Queries & Comments
008
What’s Not to Like?
I would have to think all day and into the night to find anything I don’t like about BAR. Without it, I would never have learned about the minimalist controversy, which could have staggering theological and political ramifications.
Rev. Frederick F. Johnson
Adjunct Professor of Philosophy
Florida Gulf Coast University
Fort Myers, Florida
Here’s What’s Not to Like
Your magazine has increasingly become a magazine about controversies and professional squabbling. I have no interest in this and resent paying for the pages and pages that you devote to this type of “news.”
Please define your mission—is BAR for professional archaeologists and their world or is it for the education of laymen? I hope you choose the latter. If you do, I will happily resubscribe.
Diana Merz
Falls City, Nebraska
Don’t Get Emotional
As a recent subscriber, I love your magazine but I am surprised at how emotional and subjective your stories sometimes are.
Take, for instance, the controversy over the “James ossuary.” The tone of your articles on this topic (which I follow like a soap opera) are actively “pro-authentic.” They really want the inscription to be authentic, and they discount or belittle any other opinions.
I am not a Christian or a Jew and have no emotional stake in the outcome of this dispute. As a professional journal, you certainly should not either.
Michael Uhlenkott
Pasadena, California
Noah’s Ark
Leaky Theory
I wish to commend Ralph Pedersen for his article “Was Noah’s Ark a Sewn Boat?” (May/June 2005). The pictures themselves were worth a thousand words. Throughout the article there was tremendous attention to detail that provided an intriguing and insightful journey for the mind.
There is only one aspect I found disappointing. At the end, the article states, “If, as most scholars believe, the Jews of the Babylonian Exile adapted the Babylonian flood story to their scriptures, then certainly the Jewish scribes would have relied on the Gilgamesh Epic and Noah’s Ark would be a sewn craft.” This statement can come across as an attack on conservative scholars who believe in Moses’ authorship of the Pentateuch. Perhaps the view the article mentions is held by the majority of scholars you know. However, the majority of scholars I know by no means hold to it. The foundations of the Documentary Hypothesis have been severely undermined by archaeology. Those of us who choose a conservative perspective do so in part because there is not enough water plugs and pitch in the world to keep the old Documentary Hypothesis theory afloat. That aside, 010thanks again for the excellent research and impressive photography. I came away enlightened and, envious of Pedersen’s diving experiences.
Mark Schwarzbauer
Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin
Parallels Do Not Mean Influence
I found Ralph K. Pedersen’s article “Was Noah’s Ark A Sewn Boat?” interesting, but terribly flawed. His whole premise rests on the assertion that “the Gilgamesh Epic is generally viewed by scholars as the source for the Biblical account of the Flood, despite differences between the two.” First, I disagree that there is any consensus of opinion among Biblical or ancient Near East scholars on this matter. Second, the fact that parallels may exist between the two accounts does not necessarily imply direct influence or borrowing, anymore than two eyewitnesses describing a similar account can be accused of collusion just because certain parts of their testimony happen to coincide. The parallels and differences between the two flood accounts can just as easily be explained by different interpretations of a shared literary history between the Babylonians and Jews suited to their particular cultural beliefs and practices.
The Flood story is a motif embedded in the folklore of many ancient cultures in places as disparate as the Far East, South America and Scandinavia, to name just a few. Many of these stories share similar themes of mass destruction, divine causation, warnings, a remnant of spared humans and animals, and a vessel of some kind. It is not likely that borrowing is taking place in these cases, but rather that there may be a shared history that is being retold from time immemorial, gradually shaped by the needs and circumstances of each developing culture.
When the above facts are taken into consideration, Pedersen’s argument that the detailed account of the ark construction in the epic of Gilgamesh being one and the same as Noah’s Ark because of certain parallels between the two stories seems to unravel like a poorly sewn boat.
Tony Canoura
Miami, Florida
John the Baptist’s Cave
John Baptized in “Living Water”
My compliments for your unusually well-balanced and informative May/June 2005 issue. “The History of Israelite Religion” by Frank Moore Cross was erudite and intellectually stimulating to such a degree that it seemed almost out of place.
In contrast to Professor Cross’s article, “John the Baptist’s Cave—The Case in Favor” was, at most, a poor attempt to titillate rather than to inform. It is apparent that excavator Shimon Gibson was less intent on following the evidence than on interpreting evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. Most discussions of early Christian baptism customs stress the importance of baptism in “living water” or a flowing stream with pools of water only when there was no alternative. 012I recall no instance where John baptized in a stagnant pool as postulated in this article. For Gibson to convince us that the cave he found was used by John, he must provide some evidence that John might have been forced by circumstances to baptize in other than “living water.”
William Hagen
Columbus,Ohio
Shimon Gibson and James Tabor respond:
The truth is we have not had any predetermined conclusions about the Suba cave since we began our dig there in the spring of 2000 through our current season of excavations this summer. Our efforts were undertaken with precision and the utmost care, rigidly adhering to the most modern scientific methods, as the final publication (due out in 2006) will demonstrate. We were completely surprised that this massive water system, which we now believe was established in the Iron Age II period (eighth century B.C. or earlier), had a cave with discrete and undisturbed archaeological levels running from Ottoman back to Hellenistic times. Nor could we have anticipated finding the 1.5-to-2-meter thick layer from the early Roman period (first century A.D.) that points to some kind of sustained ritual activity performed there, involving water purification, at a location associated by Byzantine tradition with John the Baptist and his early years. The Byzantine drawings on the walls are there for all to see. If our hypothesis is “titillating,” so be it, since we have attempted to take into account all the material, textual and scientific evidence available and we have sought to make sense of the finds as they emerged from the ground. We welcome alternative explanations.
We have no idea why Mr. Hagen imagines the Suba cave is, or was, full of stagnant water. That is simply not the case. Like Jewish ritual baths at Qumran or in Jerusalem, the Suba cave conforms to Jewish requirements related to ritual purity in this period, fed by the rainfall and the springs in the area.
Double Error
I have to take issue with two things in Shimon Gibson and James Tabor’s article on John the Baptist’s cave. First, Jesus’ feet were never washed and anointed by Mary Magdalene. In the passage referred to by the authors, John 12:1–3 (not John 12:13, a typo perhaps not the author’s fault), the anointing takes place in Bethany at the house of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. So the anointer is Mary of Bethany, not Mary of Magdala. And if the authors were referring to the story in Luke 7:36–50, where a sinful woman comes in off the streets to bathe and anoint Jesus’ feet, that wasn’t Mary Magdalene, either. If it had been, she would have been named, as she was only a few verses later in Luke 8:2. It is the juxtaposition of these two stories that erroneously gave rise to the totally false claim that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.
Second, in the three Synoptic Gospel accounts of John’s baptizing, only full immersion is described (Matthew 4:13–17, Mark 1:9–11, Luke 3:21–22). John does not describe the baptism ceremony, merely mentions that it happened. Nowhere in the Bible is there a description of sprinkling before the immersion [contrary to the ceremony proposed in Gibson and Tabor’s article—Ed.].
J. Birney Dibble
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
James Tabor and Shimon Gibson respond:
On the first point Mr. Dibble might well be correct that neither of the women in the two accounts we have of Jesus’ feet being washed/ anointed (John 12 and Luke 7) are likely to be Mary Magdalene. We certainly did not intend to contribute to the later tradition that branded Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. It was the notion of the anointing of feet for some kind of ritual purpose that caught our attention as we sought to come to terms with what was found in the Suba cave, namely the foot-anointing stone.
It is true that no description of the pouring of water over the head is found in the immersion accounts related to John the Baptist in the Synoptic Gospels. However, it is entirely possible that such activity was a part of the whole and it was just assumed. The Mandeans, the only surviving followers of John the Baptist, while practicing full immersion, splash water several times over the head of the candidate, who is submerged to the chest in the water just prior to the head being submerged. The Didache reflects early variations in carrying out the act of baptism, including in running water, pools, immersion and pouring. We also have depictions in early Christian art of Jesus’ baptism where he is standing in water up to his waist while John is also pouring water from a jug over his head. These have always been assumed to be later developments, reflecting changes in Christian liturgy. However, given the first-century evidence in our cave, with the plethora of small water vessels, it is surely worth postulating the possibility of immersion being combined with pouring. Our approach is to be less dogmatic about what kind of immersion was used at that time and to see what the evidence from our cave might help to further inform our understanding.
[For more on the understanding of how Mary Magdelene’s role was altered in the early years of Christianity, see Jane Schaberg, “How Mary Magdalene Became a Whore,” Bible Review October 1992—Ed.]
Tel Halif
Another Use for Perforated Clay Balls
The perforated clay balls found at Tel Halif identified by Oded Borowski as loom weights (“Tel Halif: In the Path of Senacherib,”; May/June 2005) look to me very much like the perforated clay balls found at Ashkelon and identified by 014Ehud Weiss and Mordechai E. Kislev as wine jar stoppers (“Weeds & Seeds,” BAR, November/December 2004).
These objects were neither loom weights nor wine jar stoppers. They were net weights fishermen attached at intervals around the perimeters of their cast nets to weight down the edges. Their presence at Tel Halif, far from any significant body of water, probably indicates that there once existed a substantial bird-netting industry in that region.
James Williams
Saratoga, California
Oded Borowski responds:
The question whether the objects mentioned in my article were used as loom weights or wine jar stoppers is not new. The suggestion made by Mr. William is new, at least for me. Using these weights as fishing net weights is not logical because they were sun-dried and would have disintegrated when placed in water. In fact, many disintegrated as we extracted them from the ground, and the only way to preserve them for study was by dipping them (twice) in a solution of Elmer’s glue and water. However, being used as loom weights did not prevent these objects from being used for other purposes under dry conditions. That similar objects were used as loom weights has been proven by the fact that they were found at some sites lined up parallel to a wall where remains of wooden loom beams were retrieved. That they were used at Tel Halif as loom weights is strongly suggested by the context in which they were found, including bone spatulas for pattern weaving and spindle whorls. Although the clay weights could have been used for more than weaving, in order to use them for bird-netting they would have had to be transported to where the birds could be hunted. This would have required moving them some distance, and because they are relatively heavy and fragile this would have not been practical. Furthermore, the idea of “a substantial bird-netting industry in the region” needs to be supported by zooarchaeological remains, which are lacking.
Weighty Matters
I enjoyed the article on Tel Halif but was bemused by your description in the caption of the photograph on page 32 as “clay loom weights … used to spin wool and hair into thread, which was then woven into cloth.” As correctly mentioned in the article, loom weights are used for weaving, not spinning. Similar loom weights and spindle whorls have been found at Homolovi Ruins State Park near Winslow, Arizona, where the ancestors of the Hopi people were growing cotton for trade and for their beautiful textiles.
Karen Berggren
Manager, Homolovi Ruins State Park
Winslow, Arizona
Ms. Berggren is correct, the weights were used in weaving and not in spinning.—Ed.
Israelite Religion
Cross the Darwinian
Frank Moore Cross writes as if it is a proven fact that the religion of Israel must have evolved and that it did not “leap full-formed into history like Athena from the head of Zeus” (“The History of Israelite Religion,” May/June 2005). As proof, like a good evolutionist, he adduces a number of “parallel structures” in literature, custom and artifact from other cultures in the ancient Near East and simply asserts that parallel structures prove antecedents, that one thing came from another. They most certainly do not—not in biology or in history. Pre-Cambrian rock, before life, is empty of fossils. Then Cambrian rock explodes with thousands of fossils of complex plants, insects, reptiles and fish. They spring “full-formed into history,” thousands of parallel structures, with no antecedents. Cross may claim that he is doing history, but he has not proved any evolution of religion in Israel, only asserted it, and that based on forcing historical data into his own dogmatic philosophical schema.
Robert Gadeken
Reese, Michigan
Dig Cover
Turned Off by the BAR Audience
This is my first subscription to your magazine. However, from the first issue I was not sure if it was what I was looking for. Although some articles were very interesting, some just made my jaw drop. The standards of science and objective study seem to be replaced by “we want it to prove the Bible and we will make sure we do.” Flimsy evidence and conjecture based on oral tradition replace science.
The turning point was the letters to the editor in the May/June 2005 issue. It is beyond me how the picture of the young lady, proudly exhibiting a discovered artifact, would offend anyone. That cover exemplified the thrill of discovery and archaeology, and anyone who sees something else clearly has a problem. It tells me that these subscribers are religious fundamentalists and right-wing fanatics who have a narrow view of what the Bible is about and what it tells us about life. I will not be renewing.
Joyce Lively
San Francisco, California
We have over 200,000 readers, of all stripes and beliefs. We received as many letters defending the cover as attacking it. You are in a large group united by the fact that we all have an interest in the Bible. Other than that we are often very different from one another.—Ed.
The Photographer’s Viewpoint
I don’t see myself as a “Letter to the Editor” sort, but as the photographer responsible for the photo that generated such a flurry of responses, I feel I have to defend the young woman pictured. I am troubled, but not shocked, to see so many readers looking to such antiquated notions about where women belong. It disgusts me that some contend that if a young woman is on the cover of BAR, it must be because of her physical appearance. Of all the volunteers I encountered during the 2004 season at Bethsaida, Courtney Mosher was the only one who was actually pursuing a career in archaeology. She is the kind of bright, energetic and capable woman we need to see better represented in our field. I know from experience how hard this field can be for young scholars, and 066we certainly don’t need sexist rhetoric making young women feel that their accomplishments will be viewed as “cheesecake” unless they cover their skin. On the bright side, I am greatly encouraged by the reader who wrote that he won’t be renewing his subscription; his absence will only serve to decrease the element of ignorance and prejudice among BAR’s generally enlightened readership.
Christian Haunton
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
Grin and Bare It
Thank you so much for publishing the entertaining letters regarding the cover of BAR’s annual Dig Issue. I haven’t read letters so funny since the controversy over whether or not to publish ancient pornographic lamps. But anyone comparing BAR’s cover with Playboy or Sports 067Illustrated swimsuit issue is just plain ignorant of those magazines, which feature feminine flesh all the way to Bare-sheva!
J. Carl Laney
Portland, Oregon
What Cover Are They Looking At?
When I received my copy of the January/February 2005 issue, I saw a very attractive young lady from Rocky Mountain College in Billings, Montana, on the front cover. I thought it was great that someone from my state should grace the cover of this very prestigious publication.
When the May/June 2005 issue arrived and I read the letters to the editor, I had to go back and look at the front cover in question once again. Playboy? Exposed breasts, buttocks and thighs? What’s going on here?
Did BAR put out the January/February issue with two different cover photographs on it? Either you did or some BAR readers have very active and very dirty minds and should be ashamed of themselves.
Richard Thoroughman
Fort Shaw, Montana
Potpourri
Editor’s Correction
In your article about the inscription on the ivory pomegranate being declared a forgery (
Max Singer
Jerusalem
Hershel Shanks replies:
Mr. Singer is absolutely correct. We apologize to both Professor Demsky and Professor Ahituv. The reference was in an early draft of the piece and mistakenly got into the printed version. Professor Demsky is a highly respected scholar and a long-time BAR author. While we do not know Professor Ahituv quite as well as Professor Demsky, we do know his reputation as a distinguished and highly regarded scholar. Since this article appeared, we have had enlightening and friendly conversations with both men (see “Forgery Hysteria Grips Israel”).
What’s Not to Like?
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.