Queries & Comments

020

The Maya and the Mormons

To the Editor:

I was amused by Howard W. Goodkind’s statement (“Lord Kingsborough Lost His Fortune Trying to Prove the Maya Were Descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes,” BAR 11:05) that, according to Mormon belief, three groups of Israelites migrated to the New World: the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites who came at about the same time as the Nephites. It’s obvious the author hasn’t read the Book of Mormon. There were two groups, not three: the Jaredites and a group that later split because one segment was righteous and the other was not. The righteous people separated from the unrighteous people and they became known as the Nephites and Lamanites, respectively. The labels were coined after the leaders’ names, Nephi and Laman, who were brothers.

This gross error makes me question how well Mr. Goodkind did his homework for the rest of the article. He should, perhaps, have condensed his writing to his two closing sentences: “Whatever we think of these attempts to locate Jesus and the lost tribes in ancient Mesoamerica, it cannot be denied that the zeal of the search has motivated archaeological discoveries of the greatest importance. And for this we must certainly be grateful.”

To the Editor:

While Howard W. Goodkind shows himself to be a pretty danged good student of the Maya, he seems a little fuzzy about what the Book of Mormon says and what some Mormons have said about the Book of Mormon.

Goodkind says that “the Mormons … believe the Israelites came to America and founded the pre-Columbian civilizations, as is written in the Book of Mormon.” More accurately the Book of Mormon says that one group, at the time of the tower of Babel, and two groups, at the time of the Babylonian captivity, came to America and founded four pre-Columbian nations. I must admit that some Mormons believe that all of the pre-Columbian civilizations were founded by Book of Mormon people, but that’s not what the book actually says.

Goodkind is mildly confused about the migrations mentioned in the book. There were three, but the second, made around 590 B.C.E., included both Laman (the Lamanites) and Nephi (the Nephites) on the same ship. They were descendants of Israel. The third group, termed Mulekites, were also Israelites, but they made a trans-Atlantic crossing.

Goodkind correctly describes the conflict between the Lamanites and the Nephites, resulting in the disappearance of the Nephite nation, but incorrectly assumes (as have many Mormons) that since the Lamanites were the survivors, and since only Book of Mormon people inhabited the Americas, and since the American Indians were here when “we” got here, “the Lamanites became the American Indians” (p. 58). More properly, Mormon belief is that some of the progenitors of the American Indian were Lamanites.

The Book of Mormon has weathered a lot since 1830. Even Goodkind, no doubt, will admit that the archaeological jury is not in yet on Mesoamerica. Given accurate and sufficient information, the Book of Mormon is still doing just fine, thank you, due, in part, to a terrific magazine like BAR.

021

To the Editor:

Howard W. Goodkind’s article in the September/October BAR was captivating; however, it convinced me of the probability that Lord Kingsborough was right.

The ten lost tribes were banished and scattered because they worshipped many gods in addition to Yahweh. So it is easy to see that while they retained some respect for Yahweh, to them He was not the only god.

These tribes also practiced human sacrifice, even the sacrifice of their own children. The references for this can easily be found in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

To the Editor:

While I enjoyed reading the Lord Kingsborough article in the September/October issue, I was surprised by the many errors concerning Mormon beliefs.

The Mormon Church does not take the position that all Indians are descendants of Book of Mormon people or that certain excavations such as Palenque can be identified as any specific Nephite city. While some Mormon writers may have speculated about these matters, there is no official church position on such points.

The article states: “These gods, and others like them, hardly suggest the influence of the austere Hebrew God. Certainly we are entitled to some explanation as to why the Israelite beliefs underwent such a transformation when they arrived in the New World.” Actually, your readers are entitled to an explanation as to why the article was so superficial. A few hours research would have revealed that the Book of Mormon teaches that while the Nephites were a righteous people, the Lamanites were, for most of their history, a corrupt, apostate people who did indeed worship strange gods and practice bizarre religions. Since the Maya and Aztecs may be descendants of the Lamanites, it is obvious why there appears to be little correlation between their beliefs and those of ancient Israel.

The Mormon Church does believe Christ appeared to the ancient inhabitants of America but the actual site is not known. Finally, we do not teach that Quetzalcoatl was Christ.

When I see such shoddy research in an area with which I’m acquainted, I can’t help but be concerned about subjects your magazine discusses where I have little expertise.

To the Editor:

Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, was born on December 23, 1805, rather than in 1815.

Mr. Goodkind also greatly overstates Mormon scholars’ linkage of the resurrected Jesus Christ to the Quetzalcoatl legends. Mormons do not believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected as Quetzalcoatl. The Book of Mormon’s central message is that the resurrected Christ did visit the inhabitants of the Americas and did establish His church there. Some of the elements of the Quetzalcoatl legends show parallels to the Book of Mormon account of Christ’s visit to the Americas. Differences are also noted.

To the Editor:

I enjoyed your thought-provoking article on Lord Kingsborough and the ten lost tribes. I think, however, Mr. Goodkind goofed when he said the Mayans engaged in human sacrifices on a large scale. There is no evidence of this and, except for perhaps throwing an occasional youth or maiden into a cenote, classical Mayan civilization seemed remarkably free of such violence. That was part of its attraction.

068

Also the Toltecs would have had a difficult time throwing individuals into sacred wells. There are no cenotes near their capital in Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. That custom only developed after Toltec refugees, probably in small numbers, entered the Yucatan after the overthrow by the Chichimecs in the 11th century.

I think these clarifications are necessary in an otherwise factually interesting article.

To the Editor:

I enjoyed Howard W. Goodkind’s article on Lord Kingsborough. Mr. Goodkind perhaps did not have space to mention the most salient fact about the Kingsborough volumes, namely that the colors applied to the renditions by hand are utterly fanciful and totally unrelated to the originals, evidently amounting to nothing more than Aglio’s personal preference on any given day. Other than as a carnival curiosity, like a two-headed snake, the Kingsborough is not worth having, notwithstanding that the National Geographic Society paid $25,000 for a set a few years ago. Good, accurate reproductions of the original codices are available from a modern publisher in Graz, Austria. The Kingsborough set is, in effect, the world’s most expensive and extravagant coloring book, and it is difficult to feel much sympathy for a half-educated ignoramus who squandered the family fortune in a hare-brained attempt to indulge his racist prejudices.

Unsung Heroes

To the Editor:

In “BARview: Failure to Publish Dead Sea Scrolls Is Leitmotif of New York University Scroll Conference,” BAR 11:05, and “BARview: Israeli Authorities Now Responsible for Delay in Publication of Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR 11:05, you have done us all a service in reciting the background and history of this important find. In addition, you have sought to place the responsibility for improving the status quo without attacking and blaming in a pejorative way. For that you are to be commended.

But there is at least one glaring omission, from my own opinion and experience, in your recital of the personalities involved who deserve our eternal thanks. I speak of Yusef M. Saad, former Curator of the Palestine Archaeological Museum (now the Rockefeller Museum), who made innumerable contacts in those early days following the initial discovery of the scrolls, paving the way for their purchase. His story is immensely valuable, with the kind of intrigue that makes good movies, with scenes in Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Jericho and New York. To hear it from his own mouth was one of the treats of my study experience in Israel some years ago. But in all of the reports of the Dead Sea Scrolls this good and humble man, Yusef Saad, seems to continue to be unrecognized for his contribution. Years later he even hunted up the Bedouin boy who made the discovery at Qumran—and compensated him for it.

The story of Yusef Saad would be worthy of BAR’s interest and pursuance, if not 069publication, and may serve to give some credit where credit indeed is due.

To the Editor:

For the record, I think it is time to acknowledge the role of an unsung hero of the Dead Sea Scrolls story. In the September/October BAR, you refer to the Wall Street Journal ad, which “came to the attention of the Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin.” It was brought to his attention by the late Monty Jacobs, then a correspondent for the Jerusalem Post. Monty and I had been colleagues on the Palestine Post, as it was then called, and I ran into him at La Guardia Airport just after he had seen the ad and suspected its importance. He was then trying to reach Yadin with the information. I think Monty deserves at least a footnote in the saga of the Scrolls.

Whose Side Is BAR On?

To the Editor:

On which side is your publication—God’s or man’s? You seem to be very much on the side of man.

Either a person believes the Bible to be the inspired, infallible Word of the Living God, or it is the work of man and of no value or help in anyone’s life!

When the archaeologists state “facts” and findings that are contradicted by the Bible, they are wrong. The Bible says “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

I choose to believe the Bible. When my subscription runs out, I will not renew.

To the Editor:

Re the letters you receive from people canceling their subscription. Well, I am also threatening to cancel my subscription, but only if you stop your fair and open-minded policy.

To the Editor:

In a letter to the editor in the September/October issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 11:05) Albert K. Schoenbucher, M.D., mentions the fallibility of man, implying that the Bible is fallible because it was written by man. What he failed to mention is the infallibility of God. Men did write the Bible, but it was God who told them what to write. Read 2 Peter 1:20–21.

The Bible is the most unique book in the world, having been written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 authors from every walk of life, yet the Bible has complete harmony from beginning to end. God has seen to it that His Word has survived history, persecution and criticism.

BAR’s Use of Palestine

To the Editor:

I have noticed for some time your tendency to refer to Israel as Palestine, even as you refer to other countries by their present names, such as Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. There is no country called Palestine today. Nor was there in pre-Roman times. Palestine is a name given to Judea or Israel by the Romans with the express purpose of eclipsing any memory of Jewish connection to that land. Arab countries, refusing to recognize the State of Israel, 072are loath to call it by name and insist on Palestine. But why are you doing that?

In the September/October issue you place Deir Alla in Jordan. But then when discussing ancient ivory, you write about artifacts from Palestine which came from Beer-Sheva. If you refer to Jordan as a locus of current finds, why are you averse to identify a source as Israel?

When you write about Ahab’s capital in Samaria, why is the work non-Palestinian instead of non-Israelite? After all, Ahab presided over the Kingdom of Israel. Again you explain why you have concentrated on Palestine. Why not Israel or Israel and Jordan since you do mention the latter country by name? (There had been no country of Jordan until Britain created it in 1922.)

The only time in the September/October issue that you wrote of Israel by name was to criticize and lay blame on that beleaguered nation for failure to see that the Dead Sea Scrolls were published. You recognize that Israel did not distribute the scrolls originally to scholars, none of whom were Jews. Surely, you might recognize the sensitive position in which the Israeli government finds itself.

I hope that in future issues, you will refer to Israel by name when writing of artifacts discovered there and historical events that occurred there. Your practice of calling the land Palestine has been a source of irritation to me to the point of diminishing my enjoyment of your magazine.

On Jesus and Wine

To the Editor:

In Queries & Comments, BAR 11:05, there is a letter from Aimee McGee protesting the thought that Jesus turned water into alcoholic wine.

The word John used in his account was oinos which, in Greek, assumes fermentation. It is the same word used in Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37. In these illustrations the wine burst the wineskins. Grape juice does not burst wineskins. Fermented wine does.

To the Editor:

The same word used for wine in John 2 is the word that Paul uses in both Ephesians 5:18 and 1 Timothy 5:23—in the first verse Paul condemns getting drunk on the stuff, while in the second verse he recommends an occasional drink!

I don’t think that it makes sense to say that the same human writer used the same word to mean both “wine” and “grape juice.” (If he did, what’s to keep us from concluding that the Bible condemns the folly of trying to get drunk on grape juice, while it approves the drinking of wine?)

The answer, it would seem to me, is that the Bible recommends moderation—that while “wine has been the ruin of many … wine is very life to man if taken in moderation,” as we read in Sirach 31:25–31.

To the Editor:

Scripture clearly recognizes the proper use of alcohol. Proverbs 31:6, for example, reads “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy 073hearts.” The first part of the verse recognizes the well-known use of alcohol as an anesthetic for pain and the second a well-known effect of the first stage of slight intoxication.

To the Editor:

Fresh grape juice not subject to the modern applications of pasteurization (which destroys the alcohol-producing bacteria) and refrigeration (which slows fermentation of fresh juice) becomes fermented, at least to some degree, within 24 hours. Grapes stomped over flat-top boulders in the Biblical vineyards, collected in vats below, strained into jars or skins, delivered to the market place, sold and taken home, would clearly be wine by the time it was consumed in the household.

Grapes are harvested seasonally while wine is consumed all year long. Since soda pop, coffee, and other popular drinks were not available, and the milk of goats and camels soured after a few hours, wine (usually mixed with water) was the only drink available for 074popular, daily consumption. In this light, fermentation becomes a God-ordained process that provides a relatively germ-free drink capable of being stored without sterilization, pasteurization, or refrigeration for many weeks. Not to mention that alcohol in moderation tends to cleanse the body and offer medicinal qualities.

Daniel, one of God’s greatest prophets, was obviously a wine drinker according to Daniel 10:3. But there is no indication he was a drunkard.

Isaiah 5:11, 22 says it is not good to begin drinking early and consistently and continuing all day until you become inflamed. It is also not good when mighty men, leaders, mingle their wine with their strength. Here again is reference to the misuse of wine as opposed to the proper use, as we see also in Proverbs 31:4–7.

The Bible tells us it doesn’t matter what we eat or drink as long as we don’t lose sight of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Jesus himself said it is not what goes into our mouth that defiles us but that which comes out (Mark 7:15).

Jesus’ disciples drank wine (Luke 5:33). But Jesus told them later not to be so drunk or caught up in the things of life that they are not ready for his coming (Luke 21:34). And indications are that Jesus also drank in moderation (Luke 5:30). At his last supper, which was actually a Passover feast, four cups of wine were ceremonially taken by each participant. But Jesus said, “I will not drink hence-forth of this fruit of the vine” indicating that he had drunk the first three cups but would not take the fourth, which represented his blood (Matthew 26:29). The Pharisees called Jesus a “wine bibber” according to Jesus in Matthew 11:19.

It is Jesus who actually glorifies the vine, equating himself to it in John 15:1–6: “I am the vine, ye are the branches.”

In light of these and many other references to the use of wine found in the Bible, why do we Christians continue to call the proper, moderate, social or medicinal use of wine or similar alcoholic beverages sinful and still insist that the first miracle performed by Jesus, that which manifested his glory, was to turn 162 gallons of water into unfermented grape juice, the kind that could not ferment any during the week-long wedding festival in Cana? If that be the case Jesus’ miracle is much grander than we thought.

Complaints About Advertised Goods

We have received complaints from people who have ordered charts from the Illustrated Chart of History Company in Auburn, Washington, as advertised in BAR. While obviously BAR cannot be responsible for its advertisers, we do feel our readers should be advised of these facts.—Ed.

BAR’s Ads

To the Editor:

I recognize that advertising revenue is a necessity in today’s publishing world, and I rejoice in the fact that BAR does not contain the type of advertising contained in certain other magazines and journals.

I write to ask that you reconsider accepting advertising that is of dubious and questionable merit, and cite the following examples from the September/October issue:

Illustrated Chart of History, pp. 14–15

Discovery of Ancient America, p. 68

History in Acts and Secret Administration, GLSBR, p. 77.

By accepting advertising promoting the sale of these articles, you cause the casual reader to suspect the validity of scholarship for the magazine as a whole. The printed statement “Advertising in Biblical Archaeology Review does not necessarily imply editorial endorsement” does not really address the issue that I have raised. BAR is too good a journal to be cheapened in this manner.

Putting BAR to Good Use

To the Editor:

Your magazine is fascinating. I always enjoyed it while in the seminary, and find it even more important now that I’m an ordained priest. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve referred to it in a homily or adult education study group.

Keep up the good quality and attractive format. It’s a great publication!

075

To the Editor:

Biblical Archaeology Review is a source of great joy for me. I believe your work is blessed by God in a very special way, for I have been edified by every issue that I have read.

I thank God and you for such a helpful publication.

Theories and Theories

To the Editor:

There are several points to be made about W. H. Steibing’s article, “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement in Canaan Be Redated?” BAR 11:04.

GAD: The term “generally accepted date” does not mean that the information is correct. It only means that a large number of scholars believe it to be so, or simply accept it, for many different reasons. However, the consistent use of this term gives the paper an authority it is not entitled to have. Only good arguments win respect, and help solve problems.

Conventional chronology (GAD): I find nowhere in his paper any reference to any possible problems related to this theory. For that is what it is, and as such should be subjected to study, investigation and change. Anyone who has followed the debate in the journals knows that problems exist and some important changes have been made. The Hammurabi dynasty was moved some 500 years closer to our time. The “Admonitions of Ipuwer” until recently were considered to belong to the first Intermediate Period. But Stiebing doesn’t inform his reader of this. Would he call this radical thinking?

We are also expected to believe that some names given to sites (i.e., Ai, Dan, etc.) are the actual Biblical places. The present location of Tel Dan, for an example, does not conform with the Biblical information. The so-called evidence is a single reference to a “Dan,” and an ancient temple, assumed to be the one built by Jeroboam. Are we not entitled to question this?

What Stiebing is talking about is theory—his theory, as opposed to another theory. All theories have problems.

William H. Stiebing, Jr., replies:

I have to agree with Mr. Schlecker’s contention that the conventional chronology of Near Eastern events or the GAD (“generally accepted date”) is only a “theory” or scholarly construct. But this is true for all human knowledge. All so-called factual statements are actually “theories” built upon unprovable premises. We cannot prove that our senses give us a correct picture of the real world or that the future will be like the past, yet all science rests on those premises. However, once it is admitted that all scientific and historical statements are “theories” to one degree or another, it does not follow that all theories are created equal. While all theories have problems, as Mr. Schlecker states, some have more problems than others. Those theories which explain the evidence most completely and most simply are the ones that should be accepted.

I did not claim that the conventional chronology had no problems. In fact, in my article I admitted that there is still room for change and improvement in Palestinian archaeological chronology. And my discussion admits that the lack of agreement between archaeological evidence and the Biblical accounts of the patriarchs, Exodus and settlement is a problem which has to be faced. Most Biblical scholars and archaeologists solve that problem by accepting the view that Biblical writers used traditional materials in constructing their accounts of early events, and that those traditional 076materials may not always have been totally accurate. This theory is preferable to those of Courville and Bimson which in trying to make archaeological evidence agree with the Biblical accounts of the conquest produce major discrepancies between Biblical accounts and archaeological evidence belonging to the period of the Hebrew monarchies.

The change in the date for Hammurabi mentioned by Mr. Schlecker is the outcome of the generations of careful, scholarly labor which have gone into the development of Near Eastern chronology. That shift in date occurred some 40–50 years ago due to discoveries of textual evidence at Mari and Alalakh. But chronologies are like jigsaw puzzles. As more and more pieces are put in place and interlock, the necessity for radical shifts of pieces decreases and the probability that there will be major changes in the picture lessens. As a result of the large number of careful, scientific excavations over the last 25 years, it is unlikely that changes in dates of 500 or 1,000 years for the Bronze Ages or historical periods will occur in the future.

Finally, let me say a word or two about the identification of archaeological sites. Mr. Schlecker correctly points out that many Palestinian sites cannot be conclusively identified with places mentioned in the Bible. However, the identifications of the sites thought to represent ancient Jericho, Ai, Lachish, Bethel, etc. were not just pulled out of a hat. They have been arrived at after careful consideration of all textual and geographical evidence and have stood the test of scholarly scrutiny and debate. Some sites represent the only viable locations for the Biblical cities they are identified with. If Mr. Schlecker knows of viable sites for the ancient cities of Beersheba, Jericho and Samaria other than Tel Beersheba, Tell es-Sultan and Sebastiyeh, respectively, he must have information not available to Palestinian archaeologists. Let him propose his new identifications and see if they stand the test of scholarly scrutiny. Of course, some sites can be identified on the basis of inscriptions found on the sites themselves. Gibeon (el-Jib) and Dibon (Dhiban) fall into this category. And like Beersheba and Jericho, Gibeon presents problems for a Late Bronze Age Exodus regardless of the the specific date (1450 or 1250) one chooses. Gibeon seems to have been a small unwalled village in the Middle and Late Bronze periods. And neither Gibeon nor Dibon can be fit into the revised chronologies of Courville or Bimson, both of which make the Late Bronze Age correspond to the era of the Hebrew monarchies. So it is clear that the conflicts between archaeology and the Biblical description of the Exodus and conquest are not due simply to widespread misidentification of the sites.

The Maya and the Mormons

To the Editor: