The Jesus Dynasty / James Tabor

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.

I am extremely pleased to announce that the new Web site with full information about our plans for 2008 excavations at Mt Zion just outside the present walls of the Old City of Jerusalem is now up and live at digmountzion.com. This archaeological site, along the road between Zion Gate and the Dung Gate, dates back to 1977-78 when excavations were undertaken by Magen Broshi. Unfortunately, due to various circumstances, the site was abandoned and overgrown.  Dr. Shimon Gibson resumed work at the site in 2000, having taken over responsibility for the scientific publication of the City Wall excavations overall, carried out by Broshi. Some further work was done in 2001 but the 2nd Intifada made it impossible to resume operations with student volunteers. Last year, in 2007, under the sponsorship of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a new license was obtained and full-scale work resumed, with significant results. The site has been surveyed, cleaned, and prepared for an extended and proper excavation, beginning in 2008 with sessions planned in Spring and Summer. We are accepting volunteers or “Team Members,” and anticipate a diverse and international group. The new Web site has full details.

Thinking about the 4th Century outside the Church of the Holy Scepulcher*

Sunrise over the Mt. of Olives*

Thorns growing wild near the ruins of Herod’s Palace & Pilate’s Judgment Seat

View of the Old City of Jerusalem looking north from Talpiot

Olive Tree in Garden of Gethsemane: Where It All Began (see Jesus Dynasty Preface)*

No Explanation Needed*

Sandwiched Between Modern Apartments: The Talpiot “Jesus tomb” Today

Ancient Steps of the Pool of Siloam*

Sifting Soil at Mt Zion*

Dr. Gibson offers an Orientation to the Complex Stratigraphy of Mt Zion

The Kloners Discuss Mt Zion Site with Gibson & Tabor

Ruins of Herod’s Tomb Foundation at Herodium as discovered by Ehud Netzer

Thanks to my student Jonathan Hartzell for the photos marked with an *.

Jesus’ conflict with, and opposition to, the religious and political authorities of Jerusalem came to a head at Passover in the year 30 CE. Although scholars dispute the details, the corrupt high priestly family of Annas, including his son-in-law Caiaphus, and the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, were the key players in the final determination of his fate–execution by crucifixion for sedition. Their involvement in his death indicates that he, like his kinsman John the Baptizer, drew attention at the highest levels of authority. Although there is no evidence that Jesus or John had collected masses or arms or laid plans for any military moves against the establishment, preaching that “the Kingdom of God is at hand” and stirring the masses toward such expectations was not considered a harmless ethereal other-worldly fantasy. It had concrete political and social implications–not the least of which was Jesus’ coronation as the rightful King of Israel, i.e., the anointed Messiah. Jesus preached the imminent and violent overthrow of the religious and political establishment by the power of God himself. This revolution was cryptically referred to as “the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven” (Daniel 7:13-14, 26-27), and Jesus claimed to be the direct agent of this anticipated deposal. Daniel 2:44 puts it succinctly: “And in the days of those kings (i.e., the Greco-Roman successors of Alexander) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed…It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever.” The expectation was that the “people of the saints of the Most High,” would take charge as righteous rulers over a new world transformed to the ways of God. This was indeed an “earthly kingdom,” but one in which God’s will was done “as in heaven.”

The excavations on Mt. Zion (Area E), that we renewed this past week were initiated in 1978 by Magen Broshi. The area offers great promise in uncovering just what Jesus, the Galilean peasant, was up against when we talk about the religious and political establishment in late 2nd Temple Jerusalem. On the map below you can see that our excavation site, on the southeastern slope of Mt. Zion, was squarely within the city walls in the time of Jesus, whereas today we are digging just outside the present wall which dates to the time of Suleiman (16th century CE). Mt. Zion itself was the highest hill in the city, towering over even the Temple Mount and the lower city to the south. Herod’s palace was up there, as well as Pilate’s residence. Sloping down the hill, and into what is now the “Jewish Quarter” of Jerusalem, was the most coveted residential area of all Jerusalem. Our little fenced off site was prime real estate before the 70 CE Roman destruction. It was well within the city in both Roman and Byzantine times, as excavations of the southern walls and towers uncovered just this year by the Israel Antiquities Authority excavations, have shown. We visited that most significant excavation, just to the southwest of ours, and I will write about it in a later post.

Many visitors to Israel have visited the underground excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City now part of the spectacular Wohl Museum, including the Priestly Mansion and the Burnt House. These were part of the 1970 excavations in the Jewish Quarter conducted by Nahman Avigad after the Six Day War. The entire Jewish Quarter had been destroyed by the Jordanians after 1948, allowing for full scale archaeological excavations before rebuilding. What became clear was the wealth and opulent lifestyle of the aristocratic inhabitants of this area of the city, as well as their priestly devotion to ritual purity.

We have every indication and expectation that the same will be true of the Mt. Zion area we are excavating. Just this past week we were able to reach the top of the Herodian levels less than two meters below the present surface. We found coins from the period including one of Pontius Pilate, a fragment of an egg & dart stone vessel, and a stone weight, all very similar to what was found in the Jewish Quarter excavations. We are just over intact vaulted chambers that date to late 2nd Temple times and the state of preservation of the Herodian materials at this site is spectacular. The site will allow us to clarify the archaeological layers from 15th century CE back through Byzantine and Roman periods, but it promises to be particularly rich the late 2nd Temple period, just before the 70 CE destruction. It has every promise of capturing for us a “moment in time” We are discussing with the Park Authority the possibility, in the future, of presenting what we find as an archaeological park that would allow a journey “back through history” in terms of the levels of Jerusalem from present back to Iron Age times.

Here you can see the dig site and the two white sandbagged squares were we have renewed our work. The Mount of Olives is in the background with the present wall of the Old City, dating to the 16th century CE, on the left. Zion Gate is further up the hill behind the picture and the Dung Gate is below where the road bends.

This is a lovely example of the edge of a large stone vessel, used by devout Jews to preserve the ritual purity of liquids. The egg & dart decoration, as well as other finds near this one, including imported ceramic fine ware, testify to the wealth of the inhabitants of the area we are digging in late 2nd Temple times.

Director, Shimon Gibson, giving an orientation tour of the site to Stephen Pfann and the staff of the University of the Holy Land

Some of you reading this Blog will be interested in participating in the Mt. Zion excavations in the future and you can keep up with the details at our Web site: digmountzion.com. That Web site right now is just holding our name but soon we will be posting photos, a description of the history of this excavation, a report on what we were able to accomplish in our June efforts, and what we plan for the future.

I have been in Jerusalem a week and only now, today, on Shabbat, have a bit of time to write about our excavation on Mt. Zion (the NW hill now outside the Old City of Jerusalem) and its relevance to Herodian Jerusalem. I plan to post a few photos and a short report later on but wanted to let regular readers know I was alive and well after an incredibly eventful and important week. I also have some thoughts about the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War which falls this week. I have given my students a walking tour of the Old City, examining all the sites and places that I mention in my book, The Jesus Dynasty, as related to the “last days of Jesus,” namely the last week of his life. I am pleased to say that John Dominic Crossan is in town and staying a stone’s throw away from us, so we plan to get together and have an informal mini-seminar on this topic with my students. The paperback edition of Crossan’s co-authored book (with Marcus Borg), Last Days of Jesus: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’ Final Days in Jerusalem, is now available. Crossan and I have many significant differences and I look forward to exchanging views. He is also quite interested in the Talpiot Jesus tomb and we plan to go through the latest in that regard as well. Amos Kloner visited our excavation site on Thursday and was pleased to let us know that he had retrieved his original file on the Talpiot tomb from the editors of `Atiqot, the IAA journal where he published his 1996 article. His original submission was much longer with more information, including photos taken inside the tomb during the excavation. I also want to give my impressions of the Herodium tomb that Ehud Netzer announced last month which our group visited on Tuesday, ably guided by Boaz Zissu. More on all this later.

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.

(more…)

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.

Well late last night the Associated Press sent out a new version of the Qumran “Latrine” theory that Joe Zias and I released in November based on our forthcoming article on the subject in Revue de Qumran (an academic periodical devoted to Qumran/DSS matters). One the AP gets hold of something and puts it out on the wire it moves fast so I woke up this morning to hundreds of “Latrine” stories worldwide, from USAToday to the WashingtonPost, and yes, the phone is ringing off the hook (as we said in the days when our phones had hooks).

Why is this important? Mainly because it offers a strong link, despite the views of Golb, Magen and others, that the site of Qumran was indeed the spiritual center and HQ of the pre-Christian sectarian apocalyptic/messianic group that wrote the Scrolls, and further, that this group is one known to us in classical sources (Josephus, Pliny, Philo) by the name “Essene.” The connections between John the Baptist, Jesus, and James, to this movement is explored extensively in my book, and has been well set forth by James Charlesworth, John J. Collins, Peter Flint, James Vanderkam, and yes, even the oft ignored Robert Eisenman, particularly in terms of central core ideas and vocabulary and parallel traditions.

Anyway, here is the AP story as it appeared in the Washington Post and thanks to Zias for taking the reporter around the site and responding to questions:

Ancient Latrine Fuels Debate at Qumran
By MATTI FRIEDMAN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 2, 2007; 11:23 PM

QUMRAN, West Bank — Researchers say their discovery of a 2,000-year-old toilet at one of the world’s most important archaeological sites sheds new light on whether the ancient Essene community was home to the authors of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In a new study, three researchers say they have discovered the outdoor latrine used by the ancient residents of Qumran, on the barren banks of the Dead Sea. They say the find proves the people living here two millennia ago were Essenes, an ascetic Jewish sect that left Jerusalem to seek proximity to God in the desert.

Qumran and its environs have already yielded many treasures: the remains of a settlement with an aqueduct and ritual baths, ancient sandals and pottery, and the Dead Sea Scrolls _ perhaps the greatest archaeological find of the 20th century.

The scrolls, which include fragments of the books of the Old Testament and treatises on communal living and apocalyptic war, have shed important light on Judaism and the origins of Christianity.

Thanks to an Israeli anthropologist, an American textual scholar and a French paleo-parasitologist, researchers can now add another find: human excrement.

The discovery is more significant than it may seem. The nature of the settlement at Qumran is the subject of a lively academic debate.

The traditional view, supported by a majority of scholars since the site was first excavated in the 1950s, is that the settlement was inhabited by Essene monks who observed strict rules of ritual purity and celibacy and who wrote many of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The second school says the people living at Qumran were farmers, potters or soldiers, and had nothing to do with the Essenes. The scrolls, according to this view, were written in Jerusalem and stashed in caves at Qumran by Jewish refugees fleeing the Roman conquest of the city in the first century.

The researchers behind the latrine finding, which is being published in the scholarly journal “Revue de Qumran,” say it supports the traditional view linking the residents of Qumran with the Essenes.

A description of Essene practice by the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius in the first century notes that Essene rules required them to distance themselves from inhabited areas to defecate and “dig a trench a foot deep” which was to then be covered with soil.

Joe Zias, a Jerusalem-based anthropologist, and James Tabor, a Dead Sea Scrolls expert from the University of North Carolina, decided to look for the Qumran latrine. If it was far from the settlement ruins and if the excrement was buried, it would offer evidence the people living at the site were Essenes.

Zias and Tabor identified an area behind a rock outcropping, took soil samples and sent them to Stephanie Harter-Lailheugue, a French scientist specializing in ancient parasites. The samples tested positive for pinworms and two other intestinal parasites found only in human feces. Samples from locations nearer the settlement tested negative.

The excrement traces were found underground _ meaning the feces had been buried, as required by Essene law _ a nine-minute walk uphill from the settlement.

“A lot of people were concerned with what went into the body, but the Essenes were perhaps the only group in antiquity concerned with what came out,” Zias said. “No one else would have gone to the trouble of walking this far.”

Still, there is no way to date the fecal parasites, which could have been left by Bedouin who are known to have inhabited the area. To counter this, the paper quotes a Bedouin scholar as saying the nomadic tribespeople do not bury their feces.

Another problem is that archaeologists have already identified a toilet at Qumran _ inside the settlement. But Zias believes it was for emergencies: In some cases, divine commandments notwithstanding, nine minutes outside the camp was too far to go.

Norman Golb, a history professor at the University of Chicago and a critic of the link between Qumran and the Essenes, called the new paper “an outrageous claim.”

“There’s no plausible connection between what they found and the conclusion that the Essenes lived at Qumran,” Golb said. “Anyone living at the site would have done the same.”

Golb maintains that Qumran’s residents had nothing to do with the Essenes or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those who claim a connection do so because “they’re committed in their writings to it,” Golb said.

Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Stephen Pfann, of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said questions about the parasites’ age have to be cleared up, but the find is potentially significant.

Qumran, he says, could have been inhabited at different times by different groups: first by Jews of the Hasmonean dynasty in the second century, then by a monastic group of Essenes who left after an earthquake and were replaced by a lay group of Essene date farmers, then again by Essene ascetics, before being finally taken over by Jewish rebels fighting the Roman legions and abandoned when Judea fell.

“Qumran isn’t one thing, it’s many things,” Pfann said. “This makes it more exciting, but also more complicated to understand.”

© 2007 The Associated Press