Queries & Comments

006

Maybe the Finest

That was one of your finest issues (March/April 2007), if not the finest. I have been a subscriber for so long that I can’t remember when I received my first issue. I am 78 years of age, and few periodicals can continue to educate and interest people of my age. It is a privilege to be able to subscribe.

Enjoyable But…

My one-year subscription has lapsed, and I will not be renewing. Although I enjoy the publication, I cannot get past the fact that certain authors use B.C.E./C.E. for dating purposes. I realize we do not all share the same beliefs, but I find this to be a bit insulting.

“Losing Faith”

A Hug for BAR

WOW—what can I say—if I could reach out and hug you, I would. The dialogue in “Losing Faith” (33:02) was tremendous.

Faith and Belief Are Not the Same

The faith conversation with Professors Ehrman, Strange, Dever and Schiffman was dynamite. I think they touched on something we all struggle with. I wonder if the problem is equating “faith” with “belief.” They aren’t the same. Belief demands evidence. Faith is intuitive and well nourished by tradition (as in Judaism and Christian liturgy).

Verbalizing Faith

Many thanks to BAR for printing the fascinating “Losing Faith” interview with the four outstanding scholar archaeologists. Faith is intangible. It is difficult to verbalize, but these brilliant men are able to analyze the mystery of humanity’s need for a creator (God) whose spirit permeates our lives in one way or another.

Losing My Faith

I really identified with the “Losing Faith” article. I have, in fact, lost my faith despite the fact that I attended a conservative, non-denominational Christian college, studied the Bible in its original languages and lived in Israel for a semester. Each of these factors, combined with life experiences, led me away from Christianity.

However, BAR still has a prominent place in my life as I continue to enjoy learning about the ancient Near East. Christians often implore their flock to investigate the historical veracity of the faith. I am a better person for doing so.

Scholarship Is Not the Problem

I read with great sadness the article about the two men who lost faith “as a result of scholarly research.” My faith was strengthened in the secular halls of learning. It is not scholarship that is the problem, as seen by the two who didn’t lose faith, but a response of the heart to God in what we learn.

The Thread Becomes Stronger

Thank you for publishing such a wonderful article on losing faith.

As a former graduate student in Biblical studies, I struggled for many years with the issues of faith expressed by theses scholars, particularly Bart Ehrman and James Strange. Having been raised in an evangelical Christian home and having studied at a Bible college, I grew up accepting the Bible as literal, historical truth without question.

When I began to study the Bible critically, it was an enlightening experience. How quickly and easily in my first year of study I began to renounce what I had, for 28 years, considered to be the absolute truth of Scripture. But even more surprising was the fact that it didn’t bother me. Indeed, the heady experience of “becoming enlightened” overshadowed any guilt I may have felt as my grip on my life-long faith quickly slipped away.

But I held on to my faith, if by a thread, for the sake of my family.

Although there were many years of internal struggle as 008I went through the motions of being a believer, I look back today—23 years later—with a thankful heart that I did not follow the path that would have led me to abandon my faith.

Faith requires overcoming what is not evident empirically. If the existence of God could be proven, it would not require faith.

BAR’s Secularism

Sorry, but I am going to let my subscription to BAR expire.

In your March/April issue you presented four identical views of faith. It was like reading African-American history from the viewpoint of the Ku Klux Klan.

Why didn’t you choose someone like Jack Cottrell, a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, who is not only a believer, but an apologist for the inerrancy of Scripture? There are really smart people on both sides of these issues, yet you present only the left side. To my mind, BAR has become just one more voice for secularism and unbelief.

BAR’s Darkened Heart

My father-in-law thought that BAR would be a good gift for me, and I eagerly received it. After a couple of years, I am finally realizing that it is not written to inform readers about Biblical archaeology. It is written by non-believers or, at best, believers with feeble faith who don’t truly understand the power of God. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God. He has allowed your hearts to become hardened.

Lawrence Schiffman is not a Christian, so I am not surprised by his opinion, even though God has never forgotten his chosen people and has continually shown his hand in their nation’s history. James Strange feebly claims to be a Christian.

Jesus left no room for ambiguity about who he was and the truth and power of the Scriptures. You either believe that it is true, or you deny him. He told us he is “I AM.” There is no room for doubt. He made it clear that all of Scripture points to him. Jesus did not have any doubt as to the inerrancy of the Scripture. How dare you say you follow him and in the same breath deny what he made clear?

Whether it is your aim or not, your magazine consistently blasphemes Christ and tries to diminish in people’s eyes the power of our Creator. Discontinue my subscription. I will look for another that is not written by those whose hearts are darkened.

The Search for the Divine

I am a writer and psychiatrist/psychoanalyst. I just read your interview with four Biblical scholars in the March/April issue and found it utterly fascinating. Thank you for a most illuminating and meaningful discussion.

Like Professors Ehrman and Dever, I do not now find meaning in the way Christianity is theologized or practiced. But I am drawn, as I presume they are, to how the world of the spirits must have held great meaning for those who were immersed in it 20 centuries ago. So while I don’t have a faith or a confession, I do have an irresistible fascination with the search for the divine.

Slippery Nechushtan

Don’t Quote Half a Verse

In “The Mystery of the Nechushtan” (March/April 2007), Hershel Shanks presents the theory of Kristin Swanson (originally published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 [2002], p. 460).

Shanks writes: “Scholars have often speculated that Hezekiah destroyed the Nechushtan because it had come to be worshiped in the Temple and hence was as objectionable as the other cultic objects condemned in 2 Kings 18:4.”

The problem, very simply stated, is that this is not a scholarly speculation; it is the second half of the verse in 2 Kings. Even more perplexing is the fact that when Shanks cites this verse, he leaves out the second half, which he seems to consider scholarly speculation.

That said, I did enjoy the article.

010

Hershel Shanks responds:

I should have quoted the remainder of 2 Kings 18:4, which states that “the Israelites had been offering sacrifices to it [the Nechushtan].” In her Catholic Biblical Quarterly article, from which our article was taken, Kristin Swanson notes that the shrines (or high places, Hebrew bamot), sacred pillars (Hebrew matzevot) and sacred pole (Hebrew asherah) that were abolished by Hezekiah, as noted in 2 Kings 18:4, are frequently condemned in the Bible, while the Nechushtan is mentioned only once in the entire Deuteronomic History (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings). This, she maintains, tends to refute the historicity of the statement at the end of 2 Kings 18:4 that the Nechushtan had been worshiped. Swanson states: “If this snake were indeed a carved image that had been worshiped in the Temple for a lengthy period of time, as the narrative of 2 Kings 18:4 suggests, one would expect to see it criticized more frequently by the Deuteronomist.” Her point is that the Nechushtan is an Egyptian symbol and that it was condemned because of this, given the political realities of the time.

I suppose that there could be two reasons for condemning the Nechushtan. Or perhaps one or the other. Take your pick.

Another Explanation for the Nechushtan Ban

Professor Swanson’s suspicion that the removal of the Nechushtan (or serpent) from the Temple in Jerusalem had a political dimension that was glossed over by the Biblical writers seems very likely. However, the association of this object with similar symbols of Egyptian royalty seems a rather thin reason to explain its removal from such a high status.

A better reason presents itself, however: If the Nechushtan was a cultic object more associated with the northern tribes than with the southern kingdom, as some scholars have suggested, removing it from the Temple may well have been both popular with the Yahwists in Judah and symbolic of a severing of any remaining religous/cultural ties with the recently conquered northern kingdom of Israel. This would represent a far more pressing concern to the Assyrians than any possible Egyptian origins of iconography of the Nechushtan.

This theory has the advantage of also suggesting the reason for Assyria’s allowing Hezekiah to remain a vassal king: Should Assyria try to subjugate the entire 12 tribes, their populations might ban together in rebellion. Divided up both politically and socially, however, they would be far less of a threat to stable rule.

Potpourri

A Great Read from BAR

I just finished reading your e-book The Dead Sea Scrolls—What They Really Say, which I downloaded last night. It is a great read for anyone who has little knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

To get your free copy of the e-book, go to www.biblicalarchaeology.com/DeadSeaScrolls.

Homer Evidence Unconvincing

I found troubling the rather naive methodology implied by Edwin Yamauchi in the article “Historic Homer” (March/April 2007). Most of the evidence trotted out was not distinctive of the Bronze Age and therefore not evidence of historicity at all. For example, bound wax tablets were in common use throughout

ancient history, including the time of Homer’s writing, so a story involving the use of wax tablets cannot be dated to the Bronze Age just because bound wax tablets were also used then.

Moreover, that weapons in the poem are of bronze only entails that the poems were first forming in the Bronze Age. It does not mean they were completed then, or that any story with bronze weapons in it is true. That the text was forming in the Bronze Age is entirely compatible with that text being 100 percent fictional.

After all, there are tons of historically accurate details in “Kiss Me Deadly”; that doesn’t mean Mike Hammer existed and melted a California beach home with plutonium.

074

The Best Hope for the Truth

Will you be addressing the recent movie “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” as seen on TV? I certainly hope so. BAR and you, Mr. Shanks, would seem the best hope for a thorough, open and unprejudiced pursuit of the truth. Your forte is, in fact, the dialogue itself. You do seem to have a taste for the truth, and you are brave in the face of your enemies. I ask you, please address this movie and all its implications.

See “First Person” in this issue.—Ed.

BAR Does the Sorting

I was concerned with one of your columns in which you described the struggles magazines are having since the Internet (“The Joy of Print,” First Person, January/February 2007). Do not forget the one big plus you have. If I go online, I have to wade through thousands of items and try to sort out for myself which are good and which are bad. I would rather have you do that for me. So far, you are doing fine! Keep on going!

Edict of Milan Correction

I always look forward to my copy of BAR and usually read it from cover to cover.

The article on the early Christian prayer hall (“Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ,’” 33:02) was especially timely for me as I have been doing some background research on this subject. The article helped increase my understanding of Christian worship facilities during this period.

I do have one minor issue with the sidebar in that article. The Edict of Milan did not make “Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire” as stated. Instead, the Edict did three things: (1) It ended persecution and legalized Christianity and all other religions in the empire; (2) it provided for immediate restitution of property seized during the persecutions begun by Diocletian in 302 to Christians as individuals and a corporate community; (3) it promised that people who presently held that property could apply to the state for compensation for their loss. It was not until an edict by Theodosius in 380 that Christianity became the official religion of the Roman empire.

Correction

In “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’” (33:02), the Greek text of “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior” should have read Ιηςσυς χΡιςτσς Θεσυ Υισς ΣωτηΡ.