Queries & Comments

020

Philistines in the Patriarchal Era

To the Editor:

The announcement of the dig at Tel Haror (“Places to Dig this Summer,” BAR 12:01) mentions the “Philistine king Abimelech” in connection with Abraham. Since Abraham is dated roughly 18th century B.C. and the Philistines did not invade Canaan until the 12th century B.C., how could Abimelech possibly have been a Philistine? Since he was king of Gerar, might he not better have been called Canaanite or even Egyptian (near Gaza)?

I agree heartily with the complaint about your misuse of the words “Palestine” and “Philistine” (Queries & Comments, BAR 11:01). But I love your magazine and will continue to read it even if it occasionally makes me angry.

The reference to Abimelech as a Philistine may be anachronistic. Or as a BAR reader noted several years ago, when the Biblical writer wrote down the story hundreds of years after the events described, he used a more “up-to-date” term to emphasize the then-current hegemony of that area, for at the time he wrote, the area was controlled by the Philistines (see “Patriarchal References to Philistines Not Anachronistic,” BAR 08:06, by Charles E. Gersch.)—Ed.

Old Testament and Tanakh

To the Editor:

In your November/December 1985 issue, you list the award categories for the BAS publication awards. I was offended that the Jewish scriptures are called “The Old Testament” (their Christian name) rather than “The Tanakh” (their Jewish name). We are not all Christians, nor do we all view history through Christian eyes.

Please call our Jewish books by their own name. I do not consider the Tanakh to be the Old Testament.

A solution might be to write “The Tanakh” followed by “The Old Testament” in parenthesis.

Tanakh is a Hebrew acronym combining the initial letter of the three sections of the Hebrew Bible: The Pentateuch (Torah), the Prophets (Nevi’im) and the Writings (Kethuvim), which suggests another solution: call these books, in the aggregate, the Hebrew Bible.—Ed.

Ecumenical and Interfaith

To the Editor:

Having been a subscriber to BAR for two years now, I know how punctilious scholars can be when interpreting archaeological finds. As a rabbi, I am also part of a tradition that prides itself on recognizing that the difference between a comma and a period can be significant. Therefore, please permit me to suggest a correction to your fine story on the Biblical Garden in Manhattan (BARlines, BAR 12:01). The project is described as “ecumenical,” since its board includes Christians and Jews.

To my understanding and that of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language “ecumenical” signifies “of or pertaining to the worldwide Christian church, especially in regard to unity.” As one who was once guilty of the same error, I hope that you consider this a proper forum for pointing out that there is a significant difference between the terms “ecumenical” and “interfaith,” the latter being appropriate in this case.

Linguistics aside, thank you for your fine publication and for making me aware of such an interesting site to explore.

022

The 11-Day Journey From Sinai To Kadesh-Barnea

To the Editor:

Professor Emmanuel Anati’s article in the July/August 1985 BAR (“Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?” BAR 11:04) certainly made a very good case that Har Karkom is Mt. Sinai. “The Mountain of God,” to which both Moses and Elijah made pilgrimages, was no doubt a place of pilgrimage for other people as well.

However, Deuteronomy 1:2 says “it is eleven days’ journey from Horeb [Sinai] unto Kadesh-Barnea by the way of Mt. Seir.” Professor Anati’s map shows Har Karkom about 25 or 30 miles from Kadesh-Barnea. Would it have taken 11 days to go that short a distance?

Professor Emmanuel Anati replies:

Thank you for your query concerning Deuteronomy 1:2, which reads: “ … eleven days’ journey from Mt. Horeb [Mt. Sinai] to Kadesh-Barnea by the way of Mt. Seir.”

This passage is discussed in full in my book Har Karkom (Milan: Jaca Book, 1984) [in Italian]. I shall summarize here the principal relevant elements.

From various Biblical passages it appears that there are several ways to go from Horeb to Kadesh-Barnea. According to Deuteronomy 1:2, this one, via Mt. Seir, requires 11 days, meaning that there are ten stations on the way, or ten wells where one can get water.

As I analyzed in my book, before the domestication of the camel, a human group in the desert could hardly have covered more than an average of 15–20 km daily. And they would have needed water every day.

The book also explains the topographical and other elements that allowed me to propose the identification of Mt. Seir with Jebel Arif en-Nake. From Har Karkom to Ein Kudeirat (Kadesh-Barnea) by way of Jebel Arif en-Nake, there is only one way offering water sources at intervals of no more than 15–20 km.

From Har Karkom to Ein Kudeirat the distances are:

It was a very nice walk and the landscape is splendid! With camels it takes 4 to 5 days; with a jeep you can make it in one day. But for a walking team it takes 11 days to go “from Har Karkom to Ein Kudeirat by way of Jebel Arif en-Nake.”

The Mystery of Indian Origins

To the Editor:

Howard W. Goodkind’s article on the Maya and the Mormons (“Lord Kingsborough Lost His Fortune Trying to Prove the Maya Were Descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes,” BAR 11:05) drew fire, but history sides with Professor Goodkind.

From Columbus to the discovery of Asian migrations across the Bering Strait, the mystery of Indian origins had crucial religious ramifications: If the American Indian was not somehow descended from Adam, the creation stories in Genesis could be challenged. Such Biblical criticism and talk of “pre-Adamite” creations were answered by positing the Indian’s Hebrew lineage. Like Cotton Mather’s sermons (1721), Morse’s Geography (1793) and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (1823, 1825), the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith in 1830 traced the Indians to migrant Hebrew tribes. He told of a revelation from the Book of Mormon prophet Moroni who “said the Indians were literal descendants of Abraham” (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. 76)

Should BAR Limit Itself to Advertising Only Faith Promoting Books?

To the Editor:

I was disturbed very much by the Prometheus Books ad on the next to the last page of the November/December 1985 issue. All four of the books appear to be anti-Christian. I would hope that in the future you would screen your ads and not promote faith-damaging books. If I started to read this issue at the back, I would not have much appetite for the other articles—which I did find helpful. I hope you can reassure me and others.

Christian-oid Advertising Embarrassing

To the Editor:

Another issue just arrived, full of interesting articles, but also full of embarrassing ads pushing every stripe of Christian-oid stuff.

I do not challenge your right to print them (although I question the wisdom of doing so if you want your magazine to be taken seriously), and I have no interest in suppressing the advertisers or their products. Yet somehow, I find myself hiding my issues from my Biblical scholar colleagues and refraining from sending my anthropology students to your issues because of the faintly crankish flavor some of these ads contribute to what I usually think of as otherwise a responsible and interesting magazine popularizing Biblical archaeology. (The “Rapture Question”? The “Eschatology Foundation”! Really, now!)

Gems of the Bible No Advertising Gem

To the Editor:

I was disgusted to find a full page ad promoting colored stones for investment purposes in 024the January/February issue.

The practice of soliciting investors to buy the so-called gem stones has been branded as misleading and insidious by gemologists and investment analysts.

Your need for revenue from ads does not justify such a blatant error of judgment, even if the advertiser chooses to name his operation so conveniently, “Gems of the Bible.”

The Eschatology Foundation’s Tasteless Ad

To the Editor:

The evidences of first-rate scholarship and good taste that I have come to expect of BAR are certainly lowered when you accept an ad from the Eschatology Foundation. The sole purpose of this foundation is to feed people’s hunger for knowledge with sensationalism.

In this day and age, scholars have learned enough about ancient languages and history to know about apocalyptic writing—why it was used, to whom it spoke and what it meant. The writers of Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation all made use of it. The people of their day understood, and were encouraged to hold fast to the belief that God was indeed still steadfast in his love for his people. This is the message of these writings for us today. The message is not found in taking literally the symbols that were used and trying to apply them to today’s world. You encourage people to follow false prophets, and to believe in the occult, which is specifically forbidden in many places in the Bible, when you print these ads in your magazine.

I am an Episcopalian, and my daughter is an Orthodox Jew who lives in Israel. I have been a teacher of the Bible for many years, and I have a deep appreciation of the followers of all religious beliefs. Those who operate on the level of the Eschatology Foundation are doing a terrible disservice to people who are seeking understanding.

The Other Side of the Ad Question

To the Editor:

As a regular advertiser in BAR for the last three years, we have been pleased by the excellent subscriber response to our research tapes. We also have appreciated BAR’s “open minded” policy, by accepting “alternative views” both in articles and advertising.

It is our conviction that many readers would object to the narrow perspective expressed by Ray Biggers in Queries & Comments, BAR 12:01. He asks BAR to “reconsider accepting advertising that is of dubious and questionable merit. … ”

Since Mr. Biggers has never requested any of our advertised research we wonder about the validity of the “issue” he has raised. Surely any scholar or researcher would thoroughly check his thesis before waxing eloquent.

As an alternative view, is it not better to allow a mature response from BAR readers without being paternal? We would encourage the free exchange of ideas in all areas of Biblical research. Only then can true knowledge and understanding expand the frontiers of discovery.

We regret that our advertisements have offended some of the more delicate minds, but as long as there is a consensus of support, we hope to continue. Thanks, BAR for promoting research without censorship!

To the Editor:

I read with interest under “BAR’s Ads” (Queries & Comments, BAR 12:01), that my book [Discovery of Ancient America] was listed by a reader, a Mr. Biggers, as “of dubious and questionable merit.” This comment was listed directly under “Complaints About Advertised Goods.” It would appear to the casual reader that Mr. Biggers had read the book, with its supportive evidence, and somehow felt that it was nonsense. This is not the case. I have checked my files, and Mr. Biggers had not been sent a copy of the book.

The man has obviously not read the material. If he were to criticize my conclusion, that would be one thing, but his comments stem from pure prejudice. I have sent him a copy to read, perhaps he will alter his opinion.

By the way, I have perused the Illustrated Chart of History which Mr. Biggers also criticizes and I agree with him.

To the Editor:

I enjoy your magazine very much, and have for about ten years, since it was given to me as a gift.

In the January/February issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 12:01), a subscriber complains that he did not receive the Illustrated Chart of History, which was advertised in BAR. I, too, wrote to you about it, and I also wrote to the publisher of the chart. From him I received a letter of apology for the delay in filling the order.

I did receive the Illustrated Chart of History, and I felt it was well worth waiting for. It is a masterpiece, and as far as I know, it is quite accurate. I recommend it to any student of history, which I really am not, but I enjoy it.

To the Editor:

I am appealing to BAR because of poor treatment by the company producing the Illustrated Chart of History which was advertised prominently earlier in 1985. I used an 068order coupon from an issue of BAR to place an order for a chart in November and enclosed a personal check for $39.95, hoping to receive it for a Christmas gift to my husband. The chart never came, but the cancelled check was resumed in my January bank statement.

My letter of inquiry has never been answered. I am disappointed not to receive the chart, let alone lose the forty dollars. Can you help me in this matter?

The company that advertised and sold the Illustrated Chart of History is now bankrupt, and, as the above letter indicates, does not appear to be fulfilling orders or returning money. In addition, according to papers filed with the bankruptcy court, it owes thousands of dollars to magazines in which it advertised, including Archaeology magazine (a publication of the Archaeological Institute of America), Christianity Today, Eternity magazine, Virtue magazine, the Saturday Evening Post, as well as to BAR.—Ed.

Asking Questions

To the Editor:

I, for one, am becoming tired of those irate readers who feel that they are the final authority on everything “BIBLICAL.”

BAR is a valuable publication because its editors are willing to share the varying results of archaeological research in the historic and geographic Bible areas of the world. The magazine offers no answers, but it does raise crucial questions about the origins and ancestors of our faith. The questions raised help to keep my faith alive and searching.

I would offer a suggestion to my fellow readers who cannot accept the questions raised in this magazine. Give your subscription to someone who wants to search and question—and return to the comfort of pure Bible. But don’t condemn the ones who do ask questions and search. If Job had not asked, he would not have found the glory of God.

020

Jerusalem Painting Now Available

Many readers have asked how to obtain a print of Lloyd K. Townsend’s beautiful painting of Jerusalem at the time of Solomon, published in the November/December 1985 BAR (“The City of David After Five Years of Digging,” BAR 11:06). Mr. Townsend has responded to these requests.

The Jerusalem reconstruction painting is now available unframed as a 23” × 11” full-color print, or framed in gold wood with a linen liner. To order, send $25 for an unframed print or $80 for a framed print to Lloyd K. Townsend, P.O. Box 36, Maytown, PA 17550. Allow 6–8 weeks for delivery.

Philistines in the Patriarchal Era

To the Editor: