Queries & Comments

008

Cover Inspires Poem

GOLDEN LAURA RAMOS
At Ashkelon on Israel’s coast
She digs in dust
Where winds of years
have treasures lost.
These treasures sought
Cannot compare
to jewel-like droplets on her brow,
or onyx orbs her face adorn,
or match the ebon beauty of her hair.
The pearly splendor of her smile
so lights the desert round,
In a mirror she could see
Treasures that abound.

What an unusual and attractive cover!

The writer tells us he is 81 years old.—Ed.

How About Someone Normal?

Once again it’s time for the annual “Dig Now” issue and once again you feature a perky, sweaty, skimpily dressed young lady smiling into the camera (January/February 2002). Well, enough! It’s time to feature an equally perky, sweaty, skimpily dressed young man for your female readership’s eye. Or, to truly capture your core readership’s interest, how’s this: A (gasp) middle-aged, modestly dressed, non-athletic, non-perky and definitely non-sweaty person! Hey, male or female—I’m open. Thanks from a non-sweaty, non-athletic and definitely non-perky reader.

Keep On Mining

Last night my family and I visited our Barnes & Noble bookstore and I was pleased to note that BAR had arrived. I always enjoy reading the articles even when my ignorance handicaps me considerably. I find it refreshing to compare the Bible to facts wherever we can find them.

I suppose those literalists among your readers will really be offended by the attractive young lady on the cover. The only things I find offensive about your magazine are the letters from fundamentalists/evangelicals complaining about your bias toward archaeological facts rather than just accepting scripture. I rather suspect you would be required to accept their personal understanding of those scriptures. For my part, I can’t imagine why a person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old would bother to read your magazine unless they were looking for something to bitch about.

I want to see facts that are carefully presented without regard to my beliefs. They only need to be related to the Bible and not in agreement with it. I will continue to read BAR so long as you continue mining the vein you’re in. So far it has been very rewarding.

Sunday School Fairy Tales

I’m a new subscriber, and I think perhaps the most entertaining part of the magazine for me will be the letters from a certain ilk of reader whining about articles that fail to ratify their Sunday school fairy-tale conceptions. If their mindset is that precarious it must not have much of a foundation.

Truth should be followed wherever it leads, and if one has fixed conclusions in mind prior to the journey, then truth is an inevitable casualty and error is your only reward. It’s too bad that Sunday schools don’t pass along Maimonides’ advice that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken as literal 009history—they’re folklore and borrowed myth to fill in the gaps in the period before the Israelites’ emergence as a self-aware cultural entity. But then, if they did teach this, we’d have fewer whining letters to amuse us.

Pointless Pointscoring

I am disappointed. This is my first year of subscribing to BAR. What I had hoped for was a magazine brimming with critical analysis by broadminded, independent-thinking scholars who are a credit to their profession. However this doesn’t appear to be what I have subscribed to. The magazine is plagued by intellectual pointscoring and blinkered reasoning. I am concerned that what I read here is no better than the pseudo-research that spews from many a publisher. I don’t know if it’s the territory under analysis that makes people tetchy, but I am seriously considering making this my first and last subscription. I may try Archaeology Odyssey [our sister publication—Ed.] next year. This is also the first time that I have felt the need to write to any publication, so please prove me wrong and make me feel that what I read is worthy.

Digs

Don’t Forget the Hazor Tablet

As a longtime subscriber to BAR, I am delighted with the current issue’s look at archaeological digs in Israel (“Dig Now 2002,” BAR 28:01). I am, however, puzzled by your not listing the June 1976 piece, “American Tourist Returns ‘Hazor’ Tablet to Israel After 13 Years,” BAR 02:02, along with the seven or so other articles about Hazor found in previous issues of BAR. The article specifically lauds the importance of this find, the oldest Akkadian legal text found in Israel. It also mentions the rarity of finding a written document with the name of the site at the particular site.

010

I was with Jesse Salsberg, the man who found the tablet, and Prof. Shalom Paul when Dr. William Hallo read the sherd. It was a rare privilege to share in the excitement when Dr. Hallo shouted out that the name Hazor was inscribed on it.

The tablet’s importance is also emphasized by its being one of the very few items on display at the Supreme Court of Israel.

We thank Judge Maron for bringing the 1976 article to our readers’ attention. It concerns an exciting artifact—found by a tourist!—Ed.

Missing Muslim History

I enjoy almost everything about your publication; it is always well written and informative. It does seem to me, however, that you have a blind eye when it comes to Arab and Muslim history. A case in point is “Dig Now 2002,” BAR 28:01. None of the summaries or the timeline include any reference to the significant Muslim history in this area.

Moab

Why You Turn Christians Off

I am amazed and amused that you wonder why your magazine is not used more as a resource by Christians in their Sunday school and Bible studies! [See “First Person: Does History Matter?” BAR 27:04.—Ed.] “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Kemosh (But Were Afraid to Ask),” sidebar to “Moab Comes to Life,” BAR 28:01, which likens Kemosh to Yahweh in that he (Kemosh) was active in the affairs of his people, is one obvious reason. Yahweh’s unique claim is that He continues to be actively involved in the affairs of His people and is a very present help in time of need. Do not cancel my subscription, as my Sunday school class still likes to know the current state of scholarly thinking.

Abimelech

Lightweight Millstones, Lightweight Article

“A Watermelon Named Abimelech,” BAR 28:01, was, from a content point of view, as lightweight as they come. Since the actual information offered was worthy of nothing more than a footnote (the upper millstone referred to in Judges 9:50–54 weighed approximately 6.5 pounds), one can only assume that the real purpose of the article was to promote the authors’ obvious feminist agenda: “But also we—women who primarily write, read, teach, grade and preach for our careers—knew that we could easily carry upper millstones.”

Are we to be surprised, informed or evenly mildly interested that these women can lift 6.5 Roman pounds? The photograph that shows one of the women throwing a piece of foam from the roof of a house toward a man standing on the ground is positively inane. I was, prior to viewing this demonstration, already convinced of the effect of gravity on heavier-than-air objects. Where was the research, the science or the scholarship here?

The endnote citations read ominously like course offerings from some “Women’s Studies” department, where ambition and angst mingle to form the modern mythology, which, essentially, denies both scriptural authority and God’s patriarchal economy. No, I won’t accept “lighthearted” as an excuse for a publication, which should be anything but “lightheaded.”

I’ll be looking and hoping for more substantial and non-politically-motivated material in future issues.

011

B.C. vs. B.C.E.

Forget B.C., Use B.P.

I’d like to weigh in on the B.C.E./B.C. debate as an unbiased third party—unbiased because I do not have a formal religion. I have two suggestions. The first one is to use B.C.E., which can mean “Before Common Era” to everybody except Christians. To Christians, the term B.C.E. can mean “Before Christian Era.” The other suggestion is for your magazine to use B.P. (Before Present) for all dates.

Take Us Out of Our Misery

An actor once said, “It’s not enough that I’m on stage; I want to be the only one on stage.”

In his commendable tongue-in-cheek attempt to both placate and shut up those still fighting the A.D./B.C. vs. C.E./B.C.E. war, Ron Mills makes a big mistake: He assumes that both camps would listen to reason, accept a compromise and be happy if their views are represented (Queries & Comments, BAR 28:01). Well, they won’t. The extremists on both sides are not complaining about being ignored; they want their way to be the only way, to be the only actor on stage. Salvation for those of us who don’t care will come when BAR mercifully stops publishing those ravings.

Including yours?—Ed.

Bad Date

Ron Mills recognizes that his proposal [to use different time designations depending on the subject—Ed.] is “cumbersome,” but he is not aware of the potential for errors. For example, dating “our Republic” from July 4, 1776 would have seen the end of the 225th year on that date in 2001. Thus, Mr. Mills’s August letter was written in the 226th year of our Republic, not in the 225th as he calculated.

Nice To Know Someone Cares

I truly enjoy reading all the letters you print concerning the B.C./B.C.E. controversy. It is not often I get to see so many letters showing concern for a Jew who was killed in Israel. Keep up the good work.

Solomon’s Reign

The Bible Knew Little of the Pharaohs

Professor Kenneth Kitchen’s attempt to use an inscription of King Siamun to validate the dates (and existence) of a historical Solomon is fraught with difficulties (“How We Know When Solomon Ruled,” BAR 27:05). Because the king’s defeated enemy is shown holding an ax (if that is indeed what it is), Kitchen associates him first with the Aegean-area Sea Peoples and then with the Philistines. The double-headed ax, or labrys, found in Cretan iconography, appears to have been a religious symbol. There is no evidence from either the Bible or other sources that the Philistines used double-headed battle axes with crescent-shaped blades. (There is an early 12th-century B.C. figure from Cyprus, which may be Philistine, depicting a single-bladed, straight-headed battle ax.) The most detailed depiction of Philistine weaponry we have, from Ramesses III’s temple at Medinet Habu, shows no use of battle axes. The problem becomes deeper when we confront the dating issue. In 960 B.C., the period of King Siamun, the Philistines had been settled in Canaan for two centuries. By then, as the definitive work of Israeli archaeologists Trude and Moshe Dothan illustrates, the Philistines had lost their cultural connection to the Aegean. Their pottery, which upon their arrival was very Mycenaean in form, had within a century been completely Canaanized. The Philistines had, by the era of Siamun, adopted Semitic gods (e.g. Dagon), language and building styles.

There are also problems with Kitchen’s analysis of the practice of Egyptian kings resisting the marriage of their daughters to foreign princes. The only extra-Biblical examples he cites are exceptions that prove the rule. The queen who asked the Hittite king to send her a son to marry (and it is unclear which queen this was) comes from the end of the heretical Amarna period. The monarchy and Egypt were both in crisis, and in many ways estranged from established customs, which were subsequently restored. Similarly, that 012a later king gave his daughter in marriage to the son of a chief of the traditionally despised Libyans (the son would later claim the Egyptian throne) illustrates how unusual this practice must have been and the end-of-dynasty crisis that provoked it. Since Egyptian kings solidified their right to rule through their mothers (usually marrying their own sisters to legitimize the succession for their sons), it is highly unlikely that an Egyptian king as well established as Siamun would give his daughter to a foreign prince, thus establishing a possible claim by him or his descendant to the Egyptian throne.

A good rule of thumb in reading the Bible is to assume that if an Egyptian king is not specifically named—significantly, none are until after the putative “age of Solomon”—they are mythical figures. All the Biblical accounts of Egypt found in Genesis and Exodus are so burdened with anachronisms as to suggest that they come from authors who had little detailed knowledge of the era about which they were writing. The account of the marriage of a daughter of “Pharaoh” to Solomon belongs in this category.

Kenneth Kitchen replies:

Dr. Hansen’s comments on Siamun, Solomon and royal marriages and his use of “pharaoh” wholly miss the point in each case.

1. The independent Mesopotamian and Egyptian chronologies and the parallel Hebrew dates (linked to Assyria) clearly make Solomon and Siamun contemporaries. Not one scintilla of hard evidence exists to disprove the existence of a Solomon; the burden of “proof” still rests on his critics. There is much indirect evidence in his favor, too much to list here.¹

2. Contrary to Dr. Hansen, neither I nor most people would claim that the elaborate ax of Siamun’s relief was used in battle. Medinet Habu is thus irrelevant. The ax may rather be a symbolic or traditional piece, borne by Philistines or other non-Canaanites. Triumph-scenes of Tuthmosis III (15th century B.C.) show Canaanites holding “duck-billed” axes long after they were in full use (Middle Bronze Age, 18th century B.C.).² The item on the relief is certainly an ax head (as re-examination shows).

3. People do acculturate to their environment, and by 960 B.C. the Philistines had certainly gone over to non-Aegean pottery, and probably to West Semitic speech. But, contrary to Dr. Hansen, other ex-Aegean cultural traits did continue. They still used non-Semitic personal names, for example. Goliath was used in David’s time; Achish (“Akhyish”) was used as a Philistine royal name then and, in the Ekron inscription, as late as the early seventh century B.C. The term seren for Philistine rulers is also non-Semitic (cf. Neo-Hittite [Late Luvian] tarwanas; and Greek tyrannos). Another probable example is the strange name of the goddess PTGYH (or whatever) in the Ekron inscription.³

4. What about royal marriages? Dr. Hansen (like others) wrongly elevates a stray remark by Amenophis III (about not giving Egyptian princesses to foreigners) into a universal rule, without any justification. That king referred back in time to his own dynasty, not to conditions 400 years later, when no such rule can be proven. Kings did not always marry sisters to raise up successors. Amenophis III’s own chief queen, Tiyi, for example, was a commoner and bore him his successor Akhenaten. When the widow of Nibkhururiya, Ankhsenamun, wrote to the Hittite king for a husband, Egypt was already back to “normal” (the god Amun was again supreme). Siamun was not a king of “imperial” times; we know absolutely nothing about his personal relationships from first-hand sources. Marriage alliances were often made for good political reasons—including at the height of a king’s power—and not just in times of crisis. In that respect, princesses going out from Egypt are no different from princesses coming into Egypt. It is precisely in the tenth-eighth centuries B.C. that kings of Egypt did give daughters in marriage to both commoners and foreigners. Both the case of Shoshenq as a Libyan chief and Hadad of Edom illustrate the latter case, and more than a dozen examples from the XXIst to XXVIth Dynasties show marriages to commoners⁴—clearly, the idea of such people having any claim to the throne was long dead and gone.

5. Dr. Hansen’s “rule of thumb” that unnamed Egyptian kings (just “Pharaoh”) in the Bible are merely mythical is itself purely mythical, and exhibits only his ignorance of Egyptian usage (which was known to Biblical writers!). At all times, kings were cited as hem-ef, “His Majesty,” and in formal contexts by full or partial names and titulary. In Late Egyptian, emergent from at least the 17th/16th century B.C., the term “pharaoh” arose in popular usage, being currently attested from Tuthmosis III onward (15th century B.C.). We have a myriad of examples from papyri and ostraca where the Egyptians endlessly refer to the reigning king as simply Pharaoh—“Pharaoh, my/your/our good Lord”—without need of naming him (as I well know, after editing 4,500 pages of such texts into print in seven volumes).⁵ This New Kingdom usage goes on through the 11th century to the 10th century B.C. Then, we find simple use of “King + Name,” as with 062“King Siamun” in Theban dockets, going on into the ninth-eighth centuries B.C. Finally, from the late eighth century B.C. onward, “Pharaoh + Name” (“Pharaoh Piye”, etc.) is common usage. This convention is precisely followed in Biblical usage. Joseph and Moses (second millennium B.C.) use just “Pharaoh,” as Moses’ Ramesside contemporaries certainly did in profusion, and this continues to the tenth century B.C. (to Siamun, etc.). Then, pharaohs are named as kings: Shishak, So and Tirhakah. And finally, we have the next usage with “Pharaoh Necho.” All absolutely correct—no room here for Dr. Hansen’s anti-Biblical prejudices. The latter are painfully evident in his claim that the Genesis-Exodus accounts of Egypt are burdened with anachronisms, such that the writers knew little of Egypt. That claim is palpably false, on current evidence unknown to him and far too bulky to cite here. Various items in Genesis 37–50 reflect the early second millennium B.C., and one or two items, the late second; very little can be taken as later retouches. In Exodus, again, most features are late second millennium B.C. or consistent with it, with very little that is retouched later, despite spurious claims by some.⁶ Neither here nor with Solomon’s Egyptian marriage is there any factual evidence for dismissing the Biblical accounts.

Egyptian Chronology Unreliable

Kenneth Kitchen states that we have a firm date for Egypt’s XXVIth Dynasty. He then states that before this came the 26-year rule of Taharqa, bringing us to 690 B.C. This is at striking odds with the great work of Sir Alan Gardiner in his Egypt of the Pharaohs, where, in an emphatic footnote, he gives the dates of the rule of Taharka (sic) as 689–664 B.C.—“These two dates are certain.” Before 063Taharqa, Gardiner lists five other kings with reigns totaling longer than the 25 years Kitchen cites.

Kitchen should also have explained that the XXIIIrd and XXIVth Dynasties were about the same time as the XXIInd Dynasty, thus explaining why the XXVth Dynasty (which is not mentioned at all) followed the XXIInd Dynasty. Moreover, Kitchen states that these ten kings ruled “at least 227 or, more likely, 230 years,” whereas Gardiner’s total (at the highest level) is only 216 years! Kitchen mentions ten kings, but Egyptian monuments, according to Gardiner, record only eight, and the Manetho text includes only nine kings.

Knowing the unreliability of Egyptian dynastic chronology, as is often attested by Gardiner, I therefore question the validity of Kitchen’s conclusions even though he has managed to “fix” the years to correspond with the Assyrian counterpart.

Kenneth Kitchen replies:

Neil Rosenstein should not be citing Sir Alan Gardiner’s Egypt of the Pharaohs on Egyptian Late-Period chronology. That book is a historical sketch, not a study in chronology: It is now 40 years out of date from its publication (1961), and was never revised; it relied (pp. 448–449) on still older treatments of almost 100 years ago (Eduard Meyer) and nearly 90 years ago (Henri Gauthier). Therefore it cannot be used today to decide the chronology of Egypt. Gardiner (p. 450) is wrong to cite 689 B.C. as the accession date for Taharqa, who died in 664 B.C. after a reign of a full 26 years—664 + 26 = 690, as all authorities (and common arithmetic!) agree. Before 690 B.C., only Shabako and Shebitku belong to the classic (Manethonic) XXVth Dynasty, not Alara (omitted by Gardiner), Kashta and Piankhy. Thanks to the new Tang-I-Var Assyrian text, we now know that Shebitku was at least the local ruler of Nubia (under Shabako) from at least 706 B.C. He required Prince Taharqa to bring troops north 2,000 miles to Memphis. This can only be sensibly related to his own (Shebitku’s) accession as full king in Egypt by 702 B.C.; he planned to use the troops against Sennacherib in 701 B.C. Thus, before 690, we have 12 years for Shebitku, plus 14 years of Shabako (13 in Egypt), back to 716/715 B.C. Gardiner had no inkling of all the facts here. Likewise, there are 10 full kings (plus 2 coregents) in the XXIInd Dynasty: (1) Shoshenq I; (2) Osorkon I; (3) Takelot I; (4) Osorkon II; (5) Takelot II; (6) Shoshenq III; (7) Shoshenq IV ; (8) Pimay; (9) Shoshenq V; and (10) Osorkon IV. Their attested longest reigns are, respectively, 21, 32, 14, 24, 25, 39, 13, 6, 37 and 15/16 = 226/7 years. But for technical reasons, I conclude that Osorkon I is better at 35 years, and Takelot I at 15; leave Osorkon IV at 15. This equals 230 years, 945–715 B.C. To which must be added the two coregents, Shoshenq II (under Osorkon I) and Harsicse (under Osorkon II). Manetho is very incomplete for this period and is useless for setting an accurate chronology then. As Rosenstein has noticed, the XXIIIrd/XXIVth Dynasties were in fact entirely contemporary with the XXIInd, and thus had no role in my article in BAR. I had no reason to “fix” Egyptian/Assyrian dates; the results come out of the full data—Egyptian, Assyrian and Biblical.

Rosenstein has not done his homework, and he should consult the internationally acknowledged standard work on Egyptian chronology, and other papers down to 2000, as cited in my BAR article (note 3), instead of dredging up Sir Alan Gardiner’s now very aged volume on highly complex problems it was never intended to answer. Egyptian chronology today is far more reliable than it was 40 or 50 or 100 years ago.

Potpourri

Keep Sex Out of It

There are few statements, however divergent the point of view expressed, that have outraged me as much as the one I read today in your review of The Quest for Noah’s Flood (ReViews, BAR 28:01). Pardon my narrow-mindedness, but how does one dare refer to a Biblical event with the pop term “sexy”? [The review began, “There’s nothing like a sexy Biblical connection to heighten interest in an otherwise unrelated subject.”—Ed.] Is there any subject in today’s culture that is safe from Hollywood/Madison Avenue jargon—a worldview that runs roughshod over traditional Judeo/Christian mores? Aside from the sad evidence of moral turpitude, it is categorically dull and communicatively misleading to apply a word like “sexy” to a story that not only isn’t sexy(!) but claims to be a judgment from God on sinful and sordid humanity. This is not merely Victorian, puritanical sectarianism speaking up, it is the voice of one who sees certain venues of scholarship belly-up in the mooringless drift of an oversensated society whose words reflect a total lack of deportment—not to mention academic accuracy. An apology is in order here.

Building Blocks of Faith

From the first time I read BAR, I received building blocks for faith—investigations and elucidations that dispelled myth and added substance.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 that “We see through a glass, darkly.” This is never truer than when attempting to decipher the past. I admire your acceptance of a broad range of writings, so that almost any idea is open to debate.

Your excellent publication brings the Bible to life like nothing else I’ve read.

A Late Valentine

Hershel, I don’t always agree with you, but I love your passion.

In a Category by Itself

At least one of the Jeopardy! contestants mentioned in your Strata story (“BAR in Trouble? No—Just in Jeopardy!” Strata, BAR 27:06) does read BAR! I was delighted to read your article. As a long time student of Jewish history (mainly modern), I was hoping (and praying!) for a Bible category. Imagine my delight when I saw the BAR category! Of all the magazines mentioned on the show, BAR is definitely my style.

Many friends, and BAR readers, joined me to watch the airing of the show in June. One could feel the excitement in the room when the BAR category was announced!

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.