated at the shrine, home of the intact Dead Sea Scrolls, by curator Adolfo Roitman. Shanks wrote that Roitman was prevented from making even more changes by a lack of 068money. Shanks noted that the Gottesman Foundation, which funded the construction of the shrine, had not come forward to support a major overhaul of the building. Roitman responds below with some clarifications.—Ed.

According to an agreement signed in May 1960, the Gottesman Foundation took upon itself the financing of the construction of the Shrine of the Book (which was completed in the spring of 1965). The Israel National Museum Foundation, one of the other two partners in the agreement (the third being the Shrine of the Book Trust) obligated itself not only to furnish and equip the building, but also to “permanently maintain it.” The agreement also stated that the Shrine Trust and the Museum Foundation “will, at their own cost and expense, perpetually maintain the Shrine of the Book and its contents in good condition and repair, providing at all times suitable and adequate protection and safeguards for the safety of the Gottesman Scrolls.” The administration of the shrine was entrusted to the National Museum, within which the shrine was to function, as it does to this day.

The Gottesman Foundation has no formal responsibility or legal obligation to maintain the shrine. Despite this, the foundation has willingly and generously taken it upon itself to support the upkeep of the building, contributing—together with small funds from associates—more than $3,900,000 from 1986 to 1990.

In this context it is only fitting that we mention another Gottesman family-affiliated foundation and major supporter of the Shrine of the Book (and of other projects in Israel)—the Dorot Foundation. It was the Dorot Foundation that provided the main sponsorship for the largest international Dead Sea Scrolls conference ever, held in 1997 at the Israel Museum, and helped us here at the shrine launch our first full-scale educational project: a state-of-the-art study program for high school students and adults about the historical, archaeological and religious-cultural aspects of the scrolls and the Qumran community. Again, it must be emphasized that the Dorot Foundation has never had responsibility for the physical maintenance of the shrine; it has chosen to support the shrine’s educational projects.

On another matter, it is true, as you wrote, that the entire Isaiah Scroll has—for preservation reasons—been taken down from the shrine’s central display and replaced by a replica. We at the shrine are aware that this creates the impression that only copies are on view, and are already working on a solution to this problem. However—and in my opinion it is a big “however”—an impressive section (almost a third) of the original Isaiah Scroll is indeed on exhibit at the shrine, in a specially designed showcase that both protects the scroll and makes it “visitor friendly.”

I invite all BAR readers to visit the Shrine of the Book, and I join BAR in asking for their support to help us realize our dream to make their visit an even more exciting and rewarding cultural and educational experience. The renovation of our building requires a major public effort far beyond the resources of the shrine and the Israel Museum alone. I sincerely believe that the opportunity to assist the shrine—the internationally recognized home of the Dead Sea Scrolls—in a significant way is itself an honor, which would, of course, gratefully receive all due recognition.

Hopping Right Along

As I have had the great privilege of visiting the extraordinary site of ‘Ain Dara on a number of occasions, I read John Monson’s article (“The New ‘Ain Dara Temple,” BAR 26:03) with considerable interest, as I did the subsequent correspondence.

Letter writer Aaron Bodor (Queries & Comments, BAR 26:05) worries about the physical proportions of a deity with a 3-foot shoe size but a 30-foot stride—and comes up with an image a bit like that of Barbie (an icon in her own right), teetering as she does on tiny toes. However, what if the deity whose feet have left their indelible mark was jumping, not walking? Then the proportions would be plausible. I would like to propose that the 30-foot-stride, and the pattern of alternating footprints from a stationary pair, indicate a game of hopscotch!

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.

The Scrolls Belong to Us