More Queries and Comments Fall 2026
Thank you for your thoughts and comments about our Spring 2026 issue. We appreciate your feedback. Here are a few of the letters and responses we received. Find more online at barmag.org/letters.
BAR Worth the Read
Several articles in the Spring issue dealt with topics on which there had long been established consensus (which means we largely stopped thinking about them—the Siloam Tunnel Inscription, the Last Supper, and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts). Your authors looked at things from a different perspective and each came up with more reasonable interpretations. That is what makes BAR worth reading.
Cynthia Burdge
Kailua, Hawaii
Thanks for reaching out to all readers of the magazine. I find the thoughtful and comprehensive articles on biblical archaeology so interesting. The Spring issue was great! I care less about whether an author uses BCE or BC or whether some readers glean a “liberal” or “secular” bias in your pages and instead believe (and hope) most of your readers simply enjoy the read.
Louis Crespo
Brooklyn, New York
I thoroughly enjoyed the Spring issue. Article after article touched me in a special way. When the issue arrived and I sat down to see what was new, I lost track of time and was fully immersed in what I was reading. I particularly enjoyed “What Did the Last Supper Really Look Like?” and “Philip’s Encounter with the Ethiopian Eunuch,” which was a “good read” for me as an African American BAR reader. Author Mark Wilson opened my eyes to a more in-depth understanding of the eunuch’s story.
Sharon B. Fields
Paris, Kentucky
Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission
This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.
If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:
Keep Your Dates!
In the Spring issue, I was shocked by some of the letters regarding the BCE/CE or BC/AD issue. To describe the use as “woke” or “secular,” with the added suggestion to remove the word “biblical” from your name, makes absolutely no sense. BAR isn’t a religious publication, but it does open our eyes to many new discoveries related to what can be found in the Bible. I don’t expect to find anything other than possible manuscript discoveries that may mention miracles, but the published scholarship is not going to “prove” the miracles happened. That comes down to a person’s faith and has nothing to do with your magazine.
David Chulak
Hyrum, Utah
Reading the various letters condemning as inappropriately secular—if not “liberal” and “woke”—BAR’s use of the terms BCE and CE rather than BC and AD, I would like to express instead my appreciation of this usage. This magazine speaks about the Bible’s content, not its meaning, something that should be left respectfully to each reader. The scholarly term “Common Era” honors this stance while still accepting the long-established convention of viewing Jesus’s birth as a pivotal historical marker. Thus, to insist specifically on the use of AD (Anno Domini, i.e., Year of “Our” Lord) in a scholarly context, when two-thirds of the planet is not Christian and does not view Christ as their lord, lacks both justification and sensitivity.
Teresa Fisher
Pinehurst, Massachusetts
I commend BAR for allowing authors to choose their own date styles. I think some people forget that “archaeology” is right there in the title of the magazine and that science prefers testable and provable conclusions, something that the “E”-less BC is generally lacking, as scholars to this day are mixed on setting an exact date for the “B” (before) of “C” (Christ), which renders the earlier form somewhat muddy, something science abhors. Keeping the magazine balanced between the secular and theological is what keeps it fresh and interesting to a wider audience.
Peter Molitor
Kelseyville, California
After so much back-and-forth, I feel I must butt in with a third aspect. I, too, use CE and am far from alone in reading it as “Christian Era” (not Common Era). The designation “Christian Era” is an uncontroversial statement about a point in time based on a generally recognized historical fact. The same is decidedly not true for AD, because Anno Domini is not a fixed category of time but a statement of faith, one of several faiths among BAR’s readership and biblical scholars in general.
Axel Berger
Köln, Germany
I recently renewed my subscription after a hiatus of several years and have enjoyed catching up on recent issues. In the past few issues, I have noticed letters from readers expressing concern over BAR’s use of BCE and CE rather than BC and AD. Some seem troubled by the perceived effort to remove references to Christ from historical terminology, as has occurred in other secular settings.
As someone who openly professes to be a follower of Christ, I must admit that the use of BCE and CE does not trouble me in the least. In my admittedly simplistic mind, I have solved the controversy for myself: I read BCE as “Before Christ’s Era,” and CE as “Christ’s Era.” For this reason, I encourage BAR to use whichever terminology best serves the purposes and missions of each article. The historical timeline is the same whether one uses BCE/CE or BC/AD, and thanks to my own interpretation of the abbreviations, the meanings are essentially the same to me as well. Different letters, same history, same Savior.
Semie Ray Hart
Midlothian, Texas
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
Really, Fix Your Dates!
It feels like a punch in the gut every time I read BCE or CE in BAR. You are a biblical magazine that chooses to eliminate Christ in dating historical events! The use of BC and AD places Christ at the center of human history, while BCE and CE allows scholars to reference historical dates but minimize the significance of Christ’s birth. Really? It seems you are leaning toward political correctness and secularism rather than biblical values.
Ellen Roles
La Crosse, Wisconsin
I will NOT be renewing my subscription. My decision is primarily due to your policy regarding the use of BCE and CE. After reading the “Queries & Comments” section of your recent issue, it is clear that many other subscribers share my perspective. I found your justification—citing a “secular, non-denominational” stance—to be patronizing and illogical. It is disappointing to see a magazine that uses the term “biblical” in its title treat its readership’s values so carelessly.
Dru Heider
Ormond Beach, Florida
Last Supper Seder?
Matthew Grey’s thoughtful article “What Did the Last Supper Really Look Like?” usefully challenges the familiar Renaissance image of Jesus and the disciples seated at a long European-style banquet table. His argument that the meal more likely reflected the simpler communal dining practices of ordinary Judean pilgrims is persuasive.
One additional source that might further enrich the discussion is the Mishnah’s tractate Pesachim, which describes reclining at the Passover meal as a defining expression of freedom alongside the obligation of four cups of wine. Although compiled in the early third century CE, the Mishnah preserves earlier Jewish ritual traditions that likely illuminate Passover practices familiar during the late Second Temple period.
Whatever broader Mediterranean dining customs may have existed in Roman Judea, Jesus and his disciples were Jews observing Passover in Jerusalem, and it is hard to imagine that they would have been unfamiliar with reclining as part of the Passover night ritual experience. In that sense, reclining at the meal should not be viewed merely as imitation of Roman elite dining practices, but also as part of a distinctly Jewish ritual language of redemption and liberation.
Stephen M. Flatow
Long Branch, New Jersey
I received my first issue of BAR and I’m disappointed with the article “What Did the Last Supper Really Look Like?” While the author’s description of the surroundings may be accurate, he missed the main point, namely that it was the yearly celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover. Items on the table included matzah (unleavened bread), wine, ceremonial literature that includes prayers, pillows or cushions, kippahs (head coverings), and stories about the Exodus. These things are critical to the understanding of what Passover is and was. Let’s not forget that all the disciples as well Jesus were practicing Jews.
Jordan Cayne
Vonore, Tennessee
The well-written article on the Last Supper may well be correct. However, contrary to what the author writes, Jesus did have connections with the elite. One of his followers was the wife of Chuza, a member of Herod’s staff (Luke 8:3). Thus, we cannot rule out a Hellenistic table arrangement, utensils, plates, and crockery.
Ted Proffitt
Santa Ana, California
“What Did the Last Supper Really Look Like?” by Matthew Grey is a fine article but it seems to omit the most relevant examples. Grey considers whether the Last Supper was set in the Roman-style tricilinium popular with Judean elites or was instead a common meal with people seated cross-legged on mats. The article does not seem to consider that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. By omitting discussion of how Passover Seders were set up in that time, the author’s speculation is interesting but hardly persuasive. In modern practice, the participants in a Seder commonly recline while dining, to reflect that they are free, like kings. What was the practice in 30 CE?
Steve Sereboff
Santa Barbara, California
Matthew Grey Responds:
The earliest New Testament accounts (the Synoptic Gospels) do indeed frame Jesus’s final meal as a Passover celebration. However, the chronological reframing of the story in John’s Gospel reminds us to use caution and nuance. I have not tried to resolve this question per se; instead, I have focused on the material setting of pilgrimage meals as likely experienced by Jesus and other visitors to first-century Jerusalem.
Traditionally, scholars have assumed that Jesus’s last supper did reflect a modern Jewish Seder, claiming that later talmudic writings could reliably inform a reconstruction of its setting. Today, however, scholars are much more reluctant, noting that most of these practices—including the mishnaic injunction to recline while dining—developed in the centuries following the destruction of the Temple. There is no compelling reason to read the gospel accounts as reflecting a modern Seder, when archaeological and written sources suggest that, for most first-century Jews, Passover meals were a more modest experience.
In his article on the Last Supper, Matthew Grey relies on sociological stereotypes (e.g., “elites” versus “non-elites”) and generalizations about archaeological spaces to conclude that Jesus’s last meal “most likely resembled the common dining experience of most non-elite Judeans.” Grey suggests a dressed-down meal consisting of a single cup and “casserole” dish shared among Jesus and the disciples.
The prescription for the Last Supper in Mark 14:14–18 paints a very different picture, where an innkeeper (oikodespotēs, in Greek) provides a kataluma for the Passover meal. In this context, kataluma signifies a room designated for dining and hospitality, as in Luke 19:7. Mark describes the room as “upstairs,” “large,” and estrōmenon—“floored” or “paneled,” which in the context of triclinia would mean a room with carpets and couches for reclining guests. Indeed, Mark describes the guests not as “sitting” but “reclining” (Greek anakeimai). Reclining at Passover was particularly symbolic for Jews, for it signified their freedom from slavery. Mark’s report, which presumably relies on eyewitness testimony, could not be more specific with regard to the setting of the Last Supper. Primary texts, such as the earliest gospel, deserve primary consideration in historical judgments.
James R. Edwards
Professor Emeritus of Theology
Whitworth University
Matthew Grey Responds:
A well-furnished “upper room” is not the only way to understand the gospel accounts. Instead of the common Greek term for an “upper (second-story) room” (hyperōon), the synoptic writers use the phrase anagaion mega, a “large space above ground.” Similarly, Mark and Matthew do not refer to any elaborate furnishings but simply say the room was “spread out” (estrōmenon) —a word they use else-where to describe the laying of cloth or palm branches on the ground (Mark 11:8). And instead of the most common verb for “to recline” (anaklinó) , they use anakeimai, which can be read more generally as “to sit, take one’s place.”
Given these lexical possibilities and the archaeological evidence for dining spaces in Roman Judea, the most likely setting for the Last Supper is a modest, above-ground room with mats spread out on the floor, on which Jesus and the disciples sat and partook of their final meal out of shared vessels—just as most pilgrims seem to have done in their time.
The Eunuch’s Chariot
I am surprised that author Mark Wilson, in “Philip’s Encounter with the ‘Ethiopian Eunuch’,” did not consult the Latin Vulgate, which renders the Greek word as currum (“foreign carriage”), not petorritum. Indeed, the Confraternity New Testament reads “carriage.”
Ted Proffitt
Santa Ana, California
Siloam Tunnel Inscription
Ariel Cohen’s article “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription” claims that the inscription is a memorial to those killed in the zdh, the raging flow unleashed when the stopped-up water broke through the bṣr (which can mean a separator, i.e., a dam). The passage reads, hyt . zdh . bṣr . mymn.
I have a different possible translation. In Biblical Hebrew, bṣr can also mean “ore” (see Job 22:24). If we assume zdh comes from a similar root as in wayyazed ya‘aqob nazid, “Jacob was cooking a stew” (Genesis 25:29), where the flood reaches a rolling, churning state, perhaps we can interpret this situation as a rockslide tunnel-collapse with a flow of rock ore originating from the right. Therefore, they had to divert to finish the work. It would then make sense to place the inscription at the point of the rockslide and not the meeting point.
Seth Speiser
West Hempstead, New York
How Many Sinners?
Only 5? In your “How Many?” quiz, where you asked how many individuals are called “sinners” in the New Testament, you left out Peter. When the apostle realized that he really was in the presence of the Messiah, who had just pulled all those miraculous fish into his nets, he fell to his knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” Such a public display of guilt and contrition shows the rest of us what it means to be truly humble.
Rhonda Woodfine
Redondo Beach, Califormia
Thank you for catching this! To denote a sinner, the New Testament uses the Greek word hamartōlos, which is a substantival adjective (grammatical adjective used as a noun). It literally means “one who is sinful.” Our examples and the number given in the quiz were limited to this substantival use of the word. In Luke 5:8, where Peter calls himself “a sinful man,” the word hamartōlos is not a noun but a “pure” adjective modifying the noun “man,” which is why we did not include it in our list. On the substance, however, you are correct.—ED.
Hooray for Hapax
The Spring issue was exceptional, and the content was most interesting, especially the quiz (“Define Intervention”) about hapax legomenon (defined as “any unique written word”), a term I had not heard or read for many years. During my days as a seminary student, my biblical archaeology professor referenced hapax as a “slip of the tongue.” Maybe it fits one of your listed possible meanings, a “loanword from a neighboring language.” I have found myself using that meaning on several occasions.
Rodney J. Hale
Roanoke, Virginia
John Was Not a Witness
In his letter to the editor (“John Was Not a Witness”) in the Spring 2026 issue, Arthur Bellinzoni says he knows of “no reputable New Testament scholar who believes that any of the four canonical gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and certainly not apostles or disciples of an apostle.” Such a statement is a stunning admission of willful ignorance. As one who believes in the truthfulness of the Bible, I have an awareness of the biblical minimalist and liberal theologians, who think otherwise. If I said I knew of no minimalist or liberal scholars, I would make a public fool of myself. The list is long of reputable scholars who believe the Gospels and New Testament were written in the first century, by the apostles and their disciples. How many should I list?
Josh Taylor
Wauneta, Nebraska
Related Posts
Current Issue
Digital Subscriber
Download Magazine PDF HereLetters to the Editor
Email the editors with questions or comments on the latest issue of BAR.
[email protected]
