Until recently, academic scholars have followed the opinion of talmudic sages in reading biblical references to honey as referring not to bees’ honey but to date syrup. Recent discoveries—some of which are now on display at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv—have led them to revise this understanding, as Bible History Daily reports:

Of the 55 times that honey appears in the Hebrew Bible, only twice does it specify bees’ honey (Judges 14:8–9 and 1 Samuel 14:27)—both of which refer to wild bees. Scholars used to believe that the other mentions of honey always referred to fruit honey, which was the common sweetener in ancient times. . . .

However, recent archaeological discoveries show that the ancient Israelites did indeed keep bees. This, coupled with new readings of these Biblical passages, has caused many to reevaluate the accepted interpretation. It seems that some of the 53 appearances of honey in the Hebrew Bible once thought to mean fruit honey actually mean bees’ honey.

Tel Reḥov, a site in the northern Jordan Valley, . . . has yielded discoveries from the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, the time alluded to in the Bible as that of David, Solomon, and the first kings of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Among these discoveries was an apiary—the only [apiary] ever discovered in an archaeological excavation—with remains of bees imported from Anatolia inside the clay hives.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.