Today, the new Biblical Archaeology Review appeared online, and in it, there is an article on which I am signed (more or less, written by others though …), which is a quite humorous, popular recounting of the article that I published not too long ago in JSOT on the “Ophalim” in the book of Samuel.
I have a feeling that some people will be cancelling their subscription to BAR after this …
:-)
Aren
Posted in Miscellaneous
Well! Cancel my subscription!!! But seriously, allow me (as Melek Gat!) to be the first to offer comments … Bravo Aren! A fine article it was, appropriately discreet (when compared with the scholarly version :), and just the thing to liven up a BAR issue. Here’s looking forward to further discoveries of “shwartzware”.
As ever,
AMG
By: Achish Melek Gat on May 1, 2008
at 12:56 am
Aw shucks Achish, y’all say such purty things …
Aren
By: arenmaeir on May 1, 2008
at 8:07 am
Dear Aren,
Somewhat off topic but I saw an episode of Jacobovici’s Naked Archaeologist last night where he was interviewing you about “Goliath’s” bones.
My question is…. how can you stand that guy?
By: Bob Schillaci on May 1, 2008
at 6:22 pm
Bob,
Hi! Simcha is a very intelligent and very funny guy, who in my opinion, if you separate, as I do, between his views, which are quite often rather “alternative,” and his very enjoyable and likeable personality, I actually have a very good time with him.
But that is for everyone to decide on their own.
Also, I don’t feel that he threatens my professional integrity in any way (at times, I get the feeling that others react towards him due to this). I just have a good time with him, let him say whatever he wants, and I say whatever I want.
Best,
Aren
By: arenmaeir on May 2, 2008
at 12:12 pm
You must be a real gentleman, Aren.
;-)
By: Bob Schillaci on May 2, 2008
at 6:16 pm
Dear Aren,
I’m enjoying your web site and its photos of Gath, especially the arials.
I’m looking at the one showing the entire tell, from what looks like an airplane (just the side of it showing in the right of the frame).
I’m wondering where the excavations sites are located in that picture. ??
Any idea?
Thanks.
Mark Minnick
By: mark minnick on May 2, 2008
at 11:14 pm
Thanks for whatever contribution you did make to the BAR article, Prof. Maeir! Just out of curiosity, & maybe this is covered in your technical version of the article, bearing in mind that I don’t know Hebrew, wouldn’t E.D. be “lo opalim” instead of “opalim” (i.e., “no swelling”)?
By: G.M. Grena on May 3, 2008
at 5:51 am
Mark,
Hi! If I understand which foto you are referring to, I believe it is taken from the north, and Area A and E are to the left, F is near the summit on the right, and D and C cannot be seen.
George,
The whole ED part was not my idea, so I would not try to read it into the text….
Aren
By: arenmaeir on May 3, 2008
at 9:38 pm
Did you notice that your name is immediately to the left of “E.D.” on p. 46 for all of time? If I were you, I’d be crying up to heaven like the city in 1Samuel 5:12! This is crazy! How dare they publish an article to which no author is accountable to paid subscribers! Maybe I’ll have to cancel my subscription … but first I’ll submit a condescending Talkback comment to their web version of the article & see what happens…
By: G.M. Grena on May 4, 2008
at 4:42 am
George,
Don’t get excited over nothing. The article includes things that I would not have written by myself, but since it was put in, I did not change it. I relate to this as a popularization of a scholarly article that was published somewhere else - which is what I believe all that is published in BAR should be related to. That is why that I prefer to publish in scientific fora, BEFORE publishing in BAR, since that way, I can accurately say what I want to say …
:-)
Aren
By: arenmaeir on May 4, 2008
at 1:22 pm
[...] The second is the recent article on Philistine Phalli, which was noted in the past last week. [...]
By: New links to BAR articles on Safi « The Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations Official (and Unofficial) Weblog on May 6, 2008
at 9:21 am
My initial comment from Saturday questioning your authorship was not approved for BAR’s web article because (according to Steve Feldman) you reviewed & approved the article. If you approved it but wouldn’t read “E.D.” into the text, it’s very misleading of you to not have inserted a statement regarding whose idea “E.D.” was. I would only blame BAR if you had actually given the proper credit to someone else, & BAR had edited it out. You are the sole author of the JSOT article, & even in your blog you stated, “I suggest in this article that in fact, the ‘Ophalim’ relates the Philistines’ mebra virile…” What a letdown…
By: G.M. Grena on May 6, 2008
at 7:58 pm
dear sir,
i read the article at BAR and i wonder how you can relate the discovery of phallic artifacts to the biblical story of the affliction without any textual confirmation or reference?
i find your point quite interesting and possible butnot probable unless we had some sexuall repressed translators who allowed that repression to overrule their responsibilities.
By: archaeologist on May 6, 2008
at 11:28 pm
The suggestion to relate the story to phallic artifacts is due to the following reasons:
1) I’m not aware of hemmoroid shaped cultic objects from anywhere in the ANE.
2) We now have from Philistia several objects that seem to be phallically oriented.
3) We know that the Philistines had Aegean and Indo-European-related gods and goddess.
4) Phallic attributes are known to be related to some of these goddesses.
The rest is speculation … - but at least as good an explanation as all others that have been suggested in the past regarding “ophalim” …
Aren
By: arenmaeir on May 7, 2008
at 10:34 am
 | Gal Avraham on Two more days to go!! |
 | Louise Hitchcock on Schedule for extra-dig activit… |
 | Brent Davis on Schedule for extra-dig activit… |
 | Jessie P. Ben-Avraha… on Dr. Uziel!!! |
| arenmaeir on Less than a week and half to… |
