68 January/February 2018
seemingly unstable, pointed or rounded,
base actually allowed for safe storage on
uneven surfaces: The jars would be leaned
against a wall or propped in the ground.
On level surfaces, they could be kept
upright in ring stands. Shipping amphorae
could be propped shoulder-to-shoulder on
wooden racks and fastened together with
ropes around their necks.
GREAT DEBATES
Discussion Behind Bars
What makes BAR so good is that you
allow different people to explain their
work and let others debate and talk
about it. I am a prison inmate, and I
share BAR with friends. We all think
differently, but we still love to discuss,
debate, and talk about all the great arti-
cles in BAR.
BRENT WOLF
TENNESSEE COLONY, TEXAS
AUTHORS
Yuval Gadot (“Jerusalem and the Holy Land(fill),” p. 36) is a
researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Sonia and Marco Nadler
Institute of Archaeology. He currently directs excavations in
Jerusalem and Azekah.Jennie Ebeling (“Romancing the Stones:
The Canaanite Artistic Tradition at Isra-
elite Hazor,” p. 46) is Associate Profes-
sor of Archaeology at the University of
Evansville in Indiana. She has worked
on ground stone artifacts from sites in the southern Levant
and currently co-directs the Jezreel Expedition, Israel.Danny Rosenberg (“Romancing the
Stones: The Canaanite Artistic Tradition
at Israelite Hazor,” p. 46) is a Senior Lecturer in the Depart-
ment of Archaeology at the University of Haifa and the
head of the Laboratory for Ground Stone Tools Research at
the Zinman Institute of Archaeology. He specializes in the
prehistory and protohistory of the southern Levant. He runs
a research project studying various aspects of the Late Neo-
lithic and Chalcolithic transition in the Jordan Valley.Jeremy D. Smoak (“Words Unseen: The Power of Hidden
Writing,” p. 52) is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Near
Eastern Languages and Cultures at the University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles (UCLA). His work on the Ketef Hinnom
amulets won the Joseph Aviram Award, which was spon-
sored by the Dorot Foundation and the American Schools of
Oriental Research. His recent book The Priestly Blessing in
Inscription and Scripture: The Early History of Numbers 6:24–
26 was published by Oxford University Press in 2015.GadotRosenbergEbelingSmoakthings get a little more complicated.
Although it may seem obvious to contem-
porary readers that this pair refers to gen-
der difference, or gender equality, from an
ancient perspective it more likely points
to the pairing off of men and women in
marriage and procreation.
The distinctive formulation of the
third pair, “male and female,” suggests
a citation from Genesis 1:27. This pas-
sage describes the creation of male and
female and God’s instruction to them
to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the
world. It is exactly this world—with its
focus of men and women, and on procre-
ation—that Paul expects to end. Marriage
will end along with it, as he writes in the
well-known passage about living “as if
not.” Here Paul instructs men who have
wives to live as if they do not have wives
“because the forms of this world are
passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:29–31).
Paul’s own advice—highly unusual at the
time—that both men and women should
not marry if they could avoid it, confirms
how he thought about the practice of
marriage (1 Corinthians 7:7–9, 32–40).
Biblical Views
continued from page 60
The cosmopolitan worldview under-
stood marriage as a fundamental tie
that formed the primary connection
between a man and the rest of humanity.
From that first and most intimate bond,
all other social relationships extended.
Given its important role in ensuring
legitimate offspring, the handing down
of property, and the continuation of soci-
ety, it is no wonder that the breakdown
of the current world—and the arrival of
a new and ideal creation—was thought
to encompass the end of marriage.
Seen in the light of first-century cos-
mopolitan ideals, Paul’s declaration of
unity thus takes on a distinctly ancient
form. It does not proclaim the equality
of all people, regardless of their social
positions, as is sometimes assumed by
readers today. Rather, it envisages a
social ideal of harmony and connection,
where those factors in society that createdivision and conflict have been removed.
Paul’s conviction that he was called
at this crucial moment to participate in
God’s ultimate plan for the world caused
him to imagine what a new and ideal
creation would be like and how people
would live in such a new creation. His
summary of this ideal as “neither Jew nor
Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male
and female” resonated with the concerns
expressed by his contemporaries.Karin Neutel is a postdoc-
toral fellow at the Univer-
sity of Oslo in Norway. Her
most recent book is A Cos-
mopolitan Ideal: Paul’s
Declaration ‘Neither Jew
Nor Greek, Neither Slave Nor Free, Nor
Male and Female’ in the Context of
First-Century Thought (Bloomsbury T&T
Clark, 2015).