Queries & Comments

012

No More Smug One-Liners

I find articles such as John Bimson and David Livingston’s “Redating the Exodus,” BAR 13:05, and “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” BAR 13:06, by Baruch Halpern, to be both interesting and relevant.

However, I found the tone of Halpern’s article very insulting. An article disagreeing with a proposed theory should present a logical argument as to why the proposed theory is in error. It should also attempt to discuss problems in the generally accepted theory that prompted Bimson and Livingston to propose a new one.

Any rational argument presented in Halpern’s article was lost in his almost continuous stream of flippant and smug one-liners. The article by Bimson and Livingston was presented in a scholarly and rational manner. It is proper that BAR should solicit and publish an article in rebuttal; however, BAR should see to it that all articles present a discussion of ideas instead of personal insults.

I appreciate your magazine for its factual presentation of opposing viewpoints and theories. I hope in the future you can keep the discussion on a scholarly and mature level.

I have been a subscriber of your excellent magazine for a number of years. In fact, I’m even “paid up” till February 1992.

I have appreciated your “both sides” approach, and wouldn’t think of canceling my subscription like some when I disagree with an article.

Baruch Halpern’s rebuttal of Bimson and Livingston’s redating of the Exodus, however, displayed a “scholarly sarcasm” that not only manifested his biased mental attitude toward those who disagree with him, but caused me to wonder why such a periodical as BAR did not select a more gentlemanly scholar to express his opinion than one who vented his acrimonious, scathing views.

Suppose Halpern is right. He did not have to hide behind his scholarly knowledge and ridicule such scholars as Bimson and Livingston with remarks like “gratifying their ego by siring a revisionist theory”; labeling them “highly idiosyncratic”; and Bimson and Livingston’s “smorgasbord approach.”

Halpern’s article too is a “smorgasbord.” He has an egotistical disapprobation of those who are not in his camp. He, too, is “highly idiosyncratic.” Much of his hypothesis, though covered with veneer, is coated with warts. To hear him tell it, one would think that he thought he wrote the Bible. Even if he disagrees with Bimson and Livingston, or anyone else, he could have done it in a gentlemanly manner.

What a shame you had to spoil the November/December 1987 issue (which is one of the best you have published) with an article like “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” BAR 13:06. Such an article is more suitable for the National Enquirer than for your prestigious magazine. Baruch Halpern lost much of the credibility of his argument by his vehement and venomous approach to the subject, and BAR lost even more by printing the article without any editorial control.

Believe me, it is out of the great respect I have for your work that I write this.

At last—an article written by some authors who respect the Bible as a historical and religious source! I refer to the excellent article on the redating of the Exodus [by Bimson and Livingston] in your September/October issue. The reply by Baruch Halpern is interesting, too, but I believe that Bimson and Livingston’s approach will eventually carry the day (even if theirs is not the last word on the subject).

I do have a question or two for Dr. Halpern.

It seems to me, Dr. Halpern, that the dating of Joshua to the seventh century B.C. is based on very fragile grounds. So is your approach that miracles cannot a priori be part of objective historical writing (nonsense!); or that apparent contradictions and editorial changes by later hands of older texts (such as might be the explanation for the use of the names Pithom and Raamses, though I doubt it) demand the conclusion that the Bible is constructed “from a jumble of invention, poetic or folkloric glorification, and legitimate oral tradition.” These allegations have long since been shown to be basically without foundation, and it is high time the Biblical scholarship community abandoned this approach.

I agree that Bimson and Livingston, as you have pointed out, have not solved every problem even concerning the Biblical narratives themselves, let alone chronology. But to substitute an approach based on 013theses with an even less objective philosophical basis is bound to prove erroneous.

As an evangelical Christian (“fundamentalist”), I was deeply interested in Baruch Halpern’s article on the Exodus. While willing to ponder his academic points, I found his ad hominem jibes to be intellectually dishonest.

After all, a century ago only the Bible mentioned the Hittites, and higher criticism considered Homer’s writings to be pure fiction. As for the impossibility of miracles, study our blood’s platelet system. Does anyone honestly “believe” that it evolved?

As for me and my house, we will stick to the New Scofield NIV [New International Version of the Bible] as reasonable authority. Along with true intellectual honesty, it offers love, joy and peace.

The Real Basis for the Exodus

The Exodus from Egypt and the subsequent Conquest of Canaan seem to provide an inexhaustible source of articles with an astonishingly wide range of views.

For example, Baruch Halpern (“Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” BAR 13:06) takes seriously the esoteric dating of John Bimson and David Livingston (“Redating the Exodus,” BAR 13:05). This simply does too much honor to the “lunatic fringe” growing around the archaeology of Palestine. I would remind both parties—and also my esteemed fellow archaeologists—that the history of Israel begins with the Monarchy of David and Solomon and their administrative records which formed the Vorlage for the Books of Kings onwards. Thus, the Biblical account and the archaeological evidence go hand in hand from the 10th century B.C.E. on. Everything earlier, however, was probably fixed for the first time in writing during or shortly after the Babylonian exile, that is, around the 6th century B.C.E. It is very unsound methodology to use this material to reconstruct the history of the end of the 2nd millennium B.C.E.

Nearly all peoples of which we have information have heroic epic tales concerned with miraculous migrations, fantastic battles and supernatural deeds by the protagonists of these tales. For example, in the Serbian guslar songs recited for several hundred years since the battle of Kosovo in 1389 between the Turks and the Serbs, we can see how the three basic elements of each story—i.e., the events, the personages and the place—begin to float in time and space after even a relatively short time. Each of the three elements is carefully preserved in varying degree for the first two or three generations of bards, but then begins a process of additions, omissions and telescoping. Events that took place are put in a different chronological order, persons who in the beginning had nothing to do with these particular events suddenly appear as protagonists at places where they never were, and certain events “wander,” often from one geographical environment to another. Deeds which for the bard or his audience concern less important figures are attributed to a few dominant characters who gradually assume the role of “superheroes.”

058

Because we can control the historical events concerning the battle of Kosovo by several historical sources on both sides—i.e., the Ottoman Turkish historiography as well as local Slavic monastic records—we can follow these developments very closely and study the process.

Similar trends are found with respect to the battle of Troy as recorded by Homer and other classical writers, the Finnish Kalevala, the Persian Shahnameh of Firdousi, the Japanese Kojiki and Nihongi (although to a lesser extent), the Irish Leabhar Gabhala, the Book of Conquests and many other epic creations.

In all cases we can see a “historical” event with its participants in a particular setting become “ephemerized” by successive layers of additional elements, certain omissions of “unnecessary” facts and reinterpretation in a new environment. It would seem foolish to base the archaeology of Finland, Iran, Japan or Ireland on these tales which undoubtedly all have some sort of a historical core but are distorted beyond recognition.

The same applies to the “Exodus” tradition and the “Conquest”: There must have been many “Exodi” and several conquests that might have started the Biblical account. For example, there was some sort of migration of early Semitic tribes from northeast Africa into Syria-Palestine by the end of the 4th millennium B.C.E. Emmanuel Anati has proposed a somewhat later date (i.e., the 3rd millennium B.C.E.), based on his excavations at Har Karkom in the Negev (“Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?” BAR 11:04). Rudolph Cohen places a migration along similar lines around the transition from the 3rd to 2nd millennium B.C.E. (“The Mysterious MBI People—Does the Exodus Tradition in the Bible Preserve the Tradition of Their Entry into Canaan?” BAR 09:04). The majority of scholars, however, favor the end of the 2nd millennium, for good reason as demonstrated by Halpern.

All this shows is that anytime was a good time for an “Exodus” and, thereafter, for a “Conquest.”

Not even the “where” can be guessed at with any certainty, for “Egypt” had different borders at different times, sometimes as far north as southern Lebanon.

Is it so difficult to accept the first books of the Hebrew Bible for what they are: a grand epic created by a great mind (or minds) with roots deep in the memory of the people and its neighbors, using epic songs, folklore and literary material originating from all over the Ancient Near East? The material was re-interpreted and adjusted to the psychological needs of the deportees in Babylon for a particular purpose: to preserve their religious and national identity when confronted with the highly sophisticated civilization of Babylon. This epic shaped the people of Israel as they saw themselves at a certain point of time and gave meaning to their lives, just as the Greeks formed, or were formed by, the tales of Homer. But both works are allegories, literature in the purest sense—and not history as we understand it today. The greatness of these creations cannot be proved or disproved by poking around in the ground. Nevertheless, these literary works are of utmost importance for understanding what happened later because these works themselves made history, but they do not provide evidence for the events described.

In the faint hope of not having stepped on too many toes, I remain, yours truly,

The Bible Was Not Written by God

O Lord! Deliver me from fools and fanatics and things that go bump in the night.

The Bible was NOT written by God, nor was it entirely inspired by Him. It was, for the most part written by men long after the events described occurred. Some books were written to preserve the words of major and minor prophets, others are recorded history, and some, like the Creation story, are fables designed to explain what would otherwise be incomprehensible to the people of those days.

It is an important collection of literature covering about 2,000 years of history of the area.

I get a lot of enjoyment, and knowledge of the past, as well as a much better understanding of the people and times of the Old and New Testaments from BAR. Keep up the good work.

As for the selling of “articles against God,” they too are a part of the history of a people. There is only one God, regardless of what name people choose to call Him, Yawa, Jehova, Allah, Lord, Baal, Aton, etc. He answers to thousands of names, He doesn’t care what people call Him, as long as they recognize that He is their Creator, Eternal Father, and the object of their love and adoration. He is above the pettiness of men and beyond their comprehension. People worship Him in different ways, even today.

People of intelligence recognize this fact, and accept the value of such items for the knowledge they bring and for the beautiful workmanship of the artist.

Why Not Admit They Don’t Know?

I have been reading BAR for 12 years.

It is my opinion that Near Eastern chronology is very poorly understood at this time, and that many of your articles debating one theory against another are not very useful.

It would be refreshing if your writers would simply say they just don’t know the answer to many questions.

Which Lysenko Is Halpern Talking About?

Who, in Baruch Halpern’s aggressive “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” BAR 13:06, is Vladimir Lysenko? Is Halpern making a rather daring comparison of his targets with the notorious, sinister Stalinist plant biologist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko? He could at least get the name right.

A Layman Learns Hebrew

I read Professor William La Sor’s article (“Learning Biblical Languages,” BAR 13:06) on studying the Bible in the original languages with great interest since I have done exactly as he suggests. I am not a scholar but I always wanted to be able to read the Bible in Hebrew but lacked the courage to attempt it.

In January 1985, three members of our Bible study group attended a BAS seminar in Douglas, Arizona. In the discussions that followed, Dr. Siegfried Horn of BAS’s faculty encouraged me to start studying Hebrew.

What followed was a struggle to get materials and basically to find a way to get started. The main difficulty was that I live in a small town where there is no one who has any knowledge of this language, no Jewish community, only one bookstore, and no one who understands why a Christian Gentile would even want to learn Hebrew. Still, almost three years later, I am reading the weekly Torah portion and translating fast enough to keep ahead of the weekly reading.

I enjoy BAR and Bible Review very much. My study of the Bible and my understanding of the roots from which it springs have been enriched.

059

Other Explanations of the Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa

Ze’ev Yeivin’s article, “The Mysterious Silver Hoard from Eshtemoa,” BAR 13:06, was fascinating. Trying to explain what the hoard represents is, indeed, difficult.

However, I wonder if Mr. Yeivin overlooked several possibilities. One is suggested by Leviticus 5:14–16, regarding guilt offerings:

“The Lord said to Moses: ‘When a person commits a violation and sins unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord’s holy things, he is to bring to the Lord as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering. He must make restitution for what he has failed to do in regard to the holy things, add a fifth of the value to that and give it all to the priest, who will make atonement for him with the ram as a guilt offering, and he will be forgiven.’” (NIV)

Another possibility is Leviticus 27:31—“If a man release any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it.” In fact, there are several “fifths” mentioned in Leviticus 27.

The silver treasure found at Eshtemoa is intriguing. Despite Yeivin’s rejection of the suggestion that it is David’s hoard, I still believe it is possible. Consider the possibility that David’s treasure was kept intact to show his might to future generations, as we might today put things in a museum. A century or more later, the city is threatened by an invasion. The hoard is hastily put in jars, and jewelry cut to fit the narrow necks of the jars. All is then buried until found by 20th century archaeologists.

Time Line Reflects Mormon Theology

I deeply respect BAS and your journal BAR. Your continual pursuit of accuracy and your commitment to historical excellence is well known. Because of your standards, I was surprised to see an advertisement in your magazine that supports blatant archaeological deception and historical inaccuracies.

The ad for the “International Time Line” in your November/December 1987 issue appears to be for a legitimate educational tool. However, upon examining the chart, I found the inclusion of the 060“Nephites.” This chart, according to International Timeline, Inc., was made by Mr. Ron Carlio of Salt Lake City; the manufacturer states that, while it “is not a Mormon Chart, there are a few items on it that are influenced by Mormon Theology.”

Since there is absolutely no evidence for the Nephites mentioned on the chart, nor can the claims be substantiated even to the slightest degree among reputable scholars, one must question the validity of the ad in BAR. Appearing in BAR lends too much credibility to a chart that contains absolute fabrications.

In my own research to authenticate the Mormon claims of the “Nephite Culture,” the following organizations agreed that there was no historical/archaeological basis for this culture: National Geographic Society; Anthropology Department, University of Illinois at Chicago; Anthropology Department, University of Illinois at Urbana; Anthropology Department, University of Utah; Anthropology Department, Illinois State University; Anthropology Department, State University of New York at Buffalo; American Museum of Natural History; Anthropology Department, Yale University, etc.

Does Biblical Equal Christian?

This is in response to Mr. Terry Seng’s letter in the September/October issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 13:05) which states that he “thought BAR was a Christian magazine because of the word ‘Biblical’ in the title”!

This is cultural illiteracy in its most glaring form. Evidently Mr. Seng never heard of the Original Testament at least three thousand years old (erroneously referred to as the Old Testament) which existed centuries before Christianity.

Mr. Seng should know that there was (and still is) a “Bible” long before the advent of Christianity.

Mr. Z. Replies

Your article “Intrigue and the Scroll—Behind the Scenes of Israel’s Acquisition of the Temple Scroll,” BAR 13:06, is 90% correct. Kando informed me that he was a licensed antiquities dealer. Therefore, nothing was illegal. Secondly, Dr. Yadin trusted me implicitly as we had other dealings which were not recorded. Many of his statements were made for public consumption—to sell books.

Michelangelo Causes Cancellations

Among the many joys of your publication are the letters to the editor. I can’t wait, from month to month, to discover who has canceled his subscription and for what reason. The September/October issue contained, I guess, the all-time champions: All those roars and screams about magical formulas and spells. I thought I had read the offending May/June issue from cover to cover, but given Kevin T. McOmber’s blast I had to go back and check the fine print. Darn it, I had missed the spells for copulation and erections. If McOmber and Pastor John Paulston found them, then they must truly have been searching for titillation.

Obviously, since these gentlemen have cancelled their subscriptions they won’t see this letter, but some of your other readers might be amused to learn of a famous Life magazine story that caused a blizzard of cancellations. The issue included a story on Las Vegas chorus girls and another on the Sistine chapel. When readers wrote to cancel because of “dirty pictures,” the staff first assumed it must have been the chorus girls. Not at all: It was Michelangelo’s depiction of Adam without any clothes on.

Keep up your free and fearless coverage. It is refreshing and illuminating.

Neutral Dating

I was just given a number of issues of your fascinating magazine which I read avidly. It is truly a great magazine; very informative, interesting and readable. How did I miss it all these years?

I assume BAR has more than just a Christian readership and I would therefore like to suggest that datings should be made in a more “neutral” fashion. B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini) are particularly Christian references and pertain to Christian beliefs. The Israel Museum uses CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the Common Era), but perhaps you can come up with something better. I, at any rate, found it quite jarring to read about events such as the Exodus or Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi’s codification of the Mishnah, to give only two examples, with a B.C. or A.D. dating. In fact I felt there was something ludicrous about it. In this ecumenical age, a greater sensitivity would, I think, be in order.

012

Come Dig at Tel Miqne-Ekron, Where They’re Doing All These Exciting Things—A BAR Apology

In our January/February issue (“1988 Excavation Opportunities,” BAR 14:01) we showed dramatic close-up pictures of three volunteers performing careful and important excavation tasks. All three of these volunteers were working at Tel Miqne-Ekron, an excavation directed by Trude Dothan of Hebrew University and Seymour Gitin, director of the Albright School for Archaeological Research. Although the pictures were credited in small type to “Tel Miqne-Ekron, photo by Ilan Sztulman,” the captions to the photos consisted of quotations from dig directors at other sites, leading some to conclude erroneously that the activities pictured occurred at those other sites. In fact, all pictured activities took place at Tel Miqne-Ekron. We are sorry if we unintentionally implied otherwise. If you would like to dig this summer at Tel Miqne-Ekron, contact Professor Ernest S. Frerichs, Volunteer Director, Brown University, Providence, RI. 02912–1826. Tel.: (401) 863–3900.

No More Smug One-Liners

I find articles such as John Bimson and David Livingston’s “Redating the Exodus,” BAR 13:05, and “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,” BAR 13:06, by Baruch Halpern, to be both interesting and relevant.