Queries & Comments

022

Moses’s Staff Becomes a Snake—Trick or Miracle?

To the Editor:

We are enjoying BAR immensely. I would like to comment on Leon Shalit’s article, “How Moses Turned a Staff Into a Snake and Back Again,” BAR 09:03.

The Bible is full of accounts of seemingly unexplainable so-called miracles; that is, unexplainable from a purely physical standpoint. Mr. Shalit’s attempt to explain is just one of many efforts over the years to try and integrate the laws of physics with the divine law which the Master strove so mightily to teach.

Such Bible narratives as the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the parting of the Red Sea by Moses, Noah and the Ark, and scores of others were not products of the writers’ imagination. Each was about what the writer saw, experienced, or believed as a revelation of divine power. By and large, they were recorded to convey some spiritual truth, either by allegory or direct statement. To put the physical evidence before the implied spiritual lesson is to relegate the Bible to the status of a story book and its real message is lost.

But what about those so-called miracles? Did they really occur as described? The human mind has been known to annul the action of certain natural laws. It also frequently sees only what it wants to see or what it believes it is supposed to see. Witness what philosophers and scientists are saying today, as quoted from Lincoln Barnett’s book, The Universe and Dr. Einstein: “Since every object is the sum of its qualities, and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols shaped by the senses of man.” Should we wonder, then, at what our senses are capable of conjuring up?

In the case of Moses and the serpent it is probable that both Moses’s serpent and those of Pharaoh’s sorcerers were seen by all present. The point is that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods,” proving the superiority of spiritual power over legerdemain. The Master said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.”

To the Editor:

I can supply some confirmation of Leon Shalit’s speculations regarding Moses’s transformation of a rod into a snake.

The same explanation was published in an article in the Linking Ring, the magazine of the International Brotherhood of Magicians, sometime around 1958. The feat was alleged to be common among Middle Eastern snake charmers. I can’t supply a copy because LR is very poorly indexed.

I actually saw the trick performed in 1965 in Sokoto, Nigeria, where I served in the Peace Corps. The snake, a great brute of the thing, was very impressive, but the seedy little performer wasn’t.

To the Editor:

The ophidian phenomenon noted by Leon Shalit has previously been remarked by, for example, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953), wherein it is stated (p. 211): “The modern Egyptian magicians also turn rods into snakes. This is sometimes done by pressing a certain part of the neck of a real snake which thus becomes cramped into rigidity and stretched out like a rod, but when thrown to the ground, after the pressure is removed, resumes its natural form and movements.”

To the Editor:

Information concerning the natural explanation of staffs-into-serpents can be found in Secrets of Magic by Walter B. Gibson (Grosset & Dunlap: New York). The book deals with the tricks employed by wizards, sorcerers, and magicians through history. Mr. Gibson has a special article entitled “Pharaoh’s Serpents,” p. 13. “The trick,” writes Mr. Gibson, “depends upon a species called the naja haje, or the Egyptian cobra. A peculiarity of this snake is that it can be made motionless by pressure just below the head. Thus temporarily paralyzed, the naja haje becomes rigid, like a stick, but when it’s thrown on the ground, it is jolted back to action.”

Of course this only explains how Pharaoh’s wizards accomplished their craft. As to how Moses’s staff became a serpent, I suggest Mr. Shalit consider again his original source—Exodus 4:2–5. Verse 2 seems to indicate that God did not instruct Moses to go out and find a particular snake to do “the trick,” but used Moses’s own staff, an item which could only be transformed by the “power of God.” Verse 4 then further demonstrates the fact: Moses grasped the serpent by the tail, not the back of the head, and it became a staff.

If Moses had done the same type of magic that the Egyptian wizards performed, which the Bible refers to as “their secret arts” (Exodus 7:11), it would not have impressed then at all. According to verse 5, God was not trying to show that He was a better magician, but that He was “God,” something even the wizards equally realized by the third plague (Exodus 8:19 “This is the finger of God”).

To the Editor:

The sole purpose of Leon Shalit’s article is to create doubt concerning the nature of God’s miracles. If God says he turned a staff into a snake, then he turned a staff into a snake. If God had turned a comatose snake into an uncomatose snake, he would have told us just that. If you have faith in God, you must have faith in his word also. Please believe, Mr. Shalit, and give yourself rest.

To the Editor:

Your magazine must have a real problem for material when you have to use such junk as “How Moses Turned a Staff Into a Snake and Back Again,” BAR 09:03.

To the Editor:

Is it possible that someone took Leon Shalit by the heels and swung HIM around their head a number of times?

Surely there is a reasonable explanation for such an article.

To the Editor:

If Mr. Shalit wants a real challenge, ask him to explain God’s “trick” of creation—something out of nothing.

Perhaps we should let scripture be scripture and let BAR tend to Biblical archaeology, as it does so well.

026

To the Editor:

I do not believe, “Thus saith Mr. Shalit.” I believe, “Thus saith the Lord.”

To the Editor:

God doesn’t have to stoop to magic. He is Mighty, Great, All-powerful and can do anything that is His will.

Pharaoh’s magicians undoubtedly used the type of snakes Mr. Shalit mentioned, since their use of snakes was a common practice. The Lord God, however, did not do this. He worked a miracle in changing Aaron’s rod into a snake and back again. Where God does a real miracle, Satan always has his counterfeit, as he had here with the magicians and their snakes.

To the Editor:

While I am prepared to admit that the Egyptian priests may have used the technique of Shalit’s snake-tamer, I feel that there are some compelling clues within the scriptures to indicate that Moses did not use this trick.

First, in Exodus 4:2–3, there are two indications that the transformation from staff to snake was unexpected. In verse 2, God asks Moses, “What is that in your hand?”, to which Moses replies, “A staff.” Moses seems to have believed that he held a wooden staff in his hand. This is substantiated in verse 3, where we read that the staff became a snake when he cast it on the ground, “and he ran from it.”

Second, in Exodus 7:10–11, the account indicates that there were two different ways in which this demonstration was enacted. There was the way which God commanded Moses to follow, and there was the way which the Egyptian magicians used. Two very different ways to accomplish something which looked the same to Pharaoh. But the fact that there was something intrinsically different between Aaron’s action and the action of the magicians is underscored by the fact that Aaron’s rod swallowed up the magicians’ rods.

Third, in Exodus 4:1, Moses asks God how the people of Israel would know that God had sent him. It is in response to this question that God gives Moses this demonstration of his power The implication is that the way in which Moses would turn the staff into a snake would be proof that God sent Moses. Now it seems to me that this kind of demonstration would only be effective if it was known that Moses accomplished this in a different way than the Egyptians. Otherwise, how could the Israelites and Pharaoh be certain that Moses was not just another trickster?

To the Editor:

Why try to explain a miracle of the Lord?

To the Editor:

Let’s give Moses credit for some intelligence! In all probability the Pharaoh’s magicians performed the trick in the way Mr. Shalit describes. It was probably an old trick in which they were confident. If Moses were only performing this same old trick, it would not prove to anyone that the Lord had appeared to him (Exodus 4:5). Let’s give God credit for some intelligence too! Moses’s snake was obviously different from the magicians’ snakes, and this is shown when it consumes the others. This was done to show that God’s power is far superior to the magicians’.

To the Editor:

Although I have enjoyed your articles on archaeology, I cannot tolerate this article reducing God’s power and might to magic and deception! I do not desire a “natural” explanation to all (or any) of God’s miracles. I believe He has the supernatural ability to do as He says.

Please cancel my subscription forthwith.

To the Editor:

How do you account for the blood of the Nile, the frogs, the gnats, the flies, the deaths of the animals, the boils, the hail, the locusts, the darkness, and the deaths of the first-born? I certainly don’t call it “magic”; I call it God’s almighty power!

To the Editor:

I always find it somewhat distressing, though not surprising, when I see continual efforts, apparently arising from a feeling of intellectual necessity, to contrive natural 030explanations for what the Bible offers plainly without comment, explanation, or apology, as supernatural. I believe Mr. Shalit’s suggestion is unnecessary, absurd, and degrading to the character and integrity of both Moses and God.

A suggestion like this reduces Moses to a deceitful trickster and God to a position of a chief magician who cannot perform miracles but can only teach bits of magic to his apprentices. Such a god would hardly be worth respecting, much less worshiping or serving.

Evidence for the Ark

To the Editor:

Please give me some real evidence that the sacred Ark of the Covenant has been found and is safe.

There is none.—Ed.

To the Editor:

Thanks for the timely article on the supposed discovery of the Ark of the Covenant (“Tom Crotser Has Found the Ark of the Covenant—Or Has He?” BAR 09:03). In addition to the problems associated with Mr. Crotser’s methods, there are serious Biblical and documentary problems involved. The following textual matters should strongly be considered in evaluating any search for the Ark of the Covenant.

1. The Bible simply does not reveal what happened to the Ark when the Solomonic Temple was destroyed in 587 B.C. Although it may have been carried off to Babylon as a trophy of war, there is no mention of its being among the confiscated Temple items in 2 Kings 25. The explanation offered in the movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark, is that it was carried off by Pharaoh Shishak when he plundered the “treasures” of the Temple in 925 B.C. (1 Kings 14:25–26). It is not clear, however, that the Ark was among those “treasures.”

2. According to a later Jewish tradition, the Ark was buried under the “Chamber of Wood” in the Temple prior to the Babylonian destruction. However, the rabbi that mentioned this tradition was opposed by other rabbis in the Talmudic discussion on this subject in Yoma 53b. The fact that this tradition did not surface until the Tannaitic period and that such an act of burying was not recorded either in the Bible or in previous apocryphal books makes this tradition highly unlikely. This does not prevent, however, some orthodox rabbis in Jerusalem today from believing that the Ark is underneath the Temple Mount and will be recovered someday by archaeologists. This possibility may exist, but only time will tell.

3. An apocryphal book, written during the century prior to Jesus’s birth, records an interesting idea about the fate of the Ark. Second Maccabees 2:4–7 reads: “It was also in the writing that the prophet [Jeremiah], in obedience to a revelation, gave orders that the tent and the ark should accompany him, and that he went up and beheld God’s inheritance. And Jeremiah came and found a cave dwelling, and he took the tent and the ark and the incense altar into it, and he blocked up the door. And some of those who followed him came up to mark the road, and they could not kind it. But when Jeremiah found it out, he blamed them and said, ‘The place shall he unknown until God gathers the congregation of his people together and shows his mercy.’” It is this reference that the modern “ark-hunters” have utilized in claiming their discovery of the Ark on Mount Nebo in Jordan. The following should be kept in mind, however, concerning this passage. While scholars acknowledge that I Maccabees is a very reliable source of historical information, 2 Maccabees is marred by many legendary and miraculous tales recorded nowhere else. For example, it is in 2 Maccabees 12:43–46 where the offering of prayers and sacrifices for the dead is mentioned, a practice which is nowhere mentioned in the canonical scriptures. It is highly questionable, therefore, that Jeremiah did what the above account declares he did. Again we must ask, “Why did not scripture record this very important deed if it really happened?”

4. Modern “ark-hunters” often defend their efforts by saying that the discovery of the Ark is 031necessary for the rebuilding of the Temple. They forget, however, an important established fact of history. It was not necessary for the Ark to be present in either Zerubbabel’s Temple or in the later, greatly enlarged Temple of Herod. Josephus records that when Pompey entered the Temple in 63 B.C., he did not kind the Ark there (Antiquities XIV, IV, 4). Furthermore, it was acknowledged by later rabbis that after the Ark had been taken away by the Babylonians, the only thing that remained in the Holy of Holies was a “foundation stone.” On this stone the high priest sprinkled the blood on the Day of Atonement that he formerly sprinkled on the Ark during the days of the first Temple (Mishna Yoma 5:2–3).

Although discovery of the Ark would be an astounding event, its discovery is not necessary for the rebuilding of the Temple indicated in Daniel 9:26–27; Matthew 24:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and Revelation 11:1–2.

All of the above information should cause each of us to be very careful in evaluating any stories about the supposed discovery of the Ark of the Covenant.

To the Editor:

The problem of the disappearing Ark is more of a theological-apocalyptic issue than an archaeological one. The dangers of letting it remain in the world, to become just another object of historical and archaeological research, are obvious. Not only would it easily become an object of idolatry but it is also possible that it would be dangerously misused if it fell into the wrong hands.

Just as Yahweh is said to have personally buried Moses with his own hand (Deuteronomy 34:5–6)—lest the body of Moses become an object of national veneration, as is the case with the body of Lenin in Moscow—so the testimony of the Apocalypse is that God has returned the Ark of the Covenant to Himself. There it remains to be revealed at the final theophany on the last day (Revelation 11:19).

To the Editor:

I am organizing an archaeological expedition to Jerusalem to recover the Ark of the Covenant. I have done a great deal of research concerning the Ark and know its location in the Old City of Jerusalem. I have been psychic ever since I was a little boy. I specialize in the recovery of lost objects and have been extremely successful in this endeavor. I need $40,000 for this expedition. Would you know of a foundation, an organization, or individuals in this country or abroad who would like to associate themselves with the funding of this expedition?

Occasionally, it is necessary to repeat that publication of a letter in BAR does not imply any endorsement. We simply want to share with our readers a sampling of the full range of mail we receive.—Ed.

Was Jesus Born in 6 B.C.?

To the Editor:

I was always under the impression that Herod and Jesus met one another before Herod’s death. Yet in the May/June issue you say Herod died in 4 B.C. Is this an error?

Dewey M. Beegle, Professor of Old Testament at Wesley Theological Seminary, replies:

The Herod to whom Pilate sent Jesus (Luke 23:7) was Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great by his Samaritan wife Malthace, and so the New Testament is not claiming that the Herod who was responsible for the slaughter of the young boys in Bethlehem (Matthew 2) was the same one who interviewed and mocked Jesus.

When Herod the Great died in 4 B.C., Antipas became the Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. He repudiated his first wife (the daughter of the Nabatean king Aretas) to marry Herodias (the daughter of his half-brother Aristobulus) who herself had divorced her husband Herod Philip (another half-brother of Antipas). Confused? Herod the Great had 10 wives and a number of sons, therefore the family tree becomes quite complex. Herod Antipas executed John the Baptist because he had rebuked him for marrying Herodias.

But this still leaves a problem. If Herod the Great died in 4 B.C., how could he have slaughtered the innocents after Jesus’s birth? This could happen only if Jesus was born during or before 4 B.C. If this is true, Jesus was born before he was born. In fact, Jesus was born around 6 B.C. This is due to an error made by Dionysius Exiguus “Denis the Little,” a Roman monk and scholar who died about 545 A.D. In his attempt to determine a more accurate date for Easter, he decided to use the birth of Jesus as the fulcrum of history. Because he followed Clement of Alexandria in giving Caesar Augustus a 47-year reign instead of 41 years (27 B.C.–14 A.D.), the B.C. era was extended down 6 years too far.

Jesus Mentioned in Non-Biblical Text

To the Editor:

I enjoyed the review of Gaalya Cornfeld’s Josephus—The Jewish War by Dr. Louis H. Feldman (Books in Brief, BAR 09:03), but was astonished that there is no mention of the reference in Josephus (regarded by many as an interpolation) to Jesus. Would Dr. Feldman elucidate?

Louis H. Feldman replies:

In my review of Gaalya Cornfeld’s Josephus: The Jewish War, I made no reference to Josephus’s statement about Jesus because there is no mention of Jesus in The Jewish War. There are references to Jesus (though not by name) in the 11th century Slavonic version of The Jewish 032War, but they are almost universally regarded as late interpolations.

It is in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities, Book XVIII, sections 63 and 64 that the celebrated Testimonium Flavianum, referring to Jesus as “the Messiah,” appears. In my edition of the Loeb Library version (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1965), I argue, in my comment on that passage, that Josephus did refer to Jesus, but not in the laudatory way in which he presently appears in the manuscripts of the Greek text.

The Arabic version of Jewish Antiquities by Agapius, who was a Christian of the tenth century,¹ cites the Testimonium, but in a very different form; Agapius’s translation of Josephus declares that “[Jesus] was perhaps the Messiah.”

Two centuries later, Michael the Syrian, paraphrasing the Testimonium, states that “he was thought to be the Messiah.”

That there was, indeed, some reference to Jesus in the original version of the Antiquities seems likely in view of the fact that Origen,² in the third century, states explicitly that “the wonder is that though he [Josephus] did not admit our Jesus to be Christ, he nonetheless gave witness to so much righteousness in James.” Origen also states that “he [Josephus] disbelieved in Jesus as Christ.”³ It makes no sense to express wonder that Josephus did not admit Jesus to be the Messiah if he did not even mention him.

Moreover, in a passage that has been almost universally regarded as genuine, Josephus does refer to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ.”⁴ It is especially significant that until Eusebius in the fourth century, the many church fathers who knew Josephus’s works did not refer to the Testimonium. After Eusebius, a century elapses until the Testimonium is again referred to—by Jerome—but then only in the form paralleled by the later Arabic and Syriac versions noted above, “he was believed to be the Messiah.” If the original Greek referred to Jesus as the Messiah, this would have been a powerful argument in the frequent polemics of that age against Jews, and the church fathers would have mentioned it. That they did not do so leads me to conclude that the passage about Jesus did exist in the original Greek of Josephus’s Antiquities, but in a “neutral” form, that is, without reference to him as the Messiah.

Elsewhere, I have discussed the whole issue at length.⁵

How Many Jewish Revolts Against Rome?

To the Editor:

The articles in the May/June 1983 BAR by Ehud Netzer, “Searching for Herod’s Tomb,” BAR 09:03, and “Herod’s Family Tomb in Jerusalem,” BAR 09:03, were excellent. I also enjoyed Professor Louis Feldman’s fine review of Josephus—The Jewish War. However, I am confused about some dates.

In Feldman’s review, he refers to the First Jewish Revolt (66–74), the second Jewish Revolt (115–117) and the third Jewish Revolt (132–135) led by Bar Kochba. In Netzer’s article on Herodium, he refers to the second Jewish Revolt (132 A.D.–135 A.D.). Did Netzer leave one out or did Feldman add one?

What events occurred during Feldman’s second Jewish Revolt?

I’ve always read that the First Revolt began in 66, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70, and that Masada held out until 73 when the Romans conquered the stronghold. Did the Jews hold out elsewhere until 74 or did Masada not fall until 74?

Louis H. Feldman replies:

The Jewish revolt under Trajan (115–117) which I referred to as the second Jewish Revolt is clear from both literary and papyrological sources.

The Mishnah (edited about the year 200)⁶ speaks of the War of Quietus. Quietus is mentioned by Dio Cassius⁷ as having been governor of Palestine under Trajan when the second Revolt took place. At that time, the rabbis decreed that nobody should teach his son Greek.

Spartianus, writing in the early part of the fourth century, notes that under Trajan, Palestine showed rebellious spirits (rebelles animos).⁸ The fourth-century Eusebius⁹ and Dio Cassius¹⁰ in the early third century both indicate that the Jews revolted in several other countries, including Egypt, Libya, and Cyprus.

One of the papyri in Tcherikover and Fuks’s Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (no. 435) refers to a battle in Egypt between Romans and Jews. Another papyrus (no. 450) reveals that as late as 199/200 C.E., the people of Oxyrhynchos in 088Egypt were still celebrating an annual festival commemorating a victory over the Jews during a war in which they had aided the Roman forces.

The leader of the Libyan Jews was a Messianic-like king named Kukuas-Andreas. According to Dio, the Jews slaughtered 220,000 in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus.¹¹ It was only when Trajan sent one of his best generals, Marcus Turbo, that the revolt was crushed after long and bitter fighting.¹² Indeed, Egyptian Jewry was almost completely destroyed.¹³ Accordingly, I feel justified in referring to this revolt under Trajan as the second Jewish Revolt. The revolt under Bar Kochba must therefore be the third.

As to the date of the fall of Masada, Josephus is not specific. Just prior to his description of the Masada episode, he refers to the fourth year of Vespasian’s reign. From this, scholars concluded that Masada was captured in 73.

Two new inscriptions,¹⁴ however, show that the Roman commander at the siege of Masada, Flavius Silva, could not have become governor of Judea before March, 73, and that the storming of the fort at Masada could not have been begun before the spring of 74 at the earliest.

Tea at the Albright

To the Editor:

As an enthusiastic member of the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS), I want to express my appreciation of BAR, the lectures, the seminars and other activities. I would also like to share a thought.

Only last summer I made a discovery that others with like tastes may be unaware of. The W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research maintains a Jerusalem hostel. Anyone who joins the American Schools of Oriental Research (receiving, incidentally, the Biblical Archaeologist to complement our beautiful BAR) may, subject to limitations of space, enjoy at a 15% discount a comfortable room there and delicious meals prepared by Omar just as he has done for over forty years.

Erected in Mandate times when Dr. Albright was Director, this lovely old stone building just a few hundred yards from the Old City and the Rockefeller Museum and surrounded by tall evergreens is the jewel of Jerusalem, with a fine library, workrooms in the basement and a fascinating atmosphere—especially at teatime and dinner as excavators come and go from their expedition sites.

Open the year round, the Institute affords a unique opportunity to enjoy, as I did, a sojourn in archaeological Jerusalem at very modest cost. Other members of the BAS may wish to do the same.

Praise for BAR

To the Editor:

A number of us enjoy BAR. I read it from cover to cover, advertisements included, and look longingly at all the pictures of the Holy Land.

089

Was Herod a Jew?

To the Editor:

I appreciated very much the thorough coverage you gave in the May/June 1983 BAR to Herodium and to Herod’s Family Tomb and also to “Herod—the Man and His Deeds,” BAR 09:03.

Please forgive a basic question whose answer may be well-known to others. Was Herod a Jew? Nowhere do you state the answer clearly—only that he was the son of Antipater the Idumean. Can you clarify for me?

Louis H. Feldman replies:

Whether the ancestors of Herod were Jewish is a matter of dispute. Most scholars assume that Herod, as an Idumean, was a descendant of those Idumeans who had been forcibly converted to Judaism by the Jewish king John Hyrcanus (c. 129 B.C.E.). Josephus (Antiquities XII,257–258) tells us that Hyrcanus, after subduing all the Idumeans, permitted them to remain in their country only so long as they had themselves circumcised and were willing to observe the laws of the Jews, and that “from that time on they have continued to be Jews.”

Josephus quotes Herod’s secretary as saying that Herod’s father Antipater the Idumean belonged to the leading Jews who returned to Judea from Babylon (Antiquities XIV, 9). Josephus himself disputes this and says that the secretary said this merely to please Herod.

Elsewhere (War I, 123), Josephus says that Herod’s father Antipater was an Idumean by race, and that his ancestry, wealth, and other advantages put him in the front rank of the Idumean nation.

Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 52), the famous Christian writer of the middle of the second century, says that Antipater was a [non-Jewish] native of Ascalon, presumably an Idumean.

However, according to the Christian Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 1.7.11), who wrote in the third century, Antipater’s father—Herod’s grandfather—was an attendant of the pagan god Apollo in Ascalon; Antipater himself was captured by the Idumeans when they pillaged the temple, and he was brought up by them as an Idumean.

Africanus says that Herod himself forged for himself a pedigree going back to King David after first destroying the genealogical records maintained in the Temple.

Antigonus, king of Judea from 40 to 37 B.C.E., is quoted by Josephus (Antiquities XIV, 403) as telling the Roman army that it would be contrary to their own notion of right if they gave the kingship to Herod, who was a commoner and an Idumean, “that is, a half-Jew” (hemiioudaioi).

The Talmud (Baba Bathra) declares explicitly that Herod was a [non-Jewish] slave of the Hasmonean house and that when the Hasmonean princess [Mariamne] saw that he desired to marry her, she committed suicide.

From the point of view of Jewish law, (Talmud, Kiddushin 68b), Jewish identity is determined by the status of one’s mother, not by the father, and Josephus (War I, 181 and Antiquities XIV, 121) says that Herod’s mother Cypros (Cypris) was of an illustrious Arabian family, hence presumably not Jewish. Nowhere does Josephus indicate that Herod’s mother converted to Judaism. If this is true, Herod was not Jewish according to Jewish law. Herod regarded himself as a Jew, however See, for example, the remark ascribed to the Emperor Augustus (in Macrobius, Saturnalia 2.4.11) that he, Augustus, would rather be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son. This is presumably an allusion to the fact that Herod executed three of his sons but abstained from eating pork, since pork is prohibited by Jewish law. Also, Herod refused to allow his sister Salome to marry an Arab, presumably because he was not Jewish. He also took care that his own children would marry only Jews.

090

Explains Saw in Metalworking

To the Editor:

I really enjoy the Biblical Archaeology Review. In “How Iron Technology Changed the Ancient World,” BAR 08:06, by James D. Muhly, the author states that he does not know what the saw was used for in the ancient metalworking scene on your cover. “The saw has never been explained,” he says.

The saw is extensively used for cutting metal and stone, as well as wood. The Egyptians used copper saws to cut rock. Saws are made for the particular kind of work for which they are used.

Note the bronze statue’s foot above the ankle, and the neck above the body in the picture. Both have been sawed. It would be impossible to get such a straight cut with an ax. In saws employed for cutting metal, the teeth are arranged as a series of equilateral triangles, the pitch of each tooth being evenly divided between the front and the back. The saw depicted on the vase known as the Berlin Foundry Cup, having all teeth equal, assuredly was employed for cutting the bronze statue.

Did BAR Slur Cupola on Temple Mount?

To the Editor:

I am confused by your March/April 1983 cover story (“Where the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem Stood,” BAR 09:02, by Asher S. Kaufman), which pictured on the cover with almost equal size both the Dome of the Rock and a nearby cupola, and used the description “unimposing” with reference to the cupola. I do not know if you would apply such an epithet to a similar monument from, let us say, the Herodian period. This is like downgrading as “Philistine” those Gentile neighbors who, after all, turned out to be much more sophisticated than the wishful thinking of the Israelites wanted them to be.

The cover photo was intended to show the cupola in detail as well as its relationship to the Dome of the Rock. This may have given an unrealistic view of the size of the cupola. It is in fact quite modest, a characterization which has nothing to do with the fact that it is Islamic. To see the cupola’s size in comparison with the Dome of the Rock, see the aerial photo in the article.—Ed.

Moses’s Staff Becomes a Snake—Trick or Miracle?

To the Editor:

We are enjoying BAR immensely. I would like to comment on Leon Shalit’s article, “How Moses Turned a Staff Into a Snake and Back Again,” BAR 09:03.