Queries & Comments

008

Inside Out

BAR seems to enjoy provoking controversy in its inside pages, but now this tendency has moved to the cover as well. The ersatz cheesecake photo on your January/February 2005 cover is a poor imitation of Playboy or the swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated and belies the serious material offered in the substance of the magazine. Better to stick with tombs, ruins or cracked pottery on the cover to attract the aficionados of archaeology, especially for the issue arriving at Christmastime.

Over the Line

Was it really necessary to expose the young lady on the cover of “Digs 2005” to such mysogynistic treatment? Why is it necessary to encourage today’s cultural disrespect for decency?

No, I’m not going to cancel my subscription. You provide a valuable literary service to those who choose to partake. But sex appeal is not my motivation to subscribe. I’m no prude, but you’ve stepped over the line this time and should be ashamed of yourselves.

What a Lovely Bead

I can’t put this cover on my coffee table. “Look, kids, an Iron Age II clay bead!” Come on, is it really the thrill of discovery that got this shot on the cover? Let’s keep our controversies to issues of archaeology rather than immodesty.

Heathens and Believers

I was appalled by the “cover girl” photograph. She was scantily clothed, showing off part of her breasts, thighs and buttocks. I don’t understand why a reputable magazine such as yours would allow this photo to be published. What is now the difference between the heathen and the believers? I don’t think men who subscribe to your magazine will complain about this. Even Christian men are trapped into such visual temptations.

Fulfilling Scripture

I was pleased to receive your much-awaited “Swimsuit Edition”—oops! I mean your “Digs 2005” edition! I must congratulate the photo editors for so faithfully consulting the Scriptures in order to find a volunteer excavator who so well fulfills Song of Songs 4:1–5. (No, I won’t quote it; look it up yourselves.) Keep up the good work, or at least the good pictures.

Brickbats at 11 O’Clock!

In the 10 to 12 years that I have been a subscriber I have become accustomed to the magazine’s covers of beautiful pictures of ancient artifacts and archaeological digs at ancient sites. Yesterday, when I removed the shipping cover of your January/February 2005 issue, what did I find? Apparently, the first-ever BAR “Swimsuit Edition”! Well, all I can say is—“Right on, Hershel!!!” Once every 010ten years or so a picture of a comely young lady on the cover makes for a nice change of pace. Keep up the good work, and keep your head down when the brickbats start flying.

Tipping the Scale

Things like the January/February cover picture and Hershel Shanks’s rantings have pretty much tipped the scale for me—unless there are changes I won’t be renewing. It’s too bad—BAR could have made an important contribution to informed discussion of important historical topics, but instead is turning into something of an archaeological tabloid.

BAR Goes Minimalist

Your selection of a scantily clad maiden for your January/February 2005 cover suggests that you have thrown in your lot with the minimalists.

What a Bead!

My 84-year-old husband, who still appreciates female pulchritude, gave your January/February 2005 cover a proper amount of interested attention before putting it aside and remarking that it was an unusual cover for BAR.

Me: “You don’t think an Iron Age clay bead is an appropriate subject?”

Husband: “Bead! What bead?”

I do not want to cancel my subscription. I enjoy your magazine too much, and I find Hershel Shanks unfailingly interesting whether he is writing about feuding archaeologists or more scholarly subjects.

If you must put diggers on your covers, perhaps you could have a handsome young male digger—holding an artifact, of course.

A Better Cover

An enlarged picture of the clay bead would have been of more interest on your cover!

Where John Baptized

Daily Double

What a wonderful issue. The photos of the baptismal wells used by St. John the Baptist were breathtaking (“Where John Baptized,” January/February 2005)! Then to follow up with the story of “The Secret Gospel of Mark” was remarkable.

John Baptized in Perea

I wish to add one more observation about the location of John the Baptist’s baptismal site, discussed in Rami 012Khouri, “Where John Baptized.” The Synoptic Gospels and Josephus all state that the tetrarch Herod Antipas imprisoned and killed John the Baptist. Herod Antipas ruled Perea, which was on the east bank of the Jordan River. Josephus, moreover, states that Herod killed John at Machaerus, which was in Perea. The west bank of the Jordan River, however, was in Judea, governed by Pontius Pilate on behalf of the Roman emperor.

I find it improbable that a Roman governor would have allowed Herod Antipas, a mere client ruler (not even having the title of king), to enter imperial territory to seize John. This indicates that John was arrested in Perea, which tends to show that he was living and baptizing in Perea.

… Or Was It Batanea?

I am surprised that Rami Khouri makes no mention of the proposal that “Bethany beyond the Jordan” is in the region of Batanea (Old Testament Bashan), east of the sea of Galilee. This is argued by Rainer Riesner in his article “Bethany beyond the Jordan” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, and at greater length in “Bethany beyond the Jordan (John 1:28)” (in Tyndale Bulletin 38 [1987], pp. 29–63). The identification is philologically plausible and makes much better sense of the geographical indications in the Gospel of John. John the Baptist may have baptized Jesus in the Jordan near the Wadi el-Kharrar, but the Gospel of John does not say that “Bethany beyond the Jordan” is where Jesus was baptized. In John 1:32–34, John the Baptist is recalling the event, which took place some time before this Gospel’s narrative begins. Since the Wadi el-Kharrar was in the territory of Herod Antipas, it is very plausible that John the Baptist, known to have been in trouble with Antipas, should have moved his ministry at some stage from the southern end of the river Jordan to the rivers of Batanea.

Secret Mark

Implications of Secret Mark

Thanks for Scott Brown’s intriguing “The Secret Gospel of Mark” 060(January/February 2005). While I am highly suspicious of secret mystic traditions, especially one with such meager credentials, if most experts on Clement accept the 18th-century copy in the 17th-century book as authentic, that says a lot.

If the Secret Gospel is not a second-century imitation but one Mark himself wrote, it would fundamentally alter our concept of early Christian history. It would relate the Gospel of John more closely to the Synoptic Gospels. It would challenge our understanding of scriptural inerrancy. It would reemphasize the way the Gospel writers molded the events in Christ’s life to illustrate those spiritual truths they wanted to accentuate. And it would lend credence to alternative interpretations that rely on secret traditions. After all, what was the “strong meat” the writer of Hebrews 5:12 longed to share with his readers?

Of course, the startling perspective the letter, if authentic, offers raises new questions: Why is there no other record of it? And from what did the 18th-century copyist transcribe it? On the other hand, if it is a hoax, what was the prankster’s purpose?

BAR is always a stimulating read, and this issue was no exception. Keep up the good work.

Two Corrections

I want to say how pleased I am with the layout of my article on the Secret Gospel of Mark. The accompanying photographs are great and add so much to the article. I’m very proud to see my work like this.

However, I have to point out two errors in the captions to the photos. The first is minor. The caption on p. 48 refers to the painting by Juan de Flandes as The Resurrection of Jesus. The actual title is The Raising of Lazarus. The second is important. The caption on p. 46 states that the color photographs of the manuscript used in this article were “taken in 2000 by University of Athens professor Nikolaos Olympiou.” The color photographs were actually taken in 1977. The last time a western scholar saw the manuscript was in 1976 (Guy Stroumsa and company). I think BAR readers will be confused by this caption because it gives the impression that the manuscript is available for inspection.

Minimalists

Ersatz Scholars

Concerning “Minimalists on Parade” (January/February 2005), with the exception of William Dever, these scholars are not interested in what the truth is concerning the Bible but only in supporting their one-sided views. Apparently archaeological finds, ancient texts (Biblical or secular) and the like mean nothing to them. Professing to be wise, they have become fools, just like the Bible says. Anything that makes them uncomfortable (such as the Tel Dan “House of David” inscription), they just explain away. These men are not real scholars because they don’t look at both sides of the issue. BAR does, and I’m thankful for that.

Israelites Were Not Canaanites

I really do not understand the logic of the minimalists’s arguments. When in history has a culture that is a split-off branch of an existing culture, as Israel Finkelstein would have us believe happened with the Israelites in Canaan, developed a completely new cultural identity? In the 11th to 13th centuries B.C.E. you see a large number of new settlements in the central highlands of Israel, all with similar but slightly crude pottery (at least initially), and the appearance of the unique four-room house structure as well as slaked lime cisterns. And, if one takes the Bible as an added reference, at least the beginnings of rudimentary monotheism. It seems hard to me to say that this is just a disenfranchised offshoot group of Canaanites. If it were, why didn’t they 062take the Canaanites greatest weapon, the chariot, with them?

All we need to do is look at recent history. When Englishmen came to America (as a splinter group), the houses, the laws, the customs, everything remained basically the same. The argument is just not logical in the context of human history. There must have been some form of an influx of peoples (call it an “invasion”) that is accounted for in Joshua.

People forget that religion is, and always will be, largely a matter of faith. Archeology can confirm some details that are in the Bible, but it will never be able to absolutely prove everything that is in the Bible. Personally, I believe what we have found overwhelmingly confirms the historical nature of the Bible.

Carbon-14 Dating

Carbon Copy

Hershel Shanks states in error that carbon-14 decomposes to carbon-12 and to graphite (“Radiocarbon Dating,” January/February 2005).

In the radioactive decay of the carbon-14 nucleus, which has 6 protons and 8 neutrons, there is emitted a 0.155 Mev beta particle (b, negative electron) as the main mode of decomposition. The product nucleus is thus not carbon-12 but nitrogen-14, with 7 protons and 7 neutrons. It is the beta ray that is measured, not the product nitrogen nucleus.

Potpourri

Don’t Knock the Heavy Equipment

The point of the Strata item regarding the removal of Temple Mount rubble by tractors and dump trucks is well taken (“Israeli Supreme Court Blocks Removal of Temple Mount Rubble,” January/February 2005). However, having operated a front-end loader for four years, I can attest to their delicate touch. Because they are hydraulic, they can slowly dig into a huge pile and unearth it in a way that shovels cannot. When shoveling into piles containing rocks or other hard material, one has to use sharp force to dig in under the rocks in order to get the shovel full and move any material at all. In doing so, things inside the dirt can be broken or torn. With a loader, however, a good operator can carefully slide into the dirt under a pile or an object, move the whole bucketful, and then gently redeposit the pile onto a conveyor or into a truck. A good operator can have as delicate a touch as an elephant’s trunk. I realize that it seems preposterous that ancient artifacts in the rubble would be removed with heavy equipment, but the alternative—shovels or hand picking for years—may be out of the question when the rubble needs to be searched quickly before it is hastily removed by indifferent or hostile parties.

Inside Out