Queries & Comments

008

Sick and Tired and Sick and Tired

I’ve been a BAR subscriber for many years and recently extended my subscription. But I’m beginning to reconsider whether I want to keep getting the magazine.

I’ll be blunt. I’m getting sick and tired of BAR’s having become little more than an archaeology gossip sheet, the supermarket tabloid of archaeology. I’m sick and tired of page after page of Oded Golan vs. the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), Hershel Shanks vs. IAA director Shuka Dorfman, archaeologist William Dever vs. archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, etc. It looks as if there isn’t enough real meat to fill the pages (the bitter fruits of the Intifada?) [the Palestinian uprising against Israel] and you have to resort to this garbage to compensate. Or perhaps you think it’s so titillating that it draws readers. Well, it turns this reader off.

Perhaps I’ll just have to say goodbye to BAR. I’d hate to; it has given me much enjoyment over the years. But it has gone far downhill.

John the Baptist’s Cave

Hit-and-Run Tactics

As one of the students who participated in the excavation of what has become known as the cave of John the Baptist, I am astounded at BAR’s apparent “hit-and-run” article dismissing Shimon Gibson’s thesis as effortlessly as a wave of the hand (“John the Baptist’s Cave???” November/December 2004). It is clear that you and the authorities you appeal to are unfamiliar with, or have not comprehensively considered, the evidence supporting the cave’s connection to John the Baptist. Gibson’s thesis not only sheds light on the function of the cave, but also gives us a powerful theoretical explanation of where John may have been and what he may have been doing up until he became publicly known (Luke 1:80). As of yet, I have not heard a better theory that is as inclusive of all the evidence.

I know that it is characteristic for BAR to descend to the level of tabloid discussion in many of its articles of late, but hopefully you will correct such a tendentious article by allowing Dr. Gibson to fully present his case. Using him in this way merely to provide a sensational cover to sell your magazine only debases the archaeological endeavor and 010insults those of us interested in mature scholarly debate.

James Tabor, of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a colleague of Gibson’s on the cave excavation, is preparing an article that defends the cave’s connection with John the Baptist.—Ed.

David and Solomon’s Jerusalem

Biblical References to the Stepped-Stone Structure

I especially liked Jane Cahill’s “Jerusalem in David and Solomon’s Time” (November/December 2004). Her outstanding article ties together the history of archaeology in the City of David.

I first suggested that the Stepped-Stone Structure was the Fortress of Zion 20 years ago (Queries & Comments, January/February 1984, under the heading “Has the Fortress of Zion Been Found?”). At that time, Yigal Shiloh, the excavator, would only say that it was the supporting substructure for a large building.

Since the Stepped-Stone Structure dates to the 13th-12th century B.C. and is so massive, it must have supported a very important, as well as large, building. What could be more important than a fortress?

It has been suggested that the stepped-stone structure is the Millo of the Bible. From 2 Samuel 5:9 we know that the Millo was there when David conquered Jerusalem and is associated with the Fortress of Zion (see also 1 Chronicles 11:8). Another passage seems to say that Solomon “built” the Millo, but obviously he only modified or repaired it since it was already there (1 Kings 9:15, 24; also 1 Kings 11:27). Hezekiah, too, repaired the Millo (2 Chronicles 32:5). In addition, 2 Kings 12:20 mentions “the house 011of Millo” in the time of King Jehoash (late ninth century B.C.) Perhaps this could be the Burnt Room House of Ahiel’s House, at the base of the Stepped-Stone Structure. This passage suggests that it was on the slope, “going down to Silla” (2 Kings 12:21, referring to their village of Silwan?).

The implications of these passages are that: (1) The Millo is associated with the Fortress of Zion. (2) It was there when David conquered Jerusalem. (3) It was modified or repaired during the United Monarchy and the Kingdom of Judah, and (4) it had at least one house associated with it during the Kingdom of Judah. These criteria fit the Stepped-Stone Structure.

Jane Cahill responds:

The Stepped-Stone Structure—particularly its substructure—is indeed the only structure found thus far in Jerusalem that could possibly have been the Millo mentioned in the Old Testament.

Cahill’s Breath of Fresh Air

Finally! In a world of minimalists, someone—Jane Cahill—with some common sense! It seems that so many scholars are so bent on protecting their own theories, preconceptions and biases that they refuse to accept that the Biblical record might indeed bear an accurate resemblance to history. Cahill wonderfully demonstrates how Jerusalem could be occupied for many centuries and thus reflect building and renovation activities from several eras. Indeed, one need only return to Jerusalem to see this is the case today.

Biblical Archaeology in Brooklyn

Article Spurs Donation

As a regular reader I was enormously surprised and impressed with your article about the Living Torah Museum in Brooklyn, an institution I had not heard of before (“Yes, Virginia, There IS an American Biblical Archaeology Museum,” November/December 2004).

I contacted museum director Rabbi Shaul Deutsch immediately, and he 012arranged for our first meeting at the remarkable museum in the heart of one of the most Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in New York. I am very much looking forward to not only becoming a member, but also to contributing some of my art works on Jewish themes.

Our article on the Living Torah Museum, in Brooklyn, New York, prompted several readers to visit and to donate items to the museum, including several important artifacts by a veteran of 1930s Lachish excavation now in his 90s. We will have more on that and other donations to the museum in a future issue.—Ed.

Eleventh Commandment?

I had the honor and the great pleasure to visit and be a guest of honor of the Living Torah Museum in Boro Park, Brooklyn. I was welcomed by the director, Rabbi Shaul Deutsch, and his noble wife Pe’er. I was especially interested in the Samaritan exhibits, particularly the Ten Commandments inscription discovered in 1913. A sponsor enabled Rabbi Deutsch to purchase it for $110,000, making it the most expensive artifact in the museum’s collection.

I was surprised to see in the collection a Samaritan ring and amulet that contains the common inscription “In Ka’el Yasharon” [in ancient Hebrew pronunciation, “There is no like the God of Israel”] from Deuteronomy 33, which the late archaeologist Yaacov Kaplan discovered north of Tel Aviv.

I was very impressed by the vast collection, which is organized and well kept. Orthodox Jews don’t usually put much emphasis on archaeological findings. Rabbi Deutsch has succeeded in making his museum very popular among his community, designing his museum in a very sophisticated way and explaining the findings as to make more clear to many thousands of Orthodox Jews the stories of the Bible.

But I was very surprised to read in your article that the Commandments inscription contains an eleventh commandment, about building an altar on Mount Gerizim. That is totally wrong. The Samaritans never considered the First Commandment in the Jewish tradition [“I am the Lord your God”—Ed.] as a commandment but only that the God of Israel presented Himself to his people before he revealed the commandments. So the Second Commandment in the Jewish tradition [“You shall have no other gods before me”—Ed.] is the first in the Samaritan tradition. This means that the commandment of building an altar on Mount Gerizim, which is missing in the Jewish version, is the Tenth Commandment in the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch [Exodus 20:14–15]. In my view the number of Commandments in the Jewish version is only nine.

I recommend that the readers of BAR read the full English translation of this Tenth Commandment on our Web site, www.mystae.com/samaritans.html.

The writer is a leader of the Samaritan community in Israel.—Ed.

070

Go West, Young Woman

Regarding “Yes, Virginia, There IS an American Biblical Archaeology Museum,” it is obvious that Virginia must have been clinging to the East Coast. If she ventured out west, she would find an excellent museum devoted to Biblical archaeology in Albuquerque, New Mexico—admittedly, a little off the beaten path. It is run by Trinity Southwest University and contains an impressive display of artifacts tied into a Biblical-era timeline on the wall above the exhibits. The museum is well worth the stop if you are in the area.

Name Game

Sisera and the Shardana

Richard Hess would probably enjoy your previous article about the Shardana, which discusses the name “Sisera” (Adam Zertal, “Philistine Kin Found in Early Israel,” May/June 2002).

That article said Sisera is a common name in Sardinian history. It theorized that Sisera was a leader of mercenaries from among the Shardana, one of the Sea Peoples, and that the ruins of a fortress near the site of the battle between Sisera’s forces and the Israelites have similarities to ancient Sardinian settlements.

For me, the Sardinian theory is confirmed by the details of Sisera’s bizarre murder. There are much easier ways to kill a sleeping soldier than by driving a tent peg clean through his temple. Perhaps Heber’s wife Jael thought of that method when she saw Sisera’s trademark Shardanian helmet, with its two protruding horns.

Richard Hess responds:

As in my article, Adam Zertal bases the linguistic connection of the name Sisera on Giovanni Garbini’s published suggestion (“Il Canticodi Debora,” La Parola del Passato—Rivista de Studi Antichi 178 (1978), pp. 5–31). However, the phonological relationship of sibilants and other phonemes between the pronounced name as rendered by Linear A script and the name rendered in Hebrew remains uncertain and speculative, although intriguing.

Potpourri

Correction

In “In This Corner—William Dever and Israel Finkelstein Debate the Early History of Israel” (November/December 2004), we stated that Israel Finkelstein lowered the date of the Iron Age gate at Megiddo from the tenth to the ninth century B.C.E. The first person to make this adjustment, however, was Tel Aviv University archaeologist David Ussishkin, in an article published in 1980. Finkelstein now agrees with Ussishkin’s dating.—Ed.

Sick and Tired and Sick and Tired

I’ve been a BAR subscriber for many years and recently extended my subscription. But I’m beginning to reconsider whether I want to keep getting the magazine.