Queries & Comments

038

Rainey on Ebla

To the Editor:

The supposed evidence for Yahweh names at Ebla is highly questionable. During Prof. Pettinato’s visit to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, it was pointed out by several of us that the –ya endings on personal names are simply shortened forms (hypocoristic) usually used for endearment and then becoming common usage. The names like Mika-il which become Mika-ya have nothing to do with Yahwism. The –ya element is simply a replacement for the Divine Name element.

The same phenomenon is known in many languages of the world. We have it in English. Note for example, Richard/Ricky, William/Willie, Peter/Petie, etc. The clearest case in point is, of course, Michael/Mickey which is an exact semantic parallel to the Ebla Mika-il/Mika-ya.

Therefore, it should be stressed that there is really no evidence in these Personal Names for the presence of Yahwism at Ebla. The finds at Tell Mardikh are magnificent and the excavator, Prof. Matthiae, and his colleague, Prof. Pettinato, are certainly to be congratulated. I am confident that they will do a splendid job of uncovering and of interpreting the Ebla finds. Their work has been truly exemplary thus far and will continue to be so.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that non-specialists will try to make use of the Ebla finds with varying degrees of accuracy. We are evidently in for a generation of “Ebla and the Bible,” just as we have suffered from “Nuzi and the Bible,” and from “Mari and the Bible.” Not that I am against the elucidation of Biblical studies by Near Eastern Studies; it’s just that too many people untrained in the original languages or too enthusiastic about the value of a “parallel”, tend to over dramatize the relevance of comparative evidence.

Conquest or Settlement? Israelite or Canaanite?

To the Editor:

While I have received only a few of your BAR’s and generally enjoy them, I must admit I have become quite aware of your liberal bias and so must frequently reinterpret the data given in your articles. Your anti-scriptural bias shows in the article “Israelite Conquest or Settlement? New Light from Tell Masos,” BAR 02:03. I believe that Scripture indicates both took place. The conquest came first followed by a period of settlement. The Israelites were told that in conquering the land they would live in homes not built by them and eat grain not planted by them, etc. Thus, they would take over cities and not necessarily destroy them. This happened first and so there is no reason to even expect to see great changes in artifacts immediately, as they would use what they conquered. Later as your article indicates settlement took place in the previously unsettled areas. This is just what one would expect a large and expanding population to do, and naturally since the Israelites already were in control of the general area it would be relatively peaceful. When you follow an early date for the conquest (which I believe there is much evidence for, even through your Review follows the late date theory), there is no conflict and no need to turn parts of Scripture into “folk history and legend”. Your liberal bias and attitude toward the Scriptures have once again forced you to create a problem and conflict where neither the Scriptures nor the archaeological evidence indicates a conflict exists.

To the Editor:

The article on the Israelite occupation of Canaan—conquest or settlement?—certainly raises questions I had never thought of before. It was very well-written. One question occurs to me. How does Dr. Kempinski know that the city in stratum IIIa at Tell Masos is an Israelite settlement? How does he know it isn’t Canaanite or one of the many other peoples the Bible tells us occupied the land before the Israelites arrived?

Aharon Kempinski replies:

The major reasons for concluding that the archaeological remains at Tell Masos are Israelite are as follows:

1. Not only Masos, but also Arad and Beer-Sheva to the south, were settled by the same wave of people who at the same time settled in Galilee, Samaria and Judea. This is proven by the character of the settlements: Similar pottery (Early Iron Ia forms) and the appearance of a new architectural design (the 3- or 4-room house, as described in my article). This pottery and architecture was unknown to the Canaanites of the Late Bronze Age.

2. At Beer-Sheva and Arad we can follow the development of this pottery and architecture into the period of Israel’s United Monarchy. By analogy, we assume that the people who settled at Masos were the same people who settled in Arad and Beer-Sheva, two sites as to which there is no doubt as to their Israelite (or perhaps we should say Judean) character.

3. If the Masos people were Canaanites we would have to face the following puzzling questions for which there are no apparent answers: (a) If these people were Canaanites, why did they settle in an unfortified village of huts and why did they join the new settlement movement found in Canaan at this time? (b) If these people were Canaanites, why don’t we find the common pottery and architectural styles characteristic of the Canaanites? (c) If these people were Canaanites, why did they choose to settle in this semi-arid area of the northern Negev instead of the fertile areas controlled by the Canaanites? In the absence of answers to these questions, we conclude that the Masos settlers were Israelite.

Unfortunately, our knowledge of the settlement is still limited. I wish there were some large sites similar to Masos in other parts of the country to check the “settlement theory” I have described in my article. No doubt with more excavations the picture of the period will become more complex than it looks now. It may even be that after the initial Israelite settlement some Canaanite groups—refugees or lower class elements—joined some of the Israelite settlers. But we will need more evidence before we can say.

BAR and Anthropology

To the Editor:

I teach anthropology at John Dewey High School in Brooklyn, New York. One of my students recently gave me an issue of BAR to look over. I think you would be interested to know that I was so fascinated with it I could not take my eyes off it.

I was particularly struck by R. David Freedman’s “‘Put Your Hand Under My Thigh’—The Patriarchal Oath,” BAR 02:02. What impressed me wasn’t so much that the patriarchs engaged in this practice (which is fascinating in itself), but what really hit me was how well this practice fit in with the ancient Bronze Age world, that is, the practice of using ritual, symbolic objects to invoke the presence of the god in the swearing ritual. To me, the fact that the ancient patriarchs felt the need to use something physical to invoke the presence of their god (the closest thing they had at the time was the circumcised membrum) shows how much they were tied to and a part of the other peoples surrounding them who used many symbols of their polytheistic world for the same act.

I think you would be interested to know that I brought these ideas up in my four anthropology classes. My students were mesmerized. A number of questions came up. How widespread was the practice? Did women swear by the circumcised membrum? I answered that as far as I know there are only a few references to this act in Genesis and that they were all between men. The rest at this point has to be left to our imaginations.

Columbaria Identified

To the Editor:

This spring while going from Ashkelon to Hebron we stopped at some caves where there were several huge caverns. These were obviously man-made as pick marks were clearly visible. At the top of each room was a hole to the outside. I could get no information about these caves. I have searched all the books on archaeology that I have, as well as the Israel guide books. Can you tell me something of their origin and history, or tell me where I can find the information?

You saw the intriguing Beth Guvrin caves. The caves with niches are known as columbaria. A columbarium in Latin is a dovecote. In antiquity the word was used to denote a sepulchral chamber. Its modern usage with respect to these caves reflects their resemblance to dovecotes (see illustration).

Columbaria have also been found at Rome and Pompeii, where they were lined with niches in symmetrical rows. Urns containing ashes of the deceased were placed in the niches.

Columbaria have been found at several places in Israel. Over 200 columbaria have been identified in the Beth Guvrin area alone. But these columbaria differ from the Roman and Pompeiian columbaria in that the niches are too small to hold a proper urn. What were these niches used for? Perhaps ashes were somehow sealed in the niche without the use of an urn. But no one knows for sure.

We are urging an Israeli scholar with some new ideas on columbaria to share them with our readers.—Ed.

A Soft Answer to Professor Trever

To the Editor:

My attention has been drawn to the lead article in BAR, December, 1975, by Harry T. Frank (“How the Dead Sea Scrolls Were Found,” BAR 01:04). Since I find it a good illustration of how historical records become legend, I cannot refrain from a comment.

Dr. Frank’s article is a condensation of his chapter on the Dead Sea Scrolls in Bible, Archaeology and Faith, which, in turn, was a condensation (with some slight additions) of chapter 12 of my Untold Story of Qumran on which I spent many years to document its historical accuracy. Most of the changes are obvious attempts to romanticize the story. Note how he insists on getting the goats into the story (he makes the shepherd “seemingly disinterested”), when Jum‘a has admitted that he was looking for caves in pursuit of a cache of gold and the goats were being tended by Kahlil and Muhammad. The cave is about 150 feet up from the plateau, but I admit that it feels like 350 feet when you try to climb up to it.

Errors of details are numerous: Stephan’s evaluation of the scrolls was not based on forgeries; Samuel did not go to the École Biblique but called there by telephone; it was not suggested that the scrolls be sent to Europe, rather a fragment; Kiraz allowed Sukenik to have three scrolls for two days, not “one”; the Nash papyrus is hardly the “oldest known Biblical Hebrew,” for the Siloam inscription is technically “Biblical Hebrew”, Sukenik did not have the Nash Papyrus in mind when he saw the Hymn Scroll fragment; but the worst error is to describe the Hymn Scroll fragments as “the Manuel (sic) of Discipline” …

I seldom find any scholar who refers to my Untold Story Of Qumran in a bibliography, but it was written for laymen, and documented for scholars (some lay people say they find the footnotes as interesting as the text!). I am now completing a revised edition of the book which will be issued in paperback this Spring by Eerdmans.

Professor Frank replies:

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to Dr. Trever’s letter.

Some years ago “The Journal of Near Eastern Studies” commented that we may never know the completely accurate story of the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is because from the very first there has been controversy concerning the details of their discovery. This controversy was, moreover, marked by emotion. I took note of this in footnote 4 on p. 267 of Bible, Archaeology and Faith where I said:

“The story of the intricately tangled web of events surrounding the Scrolls which came into the hands of Samuel and Sukenik is extremely fascinating … many details concerning the earlier finds from the time of their discovery in 1948 until they came to rest at Hebrew University in 1954 are debated. The interested reader should refer to Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957); John Trever, The Untold Story of Qumran (Old Tappan, N.J.: F. H. Revell Co., 1965); and A. Y. Samuel, Treasure of Qumran (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966). All three accounts should be taken into consideration in making a judgment.”

Fundamentally, I will leave it at that.

But several aspects of Dr. Trever’s letter do require further comment. He appears to have overlooked some things.

First. If there is any bias in my account (and there may well be bias in every account of the finding of the Scrolls) it is in Dr. Trever’s favor. His comment that he “seldom finds any scholar who refers to my Untold Story of Qumran in a bibliography” has its point, but not in my case. On the contrary, I have long felt that perhaps he has not received proper recognition for his role, and if anything I have highlighted his contributions. Yet relating a story sympathetic to him is hardly “condensation” of his views.

Second. In 1969 I showed my account of the finding of the Scrolls to Dr. Trever in his home in Berea and discussed it with him. While we did not agree on all points, he did not at that time raise the matters which appear in his present letter.

Third. The article which appeared in The Biblical Archaeology Review is not from Bible, Archaeology and Faith, as Dr. Trever states, but is from my later Discovering The Biblical World. It is, further, not a condensation, but the full account as it appears there.

Finally, there was no attempt on my part—“obvious,” conscious or otherwise—to romanticize the story. At the same time, it was a sensational discovery; “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times” in the words of W. F. Albright. We must continue to be appreciative of Dr. Trever and all of the others who have labored and who continue to labor to bring this important material before the scholarly world.

Responsibility for mis-identifying the Hymn Scroll fragments in the caption in Professor Frank’s article belongs to BAR, not Professor Frank.—Ed.

A Creationist Responds to the Flood Story

To the Editor:

A friend recently showed me the June 1976 issue of The Biblical Archaeology Review in which I read the article, “A Futile Quest: The Search for Noah’s Ark,” BAR 02:02. The article made a number of statements I could not ignore … I will not try to prove that the Flood did indeed occur. I do not believe that this can be done any more than anyone can prove that the Flood did not occur. Indeed the central question is not the physical evidence for a global flood, but the individual’s willingness to accept the idea of a Creator to whom that person will eventually be accountable. Even if the ark is found and a die-hard evolutionist is placed upon it, he will try to find some twisted logic to rationalize its existence in the context of the theory of evolution …

I wouldn’t rule out the validity of Bishop Ussher’s chronology too hastily. The oldest date established with any degree of reliability is the beginning of the first dynasty of Egypt, about 3000 B.C. All dates prior to this are conjecture based on assumptions having an evolutionary bias. Dates for the so-called “Stone Ages,” “Bronze Ages,” etc. are derived from the estimates of the time it took man to evolve such cultures. Likewise the geologic ages are derived from the time it would take certain animals and plants, believed extinct, called index fossils, to have evolved. These index fossils are then used to date the rock formations whose extreme ages “disprove” a special creation. We have no assurance, other than the assertions of evolutionists, that these index fossils are indeed unique to the geologic age that they are used to identify, especially since modern life forms are found contemporaneously with these fossils. Furthermore, at least six index fossils have been found to be alive and thriving. (See Scientific Creationism, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 89).

With regard to radiometric dating systems used to provide “objective” methods of establishing long ages, their validity again depends on evolutionary biased assumptions. The method itself is straightforward enough. Given a process with a known rate, the initial conditions, and the final conditions, the total elapsed time can be found by dividing the change in conditions by the rate of change. The problem lies in the fact that no one was around to measure the initial conditions …

Admittedly the evidence for the existence of the ark is weak and all efforts to document the existence of the ark have been frustrated. However, it is reasonable to question whether it is God’s purpose to reveal the ark at this time.

Regarding the specific objections to the stated evidence, the exact site never really was lost but remained a cherished tradition of the Armenian people. The Armenians, a group who accepted Christianity in 300 A.D., trace their ancestry to descendants of survivors of the Flood who never left the site of the ark. According to Armenian tradition, annual pilgrimages were made to the ark along a well-made trail for several centuries after the Flood. This stopped after pagan enemies tried to destroy the ark, only to be turned back by a terrible storm which destroyed the trail. The storm was taken as a sign that God did not want the ark disturbed until near the end of the world when its presence would be revealed to the whole world. Thus to protect the ark, the pilgrimages were stopped to avoid betraying the site of the ark. The Armenians have a long history of being persecuted by their pagan neighbors and were nearly decimated several times. Those remaining who would still have knowledge about the ark are living in the Soviet Union …

As to how the animals reached Australia and the Americas, many creationist scientists believe the ice age occurred concurrently with the Flood. This would explain the observed climate changes in the Mediterranean area since the time of the Greek and Roman Empires. As the glaciers gradually melted, land bridges between the continents were covered by the rising oceans …

I have a Master’s degree in Biomedical engineering. Because of the evolutionary doctrines widely accepted in my profession as well as the demands I realize the Bible places on my life, I cannot profess a faith I know to be false. In nearly 15 years of studying evolution theory and Biblical evidences, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is an accurate, historical account of God’s dealing with man.

Megiddo Article Sparks Scholarly Comment

To the Editor:

May I add some remarks to your articles on “Megiddo Stables or Storehouses?” BAR 02:03.

1. Yadin is perhaps right that stables for horses in antiquity were paved with cobble stones. See Xenophon, “On the Art of Riding”, 4:1ff.

2. Yadin is perhaps right again (against Pritchard) that the mangers in Megiddo might have been used as such. But what look like mangers are not always mangers in fact. At Ugarit, there were indeed four “mangers” raised on a “bench.” However the inner doors were only 1.06 meters wide (less than 3 ½ feet) and the outer doors only 1.20 meters and 1.37 meters wide. These doors are too narrow for chariots and the inner doors are too narrow even for horses. Moreover, the outer doors have steps going down—hardly suitable for chariots and horses. In addition, the horse’s bit mentioned by Yadin was not found in that “stable”, but in one of the neighboring houses—and in an earlier stratum at that! (See Syria 19, 1938, p. 319).

3. Chariot horses in ancient times were stallions, as depicted both at Tell el-Amarna and in Assyria. This is also reflected in a record of the battle at Qadesh in 1298 B.C., in which it is recorded that the Hittites sent a wild mare against the Egyptian chariots in order to excite and confuse their stallions. I have discussed the stabling of stallions with several experts in connection with a paper I delivered last October at the Europaischer Theologenkongress in Vienna on the problem of the Megiddo buildings. These experts tell me that it is impossible to stable 12 to 15 stallions next to each other in a row without dividing boxes (stalls) or at least planks to separate the stallions.

4. Evidence from Tell el-Amarna, from Assyria, perhaps from Ugarit, and from the Hittite Kikuli-text indicates that horses were stabled only in small units (two and later four horses), together with their chariot and their charioteers.

5. Horses and chariots within a walled city—even if mentioned in the Bible—make no sense from a military point of view. Their place is in the fields, they need space. And in case of a siege, they are worthless in a crowded city.

It seems to me impossible that the buildings in question at Megiddo, Hazor, Beer-Sheva, etc. are stables. Their explanation as storehouses is thus far better founded than the stable theory.

In a major article entitled “The Stables of Ancient Israel”, to be published in the forthcoming Festschrift for Siegfried Horn, Professor John S. Holladay, Jr. of the University of Toronto will conclude that the long pillared buildings at such sites as Megiddo and Beer-Sheva were originally constructed to stable horses, and not to store comestibles or to barracks soldiers. This is the same conclusion independently reached by Yigael Yadin in the article “In Defense of the Stables at Megiddo,” BAR 02:03.

Holladay argues that the pottery found within the buildings is evidence only of their last use. To determine the buildings’ original use, we must examine the design of the buildings. When Holladay does this, he concludes that the buildings were clearly designed to stable horses.

Holladay brings to bear much modern expertise regarding the construction of stables and finds that these ancient buildings conform to the best modern advice.

Nor does Holladay see any problem in exiting one horse in the line without taking out all the horses between the door and the horse which is to come out. There is enough room to do this, he says. At most, the horses potentially blocking the passage would have to be made to stand catty-cornered in their stalls to allow the other horse—presumably led by a groom—to pass by. Thus, Holladay eliminates a major obstacle to concluding that the buildings were originally built as stables.

As for the mud-lined water tank at Megiddo, which supposedly would not hold water, Holladay cites other mud-lined tanks at Amarna which were “indisputably water-containing structures built of similar materials.” Noting the excellent state of preservation of the Megiddo tank which had been exposed to winter rains for many years Holladay argues that the mud-lined tank at Megiddo “was a great deal more resistant to water than Pritchard (who attacked the stable theory) suggests.”

Holladay recommends a number of empirical scientific tests to determine the validity of his argument. The principal one is to analyze the soil under the cobbled stalls for its phosphorus content. Normally soils have a very low phosphorus content. However, horses’ urine would greatly increase the amount of phosphorus in this soil. The test would be conclusive if adjacent soil had a low phosphorus content in contrast to a high percentage in the stalls.

The Horn Festschrift (in which Professor Holladay’s article is to appear) is entitled The Archaeology of Jordan and Other Studies and is being published by Andrews University Press. It is scheduled for publication in 1977.

To the Editor:

The article in the September 1976 BAR, “Megiddo Stables or Storehouses?” was of particular interest to me, as I have been asked to write the text and select the photos for the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago’s microfiche on Megiddo. Your readers may be interested to know that for the first time numerous photographs from the Oriental Institute’s archives are available in microfiche format. The series on Megiddo should appear during 1977.

The archaeological evidence is inadequate and equivocal as to whether the structures in question were stables or storehouses; they do seem to belong to the reign of King Ahab.

If we go a bit further afield and examine cuneiform literature, we find terms such as uriµ sisi “horse-folds,” supuµruµ “enclosures” for oxen, sheep, and goats, and tarbasu and rubsu, derived from the verb rabasu “to lie down” and applied to a place where animals could bed down. A biµt kuµdini was a mule stable.

Hurrian has contributed atnannu “stable” to which barley was brought, and atnannuhÉlu “stable official.”

The word “stable” to my knowledge appears only once in the King James Version, in Ezekiel 25:5, a reading of n^ewµh which the Revised Standard Version has emended to “pasture.”

The Bible uses three other terms which have also been translated as “stall.” The first is ’ur^eyeµh, sometimes translated manger or crib. It is used of Hezekiah’s “treasuries” or “storehouses” (2 Chronicles 32:28). It is also used of Solomon’s stalls for chariot horses (1 Kings 5:6 (=KJV, 1 Kings 4:26)) and repeated with a reduction from 40,000 to 4,000 stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25).

The second term, mar^eveq is literally a “tying place.” Twice it is used of calves fatted in a stall (Amos 6:4 and 1 Samuel 28:24; see also Proverbs 15:17). Twice the term is used as a simile, once for prosperity. (Malachi 4:2), and once for well-fed mercenaries (Jeremiah 46:21).

The third term is refeth, mentioned only once (Habakkuk 3:17), as a stable or stall for cattle.

One possible use of the buildings, which I have not seen suggested before, is as a place for shearing sheep. 2 Kings 10:12, 14 mentions a place on the road from Jezreel to Samaria called Beth-Eked, “house of shearing.” It was here Jehu slew Ahaziah’s relatives.

Nonetheless difficulties remain if one wishes to find stables at Megiddo, the chief ones being the efficient removal of horses, and the “water tank” which could not hold water.

I personally am inclined to see these structures as storerooms. There are two basic Biblical terms for storehouses. The first, ’ôsâr derives from a root meaning to “lay up, store up.” It means treasure and treasury as well as storehouse, and was used of the treasury connected with Solomon’s temple, which apparently was entrusted to the Levites (1 Chronicles 26:20 and 9:26, 29). The temple treasury was not only a treasury in the modern sense of the word, and a storage place for assorted trophies and treasures, but the place in which the temple tithes were kept (Malachai 3:10 and Nehemiah 13:12; grain, new wine and oil). The term is used only twice of ordinary (royal) storehouses. David appointed Jehonathan ben Uzziah as overseer “over the storehouses in the fields, in the cities, and in the villages, and in the watch towers.” (1 Chronicles 27:25). Hezekiah “made storehouses for himself for silver and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all kinds of desirable things,” (2 Chronicles 32:27, to which verse 28 appends, “Storehouses also for the surplus grain, and wine, and oil, and stalls (’urey^eh, see above) for all manner of beasts … ”)

The second Biblical term for storehouse is mis^ekk^enôth, storage places or magazines. It was used of Pharaoh’s store-cities (Exodus 1:11) and of “all the store-cities that Solomon had” (1 Kings 9:19). Other store-cities of Solomon are mentioned in 2 Chronicles 8:4, 6. There is one reference, perhaps corrupt, to store-cities in the Naphtali region under Baasa of Israel (2 Chronicles 16:4). Jehoshaphat “built in Judah strongholds and store-cities” (2 Chronicles 17:12). Thus mis^ekk^enôth is used in a broader sense (cities) than the term ’ôsâr which refers to a building or a chamber within a building.

Megiddo being a store-city, the buildings may have been what the Mesopotamians called in Akkadian bit irbi, that is, a storehouse for import duties payable upon entering a city. This type of income was euphemistically recorded as “gifts.”

Perhaps the most interesting Akkadian term is biµt karê, a type of storehouse located in the middle of a city, as at Megiddo if the Megiddo buildings are indeed storehouses. Texts record the storage of barley, wheat, dates and date products, reeds, oil, billygoats, ducks, copper kettles, reed mats, lumber, silver, hides for tanning, and even mules in the biµt karê. It was a place tithes were delivered. Once a prisoner is mentioned as being kept in the building. Could the Megiddo buildings be a type of biµt karê in which both merchandise and animals were kept?

In translating consonantal Hebrew into English names with vowels, we misspelled the names of several students of Professor Yadin mentioned in his Megiddo stables article (September 1976). The correct spellings are as follows:

Shulamit Geve-Rozolio
Baruch Brandel
N. Ne’eman

We also mispelled the terms miskenot and Muqanna. Professor Yadin’s article appeared in Eretz Israel, Vol. 12, 1975.—Ed.

How to Bind With BAR’s Binder

To the Editor:

Although I am a rank amateur in this field, I really enjoy each and every BAR article and all issues published so far.

I have received a BAR Binder from you, but I am at a loss as to how to bind—if that’s the word—my copies of BAR in the binder; or is it possible that they are supposed to just “sit” in the binder! Sorry to take up your time with such a mundane matter.

Each BAR Binder comes with 12 wires in the spine of the binder. These wires are easily removable by bending them. After removing a wire, place it in the center of an issue of BAR and re-insert the wire (by bending it) into the binder.—Ed.

Archaeological Slides

To the Editor:

I am currently teaching a course at the University of Oregon in Biblical Archaeology—and finding BAR quite useful. In my presentations, I use a number of slides which I took at various digs in Israel. However, they are becoming outdated. Is there a resource center where slide or filmstrip collections are available?

Jonathan P. Siegel replies:

A course on Biblical archaeology by its very nature requires extensive use of slides because so much of archaeology is visual and descriptive.

Commercially-produced slides, though rather expensive, are usually of excellent quality. The following list of commercially-produced slides may be helpful. It is not intended to be exhaustive. If you or others know of other sources, please send the information to the editor of The Biblical Archaeology Review:

1. Archaeological Institute of America
260 West Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10013

Individual slides, $1.25 to $1.10 each, depending on quantity. Excellent slides of Egypt, Greece, Iran and Israel. Sets of slides, some with accompanying text, are also available. Especially useful are “Archaeological Tools and Techniques,” maps from the Oxford Bible Atlas, and several sets on Jericho.

2. Holy Land Slides
c/o Visual Horizons
208 Westfall Road
Rochester, N.Y. 14620

Three sets of forty slides each; $39.95/set. “Holy Land Today,” “Holy Land Yesterday,” and “Holy Land People.” Interesting and of high quality.

3. Israel Colour Slides, Ltd.
P.O.B. 577
Jerusalem, Israel

Excellent color slides of landscapes, natural phenomena, holy sites and archaeology. Also some slides of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Egypt. Write to them for a catalogue.

4. Pictorial Archive
(Near Eastern History)
The Old School
P.O.B. 19823
Jerusalem, Israel

Aerial series on the historical geography of Israel-Palestine. Major series (1,500 slides) $1,300.00; minor series (240 slides) $250.00. All slides in color. Several series are available. Particularly useful for historical geography and New Testament archaeology.

5. Prothman Associates
650 Thomas Avenue
Baldwin, N.Y. 11510

Limited sets of Israel Museum slides, of excellent quality. Set of twelve slides $15.00.

The American Schools of Oriental Research announced some time ago (ASOR Newsletter, Spring, 1973) the completion of Biblical archaeology “teaching packages” including 2,500 slides, a study collection of pottery sherds from 64 sites (coded by site, period and vessel type) and “simulation materials” (forgeries) from the workshop of Abraham Levi of Jerusalem. Since the death of G. Ernest Wright, the marketing of these packages has been delayed. Hopefully we will be able to report soon on these materials.

(Dr. Siegel teaches Biblical archaeology and is the author of The Severus Scroll and IQIs^a.)

Readers Appraise BAR

To the Editor:

In fifty years as an archaeology buff, I haven’t found any publication that equals the BAR!

To the Editor:

I enjoy the BAR tremendously; it aids me in teaching adult groups throughout the Albuquerque area.

I wonder if I could obtain permission to duplicate the article in the June 1976 BAR entitled “A Futile Quest: The Search for Noah’s Ark,” BAR 01:04, for use by my students in adult education in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe.

We did grant Rev. Wiese permission, but large quantity BAR’s sent to the same address are available at a substantial discount.

Readers may be interested in knowing that the BAR article on Noah’s Ark by William H. Stiebing, Jr., to which Rev. Wiese refers, was reprinted with permission in The Jewish Digest.

Another BAR article—on the remains of the Babylonian siege found in Jerusalem by BAR Jerusalem correspondent Suzanne F. Singer—was recently reprinted with permission in The Ministry, a publication of the Seventh-Day Adventist ministry. In addition, a picture and caption from this article was copied by Bible and Spade, a Word of Truth publication.—Ed.

To the Editor:

I always thought I would like to keep up with what is going on in Biblical archaeology. Now I know I do. BAR is written in a way I can both understand and benefit from.

To the Editor:

I have been rather surprised at your magazine. As a professional archaeologist I expected the run-of-the-mill publication. I got quite a kick out of the articles and discussions. Differences of opinion, I believe, lead to a better discipline.

To the Editor:

I commend you on the fine quality of material you include in the BAR. Your approach to a periodical of this nature is really quite innovative.