Queries & Comments

008

Origins and Changes

The May/June 2001 issue of BAR is the best ever in helping me pursue the origins of and the changes over time in the concepts of both Judaism and Christianity.

Arrogance or Ignorance?

The letter from minister P.W. Sellers, who prefers C.E. to A.D. (Queries & Comments, BAR 27:03), is a prime example of those who rely on their own merit and not on the wisdom of God.

Sellers seems to think that just because he’s “been an ordained minister since 1977 and [has] studied the Bible in depth from … childhood” he has some spiritual insight that those who prefer B.C./A.D. lack. But a quick look at his claims will prove this wrong.

I admit that Jesus was not born in 1 A.D. I’ll give Sellers that. But whether you write C.E. or A.D., however, the fact remains that the years we go by are directly related to Christ and His life. Our “Common Era” didn’t begin with the life of Plato, Socrates or even Julius Caesar, but with Jesus Christ. It’s only arrogance or ignorance that causes people to use B.C.E. and C.E. instead of B.C. and A.D.

For someone with Mr. Sellers’s credentials to state that Jesus was not Christ at his birth is sad. The Bible itself tells us that on the night Jesus was born, the Angel of the Lord came and told the shepherds, “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a savior, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). Either this angel was lying or he just didn’t know what he was talking about, because according to Sellers, what the angel said on that night didn’t actually come true until 30 years later.

While it’s sad that Sellers could miss this with all his experience and study, the really sad part is that people will listen to “ministers” like him instead of letting the Bible teach them the Truth.

Tall as Civilization

Anno Domini (A.D., In the Year of Our Lord) is a term of honor and respect granted to Christ who is the Lord of Time and of the years. Its removal is part of the massive pagan effort across the nation to erase the knowledge of Christianity forever from the earth. We are in the midst of the great anti-Christian movement predicted by the Bible. Anno Domini may seem a small thing fit only to be discarded, but it’s as tall as civilization itself.

Sacred Stones

Why God Condemns Some Masseboth

I thoroughly enjoyed Uzi Avner’s article “Sacred Stones in the Desert,” BAR 27:03. I was particularly intrigued by the underlying question that permeated the article: the question of God’s (Yahweh’s) attitude toward masseboth. To my mind, all the Biblical references he cited point to one conclusion: Masseboth, like other physical 010objects, are inherently neither good nor bad. God’s condemnation of masseboth is always in reference to masseboth being dedicated to other gods. God (Yahweh) honors masseboth that honor Him.

I’m one of your born-again Christian readers who accepts that the ideas expressed in the pages of BAR are those of well-educated men and women, but that those ideas are not gospel! I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. The articles are stimulating, however, and even if I disagree with them, they give me food for thought. They will never change my faith in the Bible, but they often reinforce it.

Modern Jewish Worship Adopts Ancient Triad

I enjoyed Uzi Avner’s “Sacred Stones in the Desert,” BAR 27:03, especially the section on the fertility triads. It occurred to me that there might be a modern version of these triads, like the one on the jar from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the Sinai. That item depicts ibexes on either side of a tree (representing the goddess Asherah). The synagogue I attend (Suburban Orthodox Congregation Toras Chaim) in Baltimore (like many others) has above the Holy Ark the two tablets of the Ten Commandments with a lion on either side. It is my understanding that this symbolizes the Lion of Judah as guardian of the Law.

I wonder if there is some connection to the triads in the article mentioned above. The tablets represent the Torah, which is referred to as an Etz Chaim, a tree of life. The lion has now replaced the ibexes from the fertility triad. As the symbol of the tribe of Judah, the largest of the tribes to survive the Exile, the lion now represents the Jewish people.

It may be that the symbols of an earlier pagan culture have been transformed into an acceptable decoration that is a focal point of modern Jewish worship.

Pagan Yahwism

Stern Confirms the Bible

Ephraim Stern (“Pagan Yahwism,” BAR 27:03) certainly got his point across: Israelites intermingled worship of the one True God with paganism. But any child who reads the Bible knows that this was so—from Rachel with her stolen teraphim (Genesis 31:19) to the Levite “priest” with his ephod and images (Judges 17:4–5) and so on down to the Exile. If not, what were the prophets so fervently denouncing? Elijah once thought he was the only loyalist left (1 Kings 19:14)! Rather than presenting a view of history differing from the Bible’s, Stern’s artifacts confirm its accuracy and illustrate what a marvelous work God accomplished in finally creating a monotheistic, messianic nation.

012

Asherah and Ashtoreth Are Different Names

Ephraim Stern’s very helpful article is marred by an all-too-frequent error that should be corrected in your various magazines once and for all. In the article we read: “Interestingly, while each nation’s chief god had a distinctive name, his consort, the chief female deity, had the same name in all these cultures: Asherah or its variants Ashtoreth or Astarte.”

While it is true that sometimes the roles or functions of these goddesses may have been confused, the names Asherah and Ashtoreth/Astarte are quite different from each other. In the original texts Asherah begins with the letter ’aleph, Ashtoreth with an ‘ayin; Ashtoreth has an infixed t, Asherah does not. In summary, John Day puts it this way in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 483: “Prior to the discovery of the Ugaritic texts some scholars denied that Asherah was the name of a goddess while others wrongly equated her with Astarte (Ashtoreth).” It is high time that mistakes of this magnitude ceased to be made in BAS publications.

When Palestine Meant Israel

What Israel Means

In David Jacobson’s “When Palestine Meant Israel,” BAR 27:03, he defined the name Israel as “wrestled with the Lord.” I am aware of several different meanings of the name Israel, but “wrestled with the Lord” is not one of them. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Holy Scriptures (Menorah Press, 1955) defines Israel as “Warrior of God.” Joan Comay defines Israel as “Prince of God” (Israel, an Uncommon Guide, Random House, 1969). The Hebrew root of the word Israel, yashar (yud-shin-resh), means straight, honest, upright, which I suggest is more closely aligned to nobility (a prince) than to wrestling.

David Jacobson responds:

Mr. Fusco seems not to be aware of the Biblical explanation of the name Israel given in Genesis 32:25–28, which I restated in my article. There we are told that Jacob received the name Israel (Yisra’el, in Hebrew) because he “wrestled (sarita’, in Hebrew) with the Lord (El, in Hebrew).”

Names Change

David Jacobson did not mention an important primary source naming ancient countries. In his Tetrabiblos (2.3), Claudius Ptolemy (150 C.E.) gives a list of countries assigned to the zodiacal signs. For the region that we call Israel, he states that Coêle Syria, Palestine, Idumea, Judea, Phoenicia and Arabia Felix were assigned to Aries the Ram. This list is generally accepted as a first-century B.C.E. source that is earlier 016than the list in Ptolemy’s Geography. The point is that “Palestine” was once considered to be a distinct country—separate from Judea and Idumea. And if we take Josephus’s remarks cited by Jacobson and add this information from Ptolemy, Palestine may have been the coastal region of “Israel.” But as Jacobson points out, geographical locations and names did change over time. Even among ancient sources there seems to be little agreement over what was Palestine.

Books

Shanks Too Flip

Hershel Shanks’s comments on James VanderKam and Lawrence Schiffman’s Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (EDSS) and their response to him (ReViews, BAR 27:01; Queries & Comments, BAR 27:03) are typical of the traditional verbal etiquette among Dead Sea Scroll scholars. I doubt that their disagreement will destroy any friendships.

Shanks dubs himself a nonexpert. But, as editor of a successful magazine that has often published articles about the Dead Sea Scrolls, he, too, has acquired a broad and deep education in Biblical studies, archaeology and related topics. He is certainly qualified to comment on a new book about the scrolls. If one overlooks his concern with the spelling of his name in EDSS, what does he actually say? He points out that the two volumes of EDSS would have been more attractive and useful if the editors had included pictures, illustrations, plans and paleographical charts. He’s right about that.

Shanks is perplexed that early Christianity may be underrepresented. But that is not the case. I was astonished that EDSS includes so much about early Christianity, Jesus, New Testament writing, apostolic constitutions and church fathers.

He says some of the articles are “banal and shallow.” I think he really means that EDSS is not very exciting; it’s an encyclopedia. He characterizes EDSS as a summary of past scholarship that fails to break new ground. At the end of his review, Shanks finally applies the balm the editors had looked for from the start: “Nevertheless, if you are doing basic Dead Sea Scroll research, you would be foolish not to check it out.” Those words 017would fit perfectly in an ad for EDSS or on its dust cover!

VanderKam and Schiffman respond that Shanks was not the right man to review their project. Perhaps!? Look just below VanderKam and Schiffman’s initial comments (Queries & Comments, BAR 27:03) and you will see an ad for VanderKam’s latest book on Judaism (An Introduction to Early Judaism). Look at who praises this work. Three well-known scholars. What is their relationship to the author? We don’t know. Who should be allowed to review any scholarly project? Who can we find who is unbiased, fair, and above all, unattached in any way to the authors? Who’s not in the sacred circle?

The irony of the ad for VanderKam’s book being placed right under his own words should not be lost on anyone. But read on. VanderKam and Schiffman throw a roundhouse right at Shanks, then an uppercut; he is, they say, neither a technical scholar nor even a scholar. That smells of the good old days, when insiders called outsiders “fleas on dogs” (see the cover of the March/April 1990 BAR). Shanks, they complain, “has done a great injustice to the editors and contributors of the encyclopedia and has failed in his responsibility to his readers.” Let’s not get started on injustices!

Should one expect this encyclopedia to present forward-looking cutting-edge research? In most cases, probably not. This is presumably the function of papers at special conferences and of current articles in the journals.

VanderKam and Schiffman accuse Shanks of not being interested in the scrolls. Are they serious? He has been obsessed in BAR, probably rightly so, with the ownership and publication rights of The Dead Sea Scroll “Some of the Works of the Law” (4QMMT). Not very long ago Shanks presented conflicting articles by three scholars on the paleography and reading of a recently discovered Qumran ostracon (March/April and May/June 1998). How about the sundial (July/August 1998)? How about previous book reviews? (May/June 1998, May/June 2000). How about interviews with Yigael Yadin (January/February 1983) and John Strugnell (July/August 1994)? What about the book he edited titled Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Random House, 1992)? Both VanderKam and Schiffman contributed to it. How about his recent The Mystery and Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Random House, 1998)? Shanks should be found guilty of making the Dead Sea Scrolls and their sensitive cadre of scholars fascinating to a larger general reading public.

I have dipped into EDSS a few times and thought that if I needed a quick overview or summary of some aspect of Dead Sea Scroll research, I might use it again. Of course, it is not a technical work in any sense. As an encyclopedia, it does its job.

VanderKam, Schiffman and Shanks have all made tremendous contributions to the field of Dead Sea Scroll studies. In my view, Shanks might have spent a little more time reflecting on EDSS and formulating his review in a less flip way. But VanderKam and Schiffman might have hesitated before sending their response. Other reviewers in other journals will eventually reflect on EDSS. Some of their words will certainly soothe the wounds of injustice that Hershel Shanks has apparently inflicted on the editors and contributors of EDSS.

The writer is author of The History of the Qumran Community (Sheffield: Sheffield Univ. Press, 1988) and the forthcoming The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Thames and Hudson).

060

Potpourri

How the Mess Was Created

Re: “Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due,” BAR 27:02.

In February 1980 I lectured at Harvard University. Afterward, John Strugnell invited me to his home, where he showed me several photos of two documents: a long one, which he then called “A Sapiential Work” (it is now published in the Oxford edition of Qumran Cave 4. XXIV: Sapiential Texts, part 2 [1999]) and a short document written in letter form. I quite enthusiastically commented that the latter could be an early specimen of an encyclical of the kind we know from the letters of Paul. Strugnell remarked that, since the letter is in different hands, it was in all likelihood sent to different addressees. To this I responded that, because of its seminal importance, it could have been copied by various hands, as were so many of the Qumran documents.

Strugnell asked for advice on two matters: Who could he consult on technical matters relating to deciphering and reconstructing the text of the “letter,” and who could he consult on halakhic (Jewish legal) matters. For the halakhic issues, I warmly recommended two names: Elisha Qimron, who was then working at the Academy of the Hebrew Language in Jerusalem preparing the Qumran documents for The Hebrew Language Historical Dictionary Project, and Ya’akov Sussmann, of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. That summer, Strugnell came to Jerusalem, where he used to spend several weeks every year at the École Biblique. We met there, and I gave him the phone numbers of both scholars. If my memory does not fail me, I spoke to both and mentioned to them that Strugnell would call them. Strugnell later reported to me that he had called Qimron and Sussmann and that they agreed to cooperate. A year or two later Strugnell told me that, indeed, the cooperation was very fruitful. I must confess that I was amazed to realize, years later, what a mess had been created.

Oops!

In “The New Struggle for the Scrolls,” BAR 27:03, you state that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of every book in the Old Testament except Esther and the Song of Songs. I have only read a few things about the scrolls but, in my limited reading, scholars say that the scrolls contain fragments of all the books except only Esther.

Are there no fragments of the Song of Songs as well?

There are indeed fragments of the Song of Songs among the Dead Sea Scrolls. We were wrong in stating otherwise.—Ed.

Don’t Cancel My Subscription

Cancel my subscription!

Actually, don’t. I just wanted to see if this looked as dumb when I wrote it as it does when I see it in letters of disagreement sent to the editor!

(It does.)

061

I’m really writing to say how much I enjoy the magazine. Your editorial staff is to be commended for publishing such a quality product. I love all the sturm und drang among the professional archaeologists, but really appreciate the depth and comprehensiveness of the articles themselves.

I especially enjoy it when you come forth from your editorial cave to provoke some of the crustier dinosaurs out there. Keep it up. Nothing like the light of day to keep things in perspective, and you always seem to do a bang-up job of that.

Misguided Attack

Thomas Niccolls’s criticism (Queries & Comments, BAR 27:03) of Hershel Shanks’s report (“Holy Targets,” BAR 27:01) on the destruction of Jewish holy sites by Palestinians is misguided in two respects.

First, Mr. Niccolls is guilty of exactly what he accuses Mr. Shanks of doing, namely, not presenting information “in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.” When he takes Mr. Shanks to task for “neglecting to mention, for example, attacks on Palestinian homes and orchards,” he neglected to mention that these homes and orchards were being used as cover for deadly mortar and rifle attacks on Israeli citizens and soldiers.

Secondly, the destruction of holy sites does not need to be presented in a broader context. Symbols and historical treasures carry enormous meaning to a great many people. When a young rabbi was murdered on his way to Joseph’s tomb the day it was ransacked, this certainly elicited feelings of sorrow for his widow and children. However, the sight of Palestinians gleefully stomping on and mutilating a religious ornament containing God’s name written in Hebrew evoked the even stronger visceral response of anger and outrage at an attack against the entire Jewish people.

It is ironic that the Palestinians shown were desecrating God’s name. Whether it is written in Hebrew or Arabic, whether it is Elokim or Allah, we worship the same God. Only when people realize this and respect the beliefs of others can peace be achieved between Palestinian and Israeli.

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.

Origins and Changes

The May/June 2001 issue of BAR is the best ever in helping me pursue the origins of and the changes over time in the concepts of both Judaism and Christianity.