Queries & Comments

050

Criticisms of Story on Dead Sea Scroll Crosses

To the Editor:

Festus’ statement to Paul in Acts 26:24 can justly be said of Prof. Finegan (“Crosses in the Dead Sea Scrolls—A Waystation on the Road to the Christian Cross,” BAR 05:06): “ … you are out of your mind! Your great learning is driving you mad!” Surely it is a better case to postulate that X marks from the Dead Sea Scrolls are the ancient forerunner of tic-tac-toe.

To the Editor:

I love archaeology and the intriguing manner in which scholars and researchers sometimes arrive at their conclusions. Most of the time the “jig-saw puzzles” seem to fall into place, but sometimes in their anxiety to prove their point they lean very heavily on coincidences and vague assumptions which may cast a shadow on their motives.

In my judgment “Crosses in the Dead Sea Scrolls—A Waystation on the Road to the Christian Cross,” BAR 05:06, by Jack Finegan places great weight on early Christian sources in order to try to prove that the Old Testament was indeed the source of the Christian Cross of today.

The fact is that Jewish sources never acknowledged the cross in any manner whatsoever, religiously or otherwise. The Hebrew letter “Tov” was the last letter of the alphabet and nothing more.

According to Mr. Finegan, an early Church Father, Origen supposedly asks an obscure Jew about the “Tov,” who naturally answers that it resembles the Cross. Were he to ask a 20th century “Jesus Freak” the same question he no doubt would get the same answer (provided the person was acquainted with the Hebrew alphabet).

Mr. Finegan fails to mention that the Fish antedated the Cross in Christian tradition, and using his logic one can say that because Jonah was swallowed by a fish he naturally was a foreteller of the symbol of the future Christian faith.

Using a 12th century Latin Bible as an unbiased source, and placing relevance on such sources as Epiphanius, and putting the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Cairo Geniza documents into the same basket, is utter fantasy.

Over 13 marginal markings appear on the Isaiah Scroll both in front of eschatological and non-eschatological passages. The “Tov” happens to be only one of these 13 and cannot the conclusion be drawn that a teacher may have given his 13 pupils assignments and each student was assigned one of these markings? It seems to me that without any definite proof, one speculation is as good as another.

Mr. Finegan’s conclusion that “clearly” at the beginning of the Christian Era the Jews understood the Tov or X to be a sign of salvation is pure fiction. The Cross does not even appear to have been discussed in Jewish sources, let alone accepted.

This article, while not an uninteresting one, seems to be self-serving and perhaps is influenced by some missionary zeal on the part of the author.

To the Editor:

May one be permitted to comment on the interpretation of Professor Finegan, in his paper “Crosses in the Dead Sea Scrolls—A Waystation on the Road to the Christian Cross,” BAR 05:06, of marks appearing upon Jewish ossuaries. In fact these are in most cases found to appear, in a great variety of forms, including two crossing lines, both upon the ossuary’s box and the corresponding side of its lid. This is indeed the case also with the ossuary of Nicanor, quoted by Professor Finegan. This fact was clearly stated by the discoverer of Nicanor’s tomb, Miss Gladys Dickson (cf. Quarterly Statement, Palestine Exploration Fund, 36—1903, p. 331: “The cross in the facsimile (p. 126, Fig. 2)) has no connection with the inscription; it corresponds to a similar mark on the lid of the ossuary, showing the proper way to turn it in placing it in position.”

To the Editor:

The article by Jack Finegan while raising some interesting suggestions, omits certain information which is of importance in assessing the value of the letter/mark taw in the Hebrew Bible.

051

Although Finegan indicates that there are two passages in the Hebrew Bible in which the word taw appears (Job 31:35, and Ezekiel 9:4–6), there is, in fact, a third citation, which was pointed out to me by Rabbi Ivan Caine of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. In 1 Samuel 21:14, we read the account of David’s feigning madness before King Achish of Gath, during which he “scratched marks on the doors of the gate” (translation as found in The Prophets published by the Jewish Publication Society). The Hebrew reads: va-yi-tav al de-la-tot, and we note the verbal usage of the word taw. This citation, which juxtaposes a word with clear apotropaic value with a location requiring protection (the door [way]) indicates strongly that the proper translation ought to be “he etched protective inscriptions on the doors of the gate.”

This citation, taken with the one in Ezekiel 9:4–6, argues that the primary significance of taw in the Hebrew Bible is apotropaic. It was the late Professor Ephraim Speiser who pointed out that the original form of the taw was likely a crossmark “judging from the name and the old shape of the letter” (Jewish Quarterly Review, 48:2). Speiser posited that the symbolism of the taw was based on an underlying picture of crossroads, a picture which would typify the dangers that a traveller might encounter from any of the four points of the compass. In a different article (found in the Landsberger Jubilee Volume), Speiser indicated that, based on the citation in Ezekiel, Hebrew taw corresponded functionally to Akkadian (is) pallurtum, which mean “cross, crossroads, mark on forehead;” and that the Akkadian is logographically bar, which is identical in form with the Old Hebrew taw.

Given this strong evidence for the apotropaic value of taw (and ot as well, in Genesis 4:15: surely a protective mark “lest anyone kill him on sight”), it is difficult to make the leap to Finegan’s assertion that “at the beginning of the Christian era, the Jewish people believed the crossmark stood for faithfulness and for protection and salvation at the end of time.” To derive notions of faithfulness or salvation from the apparently purely apotropaic taw requires a theological derivation which is not warranted by the three citations of taw available to us. Surely there is no way to derive a connection with the “end of time.”

However, even if one grants Finegan his premises, two further difficulties arise. The first involves his working back from his conclusion about the Qumran community to the Jewish people at the beginning of the Christian era. We have no good reason to assume that a practice current at Qumran in any way reflected that of the rest of the Jewish community; indeed, it might be more reasonable to argue that in this, as in other aspects of Jewish life, the Qumran sect represented the deviation, rather than the norm.

052

Secondly, again granting Finegan’s argument, it seems unlikely that “it was natural for the Church to use the same cross sign which the Jews had already invested with this meaning” (i.e., faithfulness, protection and salvation). For if this be the dynamic between first century Judaism and the emerging Church, how much more would we have expected the Church to employ the preeminent symbol of the covenant People’s relationship of faithfulness, protection, and salvation with their God—namely, circumcision! Clearly in this regard the dynamic was to reject overtly Jewish symbols, and it seems unlikely that the cross-mark should be an exception. Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume that the taw/cross-mark retained in first century Judaism a vestigial apotropaic function, but that any association with either salvation or eschatology came, not from the Jewish People, but from the emerging Church itself. Rabbi Caine suggests that the Church synthesized the vestigial taw with the Roman crucifix, whose shape seems to have been T, not t; and that out of this combination the Cross of the Church, with its salvific and eschatological primary meaning, and its protective secondary meaning (witness the vampire legends, also noted by Rabbi Caine) came to be the dominant symbol of the new religious order. The Church, therefore, and not first century Judaism (either in Qumran, or elsewhere) seems to be the source for the meaning of the cross that Finegan sees as significant.

To the Editor:

Practically every article I have read in the past few years has been a joy. I have been most delighted with your work.

Now, however, I want to object to one article just a bit. “Crosses in the Dead Sea Scrolls—A Waystation on the Road to the Christian Cross,” BAR 05:06, seemed to me to be nearly useless. How one can find any meaning in such marks is impossible to deduce. All readers make signs in the margins of books. I surely would not want someone, 2000 years hence, to try to make sense of my marks or say it was a way station on the way to some venerable symbol. It would be false. Like the authors he quotes, Finegan is “reading back” a meaning in the markings, not deducing from them. He also states, “If we look at the passages opposite these cross-marks (X), all of them have a peculiarly eschatological context (see box).” I saw nothing of the kind. Some were, some were not. C. S. Lewis once commented that textual criticism was 100% false if it were applied as critics used such [criticism] on his books. They never concluded his reasons or motives correctly. I suspect Finegan and his marks go the same way. His one reasonable remark was, “The purposes of these signs is not evident.”

Criticism of Reviews on Books About Historical Jesus

To the Editor:

I was a little shocked by George Buchanan’s treatment of the eminent classicist and historian, Michael Grant, in “Books in Brief,” BAR 05:06. I believe most readers recognize the name of Michael Grant as one of the leading scholars of the classical Roman era. If not, one need only look at his impressive biographical entry in Who’s Who. Dr. Buchanan has every right to disagree with Grant’s approach or conclusions, but I’m dismayed by his pettiness when he announces that Michael Grant isn’t really a “genuine historian like Brandon.”

Why does Buchanan consider Brandon to be a “genuine historian” while Grant is not? Brandon’s book, The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth is a study arguing that the mission of Jesus was political rather than spiritual. Interestingly, this just happens to coincide with Buchanan’s own opinion. (See “Jesus Running for Political Office?” Queries & Comments, BAR 03:04.) I suspect, therefore, that for Buchanan, a good book is one that agrees with his own thinking.

Frankly, I’m not particularly impressed with Buchanan’s (or Brandon’s) thesis for a despiritualized political mission of Jesus. He freely picks from those threads of the Gospel accounts supporting his 053contention, while ignoring those (such as John 18:36) that contradict it. Yet I’m sure that contradictory passages present no real problem for Buchanan. If one accepts his premise that the “real” or historical Jesus was a politician, then all passages that point to his mission as being spiritual can be written off as late accretions. My, isn’t that convenient? See how easy “good scholarship” can be!

To the Editor:

George Wesley Buchanan’s “Books in Brief,” BAR 05:06, is misnamed. Rather than a review of books of archaeological interest Buchanan has presented in an unattractive snide style an apologist’s presentation of his own favorite beliefs. How about books of significant archaeological interest instead of condescending reviews which highlight a reviewer’s pet views on New Testament scholarship. This type of review is not what I’m subscribing to BAR for.

To the Editor:

The book reviews endorsed by BAR in the latest issue are absolutely nauseating. The biased reviewer pokes fun at a historian for recognizing the true purpose of Jesus’ parables and the connotations of His forgiveness of sins.

Likewise, he pretends that a contradiction exists between the Sanhedrin sentencing Jesus as a false messiah and the Romans sentencing Him as a pretender for political position. There is no discrepancy, for Messiahship as viewed by the secular Jesus of the Sanhedrin and royalty as viewed by the pagan Romans were about as synonymous as a Jewish and Latin idea could be.

What really irked me was the third book endorsed which describes Jesus as being one more sorcerer. That’s one of the very claims He contested. Far from being such, he is divine: His power and authority are of God. Blatant blasphemy has no place in a neutral magazine such as BAR.

I am pleased with how skillfully BAR walks the tightrope of neutrality attempting to be true both to the facts and inoffensive. Unfortunately the aforementioned endorsement is neither. It both ignores the facts and is extremely offensive. Please keep up the good work which that is an exception to. Renew my subscription.

P.S. I greatly enjoyed the articles on Lachish, Hittites and Ebla and the facetious comedy about Superman.

Why Ebla Film Fails to Discuss Biblical Implications

To the Editor:

Many thanks for BAR’s kind words about the film THE ROYAL ARCHIVES OF EBLA in “Ebla Evidence Evaporates,” BAR 05:06. You mentioned that “no Biblical archaeologist or Biblical scholar, however, was asked in the film to discuss the implications of the tablets for their specialities.” Let me explain why.

The film, as you put it, “vividly explores the meaning of Ebla and its archives for ancient near eastern history,” and to that I would add “of the 3rd Millennium B.C.” As Dr. I. J. Gelb says in the film, “Ebla revealed to us a new language, a new history, a new literature, and a new civilization.”

With luck, after further translations, publications and further interpretations and re-interpretations of the Ebla tablets, I hope to do a follow-up film tracing those early developments into the 2nd Millennium B.C.—and thus including the tablets of Ugarit and Mari. It is in that period, in my opinion, where the Biblical connections will prove most fascinating. In other words, I accept the dating of the Patriarchal Age to ca. 1800 B.C., and thus considerably later than the period of the Ebla tablets which are dated, as you know, between 2400 B.C. (or 2500 B.C.) and 2250 B.C.

054

Does Cryptogramic Analysis Reveal Pre-Columbian Voyages to America?

To the Editor:

It seemed disarmingly easy when the free-swinging archaeologist, Professor Marshall McKusick, swung into the, for him, unfamiliar field of runic cryptography. The reference is to his article “A Cryptogram in the Phoenician Inscription from Brazil,” BAR 05:04.

Unfortunately, McKusick spent nearly half of his article trying to disprove the authenticity of runic cryptograms in the United States.

From 1965 until his death in 1978 it was my privilege to be a colleague of the experienced and very talented cryptanalyst, Alf Monge. During those years he solved a total of sixty-seven runic cryptograms. His work was so completely professional that his critics would have good cause to envy it. (All of his solutions will be available, perhaps by mid-summer, for study and research by scholars at a number of major libraries in this country, in England and in Scandinavia.)

During World War II, Mr. Monge was already engaged as a fully trained cryptanalyst in cracking enemy codes. After the war he was honored with The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. It was accompanied by a Letter of Dignity which was signed personally by King George VI and the Queen Mother Mary. This is the man whom McKusick dismisses so lightly as a “former U.S. Army cryptographer.”

Because of my strong background in mathematics, I have had no difficulty in understanding Monge’s solutions. His solutions, and research on the presence of Norsemen in the United States after 1000 A.D., have occupied much of my time over the past twenty years. Among other things, the work has resulted in the publication of four books, numerous articles in technical journals and lectures at major universities on both sides of the Atlantic. McKusick was indulging in self-serving rhetoric when he described me as “a Viking enthusiast.” He, as well as his alleged authorities, would serve the cause of the truth better if they made an effort to disprove Monge’s solutions. This they have not done.

The positions of McKusick and his authorities are untenable. Three reasons for this can be only briefly discussed here:

1. His authorities are runologists and linguists. This is clear from his statement that “orthodox linguistic analysis” has proved that the Kensington inscription is a fraud. It is an axiom that cryptography can only be solved by cryptanalysis. In this field runologists and linguists have neither experience or competence. Nor have they ever claimed any such. As a result they have been forced to operate on a false assumption—or remain silent. The assumption is that the numerous distortions which the Kensington, and dozens of other cryptographic inscriptions, suffered when cryptography was forced into their texts is still normal runic writing. This is obviously not so.

2. Professor McKusick and his authorities behave after the manner of a hypothetical expert in the testing of water. When a rock was dropped into some water, he insisted that he could determine the properties of the rock by testing the water! Below are two necessarily simple examples which expose their fallacy. Consider first this sentence, “A rihecp is nidehd.” It is completely impervious to the application of English linguistics. The reason is that the second and fourth words are transposition ciphers. Their solutions are “cipher” and “hidden” respectively. The original message was “A cipher is hidden.” (Note: the reader can readily solve these ciphers as anagrams.)

Or take the six runes, SAKUMR. They were carved on the interior of Nidaros Cathedral at Trondheim, Norway. It is the most elementary cryptogram which Monge ever solved. And it contains exactly the same transposition of its runes as the two examples above. The message is the name, MARKUS, which is the Latin spelling of (Saint) Mark.

The current ranking runologist of Norway is necessarily one of McKusick’s main authorities. He realized that the text of this inscription had no meaning in Old Norse. This eliminated the application of the principles of runology or Old Norse. He was, therefore mistakenly forced to conclude that, either the inscription was misspelled, or it had been left unfinished.

It is rather more than strange how current Norwegian runologists and linguists 055have forgotten the fine work in cryptography of the greatest runologist which Norway has ever produced. He was the late Professor Magnus Olsen, and he was not only the predecessor but the mentor of runologist Aslak Liestol.

During the 1920’s and 1930’s Olsen was almost literally up to his ears in runic cryptography. He made excellent progress when one considers that he did not possess the necessary cryptographic tools with which to complete solutions. He often stated that many Norwegian inscriptions were cryptographic, that they involve alterations in normal runic inscriptions and that the cryptography has no relation to runic writing or Old Norse.

In the 30 September issue of the Norwegian paper, Verdens Gang, its editor quoted Olsen as saying that he should like to pursue probability calculations in order to solve cryptography in runic inscriptions but that he was not capable of doing so. He then proceeded to list a large number of the visible evidences of the presence of cryptography in runic inscriptions. They turned up three decades later as essential parts of Monge’s solutions. In a number of cases Olsen referred to runic inscriptions as being “lonskrift,” that is, secret writing. In one case he wondered who would come along to solve it.

It is against this background that Professor McKusick and his authorities have tried to raise a stone wall of opposition. It becomes them very badly. One is tempted to believe that the principle of NDH (not discovered here) has outweighed their desire to search for the truth.

Marshall McKusick and Eric Wahlgren reply:

Believers in the authenticity of the Paraiba stone from Brazil affirm that the Biblical world of the Canaanites extended into the pre-Columbian Americas. Readers of this journal now know from the article by Professor Frank Moore Cross that the Paraiba stone was a forgery derived from the limited knowledge of Phoenician available in the 19th century (“Phoenicians in Brazil?” BAR 05:01). The subsequent article by McKusick explained that 056Professor Cyrus Gordon’s cryptographic studies of 1974 had no bearing on the issue of the Paraiba stone’s authenticity (“A Cryptogram in the Phoenician Inscription from Brazil,” BAR 05:04). Dr. Ole Landsverk, working with the late Alf Monge, has been the co-founder of a remarkably unorthodox approach to Norse cryptography and is the author of three books on the subject. The thrust of his present remarks is that scholars have mistakenly dismissed the Monge-Landsverk studies and that Norse cryptography represents a powerful tool for the examination of medieval inscriptions. Since the solution to the Paraiba controversy rests upon Scandinavian runic analysis, it is appropriate to briefly explore the issue. Dr. Landsverk correctly notes that McKusick is not a specialist in medieval runic studies, and so to give more weight to the reply, Professor Erik Wahlgren is joining in the response.

Dr. Landsverk states the matter precisely when he writes that every professional authority totally rejects the Monge-Landsverk cryptographic system. This would seem reason enough to avoid the approach, and a summary of the American Norse cryptograms should dispel final doubts. The following 20 examples of cryptograms come from the continental United States, drawn from a longer chronological list provided to the authors by Dr. Landsverk.

Commenting upon this list, McKusick, a professional North American archaeologist, notes that only one genuine artifact dated to the Viking Age is accepted as occurring within the continental United States. It is a very rare variety of Norwegian silver penny found on the Maine coast and it seemingly arrived at an Indian site in the early 1100s. All other so-called Viking Age artifacts are frauds, misdated, misidentified, or have a non-Scandinavian origin. For example “Viking halberds” found in Minnesota were believed to support the authenticity of the Kensington runestone until analysis showed they were made of late 19th-century iron. Subsequently these halberds were identified as turn-of-the-century premiums advertising Viking Brand chewing tobacco. Thirty years ago an archaeologist. Dr. William Godfrey, excavated and thoroughly studied the controversial Newport Tower, concluding that it was built in the late 1600s by Governor Benedict Arnold, grandfather of the Revolutionary War traitor of the same name. There are no runic inscriptions at the Newport Tower and the example included in the list seems to be a later graffito which has been misidentified. Excavations at the Kensington and Spirit Pond sites have failed to uncover any traces of medieval evidence. The Waukegan Horn was found in an Illinois road cut and seems to be a 19th-century import. Not one of the examples from the list has any archaeological context or related Viking Age evidence. The genuineness of the inscriptions is thus very doubtful, particularly when excavations at the Vinland camp in northern Newfoundland failed to find a single runic letter. With nothing but negative findings, the archaeologist must defer to the linguistic evidence within the inscriptions themselves.

Also commenting upon this list, Wahlgren, a specialist in Scandinavian languages, has published extensively on the appearance of runes in North America. Not one of the 058examples in the lists is considered to be a genuine medieval inscription by any modern authority in Scandinavian languages. The Kensington runestone is a byword for forgery; it is the most thoroughly documented case, and the names of the participants are known. Wahlgren’s recent decipherment of the Spirit Pond runestones reveals that the vocabulary was largely taken from Zoega’s Old Icelandic Dictionary, probably the 1967 Oxford edition. Additionally, there is an overlay of false Kensington runes and copied works in modern Kensington Swedish. The jumble was composed by someone with a modern English thought pattern who was unfamiliar with medieval Scandinavian languages. Among startling anachronisms, one of the Spirit Pond runestones contains the statement that it is “Two sailing days to Ca(nada),” although neither the name Canada, nor the position of its modern political boundary, was known in Viking times. The inscriptions are most relevant here because the deliberately scrambled word dividers suggest the purpose of the hoax—a spoof on the well publicized Monge-Landsverk cryptography which was current several years before the runestones were “unearthed” in 1971. Wahlgren has also studied the Oklahoma inscriptions and found that most of them were not runic, but had diverse origins including some which appear to be Indian petroglyphs. One runic inscription in Oklahoma is the name of a 19th-century immigrant written in a mixture of runes learned in his homeland’s public school. In summary, not one of the inscriptions in the list conforms to medieval Scandinavian language usage in either runic letters and numerals or vocabulary and grammar. The so-called internal dates derived from false inscriptions have no validity.

According to cryptographic theory, there were Viking Age explorations which left inscriptions in Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, and even Oklahoma, but not one shred of historical evidence confirms such adventures. The available evidence shows that the North American coastline was visited at intervals by ship crews from Greenland, Iceland, and Norway, but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that Greenlanders or other Norsemen made far-ranging continental explorations to the Midwest and beyond. The search for Viking evidence in such places as Oklahoma is an absurdity.

Dr. Landsverk persuasively argues that cryptography can only be solved by cryptanalysis. Yet, when a qualified cryptographer, David Kahn, rejected the methodology and results of the Monge-Landsverk system, they refused to cite his work or refute him in subsequent editions of their study. Runologists have examined the cryptograms and found them to be false solutions. The Monge-Landsverk approach represents a closed system unrelated to Norse medieval history, languages, and religion.

This leads back to the Brazilian Phoenician debate. Professor Gordon acknowledged that the Paraiba cryptograms were derived from the methodology and work of Alf Monge. It is now recognized beyond question that the Monge-Landsverk cryptography provides false solutions to the interpretation of runic inscriptions. With this foundation swept away, Professor Gordon’s two Paraiba cryptograms cannot stand on their own merits as a single isolated occurrence of New World secret messages in pre-Columbian times. Over the years the Paraiba controversy has been a most vexatious affair, in part because it represented the most reasonable case for a Canaanite landing in the New World. The case is now closed, disappointingly in the negative, and there is nothing further to be learned from it but the lesson that no tangible evidence has yet been found which links Mediterranean seafarers with New World discovery in ancient times.

Erik Wahlgren is Professor Emeritus of Scandinavian and Germanic Languages at the University of California at Los Angeles.—Ed.

BARs Devoured at One Sitting

To the Editor:

My back issues of BAR arrived this past week. I was so interested in them I immediately read through all of them at one sitting (5 hours). My wife thought I was ill because I even missed “Charlie’s Angels.”

051

Discovery of Joseph’s House in Egypt Based on “Journalist’s Imagination”

According to a Reuters wire story with a dateline of September 6, 1979 from Haifa, Israel, “Egyptian President Anwar Sadat revealed details today of a major discovery near Cairo by archaeologists who have found the ruins of ancient Iyon, once the home of Joseph.” The story was carried in the September 7 edition of the Washington Post and other major newspapers.

The article quotes Sadat as saying, “I wonder whether it is only by coincidence that a few days before I came here my archaeologists discovered the site of the very famous city, Iyon, where Joseph lived, married and studied … We have found the houses of the priests. The archaeologists are now doing their best to locate the house of Joseph, whose father-in-law was a priest.” (See Genesis 41:45)

Sadat publicly invited Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin, who is now Israel’s deputy prime minister, to help with the excavations.

BAR checked the story with Shehata Adam, President of the Egyptian Antiquities Organization, a department of the Ministry of Culture and Information, who denied any connection between the excavations at Iyon and Joseph.

Dr. Adam wrote BAR:

With reference to your request for information about Iwn (Iyon) in the light of what had recently been published in a newspaper in Egypt and as it appeared from your letter also abroad, I wish to tell you that nothing has been discovered about any buildings, monument or antiquity related to Joseph or to anything that had or may have any relation to the Old or New Testament. It was all in the imagination of a journalist seeking propaganda.

Dr. Shehata Adam
President
Egyptian Antiquities Organization
Ministry of Culture and Information
Cairo, Egypt

056

New York Times Front-Pages Samaria Papyri

The New York Times on December 8, 1979 carried a front page story headlined, “Scholar Identifies Legal Pages as the Oldest Found in Palestine.”

The story describes the efforts of Harvard Professor Frank Cross to decipher fourth century B.C. papyrus fragments found in a cave north of Jericho. The fragments, which are parts of legal documents, were found with the bones of more than 300 Samaritans who fled to the cave after Alexander the Great destroyed Samaria in 331 B.C. Alexander’s men apparently discovered the Samaritans and then lit a huge fire at the mouth of the cave which drew the oxygen out of the cave. The Samaritans inside suffocated. Twenty-three hundred years later Bedouin tribesmen found the worm-infested remains of the Samaritans’ documents. Archaeologists then went in to make sure that everything possible was recovered.

Several readers have asked us if we intend to cover this story printed in the Times.

Two stories on the Samaria papyri have already appeared in the March 1978 BAR. The first is entitled “Bedouin Find Papyri Three Centuries Older Than Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR 04:01, by Paul W. Lapp. The second is by Professor Cross himself and is entitled, “The Historical Importance of the Samaria Papyri,” BAR 04:01. The stories are illustrated with color and black-and-white pictures.

Professor Cross is continuing to work on the papyri and we hope to bring you his new insights as they are disclosed.

Criticisms of Story on Dead Sea Scroll Crosses

To the Editor: