Queries & Comments

018

Doesn’t Envy Editor

I would not have your position at $1 million per week; perhaps 3 days, once.

Subscription cancellation not forthcoming.

Archaeologists and Light Bulbs

How many Biblical scholars does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Four.

One to write a paper on the text of the wrapper. If this happens to be a Mazda bulb rather than a General Electric one, this could take a major portion of someone’s career.

One to write an article on the writing found in the small circle at the end of the bulb.

One to write a discussion of the relationship between these two texts.

And one to write the text for a BAR article asking its readership what to do with the object.

Jerusalem Excavations

A Cherished Guide

Having subscribed to BAR for the past seven years, I have come to expect (although hopefully not take for granted) the excellent articles contained in each issue. However, I must write to thank you for Nitza Rosovsky’s outstanding article on the Jewish Quarter (“A Thousand Years of History in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter,” BAR 18:03). What a marvelous piece of writing!

I have visited Jerusalem on eight occasions, and each time I am drawn to this fascinating part of the Old City. The temptation to spend a day in the Jewish Quarter is irresistible. Although I have seen most of the sites Ms. Rosovsky describes, her article helped me better understand the quarter’s 2,700-year history.

The article will become a cherished field guide for our ninth visit next year.

Hats off to you and Ms. Rosovsky for this superior work.

Av and August

I was thoroughly delighted by Nitza Rosovsky’s article on the work of Dr. Nahman Avigad in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City (“A Thousand Years of History in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter,” BAR 18:03). My only criticism is Rosovsky’s translation of the Jewish month of Av as August.

It is false and misleading to use the Gregorian (read Christian) month to signify the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. It seems especially insensitive to correlate the month of August, which pays homage to a mighty Roman caesar, with the Hebraic month of Av, as if these two calendars were one and the same, only with different names. While I am pleased with the trend in the name of “fellowship” to create bridges between the Judaic and Christian traditions, I do not appreciate yet another appropriation of the Jewish tradition by the dominant Christian culture. Dialogue does not necessitate the eradication of distinctions. The religions are not one and the same. Let’s respect the differences and not gloss over them.

Dead Sea Scrolls

Notre Dame’s Wright Living in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land; Oxford’s Vermes Documents Broken Promises

As an old hand in Dead Sea Scroll studies (my first article appeared in 1949), I am puzzled by Professor John W. Wright’s “Another View of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,’” BAR 18:03. He must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he really imagines that the “revolution” was unnecessary and ill-timed as it came after a reorganization of the editorial process by the former regime that would have enabled them “to accelerate the publication of the scrolls at an unprecedented rate” (my italics). Some of us veteran scrolls-persons are less easily persuaded by promises. We have seen too many of these. For example, in the early 1980s, the then-editor in chief of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series the late Pierre Benoit, was assured that the Skehan 020manuscript of Biblical fragments was “practically finished”—and would be sent to him in just over a year’s time (Revue biblique 1983, p. 100). In 1992, five years after Benoit’s death, it is still not in print. Yet he [Benoit] went on complaining against “unjust,” “unreasonable” and even “malicious,” “dishonest” and “perfidious” accusations leveled against his crew of hard-working and enthusiastic editors.

According to Professor Wright, the agitation leading to the Qumran revolution was started in 1985 by the editor of BAR. That Hershel Shanks and his BAR have played a significant part in liberating the scrolls from restrictive practices, and even better in breaking an academic closed shop, is beyond doubt. Nevertheless, an earlier cry calling for “drastic measures” was uttered in 1977 when, in the light of recent experience of unkept undertakings regarding prompt publication, a since-then oft-repeated phrase, “the academic scandal par excellence of the twentieth century,” was coined (Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective, p. 24).

On learning in 1972 that, with the blessing of the Israel Department of Antiquities, Pierre Benoit had succeeded Roland de Vaux as head of the Qumran team, I approached the late Colin Roberts, the famous Greek papyrologist, who was then the secretary (= director) of the Oxford University Press [OUP]. Since Benoit and his colleagues were not under the control of any institution endowed with power, would he, on behalf of OUP, publishers of the official series, show some muscle and ensure a more expeditious editorial process? Colin Roberts agreed and issued directives to the editors requiring them to state a firm and reasonable date for submitting their completed manuscripts. Three did not bother to answer, but three others did. One of them promised a first volume in the fall of 1973 and the rest in 1975. A second gave the precise date of June 1, 1975, and the third wrote that “at the worst” his consignment would be finished by the summer of 1976. Need I say that none of these signed assurances was honored? This is not hearsay: I have seen the documents with my own eyes. From then on, I knew that short of “drastic measures” the appearance of the Cave 4 material in my lifetime was a forlorn hope. Ten years later, from the chair of a Dead Sea Scroll symposium held in London, I called for the immediate release of the unpublished Qumran material and repeated it at a public meeting recorded by the BBC, but my appeal went unheeded.

This is why, unlike Professor Wright, I wholeheartedly welcomed, during the glorious months of September, October and November 1991, the moves by Wacholder, Moffett and the Biblical Archaeology Society, and subsequently by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Contrary to Wright’s perception, I am unable to see how the establishment of academic freedom can make “losers” of any group of scholars, old or young, if they are motivated not by self-interest—one heard of threats to tenure and promotion, and even of theft of years of intellectual “investment”—but by unselfish devotion to the advancement of knowledge and learning.

Who’s Using Rhetoric Now?

Wright’s “Another View of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,’” BAR 18:03, on the issue of release of the Dead Sea Scrolls would have been meritorious had he cited chapter and verse justifying the policy of the 022official editors.

Instead, Wright resorted to the sort of “fighting words” used by those on the other side of the issue, which he professed to decry. He wrote that “BAR began waging an extensive propaganda war … by infusing spy-novel language” and asserted that “[o]ne final rhetorical ploy” was added. Come, now, is that academic discourse?

But that is not all. His diatribe continued throughout his piece, with assertions of “shrillness of the rhetoric,” “introducing … cold war language,” “launching a campaign to halt communist aggression in Vietnam,” “[i]nvoking images of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” “the rhetoric transformed [the international scroll editors] into a communist regime of oppression and thought control … [and] mirrors the recent neoconservative attack on the academy for Political Correctness.”

As though that were not enough of an indictment, Wright compares the other side’s rhetoric to “academic vigilantism” and to “ethnic slurs aimed at minority students.”

I must say that both Wright and the other side ran the gamut of political discourse. I’m glad not to be a member of your “academy.”

For each issue, we have much more material than we can possibly print. It is agony deciding what to cut in order to make it fit. We printed Professor Wright’s piece not because we agreed with it, but because we felt duty-bound to let our readers hear from someone who profoundly disagrees with the way we handled the Dead Sea Scroll imbroglio. Professor Wright represents the view of a small minority of scholars, mostly insiders, and we felt our readers in fairness should hear him.—Ed.

Doggerel on the Dead Sea Scrolls

Herewith my comment on John W. Wright’s “Another View of the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,’” BAR 18:03:

“Lamenting ‘the gap between the rhetoric and reality,’

J. W. Wright is worried about media mentality,

Especially regarding the recent academic wrangle

Over the Dead Sea Scrolls—and so he’s given us his angle.

He has criticized expressive speech employed in the debate

By Time, the Times, the Tribune—they just couldn’t get it straight.

And Moffett at the Huntington? He couldn’t hold a candle

To Hershel Shanks the editor and genius of the scandal.

“But Shanks prevailed to clear the path of Qumran scholarship.

He routed the ‘insiders.’ They were chastened thigh and hip.

Shanks correctly framed the issue as one of public access,

Saying ‘scholarly convention’ had become a secret praxis.

J. W. Wright hopes that hindsight will shape a better future.

The wounds have healed and now its time to clip away the suture.

I’m sure that’s so and yet I know they couldn’t fill the sandal

Of Hershel Shanks the editor and genius of the scandal!”

Supersessionism

Jesus and Paul on Judaism

I have been following the supersessionism dialogue in your Queries & Comments section^a with a great deal of interest and some amusement. It seems to me that most of the discussion has carefully circled around the central question without actually coming anywhere near it.

Surely every literate Christian understands that the canonical Scriptures of the New Testament were written not to instruct us 1,900 years later, but to address questions that were relevant to the writers in their own times and in their own communities. “In their own times” means—in the case of Paul—20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. For the other writers, it means three or perhaps even four generations afterward. For this reason, the question to be answered is not What did Paul (or some other writer) think of Judaism? but What did Jesus of Nazareth think of Judaism? (1) It is very difficult to know; (2) his attitude may have changed during the course of his ministry; (3) the existence of a “church” of believers within the Temple community in the years between the death of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple implies that Jesus preached reform within Judaism more than revolution against it.

If contemporary Christians prefer to be guided by Paul’s attitude rather than Jesus’, then it is perfectly legitimate to consult the writings of Paul to find an answer. The 024questioner who, by chance perhaps, turns to Galatians first will find a writer who has nothing but hatred and contempt for Jews and all they stand for. If, again by chance, the questioner turns next to Romans, he finds a writer who has nothing but respect and love for the Jews and their faith. Does this mean that Paul has changed his mind in the months intervening between the composition of Galatians and Romans? Possible, of course, but lacking an intervening event to bring it about, not probable. It simply means that Paul is using different language because he is writing to a different audience, just as you and I would. If I write a letter on this topic to my daily newspaper, I would use a different approach than I do in writing to BAR; if I had the temerity to address myself to New Testament Studies, I would use still a third approach.

What can the nonscholar learn from all this? First, I think we should ask ourselves if Paul intended that his letters should be read together, side by side. Further, did he intend that they be used as proof-texts to address problems that he never imagined would arise? Last, I think his letters ought to tell us that Paul’s attitude toward Judaism as a faith is not central to either his goals or his motivation to reach those goals.

Keep up the good work, and please ignore the suggestions to substitute more 025archaeology for the Queries & Comments section.

Is God Intolerant?

I think the letters on supersessionism have missed a point. Religious groups that claim their God limits His/Her grace to those who embrace a particular set of theological beliefs may treat people who don’t accept these beliefs with tolerance. But they impute intolerance to their God.

Debating Our Future

I find letters debating the nature of religious bigotry and supremacy strangely comforting. I have always believed that historiography was the use of the past to debate about the nature of the future. BAR fulfills its role in this debate uniquely well. For that reason also, I take great heart in BAR’s ability to offend readers.

Shanks Is Dishonest and Neusner Speaks Double-Talk

Hershel Shanks’ assertion (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:03) that he does “not regard as anti-Semitic a belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ” is more dishonest than disingenuous when coming from such a sophisticated and knowledgeable Jew. The belief that salvation is only through Jesus Christ is a denial and a rejection of the Torah, of Judaism and of the covenant that God made with Israel.

The Christian theologian, author and scholar E. P. Sanders summarized the essence of salvation for Jews thus: “Salvation comes by membership in the covenant while obedience to the commandments preserves one’s place in the covenant” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, pp. 419ff.).

Many Christian scholars, like James Charlesworth, Roy Eckardt and Norman Beck, have long realized that supersessionism (as expressed in the New Testament in the letter to the Hebrews and in Paul’s epistles) denies the legitimacy of the Torah. Ironically, the Torah is also part of the Christian canon.

Jacob Neusner’s double-talk (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:03) further obfuscates the issue. When Christians insist that theirs is, as he writes, the “sole true faith” and consider Judaism “as false, but a good try,” the wise professor should understand that they are denigrating Judaism. Although some Christians who profess these 078ideas maintain cordial relations with Jews and may even disavow anti-Semitic behavior, their statements indicate a lack of respect for Judaism and its believers.

Jews who reject the belief that Jesus was a deity or a savior have not denied in word or deed that Christians’ beliefs are valid for them. Nor have Jews maintained that salvation and heaven were their sole bailiwick because of their faith. Salvation, or a place in The-World-To-Come, is guaranteed to all righteous people in the Mishnah (tractate Sanhedrin).

An Anti-Christian View of Christianity

Christianity is not a heresy of Judaism that sprang up and flourished among the Jewish malcontents.

Christianity is the result of the deliberate and premeditated affirmative action by certain Jews—like Saul/Paul—who wanted to bring the Word of God to the gentiles/pagans. These activists discarded some of the restricting practices of the Jews, circumcision of the males, dietary laws, restrictions of the Sabbath, to make the religious practice more acceptable to the non-Jews.

To make the religion acceptable to all people and to make the religion politically correct, they adopted, indiscriminately and nonjudgmentally, all sorts of pagan beliefs and practices: a fertility goddess: Mary, Mother of God; a child: the birth of Jesus and Christmas; male gods who amused themselves with human women: the Holy Ghost; human sacrifice: the crucifixion (though the Jews abolished human sacrifice at least 2,000 years previously); trees to worship: Christmas trees, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

None are the teachings which are at the root of Judaism: not the ethics and morals and the law of justice for all, not the regard for all living creatures and certainly not the belief in one God and the brotherhood of man.

When the Christian hierarchy saw what they had wrought, they decided they had better not let their people get too close to the Jews lest the people realize how far astray they had been led from the purity of Judaism, the religion they were supposed to accept. The clergy created a wall of hate against the Jews. They have strengthened this wall to insulate Christianity for 2,000 years, with the Inquisition, the auto de fe, the pogrom, the ghetto and finally its crowning glory—the holocaust.

Anti-Semitism is the basic foundation of Christianity as preached by its clergy and practiced by its faithful.

I have been reading with dismay, but not surprise, the ongoing discourse in BAR concerning supersessionism. I could not help but think that in “less civilized times” such a discussion would have been a prelude to crusades, inquisitions and pogroms. The there-is-only-one-way protagonists may do well to contemplate the following, which I found in the back of my prayer book by Dr. Abraham Joshua Heschel entitled No Religion Is an Island in his essay “Poland and the United States.”

“No religion is an island:

there is no monopoly on holiness.

We are companions of all who revere Him.

We rejoice when His name is praised.

No religion is an island:

we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion.

The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him.

He is near to all who call upon Him in truth.

God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile,

man or woman, in consonance with their deeds.

The creation of one Adam promotes peace.

No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

There is no monopoly on holiness:

there is no truth without humility.

We are diverse in our devotion and commitment.

We must unite in working now for the kingship of God.

He is near to all who call on Him in truth.

There can be disagreement without disrespect.

Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart,

opening minds to the challenges of faith.

Should we hope for each other’s failure?

Or should we pray for each other’s welfare?

Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt

as we share the precarious position of being human.

Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?

Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain.

Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths.

The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him.

Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.

079

Let those who revere the Lord speak to one another,

leading everyone to acknowledge the splendor of God.”

Enough Already

The recent outpouring of letters on the pros and cons of supersessionism has become not only tiresome but, from the beginning, woefully out of place. I subscribe to BAR because I am interested in the archaeological record; I look for theology elsewhere. While I am under no compulsion to read the letters on this outworn subject, they take space and other resources from the excellent articles that fit the title of your journal. While you may feel under some pressure to publish all the letters you receive, I hope that you can politely but firmly tell those who insist on continuing their diatribes on this subject to turn their energies toward the many theological journals that are in the marketplace and away from BAR. Enough already!

We print only a very small percentage of the letters we receive.—Ed.

Sepphoris

Linguistic Shortcut?

I enjoyed the article by Richard A. Batey (“Sepphoris—An Urban Portrait of Jesus,” BAR 18:03), but I couldn’t help but feel that his claim that we should see Jesus and his ministry from a “radically different viewpoint” is unsubstantiated. I could not find anything in his article that radically affects our view of Jesus.

Batey emphasizes Jesus’ use of the Greek word hypocrites and attempts to relate that to the theater in Sepphoris. He states, “The classical Greek word hypocrites, translated into English as ‘hypocrite,’ primarily means stage actor, that is, one who plays a part or pretends. Hypocrites could also describe a person who practiced deceit.”

Modern linguistics has shown that in understanding the meaning of a term in a particular context, the derivation (or etymology) of the word is inconsequential. What is important is the usage of the term at that time. If, during the time when Jesus spoke, the normal usage of the term was “a person who practiced deceit,” then the classical meaning is entirely irrelevant. We should look no further than the normal meaning in that day. And if the term could 080mean either “a stage actor” or “one who practiced deceit” in Jesus’ day we should choose the meaning which best fits the context, not attempt to force both meanings into the term. It is an unsubstantiated leap to suggest that Jesus had reference to the stage actor in the Sermon on the Mount. Are we to assume that everyone who used the term hypocrites in a negative sense during the Hellenistic period disliked the theater?

The author is to be commended for not taking any shortcuts in his archaeological work, but he has certainly taken a linguistic shortcut in relating Jesus’ usage of the term hypocrites to the theater.

Potpourri

The Wonderful and the Ugly

I appreciate your willingness to print articles and letters on controversial subjects from authors of opposing points of view. Striking contrasts have a way of revealing the wonderful and the ugly truths about ourselves.

Easter and Asherah—Relation Unproven

I probably saw a little more in Larry Boemler’s letter (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:03) linking the Asherah cult with Easter than most readers. For a number of years I have been interested in the Two-Babylons theory that purports to prove that paganism has been mixed with Christianity via the Roman Catholic Church. I have traced the origin of this theory to a 19th-century Scottish writer named Alexander Hislop who, in 1853, published The Two Babylons or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.

Mr. Boemler points to the fact that the eighth-century English cleric, the Venerable Bede, said the name Easter was derived from the Anglo-Saxon spring goddess Eostre. Then, to establish a link between the British Isles and the Near East, Mr. Boemler cites a dubious comment from Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Anyone familiar with Alexander Hislop will immediately recognize his imprint on Vine’s remark: “The term Easter is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess. The Pagan festival of Easter … was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt Pagan festivals to Christianity.” Vine goes even further by claiming that the Christian cross is actually the pagan symbol of Tammuz. This too originated with Alexander Hislop.

Since the Two-Babylons theory asserts that all idolatry originated in Babylon, it is not surprising that Mr. Boemler ultimately links the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre to Ishtar (Babylonia) and Istar (Assyria). However, the idea that all pagan religions share a common origin by diffusion is untenable. In ancient times, especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods, pagans sought out similarities among their deities and fused them together in a process known as syncretism.

The exact origin of the word Easter is uncertain. Even if one accepts the Venerable Bede’s contention that it was derived from the name of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring, it requires a quantum leap to link Easter with the cult of Asherah.

083

Rainey’s Ridicule

Unfortunately, Biblical scholars are as prejudiced and opinionated as anyone else—if not more so. A recent BAR article by Dr. Anson Rainey offers a vivid illustration of how opinionated a supposedly objective scholar can be (“Rainey’s Challenge,” BAR 17:06). In a final footnote Dr. Rainey levels a blast at evangelical scholarship in general and three outstanding Biblical scholars in particular. He accuses them of engaging in “science fiction.” The reason: They have the audacity to suggest that archaeological evidence supports the Biblical narrative of Israel’s conquest of Canaan. Here are his words: “Even the most recent fundamentalist attempts [to prove the Biblical narrative on the Exodus and conquest] are exercises in science fiction.”

Dr. Rainey is upset because John Bimson believes he has evidence that the conquest of Canaan took place in the 15th century B.C., not 200 years later as critics suggest. Dr. Rainey is also upset because David Livingston believes that archaeologists have not found evidence of a late 15th-century B.C. destruction of Ai because maybe, just maybe, they have excavated at the wrong location (et-Tel). Livingston suggests that the location of Ai (and Bethel) is farther to the south, where he has been excavating a tell (Khirbet Nisya) whose topographical surroundings correspond to the Biblical description in Joshua 8. Finally, Rainey is upset with Bryant Wood who reexamined Kathleen Kenyon’s records and artifacts of her digs at Jericho and found that the evidence, rather than supporting Kenyon’s late date for the conquest, suggests a 15th century B.C. date.

When these ridiculed scholars present their conclusions in the pages of BAR (John Bimson and David Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” BAR 13:05, and Bryant Wood, “Did the Israelies Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” BAR 16:02) and elsewhere, they do so with an impressive amount of supporting evidence. With one blast of academic arrogance, Dr. Rainey discounts all that and calls their well-reasoned work science fiction.”

Interestingly, in his article Dr. Rainey favors Albrecht Alt’s position on the conquest. The old German critical scholar subscribes to a gradual infiltration view. There were no 12 tribes of Israel who jointly crossed the Jordan to enter Canaan, rather several mountain tribes beyond the borders of Israel infiltrated Canaan over a long period of time. The infiltration view espoused by Dr. Rainey is diametrically opposed to the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan around 1405 B.C.

Apparently Dr. Rainey himself, when a student at John Brown University (Arkansas), subscribed to the Biblical view, a position he now calls “science fiction.” What liberal influence made him surrender his Biblical position? One also wonders how comfortable he is teaching part-time at the Institute of Holy Land Studies, which, according to its “Affirmation of Faith,” “holds an Evangelical Christian commitment, which involves emphasis on the centrality of Christ, authority of Scripture,” etc.

And finally, one wonders how many students at the institute, thinking they will receive Biblical instruction, instead will jettison their evangelical beliefs because an impressive and persuasive scholar, Dr. Rainey, convinces them that to believe and support the Biblical position is to engage in “science fiction.”

The Next Best Thing

I really enjoy BAR. It is far too late for me to become even a helper at one of the “digs,” but the next best thing is being able to read about the new findings and the interpretations given by the scholars involved.

024

Bible Lands Museum

Thank You, Elie

It seems to me someone ought to say a simple Thank you to Dr. Elie Borowski, whose Bible Lands Museum recently opened in Jerusalem. I confess I’m thinking more of human decency than of important principles. I know Elie and his wife Batya from interviewing them and seeing them a few times since. He asked me to be on the board of his museum once and I agreed, but I think since then I have been dropped (or maybe I haven’t been or maybe I didn’t agree).

Elie’s been taking a lot of flack lately, most recently in a letter from Jerusalem archaeologist David Ilan in the pages of this magazine (Queries & Comments, BAR 18:04) for dealing in stolen artifacts. The charge does not apply to any artifact in particular, but just in general, because he is—or was (he’s 78 years old now)—an antiquities dealer.

Ilan, a professional archaeologist in Jerusalem, calls Borowski a “megalomaniac” with a “mediocre” collection of antiquities that has only “anecdotal interest”; and, in any event, Ilan says, the collection consists of “plundered” artifacts, “the bane of true archaeology.” The collection should not even be shown, Ilan goes on to say, because it is, “to call a spade a spade … stolen property … the exhibition of unprovenanced (i.e. looted) antiquities should be anathema.” Similar issues were raised in connection with the museum opening in an article in the Jerusalem Report, which liberally quoted Ilan. Headlined “Bible Lands Booty?” the Jerusalem Report story also quotes Tel Aviv University archaeologist Aharon Kempinski: It’s “like laundering drug money,” he said. An unnamed archaeologist said Borowski’s collection “smelled.”

Elie Borowski is, or was, one of the world’s two or three greatest dealers in Near Eastern antiquities. The story is told that after World War II villagers in the Middle East would sell Borowski’s address to peasants who wanted to sell antiquities they had uncovered. He also acquired some of the great private European collections that came on the market after the war.

Antiquities dealers have been getting a bad name lately—for reasons Ilan outlines. There is much to be said on both sides of the issue. There is no need to rehearse the issues here; they have been extensively aired in the pages of this magazine.^c

But one thing seems clear: The opening of the Bible Lands Museum should not be the occasion to raise these issues and lambaste Elie Borowski.

Elie, prodded by Batya, wanted his collection to be in Jerusalem. He wanted it to be a gift to the Jewish people and to all mankind. He didn’t even want the museum to bear his name—like the Getty or the Hirshhorn. That’s why it is called the Bible Lands Museum, not the Borowski Museum.

Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek wisely gave Elie one of the prime pieces of land in the entire city, adjacent to the larger, lumbering Israel Museum. This took some courage too. Kollek is chairman of the board of the Israel Museum, which is highly dependent on gate receipts and is presently experiencing painful financial problems of its own. To get to the Israel Museum, the visitor must pass the Bible Lands Museum and might well get sidetracked there. Nevertheless, Kollek made this site available for Borowski’s unique collection.

One ocher dining Borowski wanted: He would give his collection to the world—if others would provide a building to house it. But almost nothing was forthcoming, despite his efforts to raise money. There was nothing left to do but to build it himself To do so, he had to sell some of his most loved pieces. And he built it himself—to the tune of $12 million.

Then to have some upstart archaeologists throw mud in his face seems ungracious and offensive, to put it mildly.

Rant against the dealers if you will. Even put them out of business if laws are passed to this effect. Whether this will have any effect on the plundering of sites—which we all oppose—is another question. Experience suggests that this will simply drive it underground. Where would these pieces be if Borowski hadn’t purchased them? Did he, as he claims, “save them”? But all this is beside the point. This day belongs to Elie Borowski. Thank you, Elie. We are grateful for your gift.

As a footnote, I quote some of the judgments about the museum and its contents from a review in the Jerusalem Post by its distinguished art critic, Meir Ronen. Ronen says the museum houses most of “Borowski’s extraordinary and internationally exhibited collection of cylinder and scaraboid seals, figurines, pottery, ivories, votive vessels, sarcophagi and mosaics, largely from the neighboring cultures of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Iran. It ranges in scope from Neolithic spear heads to Byzantine lintels and mosaics, covering over six millennia.”

As for the museum itself, Ronen says it “is a masterpiece of presentation, both physically and ideologically.” The building, by Jerusalem architect Ze’ev Schoenberg, has been “designed with elegant simplicity.” Because it is built on a steep declivity, most of the building is hidden from view. “A long low facade with a glass entrance lobby is all the visitor sees from the street.”

The interior too merited high praise: “The interior has been cleverly laid out by Robert LaFontaine of New York. His superbly appointed showcases form walls that stop well below the ceiling, thus preserving a feeling of airiness. Gaps between the showcase walls enable the visitor to retain a sense of where he has been and where he is going, without any feeling of claustrophobia; and even to criss-cross the fully utilized exhibition space.”

All in all, a masterful housing for a unique collection. To Elie and Batya Borowski, nothing but our gratitude.—Ed.

Doesn’t Envy Editor

I would not have your position at $1 million per week; perhaps 3 days, once.

Subscription cancellation not forthcoming.