Trevin Wax provides a list of “Urban Legends” that many preachers and Bible teachers are guilty of disseminating.  His list includes and explains these:

• The “eye of the needle” is a city gate.
• The high priest had a rope tied around his ankle. (See also my post here.)
• Scribes washed before and after writing the name of God.
• Gehenna was a perpetually burning trash dump.  (See also my post here.)
• NASA scientists have discovered a “missing day.”

The comments to the post include many more.  The age of the internet makes it much easier to spread myths, but it also makes it easier to stop them.

HT: BibleX

While conducting research for my dissertation (The Arsenal of the Hebrew Kings and Their Neighbors), I was able to follow up on a question that my advisor had once asked me: How were slings used in antiquity? In other words, what technique was used to generate the centrifugal force needed to propel the stone across the battlefield?

In general, the modern assumption is that the sling was twirled in a horizontal circle over the archer’s head. For example, Rivka Gonen in her 1975 book Weapons of the Ancient World states, “A stone was placed in the pocket [of the sling] and then swung round and round above the head; when sufficient centrifugal force had been generated, one of the thongs was released, discharging the stone at a high speed towards its distant target” (p. 42).

This technique was apparently used by the Egyptians in the 12th century B.C. There is a famous relief at Medinet Habu that depicts a battle between the Egyptians and the Sea Peoples during the reign of Rameses III. Within this relief, there are a handful of slingers. Positioned high in the “crow’s nest” of the Egyptian ships, these slingers are depicted in the act of twirling their slings over thier heads, as shown below. (Image taken from Nelson, “The Epigraphic Survey of the Great Temple of Medinet Habu,” in Medinet Habu–1924-28, p. 27). This also seems to be the technique used by a slinger depicted in a relief from Tell Halaf in northwestern Mesopotamia that dates to the 10th or 9th century B.C.

Egyptian Slinger from the Medinet Habu Relief

However, the slings in the reliefs of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) and Ashurbanipal (669-629 B.C.) are not depicted horizontally. In general, they are depicted as hovering vertically (or almost vertically) over the head of the slinger. An example of such an Assyrian slinger on the Lachish Relief can be seen here (see Fig. 30a). Elsewhere on that relief, a Judean slinger is also depicted with his sling in this position. When slingers use the twirling method described above, the sling is never in such a position, so another method must be proposed.

It would appear that during the late Iron Age the slings of Assyrians and Judeans were used by swinging the whole arm in a wide, vertical circle. Based on the consistent angle of the slings in various Assyrian reliefs, it appears that the slinger’s arm was swinging forward at the top of the circle. The slinger’s arm is always depicted as vertical or almost vertical, and the sling (when it is not depicted as directly in line with the arm) is almost always depicted as trailing slightly behind the arm, away from the slinger’s front side. So it seems that after the slinger loaded his weapon, he would move his arm down and backwards in a sweeping motion and would swing the sling vertically over his head. (Imagine a professional baseball pitcher using a sling to pitch a ball and you have the general idea.) This motion may have occurred only once or may have been repeated several times to build up momentum. At the crucial moment, one of the thongs was released and the projectile was launched toward its target.

So the archaeological evidence indicates that there were at least two slinging techniques used in the ancient Near East: a horizontal rotation over the slinger’s head, and a vertical rotation similar to an overhand pitch. If we stop to think about it, it should not surprise us that different slinging techniques developed at different times and in different places. For a tool as simple as a sling and stone, some diversity in its use was bound to occur.

One of the most exciting action stories in Scripture is the narrative of Paul’s voyage to Rome, interrupted by the shipwreck on the island of Malta (Acts 27).  The vivid detail of these events is best explained by Luke’s presence on the journey and his writing of Acts shortly thereafter.

One of the details that Luke includes is the sailors’ fear that they would wreck on the “sandbars of Syrtis.”

When the men had hoisted [the lifeboat] aboard, they passed ropes under the ship itself to hold it together. Fearing that they would run aground on the sandbars of Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor and let the ship be driven along (Acts 27:17).

What are the “sandbars of Syrtis”?  Gordon Franz has delved into the ancient sources to learn that these were dangerous bodies of water off the coast of North Africa.  He quotes Strabo:

The difficulty with both [the Greater] Syrtis and the Little Syrtis is that in many places their deep waters contain shallows, and the result is, at the ebb and the flow of the tides, that sailors sometimes fall into the shallows and stick there, and that the safe escape of a boat is rare. On this account sailors keep at a distance when voyaging along the coast, taking precautions not to be caught off their guard and driven by winds into these gulfs” (Geography 17:3:20; LCL 8: 197).

Franz concludes:

Why were the sailors afraid of the Syrtis Sands? The Syrtis is two bodies of water in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of North Africa. Even with “good luck” (Procopius’ words), the sailors on the Alexandrian grain ship carrying the Apostle Paul and Dr. Luke were terrified because they knew they were doomed if they hit the Syrtis Sands. The grain ships were the largest ships plying the Mediterranean Sea at that time, with a deep draft, and they would easily have gotten grounded on a sandbar in the middle of no-where and many miles from any shoreline! The old sailor’s axiom would hold true: “Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink!” They would have had plenty of grain to eat on the ship, but not a drop of water to go with it. They were afraid of a slow and painful death by dehydration.

Read the whole article for all the fascinating details.

Benj Foreman, professor at the Israel Bible Extension of The Master’s College, has responded to my post about Rachel’s Tomb with observations worthy of more attention than they’ll get in a comment. 

He writes:

Thanks for your synthesis. I’ve heard you teach this before, but here are a few points to consider:

1) 1 Sam 10:2 does not need to be translated “in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah,” as you do in your post. The Hebrew “gevul” can mean border, and often does. Though it can mean “territory,” it often emphasizes the limit of a territory. It’s possible, therefore, that Samuel is saying something like this: you will meet two men on the border of Benjamin at Zelzah, near Rachel’s tomb (I rearranged the word order, i.e. “Rachels’ tomb” for clarity).

2) Rachel clearly dies “on the way” to Ephrathah in Gen 35:19–20. This means that she wasn’t buried in Bethlehem, but on the way there. So the fact that Bethlehem is 5 miles from the border need not be troublesome.

3) It’s not “certain” that there was a Bethlehem in Benjamin. I’m not convinced that the Bethlehem in Neh 7:26 is a different from Bethlehem in Judah. You’re right that it seems to be listed in an odd place (amidst Benjamite cities), but considering the fact that Bethlehem of Judah––the city of King David––is not listed anywhere else in the list, makes it unlikely to me that “Bethlehem” here refers to a city previously unknown to us. Wouldn’t we expect there to be at least a few returnees from David’s hometown?

4) It seems unlikely to me that the Ephrathah and Bethlehem which are linked in Gen 35:19 are different from the Ephrathah and Bethlehem which are linked in Micah 5:2.

5) What about Jer 31:15? The fact that Rachel is associated with Ramah is initially striking. However, perhaps we should note first of all that the text makes no connection to Rachel’s death. Rather, she is weeping for her children. Why? Because they are no more. But why single out Rachel? The answer may be because Jeremiah is using “Ephraim” as an object lesson for Judah (cf. v. 18, 20). She, one of the matriarch’s of Israel, was the “mother” of Ephraim: she bore Joseph, to whom were born Manasseh and Ephraim.

6) Migdal Ha Eder in Gen 35:21 and Micah 4:8 is not problematic. It’s near Jerusalem: between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Why does it have to be NORTH of Jerusalem? (I just read your response to Leen and there you say that it could be in any direction from Jerusalem….)

7) Summary: if we translate “gevul” in 1 Sam 10:2 as border, then having Rachel’s tomb somewhere south of Jerusalem ceases to be problematic. Rachel died “on the way” to Bethlehem (i.e. Ephrathah) and was buried somewhere on the border between Judah and Benjamin near an unknown site called Zelzah. The traditional location is probably unlikely since this is nearly 5 miles from the border of Judah/Benjamin.

8) Maybe I left out one vital piece of evidence and all of this will crumble. 🙂