Queries & Comments

008

A Satisfied Reader!!

I have enjoyed BAR for several decades. I am a retired pastor, and over these years your magazine has been very stimulating and provided a great deal of information beyond my seminary training and graduate studies. Thank you very much!

Dear Pastor West: It’s nice to begin our letters column once in a while with a letter of praise. Thanks very much. Actually, we get lots of letters like this, but we rarely print them. Even though we don’t print them, we like to receive them.—Ed.

The DSS

I don’t know if this fits in Leonard Greenspoon’s “Bible in the News” column or if it’s more down Hershel Shanks’s alley. In episode 18 of the hilarious television parody Get Smart, the intelligence organization CONTROL develops a special code for wounded secret agents to scribble out a message before they die. Its title? “The Dead Spy Scrawls.”

Food for Vultures

Houses or Faces?

Re: “Excarnation: Food for Vultures” by Rami Arav (BAR 37:06): The ossuaries pictured in this article were described throughout as “house-like.” As Professor Arav points out, some scholars have suggested they were modeled after actual Chalcolithic dwellings with the square openings in front being doors.

Yet, if you look at each one of these ossuaries, the front of them is a rough model of a human face. Each of the ossuaries has a small nose that protrudes from above the opening, which I suggest is actually not a door, but a mouth.

Even the small crown-shaped object with the birds on top, the opening in the “crown” is framed by two circular protrusions that are probably meant to represent eyes. One of the ossuaries has similar protrusions also located on either side of the opening or mouth.

The idea that these openings are meant to be mouths corresponds well with some ancient thought of a mouth as a gate or a door. The ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for mouth (r) was often used in reference to a gate, door or passage.

I propose that a similar thought process is at work here with these ossuaries and the so-called “crown.”

This interpretation in fact bolsters the proposed funerary aspect of the so-called crowns, as well as lending a deeper understanding to these ossuaries, not as little houses, but representations of the portal or mouth into the graves to which the bones of the deceases were deposited.

Rami Arav responds:

Mr. Fenstermacher’s ideas are interesting and possible. Loan words from the human body are not unusual. We have “the mouth of the river,” “the foot of the hill” and “the head of the hill.” The opening of granaries and ossuaries were perhaps also called “the mouth.” However, since this period is prehistoric for us, we have no clue what they called it, but the similarity to a mouth is interesting.

A Chalcolithic Artifact Was Found at Rogem Hiri

In his very interesting article on Chalcolithic ossuaries, Rami Arav states: “We know [that there was a Chalcolithic phase at Rogem Hiri] despite the fact that no Chalcolithic artifacts were found.”

This is not quite true. In the 1980s I was Claire Epstein’s assistant on her project relating to the Chalcolithic of the Golan. During one season we were lucky enough to have 009 010 working with us Moshe Lufan (discoverer of the Sea of Galilee boat often dubbed “the Jesus boat”^a). One afternoon we took a break to take another look at Rogem Hiri. In scrambling across the rock walls, Moshe found in some fallen rock at the base of a wall a classic Chalcolithic basalt pillar figurine—a hallmark of the Chalcolithic culture of the Golan.

Claire was shocked. Moshe and I were delighted, as we both disagreed with her opinion of the Chalcolithic Golan culture’s relationship to the site.

We returned to Kibbutz Ginnsosar that day with the figurine riding carefully on my lap. I am not sure that Claire ever mentioned that find in her publications.

Other than that—a great article!

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

Having been a BAR subscriber for several decades, I have enjoyed your articles but never had a strong motive to send comments. After noting a serious omission in the November/December 2011 issue, however, I cannot remain silent. In two of the lead articles—“Condemned to the Mines” by Mohammad Najjar and Thomas E. Levy and “Excarnation: Food for Vultures” by Rami Arav—you picture photos of different copper objects from the Chalcolithic period found in the Cave of Treasure near the Dead Sea, but nowhere is credit given to the excavator, Pesach Bar-Adon. In the same issue, this copper hoard is referred to by Steven Fine in his book review (Chronicles of the Land: Archeology in the Israel Museum Jerusalem) as one of the Israel Museum’s “iconic” exhibits.

Pesach was a good friend of ours for many years. We knew him as a kind, gentle person whose challenging work required more than the usual professional expertise. Although he was hardly a youngster, he scaled dangerous desert cliffs, at times aided by local Bedouin or army conscripts.

Please credit him with the recognition he deserves.

Pesach Bar-Adon (1907–1985) is indeed deserving of recognition. He was a colorful maverick archaeologist who left his studies at Hebrew University to become a member of a Bedouin tribe. He got his archaeological training working for Benjamin Mazar in Beth Shearim in the Galilee.

Fame came to Bar-Adon after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, when he was chosen to lead one of four teams to search caves near the Dead Sea for more scrolls. It was in 011 012 this connection that he found the extraordinary Chalcolithic copper hoard.^b

Later, as he continued to survey and excavate in the Judean wilderness, he identified the six sites listed in Joshua 15:20 and 15:61–62.—Ed.

Origin of Israelite Sacrifice

When Abraham Almost Sacrificed His Son

I was surprised that Abraham’s sacrifice of a ram, instead of his son, was not considered in William Hallo’s “Origin of Israelite Sacrifice” (BAR 37:06). Was this sacrifice a one-time event, the origin of Israelite practice or just a fable from Genesis? One wonders.

Covering Sin

“The Origin of Israelite Sacrifice” by William Hallo seems to be a little long on theory in promoting a viewpoint; that is, sacrifice was started to justify eating meat. I would like to see another viewpoint represented—the one from the Bible. Genesis 3:21 says, “The Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.” Thus, the first animal sacrifice was made by God to cover sin, not to justify eating meat.

Dr. Hallo quotes Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it.” That is supposed to support the Sumerian theology that man was made to feed the gods. But the next verse (Genesis 2:16) says, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat.’” Thus, the garden was a place for man to eat, not to feed God. Also note the word “commanded” in that verse. It is not “gave permission.” The garden was a place to house and feed humans.

I don’t think scientists must use the Bible to study archaeology. But when they use the doctrine of idols to explain things in the Bible, they are perhaps breaking their own rules by going too far in using someone else’s theology to study archaeology. It’s dangerous trying to understand Israelite behavior or theology by studying idolatrous mythology.

William W. Hallo responds:

Granted that the divinely tailored skins of Genesis 3:21 derived from animals, I fail to see why they had to be sacrificial animals. More to the point, Rashi (the great medieval commentator) failed to see it; he said simply (ad loc): “And others explain it as anything derived from the skin, for example the wool of rabbits which is soft and warm.”

068

As for the diet of Eden in the next verse, I’ll simply repeat here the first paragraph of my introduction to Leviticus in the commentary by B. Bamberger (1979), republished by W.G. Plaut in The Torah: A Modern Commentary (1981) and by myself in The Book of the People (1991):

“In the primeval garden of Genesis stood the tree of life. Man was bidden to eat of it along with all the other trees of the garden, excepting only one, the tree of death. He did eat of it and this, ‘man’s first disobedience,’ created a logical contradiction which even God could not have tolerated. Having tasted of the tree of mortality, man could not now also redeem the promise of immortality or, as the text puts it ‘stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever’ (Genesis 3:22). Therefore he was permanently banned from the garden and destined forever after to wring a hard-earned sustenance from the soil by the sweat of his brow. The offer of sustenance without toil was withdrawn together with the promise of immortality.”

A Menorah at Persepolis?

It shouldn’t be surprising that a Jewish menorah might be found in an image of Xerxes in the palace at Persepolis, especially if the image was created later in Xerxes’ reign. Remember, Xerxes was the Biblical Ahasuerus, who married the Biblical Esther, a Jewess, and later appointed Mordecai, Esther’s cousin, also a Jew, to 069 be Prime Minister over his entire realm. Two of Xerxes’ predecessors, Cyrus and Darius I, were kindly disposed to the Jews. Cyrus allowed them to return to Israel, ending their Babylonian captivity, and Darius I authorized completion of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem in the time of the Biblical Ezra. Xerxes’ son, Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) (son of the divorced Queen Vashti, and stepson of Queen Esther), authorized the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem in the time of the Biblical Nehemiah. Thus Jewish influence was pervasive during this time, and the possible presence of a menorah, perhaps hidden in the design of a parasol should be no surprise.

Several readers have written us letters insisting that a seven-branched menorah is pictured at Persepolis (Strata: “A Menorah at Persepolis?” BAR 37:06). They even have explanations. The above is one example. But not to be misleading, there is no question that it is a parasol, not a menorah, that is pictured.—Ed.

Everyone’s Biased

Thank you for the piece on “Fudging with Forgeries” (BAR 37:06). There is no question that all of us go about our scholarship with certain agendas, conscious or subconscious, explicit or implicit, but honest scholarship should admit that while such biases exist they must not stand in the way of fairness and objectivity. Professor Yuval Goren clearly fails the test.

The Critic Is Criticized

Professor Shaye J.D. Cohen, in taking Jodi Magness to task (ReViews: “Down and Dirty in Jesus’ Time,” BAR 37:06) for her lack of expertise in the interpretation of classical Jewish texts, makes a whopper of a misinterpretation of his own.

Magness writes that “Pharisaic and rabbinic halakhah … requires immersion only on the seventh day” for a corpse-contaminated person, “following Numbers 19:16–19.” Cohen corrects her: “She means, of course, ‘only on the third and seventh days.’”

Cohen misreads the ultimate classical Jewish text, the Bible. The verses in Numbers say exactly what Professor Magness writes: Corpse contamination requires immersion only on the seventh day. What is required on the third and seventh days is not immersion, but the sprinkling on the contaminated individual of the waters of lustration.

We received the same information from Professor Nahum Ben-Yehudah of Bar Ilan University.—Ed.

Shaye Cohen responds:

The letter writer is correct; thanks for the correction.

070

Dating the Tainted Oil Lamp

Concerning “Tainted Stone Oil Lamp” (BAR 37:05): Did scientists find any trace of burnt olive oil which might allow an almost exact dating of the oil lamp?

Dr. Amnon Rosenfeld, retired from the Geological Survey of Israel, responds:

It is a very good idea to examine the possible oil that could be extracted from the stone oil lamp. This was suggested by Professor Wolfgang Krumbein (Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg) in 2005. But because the artifact is under the custody of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), we could not carry out such examination. Unfortunately, examining the carbon dating of the oil or the soot would not clear up the charges of forgery by the IAA. In their indictment, the IAA already agrees that the stone oil lamp is authentic but claims that the decorations (the seven species and the Menorah) were forged.

Nude Bathing?

Reading Urban C. von Wahlde’s “The Puzzling Pool of Bethesda” (BAR 37:05), a question occurred to me: Did people bathe nude or did they have some kind of ritual robe or did they just wear their regular street clothes? Thanks for any light you may be able to shed on the subject.

Urban C. von Wahlde responds:

There are several possible approaches to answering the question of the apparel (or non-apparel!) worn by individuals when bathing ritually.

In the case of mikva’ot situated in private residences, there is general agreement that ritual bathing was done in the nude. The uncertainty concerns the state of the bather in public mikva’ot.

When they originally discovered the mikveh at the larger pool of Siloam, archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron found holes ground into the stone steps at intervals and speculated that these were for privacy “screens” to be used while ritually immersing because nudity was required. But I disagree with their presumption.

Essene men were given a loin cloth at the time of their initiation into the community.¹ This was to be worn during ritual bathing. Women were given a loose-fitting gown. But what implications can we draw from this for general Jewish practice? We can either conclude that the Essenes were more strict and so perhaps others did not feel the need to be clothed at all. Or we could conclude that if the Essenes believed that loose-fitting clothes did not “interpose” and so prevent ritual cleansing (see below), then others who were less strict would also conclude that it was permissible to wear a loose-fitting garment into the mikveh. On the basis of what is learned from the Mishnah (see below) I believe the second conclusion is the more likely—a loose gown could be worn.

Another approach would be to say that males did not have to wear anything in the mikveh—this would be on the basis of the observation that male nudity was common in the ancient world and is approved for various situations even in the Talmud.² Nudity while working is confirmed by a mosaic on display in the Antioch Archaeological Museum, although we do not know that the men pictured are Jewish. (This would also seem to confirm the literal meaning of John 21:7, where it is said that Peter was gymnos [nude] when he was fishing.)

At the same time, while nudity might be allowed in an all-male working environment, it might not be acceptable in the religious and mixed-gender context of a ritual purification pool.

I am inclined to think that if the Essenes allowed loose-fitting clothing in the mikveh, then such clothing would be permissible for other less-strict Jews also. In fact, that clothing was permitted seems to be implied by a series of passages from the Mishnah. I have suggested at somewhat greater length that the Mishnah (tractate Miqvaot) provides some pertinent information when it speaks of what types of substances “interpose” between a person’s body (or other object) and the water of a mikveh and so prevent purification (Queries & Comments). The essential point is that if the water of the mikveh was able to soak through the material in question (e.g., strips of wool on a person’s body), then the purification was valid. As a result, I personally am confident that loose clothing was allowed and probably required in public mikva’ot.

Correction

In Yitzhak Magen’s article “Inn of the Good Samaritan Becomes a Museum” in the January/February 2012 issue, the photo of an Aramaic mosaic inscription from the Na’aran synagogue was inadvertently reversed during the final production process. We regret the error. The correct orientation of the image is shown.—Ed.

A Satisfied Reader!!