Queries & Comments

010

Cover Girl Recognizes Herself

I have been receiving your magazine for about three years now and I look forward to each issue eagerly. I could hardly express my surprise, however, when I recognized the person on the front cover of the January/February issue. After another second, I realized that I was the “unidentified volunteer” on the front cover!

I never thought when I was recording data, trying to keep the string from rolling off the table that morning, that it would lead to my being a “Cover Girl”! I framed my copy and ordered more and sent them to all my friends and family. Some of them have told me that after reading the articles, they were surprised to find out that there is so much to this “digging around in the dirt” that I enjoy so much!

During my sophomore year at the University of Colorado I took an ancient history class from Professor Robert Hohlfelder and discovered Caesarea Maritima. I became so interested in archaeology and history that I found out more about the dig and decided to major in Classics. I ended up participating in the dig at Caesarea Maritima in 1990 and loved it so much that I am planning to return in 1993.

I want to thank you for your wonderful publication and for the honor of being connected to it in this way.

You have clinched the renewal of my subscription for sure!

BAR’s New Design

Give Me Back the Old BAR

Please give me back the beautiful, aesthetic magazine covers! If I want contemporary, I can buy Life magazine.

Easier to Read

The new BAR design is an excellent contemporary graphics/editorial format. The compact text and photo captions are more easily read than previously. And most important, the wonderful BAR photos, drawings and diagrams have not been sacrificed to design—if anything, they are more dramatic, more visually informative than ever.

Two Ways to Read BAR

With your new layout, BAR is definitely becoming an easier magazine to read casually as well as seriously.

I don’t suppose that my opinion means anything to you, but I would like to give you a word of advice.

It concerns the “new look” on the cover of the January/February issue—the girl and the notebook.

I can tell you that this “new look” is definitely not a correct cover for BAR. The fact is, it greatly upset me. Why? Because, having been to the Holy Land twice, I am thrilled whenever I see a picture from there—either an object found or a picture of the landscape, all of which have been on your covers (I have over 100 copies of your magazine). When I saw that girl on your cover, I did not even recognize your wonderful magazine. Can we next expect a girl in a swimsuit?

The picture (although she is pretty) takes away the complete character and distinction of what your magazine is all about.

I was in the supermarket and as I stood in line, I saw, on racks, 12 different magazines—all of them with a picture of a pretty girl on the cover. If your magazine was among them, everyone would assume that it is only “one of the crowd.”

Your opinion certainly is important to us. Our January/February cover featured a scene from an excavation, as that issue often does. It just so happened that this year we also introduced our new design in the January/February issue, but, as you now know from subsequent issues, our new design does not call for a pretty girl on the cover of each issue.—Ed.

012

Franklin Mint Ad

Advertiser Apologizes

We couldn’t help but notice in the January/February issue the many letters you received (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01) regarding the Franklin Mint’s advertisement which ran in the September/October 1991 issue of your magazine.

Our “Feel the Power” sculpture [a woman with a headdress holding a crystal obelisk] is intended as a decor piece for the home or office, not as an expression of a religious belief or practice.

We certainly appreciate the concerns of your readers and apologize if our advertising copy was offensive to them.

Don’t Censor BAR

I, for one, want to thank you for placing the Franklin Mint ad!

At the time it was published, I am sure I did not give the ad a second glance. It would have passed into obscurity had not some of your subscribers gotten their teeth into it. Now that they have so successfully drawn attention to the ad, I am sure that sales will have increased by 100 percent.

What is the matter with these people that they see “Satan” and New Age lurking around every corner? If they were firm in their belief that Christ is their redeemer (as I am), they would have nothing to fear from mere advertisements!

I will cancel my subscription the minute I sense that BAR has started to censor its contents to fit this mentality.

Please continue to be the fine publication that you have always been, highlighting the enigmas of the ancient Biblical world where we have to “dig,” as the answers are not so clear cut.

16-Year-Old Appalled by Ad

I am 16 years old and very interested in archaeology. When I heard of your magazine, I grew very excited. My father, knowing of my interest, subscribed for me.

My first issue arrived in September 1991. Guess what was one of the first things I noticed? The Franklin Mint ad. I was offended instantly by New Age ideas being marketed in a magazine with a supposed “Biblical” point of view.

Then I was offended; now, after reading your response (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01) to the letters of others offended by this ad, I am appalled. I want nothing to do with your “marketplace of ideas.” Please cancel my subscription.

You should seriously consider being honest with other new subscribers like myself: Remove the word “Biblical” from your title.

Support from a Worshipper of the Great Goddess

I find BAR indispensable to my Bible studies. I am shocked at the furor created by the ad for a statue of the Great Goddess holding a crystal. Having been a member of the Psychical Research Society for many years, I am fully aware of the powers of the crystal. As to the Great Goddess, I have long been her worshipper (Heavens to Betsy—sin!).

It is no surprise to me that the ancients immortalized her in prayer and song. Some of us still do the same today.

I thought the ad with her picture was in good taste and not inappropriate for a publication like yours.

I trust that the defection of a few ill-informed (not to say ignorant) malcontents will be more than balanced by new readers who search your pages for new gems of knowledge. By the way, I expect the ad for the Bast vase in the January/February 1992 issue will create a new tempest in a teapot, since Bast was the cat goddess of old Egypt.

What Is New Age?

Several letters in the January/February 1992 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01) criticize BAR for advertising a crystal obelisk, and incorrectly tie the New Age to idolatry, satanism and occultism. May I refer readers to the definition of New Age in Executive Think Link (Ponderosa Publishers, 1990) which reads:

“NEW AGE: a nebulous, unformed movement with no specific leaders which finds devotees in all walks of life, rich, poor, educated, unlettered, of all nationalities; not a religion but a benign paradigm shift in the consciousness of all humanity; not a wilted version of the ’60s flower-child movement. The goals include personal enlightenment, spiritual growth, ecological awareness, world peace and universal love and compassion.”

This is hardly the sinister movement implied by reader Eckleberry—“smacks of New Age”; reader Veglucci—“to promote the spread of occultism and the New Age”; and reader Brady—“This does nothing but promote the New Age movement, which was started by Satan at the point of the fall of man”!!! Come now!

The crystal obelisk can be viewed on a par with many other accepted symbols such as Santa and the Easter Bunny. Many Christmas decorations and symbols, including the date of Christmas itself, are apparently based on pre-Christian beliefs.

BAR, remain steadfast in your stand on advertising. Your scholarly articles are enlightening and increase our understanding of the many paths man has trod throughout history.

A Christmas Tree Is an Asherah

I am tired of letters from people who are offended by the crystal goddess ad. Each year, Christians everywhere bring in their own Asherah during the Christmas season and call it a Christmas tree. They need to educate themselves about this tradition which was brought down from the Asherah cult. Easter too is filled with such hand-me-downs. The Eve of All Saints Day (Halloween) is so corrupt with pagan traditions that many Christians are unaware that the holiday is Christian.

The crystal goddess advertised means as much to those who buy it as the Christmas tree does to Christians. No one expects that BAR subscribers are the type who would worship either.

Those who complain that the crystal goddess shouldn’t be in their homes should also get rid of their Christmas trees. What hypocrisy lies in those who ask you to remove the splinter in your eye when they themselves have a log in their own. (Some famous man said that.)

Objects to Religious Advertising

I was amazed by the letters in the January/February issue taking BAR to task for the Franklin Mint ad. I am glad they haven’t stopped you. It never ceases to anger me when people try to inflict their view of religion onto others. Every adult who reads BAR is very capable of making the decision of what to believe.

When I first subscribed to BAR I was upset because there was, and is, a lot of religious advertising, but as long as the articles are informative, interesting and do not become a soap box for or against any one religion I will continue to subscribe.

Objects to Movie Ad

I am concerned with the full-page ad in your January/February issue for video movies—“6 movies for 39¢ ea.” I read the 014list of movies and found very few wholesome movies that Christians could watch.

For shame! Are you stooping so low as to put advertising of such trash in your otherwise wonderful magazine?

Offensive to BAR Readers

I noted with great joy the public service ad in the January/February 1992 issue, stating “The uncensored content of this magazine is made possible by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States.” However, being a long-time reader of BAR, especially the Queries & Comments section, I feel I should warn you that it might be more prudent to put this ad on a tear-out sheet, as its contents will most likely be found offensive by some of your readers.

Gamla

Walter Mitty Lives

This letter is prompted by Danny Syon’s article (“Gamla—Portrait of a Rebellion,” BAR 18:01). What a beautiful piece of writing. And congratulations on the photo layout. Syon must have touched the Walter Mitty dream of many of your readers who fantasize about making that significant contribution to our knowledge of the past.

I have sent my modest contribution along to the Gamla excavation.

In Spring, It Delights the Heart

Seldom do I write a letter to an editor. However, I feel that I must express the delight your magazine brings me. In your hands, archaeology is no longer dry as dust.

Danny Syon’s article “Gamla—Portrait of a Rebellion,” BAR 18:01, was a delight, bringing as it did some really new information properly set in the experience of the excavators and the background of local wild life. It was also a delight to see that area shown as a “green oasis” rather than the usual parched and dusty summer landscape. This article went a long way toward showing that the area is really quite lush in the spring and thoroughly capable of stealing away the hearts of modern workers.

Helping to Imagine Jesus’ Synagogue

I was glad to find the report on recent work at Gamla in your January/February issue (Danny Syon, “Gamla: Portrait of a Rebellion,” BAR 18:01) as this site is not widely known, most of the writings about it being in Hebrew. For your Jewish readers it is a fascinating story of patriotism almost 2,000 years ago, and the use made of the synagogue ruins today demonstrates its appeal. Yet that is hardly “Biblical.” The Bible of Judaism closes a couple of centuries before the Jewish Gamla was founded! For Christians, however, the Bible reaches into the first century A.D. and so covers the life of Gamla. It is a matter of regret to me, therefore, that the relevance of the discovery for New Testament archaeology passed unrecognized.

The synagogue at Gamla, the oldest known in Palestine built as such, is also the only certain one in the Galilee area used in the first century. It is therefore the only contemporary example of the synagogues that Jesus and his friends frequented. The fact that its plan is so similar to the plans of later synagogues in the region—those of the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries—even to the corner columns with heart-shaped cross sections, suggests that this design was common and could have been found in most of the towns.

Were others in the area like it? No one can be sure. However, the fact that some of the later synagogues in the Galilee were similar in many ways suggests that there were others in Jesus’ time. Given that no one can be certain, we may use the Gamla ruins to build a picture of the synagogues Jesus knew.

Luke’s Gospel describes him going to the synagogue at Nazareth “on the Sabbath day, as was his custom.” Citizens of Nazareth had walked along the streets, some pausing to wash at a pool, to the doorway of their prayer hall. Entering, they climbed the steps and walked along to find a place to sit. Men and women may have had separate sections; that is not clear. They sat in rows along the steps, leaving the central area empty. The floor there was probably covered with rugs, giving a splash of color. Men wore prayer shawls, white, some with long fringes (Matthew 23:5).

When everyone was seated, the leader could begin the service. An important moment was the reading of the Bible lessons. The scrolls of the Law and the Prophets would be brought respectfully from their ark or cupboard, carried through the congregation and laid on the reading desk in the center. On that occasion in Nazareth Jesus read the second lesson, from Isaiah’s prophecy.

The synagogue at Gamla helps us to imagine more clearly the setting in which Jesus began his teaching.

No Respite at Night

In his excellent article, “Gamla: Portrait of a Rebellion,” BAR 18:01, Danny Syon says, “apparently during the night the defenders would gather the ballista stones that had fallen on the city and hurl them back at the Romans the following day” (emphasis added).

Once Roman artillery had “zeroed-in” there would be no relief at night during a siege. Harassing and interdictory fire would deny the defenders the luxury of casually collecting the stones only at night.

Actually, it would be much safer to gather the stones during daylight because the defenders could then see these missiles approaching. If the stones’ trajectories are observed, people can then take cover accordingly, depending upon direction, angle of impact, size of projectile, time of flight, etc.

Joins the Legion of Malcontents

At last! I have my chance to join the ever-growing legion of malcontents and write a vitriolic letter to BAR.

How can you label the red flowers on page 26 of the January/February issue (“Harsh Conditions Amidst Natural Beauty,” BAR 18:01, sidebar) “poppies”? They are anemones (A. coronaria). They may look like poppies, but they aren’t. They grow all over the Mediterranean and also do well in southern California. They appeared on Israeli stamps in 1952, 1953 and 1959.

Please do not succumb to the temptation of canceling my subscription. I need to keep an eye on you.

Supersessionism

Who’s an Anti-Semite?

About David Crews’ letter and James Charlesworth’s reply (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01): I appreciate your looking at both sides of the issue. But one thing that keeps coming out in all this discussion bothers me: It is the idea that if I feel one religion is objectively wrong, then I am a bigot.

Jesus Christ himself said he was the only way to the Father. That means little, unless you are a Christian. I do not expect a non-Christian to accept that statement. Nor do I expect a Jew or Hindu or Muslim to accept the New Testament Scriptures as sacred. Obviously, if there is such a thing as objectivity, we cannot all be right. Many religions hold beliefs that are in opposition to other religions. Do I feel a rabbi is a bigot if he thinks I am objectively wrong? No. Are 016Jews anti-Christians? If I am an anti-Semite for thinking the Jewish religion is no longer valid, then Orthodox Jews are anti-Christian for thinking our religion is incorrect.

I can accept a human being and wish him well even when I disagree with him. I have known atheists for whom I have tremendous respect, although I think they are terribly wrong. But they have the right to live and breathe and enjoy happiness, as anyone else does.

I would like to point out to James Charlesworth that while Romans may seem a little difficult to interpret, one cannot escape Paul’s general point that it is “in Christ” where no condemnation is found. Regarding Romans 11:1, Charlesworth failed to do what he told Crews should be done: consider the context of the passage. “Has God rejected his people? … By no means!” Charlesworth points out that Paul then called himself an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin. Charlesworth then says, “to consider that God has rejected the Jews … would mean that God’s new covenant may not be solid.” Yet he fails to continue to read the text. The point is that God has not rejected a remnant (v. 5). There is a remnant chosen by grace. The illustration Paul uses is Elijah who feels he is the only one left faithful to God.

Christian Jews have not denounced their culture. They are still Jews (although the nation of Israel has debated that issue in the past few years).

Charlesworth also failed to examine verse 7. “What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect [the church] did.”

Does this mean that those Jews who have not accepted Jesus are horrible sinners? Of course not. Nor does it mean that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or atheists are horrible sinners. The fact is, we are all unworthy.

I do feel uncomfortable with Crews’ statement that Judaism and Christianity are “mutually … incompatible.” They both were covenants of God. The first covenant has been fulfilled, but not condemned. According to Christian thought and New Testament teaching, the Law will not provide salvation; only Jesus Christ can do that, but that does not make the Law evil. I would never demand a Jew to leave his culture. However, I would wish to convince him that Jesus Christ is the only one who can save him. I would also wish to show him that Jesus Christ was a Jew and that it was God’s plan to bless the entire world through the Jewish people. Is that being bigoted or anti-Semitic?

Let’s quit the labeling and attacking just because we disagree with each other! Don’t call me an anti-Semite. I will not call you an anti-Christian, antifundamentalist or antievangelical.

Thank you for the time you have taken to read this rather lengthy letter. I certainly enjoy BAR. I appreciate a magazine that will air a variety of views (even opposing viewpoints) for the sake of intelligent review.

Did Charlesworth Look at the Context?

James Charlesworth erroneously states that supersessionism “certainly is not typical of Jesus” (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01). I beg to differ. Jesus explicitly and unashamedly proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Christ presents Himself in this and other passages (see Matthew 11:27) as the way to God—not “one of the ways,” or even “the best way.” If this makes Him “supersessionist,” then so be it.

And so be it for other witnesses in the New Testament:

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Peter in Acts 4:12).

“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (John in 1 John 2:22–23).

As for Paul, aside from his “ambiguity” in Romans 11:26, his position on supersessionism is stated clearly in Romans 3:20–24:

“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight … [T]he righteousness of God without the law is manifested … [which is] by faith … in Jesus Christ.”

Charlesworth charges David Crews with entering “the world of anti-Semitism” by not acknowledging “that Jews who don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah have not endangered their relationship to God.” But if we follow this line of reasoning, not only Crews, but Peter, John, Paul and most importantly, Jesus, are also to be labeled “anti-Semitic” since the above quotes prove that they refused to acknowledge this very thing.

I have visited Israel twice and have many Jewish friends. I am still a strong “supersessionist.” Does this make me “anti-Semitic”? Hardly. I view Jewish people as among the most beautiful and intelligent on earth. I admire their “religious fervor,” their rich traditions, their sense of ancestral roots and their undying patriotism. In fact, if the Messiah had not already come, I would have converted to Judaism and moved to Israel long ago. Are Jews to be labeled “anti-Gentile” for insisting on keeping the Law of Moses?

I have spent years sharing the Good News of Christ with those of other faiths and those who confess no faith at all. I affirm, along with Jesus and the New Testament writers, that unless they believe in Christ, they will not know God, or be accepted by Him. Does this make me “anti-pagan,” “anti-agnostic” or “anti-atheist”? I am not “against” these people. On the contrary, I am for them—praying daily for their welfare, both temporal and eternal. Am I “anti-” their belief-systems? Absolutely, and so was Christ.

Many Ways to God?

It is a basic tenet of Christianity that it is the way and the only way. That automatically makes Christianity exclusionary—to any other way. If Mr. Charlesworth chooses to call that anti-Semitic, then it is just because he can’t acknowledge that Christianity is not a “there are many ways to God and this is mine” belief system. Christianity is open to all people, and it is based on love, but not at the expense of truth (as set forth in the New Testament). If that disturbs Mr. Charlesworth, then he joins the ranks of such highly educated individuals as Annas and Caiaphas.

Only One Way

We believe the Bible here. We are not anti-Semitic in doing so. The Israelites were blessed as the vessel for the Word and Jesus Christ, but nobody comes to the Father except by that one way.

Christianity as a Jewish Heresy

David P. Crews (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01) says that supersessionism—the belief that the Hebrew Bible has been superseded by the so-called New Testament—is not anti-Semitic. Maybe not, but the claim is offensive nevertheless. Suppose, for example, that I were to argue that early Christianity was nothing but a Jewish heresy: the church used graven images, had a pantheon of demigods and adopted pagan ideas like the virgin birth and the dying and resurrected god. I am not advocating this 018position, but rather using it to ask rhetorically, Would Crews be insulted? You bet, and properly so!

Christianity’s Worship of Three Entities

Christianity is incompatible with Judaism because Christianity demands worship of three entities, one of which is a man. Should I use a Crews-ism and charge that it is precisely this situation that causes Christians to have detrimental relationships with God?

Mr. Crews complains that people blithely and blatantly excised passages of Scripture from their context to support preconceived interpretations. Yet Mr. Crews himself does precisely that. For example, he argues that “Biblical Judaism” ended with the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and thus “showed” that God rejected the “old covenant.” Using Crews’ logic, one may suppose God had previously rejected Biblical Judaism when the Tabernacle was lost, and then rejected it again when the first Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C.E. by the Babylonians. Many today are attempting to rebuild the Temple and reestablish the Temple service. The New Testament speaks of a future reestablished Temple and Temple service. When Temple service is reestablished, should we say, using Crews’ logic, that God will have rejected the “new covenant” and returned to the “old” and God will have turned His face away from Christians and Christianity?

Is Charlesworth Anti-Christian?

I have been following the continuing argument regarding supersessionism in your magazine for several months. As a practicing Catholic who was born and raised Jewish, this issue has quite naturally grabbed my attention. In James Charlesworth’s response to David Crews, he says that by accepting the doctrine of supersessionism, one “enters the world of anti-Semitism”! Earlier letters have made the same point—that the mere acceptance of this doctrine by itself makes one an anti-Semite. This is inflammatory and demonstrably untrue. Does belief in supersessionism also make one anti-Buddhist, anti-Islamic, anti-Zen or anti-atheist? The only person here being “anti” anything is Mr. Charlesworth, who is expressing an anti-Christian prejudice.

Many letters expressing bias and prejudice have appeared in BAR. My experience is that they are usually caught and rebutted. I understand that your magazine is meant to be a marketplace for ideas and that you take no position regarding the content of the letters or articles appearing therein. Nevertheless, when an issue is a sensitive one, BAR has in the past made editorial comments explaining your neutrality and rejecting all expressions of bias. I suggest that this current expression of bias deserves no less from you. I would also suggest that the way you published Mr. Charlesworth’s response gives you an even greater obligation to publicly refute his expressed bias. The format used for his response tended to put the weight of the magazine more behind Mr. Charlesworth than Mr. Crews. This could subtly suggest a greater affinity of your magazine for his viewpoint. I believe this thus obligates you to affirmatively respond and clarify that you refute the notion that the mere adherence to supersessionism is, in and of itself, anti-Semitic. Unlike many of your readers, I realize that BAR is not a “Christian” magazine, but failure to repudiate this calumny will lead me to wonder if your magazine is even impartial.

We agree with Professor Neusner in the following letter that Jews and Christians are “coworkers in God’s service.” As to whether the New Testament espouses supersessionism, that is a theological question, on which we express no opinion. People of good will and great learning have interpreted these texts differently. We find the insights of Professor Charlesworth and, before him, Eugene Fisher (“The Church’s Teaching on Supersessionism,” BAR 17:02), helpful. However, we do not regard as anti-Semitic a belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. But care must be taken that such a belief not be the basis of “entering the world of anti-Semitism,” to use Charlesworth’s phrase. Unfortunately, this has 066happened many times in the past. A belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ does not mean that Christians condemn Jews or Judaism—or even that the covenant between God and the Jewish people has been broken.

These are subtle, but very important distinctions because history is replete with horrors that have resulted from a failure to observe them. Nor can Christianity disregard its special relation to Judaism. To say that supersessionism is no more anti-Judaism than anti-Buddhism or Islam or Shintoism is to ignore the special relationship between Judaism and Christianity.—Ed.

Does God Want It This Way?

In defense of Mr. Crews in his debate with Professor Charlesworth in your columns (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01), for many centuries Christians believed, and many now believe, that Jews who don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah have no relationship with God. That does not make those Christians anti-Semites; it simply means they regard (their particular formulation of) Christianity as the sole true faith. Such people can, and frequently do, maintain cordial relationships with Jews and may even respect Judaism as false, but a good try; they simply maintain Christianity is right and Judaism (along with Islam, Buddhism, and all the other -ities and -isms of religion) wrong. Now why should Jews faithful to Judaism take issue with that, since we, for our part, do believe Judaism is right and Christianity wrong; if we thought otherwise, we should convert to Christianity. In a book of mine that Doubleday will publish next year, Explaining History’s Great Dissent: A Jewish Argument with Matthew’s Jesus, I explain why, if I were there in Galilee on the day of the Sermon on the Mount, I would not have followed Jesus; I set forth the reason that, with all due respect, I also believe even now that Judaism (in Judaic language, “the torah”) teaches what God wants and that by the criteria of the torah, Christianity errs. That does not make me guilty of anti-Christianism, any more than it makes Mr. Crews guilty of anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism to maintain the contrary. Religions differ on important matters, and perhaps that is how God wants things. Tolerance, not pseudo-syncretism, is what is required; Christian and Judaic believers can believe one another deeply wrong but still find in one another co-workers in God’s service.

Religious Exclusivity Should Not Lead One to Hate Others

It does not follow that because Christianity and Judaism are doctrinally mutually exclusive that Christians and Jews must therefore hate each other. We are both commanded to love our neighbors, and true godly love shows itself best in the midst of conflict.

BAR is a great forum for this “clash.” I appreciate a journal that unflinchingly publishes articles from all perspectives, whether liberal or conservative, Jewish or Christian. Keep up the great work!

Atheism Provides Rational Footing

If ever my reluctant atheism stumbles toward a path even of agnosticism, much less belief, a reading of the letters in BAR will restore my rational footing. As one of your correspondents said, some of us out here are smiling.

Keep up the good work. Yours is a most interesting, challenging and well-presented magazine. Your willingness, nay, insistence on dealing with fact rather than fiction is both rare and refreshing. History is indebted to you.

Asherah

Asherah and Easter

The readers’ responses in the January/February issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01) to the Asherah article (Ruth Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah—Exploring Semitic Iconography,” BAR 17:05) prompts a reflection that this ancient, detested cult gave Europe the Maypole and ironically influenced Christianity’s most holy observance, Easter.

The Venerable Bede (672–735 A.D.) established in his De Ratione Temporum that our word “Easter” (Eastre) was an anglicization of the Teutonic dawn goddess of fertility known variously as Ostare, Ostara, Ostern, Eostra, Eostre, Eostur, Eastra, Eastur, Austron and Ausos (Indo-European). Festivities in her honor were held throughout April (Eostur-monat) to welcome the vernal equinox.^a

Bede himself (along with most modern reference sources) never connected the goddess Eastre with Asherah although, it appears, the connection is inescapable.

Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: World Bible, repr. 1987) agrees that Easter is another form of Astarte (Greek and Latin Asherah variant). This Anglo-Saxon version of the Great Mother Ostarte, Queen of Heaven, shares the less violent themes of Asherah, also known as Astar (Abyssinia), Athtar (Arabia), Ishtar or Istar (Babylonia and Assyria), and at least a dozen other variants throughout the Fertile Crescent. Greece and Rome adopted her name as a distinct goddess yet linked her to many of their other female deities, including Venus, Astraea and Eos, goddess of the dawn. Esther of the Bible was a Hebrew pronunciation of her Persian name (another variant of the goddess Sitarah, meaning star). Phonetically, most of the names are amazingly similar to each other and the European variants.

The practice of blending Christianity with local customs and festivals worked well for early European evangelists. This pagan festival of rebirth was dose to the time of Christ’s resurrection and could be incorporated into nature’s rebirth celebrated in the spring. The discovery of an empty tomb at sunrise coincided nicely with the sect’s symbolic association with daybreak and the morning star. Dawn symbolically represented the return of light (Jesus) to the world.

Austron and Eostre provide the root forms for the English words east, star, astronomy and asteroid. Estrus and estrogen also are probably derived from this goddess of sexuality, despite the commonly cited etymology from the Latin word for gadfly, which sounds similar but is conceptually tenuous.

At the risk of rekindling the great debates over the dates on which to celebrate our Lord’s resurrection, I would like Christians to accept the Jewish dates for Passover as the starting point for calculating Good Friday, leaving out the vernal (Venus) equinox. This should bring us closer to the true meaning of the events we celebrate and to our Jewish heritage. It is probably too late to change, but if we could revert to the apostolic name of the day or follow the French use of the Hebrew for Passover, we would linguistically respect the commandment to not build a house of the Lord near an asherah.

Puzzling Public Buildings

Like Suqs in Saudi Arabia

I am not an archaeologist, but I have lived, worked and traveled extensively all over the 067Middle East. I have visited a vast number of ruins and sites, though—regretfully—never participated in a dig myself.

I read with considerable interest John Currid’s article on tripartite pillared buildings (“Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01). I have seen three of the eight sites he depicts on page 55: Hazor, Beer-Sheva and Megiddo. It was not, however, until pages 58–59 that I really sat up! The restored representations of two of the buildings stirred some deep memory: I had actually seen these buildings in use! If the restorations are reasonably accurate, and the central raised roof is, indeed, a clerestory, then these buildings are still in use on the Arabian Peninsula. They are suqs, or bazaars! The best examples I have visited are in Riyadh and Hofuf, in Saudi Arabia, although they can be found in most towns and villages in the Arab world.

The central aisle is the corridor, and is often a well-trodden dirt floor. The outer aisles are the stalls: shallow in depth and occasionally quite wide, resembling in size not much more than a largish closet. Some of the older ones have a hitching place with a drink/feed trough for animals; the sites mentioned in the article may or may not yield sufficient quantities of phosphoric anhydride after all these centuries, since the animals would be tethered for a short time only.

These suqs sell everything: clothing, food and furniture as well as pottery, as was found at Beer-Sheva.

Traveling extensively in Saudi Arabia, as I have done, one sees these structures quite frequently. Some are simple, one-building suqs, such as in the small villages (like the one depicted on page 58), whilst others are large and complex, with many units (like the one depicted on page 59).

These buildings in Arabia are not well known because there is no tourism there. Unless a person has a job there or has an immediate family representative living there, there is no hope of getting a visa.

John D. Currid replies:

Since I have no firsthand knowledge of the buildings alluded to by Mr. Nicholson, I cannot adequately respond to his suggestion. However, the bazaar theory is not a new idea—I refer the reader to the article by Larry Herr, “Tripartite Pillard Buildings and the Market Place in Iron Age Palestine” (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1989), pp. 47–67. There are some major problems with that reconstruction, however, for example, the lack of side walls that would 068have served as room dividers; no entrances to each suq room except by leaping over the “mangers “ or rubble between the pillars. Suffice to say that the bazaar theory has as many difficulties as any other position thus far proposed.

Ancient Slave Prisons

John D. Currid’s article on “Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01, was a fine summary of the different theories about the long, columned buildings found at various Iron Age sites. Along with some of his predecessors, Currid has adequately dismissed the stable theory. But I find problems with the storeroom theory that he espouses.

Let’s take Megiddo, for example. A short distance to the east of the southern array of columned buildings is a large stone-lined circular pit which has long been identified as a granary. A narrow, winding stairway descends along the side of the pit, enabling inhabitants of the city to continue accessing grain as the level went down during the months between harvests. If this is, indeed, a granary, then what need was there for additional storerooms? The granary seems large enough to have supported the population of Megiddo.

Another problem is the placement of the “tethering holes,” which are not on the inside of the columns, as would be expected if draft animals were brought into the central portion of the building, but on the side that is cobbled. At first glance, this placement provides evidence for the stable theory. But I shall suggest another use later in this letter.

The most serious problem with the storeroom theory is the height of the columns. All reconstructions of the buildings show a second pillar placed atop the lower ones found in situ. But no one has discovered, as far as I know, any such additional pillars in the rubble of the buildings, and I know of no reuse of such ashlars elsewhere on the sites. This suggests that the ceiling of the buildings was very low (3–4 feet)—too low for either pack animals or humans to comfortably use the structures.

So what kind of buildings would call for such low ceilings? I suggest that we consider the possibility that they were prisons, where comfort would not be a consideration. This would explain the thick walls and cobblestone floors, designed to prevent escape. The mangers could have been used at some sites for prisoners’ food or water. The tethering holes may have been used to restrain troublesome prisoners.

One prison in a city may make sense, but three found side by side at Beer-Sheva or the 17 uncovered at Megiddo? Surely no city could boast so many criminals.

The answer may lie in the passage frequently quoted by those who support the stable theory. In 1 Kings 9:15–23, we read not only of Solomon’s fortified cities, but also of his enslavement of the non-Israelites still living in the land. Some 550 overseers were required to supervise the work of these slaves. This suggests that there was a large population of state-owned slaves requiring housing, food and clothing.

The proximity of most of the columned buildings to the city gates is logical if slaves were taken outside the city daily to work in the fields or in other endeavors. (The need for slaves to work the land in the Jezreel Valley, where Megiddo is situated, is implied in Genesis 49:14–15). It also placed them nearest the commercial and governmental buildings where slave services were needed. Having the buildings inside the citadel added a measure of security.

There may be objections to the prison explanation, but I suspect that they are no stronger than those raised against the storehouse or stable theories.

John D. Currid replies:

A number of statements made by Mr. Tvedtnes regarding the storehouse hypothesis need to be corrected. First of all, there is indeed a large granary pit at Megiddo—however, it belongs to stratum III of the occupational history of the site (c. 780–650 B.C). The tripartites all date to previous strata and, thus, they were not used concurrently with the large granary. Secondly, the “tethering holes” are found primarily on the side aisles facing the central corridor—Mr. Tvedtnes is mistaken at this point.

Finally, the idea that these buildings served as prisons is strained. How would the prisoners get in and out of the cells if a “manger” stood in the way? Furthermore, there would have been at least 500 prison cells available at Megiddo alone—in that regard ancient Palestine would compare to modern New York City in its extent of crime.

They Were Customs Houses

The puzzling buildings (John Currid, “Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01) were customs houses—short-term storage facilities for out-of-town traders. The traders arriving in town were directed to these buildings where their goods were inspected, the proper tax collected, and then the goods sold to the local merchants.

The proximity to the gate and location in the outer limits of the city prevented the traders from selling retail and gave the local merchants a monopoly on the goods.

If the Shoe Fits, Wear It

I was reading Professor John D. Currid’s article entitled “Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01, when I ran across a statement that “puzzled” me.

In discussing whether the buildings could have been stables, he says, “The horse theory … does not have a leg to stand on.”

As a person with a keen sense of humor, I must know if, while being serious, he also meant to be funny.

The phrase is ours, and we were trying to be funny.—Ed.

Holladay’s Arguments on Stables Specious and Unconvincing

The article by John D. Currid is a welcome contribution to the discussion of the pillared buildings. Apart from a few “oversights” with regard to the contributions made years ago by my colleague, Ze’ev Herzog (see Ze’ev’s own letter to the editor below), Currid has done an excellent job in clarifying the problem and the best solution. I have always maintained that the buildings were storehouses, ever since Pritchard pointed out that there was only a small door to each side aisle. It would be utterly impossible to keep 15 war-horses in such a long chamber without separate doors for the individual horses.

When the article by John S. Holladay appeared a few years ago, Pritchard asked me my opinion of it. My reply was, “A sea of mud.” I could have used a more apropos Hebrew term, refesh, but we have been duly admonished (“A Plea for Civility,” BAR 18:01, sidebar) to maintain derekh eretz.

Holladay sent me his research material for that article back in 1977 and I shared it with Dr. Mary Littauer. Dr. Littauer is known for her contributions to the understanding of horses and chariotry in the ancient Near East. At the time of our correspondence, she and her husband (a retired cavalry officer) were owners of a horse farm on Long Island. Unfortunately, I have not had the occasion to visit them there in the intervening years. However, she gave me her permission then to use her replies in any future publication. Eventually, I tired of the whole mess.

In any case, Dr. Littauer agreed with me that Holladay’s arguments were specious and unconvincing. Holladay’s scenario whereby a lone horse (say number 15 at the far end of the row) would have been 070brought out behind the other 14 horses while their respective grooms were holding them is too comical and absurd to require comment. Dr. Littauer made it clear that stallions could hardly be housed next to one another or across from one another in such a tight situation. She also pointed out the question of what to do with the horses in case of fire. I once asked that question of an Israeli architect/archaeologist and was greeted with a blank look!

There is no doubt that Currid’s article will reopen the can of worms. The people who want to push the horses’ rumps aside to get out that 15th horse will insist on having their say. I suggest that they put 15 stallions in a narrow hall without any individual doors to take out the horses and then spend the night in there with them. If they come out alive, then they can write another pro-stables essay. Meanwhile, pushing horses’ rumps is not my idea of scholarly research.

For Scientific Accuracy and Fairness

BAR should be praised for presenting the important issue of the “pillared buildings” to readers who may not have had a chance to follow the debate 20 years ago. John Currid (“Puzzling Public Buildings,” BAR 18:01) provided a balanced representation of the scholarly opinions and reached, in my view, the correct conclusion: These buildings could only be storehouses.

However, for the sake of scientific accuracy and fairness, I find myself forced to point out an important omission. “His” conclusions that the mangers and tethering holes were used for pack animals of the storehouses follow directly my arguments, published in 1973 in a chapter on the storehouses in Beer-sheba I, edited by Yohanan Aharoni. This could have been regarded as an innocent, accidental omission of a marginal paper, but such an excuse is contradicted by the fact that my article is listed as a “brief overview” in the endnotes. Moreover, my original reconstruction drawing of the storehouses (omitting my initials!), published in the above-mentioned chapter, was incorporated (without my permission!) on page 58. Careful comparison of the drawing on page 55 will remind the reader of another of my illustrations in the cited source, to use the BAR editor’s phrase, I call such behavior a lack of scholarly derech eretz (civility).

For the benefit of your readers, I would like to tell of an “experiment” I made at the Beer-Sheva storehouse in 1975, in which I fed a donkey from one of the mangers while it was tethered to one of the pillars (photo above). In other words, the pack animals were led into the storehouse down the central aisle and were tethered and fed while being unloaded. That’s why no pottery was found in the central aisle. Also one should mention that similar pillared storehouses were exposed by Volkmar Fritz at Tel Kinnarot and by Moshe Kochavi at Tel Hadar.

With regard to the illustrations, we apologize to our friend Dr. Herzog for these omissions and fully agree with his good-natured letter.—Ed.

Dead Sea Scrolls

BAR’s Abject Reversal

Your abject reversal on the matter of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“What the Monopolists Have Done Right,” BAR 18:01), especially with regard to Strugnell, has totally disenchanted me. I would not believe a word you say from now on. And while I am not going to cancel my subscription at this time, I will certainly not renew it!

Why Not More Carbon-14 Tests on the Scrolls?

The importance of carbon-14 tests on the Dead Sea Scrolls hardly needs to be argued. These texts come without internal datings, from multiple authors, evidently written at different times. There is no consensus on who wrote the texts, or when. It was therefore with dismay that I read the closing words of “Dead Sea Scrolls Update” (“Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,” BAR 17:06): “It is unlikely, however, that additional C-14 tests will be conducted in the foreseeable future.”

Why not make additional C-14 tests on other significant documents? If cost is an objection, surely scholars as well as other interested parties would donate funds to cover direct costs of tests on key texts. There are one or two texts I would pay out of my own pocket to see tested.

According to the BAR report, of the eight texts without confirmed internal datings tested by the Institut für Mittelenergiephysick of Zurich, the datings from paleography appear to be roughly confirmed in six instances, but are seriously discrepant in at least one (Masada-Joshua), and possibly two (Kohath), instances.

When 25 percent of paleographic datings of the tested samples of texts of this degree of importance are possibly substantially in error—on an order of over a century—the stakes are simply too high not to conduct further testing. Why acquiesce to remaining in the dark when this information is so easily obtainable?

Your offer is accepted. Please identify the texts you want tested and send us a check for the cost—and we’ll try to see that it’s done.—Ed.

072

Preserving Ancient Documents

I found the articles “Preserve the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR 18:01, by Hershel Shanks and “What We Should Do Next Time Great Manuscripts Are Discovered,” BAR 18:01, by James M. Robinson very interesting. But neither article discussed physically preserving ancient manuscripts. When ancient documents are found, the first priority must be the preservation of the manuscript. Translation and interpretation are second. Handling and exposure to sunlight and electric light damages them. The race for time must be run in favor of preservation.

Step one in the preservation process should be carefully photographing the document. Photography can also enhance the document if necessary.

Step two is more costly, but it could return the biggest payoff in terms of later research. Each of the photographs made should then be entered into a computer using optical character recognition (OCR) technology. The ancient document would then be computer data. It could be sorted and catalogued without having to use the original. The original can be carefully stored, without fear of deterioration.

Don’t Confuse Filth with Manure

Without entering the controversy over the Dead Sea Scrolls, I wish to enter a plea for accuracy in the translation of the Hebrew words in “A Plea for Civility,” BAR 18:01.

lbz (ZE-bel) should be translated as “manure” and tpwnyf (tee-NO-phet) as “filth,” and not vice versa.

Philistine Civilization

Philistines and the Unknown Pelethites

In “The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to Civilization,” BAR 17:06, Avner Raban and Robert R. Stieglitz state, “David chose for his personal bodyguard elite military units from among the Sea Peoples—the Cherethites (Cretans) and Pelethites (name unknown: 2 Samuel 15:18), both evidently recruited at the Philistine city of Gath.” In the same issue, Bryant Wood (“The Philistines Enter Canaan—Were They Egyptian Lackeys or Invading Conquerors?” BAR 17:06) states, “Portraits of captured Philistines…referred to in Egyptian as Peleset, cover the walls of the Medinet Habu temple.” Could the Peleset be the Pelethites? If so, the Pelethites would no longer be “unknown.”

Robert R. Stieglitz replies:

The Pelethites are not the same as the Philistines. Pelethite is a transliteration of the Hebrew name written PeLeµTi; Philistine is transcribed from the Hebrew name PeLiSðTi. Since the term “Philistine” is quite common in the Bible, it is most unlikely that the term “Pelethite” in 2 Samuel 15:18 is a scribal error for the term “Philistine.”

True, King David’s bodyguard was composed of mercenary contingents drawn from the Philistine city of Gath, but they are specifically termed Cherethites (Cretans) and Pelethites (unknown). They were obviously related to the Philistines, but the author carefully distinguishes them from the well known tribal name “Philistine.” Both Philistine and Pelethite were probably tribal or ethnic names among the various groups of Sea Peoples settled in Canaan.

Philistines and Phoenicians in the British Isles

I read with great interest the article by Robert Stieglitz and Avner Raban in the November/December issue (“The Sea Peoples and Their Contributions to Civilization,” BAR 17:06), in particular the comment about these people digging square wells.

In accord with current academic thinking, they dismiss the proposition that tin was obtained from Afghanistan or the British Isles in 1400–1200 B.C. They will no doubt be well aware of the arguments as to whether the Phoenicians ever (even though in somewhat later times) actually came to the British Isles, specifically the tin-producing area of Cornwall.

There are apparently ancient square wells in Cornwall. A sister of mine who lives in that area (to whom I am indebted for this information) has pointed out to me that there is one such square well, lined apparently with slate, in the churchyard of St. Anthony’s, Place Manor, Roseland, Cornwall, which I have seen. There is another in the churchyard of St. Just in Roseland, and still another in the land of a farm in the area. It seems probable that others will be found.

The late former curator of Place Manor, Mr. Edmund Harte, in a remark to my sister about 15 years ago, commented that “the Phoenicians dug square wells.” She has been seeking documentation of this ever since; then the article appeared in BAR.

Some of the sarsen stones of Stonehenge bear carvings of Mycenaean daggers, c. 1600–1500 B.C. Professor R. J. C. Atkinson (Stonehenge, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1956, ch. 3, and Appendix in the Pelican edition of 1960) has connected carvings of daggers with contemporaneous grave goods indicating “trade contacts” at the time between southern Britain and the Mycenaean and Minoan civilizations of the central Mediterranean.

Probably less well-known is the fact that an H-shaped tin ingot about 2 feet long and weighing about 160 pounds is in Truro Museum. It was brought up by a fishing vessel in Falmouth Bay in 1823. It has a “hall mark,” an elongated image of itself stamped at the end of one arm. Tin was of course worked in Cornwall in ancient times.

The seafaring capabilities of the Sea Peoples and/or perhaps specifically the Phoenicians may well be much underestimated. Serious archaeological investigations in West Cornwall—Belerion—in the light of present knowledge could be very fruitful.

Robert R. Stieglitz replies:

I was particularly interested in the H-shaped stamped ingot from the Truro Museum. That particular mark, a plain H, is not attested on the Bronze Age ingots—copper and tin—from the Mediterranean. The shape of the ingot is not really the same as those “ox-hide” types of the Bronze Age.

I do not doubt that Phoenicians explored, and perhaps even mined tin, in Cornwall. The problem is to prove it by local archaeological evidence. The “Mycenaean” dagger at Stonehenge, which I have seen there, proves nothing. Such daggers are also attested in the Near East. Neither do the square wells, for they are also attested in Ottoman (!) Palestine. Now, if you found Phoenician artifacts in these ancient (?) wells (pottery, coins), it would be a strong case for the presence of those Iron Age mariners in Cornwall. Indeed, any ancient Mediterranean pottery found in Cornwall would be a most significant find.

To document the supposed Phoenician presence in Britain, it is essential to produce Phoenician artifacts. In every part of the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions where Phoenician and Punic settlements, or outposts, existed, remains of their material culture have also been found. So let it be with Anglia. A systematic regional survey in the mining districts of Cornwall should produce the data for an overview of the mining chronology. I am simply not familiar with work already done in the region.

Here and There

The Inspiration for the Menorah

Your January/February 1992 issue includes several letters regarding the source for the 074shape of the menorah in the Tabernacle and the Temple (“Of Asherahs and Menorahs,” Queries & Comments, BAR 18:01). The detailed description of the Tabernacle menorah in Exodus 25:31–40 and 37:17–24 is striking in its use of botanical terms: branches, knobs, flowers, almond-shaped calyxes. Unfortunately, few translations accurately render the original Hebrew text. The repeated use of nomenclature from the plant world in the description of the menorah led the late Dr. Ephraim and Hannah Hareuveni, Israeli pioneers in the field of Biblical botany in the early decades of this century, to search the fields of Israel for plants whose shape is reflected in the description of the menorah.

The Hareuvenis found that there are, in fact, all over the land of Israel, from the Sinai desert to the mountains of Lebanon, a number of different species of an extraordinarily fragrant group of plants that by their shape and other characteristics illustrate the Biblical verses describing the menorah. These species fall mainly into the genus Salvia, a member of the sage family.

Details about the menorah, its sources and symbolism can be found in several publications by Nogah Hareuveni, son of Dr. Ephraim and Hannah Hareuveni and founder of Neot Kedumim—the Biblical Landscape Reserve in Israel, including his seminal book, Nature in Our Biblical Heritage (Israel: Neot Kedumim, 1980) and the booklet, The Emblem of the State of Israel: Its Roots in the Nature and Heritage of Israel (Israel: Neot Kedumim, 1988).

Pornography and Crime

Although you have an obligation to print letters like that of Mrs. Paulette E. Helland of Phoenix, Arizona (Queries & Comments, BAR 17:06), who has a constitutional right to her opinion, you also have an obligation to append a note to such an opinion, stating that all replicable relevant research in juried journals indicates that pornography not only does not cause antisocial behavior, but rather ameliorates such behavior and indeed enhances social behavior. Publication of such false, unfounded assertions as Mrs. Helland’s without comment does not reflect credit upon BAR. One wonders why millions of banks were not robbed by viewers of the movie Bonnie and Clyde. I treasure BAR as a source of objective information analysis, not as a font of prejudicial unfounded opinion.

075

Where Is Bethel?

Anson Rainey cracks me up! In his footnote on page 60 (“Rainey’s Challenge,” BAR 17:06), he calls our excavation at Khirbet Nisya “fundamentalist attempts to invent a pseudo Ai … , exercises in science [archaeological?] fiction.”

He is so blinded by his raw prejudice that he dismisses with a wave of the hand the new factual evidence that Bethel is located at el-Birah (not at Beitin). Ai therefore must be at Khirbet Nisya, east of Jebel et-Tawil, the mountain at el-Bireh. He also prefers to ignore the fact that the topography at that location exactly matches the Biblical model. Furthermore, the archaeological evidence of 24 weeks of excavation fits hand-in-glove with the Biblical chronology. But never mind the facts, I don’t want to confuse him!

Too Much Q & C

I am a Roman Catholic layman whose ancestors may well have been Jewish prior to 1492. I buy your magazine because I am interested in the history of the Holy Land and how it relates to the Bible, whether New or Old Testament. I would prefer that you dedicate more space to archaeology and not to Queries & Comments.

Did Pharaoh Drown in the Red Sea?

While I will not question Mr. Yurco’s knowledge of Egyptology (review of Mummies of the Pharaohs, Books in Brief, BAR 18:01), he does lack knowledge of the Bible. He states that the Exodus account does not mention whether the pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea; this is true. However, he then relates that the Bible gives no support to the Islamic tradition of pharaoh’s drowning in the Red Sea. What he does not know is that in the Bible there is a parallel account of the Red Sea events—in Psalm 136. Verse 15 of this psalm clearly shows that both pharaoh and his army were cast into the waters and were drowned.

Furthermore, Mr. Yurco states that Ramesses II is the prime candidate for this pharaoh. This goes against both Biblical and archaeological facts. As stated in Yurco’s review, Ramesses II’s son Merenptah had a stele carved in which he claims to have attacked Israel in the land of Canaan. This shows that by Merenptah’s reign, Israel was already in the Promised Land. According to the Biblical account, the Israelites had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years between the time of the Exodus from Egypt and their entering the land of Canaan. Since the pharaoh of the Exodus drowned in the Red Sea, he died at least 40 years before the reign of Merenptah, thus clearly ruling out Ramesses II as the pharaoh here under consideration.

Frank J. Yurco replies:

Theron Gordon cites Psalms 136:15 as evidence that the pharaoh of the Exodus was drowned in the Red (or Reed) Sea. I would sooner trust the silence of the original Exodus text regarding pharaoh than a poetical account written several hundred years after the event. If the pharaoh had drowned, is it likely the original Exodus account would have glossed over that fact, considering that pharaoh was the main opponent of the departing Israelites? It is typical in history that accounts of events long past tend to be magnified and accumulate 076all sorts of secondary information.

Regarding the identity of the pharaoh of the Exodus, I still maintain that Ramesses II is the best candidate for the title, based upon both Egyptian and Biblical evidence. The Bible is explicit regarding the projects on which the Israelites labored. The name of the city is Pi-Ramesses, the capital city of Ramesses II. Yes, Merenptah defeated the Israelites in Canaan, as stated by his stele.^b If as the Bible states, they wandered for 40 years in the wilderness, that still puts the Exodus smack in Ramesses II’s reign. Ramesses II reigned 1270–1212 B.C.E. Merenptah’s reference to Israel in the stele is probably from his second-third regnal year, 1210–1209 B.C.E. Forty years back from this date is 1250–1249 B.C.E., right in Ramesses II s reign. Indeed, the likeliest date within his reign would be right around that time, his 30th regnal year, when the work on the capital Pi-Ramesses had been completed.

During the preceding decade, Ramesses II s eldest son died, and that may offer the soundest clue to the Exodus date. This would allow for the Israelites to wander in the wilderness for some 40 years, or even a little more before Merenptah encountered Israel in Canaan. As it is, the Israelites encountered by Merenptah seem closely related to the Canaanites of the cities of Ashkelon, Gezer and Yano’am, based upon their costume in the battle reliefs.^c The accumulating evidence indicates that the earliest Israelites in Canaan were a very polyglot group, some pastoralists, others farmers and others malcontents from the Canaanite cities, and in Dan, a group that originated among the Sea Peoples! In summary, the chronological facts of Ramesses II’s reign refute Theron Gordon’s position.