Queries & Comments

012

Pornography in BAR

As a Sunday School teacher of twelve- and thirteen-year-old youths, mostly boys, I find the photographs that accompany the article “What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BAR 15:04, by Ephraim Stern, revolting and totally inappropriate for a “Biblical” magazine.

Your magazine has always been used in our Sunday School class. How can this kind of photo be necessary?

The photo with the woman holding her breasts is not as offensive as the one with the woman pointing to her genitals. The obviously pregnant figurines are in good taste and one can still use your magazine as a teaching aid in church classes, but the photo with the woman pointing to her genitals is, as you say, “explicit” and, as I say, disgusting and offensive to your women readers and to any person who has subscribed to your magazine for Biblical learning. As a Christian, I cannot accept this as a necessary part of learning.

Let me end by saying that I also am an artist, and find that the human body is a thing of beauty that God created. But pornography is not part of God’s creation. If these kinds of photos are in your magazine, then how can one teach young boys that purchasing pornographic books is wrong. They will only say, “Look at the picture that was in that Biblical magazine, it’s the same thing.”

Sacred Prostitution?

I read “What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BAR 15:04, by Ephraim Stern, with great interest.

But I have some questions about the “sacred prostitution” figures used in the illustrations. They seem remarkably similar to the Bes-type figures, except that they are female. Both groups are stocky, if not obese, and display their genitals. [See, for example, the Bes figure illustrated in the same article, and, for a more explicit example, the Bes figures on the jars from Kuntillet Ajrud printed with Professor Margalit’s letter below.—Ed.] If these Bes figures are considered apotropaic [warding off evil], why are the female figures considered signs of sacred prostitution? It seems just as likely that these female figurines deserve designation as apotropaic, or else one must acknowledge the possibility that the Bes figures are indications of male sacred prostitution.

Since the designation “sacred prostitution” applied only to female figurines, this furthers the mindset in which the female was represented in religion only as madonna or whore, as Ephraim Stern suggests. This presupposition, however, should not go unremarked or unchallenged. I would suggest that there is the possibility that the female figure to the right might be beginning the act of giving birth or engaging in auto-eroticism, neither of which is sacred prostitution. The obesity of both the female figurines and the Bes figures might be related to fears of famine, which would lend force to the idea that both groups are apotropaic.

Dr. Stern’s study is a fascinating one and his excellent presentation has whet my appetite to know more.

Denigrating Women’s Biological Functions

I have read and enjoyed BAR for many years. Occasionally, however, I cannot believe what I am asked to read! This time I refer to the otherwise interesting article by Ephraim Stern, “What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BAR 15:04.

Stern describes two figurines, one “with swollen belly and drooping breasts, seated with legs apart and smiling,” and the other, “the woman sits with her legs apart, one hand on her knee and the other pointing to her genitals.” On the following page is the illustration of these two figurines with the caption, “Sacred prostitution, a cultic practice intended to insure continuing fertility … etc.”

In the first place, I cannot comprehend how Stern related these two images to sacred prostitution. The swollen belly and drooping breasts indicate pregnancy. The second figurine shows the woman squatting in the birthing position, used by most women who have not been forced into the unnatural position of lying on their back to give birth.

Secondly, I would like to comment on the term “sacred prostitution.” As Stern himself indicates, we know of the practice of sacred prostitution from Greek sources. The concept of prostitution, sacred or otherwise, is the subjective view of a culture (ours, inspired by the Greeks). This is not the reality of the culture that practiced the rite. Surely in this day and age we have learned to respect the religious practices of others without imbuing them with our own restrictive ideology.

I urge BAR to consider a policy that would not accept material (particularly from academics and professionals) that denigrates women, or their biological functions, and to adopt a policy that would respect the right of everyone, ancient or contemporary, to their own opinion of the sacred.

Bes or Yahweh?

In his otherwise excellent article on the history of female cult figurines in ancient Israel (“What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BAR 15:04), Ephraim Stern takes it for granted that the Egyptian dwarf-god Bes is represented on one of the vessels uncovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in northern Sinai. Stern presumably has in mind the two foreground figures on pithos A, the one with the now-famous inscription referring to “Yahweh and His ‘Asherah.’” [See illustration below.]

015

Stern’s assumption, which probably derives from the iconographic study by Pirhiya Beck (Tel Aviv 9 [1981], pp. 3–86), is however far from self-evident; in fact, it is almost certainly mistaken! In a forthcoming article in Vetus Testamentum, I have attempted to demonstrate that which several scholars have conjectured, namely, that the larger of the two figures is Yahweh himself, accompanied by his consort designated “asherah,” an archaic Canaanite-Hebrew common-noun meaning wife.

This is not to deny some superficial resemblance of the two figures to the dwarf-god Bes. But there are also some striking differences: (1) the clearly bovine characterization of the Ajrud figures, as opposed to the consistently leonine (or feline) characterization of Bes, at least in the early periods; (2) the tandem representation of what are transparently—contra Beck!—male and female figures, a feature unknown in Bes iconography prior to the Ptolemaic period.

Even Beck, whose conclusions support Stern’s position, is forced to admit that, from a purely iconographic point of view, “the Ajrud representation of the Bes figures is unlike anything known so far in the Levant. The variations from the norm are obvious when we consider the various attributes that make up the typical Bes depiction.”

The Letters Help

As usual, I was pleased to get my new (July/Aug. 1989) BAR. I always read the Queries & Comments first. They, with your replies, help me to understand material that might otherwise be too “deep” for my understanding.

One letter complained that too much space was devoted to these Queries & Comments. I do not agree. They serve a very valuable purpose for readers such as myself. There have been times when I’ve gone back to the article discussed and reread it with greater appreciation.

BARS Reasoned Debate

I wish to take issue with F. S. Jacobs who wrote complaining about too many letters (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:04). In my opinion, you do an outstanding service by printing as many letters as you do because they reveal the wide range of response to your publication by its readership. The generous sample that you provide is more indicative of the exceptionally thoughtful consideration of your publication than is the case with many current publications that print very few (if any) reader responses. Further, the editorial responses to many are likewise thoughtful and indicative of the seriousness with which you consider your public.

It is both interesting and instructive to me to learn from the letters how many different people do respond, not only to the articles themselves but also to your advertisers. Truly, in the words of Shakespeare, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.” And what is more fitting in a democracy than to be able to express ideas that are diverse in reasoned debate? As an example of something I learned, it came as some surprise to me that the letters B.C.E. and C.E. stand for “Before the Common Era” and “Common Era” rather than as I had naively supposed “Before the Christian Era” and “Christian Era”!

Please continue to maintain your excellent section on Queries & Comments.

Objects to Letter Objecting to Letters

I protest your taking up scanty magazine space to publish the letter from reader F. S. Jacobs (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:04) protesting space being “taken up with letters from readers.”

Is it OK to take up space with this one?—Ed.

The Past of the Holyland Is No Longer for Sale

I have always viewed BAR as one of the foremost vehicles for the archaeological education of the public at large. As such, I would have expected to see its editors join archaeologists in the vanguard of the fight against the antiquities trade.^a

The problem of trade is not a question of economics and legalities; it is primarily a question of public norms. Two hundred years ago, it was considered legal and useful to trade in human lives; slavery is now universally abhorred. One hundred years ago, it was considered legal and useful to butcher millions of buffaloes and whales; 016today earth’s natural heritage is treasured and protected. Until recently, it was considered useful and legal to trade in antiquities, the silent witnesses to human history, culture and progress. Today, more and more people understand that our past, our heritage, should not be a salable commodity.

It is true that private collections once played a significant part in archaeological education; today, much, much more about the past may be learned in public institutions which provide the full scholarly and scientific background to the excavated artifacts, a background forever lost when the artifact is looted. Universities, museums and even schools may freely apply to antiquities authorities in Israel for loans of representative archaeological collections. This is a practice that should be encouraged. Hands-on exhibits, graphic reconstructions and well-kept antiquities sites are the best way to provide thousands and millions of enthusiasts with a chance to learn about the past.

The connection between site-plundering and the “legal” antiquities trade in Israel has been conclusively proven by the inspectors of the Department of Antiquities; charges have been pressed and convictions obtained. Every tourist in the Holyland should know that the antiquities he or she may buy may well be looted from an archaeological site (when they’re not faked). And while export of antiquities is currently allowed with a Department of Antiquities permit, in no case does this permit imply authentication.

It is often claimed that the department storerooms are stuffed with thousands of “duplicates.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Except for limited classes of objects, the term “duplicate” cannot be applied to hand-crafted ancient artifacts. Each properly excavated item has been carefully extracted from its ancient context; each has a story to tell. Together, these items form coherent assemblages, which comprise the material record of ancient civilizations. These coherent assemblages—even if they are comprised of many similar objects—should not be disbanded: Would you suggest we cut magnificent Persian carpets into little squares, only because the pattern repeats itself?

In contrast to antiquities’ looters and over-eager collectors, archaeologists are not treasure hunters. We do not choose our sites according to the number of artifacts that may be recovered. Some of the most fascinating chapters in the history of Holyland excavation have been written on the evidence of fragments of pottery. Anyone acquainted with the department storerooms knows that few marketable duplicates exist there. It would be a grave error to subject our scientific endeavors to Wall Street ethics in order to fulfill public demand.

The decision by the Department of Antiquities—backed by most Israeli archaeologists—to support a ban on trade in antiquities was made on the basis of an extensive study of national antiquities laws in some 50 countries, and on the basis of correspondence with archaeological officials from countries where trade is effectively banned. We are convinced that the general public—and especially archaeological enthusiasts like the readers of BAR—will understand that the ban is not aimed at depriving anyone of the chance to learn about the past. It is aimed solely to help save the past from the avarice of looters. It is a signal that the time has come for a change of attitude: The past of the Holyland is no longer for sale.

Killing Two Birds with One Stone

May I offer a modest proposal that would solve simultaneously two of your current pressing problems—how to get the Dead Sea Scrolls published and whether to permit antiquity dealers to advertise in your journal. I propose that you ask the antiquity dealers to obtain via their usual supply channels the unpublished Dead Sea documents and then advertise them for sale in BAR. Thus, by one decisive action the antiquity dealers and BAR will have performed a useful service to the scholarly community, while at the same time furthering their respective commercial objectives.

Getting the Full Story

I’ve just finished the July/August issue, and found it most interesting. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,” BAR 15:04, by Hershel Shanks, was fascinating. Having read excerpts in the Los 017Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor, it was helpful to read the whole article. I do hope it will shame those scholars into publishing the rest.

Dead Sea Scroll Publication—The Prospects Are Not So Bad

Regarding the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the prospects are not so bad.

In strong words and with a crusader’s zeal, Hershel Shanks has pronounced a severe prediction: “They will never do it” (“The Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,” BAR 15:04).

To learn that Mr. Shanks’s accusations, jeremiads and forecasts are not serious, one does not have to go far. It is enough to read an article in the prior issue of BAR (“At Least Publish the Dead Sea Scrolls Timetable!” BAR 15:03). There one would find the names of 14 young scholars busy preparing the scrolls for publication. This young generation is energetic, ambitious and eager to publish as much and as soon as possible. In contradistinction to the old timers, the academic careers of these young scholars, to say nothing of their promotions, hang on the amount and quality of their publications.

But the above mentioned list is not full (admittedly no fault of Mr. Shanks), and several names have been omitted (like the name of Dr. Devorah Dimant of Haifa University). The most important omission is the names of the scholars that received a sizable part of the manuscripts allotted to J. T. Milik. Two of them are American Joseph Baumgarten of Baltimore Hebrew University and James C. Vanderkamm of North Carolina State University, Raleigh) and one Israeli (Jonas Greenfield of The Hebrew University, Jerusalem). In short, there is good reason to believe that the score of new faces on the scene will do a proper and speedy work.

In BAR’s May/June article on the scrolls (“At Least Publish the Dead Sea Scrolls Timetable!” BAR 15:03), a person, described as “very close to the Israeli decision-making authorities,” is quoted as praising the good service BAR has done concerning the public pressure that brought about the new arrangements and the new timetable. He is also quoted as saying to the editor of BAR: “At this point, don’t be a bully.” This man is myself and I wish to repeat my advice.

Professor Georgi Calls for Immediate Publication of Dead Sea Scroll Photographs

As regards the “nonpublication” of the Qumran documents, some scholars have obviously misunderstood and confused the object of their study with the study itself. There is no doubt that the latter (the study itself) belongs to the scholar’s prerogative, and is in fact covered by the copyright laws and other protections of scholarly freedom. But a scholar’s right cannot be extended to the object of study itself. That is, by definition, common property of the scholarly community. It is only common courtesy which extends the privilege of first inquiry to the discoverer or the first analyst. But that courtesy is controlled by another courtesy which such privileged persons owe to the scholarly community and such courtesy has limits. There is no justifiable reason for not publishing immediately the photographs of all remaining Qumran documents. It may be that some users of photographs might arrive at nonsensical conclusions. But the scholarly community will never prevent nonsense from occurring.

Professor Georgi taught for 15 years at Harvard Divinity School before returning to Germany to teach at the University of Frankfort.—Ed.

Are the Dead Sea Scrolls Being Suppressed for Doctrinal Reasons

Good for you! I just read about your article questioning the excessive delays in publishing the Dead Sea Scrolls. You have called most justly for greater access to this great source of information on our religious beliefs.

I believe that the delays are the result of Jewish and Catholic authorities’ age-old reluctance to publish information contrary to current dogma.

May I add my congratulations to you in your efforts to get the Dead Sea Scrolls published. What a great accomplishment that would be! It is unfortunate that a single sectarian entity, the Vatican Church, appears to control when and what is published.

018

How much stock do you put in the theory that scholars are being pressured not to open any theological cans of worms?

We firmly believe that there is no—repeat, no—doctrinal reason for the delay in the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. We are close enough to the scholars—of all faiths—involved to give you our assurance that they would have absolutely no part in any suppression for doctrinal reasons or even any delay in publication for such reasons. They may be slow, but they are people of great rectitude and scientific objectivity.

We print the foregoing letters from readers only because these rumors about suppression for doctrinal reasons are so common. The letters we print are only samples of a much larger group. In the past, we have tried to scotch similar rumors (see, for example, Queries & Comments, BAR 15:04), but they nevertheless recur. The best way to put an end to these rumors would, of course, be to let everyone see the unpublished texts.—Ed.

The Time Is Now

Sooner or later the editor-scholars working on the Dead Sea Scrolls will be held accountable for what they are doing. I believe that for the majority of mankind, the time is now—bring forth the scrolls.

No Mortar in Iron Age Stone Buildings

In regard to the article by Eilat Mazar (“Royal Gateway to Ancient Jerusalem Uncovered,” BAR 15:03, it would be interesting to know about the mortar holding the blocks of stone together.

Eilat Mazar replies:

We did not find any mortar between the stones of the Iron Age buildings. They were just laid, one fitted above the other. In structures from the Herodian period, we did find plaster and mortar that covered the walls of the rooms and pools.

Bimah and Bamah

Rabbi Yaakov McDaniel is correct in his comment (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:04), that the raised platform or pulpit in a synagogue is called a bimah, while bamah is used for a pagan platform or altar.

Scholars are still uncertain as to whether bimah is simply a later pronunciation of bamah (whose root itself is uncertain) or is the Greek word bema, which means a speaker’s platform. I am inclined to the latter derivation, since bimah came into use in the Hellenistic period.

No Kudoses (ouch!) for BAR Writer

The time has long since passed when any of us gets too riled hearing biologists refer to a singular specie vs. two or more species. This is what is labeled in linguistics as a “back-formation,” that is, given that the Latin plural is species, English “scientificese” adopts that plural and then, in accordance with English “common sense” creates a new singular, on the analogy of sciences:science = species:specie.

If we do not become upset with such biological usage, we nevertheless do and must object before such ignorant usage gets established in ancient studies. In Inside BAR, BAR 02015:04, the abstractor of the biography of Dr. Ephraim Stern quite correctly used the Latin plural favissae; however, in the very next paragraph he/she described Dr. Stern’s dissertation “The Cultural Material of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period” as having become “a prize-winning book—one kudo was the 1984 BAS Publication Award.”

The singular of this Greek word is kudos; the –s is part of the stem of this neuter noun. Since it is a neuter noun, its correct Greek plural is kudeµ. The American Heritage Dictionary (1969) already noted under “usage”: “The singular term kudo, which is not acceptable in standard usage, is the invention of those who misconstrue kudos as exclusively plural.” However, no correct plural form is given in the dictionary. Though as an old-fashioned Hellenic scholar, I would prefer kudeµ, I am, as a linguist, not ill-disposed at all towards a totally Anglicized usage; singular kudos, plural kudoses. Only, please, spare us your kudo!

B.C.-A.D. vs. B.C.E.-C.E.

The discussion of our readers in Queries & Comments concerning B.C. and A.D., on the one hand, and B.C.E. and C.E., on the other, prompted an article in a Pensacola, Florida, newspaper. This, in turn, was followed by an Associated Press story that appeared in hundreds of newspapers around the country.

The Associated Press story quoted BAR editor Hershel Shanks as follows:

“‘We get complaints if we do it one way and complaints if we do it the other,’ said editor Hershel Shanks. ‘We’ve decided to allow our authors to choose whichever designation they prefer.’ He said that most now choose the B.C.E. and C.E. designations.”

Herewith is what we hope will be our last discussion of this topic—at least for a while.—Ed.

The Christian reactions in letters in the July/August issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:04) concerning the use of B.C.E. and C.E. versus B.C. and A.D. are distressing. “Christians everywhere” may be “affronted” by the substitution, but apparently many of them are also oblivious to the affront that traditional usage presents to sincere believers of other faiths. The same writer who calls the change an affront later refers to “our Judeo-Christian culture,” a clear, if unconscious, acknowledgment that our Christian faith has its roots in Judaism. Sadly, it is incredibly difficult to convince many Christians of the validity of Judaism as a vibrant, living faith and of the unfairness of trying to force Jews (and people of other faiths) to accept what is, after all, a purely Christian convention.

The use by Christians of B.C.E. and C.E. can hardly be construed as an avoidance of the proclamation of the Gospel, nor is it in any way a denial of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It seems either an affirmation of the commandment, common to both Christians and Jews, to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Can we Christians not agree to this simple change as an act of love? St. Paul tells us that “God has not rejected his people” (Romans 11:2), meaning the Jews. If God has not rejected them, then how dare we?

Regarding B.C.E. and C.E., this to me is one of the most obnoxious subjects that I have come in contact with. The Common Era, (shared by all) completely leaves out the birth of Jesus and that is what this world is all about. The complete “Old Testament” is leading up to the birth of Jesus. Everything since His birth and death is related to His death and our wonderful gift, redemption and forgiveness of our sins, so therefore we have “Before Christ”-“B.C.” and “After Death”-“A.D.”

Now for those who cast a dim view on Jesus’ life or those who do not recognize the existence of Jesus, I leave with one last reminder, whether you believe in Jesus or not, you still have to date your calendar from His birth.

As for the B.C./A.D. argument, do you think Christ would have bothered to notice it? The suggestion, to let each writer use a personal option, should deflate the matter.

It seems to me that those who favor B.C.E. and C.E. have two strikes against them. In the first place, these terms cannot hide the fact that our present calendar is a Christian concoction. The terms do not contribute to historical clarity. Secondly, the word “common” is misleading. The era may be common to Christians and Jews, but what about Moslems or Buddhists or … ? If B.C. and A.D. are biased terms, B.C.E. and C.E. are no less so. Personally, I don’t think B.C.E. and C.E. are appropriate or useful solutions. However, let the authors themselves decide with which bias they are most comfortable; and may the readers be mature enough to accept their decision.

The First Shall Be Last

The century immediately preceding the birth of Christ is commonly referred to as the first century B.C. It would seem to me that it really is the last. Oh, well, another question to stir the readers of your fine publication.

Correction

In your July/August 1989 issue (Alexander Flinder, “Is This Solomon’s Seaport?” BAR 15:04), I was puzzled by your caption, which states that Jezirat Faraun lies 7 miles from modern Eilat, but on the map you have a 5-mile scale, which, if used makes Jezirat Faraun at least 13 miles from Eilat. Please explain this difference.

BAR undoubtedly boasts the most sharp-eyed readership of any magazine now publishing. Reader Holt and others who noticed the discrepancy are absolutely right—the scale is incorrect. Jezirat Faraun, as the caption correctly states, is about seven miles south of Eilat.—Ed.

Pornography in BAR

As a Sunday School teacher of twelve- and thirteen-year-old youths, mostly boys, I find the photographs that accompany the article “What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BAR 15:04, by Ephraim Stern, revolting and totally inappropriate for a “Biblical” magazine.