Queries & Comments

008

All About BAR

Lighten Up!

Thank all of you at BAR for enriching my life. Because of your efforts, the average person can have a front row seat to the latest discoveries and learn new things about the past. As for the negative feedback about recent articles, I urge the readership to lighten up. If you don’t like an article, move on to the next one. The staff has done a great job in giving the readers the power to decide for themselves.

BAR Makes Scripture Come Alive

I only wish that I could thank you personally for the many years of exciting information, marvelous pictures and deep enjoyment I have derived from my issues of BAR. I have used them over and over to teach adult classes at my home congregations of the Church of Christ. And I always taught to standing-room-only classes. BAR puts scripture in context. The classes and I had a sense of scripture coming alive for us through the information presented in the words and the beautiful photographs in BAR.

BAR Educates and Entertains

Just a note to tell you all at BAR that I love your magazine. I appreciate very much the highly readable presentation and content, so beautifully balanced by documented research and scholarship, and amazing pictures.

You guys really have a great sense of humor! I hope to meet Hershel Shanks some day. He has my admiration (and sympathy?) for being able to work with undoubtedly some of the most brilliant, not to say opinionated and ego-driven, experts in the world!

Appreciation Without Agreement

I am a fundamentalist and agree with recent criticisms of some BAR articles. However, we don’t have to agree with someone’s viewpoint to glean valuable information from their presentations! In this vein I appreciate the work of BAR.

Solomon’s Temple

Other Gods?

The discussion of Solomon’s Temple was fascinating (Victor Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Temple in Context,” BAR 37:02). I have questions though: How does the presence of various statues depicting animals, fanciful or not, jibe with the Second Commandment? Did the ancient rabbis ever discuss this anomaly?

Victor Hurowitz responds:

The ban on making images cannot be taken out of context of the ban on other gods that precedes it in the Decalogue or the ban on worshiping images that follows it. The rabbis understood this, and they distinguished between images that were worshiped (which they banned) and images that were not worshiped (which they permitted). There were, however, periods when Jews opposed images of any kind.^a

Similar Temples—Same Architect?

I read with fascination Victor Hurowitz’s article. But what was of greater fascination to me was the lack of any question or speculation as to why all these temples, which are separated by great distance and time, are so much alike!—as if designed by the same architect or blueprint. For me this is the big question.

Victor Hurowitz responds:

This is a good question that I can answer only by speculation. There is, of course, no way of knowing for certain why buildings separated in time and space look alike, and the similarities may even be coincidental, although the higher the number of similarities in a given set of items, the lower the probability of coincidence; 009010but one can offer educated guesses based on things we do know. First, I would suggest a “theological” answer and then a “historical” answer.

Theologically, the Tabernacle was supposedly planned by God himself and a model was revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 25:8–9). First Chronicles 28:11–19 tells us that David had a similar revelation, and he transferred to Solomon a written plan of the Temple based on his revelation. Ezekiel, too, was given a visionary tour of the temple of the future and is commanded to write down what he saw so the temple could be built when appropriate (Ezekiel 43:10–11). So the Bible knows of three temples (Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, Ezekiel’s temple) built according to divine plans. To make matters better, the basic structure of each temple is essentially the same, so there is a tradition. In such a situation we need not look for human interlocutors to explain why the Biblical temples resemble those of the Gentiles. God wanted it that way, and since the Temple is his house we should not question his taste!

The “historical” answer is, of course, somewhat different. Looking first at some textual indicators, the Book of Kings doesn’t tell us how Solomon designed the Temple. It does report, however, that the great bronze waterworks in the courtyard as well as the two pillars Yachin and Boaz in the entry court were manufactured by a certain Hiram from Tyre who was the son of a widow from the Tribe of Naphtali and her Tyrian husband (1 Kings 7:14). Stones for the Temple were hewn by builders of Solomon and of another Hiram (King Hiram of Tyre, not the artisan mentioned previously) and Byblians (1 Kings 5:32; verse 18 in English). This is in addition to the Tyrian lumberjacks who cut the trees in the forest of Lebanon for use in the Temple. By Scripture’s own admission there was heavy foreign involvement in building and decorating the Temple. It would not be a great leap to assume that foreigners were also involved in designing it.

Denizens of the ancient Near East sometimes had cosmopolitan tastes, and people built for themselves what they saw and liked with their neighbors. A parade example would be several Assyrian kings who prided themselves in having built their palaces according to the “western” or “Hittite” models and say so in their inscriptions.¹

We know that technology, design and fashion (and even ideas!) of all sorts crossed international borders in the ancient Near East no differently than in later periods, although the extent and the motivation certainly varied from time to time and place to place.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri

Congratulations to BAR for the article on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Stephen J. Patterson, “The Oxyrhynchus Papyri: The Remarkable Discovery You’ve Probably Never Heard Of,” BAR 37:02). Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt’s discovery has been overlooked for too long. The Oxyrhynchus cache has shed a welcome light on the language of the New Testament, showing that it is not some sort of liturgical church-speak, but the tongue of the common man. Perhaps we owe a lot to the “City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish” for the profusion of vernacular translations of the New Testament available today.

Thank you for showing us how one city’s trash can be the modern man’s treasure.

Temple Mount Revolt Coins

In “‘Revolt’ Coins Minted on Temple Mount” (BAR 37:02), I noticed that the inscriptions on the silver shekel coins are not in Hebrew characters but in Phoenician characters (see above). Why would coins minted by Jewish rebels (possibly within the Royal Stoa on the Temple Mount) use these characters? The Phoenician alphabet was not the common medium of the time of the Jewish Revolt (66–70 A.D.). This inscription is in the Hebrew language (Yerushelayim hakadosh—Jerusalem the Holy), which in some ways is more awkward using Phoenician characters due to the Phoenician script’s lack of a single character to express the Hebrew “sh” sound (ש), which then requires two separate characters to produce that sound (though this inscription didn’t express the “sh” sound in Yerushelayim). Why would they use these characters especially during a time of rebellion and national fervor?

Dr. Donald T. Ariel, head of the coin department of the Israel Antiquities Authority, on whose research this article was based, declined to respond.—Ed.

Weston W. Fields, executive director of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation, responds:

You astutely observed that the inscription on the coin was made with letters different from the square character Hebrew with which we are more familiar today.

Although the letters are similar to or nearly identical with Phoenician, they are actually what is known as paleo-Hebrew, or old Hebrew letters.

This type of handwriting was used for Hebrew most commonly before the Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C.E. When the Israelites returned from Babylon about 70 years later, they brought with them the handwriting that was then being used for Aramaic, the square characters, and this form became the most commonly used.

However, paleo-Hebrew continued to be used on inscriptions, coins and notably in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where whole manuscripts were written in the old script, in 011012what is known as archaizing. Drawing on ancient tradition to inspire a later time, the archaized letters were especially used for the proper name of God in otherwise Hebrew square-character manuscripts and even in Greek manuscripts.

A modern analogy would be that some universities still give out diplomas written in Latin, also a form of archaizing.

In His Own Words

God’s Language

I agree with Robert Alter regarding his comments on the King James Version of the Bible and the way it is written in poetic old English prose and rhythmic style (In Their Own Words, BAR 37:02). Memorizing scripture will never be the same for me as I move my Bible study into the use of newer translations. Even though more accurate in translation, the newer versions just don’t have it where scripture memorization is concerned.

If God were to call down audibly to man on earth from heaven in a loud authoritative voice, I think he would do it in the language of the King James Bible.

Big Bang—Poof and Proof!

I am somewhat disappointed that Robert Alter, professor of Hebrew language and literature at University of California—Berkeley says that “‘Let there be light’ … is by no means a scientific account of the origins of the world.” I have always suggested to nonbelievers (who prefer the big bang theory) that that expression is the Biblical equivalent for what actually happened. Poof! And there was light!

Unlikely Easter Story

Thank you for publishing Ben Witherington’s column in the March/April issue of BAR (Biblical Views: “Making Sense of the Unlikely Easter Story”). He 013014summed up concisely the arguments for the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus put forth in a 700-page volume I recently finished reading.

I consider myself an evangelical, conservative Christian and as such do not always agree with the views of your writers but have learned much from your magazine over the years.

Freyne Interview

Just Like Chastising Galileo

I was saddened but not surprised at the letters criticizing BAR for your interview with Professor Sean Freyne and threatening to cancel their subscriptions (Q&C, BAR 37:02). These are the same people who chastised Galileo for having the gall to think the planets revolved around the sun instead of what the Church interpreted from the Bible. Although I do not accept everything Freyne said, he challenged me to think.

Faith Incorporates Doubt

Historical archaeology is a wonderfully rich topic and with a publication like BAR, which brings it to life, it’s no wonder that the student and professional archaeologist enjoy it, but general readers, including many with religious faith, do too. But those who come to BAR seeking affirmations of historical events as foundations of their faith should be very cautious and reserve their expectations. To assault a scholar such as Sean Freyne (as some readers did in the Q&C section of the March/April 2011 issue) because he simply cannot say with certainty that particular statements about events in Jesus’ life can be authenticated is most unfair. The stark reality is that science is limited.

Readers with religious faith should take comfort in the fact that nothing (not now, in the past or in the future) can be reported in the pages of BAR that could challenge that religious faith. Religious faith is not grounded in purely historical events; it is grounded in the mysteries of life and God. Within the very concept of faith is the possibility of doubt, lest it would cease to be faith. Historical archaeology cannot satisfy for human reason this seeming-paradox of faith, which is not really a paradox at all but the very definition of faith.

Let us all enjoy BAR for what it is—an honest attempt, sometimes controversial but always colorful, to describe for us through historical archaeology, limited as it is, a world that has clearly captured the imaginations of both believers and non-believers alike.

Palestine

Palestine in Herodotus

Rabbi Yehuda Hochmann claims that the word Palestine was created by the 071Romans (Q&C: “Jesus of Judea,” BAR 37:02). However, Robert Strassler and Aubrey de Selincourt in their translation of Herodotus’s Histories [from the fifth century B.C.] use the word Palestine, or “Palestinia” (Histories 1:105 and 2:104).

Are they using a modern term for a word that originally meant only Philistia? Wouldn’t the Philistines be long extinct by Herodotus’s time? Was Philistia still being used to denote part of the area the Romans would call Palestine?

Many present-day Palestinians are convinced that the name Palestine predates the Romans. Does anyone know?

R. Steven Notley, professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at the New York City campus of Nyack College, responds:

Herodotus (c. 425 B.C.E.) is the first Greek author to apply the toponym Palaistina (Παλαιστι′νη) to Biblical lands (Histories 1:105). But he understood the term to designate the southern coastal region and not more broadly, what would later be identified with Judea (’Ιουδαι′α) in literature of the Greco-Roman period. (For a brief but full discussion pertaining to Herodotus’s description, see Anson F. Rainey, “Herodotus’ Description of the East Mediterranean Coast,” BASOR 321 [2001], pp. 57–63.) I agree with Rainey that for Herodotus the toponym is limited to the coastal region of Philistia.

A little later in Aristotle’s Meteorology (c. 322 B.C.E.), he refers to the Dead Sea as “the lake in Palestine” (Meteorology II.3). Aristotle’s source for this description is not without its problems and the reliability of his witness is questionable.

The Jewish philosopher Philo (c. 50 C.E.) designates the region around the Dead Sea, “a district of the land of Canaan, which the Syrians afterwards called Palestine” (Abraham 133). On two other occasions Philo speaks of Palestine together with (Coele-) Syria as distinct from Phoenicia (Moses 1:163; Good Person 75).

None of these references indicates that the Greek writers understood Palestine to designate what is identified by classical authors as Judea or by Jewish authors as Eretz Israel.

To my mind, modern writers should avoid anachronistic toponyms when speaking of the Holy Land. It seems preferable—when describing the land that Jesus knew—to use either of the two toponyms employed by the New Testament Evangelists: Judea (Luke 1:5; 3:1) or the Land of Israel (Matthew 2:20–21).

Don’t Use Cement!

The chief conservator of the Archaeological Architectural Field School run by USAID in Luxor Egypt, Edward D. Johnson of La Canada, California, condemns the use of cement in archaeological restorations, as was used in Jordan’s recent repairs to the walls of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In this, Johnson seconds the criticism of archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer in Q&C: “Cement Creates Temple Mount Time Bomb,” BAR 37:01. Johnson’s letter is powerful, detailed and important. We have printed it on our Web site at biblicalarchaeology.org/scholars.—Ed.

How About $10,000? (Just Kidding)

It is possible for me to provide a gift to BAR of $5,000. I might decide to do so if I receive a firm commitment from you that this year, an article will be published in BAR that presents arguments and evidence from Peoples of the Sea by Immanuel Velikovsky in detail and evaluates conclusions therein.

It is really hard to turn this down. We really need the money. But our pages are not for sale.—Ed.

All About BAR