Queries & Comments

014

Garden Tomb Article a “Real Shocker”

To the Editor:

The Garden Tomb article (“The Garden Tomb—Was Jesus Buried Here?” BAR 12:02) in your March/April issue is a real shocker. For more than 40 years, I have believed and have been teaching that this was Christ’s tomb.

Garden Tomb Article “An Offense”

To the Editor:

Most informed Christians are well aware that there are two tombs which are held by Catholics and Protestants (Baptists) to have received the body of Jesus when taken from the cross. My question is, why do you permit such delicate and very personal matters to be debated on the auction block of BAR? Aren’t there any better things to write about than to dig into personal matters where they offend and damage peoples’ beliefs?

Why doesn’t Mr. Barkay write an expose of the Catholic tomb where they believe Jesus was buried?

I have been in each of the tombs and studied them, and to me his article is poorly researched and certainly not authentic. His article is an offense to me and every other believer, informed and uninformed, who holds the Garden Tomb in awe.

The Garden Tomb Association Responds

To the Editor:

I have received several letters asking what my association feels about your article concerning the Garden Tomb.

In the field of archaeology I have no credentials to make any comment, but I do know something about the affairs of the Garden Tomb. I knew the current feature was planned, as we supplied pictures from our archives. I had also surmised that the verdict of the article would be to date the Garden Tomb as First Temple period, as this suggestion has been around for some time in Jerusalem.

We count it as a compliment that the Garden Tomb should be considered important enough to warrant “full treatment” in BAR.

Since the establishment of this association in 1893 we have sought to maintain the objectives defined in the Trust Deed:

“That the Garden Tomb be kept sacred as a quiet spot, and preserved on the one hand from desecration and on the other hand from superstitious uses.”

In relation to this purpose, we have sometimes suffered more from “Friends” of the Garden than from other sources!

One of your contributors has stated in another book, “It is impossible that the Garden Tomb could be the place of Christ’s burial.” We are content that such verbal certitude should be available for those who seek it.

If we have any disappointments over the articles they would be:

(1) Our “skeleton in the closet” is probably the drawing by General Gordon which we have never fully understood nor accepted as relevant to our story.

(2) The “Nonnus” inscription (see “The Garden Tomb and the Misfortunes of an Inscription,” BAR 12:02) Jerome Murphy-O’Connor) was never quoted by this association as having any significance for the Garden Tomb.

(3) It is interesting to learn that Professor Barkay made a series of visits to the Garden Tomb in 1974 as no approach or request was made to our Trustees for an official investigation.

(4) The reported “sponsored excavation” in 1955 is also news to us. In the 1950s an American group called “Defenders” did help with funds to repair our cistern (we needed the water!) and their “findings” and subsequent publicity would provide material more hilarious than the Nonnus tombstone.

(5) The mention of oil lamps brings a touch of humor to the situation. They were not discovered on this site, but had belonged to an archaeological society who had been granted storage space by one of our caretakers until—after some years—we needed the room and when no one claimed the objects they remained in a corner of our premises until visitors “took” them as souvenirs.

We should want to emphasize that our ministry in this place is more concerned with the theology of Christ’s Resurrection than with the archaeology of Arimathea’s Tomb.

A Pilgrim’s View of the Garden Tomb

To the Editor:

In 1984 I made a trip to the Holy Land and it is a journey I would recommend.

016

I found the Garden Tomb a highlight of the tour. It is a beautiful garden and there is a tomb and a rock that looks like a skull. The Garden Tomb spoke more to my heart, far more than did the Holy Sepulchre which I found dark and gloomy surrounded by a huge church. The Garden Tomb really looks like a garden tomb and so I could picture it more at the time of Jesus. So I would say what moves the “pilgrim” matters more than what is claimed for the site.

I suppose this makes no sense to you and does not really change anything as you go on to prove the Garden Tomb cannot be the tomb of Jesus. I suppose my head agrees but my heart says no.

I was so thrilled to walk on the Temple Mount, although it is no longer the temple of my God. And though I am not Jewish, I was moved to touch the Western Wall, although, I know, don’t say it, it is not the Temple Wall, but like the Jew, to me, it is the Temple Wall.

But I so enjoy BAR and I love archaeology.

In Defense of the Garden Tomb

To the Editor:

BAR is a fascinating magazine! And Gabriel Barkay is an able archaeologist. The article he authored with Amos Kloner on the Iron Age tombs at St. Etienne was instructive and insightful (“Jerusalem Tombs From the Days of the First Temple,” BAR 12:02). By contrast, his article on the Garden Tomb was unconvincing and disappointing. It did not seem to me his best work. It offered no real evidence that the Garden Tomb was cut out during the First Temple period rather than the Second Temple period, and also ignored impressive literary evidence from the New Testament in favor of the Garden Tomb being the sepulchre of Jesus.

Only about three pages of the article were devoted to the archaeology of the tomb itself. The remainder seemed overconcerned with exposing the “mystery” of General Gordon and the “psychology” of the 19th century. The “Detailed Description” lacked any reference to the outside facade of the tomb, which is so important in understanding the tomb’s history. The article suggests that the Garden Tomb’s close proximity to the tombs of St. Etienne (St. Stephen) is an indication that the former was cut out in the Iron Age. Illustrations and diagrams are employed to suggest that the whole area (including the Garden Tomb) was indeed one Iron Age complex. But proximity alone proves little unless supported by other similarities, and no significant similarities were exposed. In fact, the article brought to my attention a number of important dissimilarities.

The Garden Tomb boasts none of the elaborate cornices or sunken panels which were so well displayed in the article on the St. Etienne tombs. If the Garden Tomb were of the same genre as those at St. Etienne we might expect to see similar designs in the walls, but there are none. The inner chamber of the Garden Tomb has a nefesh (or a “soul window”) which is not a feature of the St. Etienne complex; indeed, the article does not even deal with the nefesh.

Basic measurements of the Garden Tomb are entirely different from the St. Etienne complex. Entrances at St. Etienne were 6 feet high from the floor. By contrast the entrance to the Garden Tomb is set well above the floor, and is only 4 ½ feet tall. The author himself admits it was probably originally smaller (perhaps as small as 2 ½ feet!). It is unfortunate that the entrance to the Garden Tomb’s inner chamber has been altered, so that no comparison is possible. Also, the 6-foot ceiling of the Garden Tomb’s entrance chamber is much shorter than the 10-foot ceiling at St. Etienne. No dimensions were given for the height of the burial rooms at St. Etienne, but the photos indicate they are also higher than at the Garden Tomb. Certainly if the Garden Tomb were of the same period as the tombs at St. Etienne we could expect dimensional features more similar than these.

The most striking difference between the interiors of the tombs was the absence of any repository for bones in the Garden Tomb. Impressive repositories are featured in the photos from St. Etienne, and each burial room at St. Etienne had such a repository. That the Garden Tomb has none suggests it is not of the same period. Indeed, one might ask, what was to become of old bones in the Garden Tomb, since there was no repository? My guess is that they were meant to be stored in ossuaries, the small stone coffins that are a feature of the Second Temple period.

The author does make a valid point of the triple bench arrangement in the Garden Tomb’s inner chamber, comparable to the triple bench plan of St. Etienne. But such an arrangement is not exclusively a First Temple period feature. Examples of triple bench chambers are also known from Second Temple period tombs, where the benches served as shelves for ossuaries. In some cases these tombs had arcosolia (arched niches) for the ossuaries, but in other cases, as at the Garden Tomb, they did not. The absence of arcosolia in the Garden Tomb may even be an indicator that the tomb was never completed, as hinted at in the New Testament.

The article points out that the Garden Tomb’s inner chamber sits to the side of the entrance chamber, not behind as in many Second Temple tombs. But such an arrangement is not an ironclad requirement of Second Temple tombs. It may be that the Garden Tomb’s owner knew of the close proximity of the older St. Etienne complex and did not wish to risk breaking through to it by digging behind the entrance chamber. Another possibility is that the Garden Tomb was an essentially unfinished project, as suggested above. The New Testament account of a “young man sitting on the right side” in Jesus’ sepulchre would certainly coincide with the Garden Tomb’s inner chamber which is also on the right.

The article also pointed out that the Garden Tomb contained no kokhim (perpendicular burial vaults) which are often found in Second Temple period tombs. Again, however, kokhim are not an inescapable feature of the period; and again, we have to consider 017that the Garden Tomb may never have been completed, and therefore no kokhim dug out. In any case, it is improbable that Jesus was laid in a kokh. The New Testament accounts tell of visitors peering into the sepulchre to Jesus’ resting place which was visible from outside. This does not seem possible with a kokh.

The article’s attempt to connect Iron Age lamps and other items, all found in a closet, to the interior of the Garden Tomb is a risky proposition. Mr. Barkay well knows the impropriety of judging ceramic remains out of their proper context. Who is to say where they were found? It is certainly as possible they were discovered in an area away from the tomb as that they were found inside it. As for the absence of comb chiseling, any visitor to Jerusalem can see tons of Second Temple period stonework devoid of comb chisel marks.

The attempt to deal with the exterior of the tomb in a footnote was disappointing. What the author calls a “Crusader channel” does not seem to go anywhere nor is it correctly cut for drainage. Much more likely is that it is a track for a huge rolling stone. The New Testament specifies a “great stone” that “rolled.” It is probably not coincidental that the track is the same width as at the “Tomb of Kings” not far away. The tired and wornout theory that the area in front of the tomb was a Crusader stable is inconceivable. The tomb was obviously used as either an early Christian shrine or a Byzantine tomb, or possibly both. When did Crusaders ever convert a Christian shrine or a Christian tomb into a stable? When did Crusaders ever lower a solid stone floor (as was laboriously done in front of the Garden Tomb track) for a structure as common as a stable? On the other hand, such labor would not be unexpected at the site of an early Christian shrine of major importance, such as the tomb of the Resurrection.

Of course, if it turns out that the Garden Tomb belongs to a period other than Jesus’, it would not really matter. As the first host I ever met at the Garden Tomb expressed it: “The most remarkable thing about the tomb is that it is empty. He is arisen!” We need no shrine to know of the reality of the resurrection. To me, however, even having read Mr. Barkay’s article, the Garden Tomb still remains the best candidate for the Second Temple period tomb from which the Christ rose again.

To the Editor:

In comparing the Garden Tomb with the tombs at St. Etienne, I note five points of similarity: (1) flat ceilings, (2) rectangular doorways, (3) lack of chisel marks, (4) burial troughs carved from the host rock, and (5) reuse of the tombs during Byzantine times. The fourth and fifth similarities do not directly support Mr. Barkay’s dating of the Garden Tomb, however, since he argues that the burial troughs at St. Etienne were carved at the time of the tombs’ construction, while the troughs at the Garden Tomb were dug out of what originally were burial shelves.

Now in the Garden Tomb I also note seven 058points of dissimilarity with the tombs at St. Etienne: (1) no cornices, (2) no panels, (3) differing floor levels between rooms, (4) an entrance directly from the outside, as opposed to a descending passageway carved in the rock, (5) length, breadth and height based on neither the long nor the short cubit, (6) the burial room located to the right of the entrance chamber, even though it could have been carved directly opposite the entry (in each of the St. Etienne caves, the room to the right of the entrance chamber was reserved for some function other than burial), and (7) no repository for bones.

Given these dissimilarities, it seems to me that the Garden Tomb was not formed by the same workers as those who dug the tombs at St. Etienne, in spite of proximity. The Garden Tomb carvers designed the rooms differently, used different standards of measurement, carved the floor at differing levels, omitted the extra effort of carving cornices and/or panels, and made no provision for the First Temple (and older) practice of redepositing bones in a separate burial repository.

And, if the Garden Tomb was not carved by the same workers at those at St. Etienne, can we conclude with Mr. Barkay that both were formed during the same period?

Again, my thanks for a fine publication.

Schick Was Swiss

To the Editor:

In the articles on the Garden Tomb, Conrad Schick (1822–1901), who was one of the first to investigate the cave, is said to have been of German origin. In fact, he was Swiss, and went to Palestine in 1846 as an emissary of the St. Krischona Mission of Basle. The Encyclopaedia Judaica makes the same mistake about his German origin (Jerusalem, 1972, Vol. 15, p. 957). The beautiful house Schick built for himself, called “Tabor,” on the Street of Prophets in Jerusalem, is worth visiting.

Mr. Noy is correct. We erred by relying on the Encylopaedia Judaica.—Ed.

The Inscription Allegedly Relating to the Garden Tomb

To the Editor:

The photographs of our tombs (“Jerusalem Tombs From the Days of the First Temple,” BAR 12:02) by Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner, are wonderful, really astonishing. The lighting is very clever and successful. I never saw so well the reliefs in the walls.

In a sidebar to the Garden Tomb article (“The Garden Tomb and the Misfortunes of an Inscription,” BAR 12:02), Jerome Murphy-O’Connor describes two inscriptions found at our monastery which he believes were used by advocates of the Garden Tomb to support their claim as to the authenticity of the Garden Tomb. The first inscription is referred to as the Nonnus inscription which mentions that Nonnus was both a monk at St. Stephen’s and a deacon of the Holy Sepulchre. From this it was argued that the Holy Sepulchre must have been near the monastery of St. Stephen’s. The Garden Tomb fits that description.

The second inscription, as reported by Murphy-O’Connor says simply, “Private tomb of the deacon Euthymius Pindiris.” The advocates of the authenticity of the Garden Tomb would find it difficult to get much support from this to bolster their case. Murphy-O’Connor says they confused the two inscriptions and took the name Euthymius to be Eusebius because of the similarity of sound. More important, they relied on both inscriptions as belonging to people whose tomb inscriptions indicated they were buried near “my Lord” (i.e., Jesus). In fact, there was only one such inscription.

But the advocates of the Garden Tomb had a better case than Murphy-O’Connor gives them credit for. There is a second inscription that I believe they relied on that Murphy-O’Connor does not mention. The second inscription Murphy-O’Connor does cite has little, if anything, to do with their case. A relevant second inscription does exist. It is carved in the rock above the entrance of the tomb of Nonnus. The words are taken from Psalm 90:1: “Who dwells in the help of the Most High.” (ho katiokon en bo[etheia] tou Hy[psisto]u Qui habitatin aduitorio Altissimi). It is easy to see how these words were taken to mean that the deceased was buried near his Lord.^a

For me, this, not the inscription Murphy O’Connor cites, explains the oft-repeated claim of the defenders of the Garden Tomb.

Of course the claim that the Garden Tomb is Jesus’ burial site is wrong. It is also a calumny to make the claim, as was done by the advocates of the Garden Tomb, that the inscriptions were found at the Garden Tomb and were stolen away from there. The Nonnus inscription was found in the atrium of St. Stephen’s Church and remains there. The second inscription could not be stolen and taken away from the Garden Tomb, since it is carved in the rock, just beneath the Nonnus inscription, where it can still be seen.

Where Are the Skulls?

To the Editor:

Re: Your March/April 1986 issue:

My curiosity was whetted with the publication of the repository for the bones of those who long ago died. Would someone please advise me as to the reason(s) for the absence of their skulls?

Gabriel Barkay replies:

The skulls are there, but because they are large and hollow, they break more easily than the long bones of the body. Skull fragments are in the repositories but are not easily distinguished from the other bones visible in the photographs.

Father de Vaux’s Prenatal Publication

To the Editor:

Thank you for inadvertently revealing the hitherto unknown secret of Father Roland de Vaux’s great scholarly ability. I already knew that some of his work had been published posthumously, but I was amazed to learn that he published prenatally as well. Born in 1903, 064he is credited with having published an archaeological report in 1885 (“Jerusalem Tombs From the Days of the First Temple,” BAR 12:02). Perhaps the same God who said to Jeremiah “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you … ” also told Father de Vaux “Before I formed you in the womb I enabled you to write.” Inspiration of the highest order!

Baron Ludovic de Vaux, not Father Roland de Vaux, published the Garden Tomb excavation results in 1885. The mistake is BAR’s, not author Barkay’s.—Ed.

An Expert Assesses BAR’s Photos

To the Editor:

Your publication is tops. I am retired from 30 years in commercial photography and photo lab work; therefore my appreciation of your photographs is more than just casual. I especially appreciate the photos of artifacts and other close-ups.

Should BAR Publish Letters Regarding the Bible’s Fallibility?

To the Editor:

I am profoundly interested in every issue of your magazine and also find the “Queries & Comments” informative and sometimes amusing. However, I do not think that it does your publication justice to print comments and arguments regarding the fallibility of the Bible. It is not a suitable platform for such an area of discussion and detracts from the study and enlightenment provided by archaeology as a whole.

Surely your editorial staff could adopt a policy of withholding any letter or portion thereof that comments on the subject. You must surely receive sufficient mail to allow you to forego that subject in favor of something more “amusing and informative.”

Boo! Bah! and Humbug! Keep your opinions to yourself. I am myself a believer in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Facts and Faith

To the Editor:

I am a bit taken aback by the quibbling letters, expressing a sense of unwarranted defensiveness. Nobody’s faith should be shaken by the facts as described in BAR articles.

It might be worthwhile to reprint BAR’s original editorial statement (“Introducing … the BAR,” BAR 01:01). For the edification of those who have joined the ranks of satisfied BAR readers since then, let me repeat this very clearly expressed statement:

“We have our own commitment which we shall make explicit at the outset. Our commitment is to scientific truth, not to sacred truth. Not that we deny or denigrate the validity of sacred truth, simply that sacred truth is for each man or woman to find on his or her own, in his or her own way.”

Those readers who threaten or announce their subscription cancellation are of weak faith, a faith that can be shaken by whatever facts are revealed in BAR. Faith is something that does not require proof. Faith is inviolate—and those who have faith can have their Biblical enjoyment enhanced by archaeological discoveries.

Keep up your wonderful work, my own enthusiasm continues unabated, and I just love to learn and improve my mind’s-eye picture of eras long since passed.

Zertal’s Altar—19th Century Biblical Archaeology

To the Editor:

Adam Zertal’s defense of his altar theory (“How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong!” BAR 12:01) is a beautiful example of 19th-century Biblical archaeology scholarship.

Zertal criticizes me for forming opinions after only a one-hour visit to the site. One hour is more than enough, however, to examine a structure eight by nine meters. And seeing it during the process of excavation is more important than visiting it afterwards when most of the evidence is no longer in situ.

Moreover, when I visited the excavation in October 1982, Zertal had already adopted his “Joshua’s altar” theory. He had mentioned the possibility that this structure was Joshua’s altar even before the excavation. Several archaeologists will testify to this. This closes the matter of objective research, which Zertal so emphatically stresses in his rejoinder to my article (“Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12:01).

Now to the merits of Zertal’s argument:

1. Modern archaeology works mainly by 065analogy. We know that a building is a storehouse because we have modern examples or other analogies for the structure. We know that a horned altar from the Iron Age II period (1000–587 B.C.) is in fact an altar because we can trace its development until the Hellenistic period when inscriptions also testify to its function. The best analogies for the structure excavated by Zertal are the hundreds of watchtowers of all periods spread all over the hills and mountainous areas of Palestine. Their size, proportions and other technical features are almost identical with the structure Zertal excavated on Mt. Ebal.

Zertal argues that there is no reason for a watchtower to be located on the northeastern slope of Mt. Ebal, but ancient man’s reasons are not always clear to our modern way of thinking. Zertal’s argument is irrelevant in explaining the structure.

Moreover, there is no reason for an altar to be there, if we did not have the Biblical text that Zertal leans on for support.

From a purely archaeological viewpoint and on the basis of analogy, the structure is a tower; any other interpretation has to use really convincing arguments before it will be accepted by professional archaeologists.

2. Altars were holy objects. They were purified and cleaned. The ashes and remains of the offerings were removed from them. Altars from the Canaanite and Israelite periods have been found, but not a single one was used as a favissa.^b Zertal claims that the inside of his “altar,” on which the animals were sacrificed, was used as a burial place for their ashes and the bone remains. There is absolutely no analogy for this. I cannot understand how Zertal imagines the ritual: Were the animals slaughtered on the side walls of the structure and later their remains deposited layer after layer inside the “altar”? Or was the top of the “altar” surface reopened each time in order to deposit the bones?

3. And speaking of bones, how many are there inside “Joshua’s altar” after all? I read with interest what Ms. Kolska-Horwitz wrote about the bone remains as quoted by Zertal; and this simply convinced me that they are typical of what we would expect in a peasant community of that period. Professor E. Tchernov and Dr. I. Drori have written a very fine report about a similar bone assemblage that was published in our final report on Tell Masos.^c We paid no attention to the percentage of burnt bones, but as far as I recall they exceeded the nine percent recorded by Zertal on Mt. Ebal. So there is no unusual percentage of burnt bones. We would ordinarily expect at least nine percent of the bones (only 17 bones or bone fragments were found burnt at Mt. Ebal!) to be burnt; this is simply a normal percentage. If this were a special place for sacrificial offerings, we would expect a much larger percentage of burnt bones.

4. As to Zertal’s “ramp” and “secondary ramp,” he must be so bound to his altar theory that he cannot see that these are the remains of earlier walls that belonged to structures that existed before the watchtower was built. In my proposed plan [“Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12:01], I suggested that the “ramps” are earlier walls of a building that existed before the watchtower was built. In a later phase some of these early walls were incorporated into the room attached to the tower (phase 3). Field archaeology tries to explain architectural remains. Zertal’s contention that the “ramp” was a free-standing wall is only one of many other explanations that must be synchronized with the whole architectural system excavated. As I have already explained in my BAR article, Zertal’s narrow “ramp” could never be used as such; it would endanger the priests who would wish to climb up to the “altar.”

I have tried in vain to understand Zertal’s Biblical arguments as set forth in his rejoinder. The earliest extant manuscripts of Deuteronomy 7 came from the Dead Sea caves at Qumran. They date to the second/first centuries B.C. No one can be sure what the text was in the fourth/third-century B.C. vorlage, especially when the question concerns a place name (Mt. Ebal) that could have been changed in any edition before the Qumran copies.¹

The remains of buildings in the area around the altar (left of the green arrow in the illustration), what Zertal calls the “Inner Entrance,” provide an excellent indication of the character of the settlement. The similarity to the Giloh settlement (which I cited) is astonishing.² Both sites, one in Judea and the other in the hills of Samaria, provide a beautiful archaeological example of the earliest stage of the settlement of the Israelite tribes in the hill country. But there is no altar here.

On May 8, 1867, Victor Guerin climbed the slopes of Mt. Ebal looking for what he called a “precious monument”—the Altar of Joshua. For a mid-19th-century scholar, such an investigation was the most natural way to practice his profession. This was years before modern Biblical criticism had been developed, and almost a century before the “Qumran revolution” changed Biblical studies. Guerin mentions how empty the Ebal area was. He surveyed the few ruins he found. At noon he arrived at Khirbet Kalise (or Kanisse, the church), which faced the southern slope of Mt. Ebal. Since this was an ideal place for Joshua’s altar, according to the Biblical account, he started looking for it among the ruins. A square enclosure attracted his attention and he suggested that this might have been where Joshua’s altar once stood.^d

It took some 140 years until Adam Zertal, walking in the footsteps of a 19th-century scholar found this “precious monument”—Joshua’s altar—not on the top of the mountain but on the northeastern slope. The circle of 19th-century scholarship has been closed.

066

Zertal’s Altar—A Blatant Phony

To the Editor:

With reference to the so-called altar on Mt. Ebal published by Adam Zertal (“Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt. Ebal?” BAR 11:01), I wish to add my voice to that of Aharon Kempinski (“Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12:01) in rejecting the interpretation of this site as an altar. The entire interpretation by Zertal is a fabrication of wishful thinking and partial evidence. It is obvious to me and to other scholars that it is not an altar. The following points are decisive: (1) An altar would not be filled with animal bones; (2) The building had more than one phase, as seen by Kempinski; it was an early dwelling, later converted into a typical watchtower; (3) The supposed similarity to the picture of an altar taken from a popular edition of the Mishnah is pure fiction; (4) At a lecture he gave on February 9, 1986, at the Midwest SBL meeting in Berrien Springs, Michigan, Zertal let it slip that there are bones from nondomesticated animals in the fill along with sheep and goats! As for any relation to the altar ascribed to Joshua at Mt. Ebal (Joshua 8), the site touted by Zertal does not have eye contact with Mt. Gerizim. The ceremony depicted in the Bible clearly refers to a site where Gerizim is on one side and Mt. Ebal on the other. Only the very gullible will continue to support Zertal’s theory. All the facts are against it. The question must be raised about BAR’s editorial policy. Don’t the professionals on your advisory board ever get consulted? Is it your intention to pander to the sensational at the expense of scientific honesty? I speak for several professionals who agree about Zertal’s site but who probably won’t take the trouble to write. But I speak especially for myself. The Zertal altar on Ebal is a blatant phony.

Kempinski’s Outlandish Reconstruction

To the Editor:

Talk about letting your theological presuppositions color your archaeological opinion! Aharon Kempinski takes the cake. His article “Joshua’s Altar—An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12:01, begins with the assumption that Adam Zertal can’t interpret his own dig, even after five seasons of work there, while of course, Kempinski can do better with the benefit of one hour of examination and a single nontechnical article.

His outlandish reconstruction of who changed what mountain’s name in Deuteronomy is by far the most amusing though. Ignoring the fact that the Samaritans were the ones with the axe to grind and almost all serious Biblical scholars consider their version of the Pentateuch the later “corrected” edition, he then assumes the truth of his fantastic claim that the Jews changed the text out of jealousy; and then builds a complicated and unlikely scheme of redaction on this unfounded assumption. Remember, Kempinski, “Without this basic knowledge of the development of the Scriptures, Biblical archaeology can easily be transformed from a science into a theology.” In short, Kempinski is strangely playing into the hands of the Samaritans who set up this little drama out of jealousy for the Jews lo, these many years ago.

BAR’s “Trash Ads”

To the Editor:

Something critical must have happened to your financial situation and your integrity recently, for the sort of advertising we are seeing is an abomination!

067

For many years I have read your magazine avidly, and with proud respect shown it to friends—even gave it as a gift. The general format and policies have been exemplary! We eagerly await each new issue, but please do not be tempted to compromise yourselves with trash.

If you are in dire straits fiscally, you will need to increase your subscription rates.

Proud of BAR’s Open-Mindedness

To the Editor:

You are receiving letters from some who want you to stop accepting advertisements from Prometheus Books or anyone suggesting that Biblical books may have been written in a code, or allegorically. I have been proud of you for your apparent open-mindedness about what others believe they have discovered.

Don’t join the ranks of the bigoted. Scholars cannot afford to close their minds to any suggestions. Unorthodox ideas can be tolerated, and often even accepted, especially as long as the opposition continues to have free press.

BAR’s Ads Cheapen the Magazine

To the Editor:

I must register my hearty agreement with the letters published in Queries & Comments, BAR 12:02, questioning the ads by Prometheus and Eschatology Foundation. I would add my concern about the “GLSBR” ads and others placed by “fringe” groups that seriously cheapen the quality of an otherwise excellent periodical.

BAR has made a significant contribution to Biblical archaeology with its magnificent photographs, clear and detailed explanations, and incisive reporting on issues. If you wish, however, to be received as an entirely reputable publication, you must establish some advertising policy that prevents your accepting ads from “cultic” groups whose works have no scholarly basis or from groups intent on destroying another’s faith traditions.

Please clean up your otherwise beautiful magazine!!

Yigal Shiloh Replies to Terry and Kathy Small

To the Editor:

I have noted the suggestions of Terry and Kathy Small (Queries & Comments, BAR 12:02) concerning the possible interpretation of the nude bearded figure on the cult stand we excavated in the City of David (“The City of David After Five Years of Digging,” BAR 11:06). I agree about the possibility of their suggestions.

But we already noted these possibilities in our preliminary report on the excavations (Excavations at the City of David, 1, 1978–1982, QEDEM, Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology 19 [Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1984], p. 17). We there stated “that the various fragments joined to the upper part of a nude male figure with pointed beard and especially long hair.” We then stated:

“At the centre of the body there is an additional pair of hands (?). The figure may have carried some animal on its shoulders, with its feet dangling below, or the hands may have belonged to other figures which held the main one (a captive?) from either side. A similar depiction of the shape of the head, the hair and the beard is typical of the figures of the “Sea Peoples” from Enkomi in Cyprus. But there are also possible parallels for this nude figure in the depiction of two prisoners being led in a procession before a king (of Megiddo?), on an “ivory dagger” from Megiddo (13th–11th centuries B.C.E.).”

In view of the fragmentary state of preservation of the figure, we considered it an open question. That is why we gave two interpretations.

If you read the references cited in our footnotes, you will see that important scholars are still not sure of how to explain the “long hair dress” or feather crown of the Philistines. But the Smalls’ basic suggestion—that one pair of hands may have belonged to another figure who held the principal figure captive—is one I personally agree with.

Were Crucifixion Victims Nailed or Roped to the Cross?

To the Editor:

In your November/December 1985 issue, you report on a new study by Joseph Zias and Eliezer Sekeles of the crucified man from Givat ha-Miv’tar (“New Analysis of the Crucified Man,” BAR 11:06). Zias and Sekeles differ very considerably from the earlier analysis of Nico Haas reported in your January/February 1985 issue (“Crucifixion—The Archaeological Evidence,” BAR 11:01, by Vassilios Tzaferis).

Unfortunately, Dr. Haas cannot now defend his analysis from the shoddy scholarship of Zias and Sekeles. They studied the skeletal material just prior to its reburial 18 years ago and never again looked at it. All work conducted thereafter was with the use of photos and casts—which can be very misleading.

Zias and Sekeles are especially vulnerable in their claim that the victim’s arm was roped rather than nailed to the cross. Haas found a scratch on the right radius in the wrist that he claimed was the result of the puncture of a nail. Zias and Sekeles say this is “not convincing,” but they give no proof except to say that many bones show scratches. I too have worked with skeletal material from many tombs of this period, and experience with such remains allows one to be able to detect the “quality” of marks on bones—not all 068scratches are the same! One would expect this type of deep mark occurring naturally only if the bones had remained loose in the tomb; but these bones were reburied in an ossuary; they did not remain loose in the tomb. Bones in an ossuary would not be exposed to this type of wear and tear. The damage to the bones here could have only been inflicted either during life on fresh bone or during the period prior to reburial in the ossuary. If the bone were fresh, it would scratch or dent, as seen in the photos; if it had happened before placement in the ossuary, the bone would have been dry and show a rougher type of scratch and not really a dent. Thus, this scratch was made on fresh bone.

Zias and Sekeles also say that the practice of crucifixion originated in Egypt; for this they rely on J. Hewitt’s 1932 article in The Harvard Theological Review (“The Use of Nails in the Crucifixion,” pp. 29–45), which is not only terribly outdated, but gives no proof or references for its assertions! Zias and Sekeles say that there is ample literary and artistic evidence that ropes rather than nails were used to secure people to the cross—and again refer to Hewitt. A careful rereading of Hewitt, however, will show that he says just the opposite! Hewitt shows that nails, not ropes, were the standard, but that later artistic representations used rope. Zias and Sekeles are simply wrong when they say that “in Egypt … the victim was not nailed but tied.” There is not one ancient source that refers to or depicts the use of ropes to secure the hands.

Zias and Sekeles also claim that the Gospels make no reference to nails in Jesus’ hands. While it is true that the Gospels simply say Jesus was crucified, such a common practice as nailing the hands would not have to be explained in detail. Nevertheless, in Luke 24:39–40, Jesus tells the disciples to look at His hands and feet. Why? To see the rope burns? Obviously to see the nail marks! In John 20:20, when Jesus appears to His disciples, He shows them His hands and side, but Thomas wasn’t there (John 20:25) and refused to believe unless he could see for himself and put his finger in the nail marks in Christ’s hands and put his hand into the wound in His side. Then in verse 27, Thomas was given the opportunity. So how on earth can Zias and Sekeles say that the Gospels do not mention nails?

It’s really too bad that so many good publications have used their work at the expense of Dr. Haas who, as I say, can no longer defend himself.

Garden Tomb Article a “Real Shocker”

To the Editor:

The Garden Tomb article (“The Garden Tomb—Was Jesus Buried Here?” BAR 12:02) in your March/April issue is a real shocker. For more than 40 years, I have believed and have been teaching that this was Christ’s tomb.