Queries & Comments

043

BAR and the Ebla Tablets

To the Editor:

Your comments on the Ebla Tablets (Queries & Comments, BAR 02:03) are a valuable public service.

To the Editor:

I read widely in this field and appreciate your publication. In the last issue I was happy to see a clarification of the problem with the Ebla Tablets.

Excavations in a Checking Account

Sometimes—very occasionally—our subscription department makes a mistake. In the case of Dr. J. Edward Barrett of Muskingum College, we sent him notices that his subscription had lapsed despite the fact that he had already sent us his subscription renewal check some time earlier. So Dr. Barrett, not realizing that he had already re-subscribed, sent us a second check—which we duly cashed. Later, he discovered his mistake—and ours—and sent us the following letter, which we thought our readers would enjoy sharing:

To the Editor:

Enclosed you will find duplicated copies of two checks—which illustrate some archaeology on my part.

In late June I received from you two notices within a week (a letter and a post card) threatening to cut off my BAR supply if I did not immediately pay tribute for a new subscription. This, O Sennacherib, I did—in the form of check 890.

However, intensive subsequent excavations in the tell of my checking account—at a strata three months earlier—reveal that I had already paid for my new subscription, in the form of check 749.

Now, lest an angel of the Lord go forth and destroy someone for violating the trust of II Kings 22:7, may I rest confident that you will extend my paid subscription for an additional year? Please confirm!

Shalom,

We extended Dr. Barrett’s paid subscription for an additional year.—Ed.

Velikovsky and Archaeology

To the Editor:

I enjoy your … publication immensely and wish you success. Please indulge one ignorant question from a rank amateur, or should it be a rank question from an ignorant amateur. I recall a book by Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (1950). He postulated some incredible theories predicated on the allegation that Egyptian history was 600 years too long. According to Velikovsky, The Queen of Sheba was actually the only female Pharaoh of history, Hatshepsut. Also, King Solomon was to have joined in expelling the Hyskos from Egypt, who were actually the Amalekites.

I would be interested in knowing whether there has been any evidence uncovered since 1950 to support or oppose Velikovsky. Specifically, Velikovsky relied on the Tel-el-Amarna letters and preliminary finds at El Arish.

044William H. Stiebing, Jr. replies:

Twenty-five years ago Immanuel Velikovsky published two books, Worlds in Collision (1949) and Ages in Chaos (1952), which ignited a controversy which has continued to the present day. He claimed that a comet (which later became the planet Venus) passed close to the earth about 1450 B.C. This near-collision, he argued, produced world-wide earthquakes, tidal waves, pestilence and other catastrophes. It also caused temporary halt in the earth’s rotation. Velikovsky further asserted that these catastrophic events are reflected in the Biblical accounts of the Exodus and of the sun standing still for a day during the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

The cosmic catastrophes were supposedly repeated in the eighth century B.C. Velikovsky thought them responsible for the destruction of the Assyrian army of Sennacherib who was besieging Jerusalem at that time (II Kings 18:13–19:36).

Velikovsky’s views were immediately attacked by scientists, particularly astronomers, who rejected his theories of astronomical catastrophes in recent times. Feelings ran so high that some scientists even attempted to prevent the publication or distribution of Velikovsky’s works—a regrettable departure from the ideal of academic freedom.

For Biblical scholars and ancient historians the most significant part of Velikovsky’s theories is his reconstruction of ancient chronology. As the letter from Mr. Denis notes, in Ages in Chaos Velikovsky attempted to demonstrate that the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty did not belong to the sixteenth through the fourteenth centuries B.C. as thought by historians. Instead, it should be dated to a period of about six hundred years later. Hatshepsut (usually dated c. 1503–1482 B.C.) was equated with the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon in the tenth century B.C. Thutmos III (conventionally dated c. 1504–1450 B.C.) was supposedly the Egyptian king Shishak who invaded Judah during the reign of Rehoboam (c. 922–915 B.C.). The Amarna letters from the reign of Akhenaton (usually dated c. 1379–1362 B.C.) are placed by Velikovsky in the era of Jehoshaphat of Judah and Omri and Ahab of Israel (the mid-ninth century B.C.).

To support these contentions Velikovsky quotes numerous parallels between Egyptian and Biblical texts. He also provides extensive documentation for his claims which must seem very impressive to a layman. Why, then, haven’t ancient historians, Biblical scholars and archaeologists accepted his arguments?

The first reason is that Velikovsky’s use of ancient textual material and his documentation are frustrating (sometimes even infuriating!) rather than convincing to the professional linguist or ancient historian. In using Biblical texts he ignores the results of modern Biblical criticism. He often makes unwarranted identifications between individuals and places in Egyptian texts and similar names found in the Bible. In making such identifications he often ignores established philological principles worked out by specialists in the languages involved. He uncritically uses legends and Medieval midrashic accounts (Ginsberg’s Legends of the Jews is a frequently cited source) as equal weight with ancient documents. And, he often derives his information from, or bases his arguments on, old works which have long been out of date.

Perhaps even more important than these faults in Velikovsky’s methodology is his failure to take cognizance of the results of Near Eastern archaeology. Excavations in the Holy Land, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece have revealed synchronisms between those areas which make Velikovsky’s revised chronology impossible.

For example, in the Amarna letters found at Akhenaton’s capital in Egypt are letters from the rulers of Babylon and Assyria. In these letters Kadashman-Enlil and Burnaburiash are given as the names of successive kings of Babylon at the time of Akhenaton and his father, Amenhotep III. Two other letters are addressed to Akhenaton from Asshur-uballit, king of Assyria. According to Velikovsky’s theories, both Asshur-uballit and Burnaburiash must be identified with the ninth century Assyrian king Shalmeneser III (c. 858–824 B.C.). He claims this king assumed the name Burnaburiash after his conquest of Babylon. However, Assyrian king lists giving the 045names of Assyrian kings as well as their contemporary counterparts in Babylon disprove Velikovsky’s reconstruction. These lists indicate that the Kassite kings Kadashman-Enlil (I) and Burnaburiash (III) did rule Babylon at about the same time that Asshur-uballit (I) was king of Assyria. Furthermore, the Assyrian king lists make it clear that the period when these kings ruled was long before the time of Shalmaneser III (whose counterpart in Babylon is given as Murduk-zakir-shumi).

Palestinian archaeology also provides evidence against Velikovsky’s synchronisms. Assyrian objects found at Palestinian sites indicate that the time of the Assyrian Empire and the period of the divided monarchy of Israel and Judah corresponds to the era of Palestinian history archaeologists call the Iron Age II. Now, if Velikovsky is right, this should also be the period of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty. It so happens that a large amount of Mycenaean pottery from Greece has been found in Palestine as well as at el-Amarna and other Eighteenth Dynasty sites in Egypt. But this Mycenanean pottery is not found in the Iron Age layers of Palestinian sites the way it should be according to Velikovsky’s theories. Instead, it is found stratified with Palestinian Late Bronze Age materials.

Whatever the absolute dates one assigns these archaeological periods in Palestine, the relative order will remain the same—the Late Bronze Age was earlier than the Iron Age II. Archaeology has established that the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty and the Mycenaean Age are contemporaneous with the Late Bronze Age in Palestine. Therefore, they cannot belong to the same time as the Hebrew monarchies and the Assyrian Empire which existed during the Palestinian Iron Age. It is clear, then, that one cannot arbitrarily move Egyptian and Mycenaean history forward by six hundred years while keeping Palestinian and Assyrian history at rest.

For such reasons, Velikovsky’s theories are unacceptable to the vast majority of Biblical scholars, linguists, archaeologists and ancient historians.

Controversy and the BAR

To the Editor:

I read the BAR with great interest. I think that this new periodical with its peculiar editorial policies fills a real need. I am happy that you are not afraid of stepping on some people’s toes. Criticism and some controversy is a healthy thing and I hope that you will keep up the good work. All of Biblical archaeology will only profit from articles as you have presented them in your journal.

To the Editor:

I thoroughly enjoy the Israel Exploration Journal and the Biblical Archaeology Review, each in its own way—IEJ for its close-up, technical material and BAR for the broader perspective it affords. I’m happy to see that BAR does not avoid polemics. The scholarly squabbles are interesting to follow and, for this layman, not without an element of fun.

Does the Septuagint Differ?

To the Editor:

In an article in the June 1976 BAR entitled “How the Septuagint Differs,” BAR 02:02, you discuss the proper meaning of Genesis 12:3. The Hebrew (or Masoretic Text) is translated as having God say to Abraham, “By thee, all the nations of the earth will bless themselves”, indicating that even among the Gentiles people will want to be blessed like Abraham. This meaning is contrasted with the meaning of the Septuagint which you translate “In thee, all-the earth shall be blessed”, indicating that even Gentiles are to share in the blessing received by Abraham by becoming his spiritual descendants through their faith.

A recent book by Professor Frank M. Cross of Harvard University entitled 046Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, translates this same Hebrew passage as follows: “All the families of the earth will find blessing in thee (p. 263). Professor Cross seems to find the same meaning in the original Hebrew which BAR (and Père Pierre Benoit) finds only in an alleged mistranslation of the Septuagint.

Père Pierre Benoit of the École Biblique in Jerusalem replies:

The proper interpretation of Genesis 12:3 raises notorious difficulties. This promise to Abraham is repeated five times in Genesis; however, the verb form differs: It is niphal in Genesis 12:3, 18:18 and 28:14; and hithpael in Genesis 22:18 and 26:4. Most scholars agree that the niphal is the original, more primitive form, but they suggest two possible meanings of this form: (1) the passive “will be blessed”; or (2) the medio-reflexive “will bless themselves”, that is, “bless one another” or even “acquire blessing” according to the example of or in imitation of Abraham. In each of the five cases in Genesis where this promise is repeated, the Septuagint adopts the passive meaning (eneulogenthesontai). The passive meaning is also adopted by the New Testament in Acts 3:25 and Galatians 3:8 and also by Sirach 44:21.

According to the interpretation chosen by the Septuagint and the New Testament, the promise is a universalistic expression of salvation: The blessing of Abraham will pass from him and through him to the pagan nations. The New Testament specifies that this will be so because these nations will imitate the faith of Abraham and so become his offspring. But this universalistic interpretation is much less clearly suggested by the Hebrew text. Scholars who question the passive meaning of the Hebrew original argue that if the passive meaning were intended, the verb form would be pual, rather than niphal.

Mr. Lang cites Frank M. Cross’ interpretation of this verb. But Professor Cross does not mention either the Septuagint or the New Testament. He proposes for the niphal (footnote 192) an “indirect reflexive meaning.” His translation, “find blessing in thee”, is prudently ambiguous.

In this state of affairs, it seems permissible to see in the Septuagint translation, as well as in the New Testament and Sirach, a precision which clarifies and deepens a thought that was at best implicit and latent in the original Hebrew. That is what I intended to show. For further information on this point, I refer you to the dictionary of Gesenius, to the note of Father de Vaux in the Jerusalem Bible, and to A. de Pury, Promesse divine et legende cultuelle dans le cycle de Jacob, Paris, Gabalda, 1975, Vol. 1, p. 62f, note 129.

More on Albright’s Biography

To the Editor:

My compliments on providing a varied diet and a stimulating journal. The review of the book on Albright (“A Life of Albright,” BAR 02:02) was reasonable and fair I thought, though I would place more emphasis on what Dr. Running accomplished, rather than on what she did not, or could not manage—namely, an evaluation of Albright as a man of scholarship and ideas. I think she provided a great deal of useful and important information; her idea was that I would contribute something more to the other side of the man’s career. It turned out that this was not feasible within the structure of her book, and the best I could manage was the article I wrote in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. This, perhaps with some others, might have been included. But the companion work was the Albright Bibliography which I did compile and which does contain a half-dozen evaluations of Dr. Albright’s career and achievement. It will take time to put all that in perspective, and I am not sure that it should be undertaken by any of his own students. A third party would be in a better position to attempt that.

047Too Many Letters Praising BAR

To the Editor:

Your magazine space is so limited, it distresses me to see an excessive number of letters taking up precious space to praise the magazine.

Believe it or not, we’ve restrained ourselves.—Ed.

In Praise of BAR

To the Editor:

“Old wood to burn,

Old books to read,

Old wine to drink,

Old friends to trust.”

My September BAR has arrived and I must say that you are well on the way to proving that BAR is a friend I can trust.

BAR’s Book Store is a welcome feature and one I hope to see repeated regularly.

I also want to compliment you on the quality of the BAR Binder.

Once again thank you for the BAR and keep up the excellent work!

To the Editor:

Keep letting out the light.

To the Editor:

I anticipate my first trip to Israel, and reading your efforts in BAR provides a good orientation. Thank you.

To the Editor:

A friend was kind enough to send me a subscription to BAR, which I most thoroughly enjoy, and use for both sermonic material and for classes in our Religious School.

To the Editor:

The Biblical Archaeology Review is most helpful in our adult Bible class.

To the Editor:

Let me extend my congratulations on your journal. It is a timely and attractive adjunct to my special hobby.

To the Editor:

I have found BAR to be one of the best publications I have ever had the pleasure of reading. The only drawback is that it is impossible to put it down.

BAR and the Ebla Tablets
To the Editor:
Your comments on the Ebla Tablets (Queries & Comments, BAR 02:03) are a valuable public service.