Queries & Comments

006

Yellow-Green Journalism

To the Editor:

I hope that you will not include more of the yellow-green journalism which was offensive to me and several acquaintances in your recent pseudonymous article on Ebla.

Archaeology is intrinsically dirty. But its reportage need not be.

Would you have refused to print this article from a responsible source simply because the source would not permit his/her name to be used?

To make sure we gave a balanced picture, we also published the interview with Professor Buccellati which presented the other side of the question.

BAR unquestionably opened up for public discussion what was being whispered privately among the small coterie who are privy to such matters.

That there is some substance to the question—without implying any answers—is reflected in the responses which have been given at public lectures to inquiries based on BAR’s presentation.

For example, on November 14, 1978 in Washington D.C., Associate Professor Jerrold S. Cooper, from Johns Hopkins University, stated at a lecture sponsored by the American Friends of the Israel Exploration Society, that suppression by the Syrians of the Biblical implications of the Ebla tablets won’t happen because eventually the tablets will be published for all to see. But, he said, there was a point at which the Syrians were very upset at the wide publicity given to the tablets’ Biblical connections. But the international committee which has been set up to translate the tablets has allayed the Syrians’ fears. “The Syrians are not standing in the way,” he said.

Four days later in New Orleans at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, James A. Sauer, Director of the American Center of Oriental Research in Amman, also responded to the allegation of Syrian supression of Ebla’s Biblical connections. Sauer, speaking at a plenary symposium, said that it is untrue that the Syrians are attempting to suppress the Biblical implications of the Ebla tablets, although they do object to the exclusively Biblical emphasis which has sometimes been given to the finds in this country. Sauer remarked that this emphasis has created what the Syrians see to be a distorted picture: they view the tablets as part of their own proud heritage and they would like a balanced interpretation of the tablets of which the Bible is only a part.

These remarks indicate that the matter is not without substance. In fact, it may be an important, fast-breaking political story which we can report in future issues.—Ed.

From Saturday to Sunday

To the Editor:

In his article “How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03, Samuele Bacchiocchi argues that the practice of Sunday worship originated in the church at Rome around 135 A.D. To support this thesis he offers refutation of two assumptions that he claims are the basis for the view that the apostolic Jerusalem Church pioneered Sunday worship.

The first assumption is that Sunday worship was instituted in order to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus on that first day of the week. Bacchiocchi argues that since the resurrection is mentioned only as the second of two reasons for Sunday worship by both Barnabas and Justin, therefore this could not have been the primary basis for the practice of Sunday worship in the second century church. The fact that the resurrection is mentioned as a second reason does not mean that it is less important. Literary style allows for the emphasis to fall on the first or the last item in a list.¹ More significant is the fact that both Barnabas and Justin agree on the resurrection as one basis for Sunday worship, even though they differ on the other reason.

The phrase “the first day of the week”, which is the standard New Testament designation for Sunday, is used only eight times in the New Testament. Six of these times it is used in connection with Jesus’ resurrection and appearance to the disciples. Two of the times it is used in reference to corporate worship within the Christian community. Early Christians familiar with the Gospel accounts would quite naturally associate their worship on “the first day of the week” with the resurrection of the Lord.

The second assumption Bacchiocchi attempts to refute is that the Jewish Christians “no longer felt at home in the Jewish Sabbath service”. Here he is absolutely correct. The primitive Christian community in Jerusalem and other Jewish areas continued to observe the 007Jewish ceremonies and to keep the Sabbath. Bacchiocchi’s error is in assuming that therefore Sunday worship could not have been practiced by these early Jewish Christians. There is nothing to substantiate the idea that Sunday worship necessitated a rejection of Sabbath observances or that Sunday worship could only be adopted by a Church that had severed its ties with Judaism. The evidence indicates just the opposite.

We know that the Ebionites kept the Sabbath as a day of rest, but also celebrated Sunday as a day of worship.² We also know from Acts 2:46 that the Jewish Christians met together in the Temple at Jerusalem for worship, but also celebrated the Eucharist in their homes. The Jewish Christian community did not see a conflict between Judaism and Christianity. Therefore, they did not divorce themselves from Jewish ceremony and tradition, but rather incorporated Christian liturgy and Sacraments into their worship life.

Initially, even though they could not bring such Christian ceremony into the Temple or the synagogues, these Jewish Christians participated in the rites and rituals of the Jewish religion. However, they supplemented this with strictly Christian worship conducted in their homes. Perhaps it was just because they were involved in Jewish ceremony on the Sabbath that they set aside Sunday for their Christian liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist.

Bacchiocchi argues that Sunday worship did not appear in the Church until ca. 135 A.D. His discussions of the Easter controversy and the influence of Roman sun worship do not substantiate this claim, but assume it is true. As Bacchiocchi himself concedes, these two issues only relate indirectly to the practice of Sunday worship. If there is any evidence that Sunday worship was practiced prior to 135 A.D., Bacchiocchi’s whole argument is discredited.

Bacchiocchi claims that the earliest references to the observance of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath are found in The Epistle of Barnabas, which he dates ca. 135 A.D. and Justin Martyr’s Apology, which he dates ca. 150 A.D.³

There are other documents which strongly indicate that the practice of Sunday worship was a feature of the Church prior to 135 A.D. and that this tradition originated in the East, most likely in Jerusalem. The Didache, an early Church manual, instructs Christians to come together for worship and the Eucharist “on every Lord’s Day”, meaning Sunday.⁴ While this section of the Didache was probably written around 150 A.D., it contains material and traditions from the primitive churches of Syria.⁵

Ignatius writes in his Letter to the Magnesians, “They (referring to early Christians) ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord’s Day, on which our life as well as theirs shone forth, thanks to Him and his death, though some deny this.”⁶ Ignatius wrote during the reign of Trajan, 98–117 A.D.

Even earlier references to Sunday worship are found in the New Testament itself. Luke says that Paul conducted a worship service and celebrated the Eucharist with the church at Troas on Sunday (Acts 20:7). Paul himself infers that the Church is accustomed to gathering for worship on Sundays when he instructs the Corinthians to put aside money for the collection “on the first day of every week” (1 Corinthians 16:2).

The evidence shows that the Jewish Christian communities in the primitive Church observed the Sabbath day of rest and also participated in Christian liturgy and sacraments on Sunday. This practice is found much earlier than 135 A.D. and seems to have originated in the apostolic church at Jerusalem.

To the Editor:

I consider it out of order for an archaeological journal to publish as blatant a piece of propaganda as “How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03, by Samuele Bacchiocchi, especially when there is very little archaeological significance in the article.

The change to Sunday as the day of worship for the New Testament Church is itself Biblically prescribed. Both 1 Corinthians 16:1 and Acts 20:7 locate a “first day of the week” meeting in apostolic time.

The Sabbath is still Saturday, the seventh day. But Christ nailed the law, including “the Sabbaths” to the cross (Colossians 2:14–16). Christians meet to give, to partake of the Lord’s Supper and to hear preaching, by Biblical authority, “on the first day of the week.”

To the Editor:

The article in the September/October BAR, “How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03, by Samuele Bacchiocchi is totally unconvincing. With 008all due respect, it sounds more like a piece of propaganda than a serious and objective study into the matter.

Whatever the departures from New Testament practice that may have occurred in the years following the first century, and there were many, there is no indication that the apostolic founders of that church did or sought to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. In the Biblical record there is always the recognition that the Sabbath is a Jewish day of rest and that it is observed on Saturday. It was true then, and it is true to this day. Not only is Sunday never made a Sabbath Day in the New Testament, Paul says we are free from Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16ff).

It seems quite obvious from the Scriptures that early Jewish Christians observed a dual worship practice until they were driven out of the synagogues. They were “Messianic Jews,” but Jews nevertheless. Prescribed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1), certain Jewish rites (Acts 21:24) were certainly observed. This was part of their culture. But while Jewish Christian evangelists are often mentioned as going into the synagogues and the temple to preach the gospel to the Jews on the Sabbath, there is absolutely no record in Scripture of a distinctively Christian worship service or observance on the Sabbath. Since they continued “day by day” with one mind in the temple (Acts 2:46), their worship may have at times included the Sabbath. But there is no indication it was a necessary day of Christian observance.

To the contrary I find Bacchiocchi’s statement, “Nothing in the New Testament prescribes or even suggests the commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection on Sunday” an amazing oversight. The Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, which was the very first worship observance of the early church, fell on the first day of the week (seven sabbaths, or 50 days, following Passover). At the heart of Peter’s message is verse 32: “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.”

There are numerous references to Christian worship on the “first day of the week.” Bacchiocchi passes over these references because they are not called “Day of the Resurrection”. That is totally subjective reasoning. Even the day of the resurrection of Jesus was not designated “the day of resurrection” in the Bible, but the “first day of the week” (Luke 24:1; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2).

Could it be that this term was used as a technical term indicating a prescribed day of worship? In Acts 20:7 Paul met with the disciples at Troas on the first day of the week to observe the Lord’s Supper (compare 1 Corinthians 11:23, 1 Corinthians 11:24). Out of his seven-day stay, only one day is mentioned in which all gathered. Not the Sabbath, but the first day of the week. In 1 Corinthians 16:2 the disciples were instructed to bring their offerings on the first day of the week. In most Christian assemblies, this is a regular act of worship on the first day.

Bacchiocchi’s citation of Acts 15:19–21 is interesting. The Jerusalem council admonished gentile brethren to observe certain Jewish strictures in order not to offend Jews in their communities and in their brotherhood (v. 21). But they are not instructed to worship on the Sabbath. The Jews read the law every Sabbath, but that feature of Judaism is not enjoined on Christians (v. 20).

As I see it, Bacchiocchi sets up two straw men in his first thesis, “that the change from Saturday to Sunday occurred sometime after 135 A.D.”: (a) that the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday in the first place; and (b) that the only reason for Sunday worship is its connection with the resurrection. On (a) there is no Biblical indication that this was done or intended. The designations “Christian Sabbath,” or “Sunday Sabbath” are of post-apostolic origin. On (b) the New Testament does not give a reason why the disciples worshipped on the first day of the week. The connection with the resurrection is reasonable but unstated. But that they did meet on that day there can be no doubt, and that not from 135 A.D., but from Biblical times. It took place on the authority of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) and on that of an apostle (Acts 20). If that be true, the latter three quarters of Bacchiocchi’s article dealing with the supposed “where” of any change is presumptuous and irrelevant. Moreover, any supposed connection of first day worship with worship of the sun is pure fantasy.

To the Editor:

Professor Bacchiocchi’s inquiry into the origins of Sunday worship in the Christian church (“How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03) is both interesting and informative. There is, however, one point which, I believe, is based upon a faulty premise.

According to Professor Bacchiocchi, Saturday worship was the norm among Jewish-Christians “long after 70 A.D.” In reference to the Birkat ha-Minim, which was introduced by the rabbis of the first century to discourage Jewish-Christian involvement in the synagogue ritual, the professor states, “Participation by Jewish-Christians in Saturday synagogue service would hardly be a concern to the rabbinical authorities if Palestinian Christians had adopted Sunday as their Sabbath.”

The Birkat ha-Minim, however, was introduced into the weekday Tefillah (“prayer,” par excellence) which was also known as the “Eighteen Benedictions” (Shemoneh-Esreh). The Sabbath and festival Tefillah had only the three introductory and three concluding benedictions in common with the weekday prayer. The Birkat ha-Minim was one of the intermediate benedictions which were replaced on the Sabbath and festivals by a single benediction known as “the sanctification of the day” (Kedushat ha-Yom). There is no evidence that the more elaborate “Eighteen Benedictions” was ever recited on the Sabbath. In fact, the Sabbath (and festival) Tefillah probably evolved independently of the “Eighteen Benedictions” (See J. Heinemann’s Prayer in the Period of the Tanna’im and the Amora’im (Hebrew), Jerusalem, 1966, p. 143). Thus, the Birkat ha-Minim can hardly be used as a proof of adherence among the Jewish-Christians to Saturday worship in the late first century.

To be sure, Professor Bacchiocchi’s overall argument remains intact despite the lack of corroboration which he believed the Birkat ha-Minim offered. The subject is fascinating—I am looking forward to reading the professor’s book.

009

Samuele Bacchiocchi replies:

The brevity required in my article in “How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03, made it impossible to argue and document adequately every statement. A comprehensive treatment of the questions raised by some readers can be found in my published dissertation, From Sabbath to Sunday.

It is unfortunate that traditional positions will often condition the assessment of research dealing with a controversial question such as the origin of Sunday observance. This situation is reflected, for example, in the comments by Eddie L. Bratton and Cecil May which label my study, “propaganda.” On what basis do they pass such judgment? Is it on the basis of their acquaintance with scholarly studies of this issue?

May writes, that “Christ nailed the law, including the Sabbath to the cross (Colossians 2:14–16).” From where does he get this information? Surely not from Colossians 2:14–16, since the term “law—nomos” does not occur a single time in the whole epistle. The cheirographon that was nailed to the cross, according to recent studies based on the usage of the word in contemporary literature, is not the law of Moses but the record book of sin (for discussion, see From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 339–369).

Eddie L. Bratton similarly affirms categorically that “Paul says we are free from Sabbaths (Colossians 2:16ff.)” Is this what Paul says in the cited text? Assuming that the “Sabbaton” (mentioned among five ascetic-cult practices promoted by the false teachers in Colossae) is the seventh-day Sabbathkeeping, does the author formally condemn these practices thus releasing Christians from such observances? The verb Paul uses does not suggest this at all. The meaning of “krino” is not “to condemn,” but rather “to express an opinion, to pass judgment.” That Paul had no intention to declare these observances as worthless, is further indicated by the following verse “These are a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ” (v. 17). Note that the text does not say “these were a shadow” whose function had ceased, but “are a shadow”. The Apostle is not disputing the legitimacy of the cited observances, but rather places them in their proper perspective to Christ by means of the contrast “shadow-body”. Moreover the context indicates with sufficient clarity that the Apostle is not abrogating Biblical precepts but rather admonishing against perversions promoted by the Colossian heretics (see discussion in From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 339–369). I have referred to this example only to illustrate the kind of unwarranted hermeneutic May and Bratton employ to disparage my article.

As a final note to the charge of “blatant … propaganda” levelled against my research, I will quote a few of the many comments I have received from competent scholars representing a cross-section of religious persuasions. Bruce M. Metzger appraises my book as “a thorough and painstaking piece of research which every investigator in the future will have to take into account.”. Marcus Ward in his review in The Expository Times describes my book as “a remarkable ecumenical portent … a very solid piece of research which takes account of every point of view. After reading this, any reasonable man must question the general easy uncritical acceptance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day.” The Christian Ministry views my book as “a landmark that will surely stand for a long time.” Martin E. Marty in his review in The Christian Century, remarks “He does go over the traces of early Christianity in a very serious way to show how and why Christians moved their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.” The President of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, Charles A. Platt, writes that my book “is a valuable sourcebook for any student desiring to probe deeply into the history, Biblical background, post-New Testament scholarship, and pagan origins pertaining to the Lord’s Day” (Review, Sunday, the Magazine of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States). Don A. Carson, a Baptist scholar and editor of the forthcoming symposium on The Sabbath/Sunday Question, endorses my conclusions and acknowledges that their “implications are staggering, not only because of the Sabbath/Sunday question itself, but also because of the larger question of the relations between the Old and New Testaments” (statement issued by Carson to publicize my book). This sampling of ecumenical endorsement should suffice to discredit the charge that my study is “blatant … propaganda.”

Both Frank Rothfuss and Bratton focus their criticism on my handling of the resurrection and of the Jerusalem Church. They criticize me for failing to consider the significance of such “first day” texts as Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Regarding the alleged role of Christ’s resurrection, my research shows that though the event is greatly exalted in the New Testament, there is no hint suggesting that the event is to be celebrated at a specific time. The Lord’s Supper, for instance, which in time became the core of Sunday worship, initially was celebrated at indeterminate times and commemorated Christ’s death and parousia rather than His resurrection (1 Corinthians 11:18–34). The very Passover, which later became the annual commemoration of Christ’s resurrection held on Easter-Sunday, initially celebrated Christ’s passion and was observed by the fixed date of Nisan 15 rather than on Sunday (see From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 80–84, 198–204).

Rothfuss and Bratton share the view that primitive Jewish Christians adopted Sunday observance from the very inception of the Church not instead of but in addition to Sabbathkeeping. Bratton even calls this “dual worship” days arrangement as “obvious from the Scripture.” If it were “obvious”, then why in all my reading of the Sabbath/Sunday literature, have I not met a single scholar who has seen this development in the Scripture or in later historical documents? The plain fact is that an objective study of the first century history of the Jerusalem Church, makes it abundantly clear that such an hypothesis is altogether untenable. Rothfuss adduces the example of the Ebionites to support this hypothesis. It is true that Eusebius reports that in his day the liberal wing of the Ebionites “celebrated the Lord’s Day” besides the Sabbath, but he also speaks of the conservative wing of the same sect who apparently did not accept this innovation (Church History 3, 27). Which of the two groups best represents the earliest Jewish-Christians? In a way neither of the two, since their common Gnostic Christology and their rejection of much of the New Testament can hardly be attributed to primitive Jewish-Christians. However, since we know that the Nazarenes (who are regarded by scholars as the direct descendants of the Jewish-Christian Church of Jerusalem), did observe the Sabbath exclusively, then we must conclude that the Sabbathkeeping conservative wing of the Ebionites best represents the earliest Jewish-Christians (see From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 156–157).

Apparently Sundaykeeping was adopted by some Ebionites at a later date, since according to Justin Martyr, in his time (ca. 150 A.D.) both the milder and stricter class of Jewish-Christians stressed the observance of the Sabbath, but made no reference to 010Sunday (see From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 153–157). Moreover if Sunday observance had been adopted by the apostolic Jewish-Christian Church of Jerusalem, it is hard to understand why a sharp Sabbath/Sunday polemic developed later between Jewish-Christian Sabbathkeepers and Sunday observers (see for instance, Syriac Didascalia 26). Why would Jewish-Christians later reject Sunday observance if this had been their initial and traditional day of worship? Furthermore, if Sunday did possess apostolic sanction, it is hard to understand why the Fathers failed to capitalize on such an important factor in their defence of the day but chose rather to find a Biblical justification for Sunday observance in those Old Testament references which could justify two of the names given to Sunday: First day and eighth day. The Old Testament references particularly used were those referring to the first day of creation, the eighth day of the circumcision, the eight souls saved from the flood, the fifteen cubits—seven plus eight—of the flood-water above the mountains, the title of Psalm 6 and 11 “for the eighth day”, the saying “give a portion to seven or even to eight” of Ecclesiastes 11:2 and similar. The fact that this repertoire of Biblical testimonia was gradually abandoned as the Sabbath/Sunday controversy subsided and that Christ’s resurrection emerged as the dominant reason for Sunday observance shows that the new day of worship arose not as an undisputed apostolic institution but as a controversial innovation. A study of the various theological reasons adduced to justify Sunday observance hardly reveals an apostolic mandate but rather a posteriori rationalizations solicited by external pressures and internal needs (see especially Chapter IX, “The Theology of Sunday”, From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 270–302).

Rothfuss submits a statement from Didache 14:1 and another from Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians 9:1 to prove that “Sunday worship was a feature of the Church prior to 135 A.D. and that this tradition originated in the East, most likely in Jerusalem.” Do these two cited texts substantiate such a conclusion? Does the Didache instruct Christians, as claimed by Rothfuss “to come together for worship and, the Eucharist ‘on every Lord’s Day,’ meaning Sunday”? The literal reading of the text is substantially different. The exhortation is not to come together “on every Lord’s Day” but “according to the Lord’s of the Lord—kata kuriaken de kuriou.” This enigmatic phrase has been subjected to considerable scrutiny. Personally I subscribe to the interpretation of Jean Baptist Thibaut who sees in the expression not a question of time but of conformity to the Lord’s doctrine—didache. To save space I would refer the reader to p. 114 of my book where Thibaut’s arguments as well as my own are given.

In quoting Ignatius, Rothfuss reveals the same fallacious methodology. His translation of the crucial passage is as follows “They (referring to early Christians) ceased to keep the Sabbath and lived by the Lord’s Day.” Is this what the text actually says? Are the “early Christians” the subject of the sentence? Is the substantive “day” explicitly present in the text? A close look at the text shows that the answer is no. The subject of the sentence is unmistakably clear. It is not the “early Christians” but “the most divine prophets … who lived in ancient ways” and who “attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life.” It is hard to believe that Ignatius attributed Sundaykeeping to the Old Testament prophets, though Gregory the Great dared to teach that “the blessed Job when offering sacrifices on the eighth day, was celebrating the mystery of the resurrection” (Moralium 1 8, 12, PL 75, 759). In this context however the contrast is not between days as such (note that the text literally reads “Lord’s life” and not “Lord’s day”) but between ways of life—between a Jewish “sabbatizing” way of life and a Christian way of life symbolized by Christ’s resurrection (See discussion in From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 213 218). Thus Ignatius’ statement as well as that of Didache hardly prove that “Sunday worship was a feature of the Church prior to 135 A.D.” The way in which these and similar documents are often accommodated for apologetic purposes deserves serious consideration since such method hardly bespeaks of the highest scholarly (let alone Christian) ethics.

I am most grateful to Stuart S. Miller for his valuable clarification regarding the Birkat ha-Minim. The several studies I read, give no indication that this benediction was included only in the weekdays and not in the Sabbath prayer. I have now verified this point and I have found Miller’s comment to be accurate. Thank you for bringing this item to my attention. The inaccuracy diminishes but does not destroy the force of the argument, since the Jewish-Christians who attended the synagogue services during the weekdays, most probably attended such services on the Sabbath as well. The fact that Jewish-Christians in Palestine toward the end of the first century still regarded themselves essentially as Jews, would hardly qualify them as the champions of liturgical innovations such as Sunday observance.

Recommends Digging

To the Editor:

My son, Tom, and I were very much interested in the September/October BAR. We spent four weeks this past summer as volunteers working at Tell Aphek—in the area shown in the picture on the rear cover. We were digging in a level from the Late Bronze period, and it was a fascinating experience. I hope you will soon have an article describing some of the season’s finds.

We learned about the dig at Tell Aphek from the March issue of BAR, which I subscribed to only last December. We would like to recommend this kind of an experience to others as a great way to learn about so many things—archaeology, the Bible, Israel, etc. Your magazine and our trip have whetted our appetites for more. I like the color pictures and the increased number of issues. Keep up the good work.

Sloppy Copy Traded

To the Editor:

As a layman interested in archaeology, your magazine has brought me much pleasure as well as information. I applaud your aims, particularly as expressed in the editorial, “Free Hadrian,” BAR 04:03.

However, as an editor myself, I am disturbed by the sometimes sloppy copy editing I’ve spotted from time to time.

011

Take the above-mentioned September/October issue on page 38, first column, last paragraph, I read: “There seems to be a consensus of scholarly opinion”! Now really—grade school children are taught (or should be) that “consensus of opinion” is redundant and incorrect. Why not “There seems to be a scholarly consensus”?

And again, on page 45, second column, first paragraph of “Cyrus Gordon replies”, there it is again: “confirms the consensus of opinion”. Even if Professor Gordon is ignorant of good grammar, it’s the editor’s job to correct him.

One final example—from your “Free Hadrian” editorial itself, page 41, second column, fourth paragraph: “As early as our fourth issue, we had to publicly complain …”. There is no excuse for a split infinitive (sometimes permissible) in this sentence where “we had to complain publicly” is perfectly clear and straightforward and reads better.

Nitpicking? Possibly so, but when I (and possibly others) see such evidence of lax editing standards, we may wonder about the technical standards and accuracy of your articles.

But I’m still going to write the Honorable Zevulun Hammer of the Embassy of Israel and urge him to “Free Hadrian”, and I’ll still look forward to reading each issue of The Biblical Archaeology Review.

Thanks. We’ll try to improve our grammatical editing. Incidentally, as we read the first sentence of your letter, it says that BAR is a “layman interested in archaeology”. Or does that sentence need some editing?—Ed.

011

Dig and Stay Healthy

To the Editor:

Your picture of 81 year old Mary McCormick at the Meiron dig (Queries & Comments, BAR 04:03) prompts me to write that Amelia Dawson’s observation (in the same issue) that “digs are not only for the young” is very true. I am 68 and in August this past summer I volunteered for a two-week stint with Prof. Moshe Dothan of Haifa University at a dig at Tell Akko. In our group was a man in his seventies, a woman in her sixties and 2 or 3 others in their fifties.

May I say to those who have considered participating in a dig but thought themselves too old, that unless you have some serious illness such as a bad cardiac condition, etc. “Go … go and dig!”. It’s a marvelously exhilarating experience. This was my second dig (I was a volunteer with Prof. Mazar of Hebrew University at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem 7 years ago) and I can say unreservedly that the release from tensions and bothersome world and petty problems, the interesting people one meets and works with, the more-than-eager anticipation of a “find” with every stroke of the patiche and the unalloyed joy in finding a coin, a scarab or an interesting sherd, is more than ample reward for the sometimes back-breaking work required. Go! Dig and stay healthy.

011

New Format Shiny and Floppy

To the Editor:

The new format of the Biblical Archaeology Review is unpleasant. The shiny surface is not as pleasant to peruse as the less reflecting surface of the initial format. The print in the older form is more comfortable to read even though the lines are closely spaced. The older form stands out more clearly. There is no need for wider margins. The smaller book is easier to hold. The new one is floppy. It has to be supported on a flat surface. One’s eye can run over the smaller page more efficiently.

To sum up: I do not enjoy reading this new form.

044

On Withholding Information

To the Editor:

BAR you are the best thing that has happened in a long time. And now a bigger size, better pictures, and, as always, the content the best!

And, I have long thought, as have all of you at BAR, that the withholding of information by the people who discover anything is nothing short of a crime. Why hide what concerns us all when you can publish information? Who knows, maybe even a lay person who has studied a subject for years may have the answer.

But how can the lay person write to the discoverer if he in turn wishes to keep it for himself? I would think he too would want all the answers even more than the public. What we all miss by the very large egos of small petty men staggers the mind!

God willing, BAR should continue to grow and always keep the spirit, freedom of speech and good horse sense you started with!

To the Editor:

Congratulations on your excellent magazine. I learn so much from it.

The copy, below, of my note to the Israeli Minister of Education shows you that I did read your editorial and concur 1000%!

I was privileged to lead a group of 43 U.S. citizens with me to Israel in March of 1973. I hope to lead another group this December. I love Israel. But I am shocked to learn that the Israeli Antiquities Department refused to release a color picture of the statue of Hadrian.

In the interest of archaeology and of science please, please use your influence and do something to improve your image.

One BAR reader wrote to the Israeli Minister of Education in part as follows:

As a reader of BAR and a contributor to its Archaeological Preservation Fund, I must protest against the high-handed action of the Israeli Antiquities Department in withholding a color reproduction of the Hadrian statue found by a Jewish American tourist.

This discourages the supporters of archaeological enterprises, who are mostly older people who cannot be expected to wait patiently—in some cases beyond their lifespan—for the fruits of their generosity. I speak here with feeling, since I myself belong to that category.

Not Outraged At All

To the Editor:

Your editorial “Free Hadrian,” BAR 04:03, prompts my reply. I wish to state that I am not at all outraged as you suggested I ought to be at the Israeli Antiquities Department for not permitting you to take a color photograph of a recently discovered statue of Hadrian.

My reasons are:

The desired photograph of Hadrian is not crucial to the article with which you desired to tie it in. The article dealt with the change of the Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday by the early Christians. Not having that particular photo in no way detracted from the intent of the article.

A black and white photo of Hadrian was released in 1976 shortly after the statue’s discovery. In addition, you have published a story on this find in December 1976. This indicates to me that the Israeli Antiquities Department has not behaved in an outrageous manner.

According to your quotation, the Director of the Antiquities Department, Avi Eitan, “is saving the color photo to publish it in an obscure highly technical Hebrew publication ATIQOT which publication may not occur for years.” Certainly even an obscure, highly technical, Hebrew publication has its rights. As for the publication date, it may not occur for years; then again, perhaps it may.

If Hadrian’s statue waited this many years for discovery, surely waiting a little while longer for its photographic debut in color is not a crisis situation. Let’s save our “outrage” for situations befitting outrage—such as those pertaining to man’s inhumanity to man!!

Agrees With BAR Positions; Amused at “Scrappiness”

To the Editor:

I am a new subscriber to BAR and I wish to commend you on producing a magazine so filled with stimulating and exciting reading. Concerning Scriptural authority, I find myself on the conservative end of your wide spectrum of readers. I’m amused at the “scrappy” nature of your editorials and “Queries & Comments” section, although I do see serious issues at stake among the sarcastic 045and caustic remarks. I whole-heartedly agree with BAR’s position of prompt release of discoveries and photos. Unfortunately, as in my field of Biology, the “publish or perish” atmosphere of so many institutions has scholars in a stressful situation which produces defensiveness and secrecy.

Read Old BARs and Feel Like a Charter Member

To the Editor:

I received all my back issues of BAR, and I have read (and enjoyed) every one of them! I now feel like a “charter” member!

BAR Affiliation

To the Editor:

Is BAR in any way affiliated with any church denomination or organization? This is important to me.

BAR is published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, a non-profit, non-sectarian, non-denominational, charitable organization. BAR is not affiliated with any religious denomination or other organization and does not espouse any particular religious views.—Ed.

Roots

To the Editor:

Your articles give me a sense of “roots” and “reality” in reading my Bible.