Queries & Comments

008

BAR Charged with Bias Against Bible

To the Editor:

I am very interested in the archaeology of Biblical lands.

My failure to renew is because of your extreme bias against the truth of the Bible you claim to study. I fail to see how any intellectually honest person can take the bias you have against the basic truthfulness of the book and still have more than a passing curiosity about it.

It is also true that you reject any work of competent scholars who happen to disagree with your bias.

The Vatican Replies

To the Editor:

As Secretary General of the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology and President of the Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology, I read with great interest Letizia Pitigliani’s article about the Jewish catacombs in “A Rare Look at the Jewish Catacombs of Rome,” BAR 06:03. I realize that since Letizia Pitigliani is a painter she is quite able through her artistic sense, to perceive special qualities of ancient monuments, which at times escape the archaeologists. However, some inaccuracies compel me to make the following clarifications:

It is stated that: “For centuries the Jewish catacombs of Rome and elsewhere in Italy, have been neglected. In 1973, however, the Vatican started a maintenance program for Villa Torlonia and Via Appia Randanini catacombs.” This is not true. The Jewish catacombs of Rome have always received the same care as Christian catacombs. Their maintenance was not entrusted to the Vatican by the 1929 Concordat between the Holy See and the Italian Government as stated.

In fact, in 1870, because of Italy’s unification and the subsequent ceding of the Papal States, all monuments, churches included, were assigned to the jurisdiction of the Italian Soprintendenza, except for the Christian and Jewish catacombs. These continued to be, as before, under the jurisdiction of the Vatican. The reason was that only the Vatican had the scientific and practical apparatus necessary for the very difficult maintenance of these special underground monuments. In fact, the Vatican had a technical central office for the supervision of the excavations; a specialized working group, the “fossori” from Abruzzo, who transmitted from father to son this trade; furthermore, in 1925 a Pontifical Institute was established to train archaeologists.

The 1929 Concordat merely ratified a juridical and ‘de facto’ situation already in existence for all the catacombs of the old Pontifical States. It was at that time that the Vatican’s jurisdiction was extended to other catacombs located in other parts of Italy, and continued under the local Soprintendenza.

In fact, during the following years some of the catacombs of Naples and Sicily were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Commission of Sacred Archaeology; however not all of them. For instance, the Jewish catacomb of Venosa in Puglia was never under the jurisdiction of the Vatican, and it continued under the local Soprintendenza.

The Jewish catacombs of Rome were always cared for by the Vatican, not only since 1973 but long before the 1929 Concordat. Vatican archaeologists discovered them, explored them, restored them, and wrote about them.

Some of these catacombs have been lost, along with a great number of Paleo-Christian monuments, because of the well known damage that modern urbanization causes to ancient memorials. However, the Vatican has always tried to save what was possible to save. For instance, the 130 epigraphs and other Jewish material presently located in the Vatican Museum was saved by the Vatican at no little expense when the Monteverde catacomb was destroyed in order to build an urban highrise.

It was for the same reason that two years ago, the Pontifical Commission, in order to save the Jewish catacombs of Villa Torlonia, decided to seal off the entrance. Mrs. Pitigliani writes in her article that this was done in order to preserve the monument until a solution to juridical problems would be found. On the contrary the decision was taken by me, when Villa Torlonia was open to the public. Some years ago a Christian catacomb in the Pamphily Villa was destroyed when the Villa was opened to the public. At Villa Torlonia, already after a very few days when it was opened, someone tried to force the steel door at the entrance. The Villa’s interior is completely unguarded during the night, and all kinds of people roam around.

Finally, as to the difficulties in obtaining a permit to visit the Jewish Catacombs in Rome, as mentioned at the beginning of the article by Mrs. Pitigliani—this is extremely exaggerated. The author came when the Roman city government was negotiating for the acquisition of the Villa; it was, therefore, necessary to obtain a special permit also from Rome’s City Hall. However, Mrs. Pitigliani honestly acknowledges that she found ready availability from those who are in charge of the Pontifical Commission and me. The same can be said by all other scholars and tourists who have approached us, instead of believing false accusations from a misinformed press.

To the Editor:

With reference to the article, “A Rare Look At the Jewish Catacombs of Rome,” BAR 06:03, I wish to inform you that our collection of Jewish inscriptions, recently rearranged in the new wing of the Vatican Museum and originally in the Lateran Museum, can be viewed upon request like many other sections of the 010Vatican Museum that are closed to the general public because of lack of security personnel.

Should a curator in charge of the specific section be absent at the time, the Director General’s office usually gives the requested permission without difficulty.

A Simpler Explanation for Christian Burials in Rome

To the Editor:

Charles A. Kennedy’s article, “Were Christians Buried in Roman Catacombs to Await the Second Coming?” BAR 06:03, was helpful in so many ways concerning the catacombs themselves. But when he begins elaborating his theory that early Christian eschatology is the explanation for the abundance of such burials, he has less reason for certainty. The transportation of remains for (re)burial in Rome is certainly possible, even probable. But it reminds me of some future archaeologist who might cite the number of military men buried in Arlington Cemetery as support that the American army believed in the eventual resurrection of the American government!

Perhaps there is a simpler explanation. In fact, Kennedy hints at this possibility himself: Christians buried the bodies of numerous non-Christians.

Julian (c. 331–363), certainly no friend of the new religion, said: “This godlessness is mainly furthered by its philanthropy toward strangers and its careful attention to the bestowal of the dead.” The early Christian apologist Lactantius (c. 240–320) wrote (Divine Institutes VI, 12): “We cannot bear that the image and workmanship of God should be exposed as prey to wild beasts and birds, but we restore it to the earth from which it was taken, and do this office of relatives even to the body of a person whom we do not know, since in their place humanity must step in.”

Considering the elaborateness of Kennedy’s thesis, is it time for a shave with Ockham’s razor ?

Irresponsible Hermeneutics

To the Editor:

I found the May/June issue of BAR to be fascinating and informative—for the most part. But the article “Using Quintilian to Interpret Mark,” BAR 06:03, by Helmut Koester was definitely below par. The reason I subscribe to BAR is so that I can use the latest archaeological discoveries in Biblical interpretation. But Koester uses irresponsible hermeneutics when he forces an interpretation on Mark from a remote source. The immediate context demands that Mark 9:43–47 refer not to a community driving out contaminating offenders, but to individuals removing from themselves temptations which lead to sin. Whereas Quintilian might shed some light on the Corinthian passages Koester quotes (at least to the point that we know the ‘body’ metaphor was not exclusively a Christian concept), it offers nothing to aid in the interpretation of Mark 9:43–47.

Stone Vessel Flopped

To the Editor:

In your illustrated article “Excavations Near Temple Mount Reveal Splendors of Herodian Jerusalem,” BAR 06:04, by Professor Benjamin Mazar, found that the photographic reproduction of the stone vessel was reversed and was printed backwards.

The picture was improperly reversed or “flopped,” as it is called in the trade. The error is embarrassing and the explanation for its occurrence would be long and, in the end, unsatisfactory anyway. So we’ll just apologize and leave it at that.—Ed.

Questions Translation of Catacomb Inscription

To the Editor:

Pardon the pun if I suggest you have turned over quite a few stones to put together the May/June issue of BAR. The discussion of 011the Jewish catacombs in Italy offered a particularly valuable probe into one of the areas of my many-sided ignorance.

Your “proofreader” might have spent a bit more time on the text, and a more careful translation might have turned up as: Peter and Paul, pray for Victor. Praying for victory would have been a rather anomalous suggestion, in the catacomb context.

To the Editor:

The article on the Roman catacombs translated a graffito found on the wall of the Catacomb of St. Sebastian: “Paul and Peter, pray for Victory,” although the last two Latin words are PRO VICTORE, and no doubt refer to a person named “Victor” buried nearby. VICTORIA, of course, is the Latin for victory. The Latin VICTOR means conqueror, but (as in English) could also be used as a proper name; and VICTORE is its ablative case after the preposition PRO.

Charles Kennedy replies:

Monsignor McLees and Robert Birch are, of course, correct in their translation “Paul and Peter, pray for Victor,” not “Victory” as published.

According to my copy of the text submitted “Victor” is what I wrote. Since I never saw a galley proof of the article, I must assume that the error came in during the typesetting. There may have been an unconscious leap from the Latin “Victore” to an imagined English “Victory” when the copy was set. It’s a victory for Mr. Shrdlu, the linotype gremlin.

What Can Happen When You Read BAR

To the Editor:

I’d like to thank you for something BAR did over a year ago—published the article describing the City of David dig. It really grabbed me, and thanks to it, and your prompt replies to letters giving me assurance—I became a volunteer.

I returned last week from the dig with 012many unforgettable experiences. Hershel Shanks’ book “The City of David” grew to mean more to me each day that I used it.

BAR readers were well represented at the dig, plus the large group (BAR’s six-week Summer Seminar in Israel) we met that came with Dr. Fleming. I believe the 1979 article was responsible for half of the people there. Dr. Shiloh, Director of The City of David Excavation, promised to send updated information to BAR so be sure and get it and pass it on to us.

I’m busy now digesting all I took in and am telling any group or anyone who will listen. Thanks again, I would never have known about the dig were it not for BAR. I’ve always loved the Bible. Now I’ve handled its past.

Covering Ebla

To the Editor:

I was delighted to see more about Ebla in the May/June BAR. However, I was disappointed by the coverage given. The article by Paul C. Maloney was the only one of four pieces which offered a worthwhile contribution to better understanding of the Ebla archives.

Please, let’s restrict discussion of Syrian politics, Italian personal feuds, and pointless interviews to the editorial page, and let’s have more—much more—of Professor Maloney and others like him.

We will continue to try to cover all aspects of the Ebla story.—Ed.

The Cruel Truth About Velikovsky

To the Editor:

It may well be that, as a number of readers argue, an astronomical critique of Velikovsky is out of place in BAR. However, now that the door is opened, I hope that you will permit a response to the abusive and misleading letters from some Velikovsky supporters printed in the May/June issue. I am amazed at the ad hominem attacks against Carl Sagan, with the implications that because of some perceived flaw in Sagan’s personality or activities, his arguments against Velikovsky should be discounted. I am sure that almost all physical scientists would agree with most of Sagan’s arguments, and certainly with his major conclusions, even if not supporting all of his points in detail. For further reading, I suggest the four papers by other authors in Scientists Confront Velikovsky (D. Goldsmith, ed; Cornell University Press), the discussions in the April 1979 issue of Zetetic Scholar, and the excellent summary of astronomical evidence by J. Oberg in the July 1980 Astronomy.

Unfortunately, criticism of Velikovsky’s ideas never finds its way into Pensee or Kronos; interesting though these publications may be, they are an unreliable source for 013factual information concerning the relationship between Velikovsky’s ideas and recent exploration of the solar system. Nearly every important prediction he made concerning conditions on the planets has been shown to be in error. The cruel truth is not only that astronomical evidence fails to support Velikovsky, but that a great deal that seemed plausible or at least possible when suggested by him has since been shown to be incorrect, and indeed decisively to contradict his theories. Readers of BAR should be aware of this fact as they assess the relevance of Velikovsky’s ideas to the ancient world.

Ya at Ebla

To the Editor:

In “Ebla Update,” BAR 06:03, you refer to the alleged use of the determinative for a deity that is claimed to define the syllable ya. The name in question has not been published in its context but from secondary sources, notably articles by Mitchell Dahood, it is possible to study the spelling in question.

In fact the name, as claimed by Dahood, is written

^DINGIR–ya-ra-mu

The first cuneiform sign, here transcribed DINGIR, is the sign for a deity, and also the word sign for the word dinÆir in Sumerian and for the word ilu in Akkadian, both of which mean “god.” The personal name in question is undoubtedly to be read:

Ilu-yá-ra-mu or ìl-í-ra-my or ilu-í-ra-mu

It means either “My god loves/loved,” or “The god loves/loved.” There is nothing very unusual about this name within the corpus of good old Akkadian personal names.

The myth woven from it by Dahood, namely that the deity determinative indicates that ya is the name of a god and that the Biblical parallel is Yehoram, is simply another example of dilettantism so common today in the field of “Biblical parallels.” The same can be said for Dahood’s supposed example of the name of Biblical Shechem at Ebla (which violates all rules of sound linguistics and cuneiform graphics).

The materials at Ebla will have to be published, carefully and patiently, by qualified Sumerologists. The presumed West Semitic elements will have to be evaluated by scholars trained in the discipline of West Semitic linguistics. This involves Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Phoenician, and the transcriptions of West Semitic words in Egyptian hieroglyphs.

One can only wish every success to Alfonso Archi and his colleagues in their efforts to present the Ebla materials to the scholarly world. Meanwhile, let me say that it is very foolish to look for the Patriarchs in the third millennium B.C. The Ebla tablets will shed much light on the ancient history of Syria and the Near East in general. Why prostitute them for false Biblical “parallels”?