Queries & Comments

008

Praise for Women

I wonder if anyone else noticed: Two of the three lead articles in your July/August issue were by women (Norma Franklin and Lisbeth Fried). Both the “Biblical Views” and “Archaeological Views” columns were by women (Mary Joan Winn Leith and Ayelet Gilboa). And the only book review was by a woman (Paula Wapnish). Even one of the three cartoon caption-contest winners was a woman (Hannah Meddaugh). Good for you. Keep it up!

BAR Readers are Jury

Your special report on the Jerusalem Forgery Conference (First Person, BAR 33:04 and www.biblicalarchaeology.org/forgery/forgeryreport.html) is outstanding. Kol Hakovod [“All honor to you”].

As a trial lawyer, I confess that I have a preference for juries. In a sense, the readers of BAR are the jury, assessing the expert testimony.

I Heard It From Frank Cross

I read with great interest the interview with Frank Moore Cross in which he recounted his first trip to Jerusalem to research the Dead Sea Scrolls (“How the Dead Sea Scrolls Changed My Life,” BAR 33:03). It brought back childhood memories, as I was on the same voyage in 1953.

At the time, I was 10 years old and accompanying my father, Frank Wilson, who was traveling on an assignment in the U.S. Foreign Service to India. We were traveling on the American Export Lines SS Exochorda, which was a cargo passenger ship. As the passenger list was small,and the voyage lasted more than two weeks, we all got to know each other. My father, who was an accomplished linguist—speaking about 12 languages—and deeply interested in archaeology,got into many discussions with Cross about the then-recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls. I listened to some of these discussions, although they were well above my 10-year-old level of understanding. But I do remember Cross saying, “The Dead Sea Scrolls are going to change our understanding of the Bible.”How right he was!

Coins with Images in Jesus’ Time

I found Mark Chancey’s article (“How Jewish Was Jesus’ Galilee?” BAR 33:04) fascinating, but I question his statement that “during the time of Jesus, [coins] were designed not to offend Jewish sensibilities” by not including representations of humans, animals and deities. The assumption from the article is that very rarely did one find coins in first-century Galilee with images on them. If this is the case, to what are the Gospel writers referring when they have Jesus asking, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” (Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24).

Mark A. Chancey responds:

In the time of Jesus, the coins struck in Galilee were issued by the Jewish client king Herod Antipas. Like other Jewish coins of this period, they did not depict living things, whether humans, animals or pagan deities. However, these were not the only coins to circulate in the region; others included coins struck by nearby pagan cities, especially Tyre.

In contrast to Jewish coins, those issued by official Roman mints also had anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images. Jews could not have helped but notice the contrast between locally produced coins and those struck by pagan authorities in non-Jewish areas.

The Gospel texts that Ms. Erazmus refers to, which culminate with the famous injunction to “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” refers to the presence of an image of the bust of 010Caesar on a Roman denarius. The situation in Jerusalem, where Jesus comments on the image on a denarius, was similar to that in Galilee: A variety of coins circulated, with those struck in pagan areas often depicting humans and animals, while those struck locally avoided depicting such images.

The Tomb of Jesus—Three Takes

Scholars Out of Context

I just read the editorial on my film “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” (First Person, “’The Tomb of Jesus’—My Take,” July/August 2007) that you penned after recovering from your Caribbean vacation.

You state that I specialize in taking academics out of context. I’ll give you a reward if you can come up with a single example. The only concrete example you cite is that you talked to Professor Frank Moore Cross who told you that “he was ‘upset’ at his appearance in the film.” You state that “Simcha had used only his reading of the ossuary, not his view that this was not the tomb of Jesus.” I guess you didn’t watch the documentary carefully.

Twenty-three minutes into the film, my narration asks why the names in the Talpiot tomb were not thought to be significant. What follows is a montage of Dr. Shimon Gibson stating that “these inscriptions were deemed to be common” and Professor Cross stating that “these are the most common names among the Jews in the first century.” In case anyone missed the point, Professor Cross is followed by David Mevorah, curator at the Israel Museum, stating that “suggesting that this tomb was the tomb of the family of Jesus is a far-fetched suggestion.” So what exactly is Professor Cross “upset” about? And why didn’t you do your homework before accusing me of taking him out of context?

The fact is that so far no one has come up with any serious rebuttal to the historical, archaeological, statistical and DNA evidence that we present in favor of the idea that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Simcha Jacobovici: The Trickster God

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your views regarding the pseudo-documentary on the so-called “Tomb of Jesus.” I have been following the exploits of Mr. Jacobovici since I saw his program on the lost tribes of Israel, which was extremely interesting, informative and well done. I am also a big fan of his “Naked Archaeologist” program, although I don’t see that he is an archaeologist. I know he is a journalist and a filmmaker, but the series is incredibly entertaining.

However, Mr. Jacobovici has “agenda” written all over him. He loves attention and provoking dissension. He begins with a thesis or a belief, and then he roams all over attempting to construct his “proof.” It’s all belief-based.

In the case of the so-called “Jesus Tomb,” the scholars were annoyed because 012they felt they had been quoted out of context and were the victims of biased editing. They had a right to be annoyed.

All that being said, though, Mr. Jacobovici remains one of the most entertaining and likeable persons to have ever graced the airwaves. One needs to be on one’s guard, though, because he is the living embodiment of a pagan element: the trickster god. But that’s perfectly all right with me. Anyone who encourages us to be on our toes and sharper than usual is doing us good.

No Pace for Pfann

In your July/August First Person, “‘The Tomb of Jesus’—My Take,“ you speak of the reading ”Yeshua bar Yehosef“ as being ”clear to almost all expert observers.“ You then follow this with ”(pace Stephen Pfann, of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem).”

True, the experts almost unanimously consider the “bar Yehosef” part of the inscription to be clear. But they likewise almost unanimously consider the “Yeshua” part of the inscription to be “messy” (Frank Cross), or “difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched” (L.Y. Rahmani). The original reading made by Dr. Rahmani was “Yeshua’ (?), son of Joseph,“ with a question mark following the name ”Yeshua.“ Joseph Naveh is quoted with this response to the inscription: ”The ‘Joseph’ is unmistakable,“ he said. ”The ‘son of’ is okay. And you can certainly read it as ‘Jesus,’“ he said. ”Just not definitely. There are lots of additional lines here that don’t belong.” Émile Puech and Ada Yardeni come to similar conclusions.

For more details on this inscription and on the recent autopsy of the ossuaries, see http://www.uhl.ac/blog.

Judging BAR

BAR Attacks My Faith

In your editorial in the July/August issue (“‘The Tomb of Jesus’—My Take”), you 078say, “If Jesus already had a family tomb in Talpiot, there would be no need to bury him in a temporary tomb, despite the onset of the Sabbath. It’s a little more than a half hour’s walk to Talpiot.” You go on to say, “For me that pretty much settles it.”

You would have been wise to have stopped there, but you continued on to state, “but I have to add that my friend Jodi Magness thinks it is ‘possible that followers [of Jesus] or family members removed Jesus’ body from Joseph [of Arimathea’s] tomb’ although she vociferously rejects the notion that Jesus was thereafter buried in the Talpiot tomb. If Jodi Magness tells me that Jesus’ initial burial was only temporary, that’s a powerful statement to me.”

Now I don’t know Jodi Magness, but how she can say that the disciples may have moved the body (which apparently you are suggesting) is beyond me. This leads me to my next point.

What good is it for BAR to publish articles about Biblical archaeology if you don’t believe the Bible in the first place? Is this just an academic exercise?

Now to be fair, I have read some well-written and well-researched material in the two issues of the magazine I have received, but I have found at least two instances, including the one above, that attack the Christian faith. I cannot support a magazine that attacks my faith—a faith that is founded on fact, not supposition.

Please discontinue our subscription immediately and refund the remainder of our money.

Always Making Someone Unhappy

When I first encountered BAR, my impression was that it was just another “rabid” evangelical magazine that “played” at archaeology, and against my better judgment I subscribed. Over the past year my estimation of your magazine has risen to the point of open admiration. I find your outlook to be very even-handed and fair to both the believer and the secularist.

I commend you. You have my sympathy and admiration; in attempting to be fair to all, you seem to always make someone unhappy. Just remember you are a major channel of communication between the faithful and the secular and to lean too strongly in either direction would be a disservice to both, and to yourself and your publication as well. Keep up the good work.

Asinine BAR

Cancel my subscription. You chose to carry an advertisement for the American Atheist Press (July/August 2007). If I cannot trust your judgment in selectivity of advertisers, then how can I trust your scholarship to be reliable? I now have a working definition for “asinine.”

The footnote on page 76 of the July/August 2007 issue should read “See Rami Arav, Richard A. Freund and John E. Shroder, Jr., ”Bethsaida Rediscovered,“ BAR, January/February 2000, which supports the identification of et-Tell as Bethsaida.

–>

Praise for Women