Archive for the ‘Archaeology’ Category

The “Tomb of the Shroud” which was discovered and investigated in 2000 by Shimon Gibson, Boaz Zissu, and me, with a team of our UNC Charlotte students  in the summer of 2000, continues to yield up many scientific secrets about life and death in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. I related the basic story of the exciting discovery of this freshly robbed tomb in the Introduction to my book The Jesus Dynasty in 2006 and Shimon Gibson has recently provided a more thorough analysis in his new book, The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (HarperOne, 2009). We published a preliminary report in the journal Hadashot Arkheologiyot (vol. 111: 2000, pp. 70-72, figs. 138-139) but a major monograph is planned for 2011 and various aspects of the research are beginning to appear in scientific journals. Although the burial shroud itself continues to receive great public interest (see the latest in today’s The Daily Mail), other aspects of research on this tomb are quite notable. DNA profiles were done on all the bones in the tomb, so far as we know for the first time in an ancient tomb in Jerusalem from the Herodian period. We also have the only substantial example of male hair from the period (lice free, cut reasonably short, and well groomed), and most important, the earliest case of leprosy ever found–in the Holy Land or elsewhere. The significance of the latter discovery is a major contribution to our understanding of ancient disease and has recently been published in the current issue of the Public Library of Science Journal. Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post had a nice feature update on the tomb and its secrets, highlighting the leprosy finding:

Remains in tomb near Old City show first known case of leprosy
Dec. 15, 2009

Judy Siegel-Itzkovich , THE JERUSALEM POST
DNA taken from the shrouded remains of a man discovered in a tomb next to the Old City of Jerusalem shows him to be the first human proven to have suffered from leprosy, according to Hebrew University researchers and North American and British collaborators. They published their findings in the December 16 issue of the PLoS One – the US Public Library of Science journal.

Prof. Mark Spigelman and Prof. Charles Greenblatt of the Sanford F. Kuvin Center for the Study of Infectious and Tropical Diseases at HU in Jerusalem, along with Prof. Carney Matheson and Kim Vernon of Lakehead University in Canada, Prof. Azriel Gorski of New Haven University and Dr. Helen Donoghue of University College London performed the molecular investigation. The archeological excavation was led by Prof. Shimon Gibson, Dr. Boaz Zissu and Prof. James Tabor on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

The burial cave, known as the Tomb of the Shroud, is located in the lower Hinnom Valley near the Jaffa Gate and part of a first century CE cemetery known as Akeldama, or “Field of Blood” (mentioned in the Book of Matthew 27:3-8, and Acts 1:19 in the Christian Bible). It is located adjacent to the spot where Judas is said to have committed suicide.

The tomb of the shrouded man is also located next to the tomb of Annas, the high priest (6 CE to 15 CE), who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest who betrayed Jesus to the Romans. It is thus believed that this shrouded man was either a priest or a member of the aristocracy. Gibson suggests that the view from the tomb would have looked directly toward the Second Temple.

The tomb is very unusual because it is clear that this man, whose remains are dated by radiocarbon methods to 1 CE to 50 CE, did not receive a subsequent burial. Secondary burials were common practice at the time, when the bones were removed after a year and placed in an ossuary (a bone box made of stone). In this case, however, the entrance to this part of the tomb was completely sealed with plaster. Spigelman believes this is because the man had suffered from leprosy and died of tuberculosis, as DNA of both diseases was found in his bones.

Historically, disfiguring diseases such as leprosy led to the sufferer being ostracized from their community. However, a number of indications – the location and size of the tomb, the type of textiles used as shroud wrappings, and the clean state of the hair – suggest that the shrouded individual was a fairly affluent member of Jerusalem society, and that tuberculosis and leprosy may have crossed social boundaries at that time.

This is also the first time fragments of a burial shroud have been found from the time of Jesus in Jerusalem. The shroud is very different to that of the Turin Shroud, until now assumed to be the one that was used to wrap the body of Jesus after his crucifixion. Unlike the complex weave of the Turin Shroud, this is made up of a simple two-way weave, as textile historian Dr. Orit Shamir was able to demonstrate.

Based on the assumption that this is representative of a typical burial shroud widely used at the time of Jesus, the researchers conclude that the Turin Shroud did not originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

The excavation also found a clump of the shrouded man’s hair, which had been ritually cut before he was buried. These are both unique discoveries because organic remains are only rarely preserved in the Jerusalem area owing to the soil’s high humidity levels.

Spigelman and Greenblatt state that the origins and development of leprosy are largely obscure. Leprosy in the Jewish Bible may well refer to skin diseases such as psoriasis. The leprosy known to us today was thought to have originated in India and brought over via bacteria to the Near East and Mediterranean countries during the Hellenistic period. The results from the First Century Tomb of the Shroud fill a vital gap in our knowledge of this disease, they said.

Furthermore, the new research has shown that molecular pathology clearly adds a new dimension to the archeological exploration of disease in ancient times and a better understanding of the evolution, geographic distribution and epidemiology of disease and social health in antiquity.

The co-infection of both leprosy and tuberculosis here and in 30 percent of DNA remains in Israel and Europe from the ancient and modern period provided evidence for the postulate that the medieval plague of leprosy was eliminated by an increased level of tuberculosis in Europe as the area urbanized.

Thanks to Mark Elliot and the editors of the newly revived Web site Bible Interpretation for carrying a featured article on the latest report on our very exciting Mt Zion excavation in Jerusalem. You can read the report with pictures here. Bible Interpretation was, in my view, one of the finest sites on-line and it is great to see it back, up and running.

For more general information on the upcoming 2009 Dig Season at Mt Zion, as well as full reports, videos, pictures, and a history of this important excavation see our main Web site:

digmountzion.com

We accept volunteers of all ages and walks of life and students from any accredited college or university in the United States can enroll for academic credit. Please write me directly with any questions or comments: jdtabor@uncc.edu

I wanted to highlight the extraordinary artistic work of Balage Baloge and his contributions to our visualization of the ancient Roman World of Jesus and early Christianity. I first encountered his work in the wonderful volume by John Crossan and Jonathan Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. There one finds dozens of his striking color reconstructions of ancient scenes and cities such as Caesarea, Tiberius, Jerusalem, Capernaum, and Nazareth. I found his work meticulously accurate in terms of our historical texts and our archaeological sources, while at the same time breathtakingly beautiful in layout, composition, and imagination. You can see a nice collection of some of these works, relating to Jesus, on the Discovery Web site feature: The Land of Jesus. It is an interactive feature and truly one of the most fascinating things one can find on the Web in terms of putting you back in the time of Jesus.

When I was writing The Jesus Dynasty I contacted Balage and asked him if I could commission him to do seven special color paintings for me, specifically designed to illustrate aspects of the book that I wanted to include:

Drawing of Sepphoris as viewed from Nazareth

Aerial Shot of Herod’s Sepphoris

Herod’s Jerusalem looking East to the Mt of Olives showing the Herodian Palace Grounds

The “Jesus Hideout” in Jordan at Wadi el-Yabis

Jesus Before Caiaphus in the Priestly Mansion

Jesus Before Pilate’s Judgment Seat at the Praetorium

Jesus Crucified on the Mt of Olives

The results were amazing, really breathtaking, when one looks at the originals in full resolution. Unfortunately, due to printing costs, only two appeared in color in the hardcover edition, as part of the front and back inside covers, and the rest were B&W and rather small on the page, in the text of the book itself. In the paperback all of them appear, but in B&W, and also rather small. If we ever publish a “Deluxe Illustrated” edition of The Jesus Dynasty, they will surely be included in full color plates.

Balage Baloge was born in Budapest, Hungary where he attended art school. He immigrated to the United States in 1989 and lives in Baltimore. Although his artistic work is wide ranging, as one can see from browsing his Balage4Art Web site, he has become especially fascinated with ancient history, the Bible and archaeology. He lived in Israel for a number of years and began working with archaeologists and scholars to recreate the ancient past. In addition to The Jesus Dynasty and Excavating Jesus he has done illustrations for The World of the Old Testament, The World of the New Testament, and A Guide to Jerusalem.

Here is a nice color version of one of the paintings he did for me, showing Jesus and his little band of disciples hiding out in Wadi el-Yabis (Wadi Cherith in the Bible) in Jordan, the last winter of his life, based on the account in the gospel of John (chapter 12, “Last Days of Jesus” in The Jesus Dynasty).

Prof. Aren Maeir, chair of the Dept. of Archaeology/Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel has recently expressed his views on “Biblical Archaeology,” in a widely circulated news story “Caution Replaces Rash Claims to Prove Bible.” He argues that there is no reason to shy away from comparing scientific findings to the biblical text, but urges that caution be exercised, particularly when it comes to going “public” with claims about this or that data “proving” the biblical record. He notes the trend today among some scholars to “dump the whole premise of biblical archaeology and just look at sites from a clearly archaeological perspective, rather than enmesh it with an ideological, religious or nationalistic perspective,” but warns that this attempt, that certainly has academic justification, is espoused “by those who have a very strong ideology in the other direction and don’t believe there is any historical accuracy in the Bible.”

I find his comments in this regard to be balanced and on target, however, Maeir then goes on to offer four examples of sensational claims that have received wide public attention but have turned out to be either a gross misunderstanding of the facts or outright frauds with the following characterizations:

• Mt. Ararat as the site where Noah’s Ark was found. “This one happens every five or 10 years,” yet nothing has been found to verify the claim.

• The Shroud of Turin. “We know clearly now it was made in the Middle Ages. It has been scientifically tested and dated clearly to the 14th Century.”

• The tomb of Jesus’ family. Among the most recent “discoveries,” the tomb has been the subject of several documentary films and books, but Maeir said what isn’t discussed is the commonality of the names found in the tomb. “There’s nothing exceptional about having a Jesus and a
Miriam and a Jacob” in the same tomb, he said.

• The ossuary of Jesus’ brother, James. “It turns out the box was found only with the ‘James’ part on it. Someone else added the words, ‘brother of Jesus.”‘

I don’t think Maier would get much argument on Noah’s Ark and the Shroud of Turin, but I am frankly surprised at his inclusion of the Talpiot Jesus tomb and the James ossuary as well as his inaccurate characterizations of both. To assert that the “commonality of the names” in the Talpiot tomb has not been discussed, or that the cluster of names is “nothing exceptional” ignores an extensive and serious scholarly debate, much of which is now appearing in peer reviewed scholarly publications. The latest issue of Near Eastern Archaeology has six essays dealing with most of the essential issues related to the Talpiot tomb, including the commonality of the names. There are peer reviewed statistical studies now available, with more to come (e.g. Prof. Feuerverger’s article forthcoming in Annals of Applied Statistics), that indicate that this easy dismissal of Maier and others on the basis of the names being “common” is misguided both in terms of the facts and the statistics. I have archived an extensive discussion of this very subject on this Blog. It is also far from established that the phrase “brother of Jesus” was added by someone to the James ossuary, indeed, the latest testimony in the trial of Oded Golan indicates that the letters containing original patina are precisely those with the words “brother of Jesus.” It is far from clear that the inscription has been shown to be a forgery, and there is credible evidence to the contrary that has emerged from a variety of highly responsible academic sources.

There seems to be a bit of a “bandwagon” or “pile-on” effect here, inspired perhaps by Eric Cline’s widely quoted essay in the Boston Globe titled “Raiders on of the Faux Ark,” based on his new book, From Eden to Exile: Unraveling the Mysteries of the Bible. Eric’s thesis, that “biblical archaeology is too important to leave to crackpots and ideologues; it’s time to fight back” has received deserved praise, but I fear a casualty might well be the same kind of easy dismissal and misstatement of facts regarding both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary that Maier reflects in his interview. Believe it or not, these are not my two pet issues, but they are subjects to which I have devoted considerable time and research and I have to insist, despite any aspersions, that they deserve a fair and full hearing with the facts laid out. That Professor James Charlesworth of Princeton has put together a large academic conference that will discuss both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary, in a proper scholarly context, this January in Jerusalem, is all to the good and says much for his own courage and integrity. He too has taken his share of “lumps” for maintaining that neither the tomb nor the ossuary has yet had a proper hearing. So let’s hear it for responsible academic standards when it comes to “biblical archaeology,” but let’s not dismiss or ignore the body of responsible discussion on both the Talpiot tomb and the James ossuary.

One of the most frequent questions I get when giving public lectures around the country is “What about the James ossuary–has it been proved to be a forgery?” The confusion on this matter, fueled by many inaccurate and outdated news reports and Internet pieces, is considerable. It is difficult to sort out the facts. One of the better and more judicious treatments of the subject was that of Professor Joseph Fitzmeyer published in Theology Today (52:4), but unfortunately it did not receive a wide circulation. I am pleased to report that it is now available on-line at the BAS Web site. The photo at the right was taken in Noveber, 2002 at the Toronto exhibit of the James ossuary at a private viewing arranged for scholars. Here you see Professors Fitzmeyer and Frank Cross examining the inscription and discussing its features.

Also, at the same Web site one can download a complete report (PDF file) on the Conference on Forgery that met in Jerusalem in January, 2007. This gathering of leading scholars of various views met to assess a number of well-known artifacts that had in recent years been labeled as forgeries, including the James Ossuary. There is an appendix to this report with the latest materials related to the James ossuary, including expert testimony on the authenticity of the photographs that owner Oded Golan had submitted as evidence of his long-term ownership and the inscription’s authenticity.

The breaking news this morning regarding Prof. Ehud Netzer’s discovery of the remains of what appear to be the grave, sarcophagus, and mausoleum of Herod the Great at the Herodium, just south of Bethlehem, has fired the imagination of the world. Much of what we know of Herod comes from Josephus, the 1st century CE Jewish historian, and from the ruins of what Herod built (see Duane W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

But to have now found his tomb, after 30 years of searching, seems to bring the reality of the man home to us all, in life and in death. The emperor Augustus gave Herod the title King of the Jews and his connections with Rome were extraordinary (see Peter Richarson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999). Throughout his long reign he desperately, but abortively, wanted to establish some kind of “dynasty” or royal line, as evidenced by his marriage to the Hashmonean princess Miriame. So obsessed was he with genealogical records that Josephus reports that he had the archives at Sepphoris destroyed lest any rivals challenge his pedigree or put forth their own. His son, Herod Antipas, tried much the same, seeking to forge royal connections through marriage and building his magnificant capital at Sepphoris. Meanwhile, in Rome, Octavian, as the emperor Augustus, also sought to establish a dynastic line of succession by his adoption of Tiberius not long before his death. It seems that “Dynasties” were in the air in the 1st century CE Roman world.

I have collected books on Herod the Great for 30 years now and I find him endlessly fascinating and alluring as an historical figure, but much more so as a study in contrasts with that other “King of the Jews,” Jesus of Nazareth, crucified in 30 CE at Passover as a potential insurrectionist and heir to the royal throne of David. Unlike some of my colleagues in the area of Christian Origins I have not the slightest doubt that Jesus was of Davidic lineage (Romans 1:3), and understood himself as the legitimate King of Israel or “messiah.” Indeed, I believe it is an essential factor for any interpretation of the figure of Jesus in his own time and context. I am convinced the Messianic self-identity of Jesus opens up a world of understanding of both of the man and his movement, and that without it any interpretation of the historical Jesus fundamentally fails. I have always been a bit puzzled as when I have been asked–but why would you think Jesus thought himself to be of Davidic lineage, when my question would be the opposite–how could he have possibly viewed himself otherwise, given what we know of the movement, its beliefs, and its history. Teachers, prophets, and charismatic healers are one thing, but the coming of the “Messiahs of Aaron and Israel” was at the heart of Jewish expectations of the future under the rule of a succession of Herodian rulers who were considered to be corrupt in illegitimate kings. I am further convinced that part and parcel of the Davidic lineage idea was that one was part of a Dynasty, made up of brothers and sons. And this is what we find in the Jesus movement as James, the brother of Jesus, becomes his successor, and Simon, another brother (some say cousin but of the same royal lineage), takes the leadership at the death of James. Yose, Jesus second brother has apparently died by the time of the death of James in 62 CE or he would have likely been next in line.

We known the splendor with which Herod was buried from the account in Josephus and the ruins of the Herodium (see story below). Jesus in contrast was crucified as a criminal and hastily and temporarily placed in a rock-hewn tomb near the place where he died. Joseph of Arimathea, who had taken charge of his burial, likely provided a more permanent tomb for Jesus, and perhaps for the rest of his family, shortly thereafter. Like other Rabbis and teachers of the time we can expect the followers of this “Branch of David,” would have made sure he and his family were well taken care of, in death as in life. The elaborately decorated sarcophagus of Herod stands in sharp contrast to the plain undecorated ossuary of Jesus son of Joseph of the Talpiot tomb. Should this tomb be shown to that of Jesus of Nazareth in a more definitive way in the future, it seems to mirror and reflect the kind of “King of the Jews” that Jesus came to be. That the Jesus of the tomb also has a son named Judah makes the entire Dynasty concept all the more dynamic. More on this later…

The following is the official News Release of the discovery of Herod’s tomb.

_____________________________________________________
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים

Tomb of King Herod discovered at Herodium
by Hebrew University archaeologist

Jerusalem, May 8, 2007 — The long search for Herod the Great’s tomb has ended with the exposure of the remains of his grave, sarcophagus and mausoleum on Mount Herodium’s northeastern slope, Prof. Ehud Netzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Institute of Archaeology announced today.

Herod was the Roman-appointed king of Judea from 37 to 4 BCE, who was renowned for his many monumental building projects, including the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the palace at Masada, as well as the complex at Herodium, 15 kilometers south of Jerusalem. .

Herodium is the most outstanding among King Herod’s building projects. This is the only site that carries his name and the site where he chose to be buried and to memorialize himself — all of this with the integration of a huge, unique palace at the fringe of the desert, said Prof. Netzer. Therefore, he said, the exposure of his tomb becomes the climax of this site’s research.

The approach to the burial site – which has been described by the archaeologists involved as one of the most striking finds in Israel in recent years – was via a monumental flight of stairs (6.5 meters wide) leading to the hillside that were especially constructed for the funeral procession.

The excavations on the slope of the mountain, at whose top is the famed structure comprised of a palace, a fortress and a monument, commenced in August 2006. The expedition, on behalf of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was conducted by Prof. Netzer, together with Yaakov Kalman and Roi Porath and with the participation of local Bedouins.

The location and unique nature of the findings, as well as the historical record, leave no doubt that this was Herod’s burial site, said Prof. Netzer.

The mausoleum itself was almost totally dismantled in ancient times. In its place remained only part of its well built podium, or base, built of large white ashlars (dressed stone) in a manner and size not previously revealed at Herodium.

Among the many high quality architectural elements, mostly well decorated, which were spread among the ruins, is a group of decorated urns (made in the form of special jars that were used to store body ashes). Similar ones are to be found on the top of burial monuments in the Nabatean world. The urns had a triangular cover and were decorated on the sides.

Spread among the ruins are pieces of a large, unique sarcophagus (close to 2.5 meters long), made of a Jerusalemite reddish limestone, which was decorated by rosettes. The sarcophagus had a triangular cover, which was decorated on its sides. This is assumed with certainty to be the sarcophagus of Herod. Only very few similar sarcophagi are known in the country and can be found only in elaborate tombs such as the famous one at the King’s Tomb on Selah a-Din Street in East Jerusalem. Although no inscriptions have been found yet at Herodium, neither on the sarcophagus nor in the building remains, these still might be found during the continuation of the dig.

Worthy of note is the fact that the sarcophagus was broken into hundreds of pieces, no doubt deliberately. This activity, including the destruction of the monument, apparently took place in the years 66-72 C.E. during the first Jewish revolt against the Romans, while Jewish rebels took hold of the site, according to Josephus and the archaeological evidence. The rebels were known for their hatred of Herod and all that he stood for, as a “puppet ruler” for the Romans.

The search for Herod’s tomb, which actively began 30 years ago, focused until the middle of 2006 at Lower Herodium, in an area which was, no doubt, especially built for the funeral and burial of the king – the “Tomb Estate.” In order to reveal there the remains from Herod’s days, the expedition was “forced” to first expose a large complex of Byzantine structures (including a church), an effort that demanded many years of digging.

The Tomb Estate included two monumental buildings and a large ritual bath (mikveh) as well as the large route (350 meters long and 30 meters wide) which was prepared for the funeral. When no sign of the burial place itself was found within the Tomb Estate, the expedition started to search for it on the slope of the hill, although there seems to be no doubt that the initial intention of the king was to be buried in the estate and that only in a later stage of his life – apparently when he grew old – did he change his mind and asked to be buried within the artificial cone which gave the hill of Herodium its current volcano-shape.

The main historical source of the Second Temple’s days, the historian Josephus Flavius, has described the site of Herodium in detail, as well as the funeral in the year 4 BCE, but not the tomb proper. He wrote as follows:

“The king’s funeral next occupied his attention. Archelaus, omitting nothing that could contribute to its magnificence, brought forth all the royal ornaments to accompany the procession in honor of the deceased. The bier was of solid gold, studded with precious stones, and had a covering of purple, embroidered with various colors; on this lay the body enveloped in purple robe, a diadem encircling the head and surmounted by a crown of gold, the scepter beside his right hand.

Around the bier were Herod’s sons and a large group of his relations; these were followed by the guards, the Thracian contingent, Germans and Gauls, all equipped as for war. The reminder of the troops marched in front, armed and in orderly array, led by their commanders and subordinate officers; behind these came five hundred of Herod’s servants and freedmen, carrying spices. The body was thus conveyed for a distance of two hundred furlongs to Herodium, where, in accordance with the directions of the deceased, it was interred. So ended Herod’s reign.”
Jewish Wars, 1,23,9

Prof. Netzer started his archaeological activity at Herodium in 1972, at first on a small scale. The scope of his work widened with the decision to turn Herodium (the mount together with Lower Herodium) into a national park, which was due to occupy 125 acres. (Until that stage only the mount was proclaimed as a national park and was operated by the Nature and Parks Authority.)

The enlargement of the park started in 1980; unfortunately the activity at the site stopped as a result of the first Intifada, but not before the complex of tunnels from the days of Bar-Kokhba, within the mount, were opened to the public. The archaeological excavations at the site, which also stopped in 1987, were renewed 10 years later and continued until 2000, and after a second break, were renewed at the end of 2005.

Prof. Netzer gained his first “intimate” acknowledgement of Herodian architecture while joining Prof. Yigael Yadin (in 1963-66), in his expedition at Masada. Netzer’s Ph.D. dissertation in archaeology, guided by Prof. Yadin, brought him to initiate excavations both at Lower Herodium and at Jericho – at the complex of Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces. (The site at Jericho, following Netzer’s excavations, includes three palaces of Herod and a hitherto unknown large complex of Hasmonean winter palaces). Additional Herodian structures in other parts of the country were also uncovered by him. He has written various books and articles on the topic of Herodian architecture.

Yaakov Kalman, archaeologist and farmer, participated in many excavations throughout the country and took an active part in Netzer’s excavations at Masada, Jericho and Herodium. Roi Porath took an active part in the survey of the Judean Desert caves and has many significant finds in his record.

The current excavations benefited from donations of private individuals, and the assistance of the Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

Photos of Herodium available via e-mail upon request.

For further information:
Jerry Barach, Dept. of Media Relations, the Hebrew University, Tel: 02-588-2904,
or Orit Sulitzeanu, Hebrew University spokesperson, Tel: 02-5882910, Cell: 052-260-8016.
Internet site: http://media.huji.ac.il.

In all the controversy over whether or not the Talpiot “Jesus Family tomb” might have been that of Jesus of Nazareth there is another ossuary about which few outside the academic world have ever heard. Rather than stirring worldwide headlines and passionate debate, it has largely gone unnoticed, since it is not a part of the Israeli State Collection. It is presently on display in a small Franciscan museum along the Via Dolorossa that is open only odd hours during the week. As far as I know it has not drawn the attention of Christian pilgrims.

The ossuary was found in 1953 on the Mt. of Olives by the the Franciscan Fr. Bagatti. It was part of in a fascinating necropolis of over a five hundred burial tombs that some scholars have identified, in whole or in part, with the early pre-70 CE Jewish-Christian community–that is, Jewish followers of Jesus who lived, died, and were buried as good Jews. This ossuary is inscribed: Shimon bar Jonah, or in English, “Simon son of Jonah,” the name of the apostle Simon Peter (Matthew 16:17). This name is attested nowhere else, neither in inscriptions nor in literature. Further, the Simon, son of Jonah, ossuary was found just meters away from a tomb just outside of Bethany containing a single ossuary with two indviduals: Mary and Martha, and nearby another, inscribed Lazarus. I discuss these briefly in my book, The Jesus Dynasty (pp. 235-237), but a fuller treatment, accessible to the non-specialist, is available in Jack Fingegan’s The Archaeology of the New Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, reprt 1979), pp. 359-375.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the features that distinguishes The Jesus Dynasty from many other historical treatments of Jesus is the attention I give to place. By that I mean my attempt to determine if possible the locations of various sites that become the settings of the basic gospel narratives. This is particularly the case when it comes to the Last Days of Jesus in Jerusalem, that final week that includes his daily excursions into the Temple court area, the guest house where he ate his last supper, the garden of Gethsemane, the various stages of his “trial,” first before the High Priest, then Pilate, and then Herod, the place of the execution, and the location of the tomb closeby where he was temporary placed in haste. In almost every case I have reason to question the traditional sites, many of which were settled upon in the 4th and 5th centuries AD, or even later.

Over the years, in dozens of trips to Jerusalem, I have studied the various sites and their traditions and I have shifted my views over time. For example, there was a time when I was quite convinced of the validity of the late Bargil Pixner’s theories about an Essene Quarter on what is today called Mt. Zion in the southwest corner of the Old City. I am now quite sure this entire theory is incorrect. I knew Bargil well and spent many pleasant hours with him on dozens of visits to Jerusalem. I also helped him edit two of his major articles, both of which I have linked on my University Web site: Jerusalem’s Essene Gateway and The Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion. I highly recommend these fascinating treatments even though I have changed my views. I have a photo from the early 1990s taken in Jerusalem where we were discussing some of these very matters. It is of great sentimental value to me. I came to love and respect Father Pixner very deeply.

I have learned from various people over the years and I have continued to refine my conclusions but Dr. Shimon Gibson, with whom I have worked on various archaeology projects since 2000, has been one of my greatest teachers in this regard. He and I still differ on a number of these “sites,” such as the location of Golgatha and the tomb where Jesus was buried (he supports the traditional location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), but I think he is dead right about one of them, and as far as I know this is his discovery, namely the proper location of Jesus’ trial before Pilate. In fact, the more I study it the more sure I have become that this is one site in Jerusalem, as yet totally unknown to tourists and pilgrims, that we can authenitically identify with events in Jesus’ life.

Gibson locates this judgment seat of Pilate, the Roman governor, and the scene of the trial, just outside the western wall of the Old City, with the Praetorium inside the wall through a gate leading inside the palace (John 18:28). It is unlikely Pilate would be staying in the barracks of the Antonia Fortress, near the first station of the cross on the Via Dolorosa inside the Old City, which is the traditional locaton. I remember visiting that site as a teenager, my first trip to the Holy Land, maintained by the Sisters of Sion. I was profoundly moved as our tour guide narrated how Jesus was scourged and mocked in the courtyard of the Antonia, where the stone pavement, today known as the “Lithostrotos,” is still visible three meters below the present street level. Pilate, as well as Herod Antipas, who was in town for the Passover, would have been in the palaces, on the luxurious west side of the city, the royal quarters his father had built, not doing duty in the fortress barracks. I have marked the spot of the scene with a red square on this map, just to the west of the Old City wall:

Although the Oxford map does not show it, the vast palace grounds would be just inside the wall, running south the entire length to the Hinnom Valley, as I have marked here in white. In the painting below, that artist Balage Balogh did for for The Jesus Dynasty, he puts the palace grounds just inside the wall and also shows the gate leading inside to the royal grounds:

Here in the model of Herodian Jerusalem that has now been moved to the Israel Museum. You can see how the various buildings of the palace might have looked in their splendor, just inside the city wall. It was inside this area that Jesus was taken for his interrogation and scourging at daybreak the day he was executed. The crowd of his accusors waited outside, as they would be eating the Passover that evening (John 18:28).

Shimon Gibson helped to excavate this entire western wall area many years ago under Magen Broshi. He has studied it in great detail and has been able to identify its main features. Of our four New Testament gospels it is John alone who seems to know the precise topography of the scene. The way this area looks today appears in the photo below. You can still see the steps, intact from Herodian times, leading up to the platform where Pilate sat and the area where the gate led into the Praetorium. The platform was called called Gabbatha (John 19:13) and the flat stones making up the floor are still in place. Following the interrogation inside Jesus was brought back outside on this judgment seat to face his accusors. He was then taken down these steps and led to the place of crucifixion, that I believe was on the Mt. of Olives.

Balogh produced this wonderful painting that accurately reconstructs how things would have looked. He did a great deal of research on the archaeology of the site based on Gibson’s findings, as well as careful attention to clothing and other featues:

Whenever I read the gospel accounts of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, especially in the gospel of John, I have these images and pictures vividly in my mind. It is one of those rare juxtapositions between imagination, place, and text. I hope some of my readers can manage to visit this site someday. In my estimation it is truly holy ground and as yet it is pristine and untouched by church, shrine, or tourist vendor.

In November, 2005 the news spread quickly around the world:

Oldest “church” ever found has been discovered near the biblical site of Armageddon!

The site was uncovered on the grounds of a modern Israeli prison near Megiddo. It gives us a precious glimpse into early Christian worship and devotion before the time of Constantine (325 AD), for it is only after Constantine that structures we can definitely identify as “Churches” began to spread throughout the Mediterranean world.

Yet this site can not properly be called a church. So what is it? Scholars are just beginning to try and access the impact of this precious discovery. What we appear to have here is what the authors have called a “Christian prayer hall.” It is a room, complete with mosaics containing art work and inscriptions, dedicated to “the god Jesus Christ,” with obvious ritual functions and symbols, but quite different from later Christian churches of the Byzantine period. The structure appears to date to the early 3rd century, making it by far the most important early Christian archaeological site of its kind ever discovered in the Holy Land. In their book, excavation director Yotam Tepper, and epigraphic expert Leah Di Segni, throughly explore the textual evidence for “sacred meals” from sources such as the Didache, the fascinating early Christian document discovered in 1873 that I discuss in The Jesus Dynasty. Our evidence for pre-Constantinian “Christianity” is almost wholly textual. It is rare to find any kind of material evidence that might shed light on the practices of early followers of Jesus, particularly in the Holy Land. To have found at Megiddo this evidence for liturgical activities that seem to link to rites and practices we read about in ancient texts is something of which we normally can only dream. But there is more. One of the three inscriptions mentions four women, singled out as having special importance to the community. This is clear evidence, echoing what we find in our earliest gospel sources, of the vital importance of woman as leaders and even patrons in the earliest days of the movement.

Now that the dust has cleared a bit, literally, the story of this most extraordinary archaeological find has just become available in an attractive, lavishly illustrated, full-color booklet published by the Israel Antiquities Authority titled, A Christian Prayer Hall of the 3rd Century. The authors, have provided us with a fascinating but authoritative, account of the excavation and its significance narrated in an accessible style for the non-specialist. I recently heard both Tepper and Segni lecture on the discovery at the annual meeting in D.C. of the American Schools of Oriential Research, the preeminent gathering of archaeologists working in areas related to the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Their presentations were riveting and thought provoking and the substance of those lectures, plus much more, is provided in this richly illustrated volume.

This little book is a model for publications in the field of archaeology. It is beautifully done, reasonably priced, and as readable as it is informative. It is a must for anyone interested in the earliest archaeological records of the spread of Christianity in the Holy Land. The IAA has printed a limited but reasonable number of copies. It can be conveniently ordered in the U.S.A. from from the Web bookstore: Centuryone.com. I urge anyone interested in the material evidence related to earliest Christianity to get a copy of this book while they are still available.

Excavated Entrance to the Suba Cave

As readers know one of the archaeological sites I discuss in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, is the Suba cave, located outside Ein Kerem, the traditional birthplace of John the Baptist, a few kilometers west of Jerusalem. My colleague, Israeli archaeologist Shimon Gibson and I have been digging there since early 2000. In fact, this past March we just finished our seventh season of excavations at the site. What we have uncovered is quite amazing with many questions still remaining to be answered.
Recently a reader of my book pointed out to the entire world (the World Wide Web that is, where anyone can post anything at anytime): “The Suba cave that Tabor thought was used by John the Baptist is now agreed by other scholars to date to the iron age. It was later utilized briefly in the 4th century AD. John the Baptist had nothing to do with it.”

Since Gibson and I are the ones who discovered as well as reported upon and published the evidence related to the Iron Age construction of this site, this reader’s assertion that “other scholars” have set us straight on this point borders between the amusing and the irritating.

Whether John the Baptist or Jesus ever used this site for ritual water purification ceremonies we can not be sure. What we can say are three things in that regard. 1) In the Byzantine period Christians came to this cave to remember and venerate John the Baptist, leaving behind some of the oldest Christian art associated with John ever found in the Holy Land. This should not surprise us since it is located just outside Ein Kerem, the earliest place associated with his birth. 2) In the first century A.D. scores of people were coming to this cave and carrying out some kind of ceremonies associated with water purification. 3) The Suba cave itself, as well as the entire complex (there is much we have now found outside the cave) has a much earlier history, constructed in the Iron Age for a yet undetermined purpose.

Gibson and I published a summary of our evidence in this regard in an article titled “John the Baptist’s Cave: The Cave in Favor,” in the May/June, 2005 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Dr. Gibson has also ably summarized all our relevant archaeological findings in his book, The Cave of John the Bapist (New York: Doubleday, 2004), which is now out in paperback.

Gibson and I are as interested in the Iron Age history of Suba as what went on in the 1st century. However, for those who are skeptical regarding our hypothesis that massive activity involving ritual water purification rites went on for several decades in the early 1st century, possibly involving movements such as those inaugurated by John the Baptist and Jesus, are obligated to come up with alternative explanations for what we found at those levels of the excavation. For one to say “I am not convinced that John the Baptist was associated with this cave” misses the point. What we are obligated to do is to try and come up with the most plausible evidence we can to explain the massive and unqiue material evidence. Gibson and I welcome alternative hypotheses.

In The Jesus Dynasty I suggest Suba as a possible location for the massive baptismal activities of Jesus and his disciples reported in John 3:22-24; 4:1-4. This “hill country” of Judea is a rugged area with a few springs but no significant bodies of water. The Suba cave is massive and surely was a well known and prominent feature of that area. It is removed from any significant population center. I take the “Jesus the Baptizer” tradition as historically probably since to have Jesus baptised at all by John was a problem enough for early Christians. To have him then carrying out extensive baptisms himself, in the south, in the Judean countryside, with John working in tandem in the north–is not something the author of the gospel of John would likely have concocted. That is why the “editor” of John adds the caveat: But Jesus himself did not baptize, only his disciples! When we see that sort of qualifying gloss we can be almost certain that the underlying tradition is valid–thus the protest.

P.S. There are some breaking new discoveries at Suba about which I will write as soon as Gibson and I determine how we want to initially report them.