Queries & Comments

008

Cartoons

Follicularly Deficient

I hate to be petty, as I adore your cartoon caption contest, but this month’s cartoon portraying Samson has one very glaring mistake (BAR 39:03). Artists must be free to render historical figures however they wish, but Samson was a Nazarite. They were sworn from birth from ever cutting their hair. At this point in Judges 15:4, as you’ve referenced, Samson retained his gorgeous locks, making him the strongest man in the land. Your cartoon caption Samson, however, seems to be a bit short in the follicular sense!

But all kidding aside, I truly love this artist’s work! Do keep them coming!

Kudos to our artist, Carlton Stoiber.—Ed.

“The Lord Is One”

A Declaration, Not a Confession of Faith

Re: “ ‘The Lord Is One’: How Its Meaning Changed” (BAR 39:03) by Armin Lange and Esther Eshel.

The verse “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” is not a “confession,” as the authors describe it, but rather a declaration of faith.

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

If we were unclear in our article, we would like to emphasize that we do not understand the daily recital of the Shema‘ in the manner of a Christian confession.

And Don’t Forget It!

The articles in BAR often motivate me to do some personal research on related topics. In the “ ‘Lord Is One,’ ” authors Armin Lange and Esther Eshel refer to Deuteronomy 6:8–9 where Israelites are instructed to bind these words on their hands and put them on their foreheads, their doorposts and their gates. The authors state that this suggests an apotropaic (magical, protective) function. I humbly suggest that the passage is simply saying, “This is important so write it down in numerous places where you will see it everyday so you don’t forget it.”

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

While we do not dispute this observation, archaeological evidence leaves no doubt that the Shema‘ was used in apotropaic contexts in ancient Judaism. In the case of the Halbturn amulet, the Shema‘ was found in situ in a silver casing which is typical of amulets.

Monolatry vs. Monotheism

In the article “ ‘The Lord Is One’ ” Armin Lange and Esther Eshel make the case that the Shema‘ (Deuteronomy 6:4) was originally a statement of monolatry [the belief in one God, while recognizing the existence of other gods for other peoples.—Ed.], and only became a statement of monotheism in the Late Second Temple period. I find this interpretation of the Shema‘ to be inconsistent with two verses in an earlier chapter of Deuteronomy: “You yourself were shown to know that the Lord is God, there is none beside him” (4:35) and “And you shall know today and take to your heart that the Lord, He is God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is none else” (4:39).

It seems unlikely that the Deuteronomist would express such unequivocal statements of monotheism only to follow with a statement of monolatry a few verses later. Based upon this, it would appear that monotheism in Israel goes back at least to the Deuteronomist in seventh century B.C.E.

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

The Shema‘ (as is the case with the Decalogue in Deuteronomy 5) comes from an earlier literary stratum of Deuteronomy than Deuteronomy 4 which you quote. We found monolatry in that earlier stratum of Deuteronomy.

One vs. First

Modern Biblical scholars generally agree that numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible are older than the texts in which they are embedded. In 009 010 some cases, the Bible actually cites specific sources, such as The Book of Yashar or The Book of the Wars of Yahweh. It is reasonable to suspect that apotropaic [protective against evil] passages such as the Priestly Benediction (Numbers 6:24–26) and the “Hear, O Israel” (Deuteronomy 6:4) predate the Biblical texts that contain them.

The Hebrew word ehad, conventionally translated as the cardinal number “one,” is also used consistently throughout the Biblical text to denote the ordinal number “first when there is no second.”

As early as chapter 1 of Genesis, the first day of Creation ends with “and it was evening and it was morning, day ehad” not “day rishon” (“the first day”), but “day one when there is not yet a day two.” Days two through six end with the usual Hebrew ordinals for “second day,” “third day,” through “sixth day.”

Similarly, by the time it appears in Deuteronomy, the Shema‘ verse means “Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is ehad,” that is, “first when there is no second.”

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

The use of ehad in Deuteronomy 6:4 cannot be compared to the examples given by Professor Golomb. Deuteronomy 6:4 is not a numeric list like the enumeration of days in Genesis 1.

Where Is the Magic in That?

I am both puzzled and unconvinced by Lange and Eshel’s confident assertion that the small gold leaf inscribed with the Shema‘ Yisrael [Hear, O Israel] and found in an infant’s grave is a phtylakterion with a magic spell to protect its bearer. Why could it not be simply a Shema‘ Yisrael that was buried with the child as a loving gesture from the child’s parents in obedience to Deuteronomy 6’s admonition to “Impress them on your children.” The instruction is to “Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” Where is the magic spell in that?

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

The Halbturn amulet was found in situ in a silver casing which is typical of amulets, leaving no doubt about its use.

It’s a Boy!

Just a few quibbles with, “The Lord Is One.” Women are not required to recite the Shema‘, so the body discovered in the grave is most certainly a boy.

The gold fragment was probably a secondary use of material, and it would be interesting to know what it was taken from. Probably the boy’s father inscribed the Shema‘ (the letters and lines are not expertly spaced or incised) hastily and in sorrow. The scroll may have been an amulet to protect the boy after his death. But more likely it was intended to be his last 011 012 declaration of faith and his belief in the oneness of God, lovingly offered by the father on his son’s behalf.

Armin Lange and Esther Eshel respond:

There is not enough archaeological context to make any claims about the buried child, nor its parents’ belief. We cannot even be sure they were Jewish. The capsule of the amulet leaves little doubt, however, that it was produced by a professional magician, while the enclosed Shema‘ convinces us that the magician was Jewish.

Wooden Beams

Surviving a Fiery Destruction

Re: “Wooden Beams from Herod’s Temple Mount: Do They Still Exist?” by Peretz Reuven (BAR). Stone and timbers in ancient times were often re-used, probably several times. But how did these wooden beams survive the fire that historians say destroyed the Temple Mount in 70 C.E.?

Peretz Reuven responds:

Point 1. The fact is that the beam did survive. It is carved with decorations that were common in the Roman period, including a rope pattern, various kinds of leaves and pomegranates. Based on that, I dated the beam to the Roman period.

Secondly, although the buildings on the Temple Mount were burned, it is quite possible that parts of the buildings were destroyed or collapsed previous to the fire and some of these beams were covered with the debris and survived the fire.

Another possibility is that this was a beam from the Temple used for fortification against the Romans. Josephus tells us that Agrippa had pre-used beams on the Temple Mount for renovating the Temple. Josephus describes these beams as “pieces of timber very well worth seeing, both for their straightness and their largeness” (The Jewish War, Book V, ch. 1, sec. 5 [Whiston ed.]).

Of course, it is also possible that this beam is from later in the Roman period. It could be from a large public building built after the destruction of the Temple, perhaps from the Temple to Jupiter that the Romans are said to have built on the Temple Mount.

Reviews

Hearty and Cordial Eisenman

The sidebar by the BAR editor that accompanies the review by Charlotte Hempel of my The Dead Sea Scrolls—A Biography (BAR 39:04) quotes me as describing Robert Eisenman as, among other things, “hate-filled.” I do quote Eisenman’s characterization of the people responsible for scrolls such as the War Scroll as “hate-filled,” but that does 074 not mean his own views are so. I seldom agree with Eisenman, but I have always found him to be a hearty and cordial person and not at all “hate-filled.”

Potpourri

Cater-Pillaging

Re: “Cater-Pillaging—The Stratigraphy of Tel Socoh” on page 29 of the May/June and page 64 of the July/August issues of BAR. This has me wondering. Is this an advertisement for the dig at Tel Socoh? Or is it a criticism of the excavation methodology that was used there? Or is it a joke? Just curious.

It is a paid advertisement.—Ed.

Apology

In the May/June issue of BAR (p. 12), the artifact featured in “What Is It?” (an anthropomorphic rattle) is the very one we published (“Of Rattles and Rituals: An Anthropomorphic Rattle from the Nelson Glueck Collection at the Cincinnati Art Museum,” Hebrew Union College Annual 70/71 (1999–2000), pp. 5–26). Until our publication, it was unknown that the object was even a rattle. We also had it tested for authentication purposes. Your description on page 68 cites publications of other articles on ancient musical instruments from the Levant but fails to cite ours, which is unprofessional. Considering that our article must have been consulted, we expect that it would have been referenced.

It happens. We did indeed consult your excellent article—extensively. We apologize—profusely.–Ed.

Cartoons