Queries & Comments

010

Defends BAR Against Bias Charge

To the Editor:

In response to the letter of Mr. Charles King (Queries & Comments, BAR 06:05):

I have always found BAR to be a well-balanced periodical. This balance is rather difficult to maintain, as little subject matter is as emotionally charged as Biblical studies.

I am not surprised that Mr. King fails to supply any documentation to support his claim that BAR is biased against “the truth of the Bible.” The “truth” to which Mr. King refers is, of course, his own subjective viewpoint.

BAR is a scientific bimonthly, not a religious one. Mr. King should have been a little more honest, and written the first line of his letter in this manner: “I am interested in the archaeology of Biblical lands—because I expect it to prove my beliefs.”

It is of no use for persons of Mr. King’s persuasion to make statements such as he has made about “bias” and be unable or unwilling to back them up, particularly when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

Wants BAR to Build Faith

To the Editor:

I received my first issue of BAR and have decided to cancel my subscription. I am not sure whether the editors of this magazine believe in a divine God or not. Somehow I feel the archaeologist is more excited over the physical findings than over the revelations that should be perceived. That a Divine God is ruling this earth and that the Holy Scriptures are holy because God spoke the words through the power of the Holy Spirit, through the mouths of men—not good storytellers.

I was confused by the articles by and about Father Roland de Vaux (“The Last Legacy of Roland de Vaux,” BAR 06:04, by Nahum Sarna, and “The Separate Traditions of Abraham and Jacob,” BAR 06:04, by Père Roland de Vaux). It was as though Father de Vaux was saying Biblical people in the Old Testament weren’t real, but were merely objects to be dissected and analyzed.

If an interest in archaeology makes a person so intellectual that it is impossible to approach God with a childlike faith, then I had just as soon lose my interest now.

Maybe I misunderstand your magazine, but I wanted the subscription in order to build my faith, not lose it.

Is Pettinato a Saint Surrounded by Sinners?

To the Editor:

According to your recent interview with Giovanni Pettinato (“BAR Interviews Giovanni Pettinato,” BAR 06:05), it would seem, according to his own account, that he is a saint surrounded by sinners. He has been treated unfairly by the Syrian Government, the press, Paolo Matthiae and David Noel Freedman, but he has done nothing reprehensible. I was particularly pained by his harsh comments about Professor Freedman, who I know personally, having studied under him some years ago. I can assure BAR readers, many of whom are already aware of this, that Professor Freedman is not the blackguard Pettinato makes him out to be. His chief “mistake” was in not subjecting Pettinato to the type of severe questioning used by the BAR interviewer. Under such questioning Pettinato admitted having told Freedman that a name on one of the Ebla tablets was similar to one of the Biblical names of the Kings of Cities of the Plain mentioned in Genesis 14. It turned out that Pettinato had not remembered the tablet correctly. Did he inform Freedman of this? Never. But he had the nerve to say that Freedman never asked him to check this information. As a professor, if I inadvertently gave out false information to my students and then realized my mistake, I would not expect them to seek me out. Rather, I would recognize that I had an obligation to bring the matter to their attention. I am sure Professor Pettinato would recognize the same obligation. How much more of an obligation would he have to supply the correct information to a world famous Biblical scholar like Professor Freedman after inadvertently making a false assertion about a very important matter.

However excellent a scholar Professor Pettinato may he, his interview shows that he does not have a very good memory. For this as well as other reasons it may very well be that when all the facts about the Ebla tablets appear, Professor Pettinato may be the one whose face is red.

Bab edh-Dhra in San Francisco

To the Editor:

In reference to your article on Bab edh-Dhra in the September/October 1980 issue of BAR (“Have Sodom and Gomorrah Been Found?” BAR 06:05), in which you list a few exhibits where readers might view Bab edh-Dhra material—readers in the San Francisco Bay area are most welcome to view the lovely pottery group from Bab edh-Dhra Tomb A 72NE along with other Bab edh-Dhra materials at the main building of the Jesuit School of Theology, 1735 LeRoy Avenue, Berkeley, CA 01194709. This building is open weekdays 9–5.

The acquisition of this comb group, as of those elsewhere on display, was made possible by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Arlington Cemetery and Roman Catacombs

To the Editor:

In a letter to the editor (Queries & Comments, BAR 06:05) Donald Smeeton comments on my article “Were Christians Buried in Roman Catacombs to Await the Second Coming?” BAR 06:03, and suggests that if my thesis is correct, some future archaeologist might cite the number of military men buried in Arlington cemetery as support for the proposition that the American army believed in the eventual resurrection of the American government.

Smeeton’s allusion to Arlington Cemetery is an intriguing one, but not for the reason he gives. The establishment of a national military cemetery at the federal capitol is a marvelous secular parallel to my thesis about the catacombs of Rome. No matter where in the world/Roman Empire the heroes/martyrs have died in whatever war/persecution, the federal government/Church at Rome would supply a suitable burial ground for the deceased who had served/suffered loyally for the state/church. The memorials to dead soldiers and dead saints have much in common. But whereas Christians anticipate an end to this age and the coming of the Kingdom of God, the secular heroes are invoked to perpetuate the status quo: we, the living, must not change what they died for.

The great number of graves in the catacombs at Rome has prompted the suggestion that many non-Christians were buried along with the faithful. Smeeton’s citations from Julian and Lactantius seem to support such a proposition. Against this suggestion, however, is Tertullian’s reference to Christians insisting on separate burial grounds from pagans and Jews and the general attitude in the Roman world about burial, best expressed by P. Allard: “Sepulchral promiscuity was equally odious to both pagans and Christians. No one accepted the idea of reposing after death side by side with some unknown, with people of different religions, customs and countries.” I would only add that one of the major accomplishments of the institutional Church was gradually to replace the family as the agent for conducting funerals and burials. This, I think, is the real force behind the statements of people like Julian and Lactantius. Christians attend to the burials of strangers, not just relatives for whom they have an obligation. The strangers need not necessarily be pagans; there can be Christian strangers as well, that is, people who do not belong to one’s own congregation.

056

On BAR’s Man in Jerusalem

To the Editor:

This letter is in regard to your man in Jerusalem. I have just completed the six week Israel Seminar with Jim Fleming. I feel qualified to make a few observations about this rather unique individual.

To begin with, Jim did an excellent job in teaching. He is always patient, kind, and thoughtful. He presented the material in a manner that could be understood by all. Throughout, he always gave of his time and knowledge. Secondly, he dealt with some difficult situations with diplomacy and tact. He was ceaseless and tireless.

Thirdly, Jim earned the respect of the group and the Israelis we worked and traveled with. His objective and clear presentation of Judaism clarified and challenged many misconceptions attached to the Jewish faith through lack of knowledge.

Lastly, Jim embodies what we, as Christians and Jews, can achieve in understanding through peace and love.

Another Interpretation of Temple Mount Inscription

To the Editor:

Benjamin Mazar’s “Excavations Near Temple Mount Reveal Splendors of Herodian Jerusalem,” BAR 06:04, was undoubtedly the most exciting article in one of the most exciting issues you have published for a long time. However, I question Mazar’s restoration of the inscription shown in one of the photographs. Mazar restores LBYT HTKY’H LHH(RYZ) and reads: “To the place of Trumpeting to (declare).” However, unless I am being misled by a shadow, the final readable letter does not appear to be a “he” but rather a “kaf” (or perhaps even a “mem”). If the letter is indeed a “kaf,” then the inscription might be restored LBYT HTKY’H LHK(YN) and read: “To the House of Trumpeting to (prepare … )” and yet still maintain the connotation of welcoming the Sabbath.

Where Was the Gezer Calendar Found?

To the Editor:

I wish to note a slight misdirection in the caption of the picture of the Gezer Calendar used with Jonathan Siegel’s article “The Evolution of Two Hebrew Scripts,” BAR 05:03. The last sentence reads, “It was found in the stratum of the Solomonic city at Tell Gezer.” While paleographers have dated the Calendar to the 10th century, the provenance of the piece is not at all that certain. Macalister [the early twentieth century excavator of Gezer] describes it only as having been found in debris associated with his Fourth Semitic occupation. The “Fourth Semitic” period is broadly dated from 1000 B.C. to 600 B.C. We cannot, therefore, be sure where stratigraphically it came from. Our uncertainty is of course further compounded by the general distrust we have of Macalister’s excavation methods and recording processes.

The Cruel Truth About Morrison

To the Editor:

Professor David Morrison’s credibility as a reporter of simple facts (at least in regard to the Velikovsky material) is highly suspect when he writes that “ … criticism of Velikovsky’s ideas never finds its way into Pensee or Kronos.” ( Queries & Comments, BAR 06:05).

A cursory glance through the issues of Pensee, for example, reveals the following articles critical of Velikovsky’s ideas:

In Pensee II—“Velikovsky: Science or Anti-Science,” by W. C. Straka.

In Pensee V—“A Criticism of the Revised Chronology,” by William H. Stiebing, and again, in Pensee X—Stiebing’s “Rejoinder To Velikovsky.”

057

In Pensee V—“The El-Amarna Letters and the Ancient Records Of Assyria and Babylonia,” by Albert W. Burgstahler.

In Pensee VI—“Venus Clouds: Test for Hydrocarbons,” by William T. Plummer.

In Pensee VII—excerpts from the 1974 AAAS Convention where the presentors were largely critical of Velikovsky. On page 23 of the same issue, an open invitation was published to all Symposium participants for response, criticisms, or corrections of Pensee’s coverage. The invitation was apparently ignored.

Since Morrison should be aware of the makeup of Pensee, his careless accusation is inexcusable. A clue as to why Morrison made such an unfounded assertion may be found in the last sentence of his own contribution to the published version of the AAAS meeting, “Scientists Confront Velikovsky.”

On page 173, of the chapter he contributed, “Planetary Astronomy” he acknowledged that the original version of this piece was submitted for publication in Pensee, where “ … the criticisms of six referees vigorously attacked all weak arguments.” The paper never did appear in the journal. Perhaps it might be speculated that it was found not to be up to the standards of Pensee because of its weaknesses.

Critics such as Morrison, Sagan, et al., have consistently proven to be so careless in their treatments of Velikovsky’s ideas, that it is often necessary to quote extensive parts from their work in order to offer the necessary rebuttals. So much of their writings have been excerpted in this way that they might as well be considered as having contributed a substantial portion of their work for publication in the journals, Pensee and Kronos.

Applauds Chautauqua Vacation-Seminar

To the Editor:

Since my return to the city, I have, as you can expect, been extremely busy here in the 059Court. This is my first opportunity to write on behalf of my wife and myself in connection with the recent Chautauqua Seminar.

We commend you and the Society, initially for conceiving and carrying through the Seminar idea. In my opinion, your choice of professors were excellent. The entire program was not only intellectually stimulating, but also the springboard for additional study and reading.

Please make certain to keep us on your mailing list for future seminars.

Terah Misidentified

To the Editor:

The July/August BAR is an issue that I found both thought-provoking and beautiful to look at. However, Nahum M. Sarna’s article on “The Last Legacy of Roland de Vaux,” BAR 06:04, contains an obvious error; Terah was not Abraham’s brother, he was his father!

Please keep up the fine quality of BAR.

The error was BAR’s, not Professor Sarna’s.—Ed.

A Plug for BAR’s Competition

To the Editor:

All right, you mentioned the Biblical Archaeologist in the May/June BAR, with Professor Freedman as editor and involved in the Ebla tablets. But you did not say where we can get a subscription from the American Schools of Oriental Research.

This is the second time (see Queries & Comments, BAR 01:02) we’ve given a plug to the only journal which is even remotely like BAR—our respected scholarly cousin Biblical Archeologist. Its address is: 1053 LSA Building, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.—Ed.

Defends BAR Against Bias Charge

To the Editor:

In response to the letter of Mr. Charles King (Queries & Comments, BAR 06:05):