Queries & Comments

006

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments about our Fall 2021 issue. We appreciate your feedback. Here are a few of the letters we received. Find more online at biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.

Thankful and Gratified

I have been reading BAR since the 1970s, before there were color pictures and a slick, glossy cover. For me, BAR has been a way to stay connected with the lands of the Bible. What I have appreciated most about BAR is that it provides current information about excavations and new discoveries. This has informed my teaching of the Bible by providing the historical, geographical, cultural, and archaeological background of the ancient Near East.

I was saddened by the passing of BAR’s founder and editor, Hershel Shanks, but am thankful and gratified that the vision and tradition of BAR continues today.

Congratulations on a fascinating issue, which included an illuminating, multi-article thread related to the Canaanite Hyksos kings of Egypt: A news story in Strata described early alphabetic writing found at Lachish (Canaanite adaptations of Egyptian hieroglyphs dating to the Hyksos), and then Rachel Hallote’s article about Joseph in Egypt presented the “No-Date Theory” that the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt (c. 1550 B.C.E.) was the kernel of the Exodus story! No other magazine offers its readers such intriguing speculations. Bravo!

Do a Better Job!

In the Fall 2021 Issue, Editor Glenn Corbett introduces the new “Digging In” feature, designed to highlight “exciting new discoveries, insights, and scholarship.” He goes on to propose that Rachel Hallote’s article “investigates evidence for the Hyksos in ancient Egypt that may shed light on the historical reality of the biblical stories of Joseph and the Exodus.”

Really? Maybe you have dismissed the idea that the Bible has any historical reality. Maybe you have substituted your reality with undeliberate notions. In any case, your logic doesn’t add up. I take the position that the Bible stands as written and does not need to be allegorized or modified to conform to archaeology or recorded history.

Might I suggest that BAR publish articles that actually contain such investigation and evidence instead of Hallote’s brand of convenient subjective conjecture posing as scholarship? Please avoid confusing actual archaeology with self-serving mythology. That approach will eventually reduce your publication to the irrelevant.

While I remain a devoted fan of BAR, I was surprised to read “unprovenienced” artifacts instead of “unprovenanced,” in the Fall 2021 issue (pp. 58–59). I think Hershel Shanks would have demanded better copy editing for his readers.

Admittedly, choosing between “unprovenienced” and “unprovenanced” is a bit tricky. First, unprovenienced was the preferred term of the scholars we interviewed, which relates specifically to objects that lack a secure archaeological context. This formally distinguishes it from unprovenanced, which means an object (usually from a collection) that lacks a documented origin or ownership history. In practice, however, both terms are often used interchangeably.—G.J.C.

Joseph in Egypt

I was disappointed that the Joseph article did not provide an answer to the question in its title, “Does Archaeology Confirm Joseph’s Time in Egypt?” (Fall 2021). The archaeological evidence presented was used to support the hypothesis that the Hyksos were Canaanites in Egypt and not that Joseph himself was ever there. Hallote further makes a faulty, baseless assumption that Joseph’s family practiced the traditions of the Canaanites. However, Joseph was descended from the tribe of Shem, 008while the Canaanites were descended from the tribe of Canaan.

I was struck—as if by a lightning bolt from the storm god Yahweh—by the Egyptian royal names Kamose and Ahmose. Is it possible that the name Mose (Moses) comes from these kings?

RACHEL HALLOTE RESPONDS:

You are on the right track—many Egyptian names, including Kamose, Ahmose, Ramose, and Thutmose, contain the Egyptian word ms, which means “to give birth” or “child (of).” This word often features in theophoric names, such as Thutmose (“Thoth is born”) and Ramose (“child of Ra”). There are even a few cases where “Mose” appears in Egyptian texts as a name on its own, likely as an abbreviation. Moses of the Bible seems to be one of these abbreviated versions. (See Ogden Goelet, “Moses’ Egyptian Name,” Bible Review, June 2003.)

I noticed what seems to be a mix-up. Hallote writes, “The graves at Avaris were constructed from mudbrick, as was typical in Canaan, but unlike the stone tomb construction found in Egypt” (p. 44). Shouldn’t it say that stone tombs were typical in Canaan (where Israelites were buried in caves), and mudbrick construction was found in Egypt, where the enslaved Israelites had to make bricks from mud and straw?

RACHEL HALLOTE RESPONDS:

Although the people of Bronze Age Canaan sometimes buried their dead in tombs (“caves”) dug into the living rock, they just as often cut pits into the earth that they lined with stones or mudbricks—or left unlined. These burials were egalitarian in nature, making it difficult to distinguish tombs of Canaanite rulers from others. This is in contrast with the massive stone and stone-cut tombs common for Egyptian royalty in the periods both before and after the time of the Hyksos.

New Canaanite Temple

I enjoyed reading about the recent discovery of the Northeast Temple at Lachish (“Canaanite Worship at Lachish,” Fall 2021). I would argue, however, that the two corroded figurines found there are none other than Baal and his companion and consort, Anat.

Two almost identical figurines come from Middle Bronze Age Tartus in Syria and are now in the Louvre. They similarly have pegs attached to their feet. The female figurine is dressed for battle; she has a bow and arrows strapped to her chest, is holding a sword in her right hand and an ax in her other, raised hand. The male figurine can be identified as the storm god Baal, wearing his peculiar head ornament.

It is not a coincidence that a bronze ax head with a representation of a bird (denoting femininity) was found in the Holy of Holies. Baal typically had a standing stone (massebah) erected on his behalf, and there 010 apparently were two stones in the main hall at Lachish. I therefore suggest that the temple was built for the worship of the two deities.

ITAMAR WEISSBEIN RESPONDS:

Indeed, figurines of goddesses in a “smiting” pose do appear in the Late Bronze Age Levant. However, they are extremely rare. The few smiting goddess figurines are sometimes naked but more commonly wear long dresses that cover their legs and an upper body that has noticeable breasts. In some cases, they have long hair, like the Egyptian goddess Hathor. They are usually depicted standing or stepping forward, but never in a pronounced marching position like the male figurines.

In contrast, the figurines from Lachish are in a marching pose, they wear short kilts, and seem to have short hair and no noticeable breasts. Therefore, they are both examples of the “smiting god” figurines so common to the period.

Jesus on Bathing

MATTHEW THIESSEN’S ARTICLE “Jesus and Ritual Impurity” (Fall 2021) is very insightful. May I suggest that John 13:6-11 signifies the acceptance and approval of ritual bathing? Peter does not want Jesus to wash his feet. When he changes his mind and enthusiastically wants his hands and head also to be washed, Jesus says that those who have bathed need only their feet washed because they are already clean. For Christians, of course, this has always symbolized the greatest purification in baptism.

Archaeology Debate

In “Biblical Archaeology for the People” (Fall 2021), Eric Cline mentioned that unprovenienced artifacts should not be published and that such objects, because they are either looted or forged, have lost 90 percent of the information that makes them useful to scholars. I wonder what he thinks about the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were “looted” by non-archaeologists and, by ending up on the antiquities market, were saved from destruction.

ERIC CLINE RESPONDS:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the exception that proves the rule. Although the first manuscripts were looted, and the discovery of the caves was split between archaeologists and looters, in pretty much every case we know where the scrolls came from and their context—especially with those which later came from systematically excavated caves. Those scrolls without known context, such as the ones that appeared on the market in recent years, have turned out to be forgeries, in basically every instance.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments about our Fall 2021 issue. We appreciate your feedback. Here are a few of the letters we received. Find more online at biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.