fbpx

Too often new discoveries are sensationalized, and after things are sorted out and more rational conclusions are made, the story doesn’t make the news again.  For this reason, anyone interested in the “Megiddo church” would do well to read the book, or at least James Tabor’s helpful comments about it.

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 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. Dr. James D. Tabor
Chair, Dept. of Religious Studies
UNC Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223

For earlier BiblePlaces posts about this place, see here and here.

Share:

Yahoo has a photo that shows the alleged sarcophagus of Paul underneath the altar.  Something we didn’t see before:

Filippi said the decision to unearth the sarcophagus was made after pilgrims who came to Rome during the Roman Catholic Church’s 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint’s tomb — buried under layers of plaster and further hidden by an iron grate — could not be visited or touched.

All we need now are some pilgrims who want to see inside the sarcophagus and our questions will be answered.

In Jerusalem, Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch and others are unhappy with the delay in building a new bridge for non-Muslim access to the Temple Mount.  The pile of earth likely is not very important archaeologically, but Muslims claim its removal will damage the Al Aqsa Mosque. 

The rabbis want the temporary bridge removed because it is cutting into the women’s prayer area at
the Western Wall.

The removal of the earthen embankment will not only allow more of the Western Wall to be seen, but the large lintel stone of Barclay’s Gate will be visible in its entirety for the first time in modern history.  This is the second of four monumental entrances to the Temple Mount on the western side.

We’ve commented on the ramp before here and here, and the sarcophagus here.  These posts have photos.

Share:

In the typical Christmas pageant, one of the children will be cast as the heartless innkeeper who refuses lodging to Joseph and pregnant Mary.  Most know that there is no innkeeper mentioned in the Bible, but fewer are aware that there is not even an inn described.  The view that Joseph and Mary simply arrived late to Bethlehem and accommodations at the local hotel were full is incorrect.  The word translated as “inn” is the word kataluma, which is used elsewhere by Luke and translated as “guest chamber” or “upper room” (Luke 22:11; cf. Mark 14:14).  When Luke wants to speak of a paid establishment (i.e., an inn), he uses a different Greek word, pandocheion, as in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34).  Unfortunately, of the dozens of English translations that I’ve checked, all translate kataluma as “inn” in Luke 2:7 and not as “guest room” (that includes the recent ESV and NET; apparently they are unwilling to buck tradition in favor of accuracy).

The result of this mistranslation leads to a different understanding of the story.  It’s not that Joseph and Mary were late to town, but it’s that they were rejected by their family.  Clearly they had family members in town, as that was the reason they returned to Bethlehem for the census.  That there was no room in the guest chamber for a pregnant woman indicates that they chose not to make room for this unwedded mother.  The birth of Jesus in a room where animals lived suggests shame and
rejection. 

Most of what I have described above is the general view of scholars and I find it compelling.  But some scholars err in arguing that Bethlehem could not have had an inn.  This view has been repeated enough for me to address it.  Ben Witherington, for instance, says this:

It can be doubted whether there would have been an inn in Bethlehem in Jesus’ day since it was not on any major road, and inns normally were found only on major roads, especially the Roman ones (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, p. 69).

Doug Greenwold, in the December 2006 Preserving Bible Times Reflection, writes:

These pandoxeion inns were typically located 16-18 miles apart on major trade routes, the average daily distance traveled by a caravan. Since Bethlehem was five miles south of Jerusalem, it was far too close to Jerusalem for the placement of such an inn. Furthermore, Bethlehem was not on a major trade route so there was little need for a pandoxeion.

I’m not sure what qualifies as a “major trade route,” but if there was any trade route in the hill country of Judea, Bethlehem was on it.  The only way you can say that there was no “major road” near Bethlehem is by saying that there were no major roads in the hill country.  But were there no travelers in this area, and were there no traders bringing supplies to Judea and Samaria?  Certainly there were. 

An understanding of the topography of the hill country will help here.  The Judean hills are very rugged as they are divided by deep wadis (canyons) on the eastern and western slopes.  Consequently, travelers have always preferred to stay on ridges, to avoid frequent ascents and descents.  For this reason, travelers have moved along the watershed ridge, from the time of Abraham until the present. 

About a decade ago, Israel decided that for political reasons they needed to build an alternate road to bypass the Arab population of Bethlehem.  They built a road less than 2 miles to the west of the watershed ridge.  Even such a small deviation required that they spend millions of dollars in the construction of tunnels and bridges.  Today we can do it; in ancient times, they did not.  In short, there can be no doubt that historically any north-south traffic in the hill country passed near to the town of Bethlehem (cf. Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:783).


Modern Israeli road that bypasses Bethlehem, with bridge and tunnel

Furthermore, the argument that Bethlehem is too close to Jerusalem to warrant an inn presupposes that all travelers left from the same point and had the same destination.  Jerusalem may have been a major destination of travelers in the hill country, but it was not the only destination.  Travelers could have been going to and from countless villages in the hill country.  Some known settlements in the 1st century B.C./A.D. include Hebron, Gabath Saul, Ephraim, Gophna, Sychar, Sebaste.  That travelers might stop at any point along the major north-south hill country route is illustrated well by the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19.

In the end, the argument that there was no inn in Bethlehem in the time of Jesus falls short.  Luke, however, says nothing about an inn.

Share:

Excavations at the Western Wall have proceeded and now remains from the Herodian period have been discovered.

Excavations at the Western Wall have uncovered the remains of Jewish homes from the Second Temple period as well as a Herodian water conduit and arches from various eras, Army Radio reported (JPost).

I suspect that the water conduit mentioned is part of the Lower-Level aqueduct that brought water from Solomon’s Pools to the Temple Mount.

See this previous post for photos of the excavation area.

UPDATE (12/21): New photos here.

Share:

Some who think of me as a tradition-basher have asked me to comment on the recent discovery of the sarcophagus of St. Paul.  Personally, it’s of less interest to me because I don’t foresee much helpful information coming from it, unless, as Paleojudaica jokes, there’s an airtight container with a copy of his letters inside.

Here’s the straight scoop:

1. The sarcophagus was not found in a random location, but was located in the very place that tradition said it was.  Several years ago after a visit to the church, before they started digging, I noted that this altar is built over the traditional tomb of Paul.  That is where this sarcophagus was discovered.


Church of St. Paul Outside the Walls

2. Constantine built the first church over the site in the 4th century.  That means that the tradition is a very old one.

3. After three years of digging underneath the altar, they found a sarcophagus.  That sarcophagus was found underneath a tombstone which had written, in Latin, “Apostle Paul, Martyr.”  This means that whoever wrote the tombstone (presumably in the 4th century, but I can’t be sure from the news reports) believed this was Paul’s tomb.


The sarcophagus was found below this altar.

4. So instead of connecting the dots from the 20th century back to the 1st, we simply have to evaluate the potential accuracy that the site was preserved correctly from the 1st century to the 4th.  This is the typical situation of holy sites in Israel as well; the earliest traditions usually date to the earliest Christian presence, which is in the 4th century.   How reasonable is it to assume that the memory of a site was preserved for up to 300 years?  My answer is that it depends upon the nature of the tradition. 
For the tradition of the place of Jesus’ crucifixion, I doubt that Christians would have failed to pass this on accurately.  For the tradition of the place of Jesus’ birth, I have a little more trouble imagining Jesus pointing the site out to his disciples.  Sometimes our knowledge shows that a traditional site cannot be correct, as in the case of the feeding of the 5,000 or the Transfiguration.  In the case of Paul’s tomb, I am unaware of any evidence that rules the church out as a possibility.  Would early Christians have remembered the site of Paul’s beheading?  My guess is that they would.  It’s also important to note that there was the continuous presence of a believing community in Rome from the time of Paul’s death until Emperor Constantine’s construction of a basilica.

I think it’s quite possible that curiosity is going to push Vatican officials to open the sarcophagus. 

When they do, it will be interesting to see if 1) Paul’s head is missing, and 2) they can determine what sort of malady he suffered from (cf. Gal 4:13-15).

 
Interior of Church of St. Paul Outside the Walls
For more information about the discovery, see the National Geographic news article or the story in the Telegraph.
All photos from the Pictorial Library of Bible Lands, Rome volume (Kregel, 2003); used with permission.
Share:

Two things frequently bother me about news stories: what they say and what they don’t say. An example of this is the recent story about the Byzantine church discovered at Shiloh. The Telegraph has the only report of this discovery I’ve seen.


Shiloh from west

I wish they had not said:

Headline: ‘Church of the Ark’ found on West Bank

That’s a fine name, I suppose, except that there is no evidence that the ark was ever in this church or associated with this church. Yes, the ark of the covenant was at the same city where the church was found, but that was about 1,400 years before the church was built.

“The church dates to the late 4th century, making it one of Christianity’s first formal places of worship.”

I guess someone fears that this story will have no interest if it’s not labeled the “first” or “one of the first.” But it’s nonsense. Byzantine Christians built many churches in the Holy Land before this one, including the Bethlehem Church of the Nativity, the Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulcher, and the Mt. of Olives Eleona church. If you count last year’s “earliest church ever found” at Megiddo, the best the Shiloh church can claim is that it was built in the first hundred years of church building in the the Holy Land. I guess that doesn’t sound as exciting.


Shiloh from east

“The team at Shiloh is considering whether to dig under the beautiful mosaics that they have uncovered, in order to find traces of the Ark.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. No one, and I mean no one, thinks that traces of the ark are underneath that church. Maybe, and that’s a very unlikely maybe, there are traces of the tabernacle underneath the church. But most scholars who have ventured to guess believe that the tabernacle was located on the north side of Shiloh, while this church is on the south side.

“We have to decide whether to fix the mosaics here or take them to a museum,” said Mr Aharonovitch.

There are two problems with taking the mosaics to a museum: 1) The mosaics lose much of their significance to the visitor because they are ripped out of their context. It is much better to allow the visitors to Shiloh to see the mosaics where they were discovered. 2) It’s unlikely any museum visitor would ever see them anyway, because museum space is very limited and mosaic floors are very common.


Mosaic from newly discovered church

David Rubin, a former mayor of Shiloh, said: “We believe that if they continue to dig they’ll reach back to the time of the Tabernacle.”

This implies that archaeologists haven’t already discovered remains at Shiloh from the time of the Israelites. Indeed, they uncovered much from this time in the excavations of Israel Finkelstein in the 1980s.

I wish they had said:

This isn’t the first Byzantine church discovered at Shiloh. I suppose that it takes some of the drama away when you learn that about 50 yards away a Byzantine church sits that was excavated 80 years ago. A third church is less well-preserved but is known as the “Pilgrim’s Church.” It’s quite possible that there are other churches yet unexcavated.


Apse of Byzantine church, mostly unexcavated

The church is located next to and underneath the “Mosque of the Orphans” (Jame Yetim). This would help the knowledgeable reader to know the precise location of the church. The long-abandoned mosque appears to be untouched, but I wonder if there was some political motivation to not publicize the specific location of the excavation.


Excavation of Byzantine church around “Mosque of the Orphans”

The inscription that mentions Shiloh is important evidence in confirming the identification of the site.
A translation, even tentative, of the inscription would be helpful. (Is this the inscription in question? 

UPDATE: Theoblogian has begun a translation of it. UPDATE Jan-2: Dr. William Varner and Brian Gee have provided this translation: Lord Jesus Christ, remember and consider worthy in your kingdom Eutonius your bishop and Germanus your holy regional bishop. Draw near to Him and be enlightened.)

There are some nice photos of the excavation by Eyal Dor Ofer here.

Share: