Queries & Comments

010

Replies to a Desperate Editor

Scholars Aren’t Seeded Like Tennis Stars

I may not be able to respond to the editor’s despairing plea for help (“Help Me! I’m Desperate!” First Person, BAR 34:04), but I think I know why he finds it difficult to come up with scholars who will meet him “on the grounds of reason” on the subject of the James Ossuary inscription. In the editorial he claims to be a good judge of scholarly expertise; in which case he should know that scholars do not grade or seed their colleagues like tennis or soccer players, tend not to talk about “the world’s greatest” palaeographers, Aramaicists or whatever, and are not stunned into silence by appeal to those Shanks places “at the top of their field.”

The editor begins his plea with the admission that almost all scholars, presumably including palaeographers, doubt the authenticity of the inscription, but then names only one skeptic, dismissively referred to as “a woman named Rochelle Altman,” whose book was reviewed unfavorably, a matter of frequent occurrence. The whole thing is a good example of the kind of intrusive editorial policy criticized by Professor Lester Grabbe of the University of Hull in the same issue (“In Their Own Words”). We need look no further for an explanation why “60 Minutes” refused to share its information with the editor.

Professor Blenkinsopp is a distinguished Bible scholar who has been severely criticized in BAR for characterizing the scholarship of a leading Israeli archaeologist (with whom he had a scholarly dispute) as an underhanded attempt “to validate the Zionist political claim to the land” (see “Controversy: Academic Debate Crosses the Line,” BAR 30:05). This may provide some background to Professor Blenkinsopp’s criticism.—Ed.

The Egyptian Suspect Who Never Saw the Ossuary

I was really moved by your excellent article in BAR about the James Ossuary. I agree with every word. It is clear and very true. When I saw the “60 Minutes” broadcast I also noticed that Marko [an Egyptian who was suspected of forging the inscription] said that he had never seen the James Ossuary before. This is very crucial evidence, and I think that it was not emphasized.

I know that many objects in Oded Golan’s collection are genuine. I hope that in the end truth will come to light.

Good Science Requires Reproduced Results

The essence of science is the reproducibility of results, whether one is dealing with newts or neutrons. As it stands, the verdicts of the IAA and Professor Krumbein regarding the patina on the James Ossuary inscription are one-offs; they need to be reproduced.

Would it be possible through your good offices to promote, or even sponsor, experiments? They could be along these lines: (1) Deliberately fake an inscription on an antique ossuary, then disguise it in the manner that the IAA claimed Oded Golan did, and then invite expert scientists (Professor Krumbein and the IAA, if willing) to analyze and pronounce their findings; (2) Take a genuine antique ossuary with an uncleaned inscription and clean it the way Oded Golan is said to have done and again challenge the experts to analyze and pronounce on it.

Further experiments like these must draw us toward one conclusion or the other about the inscription on the James Ossuary. Not only might this prevent an innocent (or guilty?) man from going to jail, now and in the future, but it would help the IAA become more skilled and proficient in their important task.

Reproducible experiments would indeed be enormously valuable. But the Israel Antiquities Authority under its present director will do nothing that might cast a bad light on its ipse dixit.

BAR did sponsor a contest with a $10,000 prize for anyone who could create a fake that would fool the experts, but the IAA’s expert Yuval Goren refused to enter. No one else did either, except for some fifth-graders who made a valiant effort (see “Fifth-Graders 012Enter Where Goren Fears to Tread,” BAR 30:06).—Ed.

Scholars, Like the Rest of Us, Have Axes to Grind

I have been a subscriber and avid reader of BAR for many years and have a couple of boxes of all the issues I received. Unlike my medical journals, BAR never gets discarded, although I used to put them in my waiting room.

There is not an issue that I do not read from cover to cover. When BAR arrives, I take it to the local cafè and sink three cups of coffee whilst I soak up this beautiful and elegant magazine. I am never disappointed and enjoy its eclecticism. Every issue surprises and entrances me.

Sure, many articles are polemical: Thoughtful, erudite scholars have their axes to grind. So do I! Why not? It makes life enjoyable. As former captain of a fencing team, I still enjoy a duel. Keep us guessing as to what will happen in your next installment. I can make up my own mind as to which way I lean.

Wham! Wham!

I appreciate your analytical approach to the James Ossuary problem, and lean in the direction that you are correct in the very likely authenticity of this artifact. That the writing refers to the Lord Jesus and his family is a point that probably cannot be proven even if the ossuary is genuine.

However, truth does not usually prevail in areas of religion and politics. You are involved in both, which is a double whammy!

Keeping the Debate Alive

I owe you a great debt of ongoing gratitude that goes all the way back to your first issues, which appeared as “lights shining in the darkness,” especially in coverage of my lifelong passion for material on the Dead Sea Scrolls. My dear friend [Bible scholar] Dr. Theodore H. Gaster longed for the day when the plates of the scrolls and scroll fragments might be released. Alas, he didn’t live quite long enough to “see” what you were eventually able to effect.

My admiration is all the more profound for your untiring initiative of single-handedly keeping each worthy detail of the James Ossuary debate alive. Your efforts have been masterful and noble in defense of this artifact.

If your goal was to awaken a sleeping majority in your ongoing quest(s), you have accomplished it. Rest assured that many, indeed, feel much as I do.

Other Relevant Ossuaries

In judging the epigraphic evidence of the James Ossuary, why not refer to the epigraphy on the ossuaries from the “Dominus Flevit” necropolis on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem? They’re thought to come from the mid-first century, before 70 A.D., and represent Jewish-Christian and Jewish (Essene?) burials. Possibly the James Ossuary came from this group of burials, when they were discovered in the 1950s. Of interest are the names “Yechunni” or “Jounias,” who was a relative of the apostle Paul (Romans 16:7) 014and “Simon bar Yonah,” inscribed on two of the ossuaries.” An article in BAR on the possible relation of these discoveries would support the claims of historicity of the James Ossuary and perhaps shed further light on early Jewish Christianity and its relation to the Essene Jewish community at the time of Jesus and the Apostolic Church pre-70 A.D.

Professor Joan Taylor of the University of Liverpool responds:

The ossuaries from Dominus Flevit, discovered in 1953, were first presented by the Franciscan archaeologist Bellarmino Bagatti, who suggested that certain cross signs on the lids and sides of the ossuaries might be Jewish-Christian symbols. But there is really nothing at all to associate the symbol with particularly with Christianity, let alone Jewish-Christianity. Bagatti was also impressed by the occurrence of names on the ossuaries that parallel attested names in the New Testament, but it is now known that such names were extremely common in Judea at the turn of the era, so ossuary specialists do not get very excited by them. In short, Dominus Flevit is not generally understood to be Jewish-Christian in character, and the origins of the James Ossuary remain a mystery.

Will BAR Editor Be the Next Copernicus?

Regarding your views on the James Ossuary inscription:

Remember that Copernicus was probably the only one in his time who thought the sun and not the earth was at the center of our known universe. (Of course, we now know that the sun isn’t at the center of the universe either, but he was a lot closer to the truth than the “consensus.”) Remember, too, that Alfred Wegener, who proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912, was scorned and reviled because he could not describe the mechanism (which we now know as plate tectonics) to make continents drift. It wasn’t until a 1956 conference—26 years after his death—that the movement of crust plates was first revealed. In sum: Stick to your guns.

When things get too stressful, try a little humor. I’m reminded of the comment by George Gobel, who once asked, “Do you ever feel like the world is a tuxedo and you’re a pair of brown shoes?”

Do Fraternities Include Women?

In your editorial you call for open and honest debate over the authenticity of the James Ossuary. At the same time, however, you dismiss a chief critic of your position as simply a “woman” that no one in the “fraternity of experts” knows. Fraternities, of course, are only open to men, and I could not help but read your comments as a sexist slight. Like you, I am not familiar with Dr. Rochelle Altman’s work, but the tone of your editorial—intentional or not—was a disservice to serious scholarship. Sexism has no place in this debate.

Terra Firma

Stand your ground, Hershel! You are right, and in their hearts they know it.

015

007 in BAR

Please keep up the pressure on the world of scholars. It’s the best James Bond movie ever.

The Only Reigning Queen of Judea

As one who eagerly awaits each and every issue of BAR, my pattern is to quickly scan the magazine to learn the territory, then begin to read article by article. I did so with the current issue until I questioned Kenneth Atkinson’s statement regarding the uniqueness of Queen Salome Alexandra: “Salome was the only woman ever to govern Judea as its sole ruler” (“The Salome No One Knows,” BAR 34:04).

There was another, much earlier queen, namely Athaliah, the daughter of Queen Jezebel, who seized the throne in Jerusalem after her son’s untimely death and had herself proclaimed ruler of Judah (2 Chronicles 22:10–12). She appears in every list of the Kings of Judah that I have found. Without exception she is referred to as Judah’s sole woman monarch, seventh in the line of succession (following the death of Solomon), who reigned in Jerusalem before the Exile in 586 B.C.E.

Kenneth Atkinson responds:

Although Athaliah did govern alone, she was a usurper; the Bible does not consider her a legitimate ruler. Moreover, unlike Salome Alexandra, Athaliah did not rule Judea. She governed the southern kingdom of Judah; she was from the northern kingdom of Israel. The Babylonians destroyed Judah in 587 B.C.E. The territories encompassing the former northern and southern kingdoms, with some additional territory, subsequently became known as Judea. Herod the Great eventually replaced Salome Alexandra’s family, the Hasmoneans, as Judea’s rulers. Archaeologists have uncovered an amphora from Herod’s fortress of Masada bearing the Latin inscription, “to Herod, King of Judea.” Salome Alexandra is the only woman of any family of rulers to have governed Judea. She is also the only female in Jewish history to have been considered a legitimate monarch in either Judah or Judea.

Wilderness Wanderings

How to Get Water from Rocks—A Secret

Please ask Ze’ev Meshel (“Wilderness Wanderings,” BAR 34:04) to tell readers how the Bedouin get water from rocks. We who live in the southern part of the United States could use their water-producing “technology.” We have lots of rocks but not much available water.

Ze’ev Meshel declined to answer this query. It’s a Bedouin secret.—Ed.

Meshel’s Circular Reasoning

Ze’ev Meshel assumes what he wishes to prove. In the third paragraph he states, “A comparison of the Bedouin way of life with that attributed to the Israelites in 016the wilderness after leaving Egypt may uncover a certain authenticity to the Biblical narrative not available otherwise.” He never considers that the writers of Exodus might have taken the Bedouin as literary models. While Meshel’s article is certainly interesting and informative about the Bedouin way of life, his conclusion about the Israelites is about as valid as an exhibit in a creationist museum because they both start and end with the desired conclusion.

Is Motza Biblical Emmaus?

Regarding Hershel Shanks’s “Emmaus: Where Christ Appeared” (BAR 34:02): Saying that no first-century finds were discovered at Motza [an alternative site for Emmaus] may not be entirely accurate. Emmanuel Eisenberg excavated there in advance of widening the highway, but during the Yom Kippur War his walls and frescoes were quickly covered again. The finds included evidence of an occupation during the early second century, but he also found a coin (not published) of Vespasian dated to the year 72 A.D. and thought that he could identify the beginning of Jewish Herodian walls.¹ When Carsten Peter Thiede and I excavated in Motza from 2001 to 2004, we were unable to reach the Herodian levels, but among many other finds there was a kalal-type stone purification jar fragment and an enigmatic ostracon bearing a Second Temple Hebrew inscription.²

Every season we were in the field, we walked from Motza to the Jaffa Gate of the Old City of Jerusalem, averaging between one to one-and-a-half hours each way. Thiede was convinced that Motza was the Emmaus where Christ appeared, and other scholars seemed to agree with him.³

Thiede’s shocking and untimely death in 2004 ended our research.

Chatty Women Destroy Holy Spell

When I read the title “Seclusion and Skulls at Mar Saba” (Past Perfect, BAR 34:03), I thought that I was going to read an informative article on skulls, and instead I found myself reading an excerpt from a numbskull, who obviously believed he was a member of the elite intellectual class comprised of males only. “Mar Saba,” he wrote, “is now the only retreat left on this broad earth for MAN.” If women were admitted they “would in one gay and chatty hour destroy the spell of holy seclusion.” But, hey, he was in “good” company, note I very sarcastically, along with Nietzche, Rodin and Freud, among many others, including many men, and women too, of our so-called enlightened 084times who believe that women are less intelligent and capable.

Please continue with what you do best: publishing reports and evaluations on the state of archaeology.

No, I will not cancel my subscription in self-righteous anger.

BAR as Tourist Guide

I am a pastor. Theologically I am an evangelical but not a fundamentalist, in part for philosophical reasons. But I read and enjoy BAR.

I learn something every time I read the magazine, and I learn something every time some scholar writes and says why an article can’t possibly be correct. What’s wrong with disagreement?

If I didn’t read BAR, I wouldn’t have enjoyed my recent trip to Israel nearly as much. Seeing Caesarea, Sepphoris and the Temple Mount after reading BAR and seeing the pictures (and reading Hershel’s book on the Temple Mount and the Holy of Holies) was wonderful. I knew what I was looking at!

It Didn’t Hold a Tree

In the last issue of BAR my colleague and friend Professor Amihai Mazar identified himself as the author of the suggestion that the circular installation in the courtyard of the Chalcolithic temple in Ein Gedi surrounded a sacred tree that grew inside it, rather than being a container for liquids as suggested by me in the excavation report (“Sacred Tree or Water Installation?” Q&C, BAR 34:05). Professor Mazar’s suggestion is enthusiastically adopted by the editor, Hershel Shanks.

The fact is, however, that the circular installation was built—like all other parts of the temple complex—on the natural ground surface. The circular installation is about 3 feet in diameter and 16 inches deep. The easily distinguishable and undisturbed natural ground surface forms the bottom of the installation. No tree could have grown in a pot 16 inches deep, so the suggestion that a sacred tree grew here, brilliant as it is, should definitely be ruled out.

I still adhere to the view that the circular installation functioned as a container for liquids, probably water, although no remains of waterproof plaster were uncovered in its excavation. The assumed plaster coating most likely disintegrated—like plaster coatings in other parts of the temple—during the millennia that have elapsed since the abandonment of the sanctuary.

Several data suggest that water was kept in the cultic installation: First, the position of the temple above the spring and the orientation of the main entrance both indicate that this was a “water temple” whose cult was associated with the nearby spring. Second, an outlet drain was built in the fence of the enclosure, which is at a lower elevation than that of the circular installation. The existence of the outlet proves that liquids were drained from the temple. Third, a fragment of a large, unique Egyptian alabaster vessel was found near the circular installation; it could have served to empty or fill the installation.

Professor Amihai Mazar responds:

As BAR readers already realize, archaeological finds can be interpreted in various ways. This is one of the things that make archaeology such a challenging and interesting field. The installation in the courtyard of the Ein Gedi Chalcolithic temple is a case in point.

There is no evidence whatsoever that it served as a water basin: It is not plastered; the inside (3 feet in diameter) is rather small compared to the 10-foot outer diameter; and the circular stone installation is a solid construction. Why should a water basin have walls more than 3 feet thick? The small drain opening in the outer fence of the temple’s courtyard has no connection to the installation and was perhaps intended to drain rain water or sewage from the courtyard.

Professor Ussishkin wrongly understood me as claiming that the central hole served as a kind of a “pot” for the tree; this is not the case. The tree probably grew beneath the installation on the natural ridge, much like trees that can be seen today somewhat below the temple near the Ein Gedi spring. My explanation is based on simple observation as well as on many ethnographic parallels. Throughout the Mediterranean and Far East, sacred trees are surrounded by stone platforms. The circular installation was, in my view, a platform built around an existing sacred tree that might have been old when the temple was constructed around it. Such a platform could be used for various cultic activities related to a sacred tree, as done in many traditional societies even today.

Of course, this is a hypothetical explanation, but I believe it is much more convincing than the water-basin theory. Perhaps others will propose alternative and even better explanations for this installation.

Replies to a Desperate Editor