From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1998 #114 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Sunday, April 26 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 114 Re: ane Turin Shroud Re: ane Turin Shroud Re: ane Nazareth; L's Branch Waving Hypothesis Re: ane Turin C14 Re: ane Turin shroud again Re: ane Turin C14 Re: ane Turin shroud again ane Gilgamesh Re: ane Turin Shroud Re: ane Turin Shroud Re: ane Nazareth ane Turin cloth (long) Re: ane Gilgamesh Re: ane Turin shroud again Re: ane Gilgamesh Re: ane Turin cloth (long) Re: ane Essenes, Qumran, etc. ane Re: Etymology of Nazareth. N home of the Branch wavers? Re: ane Turin cloth Re: ane Turin cloth (long) ane Turin Shroud Re: ane Nazareth Re: ane Turin Shroud ane: Hittite Sin Offerings and Lev. 12 (1-8) Re:ane Hittite Sin Offerings and ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:20:13 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Turin Shroud Marc Cooper wrote: > > On the contrary, the attempt to discover the authenticity of an artifact > begins with scepticism. Unlike scientists who begin with a hypothesis and > attempt to prove it, On the contrary, scientists begin with a hypothesis and attempt to disprove it (only in mathematics is proof possible). > historians presume that an artifact removed from its > context is a forgery until it is proven otherwise. This is a safe position > since quite a few famous fakes, the Drake Plate, the Kensington Rune Stone, > and the Piltdown bones, for instance, were declared authentic by eminent > physical scientists who ignored the suspicious circumstances of the > discoveries. In these three cases further study not only demonstrated that > the items were frauds, but that scholars who believed in them ignored or > explained away important contrary evidence. Unfortunately the physical evidence surrounding the Kensington Rune Stone is very difficult to explain away: it involves tree roots that had been growing around the stone for several centuries. The forger would have had to do the carving in situ, it seems. But the only accounts I have seen were pro-authenticity, and they may have suppressed the counterarguments. - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:38:33 EDT From: FucciXXV Subject: Re: ane Turin Shroud In a message dated 4/25/98 1:01:59 AM Central Daylight Time, jkilmon@historian.net writes: > the > FACT that this artifact is depicted in a manuscript that predates > the very earlist possible date (the earliest date of 1260 CE being > only in the 5 percentile possibility from mean) falsifies the > radiocarbon dating. What manuscript are you talking about? How does it "depict" the Shroud? When is it dated? Jim Thorn Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 09:34:51 EDT From: FucciXXV Subject: Re: ane Nazareth; L's Branch Waving Hypothesis In a message dated 4/25/98 2:27:39 AM Central Daylight Time, rlars@aloha.net writes: > This is interesting I had always bought the notion that Jesus was a > Nazirite. Dare I say some have suggested that far from a vow of > separation Jesus as a good Rabbi must have honored the > commandment to marry. Ater all man was created in the image of g-d > male and female. According to the 1st century practice of the Jews a > rabbi should be married--a sinle person was considered imperfect. [No > blasphemy intended.] Many have also suggested connections between the nascent Jesus movement and the Essenes, the more devout of whom Josephus describes as celibate (Antiquities, XVII, i, 5; Wars, II, viii, 2 and 13). Robert Eisenman, in his "James, the Brother of Jesus" (Viking 1996), has further suggested contiguity among the Nazarites, the Essenes, and the nascent Jesus movement. In any event, in light of the monumental difficulty inherent in determining specifics of the structure and ideology of the nascent Jesus movement, I think we should be hesitant to glibly ascribe the role of "rabbi" with all its particulars to the historical Jesus. Jim Thorn Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 98 10:23:09 EST From: "Robert Mason" Subject: Re: ane Turin C14 I once asked the head of the Oxford radiocarbon lab (Robert Hedges) what he thought the effect of the resurrection might have been on the radicarbon content of said shroud. Although I am an archaeologist AND a scientist and so I treat scientific data as information that must be weighed against other data, I thought I was being facetious. However he said that this had occurred to him, and that it would have left other effects that could be measured, but that the authorities wouldn't give him another bit. Rob Mason Royal Ontario Museum ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 11:57:50 AST From: Tom Simms Subject: Re: ane Turin shroud again On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:46:57 -0500, arroskop@students.wisc.edu writes: > >Tim Kendall's suggestion that the figure on the shroud looks more like >medieval statues of Christ than Jesus himself brought a related point to >mind. Even if we can conclusively prove that the image was a crucified >human and that the linen (type and age) as well as how the body was wrapped >point to 1st century c.e. Judea, we still have not shown (nor can we, in >any way I can think of at the moment), that the image is Jesus. Two others >are reported to have been crucified in the same way on the same day. Even >if one could date the shroud within plus or minus 10 years, think about how >many crucifiction victims this piece of linen could have belonged to. 1. The '78 Shroud exposition took place just about the time I began to realize that crucifixion victims were, so I thought, left to turn black with crows, so until the ankle bones of a crucifixion victim from an ossuary turned up, I thought the Shroud was highly unique. With that noted exception it still is. This unusualness is what attracted me to the "mystery". 2. Another piece of information that promptewd me to look at the chain of events arguing for the movement of the Shroud from the Near East to Western Europe was the vasiety of images, sometimes as a young beardless man, depicting Jesus for the time the Shroud purportedly was hidden in Edessa, the first record of the nature of the appearance came with the 6th c. CE painting at St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai. This image almost overnight became the icon o the face of Jesus throughout the Eastern Church and soon became the norm in the West. Dr. Allan Whanger, courtesy of the Monastery, made a comparison of the Sinai image with that on the the Shroud. According to Wilson's "86 _The Mysterious Shroud_, Whanger has yet to publish the results which Wilson shows on two unnumbered pages following p. 107 in the text named. I found the pair of images and the comaprison's convincing and clearly related to the later iconography. Jack Kilmon has published on this matter. I'll defer to jack on the rest of the discussion. Tom Simms > >Angie Roskop > >Angela Roskop >137 Dunning St. #2 >Madison, WI 53714 >arroskop@students.wisc.edu >_________ > When your dreams turn to dust, vacuum. > Anonymous > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 10:45:29 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon Subject: Re: ane Turin C14 Robert Mason wrote: > I once asked the head of the Oxford radiocarbon lab (Robert Hedges) > what he thought the effect of the resurrection might have been on the > radicarbon content of said shroud. Although I am an archaeologist AND > a scientist and so I treat scientific data as information that must be > weighed against other data, I thought I was being facetious. However > he said that this had occurred to him, and that it would have left > other effects that could be measured, but that the authorities > wouldn't give him another bit. > > Rob Mason > Royal Ontario Museum This is a good illustration of why the "relicness" of this artifact should havebeen totally divorced from all scientific analysis. Instread, he should have been interested in how centuries of tallow candle smoke would effect the results. He should have been interested in how heating at 1500 degrees in the presence of silver could effect the results. He should have been interested in how bioplastic varnishes on ancient textiles effect results. All of this added to the known difficulty of textile dating (see ACS, Advances in Chemistry #205, Archaeological Chemistry III, American Chemical Society, 1984, Radiocarbon Dating by Particle Accelerator, an Archaeological Perspective) would have been an opportunity to re-evaluate the methodologies and calibrations for textile dating. Highlighting the problematic results of radiocarbon dating of textiles is the dating of mummy 1770 in the British Museum where the bones of the mummy dated 800 to 1,000 years earlier than the textile in which the mummy was originally wrapped. The mechanisms for extrinsic C14 incorporation in unusual provenance or out of provenance artifacts is obviously poorly understood, some examples being: Organic materials involved in the Akrotiri volcanic eruption has produced results ranging from 1100 +/- 190 yrs to 2590 +/- 80 yrs, a difference of 1400 years. The “Lindow Man” body from a peat bog in Cheshire dated conventionally to 300 BCE produced results of 5th century CE (Harwell) to the 1stcentury CE (Oxford). Here is where the scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin can be useful to archaeology and for discussion in this forum. It could lead to improved methodologies for the AMS dating of textiles and recognition of provenance conducive to extrinsic C14 contamination and its mechanisms. Instead of questioning the radiocarbon data on these bases, a sound scientific position, "shroud skeptics" would rather jump with glee as if they were Rush Limbaugh catching Bill Clinton in a porno theatre. My only motive for being a shroud "proponent" and for my recent article in the JAIA is to ask that Jesus and the Resurrection be totally set aside along with all theological and atheological bias attached to a *relic* and examine the totality of data on an *artifact.* We just may wind up with a fine-tuned radiocarbon dating methodology for textiles. Jack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:04:45 EDT From: FucciXXV Subject: Re: ane Turin shroud again In a message dated 4/25/98 10:01:45 AM Central Daylight Time, tsimms@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca writes: > 2. Another piece of information that promptewd me to look at the > chain of events arguing for the movement of the Shroud from the > Near East to Western Europe was the vasiety of images, sometimes as > a young beardless man, depicting Jesus for the time the Shroud > purportedly was hidden in Edessa, the first record of the nature of > the appearance came with the 6th c. CE painting at St. Catherine's > Monastery, Sinai. This image almost overnight became the icon o > the face of Jesus throughout the Eastern Church and soon became the > norm in the West. Dr. Allan Whanger, courtesy of the Monastery, > made a comparison of the Sinai image with that on the the Shroud. > According to Wilson's "86 _The Mysterious Shroud_, Whanger has yet > to publish the results which Wilson shows on two unnumbered pages > following p. 107 in the text named. I found the pair of images and > the comaprison's convincing and clearly related to the later > iconography. If the Shroud resembles the "norm" of images of Jesus after the 6th Century CE, why is it not at least as plausible that it is the Shroud which is derived from those images, rather than that the norm is derived from the Shroud? In fact -- given that the first definite description of the Shroud is from the 13th Century, and even the possible description from the "Pray Manuscript" only the very end of the 12th, each definitely far later than the 6th Century iconography at St.Catherine's monastery -- it seems that the latter explanation would be the default position, and the notion that the Shroud was the source of the imagery an extraordinary conclusion which would bear a substantial burden of proof even to be considered. I have not heard any such substantial proof to date. By the way, mention has been made during this discussion of the identification of ancient Levantine pollens on the Shroud by Frei in 1983. My understanding (for which I have no citations, I confess) is that Frei's conclusions have since been generally rejected by other pollen experts, who say that he misidentified numerous pollens in an apparent rush to find what he wanted to find. Jim Thorn Chicago, IL ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:24:56 -0400 From: Levinson Subject: ane Gilgamesh Several brief comments about the Gilgamesh discussion, with appreciation for Cohen's helpful gathering of and commentary on the editions. It comes from concern that we might think that an inaccurate edition like Sanders's Penguin ed. might be ok for general undergraduates, not working in Akkadian. Ms Sanders's edition should not be used period: not just in teaching serious students of Akkadian in particular but more broadly in introducing undergraduate students, even generalists, to the literature and culture of the ancient Near East. This "edition" represents no actual text: it is her own composition, eclectically and freely compiled, as has been pointed out in this list. Consequently it denies students access to confronting an actually existing text. Sanders disastrously for example "solves" a problem in the Sin-leqqi-unninni (sb) composition by providing a rationale for the flood (the noise of the gods) that is strikingly absent in the SB edition. The omission of rationale, and the arbitrariness of En-lil, strike me as central to what Sin-leqqi-uninni was trying to say. Sanders provides literary pablum: like taking all the mystery out of _The Maltese Falcon_ or eliminating the ambiguity at the end of _Casablanca_. If material from the ancient Near East should also be an important part of a general undergraduate education in the humanities and liberal arts, as I believe, students should confront that text and that problematic. Several of the postings have mentioned Kovacs's translation, which is inexpensive and in paper (Stanford UPr). It works well with freshmen: it's literate, accurate, and provides very useful introductory material. Of course, something like Parpola's new SAA ed would be most appropriate in an Akkadian class. With best wishes, Bernard Levinson Institute for Advanced Study ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:30:31 -0400 From: Paul Sodtke Subject: Re: ane Turin Shroud At 16:29 98/04/24 -0500, Jack Kilmon quoted a report that: >> Shroud believers >> claim that the image was impressed into the cloth by supernatural processes >> hence the Shroud proves a theological claim. and then commented: > This is the aspect of shroud research that causes so many problems. >Thescientific studies should be focussed only on validation of the shroud as a >1st century artifact and should not consider the identity of the crucified >victim. I still don't see the point. Why this particular artifact? There are hundreds of thousands of artifacts in museums or collections that are worthy of high-tech scientific analysis. Just one example -- many ane subscribers also subscribe to the orion list. Not long ago there was a heated debate on that list about C14 dates of Dead Sea Scrolls, problems of possible contamination, etc. But the one thing agreed on was that we need more C14 dates (possible now that the AMS method requires only a tiny sample), with more attention to possible contamination, in order to know whether the outliers are just chance variations within the statistical range or whether some of the mss. should be dated later than the majority. Why not focus available resources on such questions, rather than the shroud? In fact, without the claim that the image on the cloth was created by supernatural processes, the Turin Shroud would be a rather minor footnote in history and in radiocarbon dating. Rather, the key point is the word "believers." For shroud believers, no evidence - C14 dates, artistic style, etc. - will deter them from their belief. For skeptics - well, why bother with such a minor item? Someone correctly pointed out that this is way off topic for the ane. Yet this thread has generated more list traffic (including my own posts ) than many more important questions. Why? For one thing, it illustrates that the relationship between science and faith is still a minefield with deep emotions. (As a theologian, I am also fascinated by how much value people place on tangible and scientific evidence, however slight, perhaps because they feel their faith has been rather battered by science and history). So what might ane scholars learn here? - - the need to communicate more clearly to non-specialists what science and history can and cannot tell us (a perennial problem, that); - - a reminder of how prior belief (such as our own pet theories, perhaps?) can lead people to ignore or explain away even strong evidence that contradicts their conviction. Paul Sodtke London, Ontario psodtke@execulink.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:04:38 -0500 From: "Marc Cooper" Subject: Re: ane Turin Shroud From: Peter T. Daniels >Unfortunately the physical evidence surrounding the Kensington Rune >Stone is very difficult to explain away: it involves tree roots that had >been growing around the stone for several centuries. The forger would >have had to do the carving in situ, it seems. But the only accounts I >have seen were pro-authenticity, and they may have suppressed the >counterarguments. Theodore Blegen, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at Minnesota (and Carl Blegen's brother), wrote a series debunking the Kensington Rune Stone in the fifties for the Minneapolis Star. I read it as grad student studying internal criticism. I don't have references, but I understand that after Blegen's series no one at Minnesota ever took the Rune Stone as anything but a forgery. Marc Cooper History - Southwest Missouri State University mac566f@mail.smsu.edu (417) 836-5511 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:17:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Giuseppe Del Monte Subject: Re: ane Nazareth At 10.03 24/04/98 +1000, George Athas wrote: >This is actually unlikely since the term "Nazirite" comes from a different root >than "Nazareth" or "Nazarene". Nazirites were, as you mentioned, people who had >taken a particular kind of vow. The root for the word is NZR (nun-zayin-resh). >Nazareth, though, has the semitic root NCR (nun-tzadhe-resh). > I have followed this thread with some curiosity, though scarce interest in the matter itself. But this particular point raises a question. If the name Nazareth is first attested in the Gospels, how can be assumed that it had a tzade and not a zayin? The Greek text has a zeta, whereas Akkadian and Hebrew tzade should be transcribed with a sigma (*Nasareth), not a zeta, that is used only for zayin (LXX, Gospels, akkadian seleucid texts and Graeco-Babyloniaca). Or I'm wrong? Can someone elucidate this point? ============ Prof. Dr. Giuseppe del Monte Cattedra di Storia del Vicino Oriente antico Dpt. Scienze storiche del mondo antico Università di Pisa via Galvani 1 - I-56100 Pisa Fax 39-050-500668 - E-mail delmonte@lunet.it ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:32:23 -0500 (CDT) From: drewsr@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Robert Drews) Subject: ane Turin cloth (long) Dear ANE listers: Having written a book about the so-called Shroud of Turin fifteen years ago, I am happy to see that the cloth and the imprint are still of interest. And I think the date of the "shroud," and the technique of making such imprints as it displays, are not irrelevant to the ANE list. My conclusion when I wrote my book (long out of print) was that the cloth is certainly not a shroud, but an imprinters' canvas. For a variety of reasons I thought the canvas probably was ancient, and that if it was (that is, if C14 tests should some day demonstrate that the cloth was first-century) then the imprint was certainly made from Jesus' crucified body and was most likely the same imprint of Jesus that the Carpocratian Gnostics preserved and honored in the late second century. The Carpocratians' imprint had been made, they said, after the Crucifixion, and had been authorized by Pontius Pilatus (Irenaeus, 1.25). The Carpocratians of course knew that an imprint made by imprinters from Jesus' crucified body was incompatible with a belief in Jesus' physical resurrection, but for Gnostics in general and Carpocratians in particular that was not an embarrassment since they denied Jesus' physical resurrection and instead believed in his "spiritual" ascension to the Father. When the orthodox Christians suppressed Gnosticism in the fourth century they must either have destroyed the Carpocratians' imprint or - and in 1984 this seemed more likely to me - have preserved it but kept it carefully concealed through the Middle Ages, as the Mandylion of Edessa and, later, of Constantinople. Then, I thought, during the Fourth Crusade it must have fallen into the wrong hands, and in the fourteenth century its unauthorized display at Lirey brought it to the world's attention. Although the popular view since 1389 has always been that the cloth was Jesus' burial shroud (the sindon that Joseph of Arimathea was said to have draped over Jesus' body having been miraculously imprinted when Jesus came back to life), ecclesiastical scholars must have known for a long time that the popular view was impossible: if the cloth was indeed ancient, its imprint could only be the dastardly Carpocratians' artifact to which Irenaeus, Epiphanius and other patristic writers had referred, and whose authenticity and even existence the Church Fathers had denied. In other words, scholars conversant with patristic literature would have known that if the cloth did indeed hold a direct imprint of Jesus' crucified body the cloth would be - in a supreme irony - a devastating testimony against the Gospel stories of Jesus' physical resurrection. Public carbon tests were finally done in 1988 (a clandestine test, with quite different results, is said to have been performed in the early 1980s). Unfortunately, whether the cloth is in fact ancient, and whether the imprint was in fact made from Jesus' crucified body, are still questions not decisively answered. The C14 tests done in 1988 were so imperfectly ordered and recorded (the crucial action - the Cardinal's putting of the samples into the steel cylinders - having taken place in the Sala Capitolare, away from the video cameras and from the eyes of the Zurich, Arizona and Oxford lab representatives) that it is possible for skeptics as well as crackpots to believe that what the labs received were not pieces of the cutting made from the "Shroud" earlier that morning by Giovanni Riggi, but bogus pieces, taken from a cloth known to date from the 14th century. I don't like the idea, publicized in by Holger Kersten and Elmar Gruber, that the 1988 tests were a conspiracy, but I must say that the way things were handled does leave the door open for such suspicion. What I would like to see are the lab reps returning to Turin, each with steel cylinder in hand, and this time insisting that the cutting from the Shroud be dropped immediately into the waiting cylinders. Then let the reps fly back to Oxford, Arizona, Zurich, Rochester or wherever, do the tests, and if their samples again date to 1260-1390 then the case can be closed once and for all. Robert Drews Department of Classical Studies Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37235 (615) 343-4115 drewsr@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:50:17 +0300 (IDT) From: chaim cohen Subject: Re: ane Gilgamesh On Sat, 25 Apr 1998, Levinson wrote: > Several brief comments about the Gilgamesh discussion, with appreciation > for Cohen's helpful gathering of and commentary on the editions. It comes > from concern that we might think that an inaccurate edition like Sanders's > Penguin ed. might be ok for general undergraduates, not working in Akkadian. > > Ms Sanders's edition should not be used period: not just in teaching > serious students of Akkadian in particular but more broadly in introducing > undergraduate students, even generalists, to the literature and culture of > the ancient Near East. This "edition" represents no actual text: it is her > own composition, eclectically and freely compiled, as has been pointed out > in this list. Consequently it denies students access to confronting an > actually existing text. Sanders disastrously for example "solves" a > problem in the Sin-leqqi-unninni (sb) composition by providing a rationale > for the flood (the noise of the gods) that is strikingly absent in the SB > edition. The omission of rationale, and the arbitrariness of En-lil, > strike me as central to what Sin-leqqi-uninni was trying to say. Sanders > provides literary pablum: like taking all the mystery out of _The Maltese > Falcon_ or eliminating the ambiguity at the end of _Casablanca_. > > If material from the ancient Near East should also be an important part of > a general undergraduate education in the humanities and liberal arts, as I > believe, students should confront that text and that problematic. Several > of the postings have mentioned Kovacs's translation, which is inexpensive > and in paper (Stanford UPr). It works well with freshmen: it's literate, > accurate, and provides very useful introductory material. Of course, > something like Parpola's new SAA ed would be most appropriate in an > Akkadian class. > > With best wishes, > Bernard Levinson > Institute for Advanced Study > > Dear Bernard and Members of the ANE List, I am in general agreement with > B. Levinson's comments, but I think it is necessary to "set the record > straight" with regard to two points: 1. While it is surely true that > the Sandars translation should not be used TODAY by anyone, since there > are far better translations available for both the serious scholar and > the general reader (these have all been noted previously on the ANE > list), the Sandars translation was first published in 1960 when ANE > scholars were still lamenting the fact that there were few translations > available in English for the general public and that major series like > "Penguin Classics" ignored ancient Mesopotamian literature altogether > beginning chronologically with the Epics of Homer. Perhaps the real > importance of the Sandars edition AT THAT TIME was its introduction, > which probably introduced many general readers to ANE literature for the > first time. 2. As regards the reason for the Flood, B. Levinson again > is quite correct that this is not mentioned in Gilg. XI. I am not at > all sure, however, that this omission of rationale was intentional in > order to highlight "the arbitrariness of Enlil" (as Levinson suggests). The reason Sandars provides is the one which is clearly implied in the Atrahasis Epic (I:352-359; Lambert-Millard edition: pp. 66-67). It is well known (see e.g. J. Tigay, THE EVOLUTION OF THE GILGAMESH EPIC, pp. 214-240) that Atrahasis served as the source of Gilg. XI, where there are both abridgements and expansions of the earlier epic. Overall, in my opinion, it may be said that Gilg. XI is a sort of paraphrase of Atrahasis. Tigay (p.231) correctly states (in my opinion) that the reason why the rationale for the Flood was excluded by the author of Gilg. XI was "apparently because this is irrelevant to the purpose of explaining how Utnapishtim became immortal". Finally, Sandars herself states as follows (pp. 53-54): "At three points I have borrowed a few lines from other epics. At the beginning of the account of the flood I have inserted the lines of explanation for the wrath of Enlil taken from the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, an independent flood narrative; they are the lines beginning 'In those days the world teemed...' ..." Thus, in conclusion, one should definitely not use Sandars translation today (the Kovacs translation is probably the best overall English edition for the general reader at the present time as was already noted here by several list members), but let us also remember that at the time it was published in 1960 it did fill a gap and the introduction provided some very useful information about the ANE and its literature to the general public. All the best, Chaim Cohen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:25:50 AST From: Tom Simms Subject: Re: ane Turin shroud again On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:52:00 -0400, TKendall@mfa.org writes: > > >Hi everyone, sorry for the previous snafu! (My first communication!) -- > >Everyone should have a look at the way Time magzine presented the Turin >Shroud. It's virtual tabloidism. On the other hand, I never paid >much attention to the shroud until reading the article and looking at the >photos, which are very interesting. As a museum person, I might suggest that >the object be looked at with a somewhat more critical eye than the >writers of the article (and some of those people who are no doubt out there >who are going to respond unhappily to this). I might suggest, first, that if >we are going to reject the validity of the radiocarbon dates (which should be >perfectly acceptable, if they were obtained for any other textile, and which >appear to place the shroud solidly in the thirteenth century), there >are other ways to test the object. The most obvious is by analysis of >the textile itself. There are many linen textiles from Roman Egypt >dating to the time of Christ, and any textile expert should be able to state >whether the weave of the shroud is a closer match for these or for medieval >European textiles. Medieval weavers, after all, cannot have known anything >about Roman textiles. Similarly, if the object is to be identified as a >burial shroud from Judaea of the first century A.D., archaeologists ought to be >able to state whether there is any other evidence from that region or period >that bodies were wrapped in shrouds in the seemingly unusual manner revealed >by the Turin shroud - in which the body was lain lengthwise on one half of >the band of cloth and covered with the other half, leaving the sides open. >Or were bodies wrapped in this manner during the Middle Ages? Jack Kilmon has already addressed the issue of the nature and size of the linen. What needs to noted is the idea that normally crucifixion victims were left up until they were balck with crows. Apologists argue that the Romans paid attenmtion to jewish relig- ious sensibilites but the record shows they did so only under estreme pressure. We have the bones in an ossuary of only one possible crucifixion victim and though the ankle bones have a spike in them, there is nothing to show that this person was "sentenced" to this fate. We have Josephus' mention of rescuing three victims from one crucifixion action and losing two which I suspect was a recapitulation of an action by his grandfather, another Joseph, Son of Matthew. >Although I am no specialist in medieval art, I have seen enough of it >to recognize that the image of the "crucifed man" on the shroud is less >the image of a naturally deceased man than that of a medieval church >effigy. It should be remembered that we have no evidence (other than >the shroud) for what the face of Christ really looked like. The face of >the figure on the shroud, however, is precisely that of Christ as it was >consistently imagined and rendered in painting and sculpture during the >Middle Ages, thus reinforcing all the contemporary stereotypes. For the issue above, I suggest you scan Ian Wilson's 1986 Doubleday version of _The Mysterious Shroud_, particularly for the excellent images, where he points out that the shroud was hidden in Edessa, by reliable accounts, until it was found and exposed to some substantial notice and a copy of it made in St. Catherine's monas- tery on Mount Sinai. A very persuasive comparison of the St. Catherine icon with the Shroud image appears in that text on two pp. following p. 107. The record of images of Jesus before that time was typically a beardless blond youth, as a mosaic pavement in England shows. Wilson's 1986 text should be seen first by any critics of the _Time_ article. You'll know how tabloid the job was. They did however note the presence of blood which was not confirmed for over five years after the examination in Turin. Jack Kilmon addressed the issue below elsewhere as does the refer- ence above. >Similarly, the position of the figure's arms and hands, modestly concealing the >groin, is not natural for a deceased person but would be the way the >body of the dead Christ would be represented by a reverent artist - or forger - >in the thirteenth century, especially if the image were made to be put on >periodic public display, which it was. Stylistically, to my eye, if we >judge it as a work of art, the piece appears to belong squarely in the >thirteenth century, a date nicely confirmed by the radiocarbon dates. That 13th c. pattern was established, as you might quickly find with your resources, Tim, no earlier than the 6th c. AD. >Timothy Kendall >Associate Curator >Dept. of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art >Museum of Fine Arts, Bosto >tkendall@mfa.org Tom Simms ................................................................ T. M. SIMMS Suite 611 1720 Hickey Road SAINT JOHN, N. B. E2J 3S7 Phone: 1-506-696-2778 Fax: 1-506-696-2778 e-mail: *++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*+++*  ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:36:03 -0400 From: Levinson Subject: Re: ane Gilgamesh Chaim Cohen's welcome response to my posting was well-taken. The contribution of Sandars in 1960 by bringing the literary riches of the Ancient Near East to a wider audience cannot be disputed. My posting was concerned only at a hint from some of the earlier postings that seemed to suggest that non-specialist students might be able to suffice with it and, with other, equally inexpensive paperbacks now available, that struck me as not correct. The stakes are higher. Now, of course there is no doubt that Sin-leqqi-unninni used earlier sources, as Tigay shows, Atra-hasis in particular (and Atra-hasis by name appears in tablet XI). Where it seems to me that there is more room for intepretation than Cohen allows is how to understand Sin-leqqi-unninni's omission of the reason for the flood. Is the rationale given in Atra-hasis simply taken for granted and assumed? Or is Sin-leqqi-unninni adding an original take? As Ea said to En-lil: "Thou wisest of gods, thou hero, How couldst thou, unreasoning, bring on the deluge?" (XI.178-79; ANET, p. 95) The proposal that what is omitted from the story (the rationale for the flood given in Atra-hasis) is simply assumed and carried over into the Sin-leqqi-Unnini Gilgamesh seems to me to deny each composition its literary and intellectual independence: it amounts to harmononizing the two texts, filling in the gap of one by way of suppletion from the other. In effect, it does by way of interpretation or exegesis precisely what Sandars consciously does textually (which is the problem): fill in the gap. From another genre, it strikes me as methodologically invalid to assume that laws unmentioned in the Laws of Hammurabi but found in the Laws of Eshnunna may be imported into the text (or the two combined) to come up with a more complete account--a more comprehensive law of delicts, or bodily injury. That approach has been attempted and has not been widely accepted. Hammurabi obviously draws on a prior literary-legal tradition of cuneiform law (Eichler astutely shows how LH represents a redactional reordering and expansion of LE--much as Sin-Leqqi-Unninni draws upon his sources) but they cannot be levelled. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:03:21 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon Subject: Re: ane Turin cloth (long) Robert Drews wrote: > What I > would like to see are the lab reps returning to Turin, each with steel > cylinder in hand, and this time insisting that the cutting from the Shroud > be dropped immediately into the waiting cylinders. Then let the reps fly > back to Oxford, Arizona, Zurich, Rochester or wherever, do the tests, and if > their samples again date to 1260-1390 then the case can be closed once and > for all. > Although I agree that the sample collection defied standard scientificcontrol practice, I am not convinced there was a conspiracy and accept, without evidence to the contrary, that the samples collected were from the shroud. I am not sure what to make of the pre-testing photographs of the samples displayed in the Kersten and Gruber book which they claim does not match the weave pattern of the shroud. I am always suspicious of popular "conspiracy books" on presentations of evidence. Having said that, as one who views the shroud as a genuine 1st century artifact based on the scientific evidence, I would still not be surprised if a retest produced the same results. The issue of extrinsic C14 incorporation must still be addressed. One way to do this is to create a control sample from a textile known to date to the 1st century and treat it using Kouznetsov's methodology. Dr. Dimitri Kouznetsov of the Sedov Biopolymer Research Laboratory in Moscow has conducted experiments on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating of samples previously exposed to intense heat. Dr. Kouznetsov acquired an ancient linen cloth with origin in Israel, radiocarbon dated to 200 CE. The cloth was exposed to intense heat in the presence of silver, after which it radiocarbon dated 1400 years later! Dr. Kouznetsov attributes this to biofractionalization and the chemical bonding, under heat, of extrinisic C14 to the linen. A control treated in this manner would offset the effects of the 1532 fire. The dating of the shroud samples should be calibrated to the difference between the treated and untreated control. Jack ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:38:00 -0400 From: "Peter T. Daniels" Subject: Re: ane Essenes, Qumran, etc. FucciXXV wrote: > > Many have also suggested connections between the nascent Jesus movement and > the Essenes, the more devout of whom Josephus describes as celibate > (Antiquities, XVII, i, 5; Wars, II, viii, 2 and 13). Robert Eisenman, in his > "James, the Brother of Jesus" (Viking 1996), has further suggested contiguity > among the Nazarites, the Essenes, and the nascent Jesus movement. > > In any event, in light of the monumental difficulty inherent in determining > specifics of the structure and ideology of the nascent Jesus movement, I think > we should be hesitant to glibly ascribe the role of "rabbi" with all its > particulars to the historical Jesus. A focus of the DSS conference held this past week at the New York Public Library, sponsored by the Dorot Foundation of Rhode Island, was "reclaiming" the Scrolls. Only two speakers specifically addressed the content of the scrolls, "freelance author" Neil Asher Silberman and Prof. Lawrence H. Schiffman of NYU, and both are concerned to reclaim the Scrolls for Judaism--their claim being that the exclusively Christian makeup of the initial research team led to a Christian bias in interpretation, emphasis on baptism, Messianism, etc., and neglect of the Rabbinic features of the text, postponement of publication of texts like MMT, etc. (They did not impute malice to Pere de Vaux and colleagues, but recognized that the team recognized that texts calling for background in history of Judaism couldn't be dealt with until the people responsible for them were able to acquire that background.) The Eisenman and Wise book was condemned quite severely (I think "reckless" was mentioned), and it was again disturbing to find Michael Wise denigrated by association with a perhaps less than qualified commentator. There were also addresses by E. Tov, present head of the publication committee, and Adolfo Roitman, new curator of the Shrine of the Book, who discussed the external history of Scroll studies; but most of the speakers over the two days dealt with wider questions raised by the DSS--presenting archeology to the public, looting and the scholarly response to unprovenanced objects (Hershel Shanks was typically irresponsible in his remarks), and "the power of the past in the 21st century." (They have no plans at present to publish the talks; only some of them seem candidates for stand-alone essays.) - -- Peter T. Daniels grammatim@worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:05:27 -1000 From: Randall Larsen Subject: ane Re: Etymology of Nazareth. N home of the Branch wavers? Listmembers, What is the reference for Jerome’s etymology of Nazareth? In a recent post a listmember from Australia wrote: "Jerome did consider the etymology of Nazareth (Hb: Nazareth) as stemming from the idea of the Branch of the Davidic line." Though he rules out the designation of Nazareth as “Branch-ville” “as more of an accident than etymology,” let us take a second look. May I suggest that Narzareth was perhaps the ancestral home of the Patriarch’s who waved the the lulav and who wore the evergreen crown of kingship. Thus the area could have been appropriately designated “Branch-ville.” Jerome undoubtably connected Isaiah’s prophecy: And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots Isaiah 11:1. with Jesus as the rod, stem, and Branch of Jesse. As you know, the passage was interpreted by Jeremiah at chapter 23 verse 5: ...I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. The type “Branch of Jesse” does not just refer to a family tree. The word Branch comes with a whole set of baggage relating to the emblems of kingship and priesthood. My suggestion is that the residents of Nazareth were of the lineage of the kings who waved the Branch or the lulav. Thus the designation of the area as Nazaret-- the home of the “Branch wavers” was no coincidence. In the ANE the kings were called on to circumambulate the fields waving a Branch of greenery in order to summon the four winds to bring about the seasonal restoration of the earth’s fertility. The practice goes back to Egyptian times. In the Amduat the king is blessed by the Father god: May your seasons endure, your years be regular (dd), may the proper forms (khepera) suit your hours. May spelt and barley be your due. ...you [he king] circumambulate(?) the images in order to revive the fields you are the farmers (skhty.w) of Wernes, whose ba’s live through me. (Hornung, Amduat I, 41f.; II, 56 quoted in H. Nibley MJSP at p. 165) Thus the king had a role in the seasonal renewal of the field. Just as the king renewed the field by sympathetic magic, after death the king was promised that his ba would live through me[the father g-d].. The branch that was waved represented the last sheaf of the Harvest-- the remaining greenery that was the earnest of the fields renewal. So the last sheaf is also the first sheaf of the new harvest. Thus in Israel the priesthood were known as the first fruits. According to Gaster following the example of the king, all Israel waved the lulav to the four directions shouting Hosannah being interpreted “O Save us.” (Festivals of the Jewish Year). Upon his entrance to Jerusalem Jesus was greeted by the Jews as the King or deliverer by a happy throng waving palm branches. Since Jesus came from Nazareth perhaps he was the “Branch” waving King who would renew Israel’s power and fertility. Curiously the palm Branch also may have been seen by Jerome as representing the female element Mary or her earlier antecedent Sarah as the mother of the covenant. There is a long tradition in the year rites of using the tree as a kenning for the womb. In the book of breathings: Ye praise the Great Treetrunk in the womb of his mother.(T32, I,24) According to H. Nibley “the King is enclosed in the tree trunk as in the womb (c.f. Daniel 4:15, 23), to be delivered with the splitting of the tree itself.” (MJSP p. 168). So Nazareth as the home of the Branch wavers must have been seen by the Israelites as the appropriate homeland for Mary (the great treetrunk) who would be the mother of the new King. See also Eccles 10:10 interpreted by P. Haupt, JBL 36: 85f. There is also a mesoamerican link to the splitting of the tree in the year rites. In the Codex Borgia a cat is seen splitting a tree from which a Hawk emerges. This resembles curiously an Egyptian text dealing with a similar theme. According to Hopner the Winter Soltice vigil at Heliopolis "ended with the splitting of an ished tree by a cat who represented Re himself. (Isis 257)." In Grapow "I am the cat who cleft asunder the ished tree in Heliopolis ..on the night of the Fight (Grapow Kap. 17 p.14; B.D. 17:22; Piankoff Shrines, p. 55 due to H. Nibley) According to H. Nibley the "fight being the classic showdown between the powers of light and darkness. (MJSP p. 168)." Wp ished he who opens the ished tree is the name title of the first of the kings of Egypt. Israelite kings also were also branch waver's who opened the year with rites of prayer and sacrifice. Thus it is entirely appropriate that Israel should seek a King from Nazareth the home of the branch wavers. The alternate interpretation of Narzaret given by the gentleman from Australia (George Athas), "to be green," or to be fresh also fits with the notion that a Nazarite Branch would revive the fields of Israel. Randall Larsen Hawaii Pacific University Chaminade University rlars@aloha.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:14:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Stephen Goranson Subject: Re: ane Turin cloth To Robert Drews, Do you have evidence that "Carpocratian Gnostics" existed at the time of Jesus and Pontius Pilate, and, if so, can you give a reason Pontius Pilate would "authorize" their making an "imprint."? Stephen Goranson goranson@duke.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:10:14 AST From: Tom Simms Subject: Re: ane Turin cloth (long) On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:32:23 -0500 (CDT), drewsr@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu writes: > >Dear ANE listers: Having written a book about the so-called Shroud of Turin >fifteen years ago, I am happy to see that the cloth and the imprint are >still of interest. And I think the date of the "shroud," and the technique >of making such imprints as it displays, are not irrelevant to the ANE list. I agree with you. I have a small section on the topic in a 1990 text, but it's crucial to my ANE 1st c. CE argument. >My conclusion when I wrote my book (long out of print) was that the cloth is >certainly not a shroud, but an imprinters' canvas. For a variety of reasons >I thought the canvas probably was ancient, and that if it was (that is, if >C14 tests should some day demonstrate that the cloth was first-century) then >the imprint was certainly made from Jesus' crucified body and was most >likely the same imprint of Jesus that the Carpocratian Gnostics preserved >and honored in the late second century. [... snip ... already noted and filed ...] >that if the cloth did indeed hold a direct imprint of Jesus' crucified body >the cloth would be - in a supreme irony - a devastating testimony against >the Gospel stories of Jesus' physical resurrection. Here's where you and I take different views: I suspect that the mercerization yielding the image happened when a hot sweaty body stayed immobile in the cloth for 24 to 36 hours. How that was done is a matter for investigation too but the basic hypothesis is capable of being tested. Once the basic test is done further investigation may be done, especially of the remains of the body fluids clearly present on the fabric. >Public carbon tests were finally done in 1988 (a clandestine test, with >quite different results, is said to have been performed in the early 1980s). Are you privy to what those results were? >Unfortunately, whether the cloth is in fact ancient, and whether the imprint >was in fact made from Jesus' crucified body, are still questions not >decisively answered. The C14 tests done in 1988 were so imperfectly ordered >and recorded (the crucial action - the Cardinal's putting of the samples >into the steel cylinders - having taken place in the Sala Capitolare, away >from the video cameras and from the eyes of the Zurich, Arizona and Oxford >lab representatives) that it is possible for skeptics as well as crackpots >to believe that what the labs received were not pieces of the cutting made >from the "Shroud" earlier that morning by Giovanni Riggi, but bogus pieces, >taken from a cloth known to date from the 14th century. Ten years ago I complained publicly there were no published protocols of the test materials handling. You tell me I have every reason to suspect the veracity of the tests. >I don't like the >idea, publicized in by Holger Kersten and Elmar >Gruber, that the 1988 tests were a conspiracy, but I must say that the way >things were handled does leave the door open for such suspicion. What I >would like to see are the lab reps returning to Turin, each with steel >cylinder in hand, and this time insisting that the cutting from the Shroud >be dropped immediately into the waiting cylinders. Then let the reps fly >back to Oxford, Arizona, Zurich, Rochester or wherever, do the tests, and if >their samples again date to 1260-1390 then the case can be closed once and >for all. But the contamination from ambinet factors, fires, incense,, candle smoke from innumerable six candle masses, the local pollution, has to be strin- gently taken into account. I can set out here in moments why one ten- thousandsths of an inch of carbon rich contamination can add as much as half an amounbt of modern carbon that would easily amke a 1st c CE atifact into a 14th c. CE artifact. Read this: Consider how much weight a layer of carbon rich tobacco smoke one ten thousandths of an inch thick would add to a fibre one thousandths of an inch in diameter of linen/cotton of perhaps 10 percent carbon, each of equal density. Get your calculator going and you'll find the smoke carbon adds over half new carbon to the fibre. No small factor. (The contaminated fibre, after all common multiples are removed, is 36 in volume, the uncontaminated fibre likewise is 20. The added polution therefore is 16. [Remember, one ten thousandths is added all around the fibre so the diameter increases by 2 ten thousandths. The diameters are halved and then squared to get a comparison of the volume, pi and all other common factors removed so half is a LOW estimate!) >Robert Drews >Department of Classical Studies >Vanderbilt University >Nashville, TN 37235 >(615) 343-4115 >drewsr@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu Thank you very much for your invaluable data and the opportunity to add my nickel's worth. Tom Simms ................................................................ T. M. SIMMS Suite 611 1720 Hickey Road SAINT JOHN, N. B. E2J 3S7 Phone: 1-506-696-2778 Fax: 1-506-696-2778 e-mail: *++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*++++*+++* ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:05:34 -0300 From: "Roxana Flammini" Subject: ane Turin Shroud What about the coins on the eyes of the man crucified? Roxana Flammini ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:08:48 EDT From: MFriends Subject: Re: ane Nazareth In a message dated 98-04-25 14:23:26 EDT, delmonte@lunet.it writes: << I have followed this thread with some curiosity, though scarce interest in the matter itself. But this particular point raises a question. If the name Nazareth is first attested in the Gospels, how can be assumed that it had a tzade and not a zayin? The Greek text has a zeta, whereas Akkadian and Hebrew tzade should be transcribed with a sigma (*Nasareth), not a zeta, that is used only for zayin (LXX, Gospels, akkadian seleucid texts and Graeco-Babyloniaca). Or I'm wrong? Can someone elucidate this point? >> In the early 60's, archeologist digging at Caesarea discovered a marble plaque with a Hebrew inscription. It contained a list of priestly families who had settled in Galilee during the Roman period, among them is a family that settled in the town of Nazareth. The plaque, which dates from the 3rd or 4th century CE, Nazareth is clearly spelled with tzade, as in netzer, or shoot. Michael Friends ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 23:57:31 -0500 From: Jack Kilmon Subject: Re: ane Turin Shroud Roxana Flammini wrote: > > What about the coins on the eyes of the man crucified? > > Roxana Flammini The VP8 Image Analyzer enhancement of the "button" shape over the right eye of the shroud face does indeed display a very clear UCAI and shepherd's crook typical of the Pilatus coin. In fact, the lettering revealed by the VP8 photo seems identical to a Pilatus coin I own. If the lettering were not so clear, I would write it off as artifact. I must admit, however, that it does puzzle me since I know of no precedent for coins being placed on the eyes of the Jewish dead, but of course, we know little about Jewish burial practices of this period. In practice, the body was laid on a shelf on loculus in a tomb and later, after decomposition, the bones gathered and placed in an ossuary. If it was a practice to use coins on the eyes, either to weight them closed or even a practice "borrowed" from Hellenistic practice, they would not have been placed in the ossuaries when the bones were gathered, hence not in the archaeological record. The same would go for the debate about the placement of the body on the shroud longwise and folded over the head with the sides open. Many think that the body would have been wrapped mummy-like. But if the expectation was to recover the bones after a period of time, this practice would make that task easier. A tightly wrapped corpse would not only attenuate decomposition but would make the job of unwrapping for bone recovery a very unpleasant task. Under Jewish purity practices, a loosely covered corpse would facilitate less contact during the bone recovery process. Jack - -- D’man dith laych idneh d’nishMA nishMA Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net) http://www.historian.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 21:42:40 PDT From: "Myron Meir Joshua" Subject: ane: Hittite Sin Offerings and Lev. 12 (1-8) In his Leviticus (AB) Ch. 12;8 Milgrom writes about the two birds offered as "purification offerings" by the woman who has recently given birth: "Two birds occur in sacrificial text(s) in ...Hittie in the Papanikri ritual ...(for) the purification of a childbearing woman (Sommer and Eheloff 1924: 2.1-3)...Moreover the function of these sacrificial birds is strikingly similar: "two birds for offense and sin"(2.2), in other words they are expiatory. Even so, the difference between the two cultures should not be overlooked. Israel's purification offering has moved away from the general realm of sin ..." Accepting Milgrom's position that the Israelite Hattat sacrifice is not a "sin offering" but one of purification, I would like to know more about the context of the Hittite parallel. What "offense and sin" are being referred to? The Hittites (and other cultures) also partially parallel the differentiation made between the lengths of the impure status caused by the birth of male and female infants. Any comments? Have a good week, Myron Joshua Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, Israel ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:24:33 -0700 From: "Jonathan D. Safren" Subject: Re:ane Hittite Sin Offerings and - --------------101AE14996636C11ED37839C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Myron, Understanding hattat in Lev. 12 as "purification offerings" has implications not only for that chapter but also for the Yom Kippur purification rite of Lev. 16. There, understanding hattat everywhere as "purification offering" and the pi'el verb kipper as "purify" and not "atone fpr" (note v. 19, where the verb wetihhero replaces the wekipper ba'ado used elsewhere in the chapter) means that the original Yom Kippur temple services had to do with the purification of the sanctuary, the altars and their accoutrements, as well as the pruests and people, from ritual defilation, and not with atonement for sins as per the Rabbis. Milgrom is merely restating a position accepted in biblical and ANE research today. The Babylonian akitu (New Year) Festival also included a kuppuru tiyual. Since you read Hebrew, I suggest you start with Yehezkel Kaufman"s Toledot Ha-'emunah Ha-yisraelit. See also the treatment of the akitu in Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Ccalendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, CDL Press, 1993 and the literature cited there. I imagine Milgrom will deal with this subject in detail in volume 2 of his Leviticus commentary, but you can already see his bibliography in vol. 1. Yours, Jonathan D. Safren Dept. of Biblical Studies Beit Berl College Beit Berl Post Office Kefar Sava 44905 Israel - --------------101AE14996636C11ED37839C Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Myron,
Understanding hattat in Lev. 12 as "purification offerings" has implications not only for that chapter but also for the Yom Kippur purification rite of Lev. 16. There, understanding hattat everywhere as "purification offering" and the pi'el verb kipper as "purify" and not "atone fpr" (note v. 19, where the verb wetihhero replaces the wekipper ba'ado used elsewhere in the chapter) means that the original Yom Kippur temple services had to do with the purification of the sanctuary, the altars and their accoutrements, as well as the pruests and people, from ritual defilation, and not with atonement for sins as per the Rabbis.

Milgrom is merely restating a position accepted in biblical and ANE research today. The Babylonian akitu (New Year) Festival also included a kuppuru tiyual. Since you read Hebrew, I suggest you start with Yehezkel Kaufman"s Toledot Ha-'emunah Ha-yisraelit.
See also the treatment of the akitu in Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Ccalendars of the Ancient Near East, Bethesda, CDL Press, 1993 and the literature cited there. I imagine Milgrom will deal with this subject in detail in volume 2 of his Leviticus commentary, but you can already see his bibliography in vol. 1.
Yours,
Jonathan D. Safren
Dept. of Biblical Studies
Beit Berl College
Beit Berl Post Office
Kefar Sava 44905
Israel
  - --------------101AE14996636C11ED37839C-- ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1998 #114 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html