A now for something even racier … an article in the new BAR

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

16 thoughts on “A now for something even racier … an article in the new BAR

  1. Achish Melek Gat

    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

    Like

  2. Bob Schillaci

    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?

    Like

  3. arenmaeir

    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

    Like

  4. mark minnick

    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

    Like

  5. 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”)?

    Like

  6. arenmaeir

    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

    Like

  7. 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…

    Like

  8. arenmaeir

    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

    Like

  9. Pingback: New links to BAR articles on Safi « The Tell es-Safi/Gath Excavations Official (and Unofficial) Weblog

  10. 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…

    Like

  11. archaeologist

    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.

    Like

  12. arenmaeir

    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

    Like

  13. Lo-Fageler

    The entire premise in your reply to Archaeologist is quite flawed if not specious.

    1) Why would you find items at Gath GIVEN to the Israelites and NOT kept due to the embarrassing subject matter? The Philistines would prefer to live the lie much like how Sennacherib lied about his embarrassment of loosing 185,000 men in one night by a single metaphysical entity related to the Israelites.

    2) Yes all Baal worshipers (i.e. Dagon, Satan, etc.) live in a sexually explicit world. Look at steeples on so-called Christian Churches today. Phallus’s everywhere. This in and of itself does NOT suggest that Yahweh would have asked for gold phallus’s. He asked for golden piles and Jeroboa mice. Why? Because the mice impacted the thieving Philistine’s dietary habits causing constipation causing piles or rectal risings. Dagon may have asked for golden erect zayin’s but not Yahweh.

    3) More specifically ancient Babylonian influences. Just like most organized religions today.

    4) Yes but not the Hebrew God Yahweh (or Jehovah in English).

    Ophalim IMO simply means rising in your hinder regions. Josephus said dysentery. A little off but in the correct area of your body. Even though he was a Jewish traitor on the Roman’s side he got a lot of things right as he was back there closer to when the bible was being written during the N.T. times. I think he would know better than… lets say… you?

    What are your qualifications to be a SME here Aren? Subject matter expert. Or are you just a wishful thinker somehow strangely fascinated with the male zayin? Inquiring minds want to know…

    Like

  14. Lo-Fageler

    BTW Aren aim your next dig at either the temple mount or Exum Ethiopia if you dare (both very dangerous exploits). I think you might find the alleged missing gold artifacts at either location. Not at Gath. Remember they had to give up ALL of their gold (in this peculiar format) to the Israelites in recompense for their THEFT not CAPTURE of the ark. Why on earth would you expect to find any?

    Here’s another mystery for you to solve. If only the priests of the House of Levi could actually TOUCH the ark and survive… how did the Philistines do it? Don’t think they where Levities. I heard that they may have been Cretins and Mycenaean and not Canaanites. Somehow I doubt that but who knows?

    Like

Comments are closed.