Queries & Comments

009

Syrian Concerns On Ebla Are Understandable, Says Professor Brownlee

To the Editor:

One is appalled by the repeated intrusion of politics into the Biblical Archaeology Review. The latest example being the article “Syria Tries To Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02. How can one be silent against this scandalous article—scandalous, not because of a nonfactual basis, but because it is not presented with any understanding of history in the Near East during the last sixty years. There are always some Zionists, both Christian and Jewish, who misuse the Scriptures to maintain an exclusive Jewish right to the Land which has belonged to others for many centuries—people with a monotheistic faith, who revere the God of Abraham, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul. These people are not guilty of any of the Canaanite abominations for which they were dispossessed. If Abraham had to wait four hundred years to lay hold of Canaan, since the Amorites were not wicked enough to warrant dispossession (Genesis 15:12–16), what possible justification can there be for a deliberate policy of dispossessing Christians and Muslims—people who are not guilty of any of the abominations of the Canaanites?

Archaeology is also appealed to in order to bolster Zionist claims, but it in no way affects the moral questions involved. None of the scholars, to whom you refer (American and Italian) are capable of this distortion, but others using their statements are. Against this surcharged propagandistic background, in which some radicals maintain that the Israeli state should extend itself even to the Euphrates, the Syrian concerns are understandable. However gross Syrian statements and actions may appear to US, it behooves us to understand them in the context of present history—a history which in different ways is equally disastrous for Jews and non-Jews of the area.

To the Editor:

How sad that a political cloud should shroud some of the great discovery at Ebla! Lest your readers lay all the blame on Syria, however, I would ask that they consider the plight of a Syrian peasant, driven from his home in the Golan to live in the slums of Damascus along with thousands of other refugees from Palestine, by a people who justify their actions on the ground that “God promised the Holy Land to the Jews.” Under these conditions I would be uneasy enough just knowing that David had briefly controlled Damascus, without having in addition, archaeological evidence, solidifying Northern Syria as the homeland of the patriarchs. If the Zionists had not played colossal politics with the Bible, there would be no need for the Syrians to play politics with archaeology.

What Can Readers Do To Effect Release Of Ebla Tablets?

To the Editor:

Having just received my first copy of the Biblical Archaeology Review let me say that I am most impressed and pleased to receive this fine scholarly journal. There is no doubt in my mind that it will greatly enhance my teaching and preaching.

I whole-heartedly agree with your position regarding the need to have the Ebla tablets published. Given the political influence in the situation I am wondering what people like myself can do. Would it not be possible to start a letter writing campaign that would positively influence those who are currently suppressing publication? As a member of Amnesty International I have been impressed with their results from such efforts in supposedly hopeless situations. The kind of explanation that you have given should make it clear to Christians and Jews alike that a serious scholarly injustice is taking place.

If you could suggest persons to whom we could write I know that I would be glad to do my part in this matter. I am sure that other readers would be equally willing to help. I daresay that we could also engage the support of many of our lay people whom I know to be interested in the study of the Bible.

I hope your article will be an opening wedge that will lead to the publication of these tablets in the next few years.

010

To the Editor:

I cannot understand how the whole scholarly world stands by without taking decisive action.

It appears to me that the scholarly world has a tremendously effective weapon. Let them issue an ultimatum proclaiming: “Publish all of the tablets or suffer ostracism from the whole scholarly world”.

I am convinced that if the Syrians were threatened with unanimous world wide condemnation they too would relent.

BAR’s article may itself have had some salutary effect on the situation. A six-column story in the New York Times based on the BAR article will, we hope, also have some effect. Scores of daily and religious publications, as different as the Chicago Tribune, the London Daily Telegraph, the International Herald Tribune, and the Montgomery Alabama Advertiser, also printed stories based on the BAR article.

The Jewish Week in Washington, D.C. commented:

“A nation indisputably has the right to control oil wells or gold mines that have been discovered on its territory. But knowledge, surely, should be in the ‘public domain.’ No nation has the right to horde facts that bear upon the history of us all. To deprive the world of such knowledge is surely not among the least of the political times against humanity.”

William F. Willoughby, the highly respected religious editor of the Washington Star, a Time, Inc. newspaper in Washington, D.C., commented:

“I agree with the Biblical Archaeology Review when it maintains that this type of cheap politicization of knowledge should cease.”

In a major editorial, the Los Angeles Times struck a similar note:

The Biblical Archaeology Review makes a sound point. The Ebla discovery and its relevance to Biblical history are of extremely broad interest, to scholars and laymen alike. At the least, prompt publication of some of the key tablets is called for, to permit interpretation and debate free of political constraint. Political interference with present-day historical research is bad enough. Interference with research into what happened in millennia past would be absurd.

Readers who wish to add their own voice to the clamor should write to:

His Excellency Sabah Kabbani
Ambassador, Embassy of Syria
2215 Wyoming Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008

with a copy to:

The Honorable Herbert J. Hansell
The Legal Advisor
Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20502

—Ed.

Correction on Ebla

To the Editor:

In your article on Ebla in the March/April 1979 BAR (“Syria Tries To Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02), you quote the following text from the King James translation as referring to Abraham: “A Syrian ready to perish was my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5). This text refers to Jacob, not Abraham. A more accurate translation of the phrase ’arami obed is “a fugitive Aramean” (as in the New Jewish Publication Society translation) or “a wandering Aramean” (as in the Revised Standard Version).

To the Editor:

In the March/April 1979 BAR issue of BAR on recent Ebla scholarship (“Syria Tries To Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02), I’m surprised that Hershel Shanks did not mention Fr. Mitchell Dahood, S.J., of the Pontifical Institute in Rome. Dahood, the champion of Ugaritic materials in the study of the Bible, has worked with Pettinato on identifying the Semitic nature of several of the cuneiform tablets from Ebla. It is Dahood who today champions the close connections between the Ebla data and the Bible, ranking Eblaite as Old Canaanite, Ugaritic as Middle Canaanite, and classical Hebrew as Late Canaanite. He, more than either Pettinato or Freedman, is today in the best 011position to judge Biblical parallels, and at the latest Catholic Biblical Association meeting in San Francisco still stoutly defended the initial observations of himself and Pettinato against recent detractors.

Dahood has written a 100-page paper on Ebla and the Bible which is scheduled to he published as part of a book by Pettinato. Doubleday is the publisher. Publication date is at least a year away.—Ed.

Correction of Letter on Phoenician Inscription from Brazil

To the Editor:

Rereading my earlier letter on “The Phoenician Inscription from Brazil?” printed in Queries & Comments, BAR 05:03, it comes to mind that some may take it to mean that I feel that the next move in the Gordon/Cross debate belongs to Professor Gordon. It does not. My major point was that Professor Cross still needs to grapple with the work on the subject done by Gordon since his original article [relating to a cryptogramic message Professor Gordon found in the inscription]. So the ball is doubtlessly still in Cross’ court (or would that be a “Crosscourt volley?”).

See Professor McKusick’s article on the cryptogram in this issue, “A Cryptogram in the Phoenician Inscription from Brazil.”—Ed.

To the Editor:

As a Brazilian, I very much appreciated the splendid paper of Professor Frank Moore Cross on “Phoenicians in Brazil?” BAR 05:01, which deals with the Paraiba inscription. I too believe this text is a forgery.

From the 17th century onwards hundreds of inscriptions have been found and published in Brazil which, according to the finders or publishers, refer to fleets of Hiram, of Solomon, or of Alexander the Great. One supposedly refers to the apostle Thomas who would have also come to Brazil in order to preach the faith. Still others of these inscriptions refer to other fantasies!

Yahweh’s Consort

To the Editor:

Your recent article by Ze’ev Meshel, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” BAR 05:02, was very interesting. Other readers might like to know of a book, The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai (KTAV, 1967), which presents evidence of several later consorts besides Asherah including: Anath, Atargatis, Sophia, Shekina, Tetragrammaton, Matronit, Lilith, and Sabbath. It seems that the mother goddess has had a universal and lasting appeal!

055

BAR’s Stand on Advertising Applauded

To the Editor:

I appreciate your response to the letters critical of BAR’s acceptance of certain advertisements (Megill and Zindler, Queries & Comments, BAR 05:02).

I am probably one of the many poor ignorant people that believe “the earth is flat” and the moon is composed of “green cheese.” My beliefs also consist, however, in the exposure to various points of view.

Most of the articles read by me in BAR are for my own enrichment and evaluation even though I may not agree with the article or the author. These articles, however, do stimulate my thinking and make me more aware and sensitive to what and why I believe as I do.

The intolerance of other points of view as demonstrated by the criticism of a couple of ads, demonstrates to the discerning reader bias and subjectivity against scholars of note who may have opposing points of view.

If the faith and belief of those who object is too shaky to be able to read other credible points of view, their foundation may need reexamination.

To the Editor:

I applaud your stand on advertising. I am tired of being “protected” by those who “know best.” When someone is afraid even to have a position presented in advertising, I would say his “truth” is pretty shaky.

To the Editor:

The opposition to advertising in the BAR sounds to me like the “Scopes Trial” in reverse.

BAR Readers Represent Various Viewpoints

To the Editor:

There is a vast differentiation of basic viewpoint among your readers—those who take the Bible as the literal Word of God (such as myself, Jesus, and thousands of others)—and those (religious or nonreligious) who take the Bible as a collection of Jewish folk lore, history and partial truths. I have often read the letters published in BAR from the latter group who invariably protest “too much Bible!”

These people should know that they are not the sole supporters of BAR. I respect their viewpoints as their own. Every man has the option to accept or reject in whole or in part the Sacred Scriptures. I am proud to accept them as the infallible and inerrant Word of God, which is exactly what the Bible claims to be.

Mixed Wool And Linen

To the Editor:

The BAR March/April 1979 issue contained an article by Ze’ev Meshel on the Kuntillet Ajrud finds in the Sinai (“Did Yahweh Have A Consort?” BAR 05:02). Meshel reports that garments of mixed linen and wool were found. This mixture was forbidden by the Bible, he says, “but it may be that the prohibition was for ordinary people and not priests.”

In fact, the Bible (Exodus 28:4f) does enjoin that some of the priestly garments be made of mixed linen and wool. The Talmud discusses in detail the halachic problem of priests wearing such garments when they were ordinarily forbidden, and resolves it by applying the rule that “a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment.” The rabbinic sages also debated whether a priest could wear the prohibited garments even while he was not officiating in the Temple.

The ritual fringes worn by Jewish laymen as well as priests were also permitted by rabbinic law to be made of linen and wool. The permission was based on the same reasoning. Although the Talmudic texts are of the later Roman Period, it is likely that they accurately reflect conditions of the Second Temple Period and possibly, to some extent, the First Temple. (See Yoma 12b, 68b–69a, Arakhin 3b, Yebamot 3b f et al.)

Gordis on Ebla, Yahweh’s Consort, and Psalm 34

To the Editor:

The March/April 1979 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review is a blockbuster, especially when your article, “Syria Tries to Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02, is read in conjunction with David Noel Freedman’s paper, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets,” in the December 1978 issue of Biblical Archaeologist. The Ebla situation grows curiouser and curiouser. You are succeeding admirably in making responsible scholarship exciting.

I should like to make two observations on Ze’ev Meshel’s interesting if somewhat speculative paper, “Did Yahweh Have a Consort?” BAR 05:02. He proposes the reading lyhwh … smrn … wl asrth, which he found inscribed on the top of one of the large pithoi excavated at Kuntillet Ajrud. He proposes the rendering of the last word as “his asherah,” or “asherat,” with the pronoun referring back to Yahweh. Of course, in the absence of a facsimile and the lack of a complete text, one cannot be certain to whom the suffix belongs. Conceivably “his asherah” may refer to some individual already cited, possibly smrn.

Meshel recognizes that the suffix “is not used in Hebrew in connection with a proper name.” However, if his reading is 056correct, it would lend support to the emendation proposed for the difficult phrase in Hosea 14:9: ’ani ’aniti wa’ asurennu, which it has been proposed to emend to ’ani ’anato wa’ aserato, rendering “I (i.e. Yahweh) am his (i.e., Ephraim’s) Anat and his asherah.” What Hosea is saying is that in the past, Ephraim has looked to pagan gods for fertility and well-being and has not known that the God of Israel is the true source of his blessings. Scholars had hesitated with regard to this emendation in Hosea because of the absence, elsewhere in the Bible, of the use of a proper noun with a suffix. If the inscription is correctly read by Meshel, it offers support for the emendation in Hosea. On the other hand, the passage in Hosea helps to interpret the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription.

However, to demonstrate the idea of a consort for Yahweh on the basis of the suffix is to lean upon a slender reed indeed.

The author calls attention to the four Hebrew abecedaries found in the excavations with the letter pe preceding the letter ayin. As examples of this order, verses in Lamentations 1:3 and Proverbs 31 are cited. This is inaccurate.

This alternative pe-ayin order occurs in acrostic form in Lamentations 2:4 but not in Proverbs 31. However, it was also the original order in the alphabetical Psalm 34. In the present Masoretic text of Psalm 34, the verse beginning with the letter ayin (verse 16), comes before the verse beginning with the letter pe (verse 17). Therefore verses 16, 17, and 18 read as follows:

“The eyes of the Lord turn to the righteous (16)

and His ears to their cry.

The face of the Lord is against the evildoers (17)

to destroy their memory from the earth.

They cry out and God listens (18)

and from all their troubles He saves them.”

By reversing verses 16 and 17, thus adopting the alternative alphabetic order, the verse beginning with pe precedes the verse beginning with ayin, The passage is then clear and unforced:

“The face of the Lord is against the evildoers (17)

to destroy their memory from the earth.

The eyes of the Lord turn to the righteous (16)

and His ears to their cry.

They cry out and the Lord listens (18)

and from all their troubles He saves them.”

New Ideas on the Saturday-Sunday Controversy

BAR’s article by Samuele Bacchiocchi “How It Came About: From Saturday to Sunday,” BAR 04:03, sparked more correspondence than any article we have published. Dr. Bacchiocchi commented, “I never expected that the article would generate so much interest and debate, I have received many letters, some commending my study, others challenging it. I am greatly impressed by the wide readership of BAR, reaching both scholars and interested lay persons. Keep up the good work!”

Readers continue to write interesting letters raising new points; one of these letters, together with Bacchiocchi’s response, is printed below.—Ed.

To the Editor:

The continuing dispute over Saturday-Sunday makes fascinating reading.

There are so few references to the subject extant in early writings there is room for a wide number of opinions. I am familiar with most of the references used by Mr. Bacchiocchi and his critics, and some not mentioned besides.

As I see it, the early Jewish-Christian communities probably followed Jewish ritual laws quite closely, but the Greek speaking communities, founded by Paul, especially those predominantly Gentile, followed ritual forms more liable to be accommodated to their own culture. The dimension between the two groups is obvious from Acts and Paul’s letters.

There is one item of fact that the parties to the present dispute have not mentioned. This is: the difference in the time when a day began according to the Jews and according to the Gentiles (Romans). There is a period of several hours when the Jewish “first day of the week” is Saturday evening according to Roman reckoning. When New Testament writers use the phrase “first day of the week” do they mean by Jewish or Roman reckoning? Acts 20:7 ff seems to indicate an evening gathering. Could it have been Saturday, right after the Sabbath was over? Paul spoke so long it was after midnight before the actual breaking of bread took place.

Pliny in 112 A.D. wrote to the emperor about Christians gathering early in the morning before dawn. As a Roman, he probably referred to Sunday morning. Early on, Paul scolds the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:20ff) about their conduct at the Lord’s Supper, implying it is an evening service.

In a fine book, The Jewish Jesus, Robert Aron wrote that at the end of the Sabbath, there is the Havdalah, a similar ceremony to that of the regular Sabbath meal, but the order of blessings is reversed^a. Does this mean the bread is blessed before the wine as in Christian usage? How simple it would be to have this done even a few minutes later—in the first day of the week.

Since Vatican II, Saturday evening Mass has been a fulfillment of Sunday observance for Catholics. The principle seems to be that the “first day of the week” for earliest Christians began when the first star came out, the Jewish way of reckoning. In that case, to early Gentile converts, it would have been Saturday. Their later change to early morning and Sunday would probably have been governed by other considerations, safety, even the latent anti-semitism the Gentiles felt for the Jews that was in existence long before Christianity began.

Not being an expert, nor authority, I do not pretend to have the answers. But it surprised me that no one has considered the ways of reckoning a day as a factor in the problem.

057

Samuele Bacchiocchi Replies:

The hypothesis submitted by Patricia M. Leiper that Sundaykeeping possibly originated in predominantly Gentile communities, founded by Paul, as a prolongation of the seventh-day Sabbath, has been ably defended by C. S. Mosna in his dissertation presented at and published by the Pontifical Gregorian University in 1969. Interestingly enough, Prof. Vincenzo Monachino directed the dissertation of Mosna as well as mine. I do fully concur with the view that Sunday originated in a Gentile community. In fact, my basic thesis, which I defend with circumstantial but, hopefully, impressive evidence, is that this development took place in the Church of Rome—a Church known to be predominantly Gentile (cf. Romans 11:13) and sufficiently important to be able to promote new festivities (cf. Easter-Sunday and Christmas). But to me it seems most unlikely that Paul pioneered the observance of Sunday in Rome or anywhere else. Why? First, because Paul refused to take a stand on the question of the observance of days, advising rather to follow one’s convictions and to respect different viewpoints (Romans 14:3, 5, 6, 10–13, 19–21; Colossians 2:16–17; Galatians 4:10). Secondly, because, if Paul had introduced Sunday worship among Gentile converts, he would have defended such an innovation and would have answered charges coming from the Jewish-Christian opposition, as was the case with the circumcision. The lack of any trace of such a Sabbath/Sunday controversy, suggests that Sundaykeeping is a post-Pauline development. Significant concomitant factors present in the early part of the second century suggest that this development possibly occurred during the reign of Emperor Hadrian (A.D. 117–135), at a time when Roman anti-Jewish repressive measures (note especially Hadrian’s prohibition of Sabbathkeeping) necessitated a policy of deliberate differentiation from Jewish customs.

Did Sunday originate as a prolongation of a Saturday evening meeting which in time was transferred to Sunday morning? Leiper points to the fact (noted by others) that according to Jewish time reckoning any meeting conducted after the Sabbath was over, would be regarded by Jewish-Christians as a first day-Sunday night-meeting. In Troas (Acts 20:7 ff), for example, if Luke uses the Jewish method as most scholars admit, the first day meeting would have started after Sabbath sunset (already Sunday night according to Jewish computation) and continued till Sunday dawn when Paul departed. The passage does provide an interesting example of a meeting which apparently started at the end of Sabbath and then ran into the night hours of Sunday. However, a close study of the occasion, the time and the manner in which the meeting was conducted, indicates that the Troas first day gathering was not an ordinary but an extraordinary night meeting occasioned by the departure of the Apostle (see my discussion in From Sabbath To Sunday pp. 101–111).

The fact remains, however, as noted by Leiper, that initially Christians did celebrate the Lord’s Supper in the evening, as indicated by Paul’s description and designation of the rite as “Supper—deipnon” (1 Corinthians 11:20). Though the Apostle leaves the question of the time of the Lord’s Supper indeterminate (“when you come together”—1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33, 34), the celebration could well have occurred sometime on Saturday evening, as a kind of Christian counterpart of the Jewish Seudah Shlishit, the third Sabbath meal which precedes Havdalah, the closing prayers of the Sabbath. The similarity between these two meals noted by Leiper, has been recognized by several scholars.

How long or how often was the Lord’s Supper celebrated on Saturday night (or on any night for that matter), we do not know. Pliny’s letter to Trajan (A.D. 112) informs us that at his time Christians had desisted from partaking of “ordinary and harmless food,” in the evening of an “appointed day—stato die” in accordance with the Emperor’s edict which “prohibited secret societies—hetaeriae.” It is possible that since the evening Lord’s Supper celebration came under the suspicion of the hetaeriae (cf. Tertullian, Apology 39 and 37; Minucius Felix, Octavius 9, 10), Christians found it desirable to transfer its celebration to the morning, integrating it into the Sunday morning service. That the latter had taken place by A.D. 150, is evidenced by the explicit testimony of Justin, who reports that the Lord’s Supper was celebrated immediately after the homily (I Apology 67).

It is possible that the Prohibition of the hetaeriae facilitated the transference of the Lord’s Supper from Saturday night to Sunday morning, since according to Jewish day reckoning, Saturday night was already Sunday and thus it was not a question of changing from one day to another, but of rescheduling the rite within the same day.

This intriguing hypothesis, though it may explain the rationale used by some Christians to justify the transference of the Lord’s Supper celebration from Saturday night to Sunday morning, hardly explains why Sunday was chosen in the first place. If the hetaerial legislation necessitated the rescheduling of the Saturday night (or of any night) Lord’s Supper, the rite could just as readily have been anticipated and integrated to the Sabbath morning service, as was actually done by some Christians (cf. From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 185–198).

It is hard to conceive that Sunday observance originated merely as a smooth sliding of a meeting, originally conducted at the tail end of the Sabbath, into Sunday morning. If Sunday developed as an unconscious prolongation of the Sabbath into Sunday time, we would expect to find in the early writings of the Fathers a theology of respect for the Sabbath, since the latter would have constituted the basis of the former. What we find, however, especially in the Western Fathers, is a theology of contempt and condemnation of the Sabbath. Justin, for instance, reduces the Sabbath to a temporary institution imposed solely upon the Jews as a trademark of the divine reprobation of the Jewish race (Dialogue 16, 1; 21, 1). Such a “Christian” theology of contempt for the Sabbath which encouraged the adoption of specific measures (such as Sabbath fasting) to discourage its observance, (cf. From Sabbath to Sunday, pp. 185–198) bespeaks of a radical break rather than of a smooth transition from Sabbath to Sunday.

Leiper refers to Pliny’s letter which states that Christians on “an appointed day (stato die) had been accustomed to meet before daybreak” for a religious service and to meet again later in the same day (apparently in the evening) to partake of “ordinary and harmless food.” Leiper as well as a host of scholars, interpret the “appointed day—stato die” as being Sunday. But, does “stato die” necessarily refer to a regularly recurring Sunday meeting? The term “status” (a participle of sisto) which means “appointed, established, fixed, determined, regular” does not exclusively imply a fixed recurring day, when used in reference to time, but also one which is appointed or established. The gathering then could recur periodically but not necessarily on the self-same day.

The context suggests several reasons why “stato die” could possibly be a day fixed from week to week. Christians were denounced, processed and condemned in the province. This is indicated by the fact that Pliny upon his arrival found the problem already existing. To avoid giving cause of suspicion it is possible that Christians every week changed the day and place of their gathering. Moreover, the governor by means of interrogation and 058torture had obtained detailed information regarding the time of the day and the manner in which the Christian assembly was conducted. But in regard to the actual day he found out only that they gathered on a “stated day.” If Christians in Bithynia were already gathering regularly on Sunday, they would have confessed this as they disclosed the rest of their worship activities. A few decades later (ca. A.D. 150) Justin Martyr explicitly and emphatically informs the Emperor that Christians gathered on “the day of the Sun,” apparently as a means of creating a favorable impression. Let us note that Pliny was cautiously appealing to the Emperor for a more humane application of the anti-Christian law which by condemning Christians indiscriminately was causing their killing without regard to their age, sex, or attitude. If Pliny had found that they gathered on the day of the Sun, would he not presumably have mentioned this fact in order to present the Christian worship in a more favorable light?

We conclude therefore that the “appointed day” of Pliny is not necessarily the selfsame day of the week, unless it was the Sabbath, which possibly Pliny prefers not to mention to avoid placing Christians in a worse light by associating them with the Jews. The latter revolted during Trajan’s time in Libya, Cyrene, Egypt, Cyprus and Mesopotamia. Extensive massacres took place before these revolts were crushed. To report to Trajan that the Christians gathered weekly on the day of Saturn like the Jews, would have encouraged the Emperor to take harsher measures, the very thing Pliny’s letter wished to discourage. In the light of these considerations Pliny’s letter provides no support for a regular Christian observance of Sunday at that time.

Syrian Concerns On Ebla Are Understandable, Says Professor Brownlee

To the Editor: