Queries & Comments

012

Goedicke Defends His Exodus Thesis

To the Editor:

You have repeatedly invited me to respond to criticisms of my thesis concerning the Exodus. While I advocate academic discussion before the public, especially when wide-ranging interests are involved, I generally prefer to handle personal disagreements in private. Professor Oren’s critique (“How Not To Create A History Of The Exodus—A Critique Of Professor Goedicke’s Theories,” BAR 07:06) blisters of misstatements. I tried in vain to have him correct them. My objections filled three pages, and I do not want to go into all these details. I would rather concentrate on two points as a demonstration. In my text, with which you and Professor Oren are familiar, I have never used the term “Hebrews,” which would invoke associations that are premature at this point of historical research. Second, Tell el-Rataba is the concession of the Johns Hopkins University and is being excavated under my direction. Professor Oren is in no position to make any statements about the site or its archaeological evidence.

The suggestion by Professor Oren that the Miracle of the Sea is to be placed at Lake Bardawil came as a surprise to me. This thesis is not new and has as its most significant proponent the late Otto Eissfeld. I have attended two public lectures where Professor Oren rejected this thesis on the basis of his own archaeological exploration there. We are all entitled to change our views, but it does require divulging of the reasons leading to it. Be this as it may, Professor Oren does not offer an explanation of how a pharaonic military unit got to this place, which was beyond the borders of Egypt and how it happened that it was destroyed while those it had pursued escaped unharmed. Last but not least, Professor Oren has not offered any explanation for causes leading to the Miracle of the Sea.

As to Professor Krahmalkov’s theory (“A Critique of Professor Goedicke’s Exodus Theories,” BAR 07:05), let me just remark on one point, his statement about the location of Goshen. His reference to A. Erman and H. Grapov, Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache (1931) 200, 12 actually concerns a compound term attested once in the Ptolemaic temple of Edfu as part of a compound with t³-st, i.e., “the place of the lotus.” Another attestation occurs in Philae, cf. H. Junker, Die Onurislegende (1917) 83f. Both are after 200 B.C. and cannot possibly be equated with the Biblical Goshen.

I leave it to the readers of your journal to decide for themselves which of the various theses about the Exodus is the most consistent and convincing.

Oren Replies to the Goedicke Letter

To the Editor:

This is a brief response to Dr. Goedicke’s letter to the editor. Dr. Goedicke was indeed kind enough to send me a private letter in which he listed his objections to my article. I prefer, however, to leave my comments for a more proper occasion, i.e. a detailed article on the Exodus which I intend to publish soon elsewhere. Allow me to make in the meantime the following remarks:

1. Titles, sub-titles and bibliography

The sub-title, “Oren Locates Miracle of the Sea in Bardawil Area,” like other titles throughout my article, is not mine but was added by the editor. In doing so, the editor of BAR did me regrettably a grave disservice. This misleading title implies that I prefer the Bardawil area as the location for the Miracle of the Sea. The same goes for the editor’s title, “Prominent Israeli Archaeologist also offers his own suggestion.” In my original manuscript I wrote: “If a better interpretation for the Miracle of the Sea is ventured, it might be more reasonable to connect it with a tectonic movement. …” Here again the editor used his blue pencil liberally and, alas, created the impression that I advocated the Bardawil location for the Miracle of the Sea. The same, incidentally, is true for the outdated bibliography added by the editor. We all wish sometimes that editors will engrave on their desks the famous saying of the Rabbis, “He who quotes a teaching in its author’s name, brings redemption to the world” (Avot 6, 6).

On a number of occasions, including in Dr. Goedicke’s hospitable department at Johns Hopkins University, I had the opportunity to discuss the Exodus in detail. I presented convincing (so I hope) evidence from our own current research in Sinai that makes the northern hypothesis, i.e. location of the Exodus in the Bardawil area, a most unlikely interpretation. As a matter of fact I have not changed my mind on this. All I suggested in the BAR article is that if one is really searching for a reasonable explanation for the Miracle of the Sea, then the Bardawil thesis is by far more realistic than the volcano theory. At the same time we ought not to forget that the former can in no way be substantiated by archaeological evidence. Personally, I strongly believe that the Miracle of the Sea—a masterpiece of literary composition—has very little to do with history or, to use Dr. Goedicke’s term, “factual experience.” Any attempt, in my opinion, to apply historical significance to this story is futile and points to a very little understanding of the Biblical narrative and its composition.

2. Hebrews

Prof. Goedicke is absolutely correct. He never used the term “Hebrews” to designate the participants in the Exodus.

3. Tell el-Rataba

My statements about the archaeological evidence from Rataba are based on the results of earlier excavations as well as my examination of materials from a surface survey on the site. It would be nice if Dr. Goedicke shared the results of his excavations at Rataba with the scholarly public. To my best knowledge a concession to excavate a site does not entitle the director to withhold information indefinitely.

We are happy to print Professor Oren’s clarification of his views as to whether the Miracle of the Sea occurred at Lake Bardawil in the northern Sinai. We apologize if our headings, sub-titles or editing led to a misinterpretation of Professor Oren’s position.

The relevant part of Professor Oren’s original manuscript reads as follows:

“If a better founded interpretation for the Miracle of the Sea is ventured, it might be more reasonable to connect it with a tectonic movement or perhaps a periodic sea flood that are known to occur in the Delta and northern Sinai. Modern geological research has shown that this region has been subject to tectonic movements from very early times. In discussing earthquakes and 050tidalwaves, about which he has heard, Strabo noted that: ‘Like occurrences take place in the neighborhood of Mt. Casius situated near Egypt where the land undergoes a single quick convulsion, and makes a sudden change to a higher or lower level, the result being that whereas the elevated part repels the sea and the sunken part receives it, yet, the land makes a reverse change and the site resumes its old position again, a complete interchange of levels sometimes having taken place and sometimes not. Elsewhere Strabo provides an eyewitness report of changes in the landscape in the region near Pelusium: ‘And when I was residing in Alexandria in Egypt, the sea about Pelusium and Mt. Casius rose and flooded the country and made an island of the mountain so that the road by Mt. Casius into Phoenicia became navigable (Strabo 1, 3, 17). In the early Islamic period, another such upheaval affected this area severely. The whole region sank by about one meter, turning large cities’ like Ostrakire, on the east edge of Lake Bardawil, into marshes dotted by small islands that mark the sites of large buildings. The team of Ben Gurion University under the direction of the present writer, had a similar experience in winter 1977 when a violent storm caused the sea to flood suddenly the region around Lake Bardawil. Major Jarvis, the British Governor of Sinai has already suggested in 1934 that the Miracle of the Sea took place in that region and that the Egyptian army was trapped in a lagoon that was formed suddenly as a result of a violent storm. We should not forget that precisely this way the Persian king Arthaxerxes lost in 343 B.C. almost half his army when he invaded Egypt. The foregoing are certainly better documented arguments for the interpretation of the Miracle of the Sea. This way there is, at least, no need to involve speculative theories such as volcanic eruptions that took place hundreds of miles away from the scene of the Exodus—theories that are hardly, if at all supported by the written record of archaeological evidence.”

We edited the first sentence of this passage to read as follows:

“A more likely interpretation of the miracle of the sea is that it is connected with a tectonic movement or perhaps a periodic flood known to occur both in the Nile Delta and in northern Sinai.”

Essentially we changed “a better founded interpretation” (which appears in the original manuscript) to “a more likely interpretation.” We are sorry if this change results in a misstatement of the author’s position.

BAR does not usually make a change even of so minor a nature without the author’s approval. We did so in this case only because Professor Oren did not send us his manuscript until he had left the United States and had arrived in Germany, long after our deadline for the issue. His manuscript was accompanied by a note stating, “Feel free to make changes in phrasing.” Again, we apologize if we overstepped proper bounds; we wish to assure our readers that it is not our policy to do so.—Ed.

If It’s a Miracle, Does It Have a Natural Explanation?

To the Editor:

I find BAR very interesting and thought provoking. It is really great that on the Exodus you are giving various sides and opinions.

What bothers me, however, is the attempt of these scholars to attribute a miracle to a natural act of nature. While the account of the escape, Exodus, of the Israelites from Egypt may not have all the fine details of how the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of the Egyptian force came about, we are given the account as an act of God. To my way of thinking, if God wanted to divide the Pacific ocean, making a dry lane from the west coast USA to Japan, he could do it. Man’s attempt at explaining some feat of God always seems to fall short and at times seems downright stupid.

The theories proposed by these three scholars are puny, and actually border on denial of God’s word. I wonder what “natural” theory these men would propose for the healing of the blind by Christ or the healing of the crippled by Peter. Or, even where God, the Creator may have come from. So while the scholars may be able to fill us with much information and facts based on research and discovery they are apparently no wiser than anyone else when it comes to pressing an essentially improbable theory.

Thanks for letting me bend your eyes a little and getting this off my chest. Keep up the good work.

To the Editor:

As a political scientist I was struck by how the archaeological participants in the debate over the dating of the Exodus manage to overlook the geo-political evidence which is not conclusive but certainly in my view tips the scales away from Hans Goedicke’s 15th century hypothesis to the conventional 13th century hypothesis.

First from Hatshepsut and Thutmosis III through Amenhotep III (1,487–1,371 B.C.) Egypt was without pause aggressively imperialistic and expansionist with her energies principally focused on Syro-Palestine. Her armies were constantly charging across what the 15th century hypothesis would have us believe was Israelite occupied territory to reach rebellious city states like Kadesh just to the north of Canaan. Seventeen military campaigns in Palestine and Syria are attributed to Thutmosis alone. By the time of Amenhotep III Syria was recognized as falling within Egypt’s borders. Even considering the fact that for forty years the Sinai wilderness would have sheltered the Hebrew wanderers from the rough and tumble of world politics certainly they could not have escaped severe military bruising throughout this entire period were Goedicke correct in his dating. Indeed it is difficult to see how under these extreme and threatening circumstances they could have established themselves in Canaan at all. Virtually all the Canaanite 052kingdoms had mutual military aid pacts with the superpower on the Nile, and would have successfully called upon their Egyptian ally in their time of desperate need against invaders so recently the foe of the Great House.

Yet, the conquest of Canaan was not only accomplished, but there is no record of a Canaanite-Egyptian alliance against the Hebrews nor even any Egyptian presence in Canaan during the conquest period, archaeological or Biblical. Surely there would have been at least a folk memory of such, and surely it would have found its way into the Bible, especially since it would have involved a further victory of Yahweh and His Chosen People over the great enemy of the Exodus story.

Secondly, the geo-politics of the 13th century were nearly ideal for Israelite emigration from Egypt and subsequent conquest and settlement of Canaan. The close of the 14th century saw the growing confrontation of the two superpowers of the time, Egypt and Great Hatti, the Hittite Empire centered in Anatolia. The geographical point of the confrontation was Syro-Palestine which lay directly between them, and which seemed destined to he absorbed entirely by one or the other. Things came to a head in the great Battle of Kadesh (c. 1,300 B.C.) on the Orontes in the extreme northwest of Syria. Ramses II and the Hittite king Muwatallis fought ferociously there to an utter stalemate. Although the battle was inconclusive the fate of Syro-Palestine was nevertheless conclusively settled (and sixteen years later formalized in a famous treaty, a copy of which was unearthed at Tel el-Amarna). Syro-Palestine, although divisable into commercial and cultural spheres of influence, would he politically and militarily neutralized (see “Hittites in the Bible—What Does Archaeology Say?” BAR 05:05, by Aharon Kempinski).

Thera Collapsed About 1200 B.C., Not Earlier, Says Former AIA Vice President

To the Editor:

In April 1969, I gave the James C. Loeb lecture at the Fogg Art Museum (Harvard), on the subject: “The Final Collapse of Santorini—1400 or 1200 BC?” This paper was published in 1970 by Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Goteborg, Sweden.

The hypothesis given was that whenever the volcano of Thera erupted, the 053determining calculation would have to be based on what geologists have termed the worst geological disaster in historical times and probably since the last ice age. This damage would have occurred when the tsunamis generated by the collapse of a chunk of earth fifty square miles in dimension and possibly a mile high, weighing according to Japanese volcanologists approximately 4 billion tons, fell into the caldera to a depth now almost 1000 feet below sea level.

The geologists of Lamont Doherty (Ninkovich and Heezen) targeted the areas of greatest damage as the Nile Delta, Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian coast and the Greek mainland, as well as Crete. A survey of the Mediterranean littoral archaeologically, not only fails to reveal such area-wide disaster in the centuries from the 15th to the 12th B.C., but on the contrary there is substantial evidence of widespread trade and cultural relationships until the early part of the 12th century B.C. At this time the world of Egypt, Mycenae, Crete, Cyprus is struck a blow in which empires foundered, languages, skills and population disappeared and the start of four hundred years of the Dark Ages began.

My conclusion is that the island collapsed with its cone, about 1200 B.C. creating area-wide destruction and archaeologists within this time area have found some 60 sites labeled as abandoned, destroyed or deserted.

Historically, this is the period of Rameses III, not Rameses II, a time when Egyptian documents described the victory of Rameses III over the Sea Peoples off the Nile Delta and the transplantation of the Philistine group into Palestine about 1195 B.C. Proof of the destruction of the Egyptian Nile bread basket is present in papyri surviving, that wheat jumped in price five times in a very short period.

If Oren is critical of historians being selective in the choice of their facts to support their theories (“How Not To Create A History Of The Exodus—A Critique Of Professor Goedicke’s Theories,” BAR 07:06), it is equally possible to be critical of historians who conveniently omit the facts. For twice in Exodus 15 are the Philistines mentioned, once in the divine warning that the Israelites not take the road to the Philistines, and second, when they have knowledge that “Pangs have fallen upon Philistia.” Two decades ago when it was traditionally possible to place the Exodus at a time in the 15th or 16th century, the only explanation for the mention of the Philistines was to dismiss it as an historical fact and call it anachronistic. Naturally, Goedicke does not mention the Philistines, but Oren tacitly admits that the context of Exodus falls historically in the late 13th or 054early 12th century.

Area-wide destruction caused within hours by the tsunamis of Thera is the clue to the Exodus and the widespread destruction in the Mediterranean littoral.

For those who are still skeptical, let them look up any popular or professional book on tsunamis and read the accounts of modern witnesses to the tsunami action, either on the Japanese or South American coasts. No modern witnesses have more accurately described or match the observation of the awe-struck Israelites as they sang, “Thy nostrils breathed and the waters stood up as a heap … the waters were congealed in the heart of the sea.” No inland nomads could have invented or imagined with such a detailed description, the physical action of the tsunami.

The writer of this letter is a past vice-president of the Archaeological Institute of America.—Ed.

To the Editor:

Professor Krahmalkov’s views concerning the Israelite Crossing of the Red Sea are definitely not Biblical, as the Bible states that the crossing was on dry land. (See Exodus 14:16, 21–22, and 29; also Psalm 66:6.)

Enjoys Scholarly Rapiers

To the Editor:

As a new subscriber, I have to tell you how much I’ve enjoyed your unexpectedly informative magazine. I knew I’d get reports on archaeological digs and scholarly dissertations on the finds, but I had no idea I’d learn so much about the people involved. Such duels with verbal rapiers flashing, such wounded egos, such roarings over territorial imperatives! How delightful to discover that an impressive string of letters after a man’s name hasn’t educated away the old Adam within.

The cherry decorating the top was your ad for replicas of Canaanite idols subsequently followed by letters of protest from outraged ex-subscribers. Will the wonders of human nature never cease?

Criticism of Idol Set Juvenile

To the Editor:

BAR is a joy to receive. I look forward to each issue and generally read it through within a few hours of its arrival. After that, it becomes a permanent part of my reference library and various issues are referred to frequently.

I am somewhat surprised that a periodical whose scholarly articles require a good degree of intelligence to comprehend and digest, should draw such juvenile criticism from some readers regarding such an innocuous thing as your idol set.

Being a pastor, I have often taught and preached on the Biblical prohibition against idolatry. Obviously what is being misunderstood by some of your readers is the fact that these images represented something far different to the ancients than they do to the modern mind. To them these were objects of worship thought to guarantee fertility and, therefore, prosperity to the owner. To the modern mind, these idols are but archaeological curiosities, and I am confident that no buyer of the set has had the slightest inclination to fall down and worship. The idols which today supplant the worship of Yahweh Elohim, are far more sophisticated and subtle than the clay figures of the ancients: nationalism, materialism, and egotism begin what, with but a little thought, becomes a long list.

Your readers need not fear the educational tools you are selling, and I for one appreciate your significant contribution to a good understanding of Biblical background.

To the Editor:

It is difficult to believe that there are people who believe that educational copies of some ancient idols will not only corrupt the innocent but will also bring down the wrath of God.

I am a professional archaeologist, and as I type this letter I sit in the shadow of a large Aztec rain god who, if I am to believe in his power, is doing his job rather too well at this moment. In fact, his performance would make Ba’al jealous! Add to that the other statues of deities which I come in direct contact with—Aztec, Maya, Canaanite, Egyptian, Polynesian—some people would think 056that I might spend my spare hours sacrificing chickens and goats on my patio.

But, oddly enough, I pay no homage to Pan or Pele, and I do not dodge lightning bolts of the lord whenever I step outside. All those idols have not yet corrupted me, and I do not think that they will corrupt anyone else—except for those few superstitious people who believe that they can.

Cancels Subscription Because Idols Don’t Work

To the Editor:

Please cancel my subscription. I have been worshiping your Idol Set religiously for two weeks with no results. Now I am out six goats and an ox. For nothing! Is this an example of the “services” you provide your readers?

Extensive interviews by a team of BAR’s investigative reporters have established that this letter is a total fabrication, the work of Gene E. Fax of Newton Centre, Massachusetts. Fax now admits composing the letter and even adds that he finds BAR “diverting and unpredictable.” So is he.—Ed.

Lauds BAR Editorial

To the Editor:

I wish to commend you on your excellent article covering the excavation of the City of David (“Politics at the City of David,” BAR 07:06). It was truly a great editorial!

On the Dan Cultic Installation—Is It an Olive Press?

To the Editor:

It was very encouraging to see that somebody else noticed the fact that the “cultic installation” found at Tel Dan is really an olive-press (Queries & Comments, BAR 08:01). As a matter of fact, convincing evidence can be found for this conclusion right in John Laughlin’s article (“The Remarkable Discoveries at Tel Dan,” BAR 07:05) and his response to the BAR reader’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 08:01) and in Avraham Biran’s article in Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 30 (1–2) 89–98, to which I have responded.

First, as Laughlin says in his response, most olive-presses are hewn in rock. This is true. BUT not all of them; there are quite a few examples of built olive-presses.

Second, it may be true that “ … the stones lying close to the basin at Dan are not uniform in shape or size … ” But there is no reason for these stones to be uniform shape or size, since they were only functional and not decorative. One would expect that weights used in commerce would be uniform, but olive-press weight stones can be made out of field stones, roughly shaped, without having to invest too much time and effort in making them; all they require is a hole to enable their attachment to a wooden beam with a rope. And these stones at Dan had holes.

Third, the channels in the stone slabs are described by Avraham Biran in his article, where he says that “A groove or slit was carved in the southern slab in order to facilitate the flow of liquid into the mouth of the jar. … A similar channel was moulded in the plaster covering the northern slab (p. 91).” As Laughlin notes “ … (the channels are) much too small to transport much of any liquid without considerable loss,” suggesting that he either did not look carefully at the installation, or did not read Biran’s article, or that Biran’s article is incorrect. If there are no channels then why attribute this installation to water libation, and if there are shallow channels they seem to be more appropriate for oil flow, because oil is much more viscous.

The fact that one of the jars does not reach one of the slabs can be, and should be, attributed to the fact that part of the installation deteriorated and is damaged, the same way as the plaster that most likely covered the basin’s interior. One should not expect to find an installation in mint condition.

Fourth, although a horned altar was found in the vicinity of the installation, the altar was found out of context, and while we could believe that the large stone structure is the high place constructed by Jeroboam I, all we can say is that it is a large public structure constructed in the royal Israelite style. Now, if this were the Israelite high place, there is more reason to believe that the installation was used as an olive-press rather than for water libation, simply because we know more about the use of oil in Israelite cultic rituals and observances, which were very extensive, than we know about water libation. Biran’s 057references (1 Samuel 7:6; 2 Samuel 23:16) are enigmatic and unconvincing, and his reference to water libation rituals in the time of the Second Temple do not explain what was taking place in the time of the First Temple.

Finally, from all the evidence available to us it seems that the Dan installation is a beam olive-press and not a cultic installation.

At Last, a Satisfied Customer

To the Editor:

I read with great interest your article, “Finders of a Real Lost Ark,” BAR 07:06, by Eric and Carol Meyers. I found it most informative and the pictures and diagrams were very helpful. I have been a member of the Biblical Archaeology Society since 1976, and I have enjoyed your magazine very much. I have read in past issues where people have written to disapprove of your advertising of books and reproductions. But I for one enjoy your advertising. Otherwise I wouldn’t have known about the many archaeology books published and where I could obtain them.

Polish Scholar Requests BAR

To the Editor:

BAR has not been reaching us here. I should like to try to open a subscription for our Institute Library.

Thanks for all your kindest care. Best wishes.

BAR has sent a complimentary subscription to Professor Zaborski of the Institute of Oriental Philology of the Jagellonian University in Krakow as a small expression of our support for the Polish people and of our hope that better days lie ahead.—Ed.

Letters To and About Lorna

Since we have printed in this issue a fabricated letter (see “Cancels Subscription Because Idol 058Don’t Work”), we will also print a letter sent not to our editor, but to our Tour Director, Lorna Zimmerman.—Ed.

Dear Lorna:

How I wish this letter could contain an advance registration for your “Israel Revisited” tour, the brochure for which just arrived today! But, alas, it cannot. There is neither time nor money at this point. However, that could not stop me from dropping a “hello” to you and to wish you an exciting trip in the company of good people who travel well.

Reading the brochure simply flooded my mind with memories of our ‘79 BAR trip. (I still keep in touch with Les and Mary Tingle!) Reference to Ayelet Hashahar was particularly warming for I remember how that place shattered my ill-informed stereotype of kibbutzim. I remember our dinner there (Sabbath) when Avraham introduced us to the newest of the Israeli wines, rose grenach. I can still taste it—and the honey on the warm rolls at breakfast! I failed to snake note in my journal of the name of the Philadelphia nurse turned kibbutznik who spoke to us so eloquently about their life there. And then there was Hazor just across the road and the Bedouin who showed us the water shaft and the Canaanite altar. I still have a picture of you being “sacrificed” on its top.

Reference to the walk about the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City takes me back happily to a lovely day filled with challenge and magnificent sites. One of my best pictures is from that walk—a donkey, leaning against a wall in the shade on that hot day?

I’m going back, someday. I hope it will be with one of your tours. I recommend them without reservation.

Have a good trip with congenial people! If you see Avraham, bless him for me. Kiss the land. Drink in the story gently. Think of us of the class of ‘79 sometime during the trip. Shalom!

To the Editor:

As two of the fearless band of adventurers who returned from the recent BAR-sponsored three-week trip to Egypt, Jordan and Israel, we would congratulate BAR and its thoughtful and prodigious tour director, Lorna Zimmerman, for the experience of a lifetime, which, even in retrospect, far exceeded all expectations.

Subscribers and friends of BAR would be well-advised to consider a similar trip in the future. There is no real substitute for the actual experience and visualization of the lands of the Bible.

Reply to Prof. Horn on Vacation-Seminar

To the Editor:

As participants of the Santa Cruz Vacation Seminar last year, we would like to reply to Prof. Siegfried Horn’s letter in the January/February issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 08:01).

Since he was very pleased to have had the group as listeners, we would like to say, “The feeling was mutual.” We had a most enjoyable time, a learning time, as well as an exchange of ideas, questions and opinions.

The staff was very helpful in seeing to our wants and also in arranging side trips to interesting places.

Prof. Horn was right about the beauty of the campus and the food, and we are very happy that we decided to go way out to California from Florida for the session.

Mrs. Vogel does have one thing to say about Dr. Horn himself, “He is a veritable walking encyclopedia.” We will not forget him as lecturer and as a person.

Expanding Horizons

To the Editor:

I’d like to thank you for the fine publication you produce. I’m the guy who reads it here at the California Men’s Colony. Within six months I will be leaving this wonderful place for expanded horizons. BAR, however, has in some measure greatly expanded them already.

Goedicke Defends His Exodus Thesis

To the Editor: