Queries & Comments

018

Is BAR Losing Its Touch?

The lastest BAR is unique. It seems to contain no cancel-my-subscription! letters. You must be losing your touch!

See below.—Ed.

BAR’s Magic Revelations—Have We Gone Too Far?

You have gone too far.

In your May/June 1987 edition you published a book review (The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Vol. 1, in Books in Brief, BAR 13:03) describing the ancient arts of magic and “The Role of the Magician.” You even went so far as to give detailed information of “Some Magical Formulas and Spells.”

Do you realize what you have done?

Don’t you know the reality of the realm of occultism: magic, charms, spells, curses, etc.?

Perhaps you think it is all primitive superstition.

I can tell you assuredly that this kind of practice is strictly forbidden throughout the Scriptures and is condemned by God.

In Deuteronomy 18:9–12 the whole realm of occultism (magic, spiritism, fortune telling, etc.) is referred to as an abomination to the Lord, and all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord.

Read it! Do you believe this? If so, why did you publish such a thing?

In Biblical times witchcraft was punishable by death (Exodus 22:18; 22:17 in Hebrew). God hates magic as much today as he did then.

The realm of the supernatural is very real. Don’t be deceived.

And don’t offer it to your readers as something that needs to be understood and studied.

The Bible states it clearly: “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” They are the same.

Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? Yes or no?

I urge you to publicly confess, renounce and repent of all association with those evil practices and to confine your material to the limits prescribed in Scripture.

More Cancellations on Magic Account

Please cancel my subscription to your magazine.

I thought it was a Christian magazine because of the “Biblical” in the title, but when I opened up the issue to “Some Magical Formula and Spells,” I knew I didn’t want it in my house. We study and learn about the Bible to obey the Lord and to seek ways to please him. These magical formulas and spells are overstepping his word.

We have enjoyed BAR for several years and have given subscriptions to it as gifts for our pastor and friends.

However, today when the May/June issue arrived, I was very shocked to see the two boxes on “The Role of the Magician,” BAR 13:03, and “Some Magical Formulas and Spells,” BAR 13:03.

If we were into witchcraft or Satan worship, this material would come in very handy.

However, we find it very offensive and in direct opposition to our Christian belief. Certainly it conflicts with the Bible which speaks against witchcraft.

We would therefore like you to cancel our subscription.

I find the references to magical formulas for copulation and erection both vulgar and disgusting. I do not think these kind of statements are necessary to the scholastic impact of the article, and certainly do nothing to impress anyone with the supposed “Christian” purpose of your magazine. I had hoped to find a magazine that would not only help me in my studies, but that would be interesting for my children as well. Now I find that I’m going to have to read each issue to eliminate vulgarities and innuendos before I allow them to read it.

Please cancel my subscription immediately, as it has no place in my home. I wonder if it has a place in God’s heart?

In the May/June issue you have a highlighted area called “Some Magical Formulas and Spells,” BAR 13:03.

To find this type of garbage in your magazine is not only surprising to me but I consider it a major error by your editors! To publish spells for love, attraction, drinking, copulating and inducing erections is disgusting. If I wanted to subscribe to and read this kind of garbage I’m sure I could find a magazine on the shelves of most any drugstore.

Please cancel my subscription.

020

Books on Magic Should Be Destroyed!

I have decided not to subscribe to your magazine and I felt I should tell you why.

In your May/June 1987 issue you write “unfortunately, almost all of the ancient magic books were suppressed, destroyed. … ” These books should be destroyed, and it’s not unfortunate they were destroyed.

Did Akhenaten Get His Monotheism from the Israelites?

Donald B. Redford’s article on Akhenaten in May/June 1987 (“The Monotheism of the Heretic Pharaoh,” BAR 13:03) was extremely interesting and informative.

While Redford denies any correlation between Akhenaten’s monotheism and that of Moses and the Israelites, he does raise the issue that numerous scholars believe there was such a correlation.

The question is of vital significance in that it addresses the origin of monotheism among the Israelites; was it influenced by God, or from a pharaoh who was a heretic in the eyes of his own people?

At the very core of the argument, however is the question of the date of the Exodus. Recent scholarship, continuing to hold to a late date (thirteenth century B.C.), obviously would allow for Akhenaten’s influence on Moses. An early date (mid-15th century), on the other hand, would invalidate the whole theory.

In fact, intriguingly, it would suggest the possibility of just the opposite. An early date places the Exodus and Moses in a pre-Akhenaten period, and therefore it would be possible that Akhenaten might have been influenced toward a “monotheism” by the fierce monotheistic tradition of the enslaved Hebrews some seventy years earlier.

I agree with Professor Redford that it is inconceivable that Israelite monotheism owes anything to Akhenaten’s monotheism. However, I cannot assume, as he does, that Akhenaten predates Moses and the Exodus.

As always I find the articles and photographs in BAR superbly interesting and stimulating.

However, the article by Donald B. Redford in the May/June issue (“The Monotheism of the Heretic Pharaoh,” BAR 13:03) fell flat because of its close mindedness to the possibility that Akhenaten’s monotheism was the result of his contact with monotheistic Israel, and not the other way around.

If one accepts the early date of the Exodus (15th century B.C.) rather than the late date (13th century B.C.) then a more reasonable picture emerges—Akhenaten learned the truth of one God (monotheism) from a nation of people who worshipped one God to the exclusion of all pagan gods. It’s really difficult to picture a scenario of Akhenaten picking up the concept of monotheism out of the blue, and then influencing a nation of oppressed people, when as history shows, he couldn’t even influence his followers after his death.

I hope that some day you will publish an article on the early date versus the late date of the Exodus.

Professor Redford accepts the prevailing scholarly view that the development of Israelite monotheism occurred after Akhenaten’s reign. For the argument for a 15th-century B.C. Exodus, see “Redating the Exodus,” in this issue.—Ed.

Was Akhenaten a Monotheist or a Henotheist?

Donald Redford’s article, “The Monotheism of the Heretic Pharaoh,” BAR 13:03, was both interesting and generally well written. His contrast between Atenism and the ethical religion of Hebrew Yahwism demonstrated the improbability of one influencing the other.

Unfortunately, Redford’s article neglected to grapple with another important issue. “Let us call a spade a spade,” he wrote. “Akhenaten was a monotheist.” Was he? Not all scholars would agree. Henotheism may actually be a more accurate description of Akhenaten’s faith. Henotheism is the worship of one god to the exclusion of all others without actually denying the existence of others.

The illustration includes a small figure of Ma’at, the goddess of truth. The word truth, ma’at, could be written without the goddess’s figure used as an ideogram. The late director of the Oriental Institute, John A. Wilson, wrote, “It is futile to claim that this was the language of poetical imagery; in ancient Egypt personification was deification and not a figure of speech.”

The “Hymn to the Sun-Disc” that accompanied Redford’s article began with the words—“Adoration of (double cartouche of the Sun-Disc) … ” By not translating the words within the cartouches, an important piece of evidence was glossed over. The two cartouches read “Living 021Horus of the Two Horizons, exalted in the eastern horizon in his name Shu (god of the air) who is in the Aten.” The use of the names Shu and the falcon-headed Horus of the Horizons (Harakhte) suggests syncretism. Nevertheless, Redford dogmatically asserts that there is no syncretism in Akhenaten’s faith. “Akhenaten’s god does not accept and absorb,” states Redford.

A final argument against accepting Atenism as true monotheism is the fact that Akhenaten was worshipped as a god. He continued to use the titles “The Good God” and “Son of Ra.” The scenes from the Amarna tombs portray the pharaoh and his family worshipping Aten while his courtiers bow in adoration to him. The fact that the people’s sole contact with Atenism was through the pharaoh was a major factor why Atenism failed to survive Akhenaten’s death.

Donald Redford replies

The conclusion that Akhenaten was a monotheist was not adopted without reason. Akhenaten’s use of locutions stressing the “oneness” of his deity, the absence of any evidence in art or text that he functioned as cultic celebrant before any other god (beyond the first year of his reign), the occasional deliberate erasure of the plural “gods,” his iconoclastic expunging of almost all symbolism relating to all other gods—this points unequivocally to monotheism. Moreover, the new text from the 10th pylon seems to say that all other gods have “ceased” (whatever precisely that may mean) in contrast to the unique sun which continues to exist and function.

Mr. Klemm refers to an unfortunate quotation from Wilson; it is simply misleading: Egyptian art teems with heraldic devices, many of them “personifications,” which in no way involve “deification” of the things represented. In most cases they are icons or symbols loosely connected with a deity or a cult, and that is perhaps why Akhenaten was at pains to remove them from the artistic repertoire. (This process of “purification” of the minor arts was carried through more rigorously at Amarna than at Thebes.)

The didactic name of the deity in no way proves any syncretistic tendency in the king’s thought. The names used are all solar designations which in the vernacular of the New Kingdom were gravitating to the status of common nouns: thus, Re, Shu and Aten are often used with the generic article to render “the sun,” “the daylight” and “the sun-disc,” respectively. The name should perhaps be rendered “Live the Horizon-sun, he who rejoices in the horizon in his name ‘Light which is in/from the Disc.’”

That Akhenaten continued to use such standard titles as Good God, son of Re, etc., in no way convicts him of inconsistency, nor does the ubiquitous proskynesis of his courtiers prove his deity. Everyone in ancient Egypt grovelled before a superior; and by the New Kingdom “God (or perfect) god” was taken about as seriously as the Kaiser’s “Allerhöchst.”

The Same Spot on the Wall

Thank you for the excitement of BAR, issue after issue.

A question about the article “King Solomon’s Wall Still Supports the Temple Mount,” BAR 13:03. There are two pictures of the “straight joint.” One picture clearly shows a small tree trunk and also bushes growing out of the wall near the “straight joint.” However they do not appear in the other picture. Are these two pictures of the same spot on the wall?

069

Keep up the great work. I always eagerly await the next issue.

Both photos include the same portion of the wall. The two photos were taken at different times, which probably accounts for the difference in vegetation.—Ed.

Akkadian, Not Sumerian

I very much enjoyed reading Ernest-Marie Laperrousaz’s article on King Solomon’s Wall (“King Solomon’s Wall Still Supports the Temple Mount,” BAR 13:03).

However, the Cyrus Cylinder is identified as “The Sumerian inscription written in cuneiform.” Even though the text is written in cuneiform, the language of the text is not Sumerian but Akkadian.

Yours is a wonderful periodical. I read it “religiously.”

Rabbi Dr. Sonsino is correct that the inscription is not in Sumerian. According to Professor William Hallo, the inscription’s language is Akkadian. We regret the error.—Ed.

Rolling Stones Pictured in BAR

For one photograph in the May/June issue the caption to the picture identifies it as “rolling stones at the Temple Mount.”

From the picture itself, it is obvious only one of the Rolling Stones is there. The question is which one? Mick? Keith? Woody? Where are the other members of the Rolling Stones? Are they there, but not in the picture?

Remember, you published the Superman article (which I liked) years ago.^a Now it’s my turn.

Calculating Ancient Dates

I have subscribed to BAR for a number of years and now to Bible Review. I am pleased with both. Maybe I am asking something out of your field, but I would like to get information on how the dates and times are determined. I don’t think ancient man knew that he was living in, for example, 4000 B.C. How was the count started?

James F. Strange, Dean, University of South Florida replies:

The question of how dates are determined in the ancient period is a good one. Fortunately, we are not entirely in the dark.

In the ancient world we usually find people dating events by the regnal year of a king (as in ancient Israel), during a year named for some special event (as in ancient Babylon) or by a calendar of some other sort (as in ancient Egypt). You are right that no one knew they were living in “4000 B.C.”

It has fallen to successors of the past to recalculate those dates, where they could. The ancient Greeks and Romans did their part in recalculating ancient dates. During the Middle Ages the church took those dates and recalculated them as “Before Christ” (B.C.) or “Anno Domini” (In the year of our Lord: A.D.). Today we can check certain dates against celestial mechanics, calculating when an eclipse of the sun or moon occurred in some area when it is mentioned in an ancient text.

Sometimes we can check a date against Carbon 14 dating, but that is only good within an error of plus or minus 10%, which does not satisfy most people.

The result is an elaborate system for recalculating dates by modern calendars. We sometimes find errors have crept in along the way, so now we have to say that Jesus was born—strange as it may sound—in 4 B.C.

I hope you put this useful and not too arcane.

Rabbi Fierman Replies to Professor Rothenberg

I would like to reply to Professor Beno Rothenberg’s letter in the May/June issue of BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 13:03).

The BAR article of September/October 1986 under my name (“Rabbi Nelson Glueck: An Archaeologist’s Secret Life in the Service of the OSS,” BAR 12:05) was based on an earlier scholarly article I wrote for the Journal of Reform Judaism. This was so stated in the BAR article.

If Professor Rothenberg had read this earlier article, it may be that much of his letter would not have been written.

My reference to Fritz Frank is characterized by Rothenberg as coming from a “letter supposed to have been written by Nelson 070Glueck.” The letter in fact came to me from CIA records through the Freedom of Information Act. It took five years of waiting and persistence before I received 156 documents of which numbers 88 through 156 carry many deletions. The references to Fritz Frank are in the letters of the OSS. I am only quoting. Rothenberg’s quarrel regarding Fritz Frank is with Glueck and not with me, although as I read the information, Glueck did not write of Frank as favorably as does Professor Rothenberg.

Now as to Nelson Glueck “Spying Out the Country.” There are many references in the OSS letters Nelson Glueck wrote to his American archaeology colleagues in which he described the conditions of the country. Glueck was an American patriot. He not only conveyed the Nazi presence but he assessed America’s allies, the British and the French, as well as reporting back the burgeoning of Jewish Palestine into the forthcoming State of Israel, and what might happen once the war with the Nazis was terminated.

With respect to maps, Glueck had the cooperation of his British counterparts and he borrowed their maps. According to the OSS accounts, he ordered film and sought precise cameras that were the property of the United States government. It was not as easy to obtain necessary war information as Beno Rothenberg indicates.

The letters contain a fascinating reference in which Glueck states that if necessary he will pitch his tent in the desert (and this is not poetry), reminiscent of the patriarchs in Holy Scriptures. He would there wait until passing Bedouin would curiously come to his tent and he would exchange hospitality for conversation.

My assessment of Glueck is totally objective. I stand by my conclusions.

How Was the Arad Fortress from Solomon’s Time Supplied With Water?

I found your coverage of Arad in the March/April issue (“Arad—An Ancient Israelite Fortress with a Temple to Yahweh,” BAR 13:02) most fascinating. I have one question concerning the water supply system. If the well outside the fortress walls was not planned as part of the water system until the time of Stratum X, how was the fortress of Stratum XI of Solomon’s time able to provide itself with a reliable supply of water?

Anson Rainey replies:

Though it is true that the water channel seems to have been cut in the rock when the solid wall of Stratum X was built, it does not necessarily follow that the underground chambers were cut at that time. I have always believed that those chambers were carved out from natural caves that had existed in bedrock under the fortress.

The date of the temple to Stratum XI is certain, as I will explain below, and the presence of a fort and especially a cultic building requires an internal water supply, just as Mr. Nunes-Vaz observes. In fact, there are similar natural caverns in the ridges around Arad and the Bedouin use them even today. Under the Early Bronze city of Arad, I remember that Ruth Amiran found traces of Chalcolithic occupation in such dug-out caves.

As for the date of the Arad temple in relation to the Iron Age stratigraphy, there can be no doubt that it was built in Stratum XI. The reason is as follows: The back wall of the Holy of Holies, the inner sacred chamber, was built smack dab against the inner wall of the Stratum XI casemate. The solid wall of Stratum X may have used the outside line of the former Stratum XI wall but on the inside of the fort, the stubs of the old Stratum XI wall were visible there in the northwestern corner. It was obvious to every intelligent person who examined the two walls—that of the Holy of Holies and that of the inner casemate line of Stratum XI—that they were built at the same time. Such a clear-cut 071stratigraphic detail is seldom found in the complex of walls within a fort like Arad. I remember that the late Professor Yadin originally doubted that the temple was built in Stratum XI. He thought it was built in Stratum X. In fact he doubted the existence of the casemate wall of Stratum XI. But I, myself, was present when the late Emmanuel Dunayevsky showed Yadin that the back wall of the temple was built against, and therefore contemporary with, the casemate wall, which was older than the solid wall of Stratum X. Admittedly, I never heard Professor Yadin say that he had accepted this evidence. In 1967, I was privileged to excavate the second projecting tower on the west side of the Stratum XI casemate system. It had been severely cut by the solid wall of Stratum X.

In the northwest corner of the fortress, behind the temple, we found that on the north side, the solid wall of Stratum X was really the casemate wall of Stratum XI, now filled up with stones. I remember well how Professor Elmo Scoggin led a group of students from North Carolina in the arduous task of digging the stones out of the solid wall and how they soon came down into the original casemate wall. An important cache of pottery from that casemate room, covered by the stone fill of Stratum X, provides one of the best loci of ceramic material from Stratum XI. The Stratum XI casemate room showed signs that there had been a destruction by fire. Since Shishak says that he found two fortresses (the hqrm) at Arad, and Stratum XI is the first fortress there, it stands to reason that the destruction of that casemate room was caused in 925 B.C. Some have tried to deny that hqrm means fortress; I find their arguments mere acts of desperation.

To sum up, I believe the Stratum XI temple had an entry into the underground water cisterns via the southwest corner of the temple. Whether this entryway was from a room of the temple or from just outside of the building is hard to say.

Incidentally, the channel to the cisterns was discovered when a jet trainer buzzed the tell, causing a volunteer to jump from the top of the solid wall into the chamber at the southwest corner of the temple. As she touched the floor, she began to sink!

Ads for False Gods

The May/June BAR contains an ad for a statue of Thoth, the god of Intellect and Magic, and an ad selling “The sacred Ibis of Egypt.”

Why would a magazine based on the Bible offer for sale articles so against God—indeed false gods—so often spoken against in the Bible?

Is BAR Losing Its Touch?

The lastest BAR is unique. It seems to contain no cancel-my-subscription! letters. You must be losing your touch!