Queries & Comments

010

Assessing BAR

BAR Gives Sight to the Blind

As a former avid reader of BAR who lost his sight about 5 years ago, I want to compliment you on the wonderful issue you have put online. While I cannot read the magazine, I can have my computer read, as I am currently doing, the articles in the magazine… Thank you! Now when the subscription is set to run out in 2010 I can renew and continue to “read” the magazine. I assume that you will provide future issues online. If not, please take this as a definite vote in favor of doing so!

Let the People Speak!

I wish I could join the accolades your readers have given James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible. Richard Elliott Friedman’s review essay of Kugel’s book (January/February 2008) and Kugel’s response (March/April 2008) afford almost innumerable illustrations of the confusion among Biblical scholars about how to understand the Bible.

Kugel insists that the Old Testament interpreters subscribed to the divine origin of the Biblical text and considered it to be inerrant. Modern scholars have shown, says Kugel, that Biblical history is no longer believable. “The Exodus never took place; the Israelites never conquered Canaan; David’s mighty kingdom never existed; Moses, David, Solomon and other reputed Biblical authors never wrote the things attributed to them.” What is the Bible student to do?

I would disagree with Kugel (who supposedly wrote for Orthodox Jews) and Friedman that modern scholarship and archaeological research have proven the Bible to be in error. Friedman suggests that fundamentalists need a book like Kugel’s to help bridge the gap between modern “facts” and ancient fallacies. Doesn’t Friedman know that the basis of a fundamentalist’s belief is an inerrant, infallible Bible? The other fundamentals—the virgin birth of Christ, his deity, his substitutionary atonement, and his physical resurrection and return—are based solidly on a view of a verbally inspired Bible.

To suggest that fundamentalists need a volume like Kugel’s to help them give up their belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible while continuing to appreciate the spiritual value of the Bible is advocating scholarly schizophrenia. For a fundamentalist to surrender his belief in the inerrant Bible is no more possible than for an Orthodox Jew to forget about the Torah. Fundamentalism would no longer be fundamentalism if it subscribed to the doubts and denials of modern Bible critics.

Many of us have earned degrees from reputable institutions of higher learning, have taught archaeology for decades, keep up with the latest developments and still maintain, as did [Rabbi] Nelson Glueck, that no hard fact of archaeology has ever controverted a single statement of the Scriptures.

Kugel is totally selective in his quotes and materials. Hundreds of times he refers to anonymous “scholars.” One fails to find a single major reference to conservative scholars who do not share his liberal views. For example, in discussing the conquest of Jericho, Kugel accepts Kathleen Kenyon’s verdict of a late, 12th-century B.C. conquest. He totally ignores the reevaluation of Kenyon’s work by Bryant Wood, published, in fact, in BAR (“Let the Evidence Speak,” BAR 33:02), showing that the Biblical date for the conquest around 1400 B.C. is more tenable.

Is it scholarly to ignore the opposition? Kugel, Friedman and BAR would probably be surprised to realize that the majority of BAR readers have a very high view of Scripture. These conservative Christians would rather take the word of Jesus Christ, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6), who said, “Moses wrote of me” (John 5:46) and “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), than trust so-called scholars who reject the historicity and credibility of the Bible. Regrettably, that 012position, probably held by the majority of BAR readers, finds very little representation in the pages of your periodical. Why does not BAR develop and publish an opinion poll to ask its readers about their view of the Bible? Your readers’ answers might startle, indeed, shock you.

As part of our upcoming 200th-issue celebration, BAR is considering a poll of its readers.—Ed.

Copping Out of My Subscription

As a police officer, I have taken eye-witness reports from several people regarding the same incident. Each person sees it a bit differently, and their reports reflect such differences. Do these differences nullify what they saw or discount what happened? No, they don’t. Taking each “eye-witness” statement into account gives a more accurate, clearer picture of what actually transpired.

Would this not also be true regarding the eye-witnesses of the Bible? I cannot in good conscience continue with my subscription to your great magazine when material is presented to try to prove that the Bible is mistaken rather than that it is people who are mistaken.

The Good Fight

I am constantly amazed at some of the idiotic contentions of some of the fanatics and malcontents who write to BAR. Controversy helps strengthen one’s own belief and should not be condemned to the dung heap.

Keep up the good work.

Patience Goes a Long Way

It saddens me to read so many letters where somebody writes more or less “I don’t like so-and-so’s conclusions, therefore cancel my subscription.” If they just waited to read the next two issues, they’ll find experts arguing just as convincingly for several other conclusions 073about the same artifact or subject!

If there were more Celts in the field (I’m a Celt), we’d probably see actual fist-fights between archaeologists!

Speaking of Emmaus

Has the Road to Emmaus Been Destroyed?

Hershel Shanks has done readers a service by drawing attention to the Emmaus mentioned in Luke 24 (“Emmaus: Where Christ Appeared,” BAR 34:02). Having lived for 17 years in modern Motza, just 300 yards from the Motza springs, I admit that I am partial to the candidacy of Motza-Colonia, rather than Nicopolis.

A number of noted scholars have concluded that Motza-Colonia is the Emmaus of the Gospel of Luke.¹ If Motza-Colonia is indeed to be identified with the Emmaus of Luke 24:13, then we have witnessed the destruction of the Road to Emmaus, the Roman road—marked on modern maps as Ma’aleh Roma’im, “the Ascent of the Romans”—that connected Motza-Colonia and Jerusalem. This ancient road has been completely destroyed over the past 20 years by the adjacent Har Ha-Menuhot cemetery.

As Jerusalem’s Har Ha-Menuhot cemetery gradually crept down the hill toward the ravine through which the Roman road ran, the results of the destruction grew worse. Covering two large hills along the highway leading from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the cemetery has slowly crept down the southern slope of the southern-most hill toward the ravine through which the ancient road ascended from Motza to Jerusalem.

Apparently, powerful interests and the needs of Jerusalem’s rapidly expanding population caused archaeological authorities to look the other way. Despite appeals to the Israel Antiquities Authority and visits to the site by IAA district archaeologists, nothing was done. The Har Ha-Menuhot cemetery continued the destruction until finally it had devastated the beautiful forest that bordered the ancient road and destroyed what might have become a major 074Christian tourist attraction. With elimination of vegetation, erosion became extreme, and what remained of the Roman road was washed away.

No one saw and no one heard! Government and municipal inspectors, archaeologists, police and the Ministry of Tourism all turned a blind eye to the destruction of the ancient Roman road. Not being familiar with the New Testament, they were oblivious to the road’s immense significance for Christians.

We contacted the IAA for a response, but no one returned our calls.—Ed.

A Separate Baptistery

Kudos for the outstanding issue for March/April 2008—a great read from cover to cover!

My query: In Hershel Shanks’s article on Emmaus-Nicopolis, which I had the good fortune to visit and examine carefully last year, I noted the following statement regarding the fifth-century baptistery, “During this early period, only at bishopric seats were baptisteries in separate structures.” I am interested to know the source of this assertion.

Dr. Karl-Heinz and Louisa Fleckenstein, director of excavations and tour guide at Emmaus-Nicopolis, respond:

M.J. Schiffers writes, “As is generally known, only the bishopric seats had baptisteries until the ninth century… and we know from history that Nicopolis was a bishopric seat” (Amwas, Das Emmaus Des Heiligen Lukas, Freiburg 1899, Seite 229). In their book on Emmaus, K.H. Fleckenstein, M. Louhivuori and R. Riesner write, “Only the larger bishopric seats had a separate building like the baptistery of Emmaus-Nicopolis (Emmaus in Judaä – Geshchichte-Exegese-Archäolgie, Giessen-Basel 2003, Seite 251, 6).

Evening Starts When?

A fascinating article about candidate locations for the Biblical Emmaus—Thanks!

I was perplexed by the statement, “In the orient, evening begins at 12 o’clock noon, when the sun begins to go down… They would have left in the early afternoon.” What is the source for this claim?

The Fleckensteins respond:

Anyone who has lived among the people of the East will know that even today the Bedouin say after 12 p.m., “the sun is beginning to set.” In this culture evening refers to the second half of the day, when the sun is setting. Also in Italy, after 12 p.m. one says Buona sera (“Good evening”). When the disciples invited Jesus as a guest, it may have been early in the afternoon.

The distance of 160 stadia (31 km) from Jerusalem to Emmaus-Nicopolis doesn’t present an insurmountable problem. Several people have made this roundtrip journey in one day. A person can walk it one-way in 5 or 6 hours. Thus, if the disciples set out around 4 p.m., they would have been back in Jerusalem by 9 p.m. Even if they left later, however, there is a mostly full moon during the Jewish celebration of Passover, so they would not have had to journey in the dark.

Jezebel Seal Scholar Defends Her Position

Even before we published Marjo Korpel’s article about her identification of Queen Jezebel’s seal (“Fit for a Queen: Jezebel’s Royal Seal,” BAR 34:02), it was summarily criticized by Professor Christopher Rollston on the Web, based on a pre-publication account of the article that appeared in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. A postscript to Korpel’s article by the BAR editor responded to Rollston’s criticism.

In Queries and Comments in the May/June issue, we published a more polite and more reasoned letter critical of Korpel’s dating of the seal by Professor Ami Mazar, and also a further statement by the BAR editor regarding a subsequent Web posting by Rollston. We did not print Korpel’s own response because we had not yet received it. When it arrived, however, we promptly put it up on our Web site, which also contains additional discussion of the question of Jezebel’s seal.

Korpel’s response to her critics begins with this paragraph:

Several people have reacted extremely critically to my proposal to identify the seal Avigad & Sass WSS No. 740 as Jezebel’s royal seal. What surprises me is the highly personal, self-confident and clearly overheated tone of their arguments. Even though at the end of the article in BAR I refer to a scholarly publication scheduled to appear soon in Ugarit-Forschungen, my opponents could not exercise patience until that has appeared and attacked me vigorously in an often-discourteous or 075even rude manner. I have no inclination to rebut them in the same style, so I will discuss only their more or less scholarly documented objections, without mentioning them by name.

Korpel continues to deal with each issue that her critics have raised, including the one that Rollston relies on, the dating of the seal. Initially, Rollston said that the seal “must be later” than the ninth century B.C.E., when Jezebel lived. Now, he says that he “is inclined to” date it later than the ninth century B.C.E. Korpel notes that from a strictly paleographical viewpoint, even her critics recognize that the script might be early enough. But Rollston and others rely on the fact that no provenanced seal—that is, one found in a professional excavation, rather than coming from the antiquities market—from the ninth century B.C.E. is inscribed. The vast majority of seals come from the market, however. Rollston’s standard may exclude much of the evidence, although it is obviously much more difficult to date unprovenanced seals. Korpel makes an additional argument with regard to the date however:

“There have not been found any ninth-century B.C.E. inscribed seals in any reliable archaeological context in Israel,” say my opponents. This is an argument from silence—not the most reliable type of argument. At any moment a fresh find might refute it. Moreover, it reveals an undue faith in the reliability of archaeological dating. If Israel Finkelstein finds it necessary to adjust his chronology for the Iron Age by more than a century and is vigorously opposed by colleagues, I find it difficult to accept archaeological dating as an absolute measure when a difference of a century makes all the difference.

Moreover, we are not talking about Hebrew seals alone. Everything indicates that this is a Phoenician seal or a Hebreo-Phoenician seal. It is commonly accepted that inscribed Phoenician glyptic started in the ninth century B.C.E.

Assessing BAR