Queries & Comments

008

To Err is Human

Mispelingss

I greatly enjoyed your 40th anniversary issue (BAR 41:02). It has several quizzes to which you may wish to add a quiz identifying your printing errors:

Biblical archaeology under “SEIGE” (caption, p. 39). It better be.

“AMATUER” archaeologists (caption, p. 58). Rather amateurish.

A Daughter, Not a Son

The magnificent Anastasis fresco in the Chora Church/Museum is framed with the raising of Jairus’s Daughter on one side and that of the Nain Widow’s Son on the other. The two got mixed up, however, in BAR (in James C. VanderKam, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament,” BAR 41:02, p. 52). The BAR illustration pictures not the Nain Widow’s Son, as you state in the caption, but Jairus’s Daughter.

With best wishes,

Readers may wonder why we elevate letters correcting our errors to the top slot in our popular letters section of the magazine. In our constant effort to turn our mistakes to advantage, we do so here to note that our readers share their enjoyment of BAR with such other BAR readers as Emanuel Tov, the dean of Dead Sea Scroll scholars, and John Dominic Crossan, the world-famous New Testament scholar. Both are old friends.

Both are also aging and perhaps ready for new careers. We would like to offer Emanuel a position at BAR as proofreader. He has earned it. As for Dom, we would like to employ him as part-time artistic consultant. There is no question that these appointments would improve the quality of our magazine.—Ed.

BAR Moves Mountains

It would appear from Worldwide (“Russia,” BAR 41:02, p. 80) that someone on your staff has such faith as to move mountains. The text tells us that the artifact was found in the southern Urals [which is correct—Ed.], but the inset map indicates a location on the shore of the Sea of Japan. Should we expect a follow-up in which the mountains will be cast into the sea?

We print this letter so far forward because so many readers pointed out our error.—Ed.

BAR’s 40th Birthday

Keeping Up-to-Date

Hershel Shanks: Congratulations for your achievement with 40 years’ hard work.

Since I was drawn to this magazine 11 years ago while studying at Princeton Theological Seminary, it has been expanding my knowledge of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) beyond the text. I had the wonderful opportunity to get to know your favorite group of scholars, William F. Albright and his disciples Ernest Wright, Frank Cross, David Noel Freedman and others. BAR kept me up-to-date on my views with its lively discussions and debates among scholars of Christian, Jewish and Catholic background. Keep up the great work!

The BAR Facts

It was interesting to read about the start of BAR, but things I wanted to know were not mentioned. How many copies of that first issue were printed? Just how does a start-up magazine go from a paid circulation of zero to a sustainable number, and how long did it take?

The print run of BAR’s first issue in March 1975 was 4,000. The print run of the May/June 2015 issue was 130,000.

We obtained subscribers in the usual way—print ads in those days, a small direct-mail promotion and mostly word-of-mouth. (Please tell your friends.)

This is why we are so very grateful to the BAR readers 009 who have the capacity to and do donate to make up the shortfall each year. This keeps us going. If we had the funds to promote BAR more heavily, we could raise the additional money that would keep us going without the annual shortfall. Perhaps someday!—Ed.

The Bible’s Repeated Numerals

I love Biblical Archaeology Review! In the March/April 2015 edition, Strata’s “Anniversary Bible Quiz,” I noticed that the same numbers for actions and events are repeated throughout history. For example: Moses goes up to the mountain for 40 days. Jesus goes to the wilderness for 40 days, as does John the Baptist. Israelites take 40 years to reach the land of Israel/Canaan. Numbers consistently repeated are 40, 7 and 12 (12 tribes of Israel, 12 Apostles, etc.). What is the significance of these numbers to the Israelites and later Christians?

Marc Z. Brettler responds:

Cultures typically have significant and insignificant, lucky and unlucky numbers; ancient Semitic cultures, including Israel, were no different. These include the common numbers 4—likely reflecting the points of the compass—7, which is very prevalent, although its origin is less clear (the ancient world did not divide the world into seven-day weeks), and 10, the number of fingers. The common number 40 is 4 x 10.

Additionally, the Bible often patterns later events after earlier ones—what scholars call “typology.” It is likely that some of the uses of the number 40 of Jesus in the New Testament reflect this, as Jesus is depicted as a “type” of Moses and, thus, absorbs events (and numerals) associated with him. Similarly, the 12 apostles of Jesus reflect the 12 sons of Jacob.

Enriched Teaching

You have given me hours of enjoyment and helped me do a better job of teaching a “Scripture and Tradition” course for Catholic school teachers in my archdiocese. Thank you for the 40 years, and God bless the next 40!

Like a Kid on Christmas Morning

When a new issue of BAR arrives, I’m like a kid by the tree on Christmas morning. I forget all the other things I should be doing and sit down to read from front to back. I have a B.A. in archaeology and an M.A. in Hebrew and Semitic studies from the University of Wisconsin. I had a study grant for six weeks in Israel. For 54 years, I have taught a Bible course called the Bethel Bible Studies for adults that is now translated into nine other languages and is used in many different Christian denominations. So it is easy to see how helpful BAR has been in keeping my lectures up with the newest 010 discoveries and the latest perspectives of the authors. I wish BAR a happy 40th anniversary, but there never would have been BAR without Hershel Shanks. So I would like to say, “Thank you, Hershel.”

Thanks.—Ed.

Purchased a BAR Subscription from His Daughter

Congratulations to BAR on its 40th birthday. Approximately 20 years ago my daughter was selling magazine subscriptions for a school fund-raiser, and I saw BAR on the list. I had never heard of it and thought I would try it. I began receiving it and have devoured every issue ever since. It is—by far—my favorite magazine. Thank you, Mr. Shanks, for providing us with such a rewarding read.

Everyday Ostraca

Where Did They Get Those Ancient Scratch Pads?

Ada Yardeni’s article on ostraca (“2,000 Ancient Aramaic Business Scribbles,” BAR 40:05) leads me to wonder if there has ever been a study done on the everyday use of them. For example, if a local citizen wanted to write something down, did they grab a nearby pot and throw it to the ground so they could make use of its shattered remnants? Did they carry an ostracon with them in an ancient version of pocket or purse, just in case they wanted to jot down a transaction? Were there authorized scribes or agents one would hire to write down the desired information? Was there a market for broken pottery where a person could buy the day’s “scratch pad”?

Ada Yardeni responds:

I don’t know of any research dedicated specifically to the customs concerning the daily use of potsherds for writing. However, many articles dealing with ancient writing materials also mention potsherds as the cheap and available writing material in the entire Middle East from very early times.

Writing on clay vessels could be done as carving into the clay before firing or scratching on it after firing, as well as writing in ink or on its fragments after it was broken (on purpose or not, depending on the circumstances). In regions where papyrus or hide was mainly used for long texts, such as legal deeds and literature, potsherds usually served for short, nonpermanent texts, such as short letters, accounts, reports of transactions and other daily matters. Most of the writing was done by professional scribes, who were trained in writing the official language with its traditional forms of letter-signs. Many ostraca 011 with scribal exercises have been discovered, testifying to the existence of scribal schools.

However, it seems that among the population were people, not necessarily professional scribes, who were able to read and write to a certain degree (as evidenced, e.g., by thousands of ancient graffiti of travelers scratching their names in various remote places). Therefore the paleographers distinguish between various levels of writing, such as different degrees of official and vulgar writings.

Large empires with regular administrative systems trained professional scribes for official writing. Thus, for example, the large batches of Hebrew and Aramaic ostraca found in the land of Israel under Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rule show traditional styles of scripts written by trained professional scribes. It is possible that illiterate people turned to official scribes to write for them and perhaps also paid for this service. In places where public schools existed, more people could read and write. The ancient Hebrew and Aramaic ostraca dating to the periods of the large empires were mostly written by professional scribes serving the authorities; they show traditional forms of the early Hebrew and of the official Aramaic script styles with only minor personal differences in the performance of the letter forms.

Protecting Cultural Heritage

Prescription for Safeguarding Sites

I feel that Hershel Shanks did not quote me fairly in his article (“Is It Possible to Protect Our Cultural Heritage?”) in the March/April 2015 issue of BAR.

He asks what, if anything, might be done to curtail or, at least, reduce the pillaging of archaeological sites by treasure hunters and looters in the Holy Land. I feel that he has somewhat misrepresented the arguments presented and suggestions offered in my Editorial in the September 2014 issue of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly (PEQ).

He implies that I particularly pin my hopes in fences (p. 64: “I am in complete sympathy with Jacobson’s cri de coeur, but I don’t think that a fence would do much good”). I suggested fencing combined with other means of protection as deterrent measures specifically for Archelais, which is situated on a flat site alongside a busy thoroughfare, and is wide open to intruders with vehicles. I have observed that the strong, high fence and a resident guard at ʼIraq al-Amir in Jordan have been very effective in protecting the famous Tobiad palace (mid-second century B.C.E.) there, to give but one example.^a Other well-known examples are Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee, Pompeii and Herculaneum in Italy, which all enjoy similar or even more 012 stringent protection.

What I wrote in conclusion was also not duly quoted in Hershel’s piece, so please let me repeat it in full for the benefit of BAR’s readers, so that they can properly judge my proposals exactly as I stated them in the PEQ editorial:

Surely, on this issue [the assault on the cultural heritage of the Holy Land], which transcends current political bickering, requires immediate practical measures to prevent further loss of irreplaceable world heritage. Until such efforts can be galvanised and put into action, there is a strong case to be made for a halt to further excavations in the entire region unless effective measures for the protection and conservation of the sites to be investigated are included, with firm budgets in place to cover these requirements. Useful experience gained elsewhere in the world, including Mexico, in implementing appropriate archaeological site management policies needs to be studied by all functioning administrations in the Levant and applied locally as a matter of priority.

Dead Sea Scrolls & the New Testament

Did Jesus Write?

In “Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament” (BAR 41:02), James C. VanderKam mentions that Jesus read from a scroll. Since he was literate, one wonders if he ever wrote anything. I presume not, or this would be widely known, but are there any clues anywhere that suggest he may have left any writings, now lost to history?

James C. VanderKam responds:

The New Testament Gospels do indeed present Jesus as literate, in that he could read from the scroll of Isaiah and debate issues of interpretation with learned contemporaries. As far as Jesus’ writing anything, John 8:6 says “Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” Whatever he wrote has, of course, not survived. Some early Christians, however, thought Jesus wrote a letter to King Abgar of Edessa, who had previously written to Jesus. There is no reason to think the claim authentic.

Biblical Views

Was Jesus’ Tomb Closed with a Rolling Stone?

I typically read my BAR cover to cover when I get it, so it can take a while. I read with interest the Biblical Views column by Dr. Urban C. von Wahlde (“A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll,” BAR 41:02) 066 that Jesus’ grave probably wasn’t closed off with a rolling stone as has been historically thought, but more likely with a type of plug stone. This was news to me. Even though I have a master’s degree in New Testament studies, I’d never heard of this possibility. He states this is likely because there have been only four rolling stones found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and they were all very wealthy burials.

Then some time later I got to Ken Dark’s article, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?” (BAR 41:02). It caught my attention rather quickly that the picture on page 59 of a first-century tomb has a rolling stone at the entrance. I wonder if the editorial staff picked up on this bit of irony. If an ordinary tomb in Nazareth could to this day have a rolling stone sitting at its entrance, could there have been more in or around Jerusalem that have long since been removed?

067

Urban von Wahlde responds:

Your question is a good one. As I indicated, the observations in my article were based on the work of Amos Kloner, who has studied the tombs in and around Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period.^b Kloner makes a very interesting observation that I did not mention in my piece. Kloner points out that after the year 70 A.D., rolling stone closures become much more common. It would appear that this accounts for the rolling stone closure in Nazareth.

In the article by Ken Dark^c we learn that the forecourt of the tomb (with a rolling stone closure) pictured in the article (p. 59) cuts through the plan of a domestic building. However, the excavators also found that the area reflects three distinct periods of use. The first period (about the time of Jesus?) was indicated by the domestic building. After that building fell into disuse, the area was used for quarrying. Then in a third phase a tomb was built into the site. This would seem to confirm what Kloner had proposed: that after 70 A.D. rolling stone closures began to proliferate. The site was inside the boundaries of Nazareth during the first century and could not be used for burial. Some time afterward it was no longer considered part of the town and quarrying was conducted there, and later a tomb was constructed on the site. Although pottery typical of the first century was found on the site, that does not prevent a dating of the tomb to a period into the second century. Thus the situation described by Dark would agree with that proposed by Kloner.

But there is another fascinating element to the story. Kloner observes that “Dozens of them [tombs closed by rolling stones] have been found from the late Roman to Byzantine periods (second to seventh century C.E.). These later round stones were much smaller than Second Temple period stones (less than 3 feet in diameter) …” In the photo on page 59 of the Nazareth article, each decimeter of the meter stick is marked off by color alternation of each decimeter. That indicates that the stone in question is just about one meter (39.5 in) in diameter.

A rolling stone will probably be forever portrayed in the tomb of Jesus. It is one of the most prominent and vivid images in Christianity. It is what people expect. I once asked a famous archaeologist who was providing illustrations for a Bible why he portrayed a rolling stone tomb for Jesus rather than a “mushroom”-shaped closure. He replied, “When one is hired for such work, one provides what is requested.”

But you and I know better!

Revolutionary Discoveries

Israel Finkelstein Is a Centrist

In the July/August 2014 issue of BAR, you published an extremely harsh review of The Forgotten Kingdom—The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel by Israel Finkelstein.^d The review was so disrespectful to the author that it looked like a deliberate smear campaign (p. 38). I was surprised that the supposedly calm field of archaeology could incite such negative emotions. So I immediately ordered that book and other publications of Finkelstein’s, as well as those of his adversaries.

I found that Dr. Finkelstein’s approach to historical interpretation of the ancient Hebrew kingdoms is the most logically coherent among competing hypotheses. His books exhibit intrinsic logic where archaeology, history, geography, economics, sociology and common sense converge in a way that a reader feels that he grasps the whole truth. At the same time, while reading views of other scholars, I felt that something did not add up.

In the March/April 2015 issue of BAR, you continued your crusade against Israel Finkelstein, falsely characterizing him as a “leading minimalist.” First, Dr. Finkelstein is a centrist, as he explicitly describes himself. Second, it is obvious from his publications that he does not deny the historicity of many Biblical 068 events and persons, nor does he consider them fully trustworthy. For example, he accepts the historicity of the King David, but rejects his grandeur as described in the Hebrew Bible.

His Low Chronology and critical recreation of Biblical events sound provocative for some mainstream scholars for one reason—they are revolutionary. Einstein’s theory of relativity was mindboggling and was not easily accepted either.

BAR readers deserve a more balanced approach.

Potpourri

A Happy Camper

As a longtime BAR reader, I always look forward to your annual “Dig” issue. I also look forward to the annual commentary regarding your cover model(s). This year’s portrait was one of the best I can recall (BAR 41:01). The young woman exudes the joy that comes from learning, practical application and following a passion. (I did wonder how she keeps her eyewear so clean, though.) Thank you!

Don’t Cancel

I write to you not to say “cancel my subscription” but rather to deplore what seems to be a notable absence of such letters in BAR. At one time I seem to recall reading at least one in every few issues. The expression “cancel my subscription” was common enough that you used it for the title of a book of a collection of letters sent to BAR over the years.

Queries & Comments is one of my favorite parts of your magazine—one that I nearly always read first—enjoying even the letters asking that a subscription be canceled (even though I never agree with the reasons given).

Do you publish fewer because you are mellowing with age or because you get so many that publishing them seems repetitious? Or, perhaps, your readers are becoming mellower and more willing to see the expression of an idea counter to their ingrained belief. I miss seeing those letters in your magazine.

Hurrah! All is not lost! I just got my latest BAR, and, lo and behold, I see one such letter in it (“It Was a Miracle, and That Was That,” BAR 41:02). I can now be entertained again when I read your letter column.

We don’t get very many of these cancellation letters anymore. I really don’t know why.—Ed.

To Err is Human