Haaretz has an article that reports a new proposal by Boaz Zissu of Bar Ilan University (the Hebrew version has a small photo and map).  He suggests that Nob is near a quarry that he excavated on the northern end of the Kidron Valley.  The strange thing is that he comes to this conclusion based on what he did not find.  He found a quarry, but no ancient settlement.  He found pottery, and concludes that it must have come from somewhere nearby, and perhaps that somewhere was Nob.  Perhaps.

In favor of his identification is this: his site is between Anathoth and Jerusalem, which matches the general location given in this important geographical passage:

Isaiah 10:28-32 (NIV) “They enter Aiath; they pass through Migron; they store supplies at Micmash. They go over the pass, and say, “We will camp overnight at Geba.” Ramah trembles; Gibeah of  Saul flees. Cry out, O Daughter of Gallim! Listen, O Laishah! Poor Anathoth! Madmenah is in flight; the people of Gebim take cover. This day they will halt at Nob; they will shake their fist at the mount of the Daughter of Zion, at the hill of Jerusalem.”  (Cf. Neh. 11:32.)

Source: Pictorial Library of Bible Lands, vol. 3, Jerusalem

Against his identification is the fact that he found pottery from the end of the Iron Age, but an important biblical passage indicates that Nob was inhabited in the early Iron Age (1 Sam 21-22).  Though not mentioned explicitly, most believe that the tabernacle was located at Nob when Saul ordered the slaughter of the priests.  The absence of pottery from Iron IIa doesn’t prove that the quarry is not (near) Nob, but before an identification can be made with any certainty, such pottery must be found.

Of greater concern is the apparent methodology.  I stress “apparent” because I am basing this on the newspaper article and not on the archaeologist’s proposal itself (and there may be a great gulf between the two).  The problem seems to be that a site is found (or apparently found) and it is assumed to be a certain prominent place mentioned in the Bible.  In fact, there are several places that this site could be, as you can see from the Isaiah passage quoted above.  Scholars are reasonably certain where Anathoth is (modern Anata), and no one doubts the location of Jerusalem.  But there are two other sites that are yet unidentified and this quarry could be related to either of them.

There are hundreds of unidentified tells and hundreds of sites mentioned in the Bible and other ancient texts that we cannot locate.  Matching the two is not always easy, especially in a land where inscriptions are rarely preserved. 

Source: Survey of Western Palestine, Sheet 17

Most geographers follow Albright in locating Nob near what is known today as Mt. Scopus (Ras el-Mesharif).  This is where Edward Robinson was looking as well, though his attempts to find ruins were “without the slightest success” (Biblical Researches 2:150).  Aharoni suggested that Nob was just over the hill at Isawiyeh (Land of the Bible, p. 393), but Rainey thinks either Madmenah or Gebim could be Isawiyeh and Nob is el-Mesharif or further south, et-Tur (Sacred Bridge, p. 235).  An important factor in these identifications is Isaiah’s mention of shaking the fist at Jerusalem, implying that the two can see each other.

Everyone agrees that the solution cannot be determined without archaeological remains from the time periods in which the site is mentioned in the historical texts.

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

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.