Craig Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament atAcadiaUniversityandAcadiaDivinityCollegeinNovaScotia,Canada.Hehaspublishedmorethanfiftybooks,manyonJesusandtheGospels,including(withN. T.Wright) Jesus, The Final Days (2009). Professor Evans has lectured inmany universities and museums around the world and has appeared severaltimes as an expert commentator in television documentaries and newsprogrammes.Heismarriedandhastwogrowndaughtersandagrandson.

JESUSANDHISWORLD

TheArchaeologicalEvidence

CRAIGA.EVANS

©2012CraigA.EvansFirstpublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericain2012byWestminsterJohnKnoxPress

100WitherspoonStreetLouisville,KY40202

First published inGreat Britain in 2012 by Society for PromotingChristianKnowledge 36CaustonStreetLondonSW1P4ST12131415161718192021—10987654321

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Forinformation,addressWestminsterJohnKnoxPress, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-1396. Or contact us online atwww.wjkbooks.com.

Unlessotherwisenoted,ScripturequotationsaretakenfromtheRevisedStandardVersionoftheBible,copyright©1946,1952and1971bytheDivisionofChristianEducationof theNationalCouncilof theChurchesofChristintheUSA.Usedbypermission.Allrightsreserved.CoverdesignbyDiluNicholasCoverArt:©EldadCarin/istockphoto.comLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataEvans,CraigA.

Jesusandhisworld:thearchaeologicalevidence/CraigA.Evans.p.cm.Includesbibliographicalreferences(p.)andindexes.ISBN978-0-664-23413-3(alk.paper)1.Bible.N.T.Gospels—Antiquities.2.JesusChrist.I.Title.BS621.E88520122225.9'3—dc232011051970PRINTEDINTHEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA

ThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences—PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ANSIZ39.48-1992.WestminsterJohnKnoxPressadvocatestheresponsibleuseofournaturalresources.Thetextpaperofthisbookismadefrom30%postconsumerwaste.

MostWestminsterJohnKnoxPressbooksareavailableatspecialquantitydiscountswhenpurchasedinbulk by corporations, organizations, and special-interest groups. For more information, please e-mailSpecialSales@wjkbooks.com.

For Master Chief Gator Franklin, Explosive Ordnance Disposal, UnitedStatesNavy,

inappreciation

ContentsListoffiguresixPrefacexiListofabbreviationsxiiiIntroduction1

1IntheshadowofSepphoris:growingupinNazareth132Amongthedevout:religiousformationinthesynagogue383Inthebooks:reading,writingandliteracy634Confrontingtheestablishment:rulingpriestsandthetemple89

5Lifewiththedead:Jewishburialtraditions113Summingup141Appendix1:HavewefoundthefamilytombofJesus?144Appendix2:WhatdidJesuslooklike?148Notes153Suggestionsforfurtherreading175Indexofancientwritingsandsources179Indexofmodernnames185Indexofsubjects188vii

1.1Sepphorisstreetwalk221.2Sepphoristheatre231.3Miqveh,Sepphoris251.4SepphorisMonaLisa271.5First-centuryCapernaum312.1Theodotosinscription422.2Capernaumcolumns1472.3Capernaumcolumns2482.4Capernaumsynagoguewall492.5Gamlasynagogue(2009)502.6Herodiumsynagogue522.7Migdalsite(2010)542.8MagdalaStone552.9Masadasynagogue562.10Moses’seat,Chorazin613.1Milestone,Capernaum643.2Bakerandwife,Pompeii673.3PalatineGraffito723.4SketchofthePalatineGraffito72

3.5GreatIsaiahScroll,column43783.6GreatIsaiahScroll,column44783.7NazarethVillagescroll874.1TempleWarning914.2Miqveh,Jerusalem954.3Miqveh,Qumran954.4Priestlymansion,Jerusalem964.5Caiaphasossuary984.6The‘BurntHouse’,Jerusalem1034.7Tyrianhalfsheqel1064.8Qorbaninscription,Jerusalem1085.1Ossuaries,MountofOlives1165.2PilateStone,CaesareaMaritima1225.3Heelboneofacrucifiedman1245.4TombsintheKidronValley1335.5NazarethInscription138A1.1Tomb,Talpiot145A2.1ThefaceofJesus?149A2.2BerlinMan150A2.3BerlinBoy150x

The goal of this book is to present what I regard as the most im portantarchaeologicaldiscoveriespertainingtoJesusofNazarethinawaythatcanbeaccessedbynon-experts.For20yearsnowIhavemyselfbenefitedgreatlyfromvisits to active excavations, onsite tours and explanations from archaeologists,their publications and the many fine museums where artefacts are housed,preserved and explained. Among these I especially have in mind the IsraelMuseum and its Shrine of the Book, the BritishMuseum in London and theAshmoleanMuseuminOxford.Ihavebenefitedtoofromanumberoflibraries,includingAcadiaUniversity’sVaughanMemorialLibrary,HarvardUniversity’sHollisLibrary,PrincetonUniversity’sFirestoneLibrary,PrincetonTheologicalSeminary’s Speer Library, Yale University’s Beinicke Rare Book andManuscriptLibraryandOxfordUniversity’sfabledBodleianLibrary,alongwiththe Sackler Library’s collection of papyri. To themany patient librarians andaccommodatingcuratorsIoffermyheartfeltthanks.

Among the archaeologists who have been very helpful, providing on-sitetoursandexplanations,areRamiArav,GabrielBarkay,RichardBatey,RonnyReich,JamesStrangeandthelateDouglasEdwards.(Acadiawasfavouredbyavisitandseveral stimulating lecturesbyJimStrangeandDougEdwards in the

springof2008.)IamalsogratefultoDirkObbinkforsomeveryhelpfulshow-andtell in the Sackler papyri room in the autumn of 2009. I also wish toacknowledge the helpful correspondence with Jane Evans, Shimon Gibson,FranckGoddio,KurtRavehandShellyWachsmann.

Iwaspleasedwhen thegoodpeopleatSPCKandWestminsterJohnKnoxPress asked me to write this book. I especially thank RebeccaMulhearn andPhilipLaw.PartofthebookwaswrittenduringapeacefulstayattheCistercianAbbayeNotre-DameduCalvaire inRogersville,NewBrunswick. I extendmythanks to Bro ther Graham Touchie for the hospitality shownme and for theengagingconversationaboutJesusandarchaeology.IthankJeremiahJohnston,PhD (cand.), for assistance in the preparation of the indexes and for carefullyreadingthemanuscriptandaskinggoodquestions.

ThebookisdedicatedtoMasterChiefGatorFranklin,ExplosiveOrdnanceDisposal,UnitedStatesNavy(retired).For30yearsGatorriskedlifeandlimbintheexcavation,recoveryanddismantlingofexplosivesandintrainingothersathomeandabroadtodothesame.Becauseofhisworkcountlessliveshavebeensaved.C.A.EvansAcadiaDivinityCollegexii

1Apol.JustinMartyr,FirstApology1Clem.1ClementAASORAnnualoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearchABDAnchorBibleDictionary’AbotMishnah:’AbotABRLAnchorBibleReferenceLibraryAg.Ap.Josephus,AgainstApionAnt.Josephus,JewishAntiquitiesApol.Plato,ApologyofSocratesb.Ketub.BabylonianTalmud:Ketubbotb.Meg.BabylonianTalmud:Megillahb.Mo’edQat.BabylonianTalmud:Mo’edQatanb.Pesah.BabylonianTalmud:Pesahimb.Qidd.BabylonianTalmud:Qiddushinb.*abb.BabylonianTalmud:ShabbatBABiblicalArchaeologistBARBiblicalArchaeologyReviewBibBiblicaBibOrBiblicaetorientaliaBibSemBiblicalSeminar

CBQCatholicBiblicalQuarterlyCDCairoGenizahcopyoftheDamascusDocumentCIJCorpusinscriptionumjudaicarumCILCorpusinscriptionumlatinarumCISCorpusinscriptionumsemiticarumCJOCatalogueofJewishOssuaries(ed.L.Y.Rahmani)CJZCorpusJüdischerZeugnisseausderCyrenaika(ed.G.Lüderitz)CRINTCompendiarerumiudaicarumadNovumTestamentumDial.JustinMartyr,DialoguewithTryphoDreamsPhilo,OnDreamsDSDDeadSeaDiscoveriesxiii

EmbassyPhilo,OntheEmbassytoGaiusEsth.Rab.Exod.Rab.EstherRabbahExodusRabbahHaer.Irenaeus,AgainstHeresiesHist.eccl.Eusebius,EcclesiasticalHistoryIEJIsraelExplorationJournalIGInscriptionesgraecae.Editiominor.Berlin,1924–Ign.Eph.Ignatius,TotheEphesiansIgn.Smyrn.Ignatius,TotheSmyrnaeansJosephPhilo,OntheLifeofJosephJBLJournalofBiblicalLiteratureJJSJournalofJewishStudiesJQRJewishQuarterlyReviewJRJournalofReligionJRASup Journal of RomanArchaeology: Supplement series JSHJ Journal fortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesusJSJSupJournalfortheStudyofJudaisminthePersian,Hellenistic, andRomanPeriods:SupplementSeriesJSOT Journal forthe Study of the Old Testament JSPSup Journal for the Study of thePseudepigrapha:SupplementSeriesJ.W.Josephus,JewishWarsLÄLexikonderÄgyptologieLev.Rab.LeviticusRabbahLifeJosephus,TheLifem.KeritotMishnah:Keritotm.Ma‘a?.*.Mishnah:Ma‘aserShenim.Meg.m.Mo‘edQat.

m.Ned.m.Nega’imm.Parahm.Pesah.m.*abb.m.Sanh.m.Ta‘anitMishnah:MegillahMishnah:Mo‘edQatanMishnah:NedarimMishnah:Nega’imMishnah:ParahMishnah:PesahimMishnah:ShabbatMishnah:SanhedrinMishnah:Ta‘anitm.YomaMishnah:YomaMasMasadaostracaMdBLeMondedelaBibleMosesPhilo,OntheLifeofMosesNat.PlinytheElder,NaturalHistoryNEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand(ed.E.Stern)NovTNovumTestamentumNovTSupNovumTestamentumSupplementsNTSNewTestamentStudiesNTTSNewTestamentToolsandStudiesOGISOrientisgraeciinscriptionesselectae(editedbyW.Dittenberger)PEQPalestineExplorationQuarterlyP.Oxy.PapyriOxyrhynchusPs.-DiogenesAwritingfalselyattributedtoDiogenestheCynicQoh.Rab.QoheletRabbahRArRevueArchéologiqueRBRevuebibliqueREJSBLRBS

SBLSBSSEG

SipreDeut.SipreNum.SNTSMSSongRab.Spec.Lawst.Me‘ilat.Menah.T.Mos.

t.Qidd.Tosefta:Qiddushin

t.*abb.Tosefta:Shabbatt.SukkahTosefta:SukkahTg.Ps.-J.TargumPseudo-JonathanTSAJTexteundStudienzumantikenJudentumxv

RevuedesétudesjuivesSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureResourcesforBiblicalStudySocietyofBiblicalLiteratureSourcesforBiblicalStudySupplementumepigraphicumgraecumSipreDeuteronomySipreNumbersSocietyforNewTestamentStudiesMonographSeriesSongofSongsRabbahPhilo,OntheSpecialLawsTosefta:Me‘ilaTosefta:MenahotTestament of Moses WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NeuenTestamenty.Ketub.JerusalemTalmud:Ketubboty.Meg.JerusalemTalmud:Megillahy.Mo‘edQat.JerusalemTalmud:Mo‘edQatanZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde derälterenKirche In a column that appeared in a popular archaeologymagazine,respectedProfessorofHebrewBibleRonHendelprovidesasuccinctdefinitionof biblical archaeology: ‘Biblical archaeology,’ says Hendel, ‘involves therigorous correlationof textual data from theBible andmaterial evidence fromarchaeology.’1 Quite so. If archaeologists and historians could not findcorrelation between archaeology and the biblical text, therewould be no suchthingas‘biblicalarchaeology’.Butofcoursetheydofindsuchcorrelation,andlots of it. This is why there are many magazines and journals devoted toarchaeology, a great many scholarly reference works on archaeology andcountless scholarly and popular books that treat this subject from everyconceivableangle.

Whatarchaeologistsandhistoriansfindcanalsobecalledverisimilitude,or‘resemblance to the truth’; that is, resemblance or likeness to the way thingsreallywere.ThismeansthatthewritingsoftheBiblespeakofrealpeople,realplaces and real events. Many of these things can be corroborated byarchaeological discoveries and by other ancient sources. Often whatarchaeologistsuncover isnot somuchproof butclarification.2TheBiblemay

talkaboutagivenpeople,aparticularplaceoramajorevent,butlittledetailisprovided. The precise meaning of the text is unclear. Then an archaeologicaldiscoveryismadeandweunderstandthestorymuchbetter.

Of course, archaeology sometimes does prove things. For instance, let’sconsiderwhatiscalledbiblicalminimalism,whichisusuallyinreferencetotheOld Testament or Hebrew Bible. Here I have in mind especially thoseminimalistswhohaveargued thatDavidandSolomonare fictional characters,thattherewasnokingdomofIsraelreachingbacktothetenthcenturybceandthat if they existed, there was not the level of literacy required to record thechroniclesofsuchpersonsandtheirdeeds.SomeoftheseminimaliststhinkthenarrativesoftheHebrewBibledonotdateanyearlierthanthefifthcenturybce.Asitturnsout–thankstoarchaeology–theminimalistsarewrongonallthesepoints.

In1993and1994,fragmentsofaninth-centurybcestoneinscription,incisedby the king of Syria, were found at Tel Dan (today’s northern Israel) duringexcavationsconductedbyAvrahamBiran,arespectedIsraeliarchaeologist.Thefirstinscriptionfoundcontainsthewords,‘thehouseofDavid’.Mostagreethatit is very unlikely that an inscription of this nature would be incised only acenturyorsoafterthesupposedexistenceofalegendary,unhistoricalpersonage.WouldaSyriankingspeakofamythical‘HouseofDavid’asifitwereareal,enemydynasty?Unlikely.ItseemsDavidreallydidexistafterall.3

Theminimalistsretreatedbutdidnotgiveup.MaybetherewasaDavid.Butwasheaking,theheadofacentralizedgovernmentwithfar-flungterritories,orwashelittlemorethanalocaltribalchieftain?Notsurprisingly,theminimalistsarguedforthelatter.Strangewhenyouthinkofit,giventheimplicationsofthegeographicallocationoftheTelDanInscription(thatis,farnorthofJudeaandJerusalem, near the disputed boundary betweenSyria and Israel). In any case,theminimalistshaveagainbeenprovenwrong.

Archaeological excavations in theoldest part of Jerusalemhaveuncoveredsignificantevidenceofacentralized,organizedgovernmentcomplex.Artefactshavebeendatedtothetenthcenturybce,theeraofDavidandhissonSolomon.Radio carbon dating at Megiddo, Qeiyafa and elsewhere has confirmed theemergenceofanIronAgekingdomofDavidsometimearound1000bce,verymuch as the biblical narratives relate. Not quite ready to surrender, someminimalistssuggested thatQeiyafawasPhilistine insteadof Israelite.Butalas,archaeological excavations uncovered no pig or dog bones at Qeiyafa (incontrast toGath, a Philistine city, where non-kosher animalswere eaten), butexcavations atQeiyafadid reveal building architecture consistentwithwhat is

typicallyfoundinJudea(butnotinPhilistinecities).4And finally, the famous ostracon (an inscribed potsherd) recently found at

Qeiyafa,whichdates to the tenthcentury,offersdramaticproofof the levelofliteracyrequiredtorecordthehistoryofthekingsofJudahandIsrael.ThefinddoesnotprovethatportionsofthebooksofSamuelandKingsdatethisfarback,but itdoesshow that recordscouldhavebeenproduced–and, ifother relateddiscoveries are anything to go on,would have been produced – onwhich theauthorsofSamuelandKingswouldhavedrawn.5 I amnot sure if thebiblicalminimalistswilleverrunupthewhiteflag,butIthinkmostagreethattheyhaveindeedfallenonhardtimes.6

I briefly mention the setbacks suffered by Old Testament minimalistsbecause they illustrate the danger of asserting the non-existence of this or thelackofhistoricityofthatsimplyonthegroundsthatweonlypossessanancientstory.Wemustrememberthatonly5percentofthesitesofthebiblicalworldhavebeenexcavated;andmostofthesesiteshaveonlybeenpartiallyexcavated.In any case, must every ancient narrative be corroborated by archaeologicaldiscoveries? Ifwe insisted on archaeological corroboration before trusting ourliterarysources,verylittlehistory–biblicalorotherwise–couldbewritten.

NewTestamentminimalistshave suffered similar setbacks, especiallywithreferencetoJesusandtheGospels.AtonetimeitwasfashionabletoassertthattheearlyChristianconfessionofMessiahJesusas‘SonofGod’arosenotfromJewishandOldTestamentantecedents(2Sam.7.14;Ps.2.2,7,forexample)butfrom the influenceof theGreco-Romanworld,whereGreekkingsandRomanemperorswerehailedassonsofthegods.Thediscoveryof4Q246,comprisingtwocolumnsofAramaictextfromQumran’sfourthcave,demolishedthisview.The author of this first-century bce text anticipated the coming of a delivererwhowillbecalled ‘SonofGod’and ‘Sonof theMostHigh’.The remarkableparallels to the language of the annunciation (Luke 1.31–35) are widelyacknowledged. It seems that Aramaic-speaking Jews at least one generationbeforethetimeofJesushopedforamessiahwhowouldbedescribedinratherexalted terms. Post-Easter competition with the Roman imperial cult was notrequiredfor thefollowersofJesus tospeakof their risenMasteras theSonofGod.

For much of the twentieth century a number of New Testament scholarsassumed that Jesus possessed nomessianic consciousness; that recognition ofhimasMessiahwasapost-Easterdevelopment.Thepublicationof4Q521putthatnegativeconclusiontorest.AfragmentofthisQumranscrollanticipatestheappearance of God’s Messiah, whom heaven and earth will obey.When this

Messiahcomesthedowntroddenwillberaisedup,theinjuredwillbehealed,thedeadwillberaisedupandthepoorwillheargoodnews.Scholarsimmediatelyrecognized the parallelswith Jesus’ reply to the imprisoned John theBaptist:‘Goand tell Johnwhatyouhear and see: theblind receive their sight and thelamewalk,lepersarecleansedandthedeafhear,andthedeadareraisedup,andthe poor have good news preached to them’ (Matt. 11.4 –5; Luke 7.22). Theauthenticityofthepassageisdoubtedbyalmostnoone;andnowitsmessianicimportiswidelyrecognized.DidJesusunderstandhimselfasGod’sanointed,astheMessiah?Itseemshedid.7

Otherminimalistshavesuggestedthattherewerenosynagoguebuildingsinthe time of Jesus; that the New Testament Gospels, which refer to thesebuildings, are anachronistic. As we shall see, archaeological discoveries havedemolished this position. Others have suggested that Galilean Jews were notespeciallyTorah-observantbuthadembracedagreatdealofGreekcultureandthought.InsuchanimaginedworldJesusmighthavebeenmoreofaHellenisticCynic than a Jewish teacher or prophet.Archaeology has again set the recordstraight. Ithasalsobeensuggested that thebodyofJesusmightnothavebeentakendownfromthecrossandplacedinatomb.PerhapstheGospels’accountsofhisburialarenothingmorethanfictionandapologetic.Thenagain,perhapsJesuswas buried andwe have found his tomb, including his ossuary and theossuariesofhiswifeandson.Jesuswasnotresurrectedbuthedidhaveafamily!And on it goes. Yet in every case, as we shall see, archaeology, sometimesassistedbyrelatedandcorroboratingdocuments,hasshownhowbaselessthesenoveltheoriesreallyare.

Theawardfor theall-timeminimalist theorygoes toCanadianauthorTomHarpur,whosebookThePaganChrist garnered a lot of attention a fewyearsago.HarpurisconvincedthatJesusofNazarethisonlyamythicalfigure,notaperson of history.8 In New Testament studies this is the ultimate minimalistposition!Afterall,itisonethingtosaythattenth-centurybceKingDavidmightnothaveexisted,buttosaythatfirst-centuryceJesusofNazarethdidn’texistisquiteanothermatter.

InaninterviewpublishedrecentlyintheUnitedChurchObserver,thelapsedChristianhadthistosayinresponsetoscholars–conservativeandliberalalike–who ‘take the historical Jesus pretty seriously’: Yeah, but they don’t offer ashredofhistoricalevidence.Sincemybookwaspublished, therehasnotbeenonescholarcomeforthwithsolidevidencefromthefirstcentury,apartfor(sic)adubiousreferenceinJosephusthattheylovetohurlaround,areferencethatisclearly,clearly,clearlyfalse.I’vebeenwaitingfortheevidencetoshowup.9

WhatHarpurassertsinthisparagraphisquiteastonishing.Ishisclaimtrue?Istherereallynoevidence,notevena‘shred’ofevidence,thatJesuslived?

Harpurisnotalone.AnotherlapsedChristianandformerclergyman,RobertPrice,hasalsoexpressedseriousdoubts, thoughat timesheseemsopen to thepossibility that aman named Jesus once lived. In any case, Price believes theevidencefortheexistenceofJesusisatbestvery,verythin.LikeHarpur,Pricerejects almost every argument or proffered piece of evidence that therewas aJesusofhistory.

Not surprisingly, the radical scepticismofHarpur andPrice has gainednoscholarly following. Harpur’s strange theory, in which he resurrects thetheosophic views and pseudo-Egyptology of Gerald Massey and Alvin BoydKuhn among others, has been thoroughly refuted and is not followed by anyreputable historian or Egyptologist.10 No major historian or New TestamentscholarfollowsPriceeither.11TheviewsofHarpurandPriceareofnointerest–ifevenknown– to themembersof theSocietyofNewTestamentStudies, anelite international group of scholars who serve on the faculties of the finestuniversities around the world. Even the much larger and inclusive Society ofBiblicalLiteratureoffersnoprogrammeunitscentredonthethemeofthenon-existence of Jesus or Jesus as a mythological embodiment of an Egyptianreligious concept. The views of Harpur and Price are seen as quite eccentric.Nevertheless, theirradicalscepticismprovidesuswithopportunity in thisbriefIntroduction to review the evidence for Jesus, which will provide a clearercontextforthepresentbook.

What is theevidenceforJesus?Dowehave, in thewordsofTomHarpur,‘solid evidence from the first century’? Yes, we do. We have four narrativeaccounts, which in time came to be called Gospels. Of these four, three –Matthew,MarkandLuke–werewritteninthefirstcentury,inthe60sand70s.Some will argue for earlier dates; others will argue for later. No competenthistorian orNewTestament scholar argues for a second-century date of theseGospels.MostscholarsagreethattheGospelofJohnwaspublishedbeforetheendofthefirstcentury.EvenifwesetasideJohnbecauseofitslatenessanditsobviousmetaphorical portrait of Jesus, we have inMatthew,Mark and Luke,known as the Synoptic Gospels, three accounts written at the end of the firstgeneration of the Jesusmovement, when some eyewitnesses were still living.One of them explicitly refers to ‘those who from the beginning wereeyewitnesses’ (Luke1.2).Mosthistoriansof lateantiquitywouldbe thrilled tohavethreecompleteaccountsofahistoricalfigurewrittenwithinonegenerationofthetimethatfigurelived.

We also have the testimony of Paul (d. c.65), who after a year or two ofpersecuting the Jesus movement was converted and became a believer andmemberofit.Paulwroteanumberofletters–justhowmanyisdisputed–fromthe late 40s to the early 60s. In these letters, especially 1 Corinthians andGalatians, hementions someof Jesus’ original disciples aswell as James, thebrother of Jesus. He calls them ‘pillars’ of the church and discusses his notalways cordial relations with them. In one place Paul says he ‘went up toJerusalemtovisitCephas,andremainedwithhimfifteendays’(Gal.1.18).Thersv, which I have quoted, translates ‘to visit’. But the underlying wordhistorBsai– fromwhichwegetourword‘history’–means‘to inquireof ’or‘get information from’. Paul did not simply go to Jerusalem to visit Peter(Aramaic:Cephas), thepremierdiscipleof Jesus;hewent toJerusalem‘togetinformationfromPeter’.12

ThatPauldid in fact learnat leastsomeof theJesusstoryfromthosewhohadknownhimduringhispublicministryisseeninanumberofreferencesinthe apostle’s letters. Ten times Paul mentions the cross; that is, the cross onwhich Jesus suffered death by crucifixion. In poetic praise Paul says Jesus‘humbledhimselfandbecameobedientuntodeath,evendeathonacross’(Phil.2.8).TentimesPaulusestheverbcrucify/crucified.Almosteveryoccurrenceisa reference to the crucifixion of Jesus: ‘We preach Christ crucified’ (1 Cor.1.23); ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2.2); ‘he was crucified inweakness’ (2 Cor. 13.4). Dozens of times Paul speaks of the death of Jesus:‘who was put to death for our trespasses’ (Rom. 4.25); ‘Christ died for theungodly’(Rom.5.6);‘thedeathofhisSon’(Rom.5.10);‘thedeathhediedhediedtosin’(Rom.6.10).PaulalsorepeatsthewordsJesusspokeduringhisfinalmealwithhisdisciples(1Cor.11.23–25).

InremindingtheChristiansofCorinthoftheimportanceoftheresurrection,Paulrehearses the traditionthathehad‘received’,namely‘thatChristdiedforoursinsinaccordancewiththescriptures,thathewasburied,thathewasraisedonthethirddayinaccordancewiththescriptures’(1Cor.15.3–4).HegoesontorecounttheresurrectionappearancestoCephas(Peter),thetwelve,‘morethanfivehundredbrethrenatonetime’(mostofwhomwerestilllivingatthetimeofwriting1Corinthians),toJames,to‘alltheapostles’andfinallytoPaulhimself(vv.5–8).There is littledoubtPaul is speakingof a realperson, ahistoricalperson,apersonwhohadlived,whohaddiedandwhohadbeenraisedupandseen by a number of people, including those who had known him before hisdeath.

Beforeleavingfirst-centurydocumentsandeyewitnesses,thetestimonyofafewothers,borninthefirstcenturyandacquaintedeitherwithoriginaldisciples

orwiththosewhoknewthem,shouldbementioned.IbeginwithPapias(c.60–130ce).WearetoldthatthismanwasadiscipleoftheapostleJohn–orperhapsanother, otherwise unknown, John – and a companion of Polycarp (Irenaeus,Haer. 5.33.4). During his childhood the Gospels were written and began tocirculate. In the latter part of his life Papias served as bishop ofHierapolis inAsia Minor (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.13). He is known for his five-volumework,TheOraclesoftheLord,whichonlysurvivesinquotationsinthewritingsofIrenaeustheapologist(c.130–200)andEusebiusthehistorian(c.260–340).At thebeginningof this lostworkPapiasexplains thatheneverpassedup theopportunity to seek information from ‘elders’ who in earlier years had beenpersonallyacquaintedwiththeapostles(andherePapiasnamesAndrew,Peter,Philip, Thomas, James, John and Matthew). From the elders who had beenacquainted with the original followers of Jesus, Papias learned that Mark,assistant to the apostle Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark and that the apostleMatthewcomposedtheoraclesofJesus‘intheHebrewdialect’(Eusebius,Hist.Eccl.3.39).13

WehaveonequotationoftheworkoftheapologistQuadratus(c.70–130):‘But theworks of our Saviourwere always present, for theywere true; thosewhowere healed and thosewho rose from the deadwere seennot onlywhentheywerehealedandwhen theywere raised,butwere constantlypresent, andnotonlywhiletheSaviourwasliving,butevenafterhehadgonetheywerealivefora long time, so that someof themsurvived toourown time’ (inEusebius,Hist.eccl.4.3.1–2). Inhisdefenceof theChristian faith,QuadratusclaimsnotonlythateyewitnessesoftheministryofJesuswerestilllivingin‘ourowntime’–thatis,attheendofthefirstcentury–butthatsotooweresomeofthosewhohadbeenhealedbyhim.14

Others could be mentioned. Polycarp ( c.69 –156), we are told, was ‘thecompanion of the apostles, who had been appointed bishop of the church ofSmyrna by the eyewitnesses andministers of the Lord’ (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.36.1).Asnotedabove,hewasalsoacompanionofPapias.Otherearlyleadersinthechurch,whosewritingshavesurvived,maybementioned.AmongtheseisClement ofRome (flourished in the 90s),who oversaw the letter (1Clement)thatwaswrittenandsenttotheChristiansinCorinth(c.96).Theauthorofthisletter alludes to several sayings of Jesus but apparently not the Gospelsthemselves(forexample1Clem.13.1–2).ItissuspectedthatClementhasdrawnupon early, pre-Synoptic materials. In any case, there is no doubt that forClementandthepeopletowhomhewrites,Jesuswasahistoricalfigure,notasymbolormyth: ‘Theapostles received thegospel forus from theLord Jesus

Christ; Jesus theChristwas sent forth fromGod.So thenChrist is fromGod,and the apostles are fromChrist. Both, therefore, came of thewill ofGod ingoodorder’(1Clem.42.1–2).Ignatius(c.35–c.110),bishopofAntioch,wroteanumber of letters to churches in Asia Minor, including one to Polycarp. Hisletters,allwritteninthelastyearofhislife,containallusionstotheteachingofJesus.IgnatiusmayhavehadaccesstotheGospelofMatthew(forexampleIgn.Eph.14.2; Ign.Smyrn.1.1)andperhapsalso theGospelofLuke (forexampleIgn.Smyrn.3.2).15

Inshort,wehaveasignificantnumberofpeoplewhoknewJesusandwhoknewthosewhoknewJesus.WehaveanunbrokenchainoftransmissionfromthetimeofJesushimselfonthroughthefirstcenturyandonintothesecondandthirdcenturiesandbeyond.WehavewritingsfrompeoplewhoknewJesus(oneor twoof theGospels,perhapsalsothelettersofJames,Judeand1Peter)andfrompeopleacquaintedwiththeoriginalfamilymembersanddisciplesofJesus(such as Paul, probably Papias and perhaps also Clement, Ignatius andPolycarp).The suggestion that all of thesepeopleweremistaken in supposingthatJesuswasarealperson,wheninfacthewasnot,isabsurdandfliesinthefaceofcommonsense.

Ifweareguidedby thecriteriabywhich recognizedhistoriansareguided,thenwemayconcludethatthereisindeed,contraHarpur,‘solidevidencefromthefirstcentury’.ThereisnoneedtoappealtothedisputedpassageinJosephus(Ant. 18.63 – 64; cf.20.200 –201), though its cavalier dismissal byHarpur, aswell as by Price, is uncritical and unjustified.A number of careful, respectedscholarshaveconcludedthatthispassage,minusafewobviousinterpolations,isauthentic,demonstratingthatJosephus(37–c.100ce)waswellawarethatJesuswasthefounderoftheChristianmovementandthathehadbeencondemnedbythe ruling priests and crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. ThetestimonyofJosephusisinfactveryimportant,evenifitisnotcrucial.16

ThereisalsoaveryimportantargumentinfavourofthegeneralreliabilityoftheNewTestamentGospels,andthatconcernswhatiscalledverisimilitude;thatis,whattheGospelsdescribematchesthewaythingsreallywereinearlyfirst-centuryJewishPalestine.17TheNewTestamentGospelsandActsexhibitagreatdealofverisimilitude.Theyspeakofrealpeople(suchasPontiusPilate,HerodAntipas,Annas,Caiaphas,HerodAgrippa I and II, Felix andFestus) and realevents (deaths of John the Baptist and Agrippa I). They speak of real places(villages,cities, roads, lakesandmountains) thatareclarifiedandcorroboratedby other historical sources and by archaeology. They speak of real customs(Passover, purity, sabbath, divorce law), institutions (synagogue, temple),

offices/officers (priests, tax collectors, Roman governors, Roman centurions)and beliefs (of Pharisees and Sadducees; interpretation of Scripture). Jesus’engagementwithhiscontemporaries,bothsupportersandopponents,reflectsanunderstandingofScriptureandtheologythatwenowknow,thankstotheDeadSea Scrolls and related literature, to have been current in pre-70 JewishPalestine.

Theverisimilitudeof theNewTestamentGospels stands in contrast to thelack of verisimilitude in the second-century Gospels and Gospellike writings,such as theGospel of Thomas, theGospel of Peter and the various GnosticGospels.Itissuchthathistoriansandarchaeologistsofallstripesregularlymakeuse of them, as perusal of their books reveals.18 These scholars see them asvaluable sources, withoutwhich historical and archaeologicalwork concernedwith first-century Jewish Palestine would be much more difficult. NoarchaeologistorhistorianwouldsaythiswithregardtoThomasorPeter.ItistotheNewTestamentGospelsthatarchaeologistsandhistoriansmakereference.

If theNewTestamentGospelswere nothingmore than fictions and fablesaboutamanwhoneverlived,onemustwonderhowitistheypossesssomuchverisimilitudeandwhytheytalksomuchaboutpeopleweknowlivedandaboutso many things we know happened. After all, the Gospels say Jesus wascondemnedtothecrossbyaRomangovernornamedPontiusPilate.Notonlyisthis man mentioned by historical sources outside the New Testament but wehavefoundaninscribedstoneonwhichhisnameappears.Indeed,wemayhavefoundthenameof theJewishhighpriestwhocondemnedJesus inscribedonabonebox.Itseemsthesepeoplewerereal–IsuspectJesuswastoo!

Thepresentbookstandsinthistradition.ItisnotwrittentoprovethatJesusreally lived or that he really was Jewish after all. It’s not a book written forinternetsceptics,whosepseudo-criticismisnotguidedbythenormsofgenuineresearchandscholarship.Ratherit iswrittenforthosewhowanttoknowwhatlightcontemporaryarchaeologyshedsonJesusandhisworld;whowanttoknowwhataspectsofJesus’teachingandactivitieswehavecometounderstandbetterthankstoarchaeologicaldiscoveries.

InthechaptersthatfollowItreatfivemajortopics.Chapter1examinesthearchaeological findings at Sepphoris, a city only a few kilometres fromNazareth,thevillageinwhichJesusgrewup.ThesefindingssayalotabouttheGalileeofthetimeofJesus.TheyalsochallengeanoveltheoryproposedsomeyearsagothatsuggestedthatJesuswasaCynicandnottooJewishinoutlook.The proposal raises the question, ‘Just how Jewish was Jesus?’ Chapter 2assesses the archaeological and inscriptional evidence for the existence ofsynagoguebuildings in the timeof Jesus.Did they reallyexist,as theGospels

say?Iftheydid,whatwastheirfunction?Thesequestionsareimportant,fortheGospels suggest that the synagogue was amajor component of the setting ofJesus’teaching,preachingandhealing.

Chapter 3 explores further the world of Jesus and his contemporaries byinquiringintotheevidenceofliteracyandbookcultureintheearlyfirstcentury.Whocould read, andwhatdid they read?TheGospelsportray a literate Jesuswho sometimes engaged literate opponents. Does archaeology support thisportrait?Chapter4looksatwhatlightarchaeologyshedsonthosewhomJesusengaged, sometimes very critically; that is, the ruling priests and Romanauthorities.Tounderstandbetterwhat happened to Jesus in Jerusalem it is importanttoknowmoreaboutthepowerbrokersofhisday.

Chapter5looksatJewishburialtraditionsandwhatarchaeologyhastoldus.These traditions tellusa lot about thedeathandburialof Jesus, asweshouldassume.Buttheyalsotellusalotabouthisteachingandministryandwhylargecrowdswereattracted tohim. Ihavealso includedanAppendix (Appendix1)thatwill,amongotherthings,pursuearelatedtopicabitfurther.HereIhaveinmind the remarkable claimmadeby aCanadian television journalistwho saidthathehadfoundthetombofJesus–withtraceremainsofJesus,hiswifeandhisson!Couldthisbetrue,andifnot,whynot?

Before bringing this introduction to a close, a fewwords need to be saidaboutwhat archaeology is and how terribly scientific and technical it can be.Archaeologyisconcernedwiththerecoveryofmaterialculture.Inthisbookthismeans the material culture of first-century Israel. Material culture includesbuildings, roads, sculpture (and other forms of artistic expression), tools,clothing, footwear, ceramics, coins, jewellery, inscriptions (including graffiti),books and other writings and human remains. Archaeology partners with anumberofdisciplines, includinggeography, topography,anthropology,history,sociology,botanyandotherphysicalsciences.Inrecentyearsthesubdisciplineof marine archaeology has made great progress and a number of excitingdiscoveries.

Archaeologyandtherelateddisciplinesjustmentionedaregreatlyaidedbymodern technology. These include Neutron Activation Analysis, whereby wecan trace pottery, wherever it is found, to its source. This has been hugelysignificant in our understandingof how seriously the Jewishpeople took theirlaws and customs of food purity. Another important technology is DigitalImagingEnhancement,wherebywecan‘see’textnolongervisibletothenakedeye.DNAanalysisofparchment andvellumaids scholars inpiecing together,identifying and segregating scrolls and bookrolls that survive as scatteredfragments.Radiocarbondating,orAcceleratorMassSpectrometry(AMS),asitis

now known, helps us date otherwise undated materials. These includemanuscripts,clothing,woodandothermaterialsthatatonetimewereliving.

Thankstomoderntechnologieswecanseewhatisbelow,wecansee fromabove and we can see within. How do we see below the surface? GroundPenetratingSonarhelpsthearchaeologistknowwheretodig,forthistechnologyidentifies patterns and anomalies below the surface. Two technologies arerelated.ThefirstisMagnetometry,whichidentifiesthemagnetic‘signatures’ofrock. Closely related is Electrical Resistivity Tomography, which identifiesdifferent types of rock beneath the surface. Together these technologies helpresearchersdeterminewhatisintheground.

Howdowe see fromabove?Satellitephotographycan revealpatterns andanomalies that the earthbound archaeologistmight not otherwise notice. Faintoutlines of buildings, cities and roads can sometimes be seen from orbit, farabove the surface of the planet.Whatwe look for are signs of disturbance oralterationofthenaturallieofthelandcausedbyforcesotherthannature.

Howdoweseewithin?CATscansandX-rayshelpresearchersseewhatis‘inside’ (of mummies, books, containers, whatever). What we observe issometimesquite amazing.We can also seemoredeeplywithin.Chemical andelementanalysisassistsarchaeologistsdiscover thepropertiesandcompositionofartefactsandthingsthataccompanyartefacts(suchashowtheinkwasmadeorthepresenceornonpresenceofauthenticpatina).

Inthechaptersthatfollow,someofthesetechnologieswillcomeintoplay.ButIwilltrytokeepthingsatalevelthenon-expertcanfollow.Therearealsoendnotes, but not too many. They should assist readers who want to pursuetopics in greater detail. Also at the end of the book are some suggestions forfurther reading. I hope you will enjoy this book and find the discoveries ofarchaeologyandrelatedfieldsasexcitingasIhave.

1

In the shadow of Sepphoris: growing up inNazareth

Jesusgrewup inNazarethofGalilee–of that there is littledoubt.Hewasknownas‘JesusofNazareth’(Matt.21.11;Mark1.24;Luke18.37;John1.45;Acts2.22;alsoMatt.4.13;Mark1.9;Luke2.39)–not, forexample, ‘JesusofCapernaum’ or ‘Jesus of Bethlehem’. Nazareth was a small village with apopulation somewhere between 200 and 400.TheSynopticGospels refer to asynagogueinNazareth(Matt.13.54;Mark6.2;Luke4.16).Therewerenopagantemplesor schools. In all likelihoodnot a singlenon-Jew lived inNazareth atthistime.

Nazareth is located in theNazarethMountains in lowerGalilee, about500metresabovesealevel.Thename‘Nazareth’appearsinscribedonastonetabletthatliststhepriestlycourses(1Chron.24.15–16).Thesecondlinereads:‘Theeighthcourse[is]HappizzezofNazareth.’Thetabletwasfoundintheruinsofathird-orfourth-centurysynagogueinCaesareaMaritima.

RecentexcavationsinandaroundNazareth–whichtodayisacityofabout60,000–suggestthatthevillageinthetimeofJesusmaynothavebeenasleepy,isolated place, as many have imagined it. The old, quaint notion that theinhabitantsofNazarethhadtolookforworkinnearbyvillagesandcitiesisnowquite obsolete.The economyofNazarethwasmore than sufficiently active tokeep her inhabitants fully occupied. There is evidence of vineyards and grapepresses,ofterracefarming,ofolivepressesandthemanufactureofoliveoilandeven of stonemasonry.We should also assume the presence of livestock andperhapsalsotanning.

The few remains of private dwellings that reach back to first-centuryNazareth attest to simple, rustic construction. No public buildings have beenfound,norapavedstreet.Thereisnoevidenceofaestheticsorartwork,suchasmosaicsorfrescoes.Privatedwellingsweremadeoffieldstonesandmud,withroofs supportedbypolesandoverlaidwith reedsandmud.Thesehomesweresmallinsize,oftensubdividedintofoursmallrooms.Sometimesasetofstepsalongsideanouterwallledtotheroof,wherelightweightitemscouldbestoredordriedinthesun.Thestoryofthemenwhoclimbtotheroofofthehouseand

then lower their paralysed friend to the spot where Jesus sat teaching (Mark3.32)providesavividexampleofthiskindofprivatedwelling(Mark2.1–12).Itwouldnottakealargecrowdtopackasmallhouse,sothatmentransportingasick friend would have no chance to enter the door or even pass through awindow.WeshouldimaginemanypeopletryingtopressforwardtohearJesus,ifnot to touchhim.Thoseunable toget inside thehousewouldbecrowdedatthedoorandstrugglingtopeerthroughthewindows.

The smallness of the private dwellings, along with small windows, isprobablypresupposedinasayinglikethis:‘WhatItellyouinthedark,utterinthe light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops’ (Matt.10.27;Luke12.3).WeshouldimagineJesusandhisdisciplesseatedorreclininginasmallhouse,dimlylit,discussingtheruleofGodandwhatitwillmeanforIsrael.Soon,Jesustellshisdisciples,thethingstheynowhearspokenquietlyinthedarkwillbeshoutedfromrooftopsinthelightofday.

The first-centuryvillageofNazarethprobablyoccupiednomore than fourhectares.Mostlyburiedbeneathamoderncityandbuiltoverthroughouthistory,Nazarethpresentsachallengetoarchaeologists.Thusfaronlysmallportionsofthe original village have been unearthed.The remains of a first-century houseandotherremainscanbeseeninthelowestlevelsoftheChurch–orBasilica–of theAnnunciation.Whether any of these remainswere part of the home ofMary cannot be confirmed, but they do exemplify themodest nature of thesesimpledwellings.1

NazarethwasnotisolatedfromtherestofGalilee.Thiswasanotherpopularmyth, still held by some, who speak of Jesus growing up in a place-bound,isolatedvillage.2NazarethisonlyafewkilometresfromSepphoris,amajorcity,and is near a main highway that connects Caesarea Maritima (on theMediterranean) to the southwest to Tiberias (on the Sea of Galilee) to thenorthwest.Sepphoris,CaesareaMaritimaandTiberiaswerethethreelargestandmostinfluentialcitiesinornearGalilee.Jesusgrewupnearoneofthemandnotfar from thehighway that linked theother two.Howwelltravelled these roadswere is shown by the pottery evidence. Pottery produced in Kefar Hananya,some16kilometres fromSepphoris, hasbeen foundeverywhere Jews lived inGalilee,andinfactrepresentssome75percentof thepotteryusedbyJewsinGalilee.3Becausepotterywassubject tocontaminationandthereforehadtobereplaced frequently, an uninterrupted supply was very important. That onevillage could serve as the principal supplier in a region the size of Galileetestifies to thenetworkof roadsand theactivecommerce in the timeofJesus.NottoomanyvillagesinGalileewere‘isolated’–certainlynotoneonlyafew

kilometresfromSepphoris.Although therewasprobablyenoughwork inNazareth tokeepJosephand

hissonssufficientlyoccupied,itispossiblethattheytookpartintheexpansionof nearby Sepphoris during the early years of the administration of Antipas,tetrarchofGalilee(from4bce to39ce).WhetherornotJesuseverworkedinSepphoris, thecity’scloseproximity toNazarethencouragesus toassumethathevisitedthecityfromtimetotime.AvisittonearbySepphoris

The Jewish reality of Jesus’ upbringing and later public ministry is notalways properly appreciated in some of the books published in recent years.Mostwriters,ofcourse,doacknowledgethatJesuswasJewish,buttheyproposestrange contexts and settings in which they think Jesus should be interpreted.SomeofthesesimplydidnotexistintheGalileeofJesus’day.Oneofthemosttalked-about theories has been the proposal that Jesus was a Cynic. WhatencouragedthisideawasNazareth’sproximitytoSepphoris,whichinthetimeofJesusexhibited,atleastinappearance,Greco-Romantrappings.

InapopularbookonthehistoricalJesus,onescholararguedthatJesuswasa‘peasantJewishCynic’andthatheandhisfollowerswere‘hippiesinaworldofAugustanyuppies’.4Althoughthisbookisinplacesquitehelpfulandsometimesveryinsightful,mostfindtheCynicproposalmisguidedandmisleading.Giventhe notoriety and influence of the book and the fact that at least a few otherscholarssupporttheCynichypothesisinoneformoranother,itisnecessarytogive some attention to it.We shall beginwith a reviewof themost importantliterary evidence and then take a look at what the archaeology of Sepphorissuggests.

JesusandtheCynics:theliteraryevidenceWhoweretheCynics(theancientones,thatis)?Whatdidtheybelieveandhowdid they live? Cynicism was founded by Diogenes (c.412–321 bce). Thenickname‘Cynic’comesfromtheGreekwordkynikos,meaningdoggishordog-like. Cynics earned this dubious sobriquet because of their ragged, unkemptappearance.Attractiveapparelandgroomingmeantnothingtothem.And–likedogs–Cynicswouldurinateanddefecate,evencopulateinpublic.

TheCynic typically carried a cloak, a beggar’s purse, a staff, and usuallywentbarefoot.Inalettertohisfather,Diogenessays:‘Donotbeupset,Father,thatIamcalledadogandputonadouble,coarsecloak,carryapurseovermyshoulders,andhaveastaffinmyhand.’ItwasthisdresscodeofsortsthathasencouragedafewscholarstoseesignificantparallelsbetweenJesusandCynics.Afterall,sogoestheargument,Jesusgavehisdisciplessimilarinstructions:

Hechargedthemtotakenothingfortheirjourneyexceptastaff;norbread,

nobag,nomoneyintheirbelts;buttowearsandalsandnotputontwotunics.(Mark6.8–9)

‘Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, nor purse for yourjourney, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the labourer deserves hisfood.’(Matt.10.9–10)‘Takenothingforyourjourney,nostaff,norbag,norbread,normoney;anddonothavetwotunics.’(Luke9.3)‘Carrynopurse,nobag,nosandals;andsalutenooneontheroad.’(Luke10.4)

AreJesus’instructionsinstepwiththeCynicdresscode?No–theydonotagree with Cynic dress and conduct; in fact they contradict them. The verythingsJesustellshisdisciplesnottotakewiththem–nobag,notunic–andnostaffeither,ifwefollowtheversioninMatthewandLuke–arethecharacteristicmarkers of the true Cynic, as one observer from late antiquity put it: ‘WhatmakesaCynicishispurseandhisstaffandhisbigmouth’(Epictetus3.22.50;see also Lucian, Peregrinus 15; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of EminentPhilosophers 6.13; Ps.-Diogenes 30.3). There is nothing Cynic in Jesus’instructionstohisdisciples.

TheonlyparallelwithJesus is simply ingiving instructionswith regard towhattowearandwhattotakeonone’sjourney.Theonlyspecificagreementistakingthestaff (ifwefollowMark; ifwedonot then there isnoagreementatall).Thestaff,however, ishardlydistinctivetoCynics.Onthecontrary: intheJewish context the staff has a long and distinguished association with thepatriarchs,suchasJacobandJudah(Gen.32.10;38.18)andthegreat lawgiverMoses and his brother Aaron (Exod. 4.4; 7.9). Moreover the staff is also asymbol of royal authority, figuring in texts that in later interpretation take onmessianic and eschatological significance (for example Gen. 49.10; Isa. 11.4;Ezek.19.14).JesusandtheCynicsWemaycompareJesus’instructionstotheCynicinstructions.

JesustohisdisciplesTakenogold,norsilver,norcopperinyourbelts,norpurseforyourjourney,nortwotunics,norsandals,norastaff(Matt.10.9–10).

CratestohisstudentsCynicphilosophyisDiogenean,theCynicisonewhotoilsaccordingtothisphilosophy,andtobeaCynicistotakeashortcutindoingphilosophy.Consequently,donotfearthename[Cynic],norforthisreasonshunthecloakandpurse,whicharetheweaponsofthegods.Fortheyarequicklydisplayedbythosewhoarehonouredfortheircharacter(16).

DiogenestoHicetasDonotbeupset,Father,thatIamcalledadog[thatis‘Cynic’]andputonadouble,coarsecloak,carryapurseovermyshoulders,andhaveastaffinmyhand(7).

DiogenestoAntipaterIhearthatyousayIamdoingnothingunusualinwearingadouble,raggedcloakandcarryingapurse(15).

DiogenestoAnaxilausForasceptreIhavemystaffandforamantlethedouble,raggedcloak,andbywayofexchange,myleatherpurseisashield(19).Thefulltextsoftheseletters,andonwhichthesetranslationsarebased,areinA.J.Malherbe,TheCynicEpistles(SBLSBS12;Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress,1977).NumericalreferencesareMalherbe’s.

Besidesthequestionofdress,somescholarssuggestthatJesus’worldviewisCynic.Insteadofbeingcaughtupwithmaterialismandvanity,theCyniclivesalifeofsimplicityandintegritybeforeGod.Accordingtooneancientwriter,the‘end and aim of the Cynic philosophy . . . is happiness, but happiness thatconsists in living according to nature’ (Julian, Orations 6.193D). Livingaccording tonaturealsomeans treating fellowhumanbeingsasequals.A fewscholarsapparentlythinkthatismoreorlesswhatJesustaught.Wasit?Hereareteachingsthataresometimescitedtomakethispoint:

‘Andwhy are you anxious about clothing?Consider the lilies of the field,howtheygrow;theyneithertoilnorspin;yetItellyou,evenSolomoninallhisglorywasnotarrayed likeoneof these.But ifGodsoclothes thegrassof thefield,which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven,will he notmuch more clothe you, O men of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious,saying, “What shall we eat?” or “What shall we drink?” or “What shall wewear?”For theGentilesseekall these things;andyourheavenlyFatherknowsthatyouneedthemall.Butseekfirsthiskingdomandhisrighteousness,andallthesethingsshallbeyoursaswell.’(Matt.6.28–33)‘Youshallloveyourneighbourasyourself.’(Mark12.31;Lev.19.18)

‘For if you forgive people their trespasses, your heavenly Father alsowillforgiveyou;butifyoudonotforgivepeopletheir trespasses,neitherwillyourFatherforgiveyourtrespasses.’(Matt.6.14–15)

Superficially,Jesus’teachingisatpointscomparabletoCynicteaching.ButJesus’ teaching isverydifferent atother, significantpoints.Forone, Jesusdidnotteachhisdisciplestopursuehappinessandtoliveaccordingtonature.WhathetaughtwasthatnaturerevealsimportantthingsaboutGod,namelythatheisloving,goodandgenerous.JesusurgeshisdisciplestohavefaithandliveinthelightofGod’sgoodnessandcare.But in theend thedisciple is to seekGod’skingdom(orrule)andrighteousness.Thenalltherestwillfallintoplace.Whenthecorevaluesareunderstood,theprofounddifferencesbetweenJesusandtheCynicscannotbemissed.

And asmentioned already, Cynicswere known for flouting social customandetiquette,suchasurinating,defecatingandengaginginsexualintercourseinpublic (Cicero, De officiis 1.128; Diogenes Laertius, Lives of EminentPhilosophers 6.69; Epictetus, Discourses 2.20.10: Cynics ‘eat and drink andcopulateanddefecateandsnore’).Cynicscouldbeverycoarseandveryrude.In

factonewasrememberedtohaveretorted:‘Whatdifferencedoesitmaketome,fromwhichendthenoisecomes?’(Seneca,MoralEpistles91.19).TheresimplyisnoparalleltothiskindofthinkingorbehaviourintheteachingandlifestyleofJesusandhisdisciples.

Jesus did indeed criticize some of his contemporaries for their religiosity,hypocrisyandmean-spiritednesstowardsthepoorandmarginalized:

‘Thus,whenyougivealms,soundnotrumpetbeforeyou,asthehypocritesdo in the synagogues and in the streets, that theymay be praised by people.’(Matt.6.2)

‘Andwhenyoupray,youmustnotbe like thehypocrites; for they love tostandandprayinthesynagoguesandatthestreetcorners,thattheymaybeseenbypeople.’(Matt.6.5)‘Andwhenyoufast,donot lookdismal, like thehypocrites, for theydisfiguretheirfacesthattheirfastingmaybeseenbypeople.’(Matt.6.16)

‘Woe toyou,scribesandPharisees,hypocrites!Foryou tithemintanddilland cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice andmercyand faith; theseyouought tohavedone,withoutneglecting theothers.’(Matt.23.23)

‘Woetoyou,scribesandPharisees,hypocrites!Foryoubuildthetombsoftheprophetsandadornthemonumentsoftherighteous,saying,“Ifwehadlivedinthedaysofourfathers,wewouldnothavetakenpartwiththeminsheddingthebloodoftheprophets.”’(Matt. 23.29 –30) ‘You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast thetraditionofpeople.’(Mark7.8)

Admittedly,allofthiscriticismcouldwellhavebeenutteredbyaCynic.Butthis representsonlyone aspectof Jesus’ teaching. Jesus criticized someofhiscritics,buthewasnotcrude,nordidhesuggestthatreligiousfaithwaspointless.Herein lies a telling difference between the worldview of Jesus and theworldviewofCynics.Whereasthelatterrailedagainstreligionbecausethegods,they thought, were indifferent, Jesus urged his followers to believe in Godbecause he does take notice and cares deeply. Indeed, some of the utterancesabove go on to assure that ‘your Father who sees in secret will reward you’(Matt.6.6,18).Accordingly,Jesusurgeshisdisciplestopray,‘foryourFatherknowswhatyouneedbeforeyouaskhim’(Matt.6.8).ThisisnottheteachingoftheCynics.

Furthermore,JesusproclaimedGod’sruleandurgedhisdisciplestolooktoGodfordeliverance.Jesuslongedfortheredemptionofhispeopleandbelieveddeeply that theGodof Israelwould fulfil the prophecies andpromises of old.ThesehopesandbeliefsarenotconsistentwithCynicideology.

Accordingly,IremaincompletelyunpersuadedbytheCynicthesis,andIamnot alone: most scholars concerned with the historical Jesus also find it veryunlikely.5Thisshouldoccasionnosurprise,givenwhathasbeensaidinthelastfew pages. So why do some scholars compare Jesus with the Cynics? Goodquestion–let’sconsideritnext.

JesusandtheCynics:thearchaeologicalevidenceComparison with Cynic thought was encouraged in part by a number ofparallels,mostlygeneralandmostly reflecting thewisdomandsocialcriticismoftheeasternMediterraneanworldof lateantiquity.6Butamajor impetusforthe exploration of the Cynic model came, I believe, from archaeologicaldiscoveries in the 1970s and 1980s. Boiled down, these discoveries comprisetwo things related to our concerns. First, archaeology has shown howwidespreadtheGreeklanguagewasinthetimeandplaceofJesus.Second,ithasshownhowurbanized, inGreco-Romanfashion,somepartsofGalileewere inthetimeofJesus.Asitturnsout,GalileewasfarmoreintegratedintothelargerRomanEmpirethanatonetimeimagined.Galilee,SamariaandJudeawerenobackwater.

From these two discoveries some scholars infer the presence of Greco-Romanphilosophy inGalilee.The logicgoes something like this:where therewereGreco-Romanstyleurbancentres,andwhereGreekwasspoken,itfollowsthattherewereGreco-Romanphilosophersandphilosophies;andthatmeans,ofcourse,thepresenceofCynics.Andthen,whenSepphoris,some6.5kilometresnorth of Nazareth, was excavated and found to have possessed a pavedmainstreetandseverallargebuildingsinGreco-Romanstyle,itwasfurtherconcludedthat Cynics must have been present in this city as well. And if Cynics werepresent inSepphoris, thensurelyJewishyouths– likeJesus– living innearbyvillages likeNazarethwould have come under the influence of these itinerantphilosophers.Thisallmakessense,doesn’tit?Wearen’tmissingsomething,arewe? Alas, I’m afraid we are indeed missing something – something veryimportant,namelytherestoftheevidence.

The impressive discoveries in Galilee in general and in Sepphoris inparticularhaveforcedNewTestamentinterpreterstore-evaluateseveralthings.Forone, it isno longer tenable to thinkof Jesus ashavinggrownup in rusticisolation,aswasfashionableforsolong.No:Jesusgrewupinavillagewithinreasonable walking distance from a large urban centre, part of which wasperched on top of a hill and would have been visible to the inhabitants ofNazareth.‘Acitysetonahillcannotbehid,’asJesushimselfoncesaid(Matt.5.14).

Furthermore, the great number of Greek inscriptions, as well as Greekliterary finds in the Dead Sea region, has ledmany scholars to conclude thatGreek was spoken by many Jews living in Galilee. This does not mean thatGreekwastheirfirstlanguage–thatwasAramaic.ButitdoesmeanthatGreekwasspokenin the timeandplaceofJesus(andafewscholars think thatJesushimselfspokesomeGreek).

But the facts thatmany JewishGalileans spokeGreek and that therewereurban centres inGalilee, such asSepphoris nearNazareth andTiberias on theSeaofGalileejustafewkilometressouthwestofCapernaum,donotmeanthatthe Jewish peoplewere soft on their historic faith and ready to absorbGreekphilosophy,whetherCynicismorsomethingelse.RecentJewishhistorysuggestsjusttheopposite.

Oneshould remember that acenturyandahalfbefore Jesuswasborn, theJewish people, led by the Hasmonean family (Judas Maccabeus and hisbrothers), fought abitterwar againstAntiochus IVand theGreeks inorder topreserveJewishfaithandlife.GalileanJewsinthetimeofJesuswerenodoubtinfluenced by Greek thought and customs to some extent, but not to that ofembracingideologiesthatseriouslyconflictedwithJewishfaith.

Andthisisjustwhatthearchaeologicalevidenceshows:theJewishfaithandlifestyleweretakenseriously.SohowJewishorGreekwasSepphoris, thecitynear the village of Nazareth, in the time of Jesus? This is a very importantquestion.Muchofthearchaeologicalworkinthe1970sand1980srevealedtheextent of building. Besides paved, colonnaded streets (Figure 1.1) and largebuildings,apublic

Figure1.1SepphorisstreetwalkOntheright isamosaicfloorand,ontheleft,apaved,colonnadedstreet.ThecolonnadedstreetreflectsGreco-Romaninfluence.

Figure1.2SepphoristheatreAlthough badly weathered, the outline of the lower portion of the Sepphoristheatre,carvedinthebedrock,isreadilydiscernible.

theatre (Figure1.2)wasalsoexcavated.Although it isdisputed, it is likelythatthefirstphaseofthetheatrewasbuiltinthe20sandthatlaterexpansionandrenovation took place towards the end of the century. But it was the furtherarchaeological work in the 1990s, which included the discovery of the citydump,thatledtotheconclusionthatSepphoriswasathoroughlyJewishcityinthedaysofJesusafterall.

Archaeologists are usually able to date the various layers of ancient cities.Onemightthinkofanancientcityasalayeredcake–thetoplayeristhemostrecent,thebottomthemostancient.Thereforethedeeperonedigstheolderthematerialone finds.Forexcavations in Israeldating to theapproximate timeofJesusandtheearlyChurch,findthelayerthatseparatesthetimebeforefromthetimeafter70ce.

Archaeologists and scholars usually assume that most things that existedprior to 70 ce probably have relevance for understanding the world of Jesus,while most things that came into existence thereafter probably do not.Accordingly,itisimportanttodatetheremainsofSepphoristhatexistedpriorto

70cebeforedrawingconclusionsaboutwhatthiscitymighttellusaboutJesusandhisworld.

Archaeologistsof the landof Israel canusually find the70 ce layer in theexcavationcakebecauseofthedevastationthatresultedfromtheJewishrevoltagainstRome(66–70ce).Manycitiesandvillageswerebadlydamagedifnotdestroyedaltogether,anddamagedanddestroyedbuildingsoftenbecamethefillandfoundationsonwhichthenewstructureswerebuilt.

SoarchaeologistsofSepphorishavefoundthe70ce layer,andhavefoundthecitydump.Thedumpisagreatfindbecausewhat is thrownthereincludesgarbage, and garbage reveals a lot about the people who lived at that time,especiallywhenwe are interested in knowing if Jews lived in the city and ifthese Jews lived according to Jewish laws and customs.What archaeologistsdiscoveredturnedouttobeveryrevealing.

Amongtheanimalremainsthatdatebefore70cetheyfoundnopigbones,whichishardtoexplainifwearetoimaginethepresenceofasignificantnon-JewishpopulationinSepphoris.Instarkcontrasttothisfinding,after70ce(thatis,after thedestructionofJerusalemby theRomanarmyand thebeginningofrebuilding throughout Israel), and after a sizeable growth in the non-Jewishpopulation,pigbonescometorepresent30percentoftheanimalremains.Whatthis suggests is thatprior to theJewish revolt thepopulationofSepphoriswasJewishandobservedJewishlawsandcustoms.Itwasonlyaftertherevolt thatsupportforJewishlawandpracticebegantoerode.ThismeansthatinthetimeofJesus–agenerationormorebeforetherevolt–therewaslittleandpossiblynonon-JewishpresenceinSepphoris.AndthismeansnoCynicseither.

Butthereismoreevidencethatsupportsthisconclusion.Over100fragmentsof stone vessels dating frombefore 70 ce have been unearthed thus far, againpointing to a Jewish population at Sepphoris concerned with ritual purity(becausestone,unlikeceramicvessels,cannoteasilybemadeunclean;seeJohn2.6).Non-Jews usually didn’t botherwith expensive, heavy and hard-to-movestone vessels. For them, ceramic vessels for drinking and cookingwere quiteacceptable.The largenumberof stonevessels foundatSepphoris isconsistentwiththeabsenceofporkbones–thatis,thepeoplewholivedinSepphorispriorto 70 cewere Jewish and observed Jewish laws and customs. And consistentwithconcernoverpersonalpurityisthepresenceinSepphorisofmanymiqva’ot–ritualbathingpools;singular:miqveh(seeFigure1.3).Furthermore,aHebrewpotteryfragmentandseverallampfragmentsbearingtheimageofthemenorah–the seven-branched candelabra – have also been found, dating from the earlyperiod.

Butthereisstillmore.CoinsmintedatSepphorisduringthepre-70ceperiod

donotdepicttheimageoftheRomanemperororpagandeities,aswascommoninthecoinageofthistime.Incontrast,

Figure1.3Miqveh,SepphorisThis plastered, stepped immersion pool was uncovered in the basement of alargehomeatSepphoris,probablydating to thefirstcentury.Manyimmersionpools have been discovered at Sepphoris, attesting to the Jewish concernwithritualpurity.

in the second century ce, long after the Jewish revolt had ended and thepopulation had begun to change, coins were minted at Sepphoris bearing theimagesof theemperorsTrajan (98–117ce)andAntoninusPius (138–61ce),and the deities Tyche and the Capitoline triad (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva).Indeed,inthereignofAntoninusPiusthecityadoptedthenameDiocaesarea,inhonourofZeus(Dio)andtheRomanemperor(Caesar).ThecontrastinthefindingsatSepphoris

Before70CEWhatwasfound:Whatwasnotfound:immersionpools(miqva’ot)pigbonesmenorahfragmentsofstonevesselscoinswithimageofCaesarpaganidolsandimagespaganbuildings

After70CE

Whatwasfound:pigbonescoinswithimageofCaesarpaganidolsandimagesmosaicswithpaganthemes

Whathasnotbeenfoundinpre-70ceSepphorisisjustasimportantaswhathasbeenfound.ExcavationshavenotuncoveredanystructurestypicallypresentinaGreco-Romancity,suchaspagantemples,gymnasium,odeum,nymphaeumor shrinesand statues, allofwhichwereoffensive to Jewish sensibilities.OnewayoflookingatitisthatdevoutJewswerenotadvocatesofmulti-culturalism.Itisonlyinthepost-70ceperiodthatpaganartandarchitecturebegintomaketheir appearance, such as the beautifulmosaic in themansiondepicting paganthemes(Figure1.4).

All this evidence leads to the firmconclusion thatSepphoris in Jesus’daywasathoroughlyJewishcity.7ThereisabsolutelynoreasonwhatsoevertothinktheremayhavebeenCynicsloitering

Figure1.4SepphorisMonaLisaThisbeautiful floormosaicgraces the triclinium (‘recliningon three sides’)of

thediningroomofanimpressivemansion,datingtothethirdcentury.Thefaceof the lady of the manor, dubbed by some the ‘Mona Lisa of Galilee’, isprominentlydepicted(lowercentre).in the streets of Sepphoris on the lookout for Jewish youths from nearbyNazareth.

Commitment to the Jewish laws and customs is in fact seen throughoutGalilee; it is not limited to Sepphoris. Throughout Galilee the distribution ofJewish and non-Jewish pottery is very suggestive of this conclusion.Whereasnon-Jews purchased Jewish pottery, the Jews ofGalilee did not purchase andmakeuseofpotterymanufacturedbynon-Jews.Thepointhere is thatbecausenon-Jewshadnopurityissuesintheuseofceramicandpottery,theywerehappytobuyceramicfromanysource–Jewishornon-Jewish.ButnotsointhecaseofJews. Because, in their view, ceramic was susceptible to impurity, JewsthereforepurchasedpotteryonlyfromJews,neverfromnon-Jews.Accordingly,Jewishpotterythatdatespriorto70ceisfoundinJewishandnon-JewishsectorsinandaroundGalilee,whilenon-Jewishpotteryisfoundonlyinthenon-Jewishsectors.ThesepatternsofdistributionstronglysuggestthattheJewishpeopleofGalileewerescrupulousintheirobservanceofJewishpuritylaws.

GiventheevidencethatGalileeinJesus’timewaspopulatedwithaJewishpeoplecommitted to theirbiblicalheritage,andgiven thecompleteabsenceofevidenceofanykindofCynicpresenceinnearbySepphoris(oranywhereelseinGalileeforthatmatter),theCynichypothesisstrikesmeascompletelylackinginfoundation.Moreover it isquiteunnecessary–muchbetterparallels forJesus’teachingcanbefound in theearly literatureof theRabbisand theevenearlierDeadSeaScrolls.

Before leaving Sepphoris, something should be said about its theatre.Archaeologists are divided over the question of its date.All agree that itwasenlarged some time in the secondhalf of the first century to accommodate anaudience of 4,000. The dispute concerns the date of the earliest phase of thetheatre,whichmayhaveseatedabout2,500.Somearchaeologistsclaimthatthetheatrewasbuiltduringthecity’sexpansionunderAntipas.IfasmallerversionofthetheatreexistedinthetimeofJesus,wemayhaveanumberofallusionstoit in Jesus’ teaching.One immediately thinksof themocking references to the‘hypocrites’. Theword itself was originally neutral,meaning ‘actor’ or ‘play-actor’(DiodorusSiculus37.12.1),thoughbythefirstcenturyce,‘hypocrisy’hadalsocometomeansanctimoniouspretence.ThisishowJesususedthewordincriticizingthosewhoactedouttheirpietyinanostentatiousorinsinceremanner.But his use of ‘hypo crite’ inMatthew 6, and perhaps elsewhere, such as inMatthew23,probablyalsoreflectedthepresenceandfunctionofthetheatrein

nearby Sepphoris. There are a number of specific parallels with theatre andacting,beyondthewordhypocriteitself.8

Jesuswarnshisdisciplesnottopractisetheirpiety‘beforepeople,inordertobe seen by them’ (Matt. 6.1). To be ‘seen’ – or ‘watched’, from theathenai,which is from the root that gives us ‘theatre’ – may envisage a publicperformance,somethingdonebeforeanaudience.Thiswordbyitselfwouldnotbring tomind the theatre, but Jesus piles up other terms and activities. Theseincludemakingashowofcharitabledonations:‘Sowheneveryougivealms,donotsoundatrumpetbeforeyou,asthehypocritesdo’(6.2).Inthetheatreoflateantiquity, trumpets often announced an action or a new scene. There are alsotraditions about trumpets sounding for prayer orworship – in for example theCairo Damascus document (CD) 11.21–22; m. Ta‘anit 2.5 – but no Jewishtraditionssoundingtrumpetsinconnectionwithalmsgiving.ThesoundingofthetrumpetcomesfromtheGreektheatre,nottheJewishtempleorsynagogue.

Jesus also instructs, ‘Whenyou give alms, do not let your left hand knowwhatyourrighthandisdoing,sothatyouralmsmaybedoneinsecret’(6.3–4).Again we may have an allusion to the theatre, in which actors skilfullycoordinated the motions of their hands to complement their words and makemorevividinthemindsoftheaudiencewhattheyweretoimagine.Thehandsoftheactorsweresupposedtobesynchronizedandmeaningful,drawingattentiontowhatwasbeingsaidordone(onthis,seeMarcusFabianQuintilian,InstitutioOratoria (on stage andorations) 11.2.42; 11.3.66; 11.3.70, 85–121; esp. 114:‘Thelefthandneverproperlyperformsagesturealone,butitfrequentlyactsinagreement with the right’). Against such well-orchestrated and polishedperformances,Jesussays,‘Donotletyourlefthandknowwhatyourrighthandisdoing.’

Jesuswarnshisdisciplesnotto‘belikethehypocrites;fortheylovetostandandprayinthesynagoguesandatthestreetcorners,sothattheymaybeseenbyothers’(Matt.6.5).Standingandprayinginpublicmayonceagainalludetotheperformanceoftheactor(or‘hypocrite’),whointhetheatrestandsandgivesasoliloquy. It hasbeenobserved that thewordplateia,meaning ‘street’ (oneofthewordsinthetranslation‘streetcorners’;literally‘cornersofstreets’,entaisgoniais ton plateion), was used of the colonnaded street in nearby Sepphoris.The image may be that of a actor standing in a busy thoroughfare speakingloudly,hopingtoattractanaudiencetothetheatre.9

Finally,whenJesusenjoinshisdisciplesnotto‘lookdismal’whentheyfastsothattheywillnotbe‘likethehypocrites’who‘disfiguretheirfacesthattheirfastingmaybeseenbypeople’(Matt.6.16),heonceagainmaybealludingto

theactorsorstreet-cornermimeswhopainttheirfacesinordertoplaytheirpart.ThecoherencebetweenJesus’mockeryofthereligioushypocritesofhisday

and the actors and theatre of the time, whether at Sepphoris or elsewhere,suggests that Jesus probably shaped his criticisms and sarcasm to reflect thetheatre. The archaeological work at nearby Sepphorismay have relevance forunderstandingbetterthisaspectofJesus’teaching.

ThereisnoevidencethatduringhisministryJesusvisitedSepphoris.Ithasbeen suggested that hemay have alluded to actors and theatrics,which couldfurther suggest that hemay have visited the theatre of Sepphoris at an earliertimeinhislife.ButtheabsenceofanymentionofavisittoSepphorisduringhispublic travels and activities is curious. Indeed, there is no evidence that JesusvisitedanyofthegreatcitiesofGalileeandnearbyterritories,suchasTiberiasontheSeaofGalileeandCaesareaMaritimaontheMediterraneanSea.Infactthe only major Galilean city he approached was Caesarea Philippi, near thenorthern border. Yet even in this case we are told that he only went ‘to thevillages of Caesarea Philippi’ (Mark 8.27) or ‘into the district of CaesareaPhilippi’ (Matt. 16.13), not into the city itself. The avoidance of the cities iscurious. In Judea, Jesus visited Jericho and Jerusalem but in Galilee heapparentlyenterednocity. If theGospelsdonotnarrateanyvisits toGalileancities,are therehints,nevertheless, thatduringhisGalileanministryJesuswasfamiliarwithurbancentres?Therearesuchhints.Jesusandthecities

There are indications in his teaching and activities that Jesuswas familiarwith urban life. We are in a position to see these indications more clearlybecauseoftheexcavationsthathavetakenplaceinGalilee.

While the Gospels say nothing of a visit to Sepphoris, Jesus may havealludedtotheprominent,elevatedcityinawell-knownsaying,‘Acitysetonahill cannotbehid’ (Matt.5.14).The saying that immediately follows, ‘Nordopeoplelightalampandputitunderabushel,butonastand’(Matt.5.15;Mark4.21;Luke8.16;11.33),suggeststhatthereasonacityonahillcannotbehidisthat its light, especially at night, is seen from a distance.Awell-lit SepphoriswouldhavebeenvisibletothepeopleofnearbyNazareth.

Figure1.5First-centuryCapernaumExcavationsoffirst-centuryCapernaumhaveuncoveredfloors,foundationsandlower portions of thewalls of various buildings and private homes. The darkstoneisvolcanicbasalt.Thelimestonesynagogueinthebackgrounddatestoalatertime.

Jesussetuphisheadquarters,asitwere,inthelargevillage–orsmallcity?–ofCapernaumonthenorthwestshoreoftheSeaofGalilee.Excavationsatthissite have uncovered the volcanic basalt footings of a public building (Figure1.5), probably the original synagogue (the partly reconstructed limestonesynagoguethatnowrestsonthefootingsdatesnoearlierthanthethirdcenturyce).10 A private home, converted into a public meeting place and still laterexpanded into an octagonal church, has also been excavated. Although notcertain,thismaywellhavebeenthehomeofPeterorhismother-in-lawinwhichJesustaughtandinwhichhewassoughtoutbycrowds(Mark1.21–34).11Nottoo far from the synagogue are ruins that have been tentatively identified asthose belonging to a military official and a number of soldiers. Although theGospelscallthismana‘centurion’(Matt.8.5;Luke7.2;John4.46,49–wherehe isa ‘royalofficial’),heprobablywasnotaRomanbutanofficerunder theauthority of the tetrarch Antipas, who employed Roman terminology. TheRomanbathandremainsofotherstructuresthatmayhavebeenRomandateto

thesecondcentury.12InrelocatingtoCapernaum,Jesusplacedhimselfinthevicinityofimportant

traderoutesandlinesofcommunication,soitisn’tsurprisingthatwordofwhatJesusdoes inCapernaumbecomesknown throughoutGalilee (Mark1.28,32–33,37,45;Luke4.23:‘whatwehaveheardyoudidatCapernaum’).BeforelongJesusishard-pressedbylargecrowds(Mark3.20;4.1;6.53–56);heevenseekssolitaryplaceswherehecanbealone(Mark3.7–10;6.30–33,45–46).

Given its location it isn’t surprising that there was a customs office inCapernaum.ItwasherethatJesuscalledLevithetaxcollector(Mark2.14;Luke5.27),alsoknownasMatthew(Matt.9.9;10.3),whohostedareceptionatwhicha number of other tax collectors and ‘sinners’ were present (Mark 2.15 –17;Luke5.29–32;Matt.9.10–13).Jesusbecomesknownforassociatingwithtaxcollectors (Luke 7.29; 15.1; 19.2) and he often refers to tax collectors in histeaching(Matt.11.19;18.17;21.31–32;Luke18.10–14).Associationswithandreferencestotaxcollectorsreflectanurbanelement.

Jesus warns his disciples to come to terms with those who threaten legalaction,lesttheybedraggedintocourtandperhapsthrownintoprison(Matt.5.25–26). Courts and prisons are located in cities, not small villages. In thisconnectiononethinksofJesus’parableoftheIndifferentJudgewhogivesintothenaggingwidow(Luke18.1–8).

Jesus exhorts his disciples to enter the ‘narrowgate’, not the ‘broadgate’,whichleadstodeath(Matt.7.13–14).Althoughthesayingismetaphoricalandmoral, the image is that of city gates,which in turn implieswalled cities, notrural villages. Jesus’ lament that his generation is like the children piping andsinging in the ‘market places’ (Matt. 11.16 –19; Luke 7.31–35) makes bettersenseinreferencetoacityratherthanavillagesetting.13

SomeofJesus’parables reflecturban lifeand thecommercial realities thatgowith it.Theparableof the labourers (Matt.20.1–16) imaginesanumberofunemployed men loitering in the ‘market place’. First-century readers wouldlikelyassumethatthesedaylabourershavelosttheirlandtowealthylandholdersandcommercialfarmers.Manyoftheseownersoflargefarmswouldhavelivedin nearby cities. The same probably applies in the case of the parable of theWicked Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12.1–12). The tenant vinedressers are undercontractwithanabsenteeownerand,asthestoryintheparableshows,theyareresentful and desire to acquire the vineyard for themselves. And finally onethinksof theparableof theDishonestSteward(Luke16.1–9)whoseaccountswith his master’s debtors reflect a substantial business the transactions andrecordsofwhichwouldhavebeen imaginedas takingplace inanurbanrather

thanaruralsetting.14ReturntoNazareth

If Sepphoris, the largest city in the vicinity of Nazareth, was thoroughlyJewishinthetimeofJesus,asthearchaeologyofthelast20yearssuggests,thenwhatmayweconcludewithrespecttoNazarethitself?ItisveryprobablethatasmallJewishvillagelikeNazarethwouldhavebeenverydevout.

Asithappens,whatlittletheNewTestamentGospelstellusaboutNazarethsuggeststhatthevillagerswerebothdevoutandquiteconservative.WhenJesuspreachedinNazareth,hishometown,hisreceptionwasanythingbutcordial.TheMarkan evangelist simply says, ‘And on the sabbath he began to teach in thesynagogue’(Mark6.2).15Nothingissaidaboutwhathetaught.LuketellsusthatJesusrecitedpartof Isaiah61(‘TheSpiritof theLord isuponme,becausehehasanointedmetopreachgoodnews’)andthendeclaredthat‘thisscriptureisfulfilled’(Luke4.18–21).Luke’sexpandedversionlikelycapturestheessenceof Jesus’ teaching, namely the good news of the rule of God (Mark 1.15).Although the reaction is initiallyandbrieflypositive,at leastasLuke tells thestory(Luke4.22),themoodofthevillagerssoursquickly.

Thevillagersapparentlyhadnoobjectiontosabbathsermonsdevotedtothegood news of God’s rule, but they evidently didn’t think Jesus possessed thecredentials tomake such an announcement; either that or they didn’t like thewayJesusunderstoodandappliedthisgoodnews.ThefirstoptionappearstobetheunderstandingoftheevangelistsMatthewandMark.AccordingtothemthepeopleofNazarethask:

Where did thisman get all this?What is thewisdomgiven to him?Whatmighty works are wrought by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son ofMary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not hissistersherewithus?(Mark6.2–3;seealsoMatt.13.54–55)

The last question, which refers to Jesus’ trade (‘carpenter’), his personalidentification(‘sonofMary’)andhisbrothersandsisters,bordersoncontempt.In fact it is too offensive for the evangelistMatthew,who revises part of thequestiontoread,‘IsnothismothercalledMary?’(Matt.13.55).Mark’ssimpler‘son ofMary’ (instead of the more conventional ‘son of Joseph’) could wellhavealludedtouncertaintyaboutJesus’conception;thatis,whohisfatherwas.Matthew will have none of that (and, of course, in his infancy narrative hasexplainedthatJesuswasconceivedbytheHolySpiritandwasraisedbyJosephashisson).TheserhetoricalquestionsimplythatJesuslackedthequalificationstomakeweightypronouncements,suchasthearrivaloftheruleofGodandthe

fulfilmentofscripturalprophecies.BecauseJesusisoneofthem,sothevillagersreason, there isnothingspecialabouthim. In response to thisscepticismJesusdeclares, ‘A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, andamonghisownkin,andinhisownhouse’(Mark6.4).

TheversionpresentedinLukeoffersadifferentexplanationfortherejectionof Jesus.Althoughhappyenough tohear that theprophecyof Isaiahhasbeenfulfilled, even as it was spoken (Luke 4.21, literally: ‘Today this scripture isfulfilled in your ears’), the congregation is deeply offended by the suggestionthat the good news of the rule ofGodwill benefit Gentiles, even enemies ofIsrael,asexemplifiedintheactivitiesofthefamousprophetsofold,ElijahandElisha(Luke4.25–27).ReferencetotheseprophetswouldhavebeenespeciallyarrestinggiventhattheywerefromthenorthernkingdomofIsrael,whatinthetimeofJesus isGalilee.Moreover theseprophetswerefamousfor theirdeeds,not their writings. They healed people (2 Kings 5.8 –14), raised the dead (1Kings 17.17–24; 2Kings 4.29 –37; 13.20 –21) and evenmultiplied loaves (2Kings 4.42–44).Elijahwas even associatedwith the comingdayof theLord(Mal. 4.5: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great andterribledayoftheLordcomes’;seealsoSir.48.10).Inmanywaysthesefamousprophets, ‘local heroes’ in the eyes of the Galileans, were models for Jesushimself.As theyhaddone,soJesushealedpeopleand, likeElijah,proclaimedtheeschatologicalhour.

TheconvictionthattheprophecyofIsaiah61wasfortherighteousofIsraelaloneisnotaguess;itisdocumentedthankstoafragmentaryscrollfoundnearQumran. According to 11Q13, also called the Melchizedek Scroll, themysterious figure Melchizedek (see Gen. 14.17–20; Ps. 110.4) will come infulfilmentofIsaiah61.1–3(‘theLordhasanointedmetobringgoodtidingstotheafflicted;hehassentmetobindupthebrokenhearted,toproclaimlibertytothecaptives’).HewillnotonlyliberateIsraelandforgiveIsraelhersins,hewilldestroySatan(orBelial)and thosealliedwithhim; that is, Israel’senemies. IftheinterpretationofIsaiah61in11Q13isanythingtogoby,weshouldassumethatthepeopleofNazarethbelievedthattheanointedoftheLord,foretoldintheprophecy,wouldbringblessingstoIsraelandjudgementuponIsrael’senemies.If Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfilment of Isaiah 61 (that is, the messengeranointedofGodtobring thegoodnewsof thedayof theLord’sfavour), thensurely this means blessing for the people of Nazareth and payback for theirenemies.ButJesus’interpretationofIsaiah’sprophecy,inwhichheappealedtotheexamplesoftheprophetsElijahandElisha,hintedatsomethingelse.

OutragedatJesusforsuggestingthatthegoodnewswasasmuchforIsrael’senemiesasforIsrael,themenofthesynagoguethrusthimoutofthevillageand

‘ledhim to thebrowof thehill onwhich their citywasbuilt, that theymightthrowhimdownheadlong’(Luke4.29).Althoughnooneknowswhich‘browofthehill’ theevangelisthad inmind (onlymodern tourguides seem toknow!),thedescriptionfitsthetopographyofNazarethanditsimmediateenvirons.

BothGospelversionsoftheunhappyNazarethvisitareconsistentwithwhatweknowofthisvillage,fromthelittlearchaeologythathasbeendoneandfromwhatwecaninferfromthelargercontextofGalileeitself.Wehaveinthisstorya reflectionof themindsetof the inhabitantsofa smallGalileanvillage, inanenvironmentthattakesseriouslyitsJewishheritageandlongsforthefulfilmentofthepropheciesfoundinsacredScripture.Totheextentthatlocalprophetsofold,suchasElijahandElisha,forecastthingstocomeandsohadanyrelevancefor contemporary Galilean Jews, it was believed that they augured futureblessings.ButtheseblessingsareforGod’speople–forIsrael,notforoutsiders,GentilesandcertainlynotIsrael’senemies.Andnolocalman–andthatincludesacarpenterwhosefamilyiswellknowntoallinthevillage–isinanypositiontosayotherwise.

WhatwehaveobservedinthetwoaccountsofJesus’visittohishometownisnotthefirsthintoftensionbetweenJesusandthepeopleofNazareth.AttheverybeginningofhisministrywearetoldthatJesusleftNazarethand‘wentanddwelt in Capernaum by the sea’ (Matt. 4.13). Why did Jesus relocate toCapernaum?Were the dynamics seen in his visit to the synagogue already inplay, even at the outset of his publicministry?There is yet another andmoreobviousincidentinwhichweseetensionbetweenJesusandhisfamily.Itisnotclear where precisely this story takes place; perhaps we should assumeCapernaum.Inanycase,wearetoldthatwhenJesuslearnedthathismotherandbrotherswere seekinghim,he replied: ‘Here aremymother andmybrothers!WhoeverdoesthewillofGodismybrother,andsister,andmother’(Mark3.34–35;Matt.12.48–50;Luke8.21).Nomatterhowthisstoryisnuanced,itclearlytestifiestosometensionbetweenJesusandhisfamily.

Wecannotbepreciselysureofthecauseofthistension,buttheaccountsofthepreaching at the synagoguemayprovideuswith an important clue. Jesus’family,alongwithmostof the inhabitantsofNazareth,didnot think thathe–oneoftheirown–wasqualifiedtoannouncethegoodnewsoftheruleofGod,andcertainlynottochallengetheirunderstandingoftheimplicationsoftheruleofGod for themselves and others.After all, one of Jesus’ first followerswasremembered tohaveasked, ‘CananythinggoodcomeoutofNazareth?’ (John1.45).Perhapsit’snosurprisethatthepeopleofNazarethhaddoubtsaboutJesusandthatevenhisownbrothersdidn’tbelieveinhim,atleastinitially(John7.5).

In this chapterwehave touchedon Jesus in the synagogue. I’ve suggested

that the synagogue is the context in which Jesus’ development and religiousthought should be understood, not in an imagined urban setting – nearbySepphoris for example–where Jesusmighthave comeunder the influenceofGreek philosophy. In the next chapter the synagoguewill be explored further.WhatarchaeologicalevidenceisthereforsynagoguesinthetimeofJesus?Andiftheyexisted,whatdidtheylooklikeandwhatwastheirfunction?

2

Amongthedevout:religiousformationinthesynagogue

Readers of the New Testament Gospels are left with the impression thatJesus frequented the synagogue, a placewhere the Jewish people gathered forprayer and the reading of Scripture; that visiting synagogues was part of hisroutine. For example, the evangelist Matthew says: ‘And he went about allGalilee, teaching in theirsynagoguesandpreaching thegospelof thekingdomandhealingeverydisease andevery infirmity among thepeople’ (Matt. 4.23).Similarly the evangelistLukenotes, almost in passing, that Jesus ‘went to thesynagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day’ (Luke 4.16). In a moreapologetic tone, the Johannine Jesus declares: ‘I have always taught insynagoguesandinthetemple,whereallJewscometogether’(John18.20).ThebookofActsdepictstheearlyChurcheitherexistingwithinorinvariouswaysengaged with the synagogue. Thus even with the founding of the ChristianChurch in the aftermath ofEaster, the Jewish synagogue continues to play animportantrole.

Theword‘synagogue’appearsmorethan50timesintheGospelsandActs.Originally, from the Greek meaning ‘gathering [of people]’ or ‘gathering[place]’, it referred to groups of people; later also the building inwhich theygathered.MostoftheNewTestamentoccurrencesareinreferencetobuildingswhere Jewish people gather to pray, worship, read Scripture and socialize. InIsraelasmallnumberofbuildingsthatdatebefore70cehavebeenidentifiedassynagogues,aswellasalargernumberfromlatertimesinIsraelandelsewhere.DidsynagoguebuildingsexistinthetimeofJesus?

About15yearsagoHowardClarkKee,adistinguishedprofessoroftheNewTestament, published a series of studies arguing that all the references tosynagoguesintheGospelsandActswereanachronistic,includingreferencestosynagogue buildings in the writings of Josephus (c.37–100 ce), the JewishapologistandhistorianwhosurvivedthegreatJewishrebellion(66–70ce).Keeinsisted that there were no synagogue buildings prior to 70 ce, the year thetemple of Jerusalemwas destroyed.Only after this destruction did synagoguebuildingsbegintoappear,tocompensateforthelossofthetemple.Notonlywas

all first-century literary evidence rejected, Kee also dated the Jerusalemsynagogue inscription to a time well after 70 and suggested that pre-70synagogue buildings identified by archaeologists are not synagogues at all.1

Almostnooneagreeswiththesenegativefindings.2Nevertheless,itisnecessaryandhelpfultoreviewtheevidence.

I begin with the literary evidence outside the New Testament. In at leastthreeplacesJosephus refers to ‘synagogues’,whichcanonlybeunderstoodasbuildingsandnotsimplyasgatheringsofpeople:

TheJewsinCaesareahadasynagogueadjoiningaplotofgroundownedbya Greek of that city; this site they had frequently endeavoured to purchaseofferingapricefarexceedingitstruevalue...Onthefollowingday,whichwasasabbath,...theJewsassembledatthesynagogue.(J.W.2.285–89)

AlthoughAntiochussurnamedEpiphanes[175–164bce]sackedJerusalemandplundered the temple,his successorson the throne restored to the JewsofAntiochall suchvotiveofferingsasweremadeofbrass, tobe laidup in theirsynagogue...(J.W.7.44)

‘Inasmuchascertainofyouhavehadsuchmadaudacity...nottoobeythisedict . . . in that you have prevented the Jews from having a synagogue bytransferringto itanimageofCaesar,youhavetherebysinnednotonlyagainstthelawoftheJews,butalsoagainsttheemperor,whoseimagewasbetterplacedin his own shrine than in that of another, especially in the synagogue; for bynatural laweachmustbelordoverhisownplace, inaccordancewithCaesar’sdecree.’(Ant.19.305)

The event in the first passage, which describes one of the incidents thatinstigated the first major war with Rome, took place in 66 ce. The secondpassage describes events from theHasmonean period (presumably the secondcentury bce), while the third summarizes the words of Publius Petronius,governorofSyria,whoin41cerebukedthepeopleofDoraforplacinganimageofCaesar in a synagogue. In all three passages it is quite clear that theword‘synagogue’ refers to the building in which the Jewish people meet and notsimplytothepeoplewhogather.

Kee responds to this evidence by suggesting that Josephus is speakinganachronistically (much as does the Lukan evangelist, he supposes), byretrojectingpost-70ceJewishrealities,whichintheaftermathofthedestructionofthetempleofJerusalemnowincludedthebuildingofsynagoguesasplacesofworship.Thisobjection,however,amountstolittlemorethanspecialpleading.Would Josephus, towhomsynagoguebuildingswere an innovationduringhis

lifetime (assuming Kee’s hypothesis), retroject them into earlier periods inIsrael’shistory?Itseemsunlikely.Afterall,Josephuswouldhavelivedonintohismiddleagewithoutsynagoguebuilding(againassumingKee’shypothesis),sowhyhedidfinditnecessarytoreadarecentinnovationbackintothefirsthalfofhislife?

HoweverweunderstandtheevidenceofJosephus,Kee’shypothesisdoesnotaccountforusageof‘synagogue’ inPhilo(c.20bce–50ce),wholongbeforethetemplewasdestroyed–andthereforebeforethechangesKeeenvisagestookplace–hadthistosayabouttheEssenes:

Inthesetheyareinstructedatallothertimes,butparticularlyontheseventhdays.Forthatdayhasbeensetaparttobekeptholyandonittheyabstainfromall otherwork and proceed to sacred places [hierous topous],which they call‘synagogues’[synagDgai].There,arrangedinrowsaccordingtotheirages,theyoungerbelowtheolder,theysitdecorouslyasbefitstheoccasionwithattentiveears. Then one takes the books and reads aloud and another of especialproficiencycomesforwardandexpoundswhatisnotunderstood.(Quodomnisprobuslibersit81–82)

Inthispassage‘synagogues’cannotsimplymean‘gatherings’ofpeoplebutmustmeanactualplacesorbuildings thatwereregardedbyEssenesas‘sacredplaces’.WhatisdescribedhereisessentiallywhatallreligiouslyobservantJewsdid,includingseatingconventions.InfactinbroadoutlinePhilo’sdescriptionoftheproceedingsof theEssenesynagoguematches thedescriptionseen inLuke4.16–30,whereScriptureisreadandthenexpounded(v.16:‘AndhecametoNazareth,wherehehadbeenbroughtup;andhewenttothesynagogue,ashiscustomwas,onthesabbathday.Andhestooduptoread’;alsovv.20,28).

Perhapsmost devastatingof all forKee’s argument is the inscription fromthe North African city Berenike (in Cyrenaica), which is especially helpfulbecauseitiseasilydated.3Itreads:

InthesecondyearoftheemperorNeroClaudiusCaesarDrususGermanicus,onthe16thofChorach.Itwasresolvedbythecongregation[synagDgB]oftheJews in Berenike that [the names of] thosewho donated to the repairs of thesynagogue [synagDgB] be inscribed on a stele of Parian marble. (SEGXVII823)

InthisinscriptionweseetheGreekwordsynagDgBusedinbothsensesofcongregation andbuilding.The reference to the ‘secondyear’ofNero (col. 1,line1)datestheinscriptionto55/56ce.Thereferencetothe‘16thofChorach’(col.1,line2)datestheinscriptionto3December55.Inviewofthisevidenceitseems clear that buildings referred to as ‘synagogues’ existed prior to 70 ce.

Moreover the evidence of Jewish connections between Cyrenaica and Judea4increases the probability that the pre-70 ce existence of Jewish synagogues inNorthAfricacorroboratestheexistenceofthesameinJudea.EvenwithouttheNorthAfrican inscription there appears to beweighty archaeological evidenceforsynagoguebuildingsinIsraelinthetimeofJesus.Ibeginwithanimportantinscription.

Duringexcavations inandaroundMountOphel,or the ‘CityofDavid’, in1913,RaimundWeilldiscovereda stone slabmeasuring75cmby41cm thathadprobably servedasa foundationstone,bearingwhat isnowusuallycalledthe Theodotos Inscription5 (Figure 2.1). The stone is now housed in theRockefeller Museum in Jerusalem. This Greek inscription seems to provideconcrete evidence of the existence of buildings prior to 70 ce specificallydesignatedas‘synagogues’.Itreads:

Theodotos,[son]ofVettenus,priestandsynagogueruler,sonofasynagogueruler,[and]grandsonofasynagogueruler,builtthesynagogueforthereadingofthe law and the teaching of the commandments, and the guest room, and thechambers,andthewaterfixtures,asaninnforthoseinneedfromforeignparts,(thesynagogue)whichhisfathersandtheeldersandSimonidesfounded.(CIJno.1404)

Figure2.1TheodotosinscriptionThe Jerusalem synagogue inscription that mentions one ‘Theodotos, (son) ofVettenus,priestandsynagogueruler’.Theinscriptiondatestoagenerationorsobefore the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Photograph courtesy of Anders

Runesson.Objectionstothepre-70cedatingoftheTheodotosinscriptionhavebeenset

forthintheaforementionedstudiesbyHowardKee.Hehasarguedthatbecausethereisnoevidenceforsynagoguebuildingspriorto70andbecausereferencestosynagoguesasbuildingsintheNewTestament(especiallyinLuke–Acts)areanachronistic,theTheodotosinscriptionshouldbedatedtoalatertime,perhapsaslateasthethirdorfourthcentury.Heclaimsthatthestyleofengravingintheinscription is from a later time, not from the Herodian period as almost allarchaeologiststhought.

We have seen that Kee’s literary arguments for the non-existence ofsynagoguebuildingspriorto70ceareweak.Afterall,Philo,writingsometimearound40ce–30yearsbeforethedestructionoftheJerusalemtemple–speaksofsynagoguebuildings.WehavealsonotedthedatedNorthAfricaninscription,which confirms the existenceof synagoguebuildings, at least innearbyNorthAfrica,priorto70.

In any case,Kee’s late-dating of theTheodotos inscription on the basis ofpalaeographyisnotpersuasive.Experiencedarchaeologists,palaeographersandepigraphers almost unanimously agree that the orthography of the inscriptionmatches the Herodian style (as seen, for example, in comparison with theorthographyofthetemplewarninginscriptionorthetempledonationinscription(SEGXXXIII1277),bothofwhicharepre-70),notthepost-70style.6

What I find especially persuasive is the stratigraphy of the find. Theinscriptionwasapparentlyfoundinacisternamidrubblepossiblyfromthe70cedestructionofJerusalem(thoughthereissomedoubtaboutthis).ThestonesanddebrismayhavebeencastawayduringrepairsandreconstructionofJerusalemintheaftermathoftheBarKokhbaRevolt(132–5ce).Thisiswhatonewouldexpectiftheinscriptionwerepartofabuildingdamagedordestroyedin70andpartiallyclearedawayforlaterbuildingactivities.Iftheinscriptionhadadorneda third-or fourth-century synagogue, one wonders how it could have beendisturbedbyearlysecondcenturyconstruction.Furthermore,thereisnoevidencethat the Ophel area of Jerusalem was inhabited during the second, third andfourthcenturies,whenKeeimaginestheTheodotossynagoguetohaveexisted.7The lack of habitation during the second to fourth centuries strongly argues afirst-century date for the inscription – as almost all palaeographers haveconcluded–andthesynagoguebuildingofwhichitwasapart.

Are there literary references to theTheodotos synagogue?Possibly.A fewscholars identify the synagoguementioned in Acts 6.9 – ‘some of those whobelonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), and of the

Cyrenians’ – with the synagogue mentioned in the Theodotos inscription.Although not impossible, the identification is speculative and is rejected bymany.

TheimportanceoftheTheodotosinscription,securelydatedtothefirsthalfof the first century, is in its corroboration of the existence of synagoguebuildingsinthetimeofJesus,justastheGospelsandActsnarrate.Evenifweassume that theTheodotos inscriptionwaserectedonlya fewyearsbefore theoutbreakoftherebellionin66ce,thedescriptionofTheodotosasthe‘grandsonof a synagogue ruler’ dates at least one synagogue as far back as the time ofJesus,ifnotfurther.

The Theodotos inscription also attests the title of ‘synagogue ruler’(archisynagDgos)intheperiodbefore70ce.Hereagainoneimmediatelythinksof thedesperate Jairus,oneof the ‘rulersof the synagogue’,who sought fromJesushelpforhisdyingdaughter(Mark5.21–24,35–43),ortheunnamedrulerof thesynagoguewhocriticizedhimforhealingon thesabbath (Luke13.10–17).ThegrandfatherofTheodotoswouldhavebeenacontemporary–probablyanoldercontemporary–ofthesynagoguerulersmentionedintheGospels.

InActs,synagogues(6.9;9.2,10;13.5;passim)andsynagoguerulers(13.15;18.8, 17) continue to be mentioned (see also Justin Martyr, Dialogue withTrypho137).Wealsoencounter thosewhomtheLukanevangelistcalls ‘God-fearers’ (sebesthai ton theon) or ‘devout persons’ (sebomenoi). For examples,seeActs16.14 (‘awomannamedLydia . . . aworshipperofGod’) and17.17(‘heargued in thesynagoguewith theJewsand thedevoutpersons’).There ismentionofGod-fearersinconnectionwithsynagoguesintheDiaspora.Wehaveanexampleof this inaninscriptionfromthe theatreofMiletus(discoveredbyTheodorWiegandin1906),whichreads:‘PlaceoftheJews,whoarealsocalled“God-fearers”’(CIJno.748).

From time to time the author ofActs refers to ‘God-fearing’ proselytes orGentiles(13.43,50;16.14;17.4,17;18.7,13). Inonepassageherefers toone‘Titius Justus, aworshipper ofGod’ (18.7: ‘Andhe left there andwent to thehouseofamannamedTitiusJustus,aworshipperofGod;hishousewasnextdoor to the synagogue’).One of the cities that Paul visitedwasMiletus (Acts20.15,17).

Takentogether,theevidencefortheexistenceofsynagoguebuildingswhereJews, proselytes,God-fearers and synagogue rulersmet for prayer, reading ofScripture and social activities is quite substantial. But it also needs to beemphasizedthatthebuildingsthathavebeenidentifiedas‘synagogues’servedavarietyofpurposesandwerenotexclusivelyreligious(aswouldbethecaseinlater times). Excavations of a number of synagogues in Israel have provided

further evidenceof their existenceprior to70 ce, aswell as some insight intotheir function, which in turn may help us better understand the activities ofJesus.Pre-70synagoguesofIsrael

The North African inscription and the Theodotos inscription of Jerusalemprovidecompellingepigraphalevidenceoftheexistenceofsynagoguebuildingsprior to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Reference in theTheodotos inscriptiontoagrandfather,whowasalsoarulerof thesynagogue,arguesstronglyfortheexistenceofthesynagogueatleastasfarbackasthe20s,ortothetimeofJesushimself.Theliteraryevidenceisalsostronganduniform.BesidesthemanyreferencestosynagoguesintheNewTestamentGospelsandActs,bothPhiloandJosephusspeakofsynagoguebuildingsinthetimeofJesus,if not earlier. And, of course, eight or nine buildings have been identified assynagoguesandhavebeendatedtotimespriorto70.Tothesebuildingswenowturn.

Mostarchaeologistsnowspeakofeightorninesynagoguesthatdatetothepre-70era.TheseincludeCapernaum,Gamla,theHerodium,Jericho,Magdala,Masada,Modi‘in,QiryatSefer andShuafat.8Twobuildings–CapernaumandShuafat – are in doubt; the other seven are not. The Jerusalem synagogueattestedbytheTheodotosinscriptionisnotincludedinthesurveybelowbecausethe ruins of the synagogue themselves have not been found. A few of thesesynagoguesarealsomentionedinourliterarysources,chieflyJosephusandtheNewTestamentGospels.

CapernaumIn Chapter 1 it was noted that Jesus established his base of operations inCapernaum,whereweare told therewasa synagogue.Within theGospelswehaveindependenttraditionsofJesus’activitiesinasynagogueinCapernaum.Inthe Synoptic Gospels Jesus is confronted by a man ‘with an unclean spirit’(Mark1.21–28;Luke4.31–38).BecauseofJesus’remarkablesuccessincastingout the spirit (‘Withauthorityhecommandseven theuncleanspirits, and theyobeyhim!’),wearetoldthat‘atoncehisfamespreadeverywherethroughoutallthesurroundingregionofGalilee’(Mark1.28).Theexorcism’stakingplaceinapublic setting, such as the synagogue, and in a large village like Capernaum,strategicallylocatedwithrespecttotradeandtravelroutes,facilitatedtherapidspreadofJesus’reputation.

TheQ tradition – the teaching of Jesus shared byMatthew andLuke, notderivedfromMark–alsoreferencestheCapernaumsynagogue.A‘centurion’–probablyanofficerunder theauthorityof tetrarchAntipas rather thanRome–petitionsJesusonbehalfofaseriouslyillservant(Matt.8.5–13;Luke7.1–10).

Jewish elders speak to Jesus in support of thisman, saying that ‘he loves ournation,andhebuiltoursynagogue’(Luke7.5).Matthew’sversionofthestory,aswellastheindependentversionfoundinJohn4.45–54,saysnothingaboutasynagogue.DidLukeaddthedetailaboutthesynagogueordidMatthewomitit?Matthew may have omitted the Jewish delegation, including reference to thesynagogue (Luke 7.3 – 6a), because of the addition of the saying about thosefromafarwhowillsitwiththepatriarchs(Matt.8.11–12),whichwasalsodrawnfromQ elsewhere (Luke 13.28 –30). Jewish elders supporting the centurion’srequestwould have blunted the force of the contrast between those from afarwhositwiththepatriarchsandthosefromIsraelitselfwhoarecastout.

ThereisathirdmentionoftheCapernaumsynagogueinJohn6.AfterJesusfeedsthemultitude,hecrossestheseaandreturnstoCapernaum.Crowdsfollowhim there and he teaches them about the bread.When the discourse ends theevangelist says, ‘This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum’(John6.59).

WemayhaveafourthreferencetotheCapernaumsynagogueinthestoryofJairusandhisdyingdaughter(Mark5.21–24,35–43).Capernaumisnotnamedbut it is probably the place where Jesus and his disciples make landfall aftercrossing theSeaofGalilee.Thedesperate father is Jairus andhe is said tobe‘one of the rulers of the synagogue’ (Mark 5.22, 36, 38). If the synagogue ofCapernaum is in view, thenweknow that therewere at least twomenof thissynagoguewhowererecognizedassynagogue‘rulers’.

Thearchaeologicalevidence fora first-centuryce (orearlier) synagogueatCapernaum is less than certain. The impressive limestone synagogue throughwhichtouriststodaywanderdatestothethirdorfourthcentury(Figures2.2and2.3). But as noted in Chapter 1, excavations have revealed a black basaltfoundationbeneaththelimestonesynagogue(Figure2.4).Isthisfoundationtheremains of an older synagogue? Answers differ. Some think that the basaltfoundationwasthefoundationofafirst-centuryceorbcesynagogue,othersthatitwasoriginallypartofoneormoreprivateresidences.9Although far from certain, I think the older basalt foundation is indeed thefoundationoftheoldersynagogue,whichisprobablythe

Figure2.2Capernaumcolumns1Theinteriorofthefourth-centurylimestonesynagogueatCapernaum.

synagoguementionedinthree,perhapsfourstoriesintheGospels.Isaythisbecauseof the shabbinessof thebasalt foundation. It is outof square and, farworse,notlevel.Whenonefacesthesideofthesynagogue,withthefrontandentrancestotheright,onewillnoticethatthebasaltfoundationslopesdownwardfrom left to right. To compensate for this slope, the builders of the limestonesynagoguehadtopreparestonesinthefirsttierthatincreaseindepthfromlefttoright,stonebystone.Thestonemasonsdidaremarkablejob,makingthenewfoundation level.Why did the builders of the limestone synagogue go to thistrouble?Whydidtheynotreplace thesloping,out-of-squarefoundationwithaproperfoundation?

The answer is found in the Jewish tradition of building upon a sacredfoundation–standingontheshouldersofthosewhowentbeforeus,aswemightsay. The apostle Paul alludes to this idea when he speaks of Christ as the

foundationonwhichheandotherleaders

Figure2.3Capernaumcolumns2Massive, ornate interior columns in the fourth-century limestone synagogue atCapernaum.PhotographcourtesyofGinnyEvans.

intheChurchbuild(1Cor.3.10–15).Onemustbuildonthisfoundation–andtakecarehowonedoesso.Paul–oroneofhisstudents–sayssomethingsimilarinthelettertotheEphesianswhenhedescribestheChurchas‘builtuponthe foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being thecornerstone’(Eph.2.19–20;CD7.17).

This explainswhy the builders of the limestone synagogue chose to builduponthesloping,out-of-squarebasaltfoundation–itwasthefoundationoftheoldersynagogue.Althoughfromanengineer’spointofviewthisfoundationwasdefectiveandshouldhavebeenreplaced, fromareligiouspointofviewitwassacred and was to be respected. Upon it the new synagogue would be built.(Would the foundation of a non-religious building command this level ofrespect? It seems unlikely.) Islam, it may be noted, continued the practice ofbuilding on holy sites, for a number of mosques are built over churches andsynagogues.

Figure2.4CapernaumsynagoguewallThe fourth-century limestone synagogue at Capernaum rests on an older(perhapsfirstcenturybc)blackbasaltfoundation,probablythefoundationoftheoriginalsynagogue,whichJesuswouldhavevisitedoften.

Ifthisinterpretationoftheolderbasaltfoundationiscorrect,thenweknowthe location of the first-century synagogue in which Jesus taught and healedwhilehewasinCapernaum.Morewillbesaidaboutthefloorplan,furnishingsandseatinginthedescriptionsthatfollow.

GamlaPerched on a camel-shaped saddle (theAramaicgamlameans ‘camel’) in theGolanHeights,thelightsofthecityofGamla(orGamala)atnightwerevisibleto the people living below around the shores of the Sea of Galilee. LikeSepphoris, the saying about the city on a hill that cannot be hid (Matt. 5.14)couldalsoapplytoGamla.

First-century Jewish historian and apologist Josephus – alias Joseph barMatthias – described Gamla as a rugged, descending spur in the Golan

Mountains that rises toahump(‘so that informtheridgeresemblesacamel’)surroundedonthreesidesby‘inaccessibleravines’(J.W.4.1–8).Afterspiritedresistance to the Roman assault, the city was captured and largely destroyed(J.W.4.17–83).Itlayundisturbeduntilarchaeologicalexcavationsinthe1970s.Thesynagogue is rectangular,measuring25metres in lengthand17metres inwidth (Figure2.5).The interiorwallsare linedwithstonebenches for seating.Theinteriorisalsolinedwithcolumnsinfrontofandparalleltothebenches(sixbylength,oneachside,andfourbywidth,frontandrear).10Thisarchitecturalpatterniscommontobuildingsidentifiedassynagoguesbeforeandafter70ceandisamajorfactorinsuchidentification.11There is no doubt that this synagogue dates before 70 ce for the city wasdestroyedbytheRomansinNovember67,andalltheartefacts

Figure2.5Gamlasynagogue(2009)ThesynagogueexcavatedatGamla.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

uncoveredintheexcavationareconsistentwithapre-70date.Moreoverthecoins thatwere unearthed range in date from the reign of the Seleucid Syrianking Antiochus I Soter (c.280 bce) to coinsminted by the Roman procuratorAntonius Felix (c.52– 60 ce), plus a few overstruck rebel coins bearing thelegend ‘for the redemption of holy Jerusalem’. Archaeologists date the

synagoguetothesecondhalfofthefirstcenturybce,thoughevenearlierdateshave been suggested. Adjacent to the synagogue is a ritual bath, or miqveh(singularofmiqva’ot).Thisplastered,steppedpoolwassuppliedwithrainwaterfromthesynagogue’sroof.

TheHerodiumTheHerodium (or Herodion) is a round fortress on top of a coneshaped hill,situatedabout12kilometres southof Jerusalem.Herodhad foughtadesperatebut successful battle against his Parthianbacked rival Antigonus in 40 bce(Josephus, J.W. 1.265;Ant. 14.359 – 60). To commemorate this battle and totakeadvantageof its strategic location,Herodbuilt a luxurious fortress that intimewouldbecomeknownastheHerodium.Duringthefirstgreatrevolt(66–70), rebels seized control of the Herodium (J.W. 4.518, 555). Eventually theRomansrecapturedit(J.W.7.163).

InthenineteenthcenturytheHerodiumwasexploredbyBritishandFrenchtravellers and adventurers. In the 1960s Italian archaeologist Virgilio Corboconductedfourseasonsofexcavations,workcontinuedbyIsraeliarchaeologistGideonFoerster.Fromthe1970s to thepresent,excavationshavebeencarriedoutbyEhudNetzer,whoonlyafewyearsagouncoveredwhathethinksisthelosttombofHerodtheGreat.12

Excavations have revealed that the rebels converted a dining room (ortriclinium) into a synagogue (Figure 2.6). The room measures 15 metres inlength and 10metres in width. Using buildingmaterials from the palace, therebelsconstructedtwotiersofbenchesalongthewalls,aswellasinteriorpillars.ThepatternissimilartowhatisseenatGamla.Thereisalsoamiqvehneartheentrance to the synagogue.The construction of thismakeshift synagogue tookplace in 66 or 67. The conversion of the dining room attests the widespreadrecognitionamongPalestinianJewsofwhatasynagogueshouldlooklike.Afterall,ifasynagoguewasnomorethanaroom

Figure2.6HerodiumsynagogueAmakeshift synagoguewithin theHerodium,constructedby rebelsduring the66–73ceJewishrevolt.Originallytheroomwasadininghall.Oneshouldnotethe stepped bench seating and the interior columns. Photograph courtesy ofAndersRunesson.

largeenoughforagatheringofpeople,whywouldphysicalalterations,suchasthoseseenattheHerodium,benecessary?ThesamewillbeseenatMasada.

JerichoExcavations have been going on in and around the various sites identified asJericho formostof the twentiethcentury.Workcontinues to thisday. In1998EhudNetzerexcavatedpartoftheHasmoneanpalaceatJericho,uncoveringtheremainsof abuildinghe identifiedas a synagogue.13Thebuildingcomplex isdatedfrom80to74bce–itwasdestroyedcompletelybytheearthquakeof31bce. Although some have questioned the identification of this building as asynagogue, suggesting instead that it was a Roman villa, there are synagogue

characteristics.Theseincludecolumnsandamiqveh.According to the Gospels, Jesus passed through Jericho on his way to

Jerusalem. Luke narrates a story about his meeting and dining with a taxcollector (Luke 19.1–10).As Jesus departs Jericho he is petitioned by a blindman(Mark10.46–52;Luke18.35–43;blindmenaccording toMatt.20.29–34).Theevangelistsdonotmentionasynagogue.

MagdalaInthe1970sVirgilioCorboannouncedthathehadfoundtheremainsofanearlyfirst-century bce building that had served as a synagogue and then later wasconvertedintoaspringhouse–builtoveraspringtokeepmilkandperishablescool – in the first century ce. Ehud Netzer and others challenged Corbo’sinterpret ation, arguing that the building served as a springhouse from thebeginning.This challengehasbeen confirmedby thedramatic2009discoveryby archaeologists Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najar of the building thatwasMagdala’s synagogue (Figure 2.7). James Strange, Anders Runesson andothershavesincevisitedthesiteandconfirmedthatthisbuildingwasindeedthesynagogueofancientMagdala.14Thefloorplanisrectangular(thoughbarely–itisalmostsquare,comprisingsome120squaremetres),withbenchseatingandinteriorcolumns.Astonereliefexhibitingamenorahhasalsobeenfound,whichmakesitthefirstofitskindfoundinpre-70ceGalilee(Figure2.8).

Whatlink,ifany,JesusmayhavehadwithMagdalaanditssmallsynagoguewould probably have been through a prominent female follower, MaryMagdalene.ThiswomanismentionedsomedozentimesintheGospels,mostlyin reference to Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection. Luke tells us that ‘Mary,called Magdalene’ was among certain women whom Jesus had healed (Luke8.2).Thename‘Magdalene’meansonefromMagdala(justas‘Nazarene’meansonefromNazareth).GivenMagdala’sproximitytothecentreofJesus’activitiesinGalileeandaroundtheSeaofGalilee,IshouldthinkitisprobablethatonatleastoneoccasionJesusvisitedthisvillageanditssynagogue.

Figure2.7Migdalsite(2010)A first-century synagogue was recently discovered at Magdala (Hebrew:Migdal),neartheSeaofGalilee,thehometownofMaryMagdalene.Excavationandstudycontinue.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

MasadaMasada (perhaps from Aramaicmetsad, meaning ‘fortress’) is the name of aprominent, flat-toppedrockcliffoverlooking thesouthernwesternshoreof theDeadSea.On itHerodbuiltapalace, fortressandseriesofbuildings.Cisternsandanaqueduct from thenearbycliffs to thewest supplied thiscomplexwithwater. It is accessed by a steep, narrow, winding path on the east side,appropriatelydubbed the ‘SnakePath’.Oneof themost impressive features isthenorthernpalace,descendinginthreelevelsfromthenortherntipoftherockcliff. Most of Herod’s expansion and improvement of Masada took placebetween37and31bce(Josephus,J.W.7.300).

Figure2.8MagdalaStoneAstonereliefrecoveredfromthefirst-centuryMagdalasynagoguedepictingtheseven-branchmenorahwithcolumnsontheleftandright,probablyrepresentingtheJerusalemtemple.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

Through cunning and skill the rebels, under the leadership of Menahem,captured Masada in 66 ce. After Menahem’s assassination in Jerusalem, hisnephewEleazarbenYairfledtoMasadaandbecametheleaderoftherebelsandtheir familieswho assembled there.While living atMasada the rebels built asynagogue.In74ceMasadawasretakenbytheRomansunderthecommandofthegeneralFlaviusSilva.

Masada was excavated by Yigael Yadin between 1963 and 1965.15 Thesynagoguebuiltbytherebelssometimebetween66and74ceislocatedatthenorthwestendoftherockcliff,notfarfromthenorthernpalace(Figure2.9).Itfaces northwest; that is, towards Jerusalem. The structure is rectangular,measuring 12.5metres in length and 10.5metres inwidth. Four tiers ofmud-plasteredbencheslinethewalls,alongwithtworowsofcolumns–threeonthesouth

Figure2.9MasadasynagogueAmakeshift synagogue atMasada constructedby rebels during the 66–73 ceJewishrevolt.Again,oneshouldnotethesteppedbenchseatingandtheinteriorcolumns.

sideandtwoonthenorthside.AnumberofHerodianlampswerefoundinone corner of the room, along with an ostracon inscribed ‘priest’s tithe’ andfragmentsof two scrolls (parts ofDeuteronomyandEzekiel).Elsewhereotherfragments of scrolls were found, including biblical, apocryphal and sectarianworks.16

Modi‘inDuring the 2000 –1 season at Modi‘in (Khirbet Umm el-‘Umdan), about 25kilometres northwest of Jerusalem, archaeologist Alexander Onn discovered asynagogue that has been dated to the late Hasmonean period. It was latermodified in the Herodian period. A cistern filled with broken and unbrokenpottery,allofHasmoneanstyle,assistedindatingthestructure.Thesynagogue’s

mainroomisrectangular,measuring12metresinlengthand10metresinwidth,with bench seating and columns.A fewmetres from the synagogue amiqvehwasalsofound.17

IfKhirbetUmmel-‘UmdanisindeedthesiteofModi‘in(orModein), thenthe ancestral home of the Hasmonean dynasty may well have been found (1Macc.2.1:‘InthosedaysMattathiasthesonofJohn,sonofSimeon,apriestofthesonsofJoarib,movedfromJerusalemandsettledinModein’;1Macc.2.70:‘Hedied...andwasburiedinthetombofhisfathersatModein’;1Macc.9.19;13.25,30).Mattathias launchedtherevoltagainstAntiochusIVEpiphanesandSeleucid rule in 167 bce and was succeeded by his sons Judas Maccabeus,JonathanandSimon.AlthoughintimetheHasmoneandynastyfelloutoffavourwithmuchoftheJewishpublic,thevalouranddeedsofMattathiasandhissonsbecamethestuffoflegend.ExcavatedsynagoguesfromthetimeofJesus

LocationsCharacteristics(typology)GamlarectangularfloorplanTheHerodiumsteppedbenchseatingalongtheJerichowallsMagdalainteriorcolumnsMasada(sometimes)aModi‘in(sometimes)portraitofamenorahQiryatSefer

QiryatSeferQiryat Sefer (Khirbet Badd ‘Isa) is about 25 kilometres north-bynorthwest ofJerusalem (and just a few kilometres northeast ofModi‘in). The main hall issquare,measuring9.6metresby9.6metres.ThestonemasonryisconsistentwiththeHerodianperiod.Therearetworowsofstonebenchesalongtheeasternandwesternwalls.Stonebenchesprobablylinedthesouthernwallbutwerelootedinantiquity.Therearealsotworowsofplastered,paintedcolumns.Thesynagogueisdatedtothebeginningofthefirstcenturyce.ItwasabandonedduringtheBarKokhbaRevolt(132–5ce).18

ShuafatAlexanderOnnannouncedin1991thathehadfoundtheruinsofabuildingheidentified as a synagogue on Shuafat Ridge, east Jerusalem, that dates to thesecondcenturybce.Onnbelieves thebuildingwasabandonedafter the31bceearthquake. Apart from a news report and a few allusions and discrepantdescriptionsinscholarlyliterature,nothingmajorhasbeenpublished.19AndersRunessonhas recommended thatunlessaproper reportanddocumentationarepublishedsoon,theclaimshouldbewithdrawn.Jesusandthesynagogues

First-centurysynagogueswereprobablymulti-purposeandwerenotlimitedtoreligiousmeetingsandservicesonly.20Mostoftheminalllikelihoodservedas community centres (to usemodern language), aswell as places ofworshipandstudy.Accordingtorabbinictradition,mostsynagoguesdoubledasschools

whereJewishyouthwereeducated.ThelateSamuelSafraideclares:‘TheschoolwasconnectedwiththesynagogueaccordingtomostSecondTempleandlatersources.Theinstructiontookplaceintheprayerhallorinaroomadjoiningthesynagogue.’21InsupportofthisclaimSafraicandonobetterthanciteanumberof rabbinic texts, most of them dating to the fifth and later centuries ce. Hisearliest citations are two from the Mishnah (c.220 ce), but neither one saysanythingaboutschoolsorsynagogues.Safrai infactdoesnotciteany‘SecondTemple’ sources (by definition the Second Temple period ends with thedestructionoftheHerodiantemplein70ce).Safraimakesareasonablecaseforeducation and literacy in Israel in late antiquity, but none whatever for thepresenceofschoolsassuch,whetherlocatedinsynagoguesorelsewhereinthefirstcentury.

One SecondTemple reference thatmight have been cited is the decree ofCaesarAugustusinrespectoftherightsoftheJewishpeopleoutsideofthelandofIsrael.Hereispartofthedecree,aspresentedbyJosephus:

theJewsmayfollowtheirowncustomsinaccordancewiththelawoftheirfathers . . . their sacred monies shall be inviolable and may be sent up toJerusalem and delivered to the treasurers in Jerusalem . . . And if anyone iscaughtstealingtheirsacredbooks[hierasbiblous]ortheirsacredmoniesfromasynagogue [sabbateion] or a school [andrDn], he shall be regarded assacrilegious,andhisproperty shallbeconfiscated to thepublic treasuryof theRomans.(Ant.16.163–64)

Thetextandtranslationofthisinterestingpassageareuncertainrightatthemostimportantplace.Thewordsabbateionliterallymeans‘sabbath(building)’intheGreekandLatinmannerofspeaking(asintheHerodium,orinGreek,theHerodeion,the‘Herod[building]’).JosephusandotherJewishauthors,sofarasIhavebeenabletodetermine,donotusethewordsabbateioninreferencetoasynagoguebuilding,butaRomanorGreekwritermight,asweseeinCaesar’sdecree.Thatsabbateionisinreferencetoasynagogueseemscertaininviewofthe context. The tricky part is the word andrDn, which has been translated‘school’. In the standard lexica thewordmeans ‘room formen’ or ‘refectory’(wheremeneat).Inthepresentcontext,inwhichitispairedwithsabbateion,a‘sabbath (building)’, andwarningagainst the theftof ‘sacredbooks’, thewordandrDnprobablydoesrefertoaroominwhichmenstudyScripture;thatis,the‘sacredbooks’oftheJewishpeople.VariousproposedemendationsoftheGreektext, including the transliterationaarDn (fromtheHebrewwordmeaning‘ark’or closet, in which sacred books are kept), are unnecessary – the text makessenseas it stands.As such itoffersamodicumofevidence for schoolswithinsynagogues,atleastoutsidethelandofIsrael.

Whetherornot ‘schools’ functionedwithin the synagoguesof Israel in thetimeofJesus,weshouldassumethatthemenwhoattendedservicesandheardScripture read and interpreted were to some degree being educated. Howextensive this educationwas and howwidespread literacywas in Israel in thetimeofJesusarequestionsthatwillbeaddressedinChapter3.Fornowitshouldbeacknowledged,first,thattherewerepublicbuildings–eveninvillages–thatfunctionedassynagoguesinwhichreligiousservicestookplaceonthesabbathand other days, and second, that these served other public functions, perhapsincludingeducation.

Did Jesus attend synagogue services? TheGospels certainly leave uswiththat impression. The literary as well as circumstantial evidence, includingarchaeological discoveries, suggest that he attended synagogue services beforeandduringhispublicministry.OneindicationofJesus’pietyfromthepointofviewofhiscontemporariesisthereferencestothefringe,ortassels,ofhiscoat.Irefertothestoryofthewomansufferingfromahaemorrhage.AsJesuspassesby in a throng of people, the woman ‘came up behind him, and touched thefringe of his garment’ (Matt. 9.20; Luke 8.44). Later in his narrative theevangelistMatthewstates that the sick sought Jesusout, ‘that theymightonlytouch the fringe of his garment’ (Matt. 14.36).Theword translated ‘fringe’ iskraspedon,whichcanalsobetranslated‘tassel’;inHebrewthetasselisusuallyin the plural (zizioth). The law of Moses commands Torah-observant Jewishmalestoweartasselsonthebordersorcornersoftheirclothing(Num.15.38–39;Deut. 22.12).Although Jesus himselfwears tassels, he is critical of thosewho‘make. . . their tasselslong’becausetheylovetobeseenaspious(Matt.23.5–6).HeisnotagainstwearingthesignoffidelitytoGod’slawbutopposessanctimoniousostentation.22Archaeologyatteststhepracticeofwearingtasselsinlateantiquity.23ItishardtothinkthatwhereasJesus’clothingconformedtopiousobservationoftheJewishfaith,hehimselfdidnotattendthesynagogue.24

TherearetwomoreindicationsthatJesuswasfamiliarwiththesynagogueofhis day. First, he refers to the scribes and Pharisees who ‘sit on the seat ofMoses’ (Matt. 23.2). Towhat ‘Moses’ seat’ (or chair; theGreek is kathedra)refers ismuch debated. It could be figurative – that is, in the synagogues thescribes andPharisees read the lawofMoses; therefore obeywhat you hear.25But the ‘seatofMoses’mayalso refer toanactual chairor seatonwhich thescribes and rabbis sitwhen they teach in the schools and synagogues. Specialornatestoneseats,completewithHebrewinscriptions–usuallyphrasesfromtheBible – have been found in the ruins of old synagogues at Chorazin (Figure2.10), Delos, Dura Europos and Hammath-Tiberias, and may be examples of

what Jesusmentioned inhis criticismof the scribesandPharisees. In rabbinicliteraturethereareseveralreferencestotheSeatofMoses.26ItmaybeviewedinthenarrativeofJesuspreachinginthesynagogueofNazareth,

Figure2.10Moses’seat,ChorazinAnornate‘SeatofMoses’fromthefourth-centurysynagogueatChorazin.

wherewe are told that he ‘stood up to read’ from Scripture and then ‘satdown’tobeginhisteaching(Luke4.16,20).InallprobabilitytheseatonwhichJesussatwascalledthe‘SeatofMoses’,evenifinhisdayitwasmuchplainerthanthemoreornatethronesoflatertimes.

A second indication that Jesus was active in the synagogue, before andduring his public ministry, is seen in his paraphrases and interpretations ofScripture, especially the book of Isaiah.What we find is amarked degree ofcoherence between Jesus’ use of Isaiah and the way this book came to betranslated, often with much interpretive paraphrasing, in the Aramaic versionthatcametobecalledtheTargum(seebelow).Forexample,inalludingtoIsaiah6.9–10,Jesusconcludeswiththewords,‘anditbeforgiventhem’(Mark4.12),asitreadsintheAramaic,insteadof‘andIhealthem’,whichishowitreadsintheHebrew.Jesus’sayingaboutperishingbythesword(Matt.26.52)alludestotheAramaicparaphraseofIsaiah50.11.HisparaphraseofIsaiah66.24,inwhichheaddsreferencetoGehenna(Mark9.47–48),againreflectstheAramaic.His

understandingofIsaiah5.1–7,alludedtoinsomeofthedetailsintheparableoftheVineyard(Mark12.1–9),reflectstheAramaicparaphrase.Jesus’assurancetohisdisciplesthat‘afterthreedays’or‘onthethirdday’hewillberaisedup(Mark8.31 for example)probably reflects the interpretiveAramaicparaphraseofHosea 6.2.His command, ‘Bemerciful, even as yourFather [in heaven] ismerciful’ (Luke 6.36 = Matt. 5.48), coheres with the interpretive Aramaicexpansion of Leviticus 22.28: ‘My people, children of Israel, as our Father ismercifulinheaven,soshallyoubemercifulonearth’(Tg.Ps.-J.).

ThepointofallofthisisthattheAramaicparaphraseofScripturedevelopedin the synagogue, orally at first; eventually it was committed to writing andbecame known as the Targum. Thanks to the discoveries at Qumran andelsewhereneartheDeadSea,wenowknowthatTargums–thepluralformcanalsobe‘Targumim’–werewrittenasearlyasthefirstcenturybce.ItishardtoseehowJesuscouldhaveabsorbedsomuchmaterialthatisconsistentwiththeemergingtargumictraditionifhedidnotfrequentthesynagogue.

WemayaskhowwellknowntheScriptureswereinthetimeofJesus.Howmanypeoplecouldread them?Howwerebooksmade,circulatedandstudied?Weshallturntotheseandrelatedquestionsinthenextchapter.

3

Inthebooks:reading,writingandliteracy

In recent years a number of scholars have suggested that Jesus could notread,thatinalllikelihoodnoneofhisdisciplescouldreadeither.Theysaythisbecause of studies that have concluded that rates of literacy in the RomanEmpirewerequite lowand that Jesusandhisearliest followerswereprobablynot exceptions.1There are someproblemswith this position, not leastmakingjudgementsabouttheliteracyofJesusonthebasisofwhatweimaginewastheeducation and literacy of an ‘average’ Galilean Jew in the first century. ThequestionoftheliteracyofJesuswillbeaddressedlaterinthischapter.Webeginwithareviewofthearchaeologicalevidenceforgeneralliteracyinlateantiquity.ArchaeologicalevidenceforliteracyinlateantiquityEvidenceforliteracyisfound,aswewouldexpect,inliterature;eitherindirectclaimsaboutwhocanorcannotreadorinwhatseemstobeimplied.Writingintheearlythirdcenturyce,aRomanofficialordersanumberofmayorsintheHermopolitedistrictinEgypttopostcopiesofhisletter‘inthemetropolisandinthewell-knownplaces...sothatnoonemaybeunawareofmypronouncements’(P.Oxy.2705).Oneisleftwith theimpressionthat it isexpectedthatmostadultswillbeable toreadtheofficial’sletter.FirstcenturyJewishhistorianandapologistJosephusclaimsthatJewishchildrenwereeducatedandthat thiseducation includedbeing taught toread(Ag.Ap.1.60;2.204).AnotherJewishtext,writtenabitearlierthanthetimeof Josephus, speaks of amanwho readBible stories to his children (4Macc.18.11).Other texts, especially from the later literatureof theRabbis, couldbecited in which the same claims are made. If these claims were taken at facevalue, onewould conclude thatmost Jewishmales in the time of Jesus couldread.Butscholarsusuallytakesuchassertivegeneralizationswithagrainofsalt.Pride, nationalism, hyperbole, apologetics and the like, rather than reality, aresuspected to lie behind these statements. If the claims of literature aremisleading,whatdoesarchaeologytellus?

At first blusharchaeological finds seem to tell us the sameas theglowingclaimsinliterature–thateverybodyintheRomanEmpirecouldread.Ineverycity from late antiquitywe find dozens, if not hundreds of public inscriptions

(see Figure 3.1). These inscriptions are dedications, lists of names, imperialdecrees, statements or reminders of law, quotations of famous men and evenrather pedestrian things, such as directions. Many gravestones and tombs areinscribedwithmore than the name of the deceased; some have lengthy, evenpoeticobituaries;othershavethreatsandcursesagainstgraverobbers

Figure3.1Milestone,CapernaumARomanmilestone,inscribedinLatin,foundduringexcavationsatCapernaum.

(literate ones, evidently!).The impressiononegains is that everybodywasexpected to be able to read; otherwise, what was the point of all of theseexpensiveinscriptions,incisedonstone?

Totheinscriptionswemustaddtheenormousnumbersofdocumentsfromlate antiquity that have been found. One thinks especially of the finds atOxyrhynchusrangingfrom300bceto500ce.Closetohalfamilliondocuments,mostlymadeofpapyrus,wererecoveredfromthedrysandsjustoutsidethecitylimits. Less than 10 per cent of this discarded ‘library’ has been published to

date.Inplacestheheapsofpapyriinthelandfillsranasmuchas9metresdeep.Mostofthepapyrirecoveredwerefoundinthefirst3metresorso,belowwhichthesandwasdampfromseepagefromthenearbycanalfedbytheRiverNile,sothatmostofthepapyrihadrottedandcouldnotberecovered(andmuchofthisdecomposedpapyrusandgarbagewasscoopedupbylocalfarmersandusedasfertilizer). In rough terms this could mean that the half-million documentsrecovered represents only about one-thirdof those thrown into thedump.OnewondershowmanymillionsofotherdocumentscirculatedinOxyrhynchusthatwereneverthrownintothisdump–andOxyrhynchuswasbutonecity.

PresumablyothercitiesintheMediterraneanworldwereeverybitasliterateasOxyrhynchus.One thinks ofAlexandria (Egypt) andEphesus (AsiaMinor)withtheirimpressivelibraries.Theformer,initsheyday(itwasdestroyedintheseventh-century Arab conquest), boasted almost half a million volumes(Josephus,Ant.1.10).Anearby templeheldanother36,000books.TheCelsusLibrary at Ephesus had some 12,000. These were larger and more influentialcities. Ifwe had access to a large chunk of the documents that their residentspitched into the trash, would the amount be any less than what we haverecoveredfromOxyrhynchus?WhataboutCorinth,Athens,Rhodesand–bythefirst century ce – Rome? Recall, too, that Marcus Antonius apparently gaveCleopatra,withwhomhewascompletelybesotted,some200,000books.Plinythe Elder claims that in preparing to write hisNatural History he read 2,000books (Nat. Preface §17). There must have been tens of millions, probablyhundredsofmillionsofdocumentswrittenandreadintheMediterraneanworldfromthetimeofAlexanderuntilthefalloftheRomanEmpire.2Surelysuchgreatquantitiesofwrittenmaterialargueforwidespreadnotlimitedliteracy? You might think so, but that is not the conclusion historians havereached.Most agree that literacy rateswere somewherebetween5 and10percent (and thatmost of the literateweremale), with perhaps somewhat higherrates among the Jewish people. I do not dispute this conclusion.3However, ifmost of the literate were males, then among men literacy rates would besomewherebetween10and20percent.

Archaeologyhasprovideduswithagreatnumberofrelevantartefacts,suchas examples of quill (whether feather or reed), stylus, inkwell, statues orpaintings of scribes (usually seated), abecedaries (that is, practice sheets forbeginningscribes),aswellasthousandsofmanuscripts.Inlateantiquity,writingsurfaces included variousmetals (such as bronze, copper, lead, tin, silver andgold),stone,pottery(ostraca),papyrus(madefromthepapyrusplant,nativetothe marshes and banks of the River Nile), parchment and vellum (stretched,

treated and rubbed animal skin). Jewish books, especially religious books,tended to bemade of parchment and vellum (not conventional tanned leather,whichwasusedforsandalsandothertoolsandimplements)ratherthanpapyrus.ThiswasprobablybecausepapyruswasimportedfromEgypt,whichmayhavemade it expensive (this point is debated) and certainly would have made itrituallysuspectinthatitwasproducedbynon-Jews.Home-grownanimalhides,which were not ritually suspect and may have been somewhat cheaper, werepreferred,astheevidenceoftheDeadSeaScrollsmakesclear.Ofthe900orsodocuments recovered from the caves in the vicinity of Qumran, only 100 aremadeofpapyrus;theother800orsoaremadeofparchment/vellum(andoneofcopper).4

Funerary statues andportraits depictEgyptian scribes seated, cross-legged,withwriting-boardinthelap.Jewishscribesmayhavedonethesamebutthereissomeevidencethatsmalltableswereusedforwritingandshortstoolsorlowbenches for sitting. This is seen primarily at theQumran ruins, where in oneroom(locus30),dubbed the‘scriptorium’byexcavatorRolanddeVaux,werefound three inkwells (two made of bronze, one of ceramic; a fourth, alsoceramic,was found in theadjacent locus31),a low table, somefivemetres inlength and half a metre in width, low benches that lined the wall, and theremains of what appear to be two more tables. Although the function of thetables is disputed (whether scribes used them for writing, stacking scrolls orlayingout,measuring,cuttingandsewingnewones),mostagreethattheroomwasusedfortheproductionofbooks.5

We have some interesting artefactual evidence of literacy in Italy itselfthankstotheeruptionofMountVesuviusin79ce,whichburiedinhotvolcanicashPompeii,Herculaneumand a fewother nearbyvillages.One thinks of thewell-knownpaintingofthePompeiicouple,bakeryownerTerentiusNeoandhiswife(Figure3.2).

Figure3.2Bakerandwife,PompeiiThisremarkableportraitonthewallofabakeryinfirst-centuryPompeiidepictsthe proprietor holding a bookroll and his wife holding a stylus and a diptychmadeoftwowaxedwoodentablets.Thestylustabletsarefortakingnotes; thebookrollrepresentsthefinished,polishedtext.Theportraitproclaimstheliteracyof this otherwise modest couple. Photograph courtesy ofwww.HolyLandPhotographs.org.

The painting is dated to 15 years or so before the eruption of Vesuvius.Terentiusisdepictedholdingabookrollandhiswifeisdepictedholdingastylusinherrighthandandadiptychoftabulaeceratae(‘waxedtablets’)–thatis,anotebook with wax-coated wooden leaves – in her left.6 The couple, holdingtheir writing implements in a conspicuous manner, evidently wanted toemphasize their literacy – a literacy that included writing as well as reading.Indeed, the wife rests the tip of her stylus against her lower lip and looksthoughtfully into the distance.Her pose is similar to that of a fresco found at

Murecine near Pompeii that depicts Calliope, muse of epic poetry. Calliopepresses the stylus against her lower lip with her right hand, holds a diptychnotebookinherlefthandandlooksthoughtfullyintothedistance.7ThewifeofTerentiusappearstobemimickingthispose(whatmightbecalledthe‘Calliopelook’),whichwasfashionable in lateantiquity.8What is interesting is that thisliterary couple were not of exalted station, nor were they ‘academic’ people(philosophers,scribes,authors);theywereabakery-shopownerandhiswife!Asit so happens, 125 wooden tablets, preserving some 200 pages of text, werediscovered in a complex of buildings at Murecine. Most of the tablets areconcernedwithfinanceandmaritimetrade.9

The same thing is observed at Vindolanda, the site of a Roman fort andsettlementjustsouthofHadrian’sWallinNorthumberlandinnorthernEngland,where writing tablets were found in 1973 during an excavation conducted byRobinBirley.10Some500tablets,manyinfragments,havebeenrecovered.ThetabletsaremadefromlocalBritishwoodsuchasalder,birchandoak.Therearealsoexamplesoftabletsmadefromnon-nativespeciesofwood,whichindicatesthat some of the tablets were produced elsewhere and imported. Most arediptychs,typically20cmby8cm,producedbyscoredandfoldedwoodsheets0.25–0.30mmthick,withcarbon-basedinkwritingontheinside.Mostofthetablets are letters and reports related to the fortress and military personnel.Severallettersareofaprivateandpersonalnature.Thetabletsdatefrom92ceto130ce, themajoritydatingbefore102ce.AprominentcorrespondentwasoneFlaviusCerialis, prefect of the ninth cohort ofBatavians, alongwith hiswife,SulpiciaLepidina.Tablet 291 is a letter of invitation addressed toSulpicia byoneClaudiaSevera,wifeofAeliusBrocchus.Claudiahasinvitedherdearfriendtoherbirthdayparty:‘OhhowmuchIwantyouatmybirthdayparty.Youwillmakethedaysomuchmorefun.Idohopeyoucanmakeit.Goodbye,sister,mydearest soul.’11 Most of the letter is written in a professional hand, but theclosing greetings and signature are in the handofClaudia herself,making theletteroneoftheoldestextantLatinwritingsbyawoman.ClaudiaSeveraseemstohavebeenawomanworthyoftheCalliopemodel.

Claudia’s hand is in itself of interest. It has been described by a modernepigrapherandLatinistas‘ahesitant,uglyandunpractisedhand’.YetherLatinis‘veryelegant’.12Claudiawasaneducated,literatewoman.ShecouldreadandshecouldwriteanelegantLatin,butherpenmanshipwaspoor.Herabilitiesandlimitations,however,werenotatypical.Weseethesameinothertabletsandinmanypersonallettersamongthethousandsofpapyridocumentsthathavebeendiscovered inEgypt.There aremany other examples of professionallywritten

letters,closedwithadifferent,usuallyclumsyhandandsignature.ManyGreeksandRomanscouldreadandsoshouldbeclassifiedas‘literate’,buttheirwritingskillswere limited.One’s literacy should not be judged on the basis of one’spenmanship.

ThebiggestsurpriseoftheVindolandatabletsrelatestothepointjustmadewith regard to Claudia. The tablets provide dramatic evidence of widespreadliteracy in the Roman army, from equestrian officers whose literacy is notsurprising, to low-ranking soldiers, wives, friends, servants and others whosehighlevelofliteracyis.Thetabletsattesttoprofessional,well-practisedhandsaswell as non-professional hands whose penmanship ranges from decentworkman-liketobarely legiblescrawl,marredbymisspellings,correctionsandstrikeouts(indeed,amongthetabletsareseveralfirstandseconddrafts).Ifmanyof the common soldiers could read and write, what does this say about thegeneralliteracyoftheRomanEmpire?13

LetusreturntoItalyandwhathasbeenpreservedforusthankstoavolcano.Forourconcerns thebiggest findwas theexcavationof theso-called ‘VillaofthePapyri’(VilladeiPapiri)inHerculaneum.ThevillaishalfwayuptheslopeofMountVesuviusandwasdiscoveredin1750byKarlWeber,whosemenduga tunnel, following amosaic-pavedwalkway that led them to the villa. FromOctober 1752 to August 1754Weber and his workers recovered some 1,100scrolls,afewtabletsandbrokenpiecesofboth.14Thescrollssurvivedbecausethey had been reduced to black carbon by the intense heat of the volcaniceruption.Initialeffortstounroll,disassembleordissectthesescrollsresultedinthe destruction of dozens of them. Only small portions of a very few scrollscouldberead.Thebulkofthediscoveryhasbeenstoredawayunread.Inrecentyearsscholarshavebeennowinapositiontobeginreadingthesescrolls,thankstomulti-spectralimagingandCATscans(theformertechnologyhasbeenusedtogoodeffect inreadingwhathadbeenunreadableor invisible insomeof theDeadSeaScrolls).Fornow,wemustappreciatethediscoveryofaprivatehomethatcontainedalibraryofover1,000books.

Before leavingPompeiiweshould inquire into the largenumberofgraffitiandwhatitmayimplyaboutliteracy.Usuallyetchedintotheplasterorpaintonwalls,inbothpublicandprivatelocations,thegraffitiaresometimeshumorous,oftenvulgarandonoccasionthreatening.Hereareafewexamples:15InthevestibuleoftheHouseofCuspiusPansa:‘The finances officer of the emperor Nero says this food is poison.’ (CILIV.8075)OntheexterioroftheHouseofMenander:‘SaturawashereonSeptember3rd.’ (CIL IV.8304)On thewallof theBarof

AstylusandPardalus:‘Loversarelikebeesinthattheyliveahoneyedlife.’(CILIV.8408)Onthewallofthegladiatorbarracks:‘Floronius,privilegedsoldierofthe7thlegion,washere.Thewomendidnotknowofhispresence.Onlysixwomencametoknow;toofewforsuchastallion.’(CILIV.8767)

On the wall of the barracks of the Julian-Claudian gladiators; column in theperistyle:‘CeladustheThraciangladiatoristhedelightofallthegirls.’(CILIV.4289)Onthewallofthe‘HouseoftheMoralist’:‘Removelustfulexpressionsandflirtatioustendereyesfromanotherman’s wife. May there be modesty in your expression.’ (CIL IV.7698b)‘Postponeyourtiresomequarrelsifyoucan,orleaveandtakethemhomewithyou.’ (CIL IV.7698c)On thewallof theHouseofPasciusHermes; leftof thefrontdoor:‘Totheonedefecatinghere:Bewareofthecurse.Ifyoulookdownon this curse, may you have an angry Jupiter for an enemy.’ (CIL IV.7716)Perhaps as many as one-third of the graffiti are scatological. A number arecursesandmorevehement than theoneabove,evidently inscribed toscareoffthepersonwhowasusingthefrontporchasalatrine.Twoimmediatelycometomind: ‘May you be nailed to the cross!’ (CIL IV.2082: in cruce figarus).Anotherreads:‘Samius(says)toCornelius,“Gethung!”’(CILIV.1864:SamiusCornelio suspendre). If Pompeii is anything to go by, there must have beenhundredsofthousands,perhapsmillionsofgraffitietchedintowalls,floorsandtombstonesintheMediterraneanworld.TherearemanyexamplesinIsraeltoo,though not nearly as ‘colourful’ as those preserved on the scorched walls ofPompeii and Herculaneum.16 At the very least these graffiti and inscriptionsattesttoacrudeliteracythatreachedalllevelsofsociety.

One graffito deserves special attention. Although found in Rome, it has abearingonthefateofJesusinJerusalem.Thewell-knownPalatineGraffitowasfound etched on a plastered wall in what is believed to have been slaves’quarters,perhapsinthedomusGelotiana,onthePalatineHillinRome.17Foundin 1857, the graffito has been dated to the first half of the third century.18Initially taken to the Kircherian Museum at the Collegio Romano, it is nowhousedinthePalatineMuseum.

Thegraffitodepictsacrucifiedfigurewiththeheadofadonkey(Figures3.3and3.4).The figure’shandsandarmsareoutstretched,evidentlynailed to the

cross beam19 orpatibulum. The figure iswearing a short-sleeved colobium orundershirt–thetypicaldressofslaves–thatextendsfromtheshoulderstothewaist. The feet rest on a short, horizontal plank. To the left – that is, to thecrucifiedfigure’sright–isanotherfigurestanding,withonearmupraised.Thecrucifiedfigure is lookingat thisman.Theupraisedhandandarmareeitherasaluteor,asonescholarhassuggested,theactofthrowingakiss.20Betweenandbeneaththetwofigures,writtenin

four lines, are thewords ‘Alexamenos sebeteTheon’.Taken at face valuethismeans, ‘Alexamenos,worshipGod!’, but the imperative is unlikely.Mostinterpreters think that sebete is probably a misspelling of the indicative formsebetai. Accordingly the words are descriptive: ‘Alexamenos worships (his)God’.

However we should interpret the donkey imagery in the graffito, it isinterestingthataslaveisabletoinsultafellowslavebyinscribingawrittensluron a wall in their quarters. The inscriber’s spelling is not perfect and hisinscribingworkissloppy(tosaynothingoftheartwork),butit isclearthathecan read and write. In this crude and insulting graffito we have one moreindication that literacy was fairly widespread and included persons from allwalksoflife.

Thereisalsosomeimportantarchaeologicalevidencerelatingto literacyinIsrael in late antiquity. In Chapters 1 and 2, Jesus’ reading from the prophetIsaiahintheNazarethsynagoguewasmentioned.BesidesthestoryinLuke4.16–30,wemaynowaskwhatotherevidenceistherethatbooksofScripturewerepresentinthesynagoguesofIsrael?SeveraltimesJosephusreferstobookskeptintheJerusalemtemple(Ant.3.38;4.303;5.61),somethingthatJosephus,being

of aristocratic priestly heritage, ought to know given his access to the templecomplex.After thedestructionof the temple,Tituspermitted Josephus to takepossessionoftheholybooks(Life418).ItwasnotedinChapter2thataccordingto Josephus,CaesarAugustus issued adecree toprotect Jewish sacredmoniesandsacredbooksstoredintheirsynagogues(Ant.16.163–64).

ElsewhereJosephusreferstoMoses’commandtotheJewishpeopletohearthelawreadtothemeverysabbathand‘tolearnitthoroughlyandindetail’(Ag.Ap.2.175).ItisimpliedherethatthelawofMoseswouldhavebeenavailabletotheoverseer,or‘ruler’,ofthesynagogue.Josephus’oldercontemporary,Philo,is explicitwhen he asks his own people rhetorically: ‘Andwould you still sitdowninyoursynagogues,collectingyourordinaryassemblies,andreadingyoursacredvolumesinsecurity,andexplainingwhateverisnotquiteclear?’(Dreams2.127; see alsoMoses 2.216; Spec. Laws 2.62– 63). Acts speaks of Scripturebeing read in the synagogues weekly (13.15, 27; 15.21: ‘For from earlygenerationsMoseshashad in every city thosewhopreachhim, for he is readevery Sabbath in the synagogues’; 17.2; 18.4). TheRabbis speak of books ofScriptureinsynagoguesoftheirtime(m.Meg.3.6;4.1).Writinginthemiddleofthe second century, Justin Martyr, an Aramaicspeaking Palestinian Christian,refers to copies of Jeremiah in the synagogues (Dial. 72). The existence ofnumbers of Scripture scrolls is presupposed by the story of Antiochus IV’sattempts to confiscate anddestroy such scrolls duringhis pogroms against theJewishfaith(1Macc.1.56–57).

Thereisarchaeologicalevidencethatsupportsifnotconfirmstheseliterarytraditions.Scripturescrollsandrelatedreligiousandliturgicalworkswerefoundin or near themakeshift synagogue built by the rebels atMasada. Dozens ofScripturescrollswereuncoveredinQumran’sCave4,adjacentthebuildingsinwhich members of the community worked, studied and, we presume,worshipped.There isevidence that scrolls inCave4werevandalized,perhapsbytheRomanswhodestroyedthecompound.Bytheway:analysisofthescribalhandshasshownthatmostofthescrollswerecomposedelsewhereinIsraelandthenbroughttoQumran.TheyattesttoawidespreadnetworkofscribesandnotasmallgrouplocatedinaremoteregionofIsrael.

Another important archaeological find connected to Qumran was thediscoveryof theearthenware jars,whichwere firedby thekilnat theQumrancompound and apparently designed to contain and protect the scrolls. Thiscustomdidnotoriginatewith themenofQumran; itwasanancientone. It ismentionedinJeremiah:‘Takethesedeeds,boththissealeddeedofpurchaseandthisopendeed,andputtheminanearthenwarevessel, thattheymaylastforalong time’ (Jer. 32.14). There is no better description of the function of the

Qumran jars thanwhatwehavehere.At thebeginningof the first centuryweread in a pseudepigraphal text ascribed to Moses: ‘You shall arrange (thescrolls),anointthemwithcedar,anddeposittheminearthenwarejars’(T.Mos.1.16–17). Imightalsomention thecuriousstory relatedby the fourth-centurychurchhistorianandtheologianEusebius.AccordingtohimthegreatChristianbiblical scholar Origen of Alexandria (c.210 ce) obtained a Scripture scroll‘foundatJerichoinajar’(Hist.eccl.6.16.3).ItispossiblethatthisjarhadbeentakenfromacavenearQumran,whichisnottoofarfromJericho.Ifnot,thenitdemonstrates that the practice of storing biblical scrolls in earthenware jarscontinuedafter70ce.

BeforeturningtothespecificquestionofJesus’literacy,itwillbeusefultosaya fewthingsaboutwhatwehave learnedfromtheoldbooks thatwehavefound.Bythis,Imeanwhatwecanlearnfromoldbooksasartefacts.Old books as artefacts When the discovery of the Great Isaiah Scroll (or1QIsaiaha)wasannouncedin1948,somewonderedifthiscouldhavebeentheveryscrollJesusheldandreadfromintheNazarethsynagogue(Luke4.16–20).Afterall, thescrolldates toabout150bceandsowasanold,well-usedscrolleven in the time of Jesus. As interesting as this speculation is, it is onlyspeculation.ThereisnoreasonwhatsoevertothinkthatJesuseversaworheldanyscrollfromQumran(mostofwhich,inanyevent,wereprobablyproducedinJudea).Nevertheless,asweshallseeinamoment,theGreatIsaiahScrollmaywell tell us a few things relevant to the message of Jesus and his leadingdisciples.

One thing we learn from the Great Isaiah Scroll and from several otherscrollsfromQumran’scollectionisthelongevityofthesebooks.Haveyoueverwonderedhowlongabookwasused,beforeitbegantofallapartandhadtobediscarded?Sofarasweknow,allofthescrollsatQumranwerestillinusewhenthe community was destroyed by the Romans in either 68 or 73 ce.Approximately40ofthescrolls,mostofthemScripturescrolls,were200to300yearsoldwhenthecommunitycametoanend.ThebooksthattheGreeksandRomans read were in use just as long. In fact in a recent study of libraries,collections and archives from late antiquity, George Houston found thatmanuscripts were in use anywhere from 150 to 500 years before beingdiscarded.21 It appears, so far as can be ascertained, thatChristians used theirmanuscriptsjustaslong.Thefourth-centuryCodexVaticanus(B)wasre-inkedin the tenthcentury,whichshowsthat itwasstillbeingreadandstudiedsome600yearsafterithadbeenproduced.22Manyotherbiblicalcodicesshowsigns

of re-inking, correcting and annotations hundreds of years after they wereproduced,whichagaintestifiestotheirgreatlongevity.23

These observations have profound implications for how we look at thepreservationof thebooksthatmakeuptheNewTestament.If thefirst-centuryoriginals,or‘autographs’oftheGospelscontinuedinusefor150yearsormore,theywouldstillhavebeenincirculationwhentheoldestcopiesoftheGospelsthat we possess today were copied. Papyrus 45 from the Chester Beattycollection dates to about 220 ce. It preserves large portions of all four NewTestamentGospels.Itispossible,perhapsevenprobablethattheautographsofMatthew,Mark,LukeandJohnwerestillbeingreadandcopiedwhenPapyrus45waswritten.Thismeans,further,thatwhenPapyrus45waswrittenthetextoftheGospelswasstillbeinginfluencedbytheautographsandthefirstcopiesoftheautographs.Thosewhothinkthattheautographswerelostearlyandthatmany‘generations’ofcopiedtextsliebetweentheautographsofthefirstcenturyand our surviving early thirdcentury copies, and that therefore the text hassufferedseriousdistortionsandalterations,mustconfronttheevidenceHoustonhassetforth.

Thepapyri,aswellas theVindolandatablets,alsoshowusthatdocumentswere almost always prepared in duplicate before the ‘autograph’ (the signedversion)wassentout.Sometimes thereweremultiplecopiesmade tofacilitatecirculation.SomeoftheNewTestamentlettersappeartohavebeenintendedforcirculation.ThesewouldincludeJames,Hebrews,thePetrinelettersandperhapsone or two of Paul’s letters. This wouldmean the production of at least twocopiesofMatthew,twocopiesofMarkandsoforth,beforethefinishedproductbegan to circulate. In effect this factor ‘doubles’ the chances of first-centuryoriginals survivingwell into the second century andperhapson into the third,thusoverlappingwithouroldestextantmanuscripts.

Another benefit we derive from the examination of the ancient books,whether theHebrewandAramaic scrolls fromQumranor theGreekChristianScriptures, is via study of the sigla, paragraphmarkers, annotations,marginalcorrectionsandthelike.Mostancientmanuscriptsgiveevidenceofcorrectionsand annotations of one sort or another. Sometimes these markings tell ussomething about the scribe or about how themanuscript was studied orwhatfunction itmayhavehad in thehandsof thosewhoread it.Somemanuscriptsarewrittenintinyprintandseemtobeintendedforprivatereadingandperhapseasytransport,asina‘pocket’edition.Somearewritteninlargerprint,perhapswithparagraphingandpunctuationtoaidpublicreading.

ThreeofouroldestGreekNewTestamentmanuscripts(Papyrus45,Papyrus66andPapyrus75)abbreviatethewordstauros(‘cross’)byomittingthealpha

and upsilon and then combining the tau and the rho letters to create whatscholarscallatau-rhocompendium.Thiscompendiumisat-shapedcrosswithacircle at the top, thus appearing as a figure on a cross. All three of thesemanuscriptsdate to theendof thesecondcenturyorbeginningof the third. Incombinationwiththelatesecond-centuryPalatineGraffito,whichdepictsJesusona t-shapedcross,wehave importantearlyevidence for theconfigurationofthecross.Inadditiontothat,thediscussioninJustinMartyr,inhisFirstApology(c.155), inwhichheappeals toPlato’s comment, ‘Heplacedhimcrosswise intheuniverse’andsuggeststhatitforeshadowsthecrossofChrist(1Apol.60.1–5),pointsinthesamedirection.GivenJustin’searlierdiscussionofcross-shapedobjects (1 Apol. 55: ‘this shows no other form than that of the cross’), weprobably have evidence here of a consciousness among mid second-centuryChristiansofcrosssigla,atleastagenerationormorebeforethecopyingoftheGreekmanuscriptsthathavebeendiscussed.24Itseemsthatthetraditionofthet-shapedcross,whichwasbelievedtobethetrueformofthecrossonwhichJesuswascrucified,isbasedonearlyandveryprobablycorrectinformation.

IconcludethissectionwithaninterestingobservationofparagraphsiglaintheGreat IsaiahScroll fromQumran’sCave1. Incolumn43 (Figure3.5)onecanobserveaprominenthat-shapedsiglumintheright-handmargin,rightwhereIsaiah52.7begins:‘Howbeautifuluponthemountainsarethefeetofhimwhobringsgoodtidings...whosaystoZion,“YourGodreigns”.’Thesiglummaybe a combinationof theGreekparagraphos, a longhorizontal line (—) and alargesamekh(theletter‘s’),whichindicatesthebeginningofasectionorseder.The circle-shaped samekh resting on the horizontal line gives the siglum theappearanceofabowlerhat.Asimplersiglum–thistimethehorizontallinebyitself–appearsintheright-handmarginofcolumn44,separating52.15and53.1(Figure3.6).(Paragraphingforthewholepassageis52.7–12,52.13–15,53.1–8and53.9–12.)

The sigla in the Masoretic Text, the official Hebrew version of the OldTestament on which modern translations are based, are similar though lesspronounced. Accordingly, both the Great Isaiah Scroll of Qumran and theMasoreticTextappear toviewIsaiah52.7–12andthewell-knownSongof theSuffering Servant, 52.13—53.12, as two related units, perhaps with 52.7–12introducing the song. Interestingly enough, this is how several moderncommentatorsunderstandthesenseofIsaiah52—53,eventhoughnoreferenceismadetotheGreatIsaiahScroll.

Even the later Aramaic translation and paraphrase called the Targum (seeChapter2)linksIsaiah52.7withtheSongoftheSufferingServant.Weseethisinachangeofwordingin53.1.TheHebrew’s,‘Whohasbelievedourreport?’becomesintheTargum,‘Whohasbelievedthisourgoodtidings?’Thismeansthat thegood tidings (orgospel) announcedby theprophet in52.7have todowith the Lord’s Suffering Servant in 53.1. Indeed, the Targum goes on toidentifytheServantasnoneotherthantheMessiah.

ThelinkagebetweenIsaiah52.7and53.1isattestedinPaulandPeter,twomajorfiguresintheearlyChurch.PaulquotesthetwopassagessidebysideinRomans 10.15 –16; they are linked allusively in Peter’s speech to Cornelius(especiallyActs10.36,43). InChristiancircles the linkageof these twoIsaiah

passages may have originated with Jesus himself, who proclaimed: ‘ThekingdomofGodisathand...believeinthegospel’(Mark1.15).Notonlydoesheproclaimthegoodtidings,orgospel,inlanguagethatderivesfromIsaiah40.9and 52.7, his language reflects the way Isaiah was being paraphrased andinterpretedinAramaicinthesynagogue.IntheTargumthegoodtidingsofthesepassagesaresummedupinthewords,‘ThekingdomofyourGodisrevealed!’Yet Jesuswill later tell his disciples, in language that echoes the Song of theSufferingServant,that‘theSonofmanalsocamenottobeservedbuttoserve,and to give his life as a ransom for many’ (Mark 10.45; Isa. 53.8, 10, 12).Indeed,inJohn’sGospelJesusdeclaresthattheSonofManmustbe‘liftedup’(John12.31,34).InsayingthishealludestoIsaiah52.13:‘Behold,myservant.. . shallbe liftedup,andshallbeveryhigh.’Afewverses later theJohannineevangelistquotesIsaiah53.1:‘Whohasbelievedourreport?’(John12.38),thusstrengtheningthelinkbetweenJesustheSonofManandtheSufferingServantofIsaiah52.13—53.12.

ButdidJesusknowtheScripturesofhispeople?IntheGospelshequotesoralludes to thesacredScripturesmany times. Is this theauthentic Jesusor laterglossing of the story? Could Jesus read the Scriptures? To this importantquestionwenowturn.CouldJesusread?

ThreepassagesintheGospelssuggestthatJesuswasabletoread.ThefirstisLuke4.16–30,whichdescribesJesusreadingfromthescrollofIsaiahandthenpreachingahomily.Most scholarshesitate todraw firmconclusions from thispassagebecauseofitsrelationshiptotheparallelpassageinMark6.1–6,whichsays nothing about reading Scripture. The second passage is John 8.6, whichsaysJesusstoopeddownandwroteinthedustwithhisfinger.Theproblemhereis that inallprobability thispassage(John7.53—8.11) is inauthentic.Even ifthepassageisacceptedaspreservingagenuinereminiscenceofsomethingJesusdid, it tells us nothing certain about Jesus’ literacy.Hemay have been doingnothingmorethandoodling.

The third passage, John 7.15, directly speaks to the question of Jesus’literacy, at least in the narrative world of the fourth evangelist. Some inJerusalem wonder: ‘How is it that this man has learning, when he has neverstudied?’Literally, theyhaveaskedhowhe ‘knows letters’ (grammataoiden),‘not having studied’ or ‘not having learned’ (mB memathBkDs). But thereference here is to a lack of formal, scribal training, not to having had noeducationwhatsoever.ThequestionwasraisedbecauseJesushasnotsatatthefeetofa trained,recognizedrabbiorsage.Weencounter thesamelanguageinthebookofActs,whichdescribesthereactionofthereligiousauthoritiestothe

disciples of Jesus: ‘Nowwhen they saw the boldness of Peter and John, andperceivedthattheywereuneducated[agrammatoi],commonmen[idiDtai],theywondered;andtheyrecognizedthattheyhadbeenwithJesus’(Acts4.13).ThewordsagrammatoiandidiDtaishouldnotberendered‘unlearnedandignorant’,asintheKingJamesVersionandasv.Tobeagrammatos(thesingularformofthe adjective) is to lack scribal training (so Liddell, Scott and Jones, Greek–EnglishLexicon),andisinfacttheoppositeofthegrammateus,theprofessional‘scribe’.Tobeagrammatosdoesnotnecessarilymeantobeunabletoread.

TobeanidiDtBs(thesingularofidiDtai)istobeoneoutsideoftheguildoroutsideofthegroup,asin1Corinthians14.16,23and24,wherePaulreferstothe ‘outsider’ (so rsv) or ‘ungifted’ (so nasb) as an idiDtBs. In contrast toprofessional, trained scribes and priests, the idiDtBs is a layman. In 2Corinthians 11.6, Paul says of himself, ‘Even if I am unskilled [idiDtBs] inspeaking’(rsv).Paul,ofcourse,couldanddidpreach,anddidsoeffectively.Yethe conceded that he lacked formal training in rhetoric and oratory. Hence heregardedhimselfas‘unskilled’oroutsidetheguild.IdiDtBsmayalsorefertoacommoner,incontrasttoroyalty.TheidiDtBsistheunskilled(withreferencetoanyprofessionortrade)orcommoner(incontrasttoaruler),andseemstobetheequivalentoftheHebrewhediyot,asseenintheMishnah,theearlythirdcenturycompilationofJewishlaw:‘Hethatisnotskilled[hahediyot]maysewafterhisusual fashion, but the craftsmanmaymake only irregular stitches’ (m.Mo‘edQat. 1.8); ‘Threekingsand four commoners [hediyototh]haveno share in theworldtocome’(m.Sanh.10.2).

ThecommentsinJohn7.15andActs4.13shouldnotbetakentoimplythatJesus and his disciples were illiterate. In fact the opposite is probably theintended sense, as most commentators rightly interpret. That is, despite nothavinghadformaltraining,JesusandhisdisciplesevinceremarkableskillintheknowledgeofScriptureandabilitytointerpretitanddefendtheirviews.Thesetexts, more than Luke 4.16 –30 and John 8.6, lend some support to theprobabilitythatJesuswasliterate.

One might also mention the titulus, which announces the reason for theexecution,placedonornearJesus’cross:‘Thekingof theJews’(Mark15.26;Matt. 27.37; Luke 23.37). Its placement surely implies that some peopleobserving Jesus could read, among themperhapshis owndisciples, forwhomthe titulus serves as a warning, in keeping with Roman policy of publicexecution as a deterrence.According to the fourthGospel: ‘Manyof the Jewsreadthis title,for theplacewhereJesuswascrucifiedwasnear thecity;anditwaswritteninHebrew,inLatin,andinGreek’(John19.20).Itisinterestingtonotethattheevangelistcouldassumethat‘many’Judeanswereabletoreadthe

titulus.AlthoughthereisnounambiguousevidencefortheliteracyofJesus,thereis

considerable contextual and circumstantial evidence that suggests that in allprobabilityhewas literate.At theoutsetweshouldkeep inmind thenatureofJewishfaithitself.ItiscentredonScripture,whichnarratesIsrael’ssacredstory,a story that the Jewish people are admonished to know and to teach theirchildren. According to the Shema, which all Torah-observant Jews wereexpected to recitedaily, parentswere to teach their childrenTorah (Deut. 4.9;6.7; 11.19; 31.12–13; 2 Chron. 17.7– 9; Eccles. 12.9), even to adorn theirdoorpostswiththeShema(Deut.6.9:‘youshallwrite[Hebrew:ketavka;Greek:grapsete] them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates’; see also11.20).Oneshouldsupposethatscripturalcommandmentssuchasthese,whichstand at the heart of Jewish faith (Mark 12.28 –33; Jas. 2.19), would haveencouragedliteracyamongtheJewishpeople.

According to Philo and Josephus, approximate contemporaries of Jesus,JewishparentstaughttheirchildrenTorahandhowtoreadit.Philoclaims:‘Allmen guard their own customs, but this is especially true of the Jewish nation.Holding that the laws are oracles vouchsafedbyGod andhavingbeen trained[paideuthentes] in this doctrine from their earliest years, they carry thelikenessesof thecommandmentsenshrined in their souls’ (Embassy210). It isimprobable that the training of which he speaks here did not include basicliteracy.Josephus,however, ismoreexplicit:‘Aboveallweprideourselvesontheeducationofourchildren [paidotrophian],andregardas themostessentialtask in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, basedthereupon,whichwehave inherited’ (Ag.Ap. 1.60).He says later: ‘(The law)orders that (children) shall be taught to read [grammata paideuein], and shalllearnboththelawsandthedeedsoftheirforefathers’(Ag.Ap.2.204).

The claim that the law ‘orders’ children to be taught to read derives fromDeuteronomy6.9and11.20 (citedabove). Josephusgoesso faras to say that:mostmen, so far from living in accordancewith their own laws, hardlyknowwhattheyare...But,shouldanyoneofournationbequestionedaboutthelaws,hewould repeat themallmore readily thanhisownname.Theresult, then,ofourthoroughgroundinginthelawsfromthefirstdawnofintelligenceisthatwehavethem,asitwere,engravenonoursouls.(Ag.Ap.2.176,178)Thismaynotbe too wide of the truth, for Augustine claims that Seneca made a similarremark:‘TheJews,however,areawareoftheoriginandmeaningoftheirrites.Thegreaterpartof(other)peoplegothrougharitualnotknowingwhytheydoso’(TheCityofGod6.11).

Itmay be admitted that Philo and Josephus are painting idealistic pictures

andperhapshaveinmindaffluentfamiliesthatcanaffordtheluxuryofformaleducationfortheirchildren.Butitwouldbeamistaketoassumethatthepursuitof education, including above all literacy,was limited to the upper class or toprofessionals. In thestoryof thesevenmartyredsons (2Macc.7)wehavenoreason to imagine an upper-class family. In the version presented in 4Maccabeesthemotherremindshersonsoftheirfather’steaching:He,whilehewasstillwithyou,taughtyoutheLawandtheProphets.HereadtoyouofAbel,slainbyCain,ofIsaac,offeredasaburntoffering,andofJoseph,inprison.HespoketoyouofthezealofPhineas,taughtyouaboutHananiah...HeremindedyouofthescriptureofIsaiahwhichsays...[Isa.43.2]...Hesangtoyouthepsalm of David which says . . . [Ps. 34.19] . . . He recited the proverb ofSolomonwhichsays...[Prov.3.18]...HeaffirmedthewordofEzekiel[Ezek.37.3] . . .Nordidhe forget thesong thatMoses taughtwhichsays . . . [Deut.32.39].(4Macc.18.10–19)Thesummaryhereofthefather’sinstructionofhissonsclearlypresupposesliteracy.Theportraitisidealizedtobesure,butforittohave any persuasive value in Jewish society it would have to be at leastsomewhatrealistic.

Popular piety expressed in the earliest rabbinic tradition coheres with thetestimoniesofPhiloandJosephus.Thesagesenjoin,‘provideyourselfateacher’(’Abot1.16;1.6).InthesayingattributedtoJudahbenTema,literacyisassumedto be the norm: ‘At five years old [one is fit] for the Scripture, at ten for theMishnah, at thirteen for [keeping] the commandments (that is, bar mitsvah)’(’Abot 5.21; b. Ketub. 50a: ‘Do not accept a pupil under the age of six; butaccept one from the age of six and stuff him [with knowledge] like an ox’).ElsewhereintheMishnahwereadthat‘children...shouldbeeducated...sothat theywill be familiarwith the commandments’ (m. Yoma 8.4).We find asimilar injunction in the Tannaitic midrash on Deuteronomy: ‘Once an infantbeginstotalk,hisfathershouldconversewithhimintheholytongueandshouldteachhimTorah,forifhefailstodosoit isthesameasifhehadburiedhim’(Sipre Deut. §56 (on Deut. 11.19); t. Qidd. 1.11: ‘What is the father’s dutytowardshisson?...toteachhimTorah’).IfasonlackstheintelligencetoaskhisfathertheproperquestionsconcerningthemeaningofPassover,hisfatheristo instruct him (m. Pesah. 10.4). There is legal discussion that clearlypresupposesthatchildrencanreadScripture(m.Meg.4.5–6;t.*abb.11.17:‘Ifaminorholdsthepen’;Soperim5.9:regulationsconcerningproducingextractsofScriptureforchildren).OneofthefirstthingsanewproselyteistolearnistheHebrewalphabet,forwardsandbackwards(b.*abb.31a,inreferencetoHillel).Therabbinictraditioncontainsnumerousreferencestoschools,totheeffectthatevery synagogue and village had at least one school. The idealistic and

tendentiousnatureofthismaterialisoftennotadequatelyappreciated.Primarilyonthebasisoftherabbinictradition,ShemuelSafraiconcludesthat‘theabilitytowritewas fairlywidespread . . . [but] lesswidespread than that of readingwhich everyone possessed’.25 Notwithstanding his uncritical use of rabbinicalsources,26Safrai’sconclusionthatliteracywaswidespreadamongJewsmaybemorecorrectthannot.

Recognizingthelimitedvalueofthelate,idealizedrabbinicliteratureandtheapologetically oriented claims of Philo and Josephus, three general factorsfavourtheprobabilityoftheliteracyofJesus.First,theinjunctionsofScriptureto teach and learnTorah; second, the value placed onTorah, of knowing andobeyingitslaws;andthird,theadvantageofbeingthefirst-bornson.Inviewofthese factors it is probable that Jesus received at least some education inliteracy.27Theprobability increaseswhenwe take into account featuresofhislaterministry.Inthesewehave,Ibelieve,farmorecompellingevidencefortheliteracyofJesus.

Jesus is frequently called ‘Rabbi’ (Mark 9.5; 11.21; 14.45; etc.),‘Rabbo(u)ni’ (Mark 10.51; John 20.16) or its Greek equivalents, ‘master’(epistata; Luke 5.5; 8.24, 45; 9.33, 49; 17.13) or ‘teacher’ (didaskalos;Matt.8.19;9.11;12.38;Mark4.38;5.35;9.17;10.17,20;12.14,19,32;Luke19.39;John 1.38; 3.2). Jesus refers to himself in this manner and is called such bysupporters,opponentsandnonpartisans.Althoughpriorto70cethedesignation‘Rabbi’ is informal, even vague, and lacks the later connotations of formaltraining and ordination (which obtain some time after the destruction ofJerusalem and the temple),28 it is very probable that at least a limited literacywasassumed.

InkeepingwithhisdesignationasRabbi,Jesusandotherscalledhisclosestfollowers‘disciples’,whoseGreekform(mathBtai;Mark2.15,16,18,23;3.7,9; 4.34; 5.31; and Q: Luke 6.20; 10.23; 12.22; 14.26, 27), like the Hebrew(talmidim; ’Abot 1.1, 11; 2.8; 5.12; 6.6), derives from the verbal cognate ‘tolearn’ (manthanein/lamad). ‘This, in turn, iseducation[paideia] in the law,bywhichwe learn [manthanomen]divinematters reverentlyandhumanaffairs toour advantage’ (4 Macc. 1.17). This terminology, whose appearance in theGospels betrays no hint that it was controversial or in any sense a matter ofdebate, or the product of early Christian tendentiousness, creates a strongpresumptioninfavourofJesus’literacy.IntheJewishsetting,anilliteraterabbiwho surrounds himselfwith disciples, and debates Scripture and legalmatterswith other rabbis and scribes, is hardly credible. Moreover the numerousparallelsbetweenJesus’teachingandtherabbinictradition,aswellasthemany

points of agreement between his interpretation of Scripture and the rabbinictradition,29onlyaddtothisconviction.Jesus’teachinginthesynagogues(Matt.4.23; 9.35; Mark 1.21; 6.2; Luke 4.15; 6.6; 13.10; John 6.59) is not easilyexplainedifJesuswereunabletoreadandhadnotundertakenstudyofScripturethatinvolvedatleastsometraininginliteracy.

In the style of the sages and rabbis of his day, Jesus ‘sat down’when hetaught (Matt. 5.1; 26.55; Mark 12.41; Luke 4.20; 5.3; see also the rabbinicdiscussion ofwhen to sit or stand inb.Meg. 21a). Jesus himself refers to thescribes and Pharisees who ‘sit on the seat of Moses’ (Matt. 23.2). MoreoverJesus’ contemporaries comparedhimwith scribes; that is,with literatepeople:‘And theywereastonishedathis teaching, forhe taught themasonewhohadauthority, and not as the scribes’ (Mark 1.22). Although such comparison initselfdoesnotprovethatJesuswasliterate,itsupportstheGospels’portraitthatJesus was a rabbi or teacher, which in turn should require a presumption infavour of literacy. It is difficult to imagine Jesus enjoying a favourablecomparisonwithrivalscribesif–unlikethem–hewasilliterate.

OnoccasionJesushimselfreferstoreadingScripture.HeasksPhariseeswhocriticizedhisdisciplesforpluckinggrainonthesabbath:‘HaveyouneverreadwhatDaviddid,whenhewasinneedandwashungry.. .?’(Mark2.25;Matt.12.3).TothispericopeMatthewadds:‘Orhaveyounotreadinthelawhowonthe Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are guiltless?’(Matt.12.5;19.4–whereMatthewagainenrichestheMarkansourceinasimilarmanner; the same is probably the case in Matt. 21.16). In another polemicalcontext, Jesus asks the ruling priests and elders: ‘Have you not read thisscripture: “Thevery stonewhich thebuilders rejectedhasbecome theheadofthecorner...”?’(Mark12.10).LaterheaskstheSadducees,whohadraisedaquestionaboutresurrection:‘Andasforthedeadbeingraised,haveyounotreadinthebookofMoses,inthepassageaboutthebush,howGodsaidtohim,“Iamthe God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?’ (Mark12.26).Inadiscussionwitha legalexpertwhohasaskedwhatonemustdotoinheriteternallife,Jesusasksinturn:‘WhatiswrittenintheLaw?Howdoyouread?’ (Luke 10.26). We find in the rabbinic literature phrasing such as‘Similarlyyouread’(forexampleb.*abb.97a;b.Ketub.111a,111b)or‘Howwouldyoureadthisverse?’(forexampleb.Ketub.81b;b.Qidd.22a,40a,81b).ButJesus’rhetoricalandpointed‘Haveyounotread?’seemstobedistinctiveofhisstyleandsurelywouldhavelittleargumentativeforceifhehimselfcouldnotread.30 And finally, even if we discount Luke 4.16 –30 as the evangelist’sretelling ofMark 6.1– 6, itmay nevertheless accurately recall Jesus’ habit of

readingandexpoundingScriptureinthesynagoguesofGalilee:‘AndhecametoNazareth,wherehehadbeenbroughtup;andhewenttothesynagogue,ashiscustomwas,ontheSabbathday.Andhestooduptoread’(Luke4.16;emphasisadded).Ishallreturntothispassagebelow.

It should be noted too that in the Gospel stories reviewed above, Jesus’literacyisneveranissue.Thereisnoevidenceofapologetic tendenciesonthepart of the evangelists, in which Jesus’ literary skills are exaggerated, or anysensethatJesus’literaryskillsareinsomewaydeficient.Jesus’abilitytoreadappearstobeagiven,notanissue.

Indications of Jesus’ literacymay also be seen in his familiaritywith andusageofScripture.AccordingtotheSynopticGospels,Jesusquotesoralludesto23ofthe36booksoftheHebrewBible31(countingthebooksofSamuel,KingsandChroniclesasthreebooks,notsix).JesusalludestoorquotesallfivebooksofMoses,thethreeMajorProphets(Isaiah,JeremiahandEzekiel),eightofthetwelveMinorProphets(Hosea,Joel,Amos,Jonah,Micah,Zephaniah,ZechariahandMalachi;omittedareObadiah,Nahum,HabakkukandHaggai)andfiveofthe‘writings’(Psalms,Proverbs,Job,DanielandChronicles.OmittedareSongofSolomon,Ruth,Lamentations,Ecclesiastes,Esther,EzraandNehemiah). Inotherwords,Jesusquotesoralludestoallof thebooksofthelaw,mostof theProphets and some of theWritings.According to the SynopticGospels, Jesusquotes or alludes toDeuteronomy some15 or 16 times, Isaiah some40 timesandthePsalmssome13 times.Theseappear tobehis favouritebooks, thoughDanielandZechariahseemtohavebeenfavouritesalso.Superficially,then,the‘canon’ofJesusisprettymuchwhatitwasformostreligiouslyobservantJewsof his time,32 including – and especially – the producers of the scrolls atQumran.33Moreoverthereisevidencethatvillagesandsynagoguesinthetime

Figure3.7NazarethVillagescrollScrollandreadingtablereplicasattheNazarethVillage.PhotographcourtesyofGinnyEvans.

ofJesusdidinfactpossessbiblicalscrolls(1Macc.1.56–57;Josephus,J.W.2.229(inreferencetoAntiochusIV’seffortstofindanddestroyTorahscrolls);Life134(inreferencetoscrollsinGalilee,duringtheearlystagesoftherevoltagainstRome)).

Finally, the frequency and poignancy of Jesus’ employment of Aramaictradition in his allusions and interpretations of Scripture are suggestive ofliteracy,regularparticipationin thesynagogue(wheretheAramaicparaphrase,or Targum, developed) and acquaintance with rabbinic and scribal educationitself.34Thedictional,thematicandexegeticalcoherencebetweentheteachingsofJesusandtheemergingAramaictraditionhasbeenwelldocumentedandneednotberehearsedhere.

ThedatathathavebeensurveyedaremoreeasilyexplainedinreferencetoaliterateJesus,a Jesuswhocould read theHebrewScriptures,couldparaphraseand interpret them inAramaic and could do so in amanner that indicated hisfamiliaritywithcurrentinterpretivetendenciesinbothpopularcircles(asinthesynagogues) and in professional, even elite circles (as seen in debates withscribes,rulingpriestsandelders).Ofcourse,toconcludethatJesuswasliterateisnotnecessarilytoconcludethatJesushadreceivedformalscribaltraining.Thedata do not suggest this. Jesus’ innovative, experiential approach to ScriptureandtoJewishfaithseemstosuggestthecontrary.

I find an illiterate Jesus harder to explain than a literate one. Jesus wasregarded as a teacher–by friend and foe alike.He arguedpoints ofScripture

withscribes,Pharisees,Sadduceesandrulingpriests.Hespecificallychallengedtheir readings of Scripture. He taught disciples – ‘learners’ – who in turnpreservedhisteaching.ThemovementthatJesusfoundedproducedalegacyofliterature, including fourGospels, anarrativeof theearlyChurch (Acts) andanumberofletters.Thesuddenemergenceofaprolificliterarytraditionfromanilliteratefounderisnotimpossibleofcourse,butitislessdifficulttoexplainifJesuswereinfactliterate.

4

Confronting theestablishment:rulingpriestsandthetemple

WhenJesusandhisfollowingenteredJerusalemoneweekbeforePassover,confrontations with ruling priests and their colleagues began almostimmediately.Whenhe entered the sacredprecincts, inwhichwere located thesanctuaryandanumberofsupportingbuildings,Jesus‘begantodriveoutthosewhosoldandthosewhoboughtinthetemple,andheoverturnedthetablesofthemoney-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would notallowanyone tocarryanything through the temple’ (Mark11.15–16).But themostdaringthingthatJesusdidwastocondemnthetempleauthorities:‘Isitnotwritten,“Myhouseshallbecalledahouseofprayerforallthenations”?Butyouhavemadeita“denofrobbers”’(Mark11.17).ThefirstquotationisfromIsaiah56.7,partofanoraclethatrecallsSolomon’sprayerofdedicationconcerningthecompleted temple (1Kings8.43).Thesecond is fromJeremiah7.11,partofapassagerecountingJeremiah’sangryconfrontationwiththerulingpriestsofhisday.ThepointthatJesushasmadeisthatnotonlyhasthetempleestablishmentof his day failed to live up to Solomon’s prayer and Isaiah’s vision that thetemplebecomeahouseofprayerforallpeople,ithasinfactbecomeaplaceofcrime.The allusion to Jeremiah 7 is especially disturbing because the prophetgoesontowarntherulingpriestsofimpendingdestruction.

The conflict between Jesus and the ruling priests escalates. The priestsdemandtoknowbywhatauthorityJesushasacted.Hecountersbydemandingthat the priests state their position with regard to the popular and recentlymartyred John the Baptist (Mark 11.27–33). Although the priests refuse toanswer,Jesusanswersinanindirectwaythequestionputtohimbytellingtheparable of the Vineyard Tenants (Mark 12.1–11), a parable based on Isaiah’ssong of the well-cared-for but ultimately fruitless vineyard (Isa. 5.1–7). Thepriests rightly recognize that Jesus had told the parable ‘against them’ (Mark12.12),fortheyknowthatIsaiah’sSongoftheVineyardhadbecomeunderstoodas directed specifically against the temple establishment and not the people ingeneral.

At one time evidence for this interpretationwas limited to the Targum of

Isaiah,whichin5.1–7spokeofthetempleandaltarinsteadofwatchtowerandwinevat (as in theHebrew text), an exegesis repeated in rabbinic tradition (t.Me‘ila1.16andt.Sukkah3.15).Theantiquityofthisculticinterpretationisnowpartially attested by 4Q500, whose fragmentary lines 3 –7 read: ‘a wine vat[bu]iltamongstones...tothegateoftheholyheight...yourplantingandthestreams of your glory . . . your vine[yard]’. Holy ‘height’ agrees with theAramaic’sdescriptionofthefertilehillas‘high’,whilethe‘streams’agreeswitht.Sukkah’swaterchannels.Ofcourse,thereferencetotheheightas‘holy’isanobviousallusiontotheTempleMount(Ezek.20.40:‘Foronmyholymountain,themountainheightofIsrael,saystheLordGod,thereallthehouseofIsrael,allof them, shall serveme in the land’). Jesus’ use of Isaiah 5.1–7 presupposesseveraloftheprincipalexegeticalpointsofreferencepreservedin4Q500,atextthatpredateshim,andintheTargumandTosefta,textsthatpostdatehim.1

Thediscoveryofascrollfragmentexplainstheexegeticalcutandthrust.Anarchaeological discovery enables us to appreciate more fully the sensitivitieswithrespecttothetemple’sholiness.Jesus’threateningpropheticindictmentoftherulingpriestswasbadenough,buttheimpliedthreatagainstthetempleitselfwasevenmoreoffensive.Isaythisbecausethepurityandsanctityofthetempleprecincts, especially the sanctuary itself, were closely guarded. The public,moreover,wasgivennoticeinlanguagehardnottounderstand.

In 1871CharlesClermont-Ganneau found a limestone block, about 85 cmlong,57cmhighand37cmthick,onwhichwasinscribedawarningtoGentilesto stay out of the perimeter surrounding the sanctuary (Figure 4.1). Theinscriptionreadsasfollows(OGISno.598;CIJno.1400;SEGVIII169):LetnoGentileenterwithinthepartitionandbarriersurroundingthetemple;whosoeveriscaughtshallberesponsibleforhissubsequentdeath.

A fragment of a second inscription was found in 1935 outside the wallaroundJerusalem’sOldCity.Thisis50cmhigh,31cmthickandabout25cmwide(thewidthvariesduetothejaggedright-handedge).Theinscribedletterswere originally painted red, making them stand out against the off-whitelimestone. The extant text of the fragmentary inscription matches closely thewordingandlayoutofthefullypreservedinscription.2

Figure4.1TempleWarningThe famous ‘Temple Warning’, inscribed in stone, threatens with death anyGentilewhogetstooclosetotheJerusalemtemple.TheinscriptionishousedinIstanbul.Photographcourtesyofwww.HolyLandPhotographs.org.

Thisinscriptionisalmostcertainlyoneoftheinscribedwarningsmentionedby Josephus. For example, he states: ‘Upon [the partition wall of the templecourt] stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law ofpurity,someinGreek,andsomeinRomanletters,that“noforeignershouldgowithin thatholyplace”’ (J.W.5.193–94;seealso6.124–28;Ant.15.417;Ag.Ap.2.103).Philoreferstothesamelawandpenalty,thoughwithoutmentionoftheinscribedwarnings:‘Stillmoreaboundingandpeculiaristhezealofthemallforthetemple,andthestrongestproofofthisisthatdeathwithoutappealisthesentence against those of other races who penetrate into its inner confines’(Embassy 212).Allusions to the death penalty for temple violations are foundalsointhelaterrabbinicliterature(forexampleSipreNum.§116(onNum.18.1–32):‘RabbiJoshuabenHananiahsoughttohelpRabbiYohananbenGudegedah[atthegatesofthetemple.But]hesaidtohim,“Goback,foryouhavealreadyhaveriskedyourlife,sinceIbelongtothegatekeepers,butyouareasinger”’).

The scriptural backdrop for these postedwarnings includes 1Kings 8.41–43, which recounts Solomon’s prayer of dedication, inwhich it is anticipated

thatGentileswillvisit thetemple,Numbers1.51,whichwarns,‘Ifanyoneelsecomesnear [the tabernacle],he shallbeput todeath’ (Num.3.38;19.13;Lev.10.2; 15.31; 22.9), and Leviticus 16.2, whereMoses is warned byGod, ‘TellAaronyourbrothernottocomeatalltimesintotheholyplacewithintheveil,before themercy seatwhich is upon the ark, lest he die.’ Thus therewas theexpectation,ontheonehand, thatGentilesmayapproachthetemple,but therewere restrictions, with deadly consequences, on the other. Subsequentinterpretation,customandtraditionestablishedtheguidelinesthatwereobservedlate in the SecondTemple period. Partitions andwarnings against trespass bynon-members or the uninitiated were common in late antiquity and wereobservedbynon-Jews,aswellasJews.

TheinscriptiondiscoveredbyClermont-Ganneaucorroborates,tobesure,animportant Second Temple detail recounted in Philo and Josephus. But from aChristianperspectivetheprimaryvalueofthisinscriptionisitscontributiontoabetter understanding of the setting and context of Jesus’ action in the templeprecinctsandoftheriotthatovertookPaulinthesameprecinctssomeyearslater(Acts21.27–36, especiallyv.28,where theaccusation is levelledagainstPaulthat‘healsobroughtGreeksintothetemple,andhehasdefiledthisholyplace’).It is in the light of this highly sensitive appreciation of the temple precincts,especially that of the carefully protected sanctuary within them, that Jesus’remarksshouldbeunderstood.

Archaeological discovery sheds light on yet another aspect of Jesus’controversy with the temple establishment. A papyrus fragment reads: Andtakingalongthedisciplesheenteredtheholycourtandwaswalkingaboutinthetemple.And approaching, a certain Pharisee, a ruling priest,whose namewasLevi,metthemandsaidtotheSaviour,‘Whopermittedyoutowalkinthisplaceofpurificationandtoseetheseholyvessels,whenyouhavenotwashednoryethave your disciples bathed their feet? But defiled you have walked in thisTemple,which is a pure place, inwhich no other personwalks unless he haswashedhimself andchangedhis clothes, neitherdoeshedareview theseholyvessels.’ And the Saviour immediately stood [still] with his disciples andansweredhim,‘Areyouthen,beinghereintheTemple,clean?’Hesaystohim,‘Iamclean,forIwashedinthepoolofDavid,andhavingdescendedbyonesetofstepsIascendedbyanother.AndIputonwhiteandcleanclothes,andthenIcameandlookedupontheseholyvessels.’Answering,theSavioursaidtohim,‘Woeyoublindwhodonot see.Youhavewashed in these runningwaters inwhichdogsandswinehavebeencastnightandday,andhavecleanedandwipedtheoutsideskin,whichalsotheharlotsandflute-girlsanointandwashandwipeand beautify for the lust ofmen; butwithin they are full of scorpions and all

wickedness.But I andmydisciples,who you say have not bathed, have beendippedinthewatersofeternallifewhichcomefrom...Butwoetothe...’(P.Oxy.840,withrestorations)ThisinterestingstoryisnotfoundintheGospelsbutispreservedonatinypieceofpapyrusthatwaspartofaverysmallbookorperhapshadbeena text rolledup inanamulet.Although the storydepicts thetemplesettingrealistically,mostscholarsregarditasapocryphal.Thereferencetothetempleas‘thisplaceofpurification’cohereswiththewarninginscriptionsalready discussed. The debate over purification, raised by a ruling priest whohappens to be a Pharisee, is consistent with the debate between Jesus andPhariseesoverpurityandfood(Mark7.1–23).

Thereferencetoseeing‘holyvessels’maywellreflectacustominwhichtheholy temple utensils on occasionwere put on display.3 The priest’s assertion,‘havingdescendedbyonesetofstepsIascendedbyanother’,hasbeenshowntoreflect quite accurately the design and function of themiqva’ot (purificationpools)thathavebeenuncoveredintheimmediatevicinityoftheTempleMount.In some of these stepped pools one can observe dividers that run down themiddle of the steps, thus indicating that peoplewent downon one side of thestepsandcameupon theother (Figure4.2).Wesee thisalsoatQumran, inaverylargemiqveh4(Figure4.3).

Ourapocryphalstoryalsopresupposestheelitismandarroganceofarulingpriesthood that looks with contempt on the ordinary folk. The author of thepseudepigraphal Testament of Moses, which is dated to about 30 ce, givescolourful expression to this arrogance:They consume thegoodsof the (poor),saying their acts are according to justice, (while in fact they are simply)exterminators,deceitfullyseekingtoconcealthemselvessothattheywillnotbeknownascompletelygodlessbecauseoftheircriminaldeeds(committed)alltheday long, saying, ‘We shall have feasts, even luxurious winings and dinings.Indeed,weshallbehaveourselvesasprinces.’They,withhandandmind,touchimpurethings,yettheirmouthswillspeakenormousthings,andtheywillevensay,‘Donottouchme,lestyoupollutemeinthepositionIoccupy.’(T.Mos.7.6–10)Thedesire not to be touched lest one is pollutedmaybe reflected in theparable of theGood Samaritan, inwhich the priest and Levite do not stop toassistthewoundedmanbutpassby‘ontheotherside’oftheroad(Luke10.31–32). One also thinks of the contrast seen in Jesus, who touches people, evenlepersandthedead(forexampleMark1.41;5.41;7.33;8.22;Luke7.14).Thestory recounted inP.Oxy.840maybe apocryphal but it authentically reflectstheworldofJesusandthetempleestablishmentofhisday.Onemightsaythatthestoryreflectsauthenticcontextevenifthestoryastoldneverhappened.

TheSynopticGospels tellus thatwhenJesuswasarrestedhewas taken tothehouseofCaiaphasthehighpriest(soMatthew

explicitly;MarkandLuke implicitly). John tellsus that Jesuswas taken tothehouseofAnnas, the father-in-lawofCaiaphas.Archaeological excavationsmayhavelocatedthehouseofCaiaphasandthetombsofthefamiliesofAnnasandCaiaphas.AtleastonearchaeologistthinksthatAnnasandCaiaphassharedthesamehouse, located in theUpperCitynot far fromthepalacesofAgrippaandBerenice (Josephus, J.W. 2.427).Varioushousesbelonging to thewealthyhavebeenexcavatedinthisarea,revealingsteppedmiqva’ot,floorswithmosaictiles,plasteredandpaintedwalls–insomecasesdisplayingoutstandingartistictalent – and the broken remains of ceramic and stoneware (Figure 4.4). Thepresence of stoneware is important for it testifies to the Jewish concernswithritualpurity,aswesawinChapter1.5Notonlydotheruinsofthearistocratichomestestifytothewealthoftherulingpriestsandtheirpeers;sodotheruinsoftheirtombs.

Figure4.4Priestlymansion,JerusalemApartlyrestoredroominamansiondestroyedin70ce,excavatedintheJewishQuarterofOldJerusalem,thoughttohavebelongedtoahighpriest.Incontrasttopaganart,thefloormosaicpresentsnohumanfiguresormythologicalthemes.ThestonevesselsareindicativeofJewishpuritylaws.

AtAkeldamathelowerportionofatombcomplexhasbeenexcavatedthatmay have belonged to the family of Annas, high priest from 6 –15 ce.6 Theremainsofthistombsuggestthatinitspristineconditionthetombwouldhavebeenveryimpressive,notunlikethebeautifulmonumentaltombsthatadorntheKidronValleyatthefootoftheMountofOlives.

Annas(orAnanus)thehighpriest,whosefivesonsandson-inlawCaiaphasserved terms as high priest (Josephus, Ant. 20.198), ismentioned in theNewTestament(Luke3.2:‘thehigh-priesthoodofAnnasandCaiaphas’;John18.13:‘they led him to Annas; for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas’; Acts 4.6:‘AnnasthehighpriestandCaiaphasandJohnandAlexander,andallwhowereofhighpriestlyfamily’).AccordingtoJosephus,thefatherofAnnasisoneSethi(Ant.18.26).Thisisprobablythepriestlyfamilyexcoriatedinrabbinictradition(b. Pesahim 57a; m. Keritot 1.7). (For more on the tombs in and aroundJerusalem,seeChapter5.)Themostintriguingdiscoverymayrelatetotheson-in-lawofAnnas,thehighpriestCaiaphaswhocondemnedJesusandhandedhimovertotheRomangovernor.InNovember1990,whileworkinginJerusalem’sPeaceForest (NorthTalpiyot),which is 1.5 km south of theOldCity, a crew

inadvertentlyuncoveredacryptwithfourloculiinwhichtwelveossuarieswerediscovered. Happily, most of the ossuaries were found intact, unmolested bygraverobbers.Coinsandthestyleofwritingseenintheinscriptionshavedatedthese ossuaries to the first century ce. On one of the ornate ossuaries (no. 6,measuring74cminlength,29cminwidthand38cminheight;nowondisplayintheIsraelMuseuminJerusalem),twoveryinterestinginscriptionswerefound(Figure4.5).Theinscriptionshavebeentranscribedasfollows:7YehosephbarQyph’

YehosephbarQph’Translated:JosephsonofQayafaJosephsonofQafaThisossuarycontainedthebonesofa60-year-oldman(andthoseof two infants, a toddler, ayoungboyandawoman), and is thoughtbysome,includingtheauthoritiesoftheaforementionedmuseum,tobetheossuaryofCaiaphas thehighpriest, towhomJosephusrefersasJosephCaiaphas(Ant.18.35: ‘Joseph who is Caiaphas’ and 18.95: ‘the high priest Joseph calledCaiaphas’) and theGospelsandActscallmore simply ‘Caiaphas’ (Matt.26.3,57; Luke 3.2; John 11.49; 18.13, 14, 24, 28; Acts 4.6). Those who think theossuary belonged to Caiaphas vocalize the inscribed name as Qayapha (orQayyapha),theHebreworAramaicequivalentoftheGreekCaiaphas.

Asecondossuary in the tomb(no.3)bears thenameqf ’ (vowels tocomelater!).Inathirdossuary(no.8),containingthebonesofawomanandbearingthenamemiryamberat shim‘on (‘Miriam,daughterofSimon’), a coinmintedduringthereignofHerodAgrippaI(42/43ce,withinscriptionbasleos[agrippa]‘King [Agrippa]’)was found in themouthof theskull,probably reflecting thepagancustomofpaymenttotheGreekgodCharonforsafe

Figure4.5CaiaphasossuaryAn ornate ossuary thought to have contained the skeletal remains of the highpriestCaiaphasandanumberofhisrelatives.Ontheend,thewordsYosefbarQaphacanbeseen.

passage across the River Styx, a custom documented as early as the fifthcentury bce and perhaps implying belief in an afterlife.8 Knowledge amongJewishpriestlyaristocratsofGreekafterlifemythology isattestedbyJosephus(J.W.2.155–56),byatleastoneepitaph(IGno.1648:‘OpitilessCharon’)andby later rabbinic tradition (b. Mo‘ed Qat. 28b, in a lament for the departed:‘tumblingaboardtheferryandhavingtoborrowhisfare’).DepictionsofboatsonJewishossuariesorcryptwallsmayalsoalludetothebeliefofthedeceasedferriedacrossthewatertothelandofthedead.9SaulLiebermanthinksthatthe‘numerousboatson theJewishgraves inPalestinemostprobablyrepresent theferry to theotherworld, i.e. either thedivinebarkof the ancientOrientals, orCharon’s ferry of the Greeks’.10 Benjamin Mazar, however, thinks boatdrawingsdepictonlytransportofthecoffinorossuaryfromoverseastotheHolyLand.11 But Lieberman’s explanation is more plausible; after all, overlandmodesoftransport(horses,carts,wagonsandthelike)arenotdepictedinburialsettings.

Several scholars and archaeologists have concluded that the Joseph barQyph’ossuarybelongedto theformerhighpriest, ‘JosephcalledQayapha’(asJosephus refers to him). Indeed, some regard the identification as a foregone

conclusion, as seen, for example, in the confidence expressed by DominicCrossanandJonathanReed:‘ThereshouldbenodoubtthatthechamberwastherestingplaceofthefamilyofthehighpriestCaiaphasnamedinthegospelsforhisroleinthecrucifixion,andit’sverylikelythattheelderlyman’sboneswerethoseofCaiaphashimself.’12Nevertheless,thereisreasonfordoubt.

Somescholars,includingEmilePuechandWilliamHorbury,haveexpressedreservations.13 They cite three principal reasons for doubting the high priestlyidentification.The first lies in the fact that thecrypt inwhich theossuarywasfoundisnotonthelevelofostentationthatonewouldhaveexpectedtofindinthe case of a former high priest and son-in-lawofAnnas, themost influentialhighpriestofthefirstcentury.Incontrasttotheornate,almostpalatialcryptofAnnas described above, the ‘Caiaphas’ crypt is relatively plain. RespectedarchaeologistShimonGibsonisnot troubledbythisargument.The‘basement’portionsof tombs,whichareoftenall thathassurvivedfromantiquity,arenotcertainindicatorsofthequalityofthesuperstructurethatoncestood.Gibsonhasagoodpoint.14

AsecondreasonfordoubtingtheCaiaphasidentificationliesinthespellingof thename.It isnotatallclear that thesecondletter inqyf’ isayod; itmaywell be awaw, that is, qwf ’. In fact it probably is awaw,whichmore easilyexplains itsabsence inqf’ in thesecondinscriptionon theossuaryandon theother ossuary. For when used as a vowel, the waw often drops out (as, forexample, in ’lohim ‘God,’ in biblical and post-biblical literature). However, aCaiaphasvocalizationrequiresaconsonantalyod, that is,Qayapha.Theyod isnotoptionalandthereforeshouldnotdropout.IfQayaphawasintended,thenitishardtoexplaintheabsenceoftheyod.However,iftheletterisawaw(andtheyodandwawarenotoriouslydifficulttodistinguishintheHebrewscriptofthisperiod), then the two spellingsqwf ’ andqf ’ are not difficult to explain. TheincisednamesshouldbevocalizedaseitherQophaorQupha.15That is tosay,the inscription refers toone ‘Joseph, sonofQopha’or ‘Joseph, sonofQupha’(andevenifwereadyod, thevocalizationcouldbeQeypha).Thereisinfactaperson mentioned in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 4.7.7), whose name in GreektransliterationisBarkoph,whichinAramaicwouldbebarqoph(‘sonofQoph’).AndtheQophvocalizationagreeswiththeoldestreadingintheMishnah(thatis,m.Parah3.5),intheoldestmanuscripts.

A third reason for questioning the Caiaphas identification lies in theobservation that Josephusdoesnotactuallycall thehighpriest ‘Joseph, sonofCaiaphas’; he refers to him as ‘Joseph Caiaphas’ and ‘Joseph called [Greek:epikaloumenon] Caiaphas’. So even if we accept the unlikely vocalization

Yehoseph barQayapha, we really do not have amatchwith the high priest’sname as given in Josephus. Although the high priestly identification is notconclusivelyruledout,thedifficultiesaresuchthatitisprobablywisetoleavethequestionopen.

Onlyweeks after the above paragraphswerewritten the IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority announced (29 June2011) the recoveryof anossuary thathadbeenlooted,onwhichare inscribedthewords:‘Miriam,daughterofYeshua,sonofQayapha, priest ofMa‘aziah, fromBeth ‘Imri’. This intriguing new discoverymay shed light on the two ‘Caiaphas’ ossuaries discovered 20 years ago.Scientific testing has confirmed the authenticity and antiquity of the inscribedwords.Carefulpalaeographicalstudymaybeabletoconfirmthevocalizationofthenameofthispriest.IfitisvocalizedQayapha(insteadofQophaorQupha),thenwecouldhaveamatchwithCaiaphas.Indeed,wemayhavetheossuaryofthegranddaughterofthehighpriestwhocondemnedJesus.AforthcomingstudyofthenewdiscoverywillappearintheIsraelExplorationJournal.Israel’shighpriestsappointedbyHerodiansandRomangovernorsAnanel(37–36BCE)Aristobulus(35BCE)Jesus,sonofPhiabi(?)Simon,sonofBoethus(?)Matthias,sonofTheophilus(?)Joseph,sonofEllem(?)Joazar,sonofBoethus(4BCE)Eleazar,sonofBoethus(4BCE–?)Jesus,sonofSee(?)Annas,sonofSethi(6–15CE)Ishmael,sonofPhiabi(15–16CE)Eleazar,sonofAnnas(16–17CE)Simon,sonofCamithus(17–18CE)Joseph,calledCaiaphas(18–37CE)Jonathan,sonofAnnas(37CE)Theophilus,sonofAnnas(37–41CE)SimonCantheras,sonofBoethus(41CE–?)Matthias,sonofAnnas(?)Elionaeus,sonofCantheras(?)Joseph,sonofCamei(?–47CE)Ananias,sonofNebebaeus(47–59CE)Ishmael,sonofPhiabi(59–61CE)JosephCabi,sonofhighpriestSimon(61–62CE)Annas,sonofAnnas(62CE)Jesus,sonofDamnaeus(62–63CE)Jesus,sonofGamaliel(63–64CE)Matthias,sonofTheophilus(65–66CE)Phannias,sonofSamuel(67CE–?),appointedbytherebels

Before ending this discussion, mention should perhaps be made ofinscriptional evidence that unambiguously relates to two high priests and

perhapstotwomore.ThefirstconcernsTheophilus,sonofAnnas(orAnanus)and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, whose name appears on the ossuary ofYehohanah,granddaughterof thehighpriest.Theossuarymadeitsappearancein theantiquitiesmarket in1983andalmostcertainlywas looted fromacrypteitherinJerusalemorinnearbyHizma.Theinscriptionisfoundonthedecoratedsideoftheossuary,withinthemiddlearchofthreearches.Itreadsasfollows:16

YehohanahYehohanah,daughterofYehohanan,sonofTheophilusthehighpriestTheophiluswasappointedtotheofficeofhighpriestin37cebyVitellius,whoorderedPontiusPilatetoreturntoRomeinlate36ce.AccordingtoJosephus,Vitellius‘deposedJonathan[immediatesuccessortoCaiaphas]fromhisofficeashighpriestandconferreditonJonathan’sbrotherTheophilus’(Ant.18.123).

The name Theophilus in the ossuary inscription is a transliteration of theGreek name Theophilos. Among Jews the name is relatively rare. The nameappears in theLetterofAristeas (49),but this character is fictional.ThenameappearsintheLukanevangelist’sprefacestotheGospelofLuke(1.3)andActs(1.1), but this individual, who is a real person, not a symbol or metaphor, isprobably not Jewish. The feminine form of the name appears in Greek(Theophila)andHebrew(tiplah)onanotherossuary.

OnanostraconfoundatMasadawere inked thewords:A[nani]as thehighpriest,‘Aqaviahisson(Masno.461)TheinscriptionmayrefertoAnanias,sonof Nedebaeus, who served as high priest from 47 to 59 ce. According toJosephus,‘Herod,kingofChalcis,nowremovedJoseph,thesonofCamei,fromthehighpriesthoodandassignedtheofficetoAnanias,thesonofNedebaeus,assuccessor’(Ant.20.103).ThismaybethemanmentionedintheNewTestament,who orders Paul be struck (Acts 23.2–5). In the aftermath of the violencebetweenSamaritansandGalileansandvariousaccusations,AnaniaswasplacedinchainsandsenttoRome(Ant.20.131).Theoutcomeofthistrialisnotclear.Itis possible that the ‘Eleazar, son of Ananias the high priest’, who persuadedofficialstodiscontinuesacrificesforRomeandtheRomanEmperor(J.W.2.409–10),wasthesonofAnanias,sonofNedebaeus.

TheappearanceofhisnameonanostraconatMasadadoesnotmeanthattheformerhighpriestwasnumberedamongtherebelsduringthewar,orthathehadbeenatMasada,orthatheownedthejaronwhichhisnamehasbeenfound.Itisspeculatedthathisson‘Aqaviasimplyappealedtotheprestigeofhisfather,whohadservedashighpriest,perhapsguaranteeingthepurityofthecontentsofthejar.

Wemayhave the nameof a third high priest attested.On a circular stone

weightfoundintheruinsofthe‘BurntHouse’(70ce;Figure4.6)intheoldcityof Jerusalem,not too far from the southwest cornerof theTempleMount,wefindinscribed:[of]thesonofQatros

Figure4.6The‘BurntHouse’,JerusalemThe so-called ‘Burnt House’ (Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem) may havebelongedtoapriestlyfamily.ThestonetableandcontainersattesttotheJewishconcernwithpurity.Inoneoftherooms,theskeletalremainsofawoman’sarmandtheironportionofaRomanspearwerefound.Thehousewasdestroyedin70ce.The name may also be found inked on an ostracon from Masada. It reads:‘daughterofQatra’(Masno.405).

ThesonofQatroson thestoneweight fromJerusalemand(somewhat lessprobably) the daughter ofQatra on the ostracon fromMasadamay have beenmembersofoneoftheprincipalhighpriestlyfamiliesthatheldswayinthelastcenturyorsooftheSecondTempleperiod.Laterrabbiswouldrememberthesefamilies ina critical light:Violentmenof thepriesthoodcameand tookaway[thetithes]byforce. . .Concerningtheseandpeoplelikethem.. .AbbaSaulbenBitnitandAbbaYosebenYohananofJerusalemsay:‘WoeismebecauseoftheHouseofBoethos.Woeismebecauseoftheirclubs.WoeismebecauseofthehouseofQadros.Woeismebecauseoftheirpen.WoeismebecauseofthehouseofHanan[thatisAnnas].Woeismebecauseoftheirwhispering.WoeismebecauseofthehouseofIshmaelbenPhiabi.’(t.Menah.13.19,21)

This activity of violence and theft is also describedby Josephus:ButAnanias[probablythesonofHanan,orAnnas]hadservantswhowereutterrascalsandwho, combining operations with the most reckless men, would go to thethreshing floorsand takeby force the tithesof thepriests;nordid they refrainfrombeatingthosewhorefusedtogive.Thehighpriestswereguiltyofthesamepractices as his [Ananias’] slaves, and no one could stop them. (Ant. 20.206)ThisQatrosmay be theCantheras (Greek:Kantheras)mentioned by Josephus(Ant.20.16).AttemptstoidentifyCantheraswithCaiaphasarenotpersuasive.

Andfinally,wemayalsohavethenameofBoethos,whosenameappearedaboveinthepassagecitedfromtheTosefta.OnanossuaryfoundonthewesternslopeofMountScopus,Jerusalem,wefindinscribed:BoethosShim‘on,of [the familyof]BoethosEleazarSukenik links this inscriptionandossuary to the familyofSimon, sonofBoethosofAlexandria,17whomHerodappointedtothehighpriesthood,inordertomarryhisdaughter(Josephus,Ant.15.320–22).TheQatrosorCanterasmentionedabovemayhavebeenhisson.The Hebrew form Boton, Sukenik suggests, represents the genitive plural(Greek: BoBthDn) of Boethos. Accordingly, the inscription literally means‘Simon,oftheBoethians’.Sukenik’ssuggestionsareplausibleandmaywellbecorrect,eveniftheyremainunproven.

Wemayhave inscriptionalevidenceofyet anothermemberof this family.Onanossuarywehave ‘Yoezer, sonofSimon’ (CIJno.1354)andonostracafromMasadawehave‘Yoezer’ (Masno.383)and‘SimeonbenYoezer’ (Masno. 466). The affiliation ofYoezer and Simeon is significant in light ofwhatJosephus relates: ‘Jozar [=Yoezer],alsoaPharisee,cameofapriestly family;theyoungest,Simon,wasdescendedfromhighpriests’(Life197).This‘Jozar’maybethesamepersonasJoazar,sonofBoethos(Josephus,Ant.17.164;18.3),whohimselfservedashighpriestbrieflyin4bce.

Intherabbinicpassagecitedabove,itissaidofthefamilyofBoethos:‘Woeisme because of their clubs.’ The tradition is probably recalling the violencesomeof the rulingpriests practised against their lower-rankingbrethren in thefinal years of the Second Temple. Josephus refers to this violence, though inreferencetothehighpriestAnaniasinthepassagecitedabove(Ant.20.206).

SomeofJesus’quarrelswiththetempleestablishmentcentredonmoney.Heisconfrontedinthetempleprecinctswithaquestionaboutpayingtaxes:‘Shouldwe,orshouldn’twe?’(Mark12.13–17).Whatmanymodernsmaynotknowisthattheprovincialtributetaxwascollectedandhousedinthetreasurybuilding

ontheTempleMount(seeFigure4.7,overleaf).Thepeacefulcollectionofthistax was one of the primary responsibilities of the high priest and his high-rankingpriestlyassociates.18

Jesuscriticizesscribes in the templeprecincts for ‘devouring thehousesofwidows’(Mark12.38–40)anduttersalamentwhenthepoorwidowcastsherlast penny into the receptacle (Mark 12.41– 44). Others criticized the rulingpriestsfor theirrole in‘robbingthepoor’(CD6.15–17;1QpHab12.9–10;T.Mos. 5.3 – 6). None of this would have pleased the ruling priests.MoreoverJesus’condemnationofthepracticeofqorban,inwhichwhatisdedicatedtothetemple overrides care for one’s parents, would have annoyed the templeestablishment,whichbenefitedfromsuchvows.Wein

Figure4.7TyrianhalfsheqelThe Tyrian half sheqel was accepted at the temple for payment of thecontroversial‘half-sheqeltax’.SeeMatthew17.24–27.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

fact have an inscription in which the word qorban appears with the samemeaningasinJesus’debatewiththePharisees.Let’slookatthisexample.

In Mark 7.6 –13 Jesus makes critical reference to the qorban tradition,wherebyassetsandpropertyareconsecratedor‘given’toGodandarethereforeno longer available for profane or secular use. In some cases, Pharisaicapplicationofthistraditioncouldhavenegativeconsequences.AsJesusputsit:yousay,‘Ifamantellshisfatherorhismother,“Whatyouwouldhavegained

frommeisqorban”’(thatis,giventoGod)–thenyounolongerpermithimtodoanythingforhisfatherormother.(vv. 11–12) In thepast, commentators usuallymade reference to themishnaicrulesofqorban(esp.asspelledoutinthetractateNedarim).

However, four inscriptions have come to light that attest to the custom towhich Jesus alluded and clarify it helpfully. In 1893 Father Marie-JosephLagrangepublishedtwooftheseinscriptions.Thefirst isfoundonalimestoneblock (2.4mby 40 cm) that had been discovered in the excavation ofMountZion,near‘David’sGate’.TheinscriptionisinAramaicanditreads:forthefire,agift

Lagrangeplausibly surmises that this inscriptionhas todowith someone’svowtoprovideforthefireforthealtar,asseen,forexample,inm.Ned.1.3andotherpassageswhereqorbanvowsarediscussedandtheprovisionoffireforthealtarisoneoftheexamples.Lagrangecitesasecondinscription,thisonefoundonanossuarydiscoveredontheMountofOlives.Itreads:forthefire,agift– Martha The meaning here is probably the same as in the case of the firstinscription. In this case thedonorof the consecratedgift for the altar fire is awoman named Martha. Because her name and the inscription appear on anossuary,itispossiblethathergiftwasabequest.19

Intheaftermathofthe1967SixDayWar,whichresultedineastJerusalemfallingintoIsraelihands,aseriesofexcavationsgotunderwaythatuncoveredthe ruins of amansion – the so-called ‘BurntHouse’ – and a variety of otherinterestingfinds.SecuringtheWesternWalloftheTempleMountfinallymadeitpossibletoexcavatesafelyinthisareaaswell.Inthevicinityofthesouthwestcornerof theHerodianwall thatsupports theTempleMount thefragmentofastonevessel–perhapsoneof its legs–wasuncovered thatbore the inscribedwordqrbn.20

Thewordqorbanor‘gift’(qrbn)isfoundwrittenalongwithpicturesoftwobirds (theword, in fact, seems tobe superimposedover thebirds;Figure4.8).MazarwondersifuseofthisstonevesselhadanythingtodowithLeviticus12.8,thewoman’sofferingafterchildbirth:‘Andifshecannotaffordalamb,thensheshalltaketwoturtledovesortwoyoungpigeons,oneforaburntofferingandtheother for a sin offering; and the priest shallmake atonement for her, and sheshallbeclean.’Mazaralsocallsourattention tom.Ma‘a?.*.4.10: ‘Onewhofindsavesseluponwhichisinscribed[theword]“offering”[qrbn].’

Figure4.8Qorbaninscription,JerusalemA stone with the word inscribed qrbn (qorban), ‘gift’, found in Jerusalem.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

Itisthefourthinscription,foundonanossuarythatwasdiscoveredin1956,firstpublishedanddiscussedbyJózefTadeuszMilik,thathasgivenuswhatisprobably theparallel to Jesus’ reference toqorban inMark7.The inscription,found on the lid of the ossuary, is inAramaic and probably dates to the firstcentury bce. Joseph Fitzmyer has transcribed and translated the inscription asfollows:Everything that amanwill find tohisprofit in thisossuary [is] anoffering toGodfromtheonewithinit.21

Qrbn is translated ‘an offering’, its normal meaning. Milik thought theinscription pronounced a curse on anyone who pilfered the contents of theossuary, so he translated: ‘Whoeverwill re-use this ossuary to his profit,maytherebe a curseofGodonbehalf of himwho is inside!’Milik acknowledgesthat qrbn is literally ‘offering’. But he understands this offering in animprecatorysense,aswesometimesseeinrabbinicuseofthesynonymqonam(forexamplem.Ned.4.5).Fitzmyerrightlyfindsthisreasoningunconvincing.

He thinks itbetter tounderstand the inscriptionasacloseparallel toMark7.11. ‘Thenew inscriptiondoesnot alter the senseof theword inMattheworMarkbutprovides aperfect contemporaryparallel.’He is correct.TheqorbaninscriptionthusprovidesavaluableparalleltopartofJesus’teaching,whichinthisinstancestandsintensionwithPharisaichalakahandmayhavehad–fromthepointofviewof the rulingpriests–worrisome implications for the templeestablishment.

Finally, there are two other closely related aspects of Jesus’ ministry thatmay not have been appreciated by the priesthood: healing and forgiveness ofsins.The latter isnothard tounderstand.Jesussays to theparalysedmanwhohasbeenloweredthroughtheroofofthehouseinwhichhewasteaching(Mark2.1–12):‘Myson,yoursinsareforgiven’(v.6).Thescribeswhoarepresentareshocked and ask: ‘Why does thisman speak thus? It is blasphemy!Who canforgivesinsbutGodalone?’(v.7).NotonlyisGodtheonewhoforgivessins(Exod.34.6–7;Isa.43.25),hisforgivenessisannouncedthroughthepriestsandthesacrificialsystem(Exod.30.10;Lev.4.3),andononeoccasionaprophet(2Sam.12.13). Ineffect Jesushasusurped thepriestly function.The scribeshadchallenged Jesus’ authority and hemet the challenge by healing the paralysedman,somethingfarmoredifficult thanmerelymouthingthewords, ‘Yoursinsareforgiven.’Priestscandothis,butcantheysaytothesick,‘Rise,takeupyourpalletandwalk’(vv.9,11)?

We see this againwhen Jesus heals the leper (Mark1.40– 45).The leperkneelsbefore Jesus,beseechinghim: ‘Ifyouwill,youcanmakemeclean’ (v.40).Jesusreplies,‘Iwill;beclean’(v.41).JesusmayhaveimplicitlychallengedpriestlyauthoritybutheneverthelessrespectsthelawofMoses.Hecommandsthehealedman: ‘Go, showyourself to thepriest, andoffer for your cleansingwhat Moses commanded, for a testimony to the people’ (v. 44). JesuspronouncesthemancleanbutordershimtocomplywithMoses(Lev.13.6,13,23, etc.). After all, according to Moses a person is not ‘clean’ (or free fromleprosy)untilthepriestinspectshimandsaysheisclean.TothispointJesushasrespectedbothMosesandtheroleofthevillagepriest.Buthealsosaysthattheman is to do this as a ‘testimony’ (marturian) to the people.A testimony? Inwhat sense? Implicit in this instruction is a challenge. The healed man is tocomplywith the lawofMoses,but incomplying(andbeingdeclaredcleanbythevillagepriest),thepeopleknowthatitwasbytheauthorityofJesusthatthemanwas cleansed of his leprosy. The priest can only confirmwhat Jesus hasdoneandwhatJesushimselfpronounced:‘Beclean’.

Some interpreters have suggested that therewas no leprosy in the time ofJesus, thatHansen’sDiseasebecameknownin theMiddleEastata laterdate.However,thankstoarchaeologythereisnowdramaticevidenceofitsexistenceintheearlyfirstcentury.Scientific testingof theburialshroudin theso-called‘Shroud Tomb’ has confirmed the presence of leprosy. The shroud wasdiscoveredin2000inAkeldamainthelowerHinnomValleyinJerusalem.Thetombwasdiscoveredquitebychance, thanks inpart to thepresenceoffreshlybroken ossuaries – evidence of recent vandalism. Shimon Gibson entered thetomb and found that many of its ossuaries and skeletal contents had been

smashed.Fortunatelytheremainsofaskeleton,wrappedinashroud,werelyingundisturbed in a niche. Not only were portions of the shroud still intact butclumpsofhumanhairwereattachedtoit.Itwasaremarkablefind.

AcceleratorMass Spectrometry (AMS) radio carbon dating confirmed thefirst-centurydateofboth shroudand skeletal remains.DNA testing confirmedthatthemanwrappedintheshroudwasrelatedtoothermemberswhoseskeletalremainswere recovered in the tomb. ThisDNA testing also revealed that theman had suffered from leprosy (MycobacteriumLeprae orHansen’sDisease),thoughhisimmediatecauseofdeathwasfromthecomplicationsoftuberculosis(it is not uncommon for sufferers of leprosy also to contract tuberculosis).Becauseofthehighqualityofthetombanditslocationnearothertombsofhighquality,Gibson deduces – rightly inmy opinion – that themanwho sufferedfromleprosywasfromanaristocraticfamilyandperhapswasamemberofthepriestly aristocracy.22 In this amazingdiscoverywehave further evidence thatwealthandpowerdidnotconfer immunityfromseriousdiseaseand illness. Inanycase,themanfoundintheShroudTombconfirmsthepresenceofleprosyinIsraelinthetimeofJesus.

MedicalexaminationoftheremainsofhundredsofpeoplefromthetimeofJesushasrevealedevidenceofhighinfantmortalityandwidespreadillness,suchas caused from parasites. The skeletal evidence indicates that 48 per cent ofthose interred in theAkeldama tomb did not reach adulthood and that severalwho did suffered fromvarious infirmities, including those caused by parasitessuchastapeworm,asindicatedbythecalcifiedcystsleftbehind.AnthropologistJoe Zias, who has examined the remains of hundreds of people from lateantiquity, remarks that ‘the relative wealth of the families buried here,manifestedbytombarchitectureandtheossuaries,didnotconferanysignificanthealthadvantages’.

Itmightbementionedthattheforensicevidencefromtheso-calledCaiaphastomb is similar.This tombcontained the remainsofapproximately63persons(lootingmakesanexactbodycountimpossible).Onlyone-thirdofthesepersonsreachedadulthood,andsomeskeletonsexhibitedsignsofdegenerativedisease.23Indeed,theTombofJason–alarge,ornatecomplex–offersmanyfeaturesofinterest.24Again,forensicevidenceissuggestive.Ofthe25individualsinterredinthis tombonlythreelivedbeyondtheageof25(tendiedbytheageof12).Life expectancy was short in the time of Jesus – more than half died beforereaching30.25

Theevidencefromthesetombs,thoughadmittedlyasasamplequitelimitedin timeandplace,neverthelessdoesassistus inbetterappreciating thehealing

dimension in Jesus’ ministry. If the wealthy, who have access to the bestphysiciansandmedicines,werenobetteroffthantheinmatesoftheAkeldama,Caiaphas and Jason tombs, it’s not hard to see why Jesus, who enjoyed thereputationof ahealer,drew largecrowds that at timesactually interferedwithhisactivities(forexampleMark1.28,32–34,36–37,45;2.1–4;3.7–12;4.1).EventhewealthywouldlikelyhavesoughtaidfromJesus,asperhapsinthecaseofthesynagogueofficial(Mark5.21–24)orthewomanofmeanswhohadspentmuchondoctors(Mark5.25–26).

ThereisanotherdimensiontoJesus’successashealerandexorcistandthewidespread fame that went with this success. Because he could heal moreeffectively than the scribes and priests (and never demanded payment!), andbecausehedaredtopronouncepeopleforgiven,whole,cleanand‘released’,itisnottoosurprisingthathemadesomeenemiesalongtheway.Butitisonethingto trespass against scribes or village priests, quite another to offend thearistocraticpriesthoodofJerusalem.ThiswillbeoneofthetopicsinChapter5.

5

Lifewiththedead:Jewishburialtraditions

The Jewish people buried their dead, then later gathered the bones andplacedthemincontainerscalledossuariesoravaultsetasidefor thispurpose.The practice of gathering the bones of the deceased is called ossilegium orsecondary burial (y. Mo‘ed Qat. 1.5, 80c: ‘At first they would bury them inditches,andwhenthefleshhaddecayed,theywouldgatherthebonesandburythem in ossuaries’). How far back this practice may be traced and where itoriginatedaremajorquestionsthatlieattheheartofthedebatesurroundingthesignificanceofthenumerousossuariesfoundinandaroundJerusalem,datingtotheHerodianperiod(c.35bce–70ce).1

Inmyview, themostplausibleexplanationfor thedramatic increasein thenumber of ossuaries put into use in the time of Herod the Great and hissuccessors is that it had todowithHerod’s extensivebuildingprojects in andaround Jerusalem, especially those concernedwith theTempleMount and thenewSanctuary (see Josephus,Ant.15.390).TheTempleMountwasenormousandincludedaseriesofbuildingsandcolonnades,withtheSanctuaryitselfthemostimpressiveofallofthestructures.Josephusemphasizesthesizeandbeautyof thestones(forexampleAnt.15.399;Mark13.1:‘Look,Teacher,what largestonesandwhatlargebuildings!’).AlthoughtheSanctuaryitselfandotherkeystructures were completed in Herod’s lifetime, work on the Temple Mountcontinueduntil64ce,throughouttherespectiveadministrationsofhissurvivingsons,hisgrandsonAgrippaIandhisgreat-grandsonAgrippaII.Accordinglythemeaning of the remark in John 2.20 implies ongoing construction and notcompletion.Itshouldread:‘This templehasbeenunderconstructionforforty-sixyears.’Whenworkon theTempleMountwas finally completed, Josephustells us that 18,000 workers were laid off (Ant. 20.219). This massive layoffcontributedtothegrowingsocialandpoliticalinstabilitythatjusttwoyearslaterexplodedintoopenrebellion.

It is in this chronological coincidence between Herod’s massive buildingprogramme,whichemployed thousandsofstonecuttersduringhis reign(in the30sbceto64ce),andtheappearanceofthousandsofossuaries,carvedfromthesame type of stone (limestone) from which almost all of the Temple Mount

buildingswerefashioned,thatwefindtheanswertoourquestion.Thenumberofossuariesthatweremadeoflimestoneincreaseddramaticallyduringtheonecentury of temple-related building in Jerusalem, not because of a shift intheologyor foreign influence but because of the great number of stonecutters,quarriesandrejectedblocksoflimestone.Theincreaseofthecity’spopulationanditsurbanandsuburbansprawlalsoencouragedgreaterdensityinburialsites.Simplyput,moredead relatives canbe interred in the familyvault if theyareplacedinossuariesthaniftheyareleftlyinginnichesorinfullsizedsarcophagi.Although these factors came into play primarily in Jerusalem, their influencemayaccountfortheappearanceofossuariesinJerichoandelsewhereduringthisperiod.HowtheJewishpeopleburiedtheirdead

SowhatwereJewishburialpractices in the firstcentury?First,burial tookplaceonthedayofdeathor,ifdeathoccurredattheendofthedayorduringthenight, the following day. Knowing this lends a great deal of pathos to someotherwisefamiliarGospelstories.WethinkofthestoryofthewidowfromthecityofNain:‘Asheapproachedthegateofthetown,amanwhohaddiedwasbeingcarriedout.Hewashismother’sonlysonandshewasawidow;andwithherwasa largecrowdfromthe town’(Luke7.12).Heronlysonhaddied thatday(or theeveningbefore).Hersorrowisat its rawestwhenJesusencountersher.WealsothinkofthedesperatefatherwhohurriesJesustohishome,hopinghewill arrive in time to heal his dying daughter: ‘Jesus came to the leader’shouse and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion’ (Matt.9.23).As it turnsout,by the time theyarrive thegirlhasdiedand the funeralprocess,completewithmusicandweeping,isalreadyunderway.

Following death, the body was washed and wrapped. We can find thiscustommentionedinseveralepisodesintheGospelsandelsewhere.WeseeitinthestoryofLazarus,whowasboundandwrappedwithcloths(John11.44).ThebodyofJesusiswrappedinacleanlinenshroud(Matt.27.59;Luke23.53;John19.40).ThebodyofAnaniasiswrappedandburied(Acts5.6);soalsoDorcas,who‘becameillanddied.When theyhadwashedher, they laidher ina roomupstairs’(Acts9.37).Moreoverthecorpsewasusuallyperfumed(Josephus,Ant.15.61;forspices,seeAnt.17.196–99;John19.39–40).

Thedayofburialwasthefirstofsevendaysofmourning(Semahot12.1).This isclearly statedby first-centuryJewishhistorianJosephus in reference tothe death, burial and funeral of Herod the Great (d. 4 bce): ‘Now Archelaus[Herod’soldestsurvivingson]continuedtomournforsevendaysoutofrespectforhisfather–thecustomofthecountryprescribesthisnumberofdays–andthen,afterfeastingthecrowdsandmakinganendofthemourning,hewentup

tothetemple’(Ant.17.200).ThecustomofsevendaysofmourningarosefromScriptureitself:Joseph‘observedatimeofmourningforhisfathersevendays’(Gen.50.10);andinreferencetotheremainsofkingSaulandhissons,Israelitemen ‘took their bones and buried themunder the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, andfastedsevendays’(1Sam.31.13).

Mourning normally took place at the tomb’s entrance or within the tombitself.This iswhy archaeologists sometimes find a portionof the floor carvedoutmoredeeply,allowingmourners topraystandingupright, according to theJewishcustom(seethetombopenforviewingatDominusFlevitontheMountofOlives,Figure5.1).Ofcourse,standinginsidethetombwaswhythecorpsewas perfumed.Many perfume bottles and jars have been found in tombs andburial caves. One can only imagine how unpleasant the tomb would havebecomebythesixthandseventhdays.

Oneyearafterdeathitwascustomarytogatherthebonesandplacethemina bone niche or in an ossuary. As noted, this is sometimes called secondaryburial,andisreadilyobservedinthearchaeologicalexcavationsofJewishtombsinthetimeofJesus.Itisalsoattestedinlaterrabbinicliterature:‘Whenthefleshhadwastedawaytheygatheredtogetherthebonesandburiedthemintheirownplace’

Figure5.1Ossuaries,MountofOlivesTheinteriorofaburialcryptatDominusFlevit(‘TheLordwept’)ontheMountofOlives.Mostoftheossuaries,inwhichthebonesofthedeadweregatheredandreburied,areofadultsize.Child-sizedossuariesarerarebecausetheskeletalremains of childrenwere usually placedwith those of adult relatives in largerossuaries.PhotographcourtesyofAndersRunesson.

(m.Sanh.6.6);‘Myson,burymeatfirst inaniche.Inthecourseoftime,collectmybonesandputtheminanossuarybutdonotgatherthemwithyourownhands’(Semahot12.9;seealsoSemahot3.2).Thecustomoftheintervalof12monthsfromprimarytosecondaryburialisalsoattestedinrabbinicliterature(b.Qidd.31b).

Forexecutedcriminals,however,therulesweredifferent.Criminalsweretobeburiedproperly,butnotinplacesofhonoursuchasthefamilytomb.Thisisclearly taught in the earliest writings of the Rabbis: ‘They did not bury [theexecuted criminal] in the burying-place of his fathers.But two burying-placeswere kept in readiness by the Sanhedrin, one for them thatwere beheaded orstrangled,andoneforthemthatwerestonedorburnt’(m.Sanh.6.5);‘Neitheracorpsenorthebonesofacorpsemaybetransferredfromawretchedplacetoan

honoured place, nor, needless to say, from an honoured placed to a wretchedplace; but if to the family tomb, even from an honoured place to a wretchedplace,itispermitted’(Semahot13.7).Notonlywasthebodyofacriminalnottobeburiedinaplaceofhonour,nopublicmourningforexecutedcriminalswaspermitted:‘theyusednottomake[open]lamentation...formourninghasplaceintheheartalone’(m.Sanh.6.6).

The Jewishpeoplebelieved that the soulof thedeceased lingerednear thecorpseforthreedays:‘Forthreedays[afterdeath]thesoulhoversoverthebody,intendingtore-enterit,butassoonasitseesitsappearancechange,itdeparts’(Lev. Rab. 18.1 (on Lev. 15.1–2)). The change of the face on the third dayexplains,weare told,whythegrief isfeltmost in theearlydaysofmourning:‘Thefullintensityofmourninglastsuptothethirddaybecausetheappearanceof the face is still recognizable’ (Qoh. Rab. 12.6 §1). This interesting belieflikely liesbehind thedramaticstoryof theraisingofLazarus,brotherofMaryandMartha (John 11.1– 44). The comments that Lazarus has been dead ‘fourdays’andthatbynowhiscorpse‘stinks’(11.39)implythatallhopeisnowlost.Lazarushasbeendeadformorethanthreedays.Hisspirithasdeparted;hisfacehaschangeditsappearance.Resuscitation,itwasassumed,isnolongerpossible.

ThesearetheburialcustomsoftheJewishpeople.ButdidtheJewishpeoplealwaysburythedead?Wasburialimportanttothem?Weretheywillingtoleavepeopleunburied,suchasexecutedcriminals?Thenecessityofburial

In theMediterraneanworldof lateantiquity,properburialof thedeadwasregarded as sacred duty, especially in the culture and religion of the Jewishpeople.Thefirstreasonforprovidingproperburialwasforthesakeofthedeadthemselves.Theimportanceofcareforthedeadandtheirproperburial iswellattested in Scripture, from the amount of attention given to the story ofAbraham’s purchase of a cave for the burial of Sarah (Gen. 23.4 –19) to theburialaccountsofthepatriarchsandmonarchsofIsrael.OfspecialinterestisthestoryofJacob’sbodytakentothelandofCanaantobeburiedinatombthathehadhewn (Gen. 50.4 –14).So also Joseph: thoughburied inEgypt, his boneswereexhumedandtakenwiththeIsraelitesatthetimeoftheexodustobeburiedeventuallyinCanaan(Gen.50.22–26;Josh.24.32).ThebonesoftheslainSaulandsonswereburiedinJabesh(1Sam.31.12–13).Theking’sboneswerelatertakentothelandofBenjamin(2Sam.21.12–14).Eventhewickedanddivinelyjudgedwere buried too, such as those in thewildernesswhowere greedy formeat(Num.11.33–34)orindividualcriminalswhowereexecuted(Deut.21.22–23). Israel’s enemies, slain in battle, were buried (1 Kings 11.15). Even theeschatologicalenemyhostsofGogaretobeburied(Ezek.39.11–16).Toleave

the dead, even enemy dead, lying about unburiedwas to bring a curse on theland(Deut.21.22–23).

TheghastlyimageofJewsinexile,murderedandthenleftunburiedbesidethe roador flungoutside the citywalls, is reflected in the bookofTobit.Thebook’snamesakeisarighteousmanwhoobservesJewishfoodlaws,sharesfoodand clothing with the poor and buries the dead, even at great personal risk.Indeed,Tobit’sburyingthedeadwashisgreatestvirtue(1.18–20;2.3–8;4.3–4;6.15;14.10–13).

Josephus’perspectiveisconsistentwiththatexpressedinTobit.ExplainingJewishethicalobligations,Josephusstates:‘Wemustfurnishfire,water,foodtoallwhoaskforthem,pointouttheroad,notleaveacorpseunburied[ataphon],showconsiderationeventodeclaredenemies’(Ag.Ap.2.211;seealso2.205).

PerhapsPhilogives themosteloquentexpression toJewishsensitivitiesonthisquestion,inhisimaginativerecountingofJacob’sgriefoverthereportthathis son Joseph had been killed and devoured by wild animals. The patriarchlaments:

Child, it isnotyourdeaththatgrievesme,but themannerof it. Ifyouhadbeen buried [etaphBs] in your own land, I should have been comforted andwatched and nursed your sick-bed, exchanged the last farewells as you died,closedyoureyes,weptoveryourbodyas it lay there,given itacostly funeralandleftnoneofthecustomaryritesundone.(Joseph22–23)Theimaginativedirgegoesontospeakoftheimportanceofproperburial:

And,indeed,ifyouhadtodiebyviolenceorthroughpremeditation,itwouldhavebeena lighter ill tome, slain asyouwouldhavebeenbyhumanbeings,whowould have pitied their dead victim, gathered somedust and covered thecorpse.And then if theyhadbeen the cruellest ofmen,whatmore could theyhave done but cast it out unburied and go their way, and then perhaps somepasser-by would have stayed his steps, and, as he looked, felt pity for ourcommonnatureanddeemedthecustomofburialtobeitsdue.(Joseph25)

Jacob concludes his lament by saying that he has experienced no greatertragedy, in that nothing of Joseph remains and that there is no possibility ofburial (26 –27). Jewish sensitivitieswith respect to proper burial could hardlyhavebeengivenmoreeloquentexpressionthanwhatwefindhereinPhilo.

Concern with proper burial continues beyond the first century. For theRabbis, burial of the deadwas regarded as a sacred duty (b.Meg. 3b), takingprecedence over the study of the law, the circumcision of one’s son or theofferingof thePassover lamb. Indeed, evenahighpriestoraNaziritehas theobligationtoburya‘neglectedcorpse’sincethereisnooneelsetodoit(SipreNum.§26(onNum.6.6–8)).

AsecondreasonforburyingthedeadistoavoiddefilementofthelandofIsrael.ThisrequirementisgroundedintheMosaiclaw:

Whensomeoneisconvictedofacrimepunishablebydeathandisexecuted,andyouhanghimonatree,hiscorpsemustnotremainallnightuponthetree;you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’scurse.Youmust not defile the land that the Lord yourGod is giving you forpossession.(Deut.21.22–23)

ItisalsoexpressedinEzekiel:‘Theywillsetapartmentopassthroughthelandregularlyandburyanyinvaderswhoremainonthefaceoftheland,soastocleanseit...Thustheyshallcleansetheland’(Ezek.39.14,16).

This tradition remained current at the turn of the era, as seen in itselaborationintheTempleScroll,oneoftheDeadSeaScrolls,whereweread:

Ifamanisatraitoragainsthispeopleandgivesthemuptoaforeignnation,sodoing evil to his people, youare to hanghimona tree until dead.On thetestimonyoftwoorthreewitnesseshewillbeputtodeath,andtheythemselvesshallhanghimonthetree.Ifamanisconvictedofacapitalcrimeandfleestothenations,cursinghispeopleandthechildrenofIsrael,youare tohanghim,also,uponatreeuntildead.Butyoumustnotlettheirbodiesremainonthetreeovernight; you shall most certainly bury them that very day. Indeed, anyonehungonatreeisaccursedofGodandmen,butyouarenottodefilethelandthatIamabouttogiveyouasaninheritance[Deut.21.22–23].(11QTemple64.7–13a=4Q524frag.14,lines2–4;emphasisadded)

WhereasDeuteronomy21.22–23speaksofoneputtodeathandthenhanged,11QTemplespeaksofonehanged‘untildead’.Mostthinkcrucifixionisinviewin this latter instance (as also in 4QpNah frags 3 – 4, col. i, lines 6 – 8, andperhapsalsoin4Q282i,whichreferstothehangingup(probablycrucifixion)ofthosewholeadthepeopleastray).2Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthisformofexecutionislinkedtotreason.

RomanemperorsduringtheHerodianperiodJuliusCaesar(48–44BCE)CaesarAugustus(31BCE–14CE)Tiberius(14–37CE)GaiusCaligula(37–41CE)Claudius(41–54CE)Nero(54–68CE)Galba,Otho,Vitellius(68–69CE)Vespasian(69–79CE)Titus(79–81CE)Domitian(81–96CE)Nerva(96–98CE)Trajan(98–117CE)

Hadrian(117–138CE)Itshouldalsobeobservedthattherequirementtoburytheexecutedperson

thedayofhisdeath is emphasized. InDeuteronomy it simply says, ‘you shallbury him the same day’; but the Temple Scroll adds, ‘youmust not let theirbodies remain on the tree overnight’. The reason given for taking the bodiesdown and burying them the day (or evening) of death is to avoid defiling theland,for theexecutedpersonis‘cursedofGod’.This isprobably therationalethatliesbehindtheconcernregardingslainenemysoldiers.Inasectionconcernedwithholiness,theTempleScrollenjoinsIsrael:

‘for you are a people holy to theLord yourGod’ [Deut. 14.2]. ‘Thus youshall notdefileyour land’ [Num.35.34].Youarenot todoas thenationsdo:theyburytheirdeadeverywhere,eveninsidetheirhomes.Rather,youmustsetapartplaces inyour landwhereyouwillburyyourdead.Forevery fourcitiesyoumustdesignateoneburialground.(11QTemple48.10–14)

What is important here is that even in the case of the executed criminal,proper burial was anticipated. Various restrictions may have applied, such asbeing forbidden burial in one’s family tomb – at least until the flesh haddecomposed – or not being allowed tomourn publicly, but burialwas to takeplace, in keepingwith the scriptural command ofDeuteronomy 21.22–23 andtheJewishcustomsthathadgrownupalongsideit.

The commands of Scripture, taken with traditions regarding piety (asespecially exemplified in Tobit), corpse impurity and the avoidance of thedefilementoftheland,stronglysuggestthatundernormalcircumstances–thatis, peacetime – no corpse would remain unburied, neither Jew nor Gentile,innocentnorguilty.Allweretobeburied.Whatisespeciallyinterestingisthatsomeofthetraditionreviewedabovemayhavebeenspecificallylinkedto,evenproducedby,priests–asinthematerialsfromQumran.IfthisisthecasethentherelevanceoftheselawsandtraditionsfortheexecutionofJesusofNazarethand its aftermath becomesmore evident, for it was the ruling priesthood thatcondemnedJesus todeathandwouldhaveprimary responsibility forseeing totheproperburialofhisbody.

Wehave reviewed themost important literary evidence concerning Jewishattitudestowardsburial.Whatcanwelearnfromthearchaeologicalevidence?ThearchaeologicalevidenceofburialintheRomanera

Asitsohappens,thereissignificantarchaeologicalevidencethathasadirectbearingonthequestionofwhether thebodyofJesusofNazareth,crucifiedbyorderofPontiusPilate,wasplacedinatomb,astheGospelssayitwas.Asweshall see, the evidence suggests that Jesuswas indeed buried, in keepingwith

Jewishcustoms,RomantoleranceofJewishcustomsandtheviewsexpressedbyallChristianandnon-Christianliteraturefromlateantiquity.ThereisinfactnotoneshredofevidencefromantiquitythatsuggestsJesuswasnotburied,whichmakes it all the more curious how these ideas and rumours to the contrarypersist.The important discovery in 1968 of an ossuary (ossuary no. 4 in Tomb I, atGiv‘atha-Mivtar)ofaJewishmannamedYehohanan,

Figure5.2PilateStone,CaesareaMaritimaThestone,unearthedin1961atCaesareaMaritima,hasincisedonitthewords‘[Pon]tius Pilate, [pref]ect of Judea’. This discovery settled the question ofPilate’srank;hewasaprefect,notaprocurator.

who had obviously been crucified, provides archaeological evidence andinsight into how Jesus himself may have been crucified. The ossuary and itscontentsdate to the late20sce; that is,during theadministrationofPilate, theveryRomanprefectwhocondemnedJesustothecross(Figure5.2,p.122).The

remainsofanironspike11.5cmlongareplainlyseenstillencrustedintherightheelboneorcalcaneum(Figure5.3,overleaf).ThosewhotookdownthebodyofYehohananwere apparently unable to remove the spike,with the result that apiece of wood, from an olive tree, remained affixed to it. Later the skeletalremains of the body – spike, fragment of wood and all – were placed in theossuary. Forensic examination of the rest of the skeletal remains supports theview that Yehohanan was crucified with arms apart, hung from a horizontalbeamortreebranch.However,thereisnoevidencethathisarmsorwristswerenailedtothiscrossbeam.TheRomangovernors

PrefectsofSamariaandJudeaCoponius(6–9CE)MarcusAmbibulus(9–12CE)AnniusRufus(12–15CE)ValeriusGratus(15–19/25CE)PontiusPilate(19/25–37CE)Marcellus(37CE)Marullus(37–41CE)

ProcuratorsofallIsraelFadus(44–46CE)TiberiusAlexander(46–48CE)VentidiusCumanus(48–52CE)Felix(52–60CE)PorciusFestus(60–62CE)Albinus(62–64CE)GessiusFlorus(64–66CE)

Figure5.3HeelboneofacrucifiedmanTherightheel, transfixedbyan ironspike,ofoneYehohanan,crucified in thefirst century,probablyduring the administrationofPontiusPilate, governorofSamariaandJudea.DespiteYehohanan’sexecutionasacriminal,theauthoritiespermittedhisfamilytogatherandreburyhisskeletalremainsinthefamilytomb.PhotographcourtesyoftheIsraelMuseum,Jerusalem.

ThelackofnailsorspikesinthehandsorwristsofYehohananisconsistentwithareferenceinPlinytheElder(23–79ce),whoreferstoropebeingusedincrucifixion(Nat.28.4).Nevertheless,itisrecordedbyothersthatmanyvictimsofcrucifixiondidhavetheirhandsorwristsnailedtothebeam.Writingin thesecondcenturybce,Plautusrefers to thecrucifixionvictim,‘hisarmsand legsaredouble-nailed’(Mostellaria359–61).Athird-centuryceauthordescribeditthisway:‘Punishedwithlimbsoutstretched...theyarefastened(and)nailedtothestakeinthemostbittertorment,evilfoodforbirdsofpreyandgrimpickingfor dogs’ (Apotelesmatica 4.198 –200). Recall the Latin graffiti examined inChapter3;one, inscribedon thewallofabathhouse inPompeii, reads: ‘Mayyou be nailed to the cross!’ (CIL IV.2082). Another in Pompeii reads:‘Cornelius,gethung!’(CILIV.1864).

Yehohanan’slegboneswerebroken,butthereisdisagreementoverhowandwhen;thatis,whilestillonthecrossorafterbeingtakendown.Somethinkthatthebreaksinthelowerlegbones,includingthecuttothetalusboneofthefoot,are due to crurifragium, the breaking of a victim’s bones to hasten his death.Others do not think the talus suffered such an injury. Indeed, the talus underquestionmayactuallybelongtooneoftheothertwoindividualswhoseskeletalremains had been placed in the ossuary. Accordingly, the conclusion thatYehohanan’s leg boneswere broken before death and decarnation is disputed.Because of the age and degraded condition of the skeletal materials, someuncertaintyremains.3

IfYehohanan’s legswerebrokenbeforedeath,wethenknownotonlythathewastakendownandburied(asindicatedbythediscoveryofhisremainsinanossuary),butalsothathisdeathwasintentionallyhastened.Themostlikelyandcompelling reason for hastening death in this manner was so that his corpsecould be taken down from the cross and placed in a tombbefore nightfall, asScripture commands (Deut. 21.22–23) and as Jewish custom required. TheRomanshadnoreasonoftheirowntoexpeditedeathbycrucifixion;theywouldpreferjusttheopposite–along,drawn-outdeath.

AlsofoundinthetombsdiscoveredatGiv‘atHa-Mivtarweretheremainsofawoman(?)whohadbeendecapitated.Whethershewasmurderedorexecutedis not clear.4 (Below I shall give reasons why I think she was probablyexecuted.)However,wemayhavetheskeletalremainsofanotherpersonwho,likeYehohanan,wasexecutedandwhose remainseventuallywereplaced inafamilytomb.TheseremainswerefoundinaclusteroftombsonMountScopus,northofJerusalem.InTombCtheskeletalremainsofawoman(aged50–60)giveclearevidenceofhavingbeenattacked–herrightelbowsufferedadeepcut

that severed the end of the humerus. Because there is no sign of regrowth orinfection,itissurmisedthatshediedfromtheattack.

InTombD,whichcontainstheremainsofpersonsrelatedtothoseinterredinTombC,were theremainsofaman(aged50)whohadbeendecapitated. It isplausibletospeculatethatthismanhadbeenexecuted,quitepossiblyforhavingmurderedthefemalerelativeinTombC.However,physicalanthropologistJoeZiasdoubts that themanhadbeenexecutedbecausehisneckhadbeen strucktwice.Beingstrucktwice,hereasons,suggestsanactofviolencerather thanajudicialexecution.5Ziascouldbecorrect,ofcourse,butweshouldnotassumethat judicial beheadings were always neatly done. One only needs to bereminded of the several badly aimed strokes that finally took off the head ofJames,DukeofMonmouth,in1685.Apparentlytheexecutionerwasintoxicated–his first strokeburied the axe in theDuke’s shoulder!MaryQueenofScotsfarednobetteracenturyearlier,whenin1586hercousin,ElizabethI,hadherexecutedfortreason–ittooktheexecutionerthreestrokestotakeoffherhead.

Forgiveme for dwelling on such gruesome details, but I think there is animportantpointtobemadehere.Multiplecuts,asothersmightcontend,donotin fact argue against interpreting beheadings as judicial executions. I havereviewed the evidence of hundreds of Roman-era skeletons that have beenexcavated–mostlyinBritain,thoughsomeinAfrica–andthathavebeenfoundtohavesuffereddecapitation.Inabouthalfthecasestwoormorestrokesoftheswordoraxewererequiredbeforetheheadwasseparatedfromthebody.

Of special interest for this topic was the discovery of themass grave leftbehind by the bloody battle of Towton in fifteenth-century Britain. Althoughdating from a much later period, the skeletal remains are nevertheless quiteinstructive because the weapons employed and the manner of fighting wereessentiallythesameasthosefromtheearlierRomanperiod.Approximatelyhalftheseveralhundredslainhadsufferedfatalheadwounds,andtheotherhalfhadsufferedfatalswordorspearthruststhroughthebody.Onlyonevictimsuffereddecapitation,anditmayhavebeenapostmorteminsult,nottheactualcauseofdeath.6Thepoint is this: ifnoone–oratmostonlyone–wasdecapitated inpitchedbattle,wherecombatantswerearmedwithaxesandswords,whatistheprobabilitythatsomeonesuffereddecapitationinadomesticaltercation?Ithinkitisratherslim.

Accordingly, the man in Giv‘at Ha-Mivtar Tomb D is probably anotherindividualwhosufferedthedeathpenalty–evenifittooktwostrokestofinishthe job – andwhose skeletal remainswere in due course placed in the familytomb. With all due respect to Joe Zias, I believe this means that we have

apparently found three executed persons – one by crucifixion and two bybeheading–whowereburiedaccordingtoJewishcustomsinthetimeofJesus.This means that they were given primary burial – most likely in a place ofdishonour; that is, in one of the tombs reserved for executed criminals – andsubsequentlytheirskeletalremainsweregatheredandplacedinossuaries,whichin turnwereplaced in their familyburialvaults, all according to the lawsandcustomsrelatedinancientJewishliterature.

Butwhyhavewe found theburied remainsof only threeor four executedJews in pre-70 ce Israel?Surelymanymore than thesewere executed.And ifotherexecutedpersonswereburiedproperly,asIhavearguedtheywouldhavebeen, thenwhyhavewenot foundmanymore skeletonsof executedpersons?Accordingly it has been argued by some that, in the light of the thousands ofJewscrucifiedinthefirstcenturyinthevicinityofJerusalem,thediscoveryofonly one properly buried crucifixion victim is proof that the normal Romanpracticeofnotpermittingburialmusthaveobtained,even in JewishPalestine.OnthebasisofthislogicperhapsoneshouldconcludethatJesuswasnotburiedeither.7

Thereareat leastfourobjections thatmustberaisedagainst this inference.First, almost all of the bones recovered from the time of Jesus are poorlypreserved, especially the smaller bones of the feet and hands, which willnormallyprovideevidence,ifany,ofcrucifixion.ItwasthepresenceofthenailintherightheelofYehohananthatmadeitclearthathehadbeencrucified.Thepresenceofthenailwasafluke.Itwasduetothesharpendbeingbentback(likea fishhook),perhapsbecause thenail struckaknot in theuprightbeam.WhenYehohananwastakendownfromthecross, thenailcouldnotbeextracted.Sonostatisticsshouldbeinferredfromthisunusualfind.

Second,manycrucifixionvictimswerescourged,beatenandthentiedtothecross, notnailed.Thus skeletal remainswould leaveno traceof the traumaofcrucifixion.AccordinglywedonotknowthatYehohananistheonlycrucifixionvictimdiscoveredinatomb–severalothersmayhavebeenfoundwithoutourknowingit.

Third,thebestpreservedskeletonsarefoundinthebetterconstructedtombs,withinbonepitsorinossuaries.Thesetombsweremostlythoseoftherich,notthepoor.Thepoorwereusuallyburiedinthegroundorinsmallernaturalcaves.Notmanyof their skeletonshavebeen found.Thesignificanceof thispoint isthat it is the poor who are most likely to be crucified, not the wealthy andpowerful.Sothoseskeletonsmostlikelytoprovideevidenceofcrucifixionaretheskeletonsleastlikelytosurvive,whereasthebestpreservedskeletonsaretheonesleastlikelytohavebelongedtothosewhohadbeencrucified.

Fourth,thevastmajorityofthethousandsofJewscrucifiedandleftunburiedinthefirstcentury,inthevicinityofJerusalem,diedduringtherebellionof66–70ce.TheywerenotburiedbecauseRomewasatwarwith theJewishpeopleandhadnowishtoaccommodateJewishsensitivities,asitnormallydidduringpeacetime. It was during peacetime – indeed, during the administration ofPontiusPilate–thatbothYehohananandJesusofNazarethwerecrucified.ThatbothwereburiedaccordingtoJewishcustomsshouldhardlyoccasionsurprise.JewishpriestlyauthoritieswereexpectedtodefendthepurityofJerusalem(oratleast give the appearance of doing so),whileRoman authorities acquiesced toJewishcustomsandsensitivities,asPhiloandJosephusrelate.

ThearchaeologicalevidencesuggeststhatJesusandotherJewsexecutedinpeacetimeIsraelwereburied–notinhonourbutproperly–inaccordancewithJewishlawsandcustoms.InthecaseofJesusofNazareththeexpectationwouldhavebeentocollecthisskeletalremainsapproximatelyoneyearafterdeathandtransfer them from the place of dishonour to a place of honour, such as hisfamilytomborburialplace.Historicalandliteraryrecordscantellusmore.Burialandnon-burialofexecutedcriminalsintheRomanworld

Theobjection raised against theGospels’ story of the burial of Jesus restsprimarily in the observation that victims of Roman crucifixionwere normallynotburied,buttheircorpseswerelefthangingonthecross,tobepickedapartbybirdsandanimals.ThatthisisthenormalRomanpracticeisnotindisputehere.MartinHengel has assembledmost of the pertinentmaterial.A few examplesmaybecited:‘Thevulturehurriesfromdeadcattleanddogsandcrossestobringsomeof thecarrion toheroffspring’ (Juvenal,Satires14.77–78); ‘thecarrion-birds will soon take care of ’ one’s ‘burial’ (Suetonius, Augustus 13.1–2);‘hangingonacross to feedcrows’ (Horace,Epistles 1.16.48); and thealreadycitedtextthatdescribesthecrucifixionvictimas‘evilfoodforbirdsofpreyandgrimpickingfordogs’(Apotelesmatica4.200).Onasecond-centuryepitaphthedeceased declares that hismurderer, a slave,was ‘crucified alive for thewildbeasts and birds’ (Amyzon Epitaph, Cave 1). Many other texts spare readerssuchgruesomedetails,butdomentionthedenialofproperburial(forexampleLivy29.9.10;29.18.14).

What is questioned here, though, is the assumption on the part of a fewscholarsthatthehundreds,eventhousands,ofJewscrucifiedandlefthangingoncrosses outside the walls of Jerusalem, during the siege of 69 –70 ce, areindicative of normal practice in Roman Palestine.8 A review of Josephussuggests, to thecontrary, that leaving thebodiesof theexecutedunburiedwasexceptionalnottypical.Itwas,infact,adeparturefromnormalRomanpracticeinJewishPalestine.

Peacetime administration in Palestine appears to have respected Jewishburial sensitivities. Indeed both Philo and Josephus claim that Romanadministration acquiesced to Jewish customs. In his appeal to Caesar, PhilodrawsattentiontotheJewswho‘appealedtoPilatetoredresstheinfringementof their traditions caused by the shields and not to disturb the customswhichthroughoutall theprecedingageshadbeensafeguardedwithoutdisturbancebykingsandbyemperors’(Embassy300).AgenerationlaterJosephusassertsthesamething.TheRomans,hesays,donotrequire‘theirsubjectstoviolatetheirnational laws’ (Ag. Ap. 2.73). Josephus adds that theRoman procuratorswhosucceededAgrippaI‘byabstainingfromallinterferencewiththecustomsofthecountrykeptthenationatpeace’(J.W.2.220).

TheactionsofHerodAntipas,withrespecttoJohntheBaptist,areconsistentwith thispolicy.Although theBaptist isexecutedby the tetrarch,hisdisciplesare nonetheless allowed to bury his body (Mark 6.14 –29; Josephus, Ant.18.119).

Even Roman justice outside the Jewish setting sometimes permitted thecrucifiedtobetakendownandburied.WefindinthesummaryofRomanlaw,knownastheDigesta,thefollowingconcessions:

Thebodiesofthosewhoarecondemnedtodeathshouldnotberefusedtheirrelatives;andtheDivineAugustus,intheTenthBookofhisLife,saidthatthisrulehadbeenobserved.Atpresent,thebodiesofthosewhohavebeenpunishedare only buried when this has been requested and permission granted; andsometimesit isnotpermitted,especiallywherepersonshavebeenconvictedofhightreason.(48.24.1)The bodies of persons who have been punished should be given to whoeverrequeststhemforthepurposeofburial.(48.24.3)

TheDigestareferstorequeststotakedownbodiesofthecrucified.JosephushimselfmakesthisrequestofTitus(Life420–21).Ofcourse,Romancrucifixionoften did not permit burial, request or no request. Non-burial was part of thehorror–andthedeterrent–ofcrucifixion.Butcrucifixion–duringpeacetime–justoutsidethewallsofJerusalemwasanothermatter.GivenJewishsensitivitiesandcustoms,burialwouldhavebeenexpected,evendemanded.

The evidence thus far reviewed strongly encourages us to think that in allprobabilityJesuswasindeedburiedandthathiscorpseandthoseofthetwomencrucifiedwithhimwouldnothavebeenlefthangingonthecrossovernightandperhapsindefinitely,oratmostcastintoaditchorshallowgravetobeexposedto animals. Quite apart from any concerns with the deceased men or theirfamilies,themajorconcernwouldhavehadtodowiththedefilementofthelandandtheholycity.PoliticallytooitseemsunlikelythatontheeveofPassover,a

holidaythatcelebratesIsrael’sliberationfromforeigndomination,Pilatewouldhave wanted to provoke the Jewish population and incite Jewish nationalism.Moreover it is equally improbable that the ruling priests, who had called forJesus’ death, would have wanted to appear completely indifferent to Jewishsensitivities, eitherwith respect to thedeadorwith respect to corpse impurityanddefilementof the land. It seemsmostprobable that thepriestswouldhaveraisednoobjectionstotheburialofthethreemen.Indeedtheywouldprobablyhave arranged to have them buried, before nightfall, in tombs reserved forexecutedcriminals,whichiswhatisactuallystatedintheMishnah(m.Sanh.6.5–6)and,withrespecttoJesus,intheGospels.TheburialofJesus

One hundred years ago Kirsopp Lake argued that the followers of Jesusknew that their master had been buried; they just didn’t know where. Lakefamously proposed what has become known as the Wrong Tomb theory, inwhichthestoryoftheresurrectionofJesusisexplainedaway.Accordingtothistheory,weare tobelieve that thewomenwho lookedonas thebodyof Jesuswas placed in a criminal’s tomb returned the following Sundaymorning to asimilarbutwrongtomb.Findingitunoccupiedandmisunderstandingthewordsof a helpful youngman (proposed to be ‘He is not here; he is up there’), thefrightened and confused women ran away and told the disciples about theirstrangeexperience.FromthisreportthedisciplesconcludedthatJesusmusthavebeen raised from the dead.How the followers of Jesus could be so inept andgullibleisnotexplained.

Otherintriguingalternativetheorieshavealsobeenproposed.OneisdubbedtheSwoonTheory,wherebyitissuggestedthatawoundedandcomatoseJesuswasplaced ina tomb,a fewdays laterawakened,somehowextricatedhimselfandthenfoundhiswaytohisstartleddisciples,creatinginthemtheimpressionthathehadbeenresurrectedandglorified.Whyhisdiscipleswouldhaveviewedaseriouslyinjured,limpingJesusinsuchtermsisnotclear.And,ofcourse,wehave been taxedwith a series of conspiracy theories, fromHughSchonfield’sThePassoverPlottoMichaelBaigent’ssillyTheJesusPapers.

All of these alternative theories stumble over archaeological and literaryevidence, mostly having to do with Jewish burial traditions. Suggestions thatJesus’followerswouldnotbeabletofindthecorrecttombinwhichtheirmasterhad been interred or that a still living Jesus would be buried and then,awakening,couldactuallymanagetoexitthetombandbeperceivedbyanyonein anywayother thanwhat hewas– a badly injuredman in needofmedicalattention – have not impressed qualified historians and archaeologists. Theconspiracytheoriesareevenmoreludicrous,notonlyunabletoexplainhowitis

thatsuchagrotesquesecretwaskeptbysomany,butalsounabletodiscoveracogentmotiveforsuchacaperinthefirstplace.

It is estimated that the necropolis surrounding Jerusalem – mostly to thenorth, east and south of the city – ismade up of some 800 tombs, some twodozenofwhichcanbeclassifiedasmonumentaltombsandmausolea.9Severalimpressiveexamplesofsuchtombsrun the lengthof theKidronValley,at thebaseofMountScopus,northeastoftheOldCityandatthebaseoftheMountofOlives,oppositetheeasternsideoftheTempleMount(Figure5.4).

Our survey begins with the so-called Tomb of Simon the Just, about onekilometre north of the Old City, a short distance from the Nablus Road. ThetombisnamedafterSimonthehighpriest(d.196bce),whoiscelebratedintheWisdom of Yeshua ben Sira (Sir. 50.1–21; ’Abot 1.2). However, the tombactuallybelongedtooneJuliaSabine,fromthebeginningsoftheCommonEra,as indicated by an inscription. Although this tomb is of little architecturalsignificance, its ancient tradition of Jewish pilgrimage is important. As onewalks south through the Kidron Valley one can view the so-called Tomb (orPillar)ofAbsalom,anunusualmausoleumthatdatestothefirstcenturyceandstands some 20 metres high, eclectically ornamented with Ionic columns, aDoricfriezeandanEgyptiancornice.Thestructure iscrownedwithaconcaveconical roof, itsmostdistinctive feature. Itgains thename‘PillarofAbsalom’from2Samuel18.18:

NowAbsalom in his lifetime had taken and set up for himself the pillar,which is in theKing’sValley, forhesaid, ‘Ihavenoson tokeepmyname inremembrance’; he called the pillar after his own name, and it is called‘Absalom’spillar’tothisday.

TuckedbehindandtothenortheastoftheTombofAbsalomistheTomb(orCave) of Jehoshaphat, another misnamed tomb. The tomb comprises eightchambers,whoseentranceissupportedbytwosquarepillars.Builtlater(perhapsearly in the first century ce), the Tomb of Jehoshaphat belonged to the samefamilywhoownedtheTombofAbsalom.Itsgabledfacadewillbediscussedonpage146.

Movingsouth,onenextencounterstheTomboftheSonsofHezir,apriestlyfamily, which dates to the first or second century bce and whose entrance isadorned with two Doric columns. After the Hezir tomb comes the so-calledTombofZechariah,withitsIonicpilastersandpyramid-shapedtop.Thetombiscoveredwith small, neatly incisedHebrew inscriptions, and probably dates tothe first century bce. Next comes the so-called Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter.ThetombiseastofOphelandnorthoftheSilwanVillageandisoneofseveralveryearlytombs.Monolithic,atonetimeittoowasadorned

Figure5.4TombsintheKidronValleyIntheKidronValley,atthefootoftheMountofOlives,onefinds(fromlefttoright) theTombofAbsalom, theTombof theSonsofHezirand theTombofZechariah(withthedistinctivepyramidroof).

by a pyramid top. It contains a burial chamber and gabled ceiling.Immediatelysouth isa secondmonolithic tombsometimescalled theTomboftheRoyalSteward.The facadewas removedbyCharlesClermont-Ganneau in1870andisnowintheBritishMuseum.Partofafragmentaryinscriptionreads‘yahuwho is over the house’.Adjacent are the remains of anothermonolithictomb.

Where the Kidron and Hinnom valleys intersect one finds the Akeldamatombs. Several of these are of the highest quality, judging by the interiorarchitecture,artistic touchesandadornedossuaries.Onemayhavebelonged tothefamilyofAnnas,highpriest9–15ce(Josephus,Ant.20.198;Luke3.2;John18.13;Acts4.6).Itispalatialinsize,designandornamentation,andatonetimewas adorned with an impressive superstructure. The quality of this tombcomplexanditslocation–remnantsofthesiegewallmentionedbyJosephusarenearby;J.W.5.506–supporttheidentification.

Movingwest and then north along theHinnomValley one approaches thearea inwhich is found theTombofHerod’sFamily.The tomb, discovered in1892,isaboutone-thirdofakilometreduewestofthesouthwestcornerofthewalloftheOldCity,notfarfromthemodernKingDavidHotel,onthesiteoftheNicophoriaMonastery.Thetomb’ssuperstructureislonggonebutthecryptis beautifully decorated and contained several decorated sarcophagi. Its

distinctivefeatureisthelargewheel-shapedstonethatservedasthedoortothevault.

Another half kilometrewest one comes to the Tomb of Jason,whichwasdiscoveredin1956inRehavia(orRehov),westernJerusalem.Itissupportedbyasinglepillarinsteadofthetraditionaltwo,andistoppedwithapyramid.AlongwithaGreekinscriptionandseveralAramaicinscriptions,charcoaldrawingsofshipswerefoundscrawledonthewallsofthecrypt.Coinsandpotteryfoundinthecryptdate theearliestuseof the tomb to thebeginningof the firstcenturybce,continuingtothebeginningofthefirstcenturyce.

Due north of the Old City one comes to the Tomb of Queen Helena ofAdiabene,daughterofIzatestheproselyte(Josephus,J.W.5.147).(Thetombisalsocalled,mistakenly,theTombsoftheKings.)ItisbyfarthelargestandmostimpressivetombinJerusalem.Astaircaseleadsdownthroughanarchandintoanexpansivegardenarea.Thebroadopeningincludedafacade27metreswide,supportedbytwolargepillars.Thequeenandtwomembersofherfamilywereinterredinthistombsometimeafter50ce.Whenexcavatedthetombcontainedseveraldecoratedsarcophagi.Ononeofthemwereinscribedthewords‘QueenSaddan’.According toJosephus (Ant.20.95)her tombwasadornedwith threepyramids (though their location and relation to Helena’s tomb are disputed),possibly one for herself and one for each of her two sons. Supposedly LouisFéliciendeSaulcyin1865enteredthetombandfoundaninscriptioninAramaicorPalmyrene that includedthe titleandname‘Helena theQueen’.There isnotraceofthisinscriptiontoday.

TheFriezeTomb,locatedoneandahalfkilometresnorthoftheOldCity,ismarkedwith an ornate facadewith aDoric frieze – hence the tomb’s name –supportedbytwopillars.Thefrieze, toppedbyadecoratedCorinthiancornice,boastsfourartisticrosettes.Some250metrestothenorthwestonecomestotheso-calledTwoStoreyedTomborPilasterTomb,firstexcavatedbyKurtGalling.As its name implies, this tomb consists of two storeys, originally presentingeither a gabled or flat roofline. Parts of the upper storey, along with a Doricfrieze, have survived. Hachlili draws attention to the artistic and architecturallinksbetweenthistombandsomeofthePetratombs.

Another 300metres or so to the northwest one comes upon the Tomb ofPillarsor theTwo-ColumnedTomb. It originallyboasted twocolumns (one isnow lost), a porch, a central chamber and three rooms. It is similar to theTwoStoreyed Tomb. Immediately to the north one comes to the so-calledSanhedrin Tombs.Among this cluster of ornate tombs, one boasts a beautifulgabled facade, large central hall and several burial chambers, with staircasesleadingtovariouslevels.

About 100metres to the east of the Sanhedrin Tombs complex is the so-called Tomb of the Grapes, which derives its name from the sculpted grapeclustersthatadornthetympanumabovetheentrance.Centredinthetympanum,just below the point of the gabled top, is an ornate rosette. About half akilometrenorthonecomestotheTombofUmmel-‘Ammed(inNahalZofim).TheCaveofUmmel-‘Ammed(namedafterthewadiinwhichitislocated)wasdecorated with a facade and possessed two chambers with burial niches. Theornatecorniceissupportedbytwocolumnsandtwopilasters.

AshortdistancesouthofHebrewUniversityonMountScopusonecomestotheTombof theHermit and theTombofNicanor.TheTombofNicanorwasdiscoveredonMountScopusin1902.Thislargetomb,datingtothefirstcenturyceandpossessingfourbranchesofburialchambers,containedseveraldecoratedossuaries,includinganimportantinscriptionthatreads:‘Thebonesofthe[sons]ofNicanortheAlexandrianwhomadethedoors.NicanorAlexa.’

Observation of themonumental tombs, especially those that run along theKidronValley,clarifiesJesus’scathingremarksagainsthiscritics:‘Youarelikewhitewashed tombs’;and‘Youbuild the tombsof theprophets!’ (Matt.23.27,29). At the approach of major festivals these tombs were whitewashed andsometimestheinscriptionswerehighlightedwithbrightcolours.Jesus’graphiccomparisonswouldhavereadilyconjuredupfamiliarimagesinthemindsofhishearers.Summingup

The literary,historical andarchaeological evidencepoints inonedirection:the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom.Furthermore, there is nogood reason to think that family and friendsof Jesushad no idea where he was buried or had no plans eventually to recover hisskeletal remains and transfer them to his family tomb or to another place ofhonour.

Inviewoftheevidence,IbelievetheburialnarrativesoftheGospelsdeservea fair reading. If their respective reports are coherent and if they accordwithknownliteraryandarchaeologicalevidence, thentheyshouldbeaccepted.10 Inmy opinion much of the scepticism that has been voiced is not particularlycritical and often reflects ignorance of the Jewish burial traditions that thischapterhastakenpainstoreview.

TheGospelstellusthat‘Pilate...grantedthebodytoJoseph’,who‘laiditinatomb’(Mark15.42–46).AccordingtoJewishlawandcustomtheexecutedcriminal could not be buried in his family tomb. Instead his body was to beplaced inoneof theburialvaultssetasideforsuchpersons(m.Sanh.6.5–6;Semahot 13.7). There it had to remain until the flesh had decomposed. One

rabbinictextaddressesthispoint,specificallyinreferencetosomeonewhohasbeencrucified:‘Ifone’s[relative]hasbeencrucifiedinhiscity,oneshouldnotcontinue to reside there . . .Untilwhen isoneso forbidden?Until the flesh iscompletely decomposed and the identity unrecognizable from the bones’(Semahot 2.13).Because the JewishCouncil (orSanhedrin) delivered Jesus tothe Roman authorities for execution, it was incumbent upon it to arrange forproper burial (as in m. Sanh. 6.5 cited above). This task fell to Joseph ofArimathea, amemberof theCouncil.There is, tobe sure, apologetic atwork.Buttryastheymight,theevangelistscannotremovetheshameofJesus’deathasacriminaland the legal requirement that forbids theburialofhisbody inaplaceofhonour.11TheGospelnarrative,includingthestoryoftheburialunderJoseph’ssupervision, iscompletely instepwithJewishpractice,whichRomanauthoritiesrespectedduringpeacetime.

TheGospelstellusthat‘MaryMagdaleneandMarythemotherofJosessawwherethebodywaslaid’(Mark15.47).ItwasnecessaryforJesus’familyandfriendstoobservetheplacewherehisbodywasplaced,foritwasnotplacedinatomb that belonged to his family or was otherwise under their control. ThereburialofthebonesofYehohanan,themanwhoalsohadbeencrucifiedundertheauthorityofPontiusPilate,demonstratesthattheJewishpeopleknewhowtonoteandremembertheplaceofprimaryburial.ThefamilyandfriendsofJesusanticipatedrecoveringhisskeletal remains,perhapsoneyear later,so that they‘may be transferred from a wretched place to an honoured place’, as the lawallowed(Semahot13.7;m.Sanh.6.6).

JesuswasplacedinthetombonFridayafternoon.Thefirstopportunityforanyone to visit the tomb, during daylight hours, was Sunday morning. TheGospels tell us that ‘Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, andSalomeboughtspices,sothattheymightgoandanointhim.Andveryearlyonthefirstdayoftheweek,whenthesunhadrisen,theywenttothetomb’(Mark16.1b–2).Thewomen’sintentiontoanointthebodyindicatestheirintentiontomourn for their master in the tomb itself. In the cases of executed criminals,privatemourningwasallowed.Ashasalreadybeenmentioned,thespicesweretobeusedtoperfumethecorpsetomasktheunpleasantodour.

Asthewomenapproachthetomb,theyask:‘Whowillrollawaythestone?’(Mark16.3).Matthewsaysaguardwasposted,topreventtheremovalofJesus’body (Matt. 27.65 – 66). We should probably assume that the evangelist isreferringtothecustodian,whoseplacementinthevicinityofthetombssetasideforexecutedcriminalswas tosee thatburial lawswerenotviolated.Themostseriousoftheselawswastheprohibitionagainstmovingabodyfromaplaceofdishonour toaplaceofhonour(seeFigure5.5).Theguardorcustodianwould

alsoenforcetheprohibitionagainstpublicmourningforanexecutedcriminal.InviewofJesus’statusasacriminalandinviewofthepresenceofaguard

(perhaps reinforced because of the popularity of Jesus), thewomen knew thattherewouldbe reluctance toassist them in rollingback the stone thatcoveredtheopeningofJesus’ tomb.Theyalsoknew thateven theircombinedstrengthprobably wouldn’t be sufficient to roll it aside. Study of the skeletal remainsfromthisperiodindicatesthattheaveragewomanwasbarely

Figure5.5NazarethInscriptionThefamous‘NazarethInscription’,anedictofCaesarforbiddingvandalizingortampering with tombs, including the unlawful removal of a corpse. Theinscription is now housed in the Médailles et Antiques de la BibliothèqueNationaledeFrance.FromFranzCumont, ‘Unréscrit impérial sur laviolationdesépulture’,RevueHistorique163(1930),pp.341–66;publicdomain.

150cmtallandoftenweighedlessthan45kg.Theaveragemanwasabout160cmtallandweighedabout60kg.Sealingstonesweighed200kgormore.

Even round stones,whichwere designed to be rolled aside,would have beenvery difficult to move. The Markan evangelist, moreover, comments that thestonewasverylarge(Mark16.4b).Accordingly,thewomenwonderwheretheymight find assistance. Two of the best-known Jerusalem tombs with circularsealingstonesandgroovedtracksaretheTomboftheFamilyofHerodandtheGardenTomb(alsoknownasGordon’sTomb).

According to theGospels,when thewomen arrived at the tomb ‘they sawthat the stone . . .was rolledback’ (Mark16.4).The statement that the ‘stonewasrolledback’impliesaroundstoneovertheentrancetothetomb.InJewishPalestineof late antiquity at least 90per centof thedoorswere square; fewerthan10per centwere round.Discoveryof theopenedandempty tombwouldhavedismayedthewomen,especiallyMary,themotherofJesus,whenreportedtoher.ForthiswouldmeanthatthebodyofJesushadapparentlybeenrelocated.Because Jesus had died on Friday, Sunday was the third day of death, andaccordingtoJewishtraditionthefaceofthecorpsewasnolongerrecognizableonthefourthday,asnotedabove.ThereforethewomenknewthatifJesus’bodywasnotfoundthatday,thenitprobablywouldneverbeidentifiedandthereforecould not be claimed and transferred to his family tomb at some future date.Their interpretation of what they saw that Sunday morning was informed byJewishburialcustoms,notanexpectationofJesus’resurrection.

When all pertinent data are taken into account we have every reason toconcludethatJesuswasproperlyburiedtheverydayofhisdeath.Hewastakendown from the cross before nightfall and was buried according to Jewishcustoms (Mark 15.42—16.4; 1 Cor. 15.4). Put to death as a criminal, hewasburied accordingly (m. Sanh. 6.5; Semahot 13.7). The novel suggestions thatperhaps Jesus was left on the cross, unburied (as often was the case outsideIsrael;Suetonius,Augustus13.1–2;Petronius,Satyricon111),orthathiscorpsewas thrown into a ditch, covered with lime and left for animals to maul, arewholly implausible.Obligation to bury the dead properly, before sundown, toavoiddefiling their sacred land,waskeenly feltby Jewsof lateantiquity.TheGospelnarrativesareplausibleandexhibitverisimilitude(whichwasdiscussedin the Introduction). In thewords of archaeologist JodiMagness, ‘theGospelaccountsdescribingJesus’removalfromthecrossandburialareconsistentwitharchaeologicalevidenceandwithJewishlaw’.12

ItisfurtherconcludedthatitisveryprobablethatsomeofJesus’followers–such as thewomenmentioned in theGospel accounts–knewwherehis bodyhadbeenplacedandintendedtomarkthelocation,perfumehisbodyandmourn,inkeepingwithJewishcustoms.TheintentionwastotakepossessionofJesus’remainsatsomepointinthefutureandtransferthemtohisfamilyburialplace.

Thediscoveryoftheopenedtombandtheabsenceofhisbodythrewthewomeninto confusion and set the stage for a surprising and completely unexpectedexperience.Archaeology is principally concerned with the recovery and study of humanmaterialculture.Afindmightbenomorethanasinglecoinorpieceofpottery;a findmight be a city.Whatever it is, the archaeologist uncovers it so that itmightbestudiedalongsidewrittentextsthathavesurvivedfromthepast.

Theidealistohaveaccesstobothartefactandtext,andthatisusuallywhatwehaveinthestudyoftheMediterraneanworldoflateantiquity.Wehavefourfirst-centuryGospelsthattellusaboutJesusofNazarethandanumberofotherfigures; we have a number of other first-and second-century documents thatprovideadditional information.EverymajorcitymentionedintheGospelsandActshasbeenexcavated;sohaveseveralvillages.Wehaverecoveredanumberofamazinginscriptions,includingonethatmentionsPilate,theRomanauthoritywho condemned Jesus to the cross, and another one inscribed on a burial boxthatmaybethenameoftheJewishhighpriestCaiaphas,whointerviewedJesus.

The chapters of this book have attempted to place Jesus and the Gospelnarrativesintoamoredetailedcontext,inthelightofarchaeologicalexcavationsandthematerialculturethesehaveuncovered.Chapter1reviewedthefindingsof some 40 years of work at Sepphoris. Sepphoris was an impressive Greco-Roman-stylecity,butinthetimeofJesusitwasthoroughlyJewishinreligiousfaithandpractice.ThereisnoliteraryandarchaeologicalbasisfortheproposalthatJesuswasinfluencedbyaCynicpresenceinSepphorisoranywhereelseinGalilee.TheproximityofthiscitytothevillageofNazareth,whereJesusgrewup, and the presence of a number of major highways, cautions against theassumption that Jesus and his fellow Galileans were placebound andunacquaintedwiththelargerworld.

Chapter2reviewedtheliterary,inscriptionalandarchaeologicalevidenceforthe existence of recognizable synagogue buildings in the time of Jesus. Theevidencewasseentobesubstantial.Ofmoreimportancewastheacquisitionofabetter understanding of the role and centrality of this place of gathering forsocializing, worship and study. The evidence supports the view that villagesynagoguesplayedanimportantpartinJesus’upbringinganddevelopmentandcontinuedtoplayanessential,evenstrategicpartinhisitinerantpreachingandministry.

Chapter 3 looked into the complicated question of literacy in the time ofJesus and, particularly, into the literacy of Jesus himself. We have seen thatliteracy throughout the Roman world may have been somewhat higher thanestimates a few decades ago. It was also argued, on the grounds of context

primarily, that it is probable that Jesus was literate, but not in a scribal orprofessionalsense.Alongthewayitwasalsonotedthatbooks,becauseoftheirintrinsic value and the durablematerials fromwhich theyweremade,were inuse for long periods of time, even centuries. Itwas also observed that privateindividuals as well as groups promoted literacy and developed libraries forpersonalandgroupreadingandstudy.

Chapter4reviewedthearchaeologicalfindingsthatshedlightonthosewhocompetedwithandopposedJesus,particularlytherulingpriests.ExcavationsofportionsofthemassiveTempleMountcomplexhavebeenrevealing,notleastofHerod the Great’s ambitions and grandiose self-image. But a number ofinscriptions,ornateandmonumentalfuneraryarchitecture,andruinsofwhatatone timeweremagnificentmansions give us insight into theworld that JesusconfrontedwhenheenteredJerusalemtocelebratePassoverwithhisdisciples.

Chapter5broughtustoacloseonarathergrimnotebyinquiringintowhatarchaeological discoveries have taught us about death in the world of Jesus.Examinationofhumanskeletalremainshasrevealedjusthowfragileandshortlifewas in late antiquity.This sober fact alsoclarifieswhy itwas that crowdspursued Jesus and followed himwith enthusiasm. It also cautions the criticalscholarnot tomarginalize themightyworksofJesusas thoughtheseactivitieswerenotcentraltohisprincipalmessage.ThechapterconcludedthattheGospelnarratives of the death and burial of Jesus are fully in step with literary andarchaeologicalevidence.ItishighlyprobablethatJesuswasburied–thoughnotwithhonour–andthatsomeofhisfriendsandfamilyknewwhere.Discussionoftheresurrectionproclamationmusttakethisdatumintoaccount.

InterestedreadersmayliketoexaminesomeofthebooksunderSuggestionsfor Further Reading. As I said at the beginning, I do hope you have enjoyedlearningaboutthearchaeologicaldiscoveriesthatclarifymanyaspectsofthelifeofJesus.

HavewefoundthefamilytombofJesus?The claim made in 2007 that a tomb in East Talpiot, located between

Jerusalem and Bethlehem, was the tomb of Jesus and his family throws thediscussion of the burial and resurrection of Jesus into awhole new light. TheproponentsofthisviewhavenodoubtsthatJesuswasproperlyburiedandthathereallywasdeadwhenhewasburied.Whatisremarkableisthattheybelievethe family tomb of Jesus and the very ossuary that at one time contained hisskeletal remains have been found and that there is evidence that Jesus wasmarried andhad a son.Can archaeology and related studies shed any light ontheseremarkableclaims?

During construction of town houses in March 1980, two tombs werediscoveredquitebychance.Oneof themwashastilyexcavatedandstudiedbyveteranarchaeologistsYosefGatandAmosKloner,assistedbygraduatestudentShimonGibson,whosketched the floorplan.Both tombswere then sealedupandconstructioncontinued.Thetombthatwasexamined–incloseproximitytowhat is now 273DovGruner Street – had a rectangular, recessed opening, asquaremainroomandsixniches(twointhewallontheright,twointhewallatthebackandtwointhewallontheleft).Thesquarestonethatoriginallycoveredtheentrancewasmissingandskullsandbonefragmentsandotherdebriswerescatteredabout.Thetombhadbeenvandalizedinantiquity.Tenossuarieswererecovered,thoughtheactualnumberofskeletonscouldnotbedetermined.GatandKlonerguessed17.Abovetheentranceofthetombisaprominentexcisedpointedgablewithacirclebeneathit(FigureA1.1).

A brief report of the discovery and excavation was published by Gat inHebrew in 1981. Unfortunately Gat died before publishing a longer, moredetailed report. Sixteen years after the excavation Amos Kloner published anEnglish report.1 In 1996 aBBC documentary explored the possibility that theEastTalpiottombmayhavehadsomethingtodowithJesusandhisfamily.ThiswasexploredbecauseofthediscoveryofthenamesJesus,Joseph,Mary,Joseh,Judah and possibly Matthew inscribed on the ossuaries. The documentarygeneratedlittleinterestamongscholarsandthetopicfadedaway.

In February 2007 Simcha Jacobovici, host and producer of the Canadiantelevision programmeTheNakedArchaeologist, announced, alongwithwriterCharlesPellegrinoandmovieproduceranddirector

FigureA1.1Tomb,TalpiotTheentranceand facadeofa tomb located inEastTalpiotandaccidentlyunearthed inMarch1980.ThetombwasexaminedbyAmosKlonerandYosefGat.ThetheorythatthistombbelongedtothefamilyofJesus has little to commend it and has been almost universally rejected. Photograph courtesy of AmosKloner.

JamesCameron,thatatombinEastTalpiot,southJerusalem,maywellhavebeen the tomb of Jesus ofNazareth and his family.2 To reach this conclusionJacobovici and Pellegrino make several claims, most of which have seriousproblems.Theyresurrecttheobservationabouthowmostofthenamesinscribedon the ossuaries match the names of members of Jesus’ family or circle ofdisciples, andargue thatanX-mark in frontof the inscription ‘Yeshua, sonofYehosef ’ (or ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’) is a cross, while the pointed gable andcircleornamentationovertheentrancetothetombisasecretChristiansymbolthatidentifiesthetombasthetombofJesusandhisfamily.

All of these claims are problematic. Here I can treat two of them, bothhavingtodowithquestionsofsymbolism:first,theclaimthattheX-markatthebeginningoftheossuaryinscription‘Yeshua,sonofYehosef’signifiesacrossandassuchisaChristiansymbol;andsecond,theclaimthatthegableandcircleexcisionabovethetomb’sentranceisaJewish-Christiansymbol.Bothoftheseclaims are quite dubious if not demonstrably false.No qualified archaeologistagreeswithJacoboviciandPellegrino.

The much-talked-about X-mark on the end of the ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ossuaryisnotacross.Itisnotasymbolofanything,ratheritisastonemason’smarkindicatingwhichendof the lidgoeswithwhichendof thebox.Becauselidswereheavyandbecausethesehand-madeossuariesarenotsymmetrical,theperson strugglingwith the lidwould like toknowwhichendgoeswithwhichend.Thestonemason’smark,usuallyanX,thoughsometimesanupsidedownV(similartoapointedgable)oranasterisk(*),wasetchedintooneendoftheboxandatoneend(orunderside)ofthelid.Inthecaseofthe‘Jesus,sonofJoseph’ossuary, these facts are clearly noted in Levi Rahmani’sCatalogue of JewishOssuaries,3 a work known to Jacobovici. Jacobovici’s suggestion that the X-markisaChristiansymbolisfalseandmisleading.Itisinexcusable.

Perhaps the most demonstrably false claim in the East Talpiot tombhypothesis is the assertion that the pointed gable with circle over the tomb’sentrance is an early Jewish-Christian symbol, which is said to lend importantsupporttotheclaimthatthetombreallydidbelongtothefamilyofthefounderof theChristianmovement.4This interpretationof thepointedgableandcirclesymboliscompletelyerroneous.Onthecontrary, thissymbolsuggests that theoccupantsofthetombwereinallprobabilitynumberedamongtheverypeopleJesusoffended;peoplewhowouldhavecalledforhisdeath.

The pointed gable over a circle or rosette is seen in other tombs andossuaries,someofwhichpredatetheChristianeraandnoneofwhichisbelievedtohaveanythingtodowithJesusandhismovement.Weseethisartisticdesignin theouter and inner facadesof the so-calledSanhedrinTombs in Jerusalem.Overtheinnerentranceofthistombcomplexonecanseethepointedgableovera rosette, comprising acanthus leaves. A gable is also found over the outerentrance,butwithoutrosette.ThispatternisseenintheHinnomValleyTomb,theTombofJehoshaphatandtheso-calledGrapeTomb.It is tosomeof thesetombs that Jesus probably alluded when he criticized some of the religiousleaders,callingthem‘whitewashedsepulchres’–outerappearancebeautifulbutwithinarebonesandcorruption(Matt.23.27).

Invariousbooks concernedwith archaeology and Jewish symbols one canfind several photographs and facsimiles that depict the gable and circle orrosette. Among the items showing these are ossuaries, a tomb facade, a coin(struckbyPhilip,tetrarchofGaulanitisinthetimeofJesus)andepitaphart.Oneof the more common features is the Torah Ark (which contains Scripturescrolls),overwhichthepointedgableandcircleappear.ScholarshaveremarkedthatJewishfuneraryartoftenincorporatedimageryinfluencedbytheHerodiantemple,andoftendepictedwithpointedgableandcircleorrosette.5Excavations

oftheJewishtombsofBethSheariminGalileehaveuncoveredthesameartisticmotifs. Againwe find a TorahArk, at the top ofwhich is the gable above acircle(orrosette),paintedonasealingstone.

Thegableandcircleorrosettepatternisfoundonseveralossuaries,withthecircleorrosetteontheendoftheossuary,overwhichreststhegabledlid,orontheendoftheliditself,thusformingtheverypatternseenovertheentrancetothe East Talpiot tomb. An ossuary found on Mount Scopus is particularlyrelevant,foritdepictsmonumentalfacades,withtemplemotifs,onallfoursides.Bothendsandone sidepresentpointedgablesover entrances.Beneath twoofthesepointedgables–ononeendoftheossuaryandontheless-finishedsideoftheossuary–isacircle,inapatternquitelikewhatweseeovertheentrancetotheEastTalpiottomb.

Andfinally,depictionsoftheTorahArk,completewithgableandcircle(orrosette) are found in synagogue art. Striking examples are found in the artadorning thewalls of theDura Europos Synagogue, where the designs are inreferencetotheJerusalemtemple.

Theevidence isoverwhelming,andwhathasbeensurveyedabove isbutasampling.Theconclusionthatshouldbedrawnisquiteclear:thepointedgableandcircleovertheentrancetotheEastTalpiottombisJewishandhasnothingtodowithJesusandearlyChristians.Thesymbol isprobably in reference to thetemple.Giventhefactthataristocraticandhighpriestlyfamilieswereburiedinthe greater Talpiot area (among thempossibly the family ofCaiaphas, formerhigh priest), and the fact that every single name in the East Talpiot tomb isHasmonean,6 it is probable that this tomb belonged to a wealthy, aristocraticJerusalem family with ties to the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, some of themembersofthefamilyburiedinitmayhavebeenrulingpriests.ThesuggestionthatthegableandcircleadornmentoveritconstitutedanearlyChristiansymbolhasnofoundationandignoresamountainofcontraryevidence.

TheproponentsofthistheoryarecorrectinthinkingthatJesus’bodywouldhave been buried, in keeping with Jewish customs. But they are completelymistakeninthinkinghisbonesandossuary,alongwiththoseofothermembersof his family, would have been placed in a high-quality tomb, in theneighbourhood of other tombs containing the remains of aristocratic Jews,adornedwithasymbolproclaimingtempleandpriestlyaffiliation.Accordingly,itishighlyimprobablethattheEastTalpiottombhadanythingtodowithJesus,hisfamilyorhismovement.7

WhatdidJesuslooklike?For almost twomillennia, artists have tried to imagine what Jesus looked

like. We have countless portraits of his face and of various scenes from hisinfancy, childhood, public ministry, death, burial and resurrection. There arepost-NewTestamenteradescriptionsofJesus,bothasaboyandasanadult.Butnoonereallyknowswhathelookedlike,forthesimplereasonthatourearliestsources thatdescribehis activities and recordhis teachingsprovidenodetails.We’renottoldthecolourofhishair,hiseyesorwhatwashisheightorweight.Washe right-or left-handed?Was there anythingdistinctive about hiswalkormannerisms?Didhehaveanyfavouritefoods?Orsongs?Apartfromhisfamilyanddisciples,didhehaveanyfriends?We’retoldnoneofthesethings.

As we ponder these questions we realize that we know little about Jesusapart fromhis provocative teaching and evenmore provocative deeds.Duringthemysterious episode of the transfiguration, the evangelistMark tells us thatJesus‘wastransfiguredbeforethem’(Mark9.3).MatthewaddsthatthefaceofJesus‘shonelikethesun’(Matt.17.2),whileLukesays‘theappearanceofhisfacewasaltered’(Luke9.29).That’snotmuchtogoon.Theevangeliststellusmore about Jesus’ clothes (‘glistening, intensely white’, ‘white as light’,‘dazzlingwhite’)thantheydoaboutJesushimself.

Recently scientists have tried to ‘reconstruct’ the face of Jesus. ComputertechnologyandtheapplicationofclaytoamaleskullfromantiquityyieldedtheportraitofarathernondescriptMiddleEasternmale1(FigureA2.1).

Thereconstruction is interesting,but inmyopinionhardlynecessary. I saythis because approximately 900 mummy portraits have been recovered fromEgypt of the Greco-Roman period (mostly first to third century ce).2 TheEgyptiansandJewsofthisperiodweregeneticallyclose.AndinfactmanyJewstravelledtoandfromEgyptandmanylivedthere.TheseportraitsprobablytelluswhatJewslookedlike.

Themummyportraitsareincolourandmanyexhibitremarkabledetailandrealism(seeFiguresA2.2andA2.3).Facialreconstructions–alongthelinesofwhat was done to ‘reconstruct Jesus’ – often match the funeral portraitsurprisinglyclosely.Thus thesciencecorroborates theaccuracyof theartworkandtheartworkgivesusconfidenceinthescience.Men are usually bearded (lightly, not heavily), with dark, full eyebrows andthickcurlyhair.Thehairisalmostalwaysdarkbrown,almostblack.

FigureA2.1ThefaceofJesus?Anartistic/scientific‘reconstruction’ofthefaceofJesus.PhotographcourtesyoftheBBC.

TheclothingverymuchexhibitsGreco-Romanstyle,usuallysuggestinghighstanding economically and socially, which is consistent with possessing thewherewithal to commission the mummy portraits in the first place. If theclothingwerealteredtomatchtypicallyJewishclothing,whichwillbediscussedshortly,wewouldprobablyhavebeforeuscloseapproximationsofwhatJewishmaleslookedlikeinthefirsttwoorthreecenturiesoftheCommonEra.

Womenandteenagedgirlsareusuallyportrayedinstylishapparel.AgaintheRoman influence is obvious. Makeup can be detected in some cases. Maturewomen are wearing upmarket tunics and are often adorned with jewellery –earrings,necklaces, tiarasmadeof flowersorpreciousmetalsandgems.Theirhair isalsomadeupandwill strikepeople todayas rathercontemporary.Likemen,thewomen’shairisdarkbrown.Theireyesareeitherdarkorlightbrown(almostamber-likeinsomecases).

Thesemummyportraits–againallowingfordifferencesindress, jewelleryand hair styles – give us a pretty good idea of what Jesus and his Jewishcontemporaries looked like. Because Jewish law prohibited the making ofhumanandanimal images(Exod.20.4;Deut.5.8),Jewishfuneraryportraitsordeath masks are relatively rare. Nevertheless, from the non-Jewish mummyportraits it is not hard to imagine the general appearance of Jesus and hisdisciples, the sisters Mary and Martha or the dying daughter of Jairus thesynagogueruler.3

According to Matthew, Mark and Luke, when Jesus was crucified thesoldiers‘dividedhisgarmentsamongthembycastinglots’(Matt.27.35;Mark15.24;Luke23.34).ButJohntellsthestoryabitdifferently:

WhenthesoldiershadcrucifiedJesustheytookhisgarmentsandmadefourparts,oneforeachsoldier;alsohistunic.Butthetunicwaswithoutseam,wovenfromtoptobottom;sotheysaidtooneanother,‘Letusnottearit,butcastlotsforittoseewhoseitshallbe.’(John19.23–24a)

ThestatementthatthetunicofJesus‘waswithoutseam,wovenfromtoptobottom’, as well as the soldiers’ desire not to tear it, seems to imply that aseamless tunic is in someway special.As it turns out, it is.Most tunicsweremadeoftworectangularsheets,sewntogetheratthetopandthesides,withslitsfortheneckandarms.Examplesofthistypeoftunic,whichintheMishnahis

called a haluq (literally ‘divided’; m. Nega‘im 11.9), were found in the BarKokhbaCavesofNahalHever,excavatedbyYigaelYadin in theearly1960s.Besides the tunics, a child’s linen shirt was also found. No fewer than 34varieties of colours and dyes have been identified in the study of the textiles(mostly linens andwools) found atNahalHever and elsewhere near theDeadSea.

Inaddition to the tunicsand linenshirt,Yadinandhis teamfoundballsofwool dyed purple and partially completed fringes (zizioth), which Torah-observantJewishmenworeat thecornersof theirgarments.4Becauseof thesefinds we can now envisagemore accurately Jesus’ dress and the story of thewomanwiththehaemorrhagewhotouchesthefringeofhisgarment,hopingtobemadewell(Mark5.28).

SandalsandshoeshavebeenfoundatNahalHever(intheCaveofLetters),Masada,‘Ein-Gedi,Jericho,NahalMishmar,WadiMurabba‘at(inCave1)andWadi el-Habibi. The soles of these sandals and shoes are made of layers ofleather,fastenedwithleatherthongsorstraps.Nailswerenotused,probablyinkeepingwiththerabbinicprohibitionagainstwearingnail-studdedshoesonthesabbath(m.*abb.6.2;b.*abb.60a).5Jewsmayhaveavoidedusingnailsinthemakingoftheirsandalsandshoes;theRomansdidnot.Anumberofremarkablywell-preservedRomanAppendix2

sandalsandbootswererecoveredatVindolanda,thesiteoftheRomanfortand settlement inBritain discussed inChapter 3, dating to the endof the firstcenturyceandbeginningofthesecond.Theleathersolesandstrapsarefastenedwithnailsandmetalfasteners.6

From these discoveries we can imagine a composite portrait of Jesus, thegeneralappearanceofhis faceandhair,hisclothing,which included fringes–andphylacteriestoo–andhissandals.ItislikelythatmoreaffluentJews,manyofthemincities,wouldhavewornclothingofhigherquality.Itisalsoprobablethat this higher quality clothing would have exhibited traits of Roman style,perhaps similar towhatwe see in theEgyptianmummyportraits.ThewomenwhonumberedamongthefollowersofJesuswouldhaveresembledthewomendepicted in theEgyptianmummyportraits, but their apparelwould have beenmoremodestanditisnottoolikelythatmany,ifany,wouldhavebeenadornedwithjewellery.

Jesus and his following, representingmostlyGalilean villagers, would nothavestoodoutbutwouldhaveblended inwith thecrowdsofpilgrimsmakingtheirway to Jerusalem for thePassover festival. Jesus’ seamless tunicperhaps

marked his dress as somewhat special, but we cannot be sure. Because noGospeldescribeshisappearance,weshouldprobablyassumetherewasnothingremarkable about his face, bearing or build. Because we actually know whatpeople in hisworld looked like and because there is no good reason to thinkJesuswasdifferentorunusual,therereallyisnomystery.Jesusprobablylookedlikemost30-year-oldJewishmeninthefirstcentury,andwehaveaprettygoodideaofhowtheylooked.

NotesIntroduction

1On the correlation of archaeology and biblical texts See Ronald S. Hendel,‘GiantsatJericho’,BAR35/2(2009),pp.20,66;quotationfromp.20.

2OntheprincipalgoalofarchaeologyConsidercarefullyKennethHolum’scomments:‘ThepointofourworkisnottotrytoproveordisprovetheBible.Itis to help scientists understand the ancient cultures.’ Holum is a professor ofhistoryandarchaeologyattheUniversityofMaryland.Thequotationisfromaninterview(24October1993)and ispublished inJeffreyL.Sheler, Is theBibleTrue? How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of theScriptures(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1999),p.62.

3OntheHouseofDavidinscriptionSeeAvrahamBiran,‘AnAramaicSteleFragmentfromTelDan’,IEJ43(1993),pp.81–98;AndréLemaire,‘“HouseofDavid”RestoredinMoabiteInscription’,BAR20/3(1994),pp.30–7;‘TheTelDanStelaasaPieceofRoyalHistoriography’,JSOT81(1998),pp.3–14.Foraresponse to minimalists who tried to discount the inscription, see Anson F.Rainey,‘The“HouseofDavid”andtheHouseoftheDeconstructionists’,BAR20/6(1994),p.47.

4Ontheevidenceforatenth-centuryunitedmonarchyofIsraelSeeAmihaiMazar, ‘Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the UnitedMonarchy’,inReinhardG.KratzandHermannSpieckermann(eds),OneGod–OneCult –OneNation:Archaeological andBiblicalPerspectives (Berlin andNewYork:deGruyter,2010),pp.29–58.

5 F or further discussion of the Qeiyafa ostracon See AlanMillard, ‘TheOstracon from theDaysofDavidFoundatKhirbetQeiyafa’,TyndaleBulletin62 (2011), pp. 1–13; Stephen J. Andrews, ‘The Oldest Attested HebrewScriptures and the Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription’, in Craig A. Evans (ed.), TheWorldof Jesusand theEarlyChurch: Identityand Interpretation in theEarlyCommunitiesofFaith(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,2011),pp.153–68.

6On thecollapseofbiblicalminimalismSeeYosefGarfinkel, ‘TheBirthand Death of Biblical Minimalism’, BAR 37/3 (2011), pp. 46 –53, 78. Thissuccinct essay surveys the evidence that has been briefly reviewed here.Garfinkel is the Yigael Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the HebrewUniversityinJerusalemandsince2007hasdirectedtheexcavationsatKhirbetQeiyafa.

7On theDeadSeaScrolls and JesusSeeCraigA.Evans, ‘Jesus and the

DeadSeaScrolls’,inPeterW.FlintandJamesC.VanderKam(eds),TheDeadSeaScrollsafterFiftyYears:AComprehensiveAssessment,vol.2(Leiden:Brill,1999),pp.573–98.

8For the idea thatJesusofNazarethwasnotahistoricalpersonSeeTomHarpur,ThePaganChrist:Recovering theLostLight (Toronto:ThomasAllenPublishers,2004).

9TomHarpurAsquotedinKenGallinger,‘ATrulySpiritualPersonNeverStopsThinkingabouttheImplicationsoftheChristos’,UnitedChurchObserver74/11(2011),pp.30–1;quotationfromp.31.

10 F or refutation of Harpur’s pagan Christ See Stanley E. Porter andStephen J.Bedard,Unmasking thePaganChrist:AnEvangelicalResponse totheCosmicChristIdea(Toronto:Clements,2006).PorterandBedardshowthatHarpurnotonlymisrepresentsChristianityandtheGospelaccountsof the life,death and resurrection of Jesus, he misrepresents the various religions hecontendsareChristianity’sprecursors.

11 R obert Price See Price’s contribution and its refutation in James K.Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (eds), The Historical Jesus: Five Views (DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress,2009),pp.55–103.

12 O n Paul’s acquaintance with the disciples of Jesus See James D. G.Dunn,‘TheRelationshipbetweenPaulandJerusalemAccordingtoGalatians1and 2’, NTS 28 (1982), pp. 461–78, esp. 463 – 6; ‘Once More – Gal 1.18:ÓστορÏσαι ΚηφÍν in Reply to Otfried Hofius’, ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 138 – 9.DunnunderstandsPaul’sÓστορÏσαιΚηφÍνas‘togetinformationfromCephas’.SeealsoG.D.Kilpatrick,‘Galatians1:18ÓστορÏσαιΚηφÍν’,inA.J.B.Higgins(ed.), New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson1893 –1958 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 144 – 9.Kilpatrickcametothesameconclusion.

13OnPapias,bishopofHierapolisSeeBertholdAltaner,Patrology (NewYork: Herder & Herder, 1960), p. 113; Michael W. Holmes, The ApostolicFathers:GreekTextsandEnglishTranslations (3rdedn,GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2007),pp.735–41.

14OnQuadratustheapologistSeeAltaner,Patrology,pp.117–18;Holmes,TheApostolicFathers,pp.720–1.15 On Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp See Altaner, Patrology, pp. 99 –111;Holmes,TheApostolicFathers,pp.33–9,167–81,272–9.FormoreonearlyJesusmaterialin1Clement,seeAndrewGregory,‘1ClementandtheWritingsthat Later Formed the New Testament’, in Andrew Gregory and ChristopherTuckett (eds), The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),pp.129–57.

16 On the authenticity of the Jesus passage in Josephus See John P. Meier,‘Jesus in Josephus: AModest Proposal’, CBQ 52 (1990), pp. 76 –103; SteveMason, Josephus and the New Testament: Second Edition (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson,2003),pp.225–36.MasonisarespectedJosephusscholar.17 On the importance of verisimilitude in historical research See LouisGottschalk, ‘TheHistorian and theHistoricalDocument’, inLouisGottschalk,Clyde Kluckhorn and Robert Angell, The Use of Personal Documents inHistory, Anthropology and Sociology (Bulletin 53; NewYork: Social ScienceResearch Council, 1945), pp. 35 – 8. Gottschalk equates verisimilitude withcredibility.ItistothisprinciplethatA.N.Sherwin-Whitealludeswhenhesays:‘Thebasicreasonforthisconfidence[intheNewTestamentGospels]is,ifputsummarily,theexistenceofexternalconfirmations’(RomanSocietyandRomanLaw in the New Testament: The Sarum Lectures 1960 – 61 (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1963),pp.186–7).18On the use of theGospels in archaeology and historySeeEricM.Meyers(ed.), Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures (Duke JudaicStudies 1; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999); Sean Freyne, Galilee andGospel:CollectedEssays (WUNT125;Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2000);MarkA. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (SNTSMS 134;Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2005); JamesH. Charlesworth (ed.),JesusandArchaeology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006).

1IntheshadowofSepphoris:growingupinNazareth1 For a report of the excavation of the sacred grotto of the Basilica of theAnnunciation See Bellarmino Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth: Vol. 1, FromtheBeginningtilltheXIICentury(2vols,PublicationsoftheStudiumBiblicumFranciscanum17;Jerusalem:FranciscanPrintingPress,1969),pp.174–218.

2OntheideathatJesusgrewupinisolationSeeJosephKlausner,JesusofNazareth: His Life, Times and Teaching (London: George Allen & Unwin,1925), pp. 236 –7. Klausner speaks poetically of Jesus ‘cut off bymountainsfrom the greatworld,wrappedup in natural beauty’.But even inmore recenttimes scholars still speak of Jesus growing up in rural isolation. See E. P.Sanders, ‘Jesus:HisReligious“Type”’,Reflections (1992),pp.4–12.Sandersstates that it would have taken Jesus half a day to walk from Nazareth toSepphoris. In reality it only takes a little over one hour. Sanders is correct,however, in saying that Jesuswasnot an ‘urbanite’ and thathe seems tohaveavoidedcities.SeeE.P.Sanders,TheHistoricalFigureof Jesus (LondonandNewYork:Penguin,1993),p.12.

3 O n the distribution of pottery in first-century Galilee See James F.Strange,‘TheSayingsofJesusandArchaeology’,inJamesH.Charlesworthand

LorenL. Johns (eds),Hillel and Jesus:Comparisons of TwoMajor ReligiousLeaders(Minneapolis:Fortress,1997),pp.291–305,esp.301–2.Thesourceofpotterycanbeidentifiedbyneutronactivationanalysis.

4 O n Jesus as Jewish Cynic See John Dominic Crossan, The HistoricalJesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco:HarperCollins,1991),pp.421–2;quotationfromp.421.

5ForstudiesbyscholarswhofindtheCynichypothesisunconvincingSeeDavid E. Aune, ‘Jesus and Cynics in First-Century Palestine: Some CriticalConsiderations’,inCharlesworthandJohns(eds),HillelandJesus,pp.176–92;HansDieterBetz,‘JesusandtheCynics:SurveyandAnalysisofaHypothesis’,JR 74 (1994), pp. 453 –75; Christopher M. Tuckett, ‘A Cynic Q?’, Bib 70(1989), pp. 349 –76; Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1996),pp.368–91;BenWitheringtonIII,JesustheSage:ThePilgrimageofWisdom (Minneapolis:Fortress,1994),pp.123–43;CraigA.Evans,‘TheMisplacedJesus:InterpretingJesusinaJudaicContext’,inBruceD.Chilton,CraigA.EvansandJacobNeusner(eds),TheMissingJesus:Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament. New Research Examining theHistoricalJesusintheContextofJudaism(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2002),pp.11–39,esp.14–27.

6 F or a collection of parallels between Jesus and Cynics See F. GeraldDowning,Christand theCynics:JesusandOtherRadicalPreachers inFirst-CenturyTradition(JSOTManuals4;Sheffield:JSOTPress,1988).

7OntheJewishcharacterofGalileeandSepphorisinthetimeofJesusSeeJamesF.Strange,‘FirstCenturyGalileefromArchaeologyandfromtheTexts’,inDouglasR.EdwardsandC.ThomasMcCollough(eds),ArchaeologyandtheGalilee: Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods(Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1997), pp.39–48;MarkA.Chancey, TheMythof aGentileGalilee(SNTSMS118;Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002);Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (SNTSMS 134; Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2005).

8ForargumentsfortheexistenceofthetheatreinthetimeofJesusandfortheallusionstoitthathavebeensuggestedSeeRichardA.Batey,‘JesusandtheTheatre’,NTS30(1984),pp.563–74;JamesF.Strange,‘SomeImplicationsofArchaeologyforNewTestamentStudies’,inJamesH.CharlesworthandWalterP. Weaver (eds), What Has Archaeology To Do with Faith? (Faith andScholarshipColloquies;Philadelphia:TrinityPressInternational,1992),pp.23–59,esp.44–5.Batey,Strangeandotherarchaeologistspointtoevidence,suchas pottery and coins, that supports an early first-century date. See James F.Strange, ‘Six Campaigns at Sepphoris: The University of South Florida

Excavations,1983–1989’,inLeeI.Levine(ed.),TheGalileeinLateAntiquity(NewYork:JewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica,1992),pp.339–55,esp.342–3;RichardA.Batey,‘DidAntipasBuildtheSepphorisTheater?’,inJamesH.Charlesworth(ed.),JesusandArchaeology(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006),pp.111–19.

9On thewordplateiaThiswordappears in rabbinic literature ( y.Ketub.1.10) as a loanword and in fact occurs in reference to the city of Sepphoris,which boasted a theatre. For details see Strange, ‘Some Implications ofArchaeology’,pp.44and57–8,n.83.

10 O n the synagogue excavated at Capernaum See James F. Strange,‘SynagogueWhereJesusPreachedFoundatCapernaum’,BAR9/6 (1983),pp.24–31.MorewillbesaidaboutthissynagogueinChapter2.

11On theso-calledHouseofPeterSeeJamesF.Strange, ‘Has theHousewhereJesusStayedinCapernaumBeenFound?’BAR8/6(1982),pp.26–37.

12On theofficerofCapernaumSee JohnDominicCrossanand JonathanReed,ExcavatingJesus(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,2001),pp.87–9.Onthesecond-centurydatingoftheRomanbath,seeJonathanReed,ArchaeologyandtheGalileanJesus:ARe-examinationof theEvidence (Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational,2000),pp.155–6.

13OnJesus,archaeologyandurbanlifeSeeStrange,‘SomeImplicationsofArchaeology’,pp.41–7.14Onsocial,economicandurbanfactors in first-centuryJewishPalestineSeeBruceJ.MalinaandRichardL.Rohrbaugh,Social-ScienceCommentaryontheSynopticGospels(Minneapolis:Fortress,1992);DouglasE.Oakman,Jesusandthe Peasants (Matrix: The Bible in Mediterranean Context 4; Eugene, OR:CascadeBooks,2007).15OnthesynagogueofNazarethSeeBagatti,ExcavationsinNazareth,pp.233– 4. The ruins date no earlier than the second century ce. The remains of thefirst-century synagogue, which may have been little more than a privatedwelling,havenotbeenfound.2Amongthedevout:religiousformationinthesynagogue1Forargumentsthat therewereno synagoguebuildingsprior to70ceSeeHowardClarkKee,‘The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: Its Import for EarlyChristianity’, NTS 36 (1990), pp. 481–500; ‘The Changing Meaning ofSynagogue:AResponsetoRichardOster’,NTS40(1994),pp.281–3;‘DefiningtheFirst-CenturyCESynagogue:Problems andProgress’,NTS 41 (1995), pp.481–500; reprinted in Howard Clark Kee and Lynn H. Cohick (eds), TheEvolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress (Harrisburg, PA: TrinityPress International,1999),pp.7–26. In thesecondstudy,Kee is responding to

RichardOster,whosestudyiscitedinthefollowingnote.

2 F or arguments that there were synagogues in Israel prior to 70 ce SeeRichardE.Oster,‘SupposedAnachronisminLuke–Acts’Useofσυναγωγ9:ARejoinder to H. C. Kee’, NTS 39 (1993), pp. 178 –208; Rainer Riesner,‘SynagoguesinJerusalem’,inRichardBauckham(ed.),TheBookofActsinitsPalestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 179 –211; Lee I.Levine,‘TheNatureandOriginofthePalestineSynagogueReconsidered’,JBL115 (1996), pp. 425 – 48;KennethAtkinson, ‘On FurtherDefining the First-CenturyC.E.Synagogue:FactorFiction?ARejoinder toH.C.Kee’,NTS43(1997), pp. 491–502; John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘Dating Theodotos (CIJ1404)’,JJS51(2000),pp.243–80;‘TheTheodotosSynagogueInscriptionandtheProblemofFirst-CenturySynagogueBuildings’, inJamesH.Charlesworth(ed.), Jesus and Archaeology (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2006), pp. 236 – 82;LesterL.Grabbe,‘SynagogueandSanhedrinintheFirstCentury’,inStanleyE.PorterandTomHolmén(eds),HandbookfortheStudyoftheHistoricalJesus(4vols,Leiden:Brill,2011),pp.2:1723–45,esp.1723–9.GrabberightlyremarksthatvirtuallynoonehasfollowedKee.

3On theNorthAfricansynagogue inscriptionSeeSEGXVII823 (=CJZno. 72). For discussion, see Oster, ‘Supposed Anachronism’, p. 187;KloppenborgVerbin,‘DatingTheodotos’,pp.247–8.

4O n Jewish connections betweenCyrenaica and Judea SeeKloppenborgVerbin,‘DatingTheodotos’,p.248,n.16.5OnthediscoveryoftheJerusalemsynagogueinscriptionSeeRaimundWeill,‘LaCitédeDavid:CompterendudesfouillesexécutéesàJérusalemsurlesitede lavilleprimitive.Campaignede1913–1914’,REJ69(1919),pp.3–85+pls, esp.pl.XXVa; ‘LaCitédeDavid:Compte rendudes fouilles exécutées àJérusalemsur lesitede lavilleprimitive.Campaignede1913–1914’,REJ70(1920),pp.1–36,esp.30–4.6 For a summary of epigraphical analysis of the Theodotos inscription SeeKloppenborgVerbin,‘TheTheodotosSynagogueInscription’,pp.266–77.7ForasummaryofthearchaeologicalandcontextualfactorsoftheTheodotosinscription See Kloppenborg Verbin, ‘The Theodotos Synagogue Inscription’,pp. 260 – 6. Kloppenborg Verbin reasonably concludes that the Theodotossynagoguewasbuiltneartheturnoftheera.8Forbibliographyandbriefdescriptionsofthesevenpre-70cesynagoguesofIsraelSeeKloppenborgVerbin,‘TheTheodotosSynagogueInscription’,pp.248–50+nn.39–48;AndersRunesson,DonaldD.BinderandBirgerOlsson,TheAncient Synagogue from itsOrigins to 200 ce: A Source Book (Leiden: Brill,

2010),pp.25–76.Foracollectionofimportantessaysonthistopic,seeLeeI.Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel ExplorationSociety, 1981); and Hanswulf Bloedhorn and Gil Hüttenmeister, ‘TheSynagogue’,inW.Horburyetal.(eds),TheCambridgeHistoryofJudaism,Vol.3, The Early Roman Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999),pp.267–97.9 On the basalt foundation of the Capernaum synagogue See Michael Avi-Yonah, ‘Some Comments on the Capernaum Excavations’, in Levine (ed.),Ancient Synagogues Revealed, pp. 60 –2; Runesson, Binder and Olsson, TheAncient Synagogue, pp. 25 –32; John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed,ExcavatingJesus(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,2001),pp.90–1.Reedrightlycomments that to speak of a first-century synagogue at Capernaum is notsupportedbyarchaeologicalevidence,fortheevidenceathandisinsufficient.Iarguefor thefirst-centurysynagogue,beneath the limestonesynagogue,on thebasisofJewishreligioustraditionandpractice.10 On the excavation of Gamla See Shmaryahu Gutman, ‘The Synagogue atGamla’, in Levine (ed.), Ancient SynagoguesRevealed, pp. 30 – 4; ‘Gamala’,NEAEHL, pp. 2:459 – 63; Runesson, Binder and Olsson, The AncientSynagogue,pp.33–4.11Onthearchitecturalsynagogue‘template’SeeZ.Maoz,‘TheSynagogueofGamla and the Typology of Second-Temple Synagogues’, in Levine (ed.),AncientSynagoguesRevealed,pp.35–41;JamesF.Strange,‘ArchaeologyandAncient Synagogues up to about 200 C.E.’, in Alan J. Avery-Peck, Daniel J.Harrington and Jacob Neusner (eds), When Judaism and Christianity Began:Essays in Memory of Anthony J. Saldarini (2 vols, JSJSup 85; Leiden: Brill,2004),pp.2:483–508.12 On the excavation of the Herodium See Gideon Foerster, ‘Herodium’,NEAEHL,pp.2:618–21;Runesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,pp.35–6.TragicallyEhudNetzerdiedinOctoberof2010asaresultofafallsuffered while working at the Herodium. He was 76. For his assessment ofHerod’s building activities, including the Herodium, see Ehud Netzer, TheArchitectureofHerod,theGreatBuilder(TSAJ117;Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2006).13 On the excavation of the Jericho synagogue See Ehud Netzer, Ya‘akovKalman and Rachel Laureys, ‘A Synagogue from the Hasmonean PeriodRecentlyDiscoveredintheWesternPlainofJericho’,IEJ49(1999),pp.203–21;EhudNetzer,‘Jericho’,NEAEHLSup.pp.1798–800;Runesson,BinderandOlsson, TheAncient Synagogue, pp. 40–2. 14For apreliminary report of theMagdalasynagogueSeeJürgenK.Zangenberg,‘ArchaeologicalNewsfromthe

Galilee:Tiberias,MagdalaandRuralGalilee’,EarlyChristianity1 (2010),pp.471– 84, here 476 –7 (includes photograph); J. Corbett, ‘New SynagogueExcavationsinIsraelandBeyond’,BAR37/4(2011),pp.52–9,esp.53–6.Fordiscussionoftheearlier,erroneousidentificationoftheMagdalasynagogue,seeRunesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,p.55.15For apopular accountofYadin’s excavationofMasadaSeeYigaelYadin,Masada: Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots’ Last Stand (New York: RandomHouse,1966).16 On the excavation of the Masada synagogue See Yigael Yadin, ‘TheSynagogue atMasada’ andGideon Foerster, ‘The Synagogues atMasada andHerodium’,inLevine(ed.),AncientSynagoguesRevealed,pp.19–23and24–9respectively; Ehud Netzer, ‘Masada’, NEAEHL, pp. 3:973 – 85, esp. 981;Runesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,pp.55–7.17OntheexcavationoftheModi‘insynagogueSeeAlexanderOnnandShlomitWeksler-Bdolah, ‘Umm el-Umdan, Khirbet (Modi‘in)’, NEAEHL Sup. pp.2061–3;Runesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,pp.57–8.18On the excavation of the Qiryat Sefer synagogue SeeYitzhakMagen andYoavTzionit, ‘Qiryat Sefer (KhirbetBadd ‘Isa)’,NEAEHL Sup. pp. 2000 –3;Runesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,pp.65–6.19 On the discovery of a synagogue at Shuafat See Abraham Rabinovich,‘OldestJewishPrayerRoomDiscoveredonShuafatRidge’,JerusalemPost (8April1991);Runesson,BinderandOlsson,TheAncientSynagogue,pp.75–6.20Onthepurposeandfunctionoffirst-centurysynagoguesSeeMosheDothan,‘ResearchonAncientSynagoguesintheLandofIsrael’,inBenjaminMazarandHershel Shanks (eds), Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel (Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society, 1984), pp. 89 – 96. See also Yoran Tsafrir, ‘TheSynagogues at Capernaum and Meroth and the Dating of the GalileanSynagogue’,inJohnH.Humphrey(ed.),TheRomanandByzantineNearEast:SomeRecentArchaeologicalResearch(JRASup14;AnnArbor,MI:JournalofRomanArchaeology,1995),pp.151–61.21 On rabbinic evidence of synagogue-based schools See Shemuel Safrai,‘Education and the Study of Torah’, in Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern(eds),TheJewishPeopleintheFirstCentury(2vols,CRINT1.1–2;Assen:VanGorcum;Philadelphia:Fortress,1974–6),pp.2:945–70;quotationfromp.953.For a similar summary of (mostly) rabbinic evidence, see Emil Schürer, TheHistory of the JewishPeople in theAge of JesusChrist (3 vols, rev. byGezaVermes,FergusMillar andMatthewBlack;Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1973–87),pp.2:415–20;JohnT.Townsend,‘Education(Greco-Roman)’,inABD,pp.2:312–17,esp.315–17.

22OntheimportanceofthetasselinrabbinictraditionIntheTalmudwehearofapiousrabbi,astoldbyhisson:‘Ondescendingaladdermyfathersteppedononeofthethreadsandtoreitoff.Herefusedtomovefromthespotuntilitwasreplaced’ (b. *abb. 188b). Jesus also criticizes the hypocrites formaking theirphylacteries ‘broad’; that is,moreobvious.TheGospelsdonot tellus if Jesusworephylacteries(leatherpouchesorbindingsthatcontainversesofScripture,usuallytheShemaorrelatedtexts).Thereisnoreasontothinkthathedidnot.Again, his criticism is not directed against the practice itself; it is directedagainstostentation.23OntasselsinlateantiquitySeeYigaelYadin,Bar-Kokhba:TheRediscoveryof the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revolt against Imperial Rome(London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1971), pp. 83 –5. In theCave ofLetters atNahalHever,Yadinandhisteamfoundanumberofpartiallycompletedtassels,aswellasbundlesofwoolyarn,dyedblue,fromwhichadditionaltasselscouldbemade.AtQumrandozensofphylacterieshavealsobeenfound.24OnJesusand the synagogueSeeJamesD.G.Dunn, ‘DidJesusAttend theSynagogue?’inCharlesworth(ed.),JesusandArchaeology,pp.206–22.Onp.222 Dunn notes the significance of the tassels on Jesus’ clothing. 25 Do thescribes andPharisees reador teach?On thisquestion, seeMarkAllanPowell,‘DoandKeepWhatMosesSays(Matthew23:2–7)’,JBL114(1995),pp.419–35,esp.431–5.PowellrightlyarguesthatJesusisnotcommandinghisdisciplesto observe the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees (for their teaching andpracticearehypocritical);heiscommandinghisdisciplestoobeythereadingofthelawofMoses.26On theSeatofMoses in rabbinic literatureSeePesiqtadeRabKahana1.7:‘“The top of the throne was rounded in the back” (1 Kings 10.19) means,accordingtoRabbiAha, that the throneresembledtheseatofMoses[Hebrew:qetidradeMosheh]’;Exod.Rab.43.4(onExod.32.22):Moses‘wrappedhimselfinhiscloakandseatedhimselfinthepostureofasage’;SongRab.1.3§1:‘ThehouseofstudyofRabbiEliezerwasshapedlikeanarena,andtherewasinitastonewhichwas reserved for him to sit on’; and perhapsEsth. Rab. 1.11 (onEsth.1.2):‘theseatofIsraelisarealseat’.

3Inthebooks:reading,writingandliteracy1OntheilliteracyofJesusSeeRobertW.FunkandRoyW.Hoover(eds),TheFive Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (New York:Macmillan, 1993), p. 27; John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A RevolutionaryBiography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 25 – 6; Robert W. Funk,Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a NewMillennium (San Francisco: HarperCollins,1996),p.158;PieterF.CraffertandPieterJ.J.Botha,‘WhyJesusCouldWalk

ontheSeabutHeCouldnotReadandWrite’,Neot39(2005),pp.5–35.Bothaargues for the illiteracy of Jesus in the fourth part of this paper, under theheading ‘Was Jesus Literate?’ (pp. 21–32). It is to this part of the paper thatreference will be made. On the general question of illiteracy in theMediterraneanworldof lateantiquity, seeWilliamV.Harris,AncientLiteracy(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1989).

2ForasurveyoflibrariesinantiquitySeeLucianoCanfora,TheVanishedLibrary:AWonderoftheAncientWorld(London:HutchinsonRadius,1989).

3 O n literacy in late antiquity Not everyone agrees with the lower ratesproposedbyHarrisandothers(seenote1above).Forarguments insupportofhigher rates of literacy, seeAlanMillard,ReadingandWriting in theTimeofJesus (BibSem69;Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress, 2000), esp. pp. 154–84.

4 O n the writing materials at Qumran See Meir Bar-Ilan, ‘WritingMaterials’, in Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (eds),EncyclopediaoftheDeadSeaScrolls(2vols,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),pp.2:996–7.

5OnthescribesandthescriptoriumofQumranSeeEmanuelTov,‘ScribalPractices’; ‘Scribes’; and Magen Broshi, ‘Scriptorium’, in Schiffman andVanderKam(eds),EncyclopediaoftheDeadSeaScrolls,pp.2:827–30,830–1,831–2respectively.

6 T he portrait of bakery owner Terentius Neo and wife The portrait ishousedintheNationalArchaeologicalMuseuminNaples.7TheMurecineportraitofCalliope,museofepicpoetryTheportraitishousedintheNationalArchaeologicalMuseuminNaples.8ForanotherportraitfromPompeii,featuringayoungfemale,probablysingle,mimicking Calliope with stylus and tabulae ceratae in hand See Alan K.Bowman and J. David Thomas, The Vindolanda Writing Tablets (NewcastleuponTyne:FrankGraham,1974),p.29(pl.XIV).9 On the Murecine tablets See Judith Harris, Pompeii Awakened: A Story ofRediscovery(NewYork:I.B.Tauris,2007),pp.257–8.10Onthediscoveryofthe wooden writing tablets at Vindolanda See Robin Birley, Discoveries atVindolanda (Newcastle upon Tyne: Frank Graham, 1973); The RomanDocuments fromVindolanda (Greenhead:RomanArmyMuseumPublications,1990);AlanK.Bowman,LifeandLetterson theRomanFrontier:VindolandaanditsPeople(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1998),esp.pp.13–19.11ForimageofClaudia’sinvitationtoSulpiciaSeeBowman,LifeandLettersontheRomanFrontier,p.162(pl.VI).12OnClaudia’spoorpenmanshipSeeAlanK.Bowman,‘TheRomanImperial

Army:LettersandLiteracyontheNorthernFrontier’,inAlanK.BowmanandGregWoolf (eds), Literacy and Power in the AncientWorld (Cambridge andNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994),pp.109–25;quotationsfromp.124.13 On Vindolanda and the question of literacy See Bowman, ‘The RomanImperialArmy’,pp.124–5;LifeandLettersontheRomanFrontier,pp.82–99,esp.83: ‘Ifa literatemilitaryestablishmentappearson thenorthern frontierofBritainwithin a decade or two of its occupation by theRomans, then itmusthavebeenuniversalintheRomanprovinces.’Forimportantqualificationswithrespect to low estimations of literacy in the Roman Empire, see Alan K.Bowman,‘LiteracyintheRomanEmpire:MassandMode’,inJ.H.Humphrey(ed.),LiteracyintheRomanWorld(JournalofRomanArchaeology,SupplementSeries3;AnnArbor,MI:JournalofRomanArchaeology,1991),pp.119–31.14 On the scrolls found in the Villa of Papyri in Herculaneum See AmedeoMaiuri,HerculaneumandtheVillaofthePapyri(Novara:IstitutoGeograficodeAgostini,1974);Harris,PompeiiAwakened,pp.44–61.

15On thegraffiti found inPompeiiTheexamplesare taken fromCorpusInscriptionumLatinarum,vol.4.16OngraffitiinIsraelSeeMichaelE.Stone(ed.),RockInscriptionsandGraffitiProject (3vols,SBLRBS28,29,31;Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1992–4).Stoneand his colleagues catalogued some 8,500 inscriptions and graffiti found insouthern Israel: the Judean desert, the desert of the Negev and Sinai. Theinscriptionsareinseverallanguages,includingHebrew,Aramaic,Greek,Latin,Nabatean,Armenian,Georgian,Egyptianhieroglyphsandothers.Notmanydateto late antiquity, because, unlike the graffiti and inscriptions of Pompeii andHerculaneum,thegraffitiandinscriptionsinthedesertsofIsraelwereexposedtotheerodingelements.17On thePalatineGraffitoForanearly report, seeRodolfoLanciani,AncientRomeintheLightofRecentDiscoveries(Boston:Houghton,Mifflin,1898),pp.121–2 + plate. For more recent discussion, see B. Hudson McLean, AnIntroduction to Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), p. 208 (‘discovered in thesubterranean chambers of the Roman Palatine Hill’); David L. Balch andCarolyn Osiek, Early Christian Families in Context: An InterdisciplinaryDialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 103 – 4; JohnGranger Cook,‘Envisioning Crucifixion: Light from Several Inscriptions and the PalatineGraffito’,NovT 50 (2008), pp. 262– 85, esp. 282–5.The original locus of thegraffito is disputed. According to Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem:Archaeological Evidence of Church Life before Constantine (Macon, GA:

Mercer University Press, 1985), pp. 27– 8, the graffito was ‘found in theservants’ quarters of the Imperial Palace’. According to Everett Ferguson,Backgrounds of EarlyChristianity (2nd edn,GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993),pp.559–61,thegraffitowas‘scratchedonastoneinaguardroomonPalatineHillneartheCircusMaximus’.18 On the date of the Palatine Graffito See Maria Antonietta Tomei,MuseoPalatino(Milan:Electa,1997),pp.104–5.Animageofthegraffitoisprovidedonp.104.19Crucified in themanner described in theAnthologia Latina ‘The criminal,outstretchedontheinfamousstake,hopesforescapefromhisplaceonthecross’(415.23).20OntheslavethrowingakissSeeCook,‘EnvisioningCrucifixion’,p.283,n.91.21 On libraries and collections See George W. Houston, ‘PapyrologicalEvidenceforBookCollectionsandLibrariesintheRomanEmpire’,inWilliamA.JohnsonandHoltN.Parker(eds),AncientLiteracies:TheCultureofReadinginGreeceandRome (Oxford andNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 2009),pp. 233 – 67. For more on the general topic of collections and archives, seeKatelijn Vandorpe, ‘Archives and Dossiers’, in Roger S. Bagnall (ed.), TheOxfordHandbookofPapyrology (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),pp.216–55.22OnthelongevityofCodexVaticanusSeeJ.KeithElliott,‘T.C.SkeatontheDatingandOriginofCodexVaticanus’, inT.C.Skeat,TheCollectedBiblicalWritingsofT.C.Skeat(introducedandeditedbyJ.KeithElliott;NovTSup113;Leiden:Brill,2004),pp.281–94,here293.23OnthelongevityofotherChristianBiblesCodexSinaiticus,forexample,wascorrectedinthesixthorseventhcentury.CodexEphraemiRescriptus,producedinthefifthcentury,wasinuseforfourorfivecenturiesbeforebeingoverwrittenin the twelfth century. SeeFrederickG.Kenyon, TheText of theGreekBible(3rdedn,ed.A.W.Adams;London:Duckworth,1975),pp.41–2,44.Retiredanddiscardedmsswerenotcorrected;onlythosestillinuse.24Onthetau-rhocompendiumanditsrelevanceforthestyleofcrossonwhichJesus was crucified See Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts:ManuscriptandChristianOrigins(GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2006),pp.147–8.25 On widespread literacy among the Jewish people See Shemuel Safrai,‘Education and the Study of Torah’, in Shemuel Safrai and Menahem Stern(eds),TheJewishPeopleintheFirstCentury(2vols,CRINT1.1–2;Assen:VanGorcum;Philadelphia:Fortress,1974–6),pp.2:945–70;quotationfromp.952.Safrai (‘Education and the Study of Torah’, pp. 953 –5) remarks further,

depending on y. Meg. 3.1 (73d); y. Ketub. 13.1 (35c), that schools wereconnectedwithsynagoguesandthatlearningTorahwasobligatoryforboysbutnotforgirls.ButdothesetraditionsreallytellusanythingaboutJewishliteracyinthefirstcentury?26 On doubts about the rabbinic portait of widespread literacy Uncriticalacceptance of the rabbinic tradition of schools in every village is rightlycriticizedinJ.P.Meier,AMarginalJew:RethinkingtheHistoricalJesus,Vol.1,TheRootsof theProblemandthePerson (NewYork:Doubleday,1991),p.271;andCraffertandBotha,‘WhyJesusCouldWalkontheSeabutHeCouldnotReadandWrite’,pp.24–5.27OntheprobabilitythatJesuswasliterateSeePaulFoster,‘EducatingJesus:TheSearchforaPlausibleContext’,JSHJ4(2006),pp.7–33.28 On the meaning of Rabbi as title prior to 70 ce See Shaye J. D. Cohen,‘EpigraphicalRabbis’,JQR72(1981–2),pp.1–17.29OnJesusandrabbinicteachingSeeRainerRiesner,JesusalsLehrer(WUNT2/7; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981); Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans,‘Jesus and Israel’s Scriptures’, inBruceD.Chilton andCraigA.Evans (eds),Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research(NTTS19;Leiden:Brill,1994),pp.281–335,here285–98.30OnthequestionsJesusputtohiscriticsSeeJohnA.T.Robinson,‘DidJesushave a Distinctive Use of Scripture?’, in his Twelve More New TestamentStudies (London: SCM Press, 1984, pp. 35 – 43). Robinson has called thisdistinctivefeatureJesus’ ‘challenginguse’ofScripture.Herightlyregards thisfeature asderiving from Jesushimself andnot the earlyChristian community.SeealsoJamesD.G.Dunn, JesusRemembered (Christianity in theMaking1;GrandRapids:Eerdmans,2003),p.314.31 For a helpful tabulation of Jesus’ use of Scripture See Richard T. France,Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages toHimselfandHisMission(London:Tyndale,1971),pp.259–63.32On the ‘canon’ of Jesus and his contemporaries SeeCraigA. Evans, ‘TheScripturesofJesusandHisEarliestFollowers’,inLeeM.McDonaldandJamesA. Sanders (eds), TheCanonDebate (Peabody,MA:Hendrickson, 2002), pp.185–95.33 On the ‘canon’ of Qumran In the non-biblical scrolls of Qumran and theregion of the Dead Sea (here the pesharim are being excluded), the book ofDeuteronomy is quoted some 22 times, Isaiah some 35 times and the Psaltersome31times.SeeJamesC.VanderKam,‘AuthoritativeLiteratureintheDeadSeaScrolls’,DeadSeaDiscoveries5(1998),pp.382–402;‘QuestionofCanonViewed through the Dead Sea Scrolls’, inMcDonald and Sanders (eds), The

CanonDebate,pp.91–109.34Onrabbinicandscribaleducation:One is remindedof the rabbinicdictum:‘ScriptureleadstoTargum,TargumleadstoMishnah,MishnahleadstoTalmud,Talmud leads to performance’ (SipreDeut. §161 (onDeut. 17.19)). Althoughthis dictum postdates Jesus by centuries, it probably in part mirrors earlierconceptsofscribalpedagogy.4Confronting the establishment: ruling priests and the temple 1 O n themeaningofIsaiah5inthetimeofJesusSeeJosephM.Baumgarten,‘4Q500andthe Ancient Conception of the Lord’s Vineyard’, JJS 40 (1989), pp. 1– 6;George J. Brooke, ‘4Q500 1 and the Use of Scripture in the Parable of theVineyard’,DSD2(1995),pp.268–94.

2 O n the temple warning inscriptions See Charles S. ClermontGanneau,‘UnestèledutempledeJérusalem’,RAr28(1872),pp.214–34,290–6+pl.X;JosephM.Baumgarten,‘ExclusionsfromtheTemple:ProselytesandAgrippaI’,JJS 33 (1982), pp. 215 –25; Peretz Segal, ‘The Penalty of the WarningInscriptionfromtheTempleofJerusalem’,IEJ39(1989),pp.79–84.

3 O n displaying the temple utensils for public viewing See Daniel R.Schwartz, ‘Viewing theHolyUtensils’,NTS32 (1986),pp.153–9.Schwartzbelievesthecustomofpubliclydisplayingtheholyutensils,presupposedintheapocryphalstoryfoundinP.Oxy.840,isprobablyhistorical.

4Onthemiqva’ot(ritualimmersionpools)atthetempleandelsewhereSeeRonnyReich,‘RitualBaths’,inEricM.Meyers(ed.),TheOxfordEncyclopediaofArchaeology in theNearEast (NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press, 1997),pp.4:430–1; ‘Miqva’ot atKhirbetQumranand the JerusalemConnection’, inLawrence H. Schiffman, Emanuel Tov and James C. VanderKam (eds), TheDead Sea Scrolls: Fifty Years After Their Discovery (Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,2000),pp.728–33.

5Onthehousesofthewealthy,includingrulingpriestsSeeMagenBroshi,‘Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion’, in Yigael Yadin (ed.),Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City (Jerusalem: IsraelExploration Society, 1974), pp. 57– 60. For the sugges tion that Annas andCaiaphas shared the same residence, see Arthur Rupprecht, ‘The House ofAnnas–Caiaphas’, Archaeology in the Biblical World 1 (1991), pp. 4 –17;ShimonGibson, TheFinalDaysof Jesus:TheArchaeologicalEvidence (NewYork:HarperOne,2009),p.82.Fordiscussionofthestonevessels,seeShimonGibson, ‘Stone Vessels of the Early Roman Period from Jerusalem andPalestine:AReassessment’,inG.ClaudioBottini,LeahDiSegniandL.DanielChrupcala(eds),OneLand–ManyCultures:ArchaeologicalStudiesinHonour

of Stanislao Loffreda OFM (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2003), pp.287–308.

6 O n the family tomb of Annas See Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer,‘Akeldama:Potter’sFieldorHighPriest’sTomb?’BAR20/6(1994),pp.22–35,76,78.

7 O n the Caiaphas Ossuary inscriptions See Ronny Reich, ‘OssuaryInscriptionsfromtheCaiaphasTomb’,JerusalemPerspective4/4–5(1991),pp.13 –21 + plates and facsimiles; ‘Ossuary Inscriptions from the “Caiaphas”Tomb’,‘Atiqot21(1992),pp.72–7+figs5and6.

8OnJewishossuariesandtheGreekgodCharonSeeRachelHachliliandAnnKillebrew, ‘Was theCoin-on-EyeCustoma JewishBurialPractice in theSecondTemplePeriod?’BA46(1983),pp.147–53,esp.148–9;ZviGreenhut,‘The“Caiaphas”TombinNorthTalpiyot,Jerusalem’,‘Atiqot21(1992),pp.63–71,esp.70.Onthecustomandbeliefinafterlife,seeDavidBivin,‘ASadduceeWhoBelievedinanAfterlife?’JerusalemPerspective4/4–5(1991),p.7.

9 O n depictions of boats in tombs See BenjaminMazar, Beth She‘arim:Report on theExcavationsDuring 1936 –1940, vol. 1,Catacombs 1– 4 (NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress,1973),pl.XX(=BethShe‘arim,HallP, catacomb no. 1); see also Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in theGreco-Roman Period, vol. 1, The Archaeological Evidence from Palestine(Bollingen Series 37; New York: Pantheon Books, 1953), pp. 97– 8 (cf.Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in theGreco-RomanPeriod, vol. 3, nos 67 and77),forexamplesinPalestine;andGoodenough,JewishSymbolsintheGreco-Roman Period, vol. 2, p. 43 (cf. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-RomanPeriod,vol.3,no.836),foranexampleinRome.

10MoreonafterlifeboatsSaulLiberman,‘SomeAspectsofAfterLife inEarlyRabbinicLiterature’,inS.Liebermanetal.(eds),HarryAustrynWolfson:Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, vol. 2(Jerusalem:AmericanAcademyforJewishResearch,1965),pp.495–532,esp.512–13.

11YetmoreonafterlifeboatsMazar,BethShe‘arim,p.129.12 For scholars convinced of the Caiaphas identification See John DominicCrossan and JonathanL.Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behindthe Texts (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), p. 242. Archaeologists whoagree with the identification include Zvi Greenhut, ‘The Caiaphas Tomb inNorth Talpiyot, Jerusalem’, and Ronny Reich, ‘Ossuary Inscriptions of theCaiaphasFamilyfromJerusalem’,inH.Geva(ed.),AncientJerusalemRevealed(Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), pp. 219 –22 and 223 –5respectively.

13Forscholarsnotconvincedof theCaiaphas identificationSeeEmilePuech,‘A-t-on redécouvert le tombeau du grand-prêtreCaïphe?’MdB 80 (1993), pp.42–7;WilliamHorbury,‘The“Caiaphas”OssuariesandJosephCaiaphas’,PEQ126(1994),pp.32–48.14 For debate about the quality of the Caiaphas tomb See Puech, ‘A-t-onredécouvertletombeaudugrand-prêtreCaïphe?’,pp.45–6;Gibson,TheFinalDaysofJesus,p.83.15 On vocalizing the Caiaphas ossuary name See Horbury,‘The “Caiaphas”Ossuaries’,p.41:yodratherthanwaw‘seemslesslikely’;p.46:an‘ambiguousvowelletterismoreprobablywawthanyodh’;andPuech,‘A-t-onredécouvertletombeaudugrand-prêtreCaïphe?’,p.46,whosuggestsQophaorQupha.16 On the Theophilus ossuary inscription See Dan Barag and David Flusser,‘TheOssuaryofYehohanahGranddaughteroftheHighPriestTheophilus’,IEJ36(1986),pp.39–44,here39;LeviYizhaqRahmani,ACatalogueofJewishOssuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: The IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority,1994),p.259no.871.17 On the Boethos ossuary inscription See Eleazar Lipa Sukenik ‘A JewishTomb Cave on the Slope of Mount Scopus’, Qovetz 3 (1934), pp. 62–73(Hebrew),here67;Rahmani,ACatalogueofJewishOssuaries,pp.85–6no.41.18Onthecollectionoftaxesinfirst-centuryJewishPalestineSeeK.C.HansonandDouglasE.Oakman,Palestine in theTimeofJesus:SocialStructuresandSocial Conflicts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), pp. 99 –129; Douglas E.Oakman,JesusandthePeasants(Matrix:TheBibleinMediterraneanContext4;Eugene,OR:CascadeBooks,2007),pp.280–97.19ForLagrange’sqorbandiscoveriesSeeMarie-JosephLagrange,‘Epigraphiesémitique’,RB2(1893),pp.220–2.20OntheqorbaninscriptionneartheTempleMountwallSeeBenjaminMazar,‘The Excavations South and West of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: TheHerodianPeriod’,BA33(1970),pp.47–60,here55+fig.13.21OntheqorbanossuaryinscriptionSeeJózefTadeuszMilik,‘TroistombeauxjuifsrécemmentdécouvertsauSud-EstdeJérusalem’,LÄ7(1956–7),pp.232–67, here 235 – 9 + figs 2 and 3; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ‘The Aramaic QorbânInscriptionfromJebelHalletet-TûrîandMk7:11/Mt15:5’,JBL78(1959),pp.60–5.22OnthediscoveryandanalysisofthecontentsoftheShroudTombSeeMarkSpigelman,‘TheJerusalemShroud:ASecondTempleBurialAnswersModernMedical Questions’, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 24(2006),p.127;Gibson,TheFinalDaysofJesus,pp.138–47.23On themedical examination of the skeletal remains of theCaiaphasTomb

SeeJoeZias,‘HumanSkeletalRemainsfromthe“Caiaphas”Tomb’,‘Atiqot21(1992),pp.78–80.24On theTombof JasonSeeLeviYizhaqRahmani, ‘Jason’sTomb’, IEJ 17(1967),pp.61–100.25ForarecentsurveyoftheevidenceoflongevityinJewishlateantiquitySeeYossiNagar andHagitTorgeë, ‘BiologicalCharacteristics of JewishBurial intheHellenisticandEarlyRomanPeriods’,IEJ53(2003),pp.164–71.

5Lifewiththedead:Jewishburialtraditions1ForintroductiontoJewishossilegiumSeeEricM.Meyers,JewishOssuaries:Reburial and Rebirth (BibOr 24; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971);CraigA.Evans,JesusandtheOssuaries:WhatJewishBurialPracticesRevealabouttheBeginningofChristianity(Waco,TX:BaylorUniversityPress,2003);ByronR.McCane,RollBacktheStone:DeathandBurialintheWorldofJesus(Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational,2003).

2 F or detailed discussion of the ‘crucifixion’ texts from Qumran SeeGregoryL.Doudna,4QPesherNahum:ACriticalEdition (JSPSup35;CIS8;LondonandNewYork:SheffieldAcademicPress,2001),pp.389–433;YigaelYadin,TheTempleScroll (3vols, Jerusalem: IsraelExplorationSociety,1977–83),pp.2:288–91.

3 F or a selection of studies concerned with this find See Yigael Yadin,‘Epigraphy andCrucifixion’, IEJ 23 (1973), pp. 18 –22+ plate; JoeZias andEliezerSekeles,‘TheCrucifiedManfromGiv‘atha-Mivtar:AReappraisal’,IEJ35 (1985), pp. 22–7; Joe Zias and James H. Charlesworth, ‘Crucifixion:Archaeology,Jesus,andtheDeadSeaScrolls’,inJamesH.Charlesworth(ed.),JesusandtheDeadSeaScrolls(ABRL;NewYork:Doubleday,1992),pp.273–89+plates.Ontheproblemofdeterminingbonedamagebeforeorafterdeath,see Norman J. Sauer, ‘The Timing of Injuries and Manner of Death:Distinguishing among Antemortem, Perimortem and Postmortem Trauma’, inKathleenJ.Reichs(ed.),ForensicOsteology:Advances in theIdentificationofHumanRemains(2ndedn,Springfield,IL:CharlesC.Thomas,1998),pp.321–32.

4 F or studies relating to the decapitated woman (or man) See N. Haas,‘AnthropologicalObservationsontheSkeletalRemainsfromGiv‘atha-Mivtar’,IEJ20(1970),pp.38–59;JoeZias,‘AnthropologicalEvidenceofInterpersonalViolenceinFirst-CenturyA.D.Jerusalem’,CurrentAnthropology24(1983),pp.233– 4;PatriciaSmith, ‘TheHumanSkeletalRemains from theAbbaCave’,IEJ27(1977),pp.121–4.5 On decapitation as act of violence and not judicial execution See Zias,‘AnthropologicalEvidenceofInterpersonalViolence’,pp.123–4.

6ForassessmentofthehumanremainsatTowtonV.Fiorato,A.BoylstonandC.Knüsel(eds),BloodRedRoses:TheArchaeologyofaMassGravefromtheBattleofTowtonAD1461(Oxford:Oxbow,2000).

7For theargument thatpaucityofevidence for theburialof theexecutedimplies Jesus was not buried See John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus?Exposing theRootsofAnti-Semitism in theGospelStoryof theDeathofJesus(SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1995),pp.160–88.

8OnRomanburialpracticesSeeJocelynM.C.Toynbee,DeathandBurialintheRomanWorld(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1971).

9 O n monumental tombs See Janos Fedak, Monumental Tombs of theHellenisticAge:AStudyofSelectedTombsfromthepre-ClassicaltotheEarlyImperial Era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990); Geoffrey B.Waywell and Andrea Berlin, ‘Monumental Tombs: From Maussollos to theMaccabees’,BAR33/3(2007),pp.54–65.

10Ontheprobabilityof theburialofJesusSeeRaymondE.Brown,‘TheBurialofJesus(Mark15:42–47)’,CBQ50(1988),pp.233–45.

11On theelementofshamein theburialofJesusSeeByronR.McCane,‘“WhereNoOneHadYetBeenLaid”:TheShameofJesus’Burial’,inBruceD.ChiltonandCraigA.Evans(eds),AuthenticatingtheActivitiesofJesus(NTTS28.2; Leiden: Brill, 1998), pp. 431–52; reprinted in McCane, Roll Back theStone,pp.89–108.

12 O n the Gospels’ consistency with archaeological evidence See JodiMagness, ‘Jesus’ Tomb –What Did It Look Like?’, in Hershel Shanks (ed.),WhereChristianityWasBorn (Washington,DC:BiblicalArchaeologySociety,2008),pp.213–26;quotationfromp.224.ForcriticismofCrossan’stheorythatJesuswasnotburied,seeMcCane,RollBacktheStone,p.107,n.6;Magness,‘Jesus’Tomb’,pp.222–4.

Appendix1:HavewefoundthefamilytombofJesus?1 For scholarly publications of the excavation of the East Talpiot tomb SeeYosefGat,‘EastTalpiot’,HadashotArkheologiyot[=ArchaeologicalNews]76(1981),pp.24–5(Hebrew);AmosKloner,‘ATombwithInscribedOssuariesinEast Talpiyot, Jerusalem’, ‘Atiqot 29 (1996), pp. 15 –22 (with sketches byShimonGibson).

2OnthetheorythattheEastTalpiottombbelongedtothefamilyofJesusSee Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb: TheDiscovery,theInvestigation,andtheEvidencethatCouldChangeHistory(SanFrancisco: HarperCollins, 2007). The release of this book coincided with atelevisiondocumentarythatairedonDiscoveryChannelandothercableoutlets.Neitherauthorisanarchaeologist,historianorbiblicalscholar.

3 O n the proper identification of the stonemason’s mark in the ‘Jesus’ossuary See Levi Yizhaq Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in theCollections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem:The IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority,1994), p. 223, n. 704. If one flips to pp. 226 – 9 one will see three moreexamples of ossuaries (nos 725, 729 and 731) fromEast Talpiot and a fourthfromRamot(no.740)withX-marks.PerusalofRahmani’scataloguewillrevealmanymoreexamplesofossuariesbearingstonemason’smarks.JacoboviciandPellegrinoreferenceRahmani’scatalogue.SeeTheJesusFamilyTomb,p.215.Thereisnodefencefortheirmisleadinginterpretationofthismark.

4OnthepointedgableandcircleasaChristiansymbolSeeJacoboviciandPellegrino, The Jesus Family Tomb, pp. 11–12, 128 –30. Jacobovici andPellegrino refer to the pointed gable as a ‘chevron’ and as a ‘secret Judeo-Christiansymbol’.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.

5OnthepointedgableandcircleorrosetteinJewishsettingsSeeErwinR.Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 3 (BollingenSeries37;NewYork:PantheonBooks,1953),figs142and143,239(ossuaries),508(tombfacade);676(coinstruckbyPhilip, tetrarchofGaulanitis);707and710(epitaphart:Toraharkswithgableandcircle);forcommentaryonfig.710,seeGoodenough,JewishSymbols,vol.2: ‘Ishould judge that thecirclewithinthegablewouldhavebeenawreathor rosette ina largerdrawing’ (p.6).SeealsoMichaelAvi-Yonah,ArtinAncientPalestine:SelectedStudies(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1981),plates12.4,13.8,15.4–5and16.1.

6OnthesignificanceofHasmoneannamesTheHasmoneanfamilywasanaristocraticpriestlyfamilythatledtheJewishrevoltagainsttheSeleucidGreeksin167bce.TheirnamesbecameverypopularamongtheJewishpeople.Everyname inscribed on the ossuaries in the East Talpiot tomb isHasmonean. Thiscoincidence,alongwiththeprominentpointedgableandcircleovertheentrancetothetomb,suggeststheoccupantsoftheEastTalpiottombwereaffiliatedwiththeJerusalemtempleandperhapsweremembersofthepriestlyaristocracy.

7 F or a severely critical review of Jacobovici and Pellegrino, The JesusFamilyTombSeeShimonGibson,TheFinalDaysofJesus:TheArchaeologicalEvidence (NewYork:HarperOne, 2009), pp. 175 – 87: ‘nothing to commendthistomb’;JonathanReed,inReviewofBiblicalLiterature(postedonlineJune2007).Reed,aqualifiedandrespectedarchaeologist,withjustificationspeaksof‘deceit’intheJacobovici/Pellegrinobook.Evenmoreegregiousisthetelevisiondocumentary.

Appendix2:WhatdidJesuslooklike?1Reconstructed Jesus faceProducedbyRichardNeave, retiredmedical artist,UniversityofManchester.SeePopularMechanics(7December2002).

2 F or mummy portraits See Susan Walker and Morris Bierbrier (eds),AncientFaces:MummyPortraitsfromRomanEgypt(London:BritishMuseumPress,1997;2ndedn,NewYork:Routledge,2000);JanPicton,StephenQuirkeandPaulC.Roberts (eds), Living Images:EgyptianFuneraryPortraits in thePetrie Museum (Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2007); Alan K. andMichaelBrady (eds), Images andArtefacts of the AncientWorld (Oxford andNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),pp.131–50.

3 W hat about the face of Jesus in the Shroud of Turin or on sixth-andseventh-century ce Byzantine coins? The image of the face in the Shroud ofTurinand its resemblance to the faceofJesusstampedonByzantinecoinsareinterestingobservations.ButthescienceandauthenticityoftheShroudaremuchdisputedandtheByzantinecoinsarelate.ReconstructingthefaceofJesusonthebasisoftheseitemsisnotrecommended.

4O n the clothing and textiles found atNahalHever SeeY.Yadin,Bar-Kokhba: The Rediscovery of the Legendary Hero of the Last Jewish Revoltagainst ImperialRome (London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1971), pp. 66 – 85;Jodi Magness, Debating Qumran: Collected Essays on its Archaeology(Interdisciplinary Studies inAncient Culture andReligion 4; Leuven: Peeters,2004), pp. 113 – 49, esp. 137– 40.Magness comparesYadin’s findswith thetextiles,shoesandclothingfoundatQumran.FordiscussionofRomanclothing,with some comparison to Yadin’s finds, see also Judith L. Sebesta, ‘TunicaRalla,TunicaSpissa:TheColorsandTextilesofRomanCostume’,andLucilleA. Roussin, ‘Costume in Roman Palestine: Archaeological Remains and theEvidence from theMishnah’, in JudithL.Sebesta andLarissaBonfante (eds),TheWorldofRomanCostume(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2001),pp. 65–76, 182–90 respectively.Roussin’s study correlates the archaeologicalevidencewiththemanycommentsaboutclothingintherabbinicliterature.Shemakes several interesting comments about how clothing reflected social statusand religious traditions. In the same collectionof studies, see alsoDouglasR.Edwards,‘TheSocial,Religious,andPoliticalAspectsofCostumeinJosephus’,pp.153–62.

5OnJewishsandalsandotherleathergoodsSeeAnnE.Killebrew,‘LeatherGoods’, in Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (eds),EncyclopediaoftheDeadSeaScrolls(2vols,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),pp.1:477–9.

6 R oman footwear See Alan K. Bowman and J. David Thomas, TheVindolandaWritingTablets(Newcastle-upon-Tyne:FrankGraham,1974),p.27(pl.XIII).For technical discussion, seeC.vanDriel-Murray, ‘Vindolanda andtheDatingofRomanFootwear’,Britannia32(2001),pp.185–97.Forgeneral

discussion,seeN.Goldman,‘RomanFootwear’,inSebestaandBonfante(eds),TheWorldofRomanCostume,pp.101–32.We are fortunate in having a growing number of studies in archaeology. Forthose interested in further study of Jesus and archaeology, I recommend thefollowing:BooksAviam,M.,Jews,PagansandChristiansinGalilee:25YearsofArchaeologicalExcavationsandSurveys.Hellenistic toByzantinePeriods (LandofGalilee1;Rochester,NY:UniversityofRochesterPress,2004).Bagatti, B., Excavations in Nazareth: Vol. 1, From the Beginning till the XIICentury (2 vols, Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 17;Jerusalem:FranciscanPrintingPress,1969).Bottini,G.C.,DiSegni,L.andAlliata,E. (eds),ChristianArchaeology in theHoly Land, New Discoveries: Essays in Honour of Virgilio C. Corbo, OFM(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: Collectio Maior 36; Jerusalem: FranciscanPrintingPress,1990).Charlesworth,J.H.(ed.),JesusandArchaeology(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2006).Charlesworth,J.H.andWeaver,W.P.(eds),WhatHasArchaeologyToDowithFaith? (Faith and Scholarship Colloquies; Philadelphia, PA: Trinity PressInternational,1992).Crossan,J.D.andReed,J.L.,ExcavatingJesus:BeneaththeStones,BehindtheTexts(SanFrancisco,CA:HarperCollins,2001).Edwards, D. R. and McCollough, C. T. (eds), Archaeology and the Galilee:TextsandContextsintheGraeco-RomanandByzantinePeriods(SouthFloridaStudiesintheHistoryofJudaism143;Atlanta,GA:ScholarsPress,1997).Edwards,D.R. andMcCollough,C.T. (eds), TheArchaeology ofDifference:Gender,Ethnicity,Classandthe‘Other’inAntiquity:StudiesinHonorofEricM. Meyers (AASOR 60/61; Boston, MA: American Schools of OrientalResearch,2007).Evans, C. A., Jesus and the Ossuaries:What Jewish Burial Practices RevealabouttheBeginningofChristianity(Waco,TX:BaylorUniversityPress,2003).Fant, C. andReddish,M.G., Lost Treasures of the Bible:Understanding theBible throughArchaeologicalArtifacts inWorldMuseums (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2008).

Gibson, S., The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence (NewYork:HarperOne,2009).Meyers, E. M. (ed.), Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of Cultures(DukeJudaicStudies1;WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns,1999).Meyers, E. M. and Strange, J. F., Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early

Christianity(London:SCMPress,1981).Murphy-O’Connor, J., TheHoly Land:AnOxfordArchaeologicalGuide fromEarliest Times to 1700 (5th edn, Oxford and New York: Oxford UniversityPress,2008).Pixner,B.,PathsoftheMessiahandSitesoftheEarlyChurchfromGalileetoJerusalem:JesusandJewishChristianityinLightofArchaeologicalDiscoveries(ed.R.Riesner;SanFrancisco,CA:IgnatiusPress,2010).Reed,J.,ArchaeologyandtheGalileanJesus:ARe-examinationoftheEvidence(Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational,2000).Runesson,A., Binder, D.D. andOlsson, B., The Ancient Synagogue from itsOriginsto200CE:ASourceBook(Leiden:Brill,2010).Shanks, H. (ed.), Where Christianity Was Born (Washington, DC: BiblicalArchaeologySociety,2006).Sheler, Jeffrey L., Is the Bible True? How Modern Debates and DiscoveriesAffirmtheEssenceoftheScriptures(SanFrancisco,CA:HarperCollins,1999).Wachsmann,S.,TheSeaofGalileeBoat:A2000-Year-OldDiscoveryfromtheSeaofLegends(Cambridge,MA:Perseus,2000).Waxman, S., Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the World (NewYork:HenryHoltandCompany,2008).

JournalsAmericanJournalofArchaeologyAncientNearEasternStudiesArchaeologyArchaeologyintheBiblicalWorldBiblicalArchaeologistBiblicalArchaeologyReviewBulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearchInternationalJournalofNauticalArchaeologyIsraelExplorationJournalJournalofArchaeologicalScienceJournalofFieldArchaeologyJournal of Marine Archaeology and Technology Journal of MaritimeArchaeologyJournalofNearEasternStudiesNearEasternArchaeologyOxfordJournalofArchaeologyPalestineExplorationQuarterlyReferenceworksFagan, B. M. (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Archaeology (Oxford andLondon:OxfordUniversityPress,1996).Hicks,D.andBeaudry,M.C.(eds),TheCambridgeCompaniontoHistoricalArchaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Meyers, E. M.

(ed.),TheOxfordEncyclopediaofArchaeologyintheNearEast(5vols,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997).Negev,A.andGibson,S.(eds),ArchaeologicalEncyclopediaoftheHolyLand(rev.edn,NewYork:Continuum,2001).Stern,E.(ed.),TheNewEncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsintheHolyLand (4vols, Jerusalem:The IsraelExplorationSociety,1993).Stern,E.(ed.),TheNewEncyclopediaofArchaeologicalExcavationsintheHolyLand5:SupplementaryVolume(Jerusalem:TheIsraelExplorationSociety,2008).

oldtestamentGenesis14.17–203523.4–1911832.101738.181749.101750.4–1411850.1011550.22–26118

Exodus4.4177.91720.415130.1010934.6–7109

Leviticus4.310910.29212.810713.610913.1310913.2310915.319216.29219.181822.99222.286211.198211.208221.22–23118–2122.126031.12–138232.3983Joshua24.32118

1Samuel31.12–1311831.13115

2Samuel7.14312.1310918.1813221.12–14118

1Kings8.41–43928.438910.19162n.2611.1511817.17–2434

2Kings4.29–37344.42–44345.8–143413.20–2134

Numbers1.51923.389211.33–3411815.38–396019.1392

Deuteronomy4.9825.81516.7821Chronicles24.15–16132Chronicles17.7–982

Psalms2.232.7334.1983110.435Proverbs3.1883Hosea6.262Ecclesiastes12.982

Isaiah5.1–762,906.9–106111.41743.28343.2510950.116152––537952.7–1277,7952.777,7952.13––53.1278–952.13–157752.137952.1577

53.1–87753.177,7953.87953.9–127753.107953.127956.7896133,3561.1–33566.2462

Jeremiah7897.118932.1474

Ezekiel19.141720.409037.38339.11–1611839.1411939.16119Malachi4.535apocrypha

Tobit1.18–201182.3–81184.3–41186.1511814.10–13118

Sirach(Ecclesiasticus)48.103550.1–21132

1Maccabees1.56–5774,882.1572.70579.195713.255713.30572Maccabees783

4Maccabees1.178518.10–198318.1163newtestament

Matthew4.1313,364.2338,85

5.18521.16862.258610.45795.1421,30,4921.31–32323.7–1211110.46–5253

5.153023283.7–103210.51845.25–263223.260,853.78511.15–16895.486223.5–6603.98511.178962823.23193.203211.21846.12823.271353.321411.27–33896.219,2923.29–30203.34–353612.1–12336.3–42923.291354.132,11112.1–11896.519,2926.3984.126112.1–9626.62026.52614.213012.10866.82026.55854.348512.12906.1619,2926.57984.388412.13–171056.182027.351515.21–2444,46,11112.14846.28–331827.37815.224612.19847.13–143227.591155.25–2611112.26868.5–134627.65–661375.2815112.28–33828.5315.318512.31188.11–1246Mark5.35–4344,4612.32848.19841.9135.358412.38–401059.9321.1533,795.364612.41–441059.10–13321.21–34315.384612.41859.11841.21–28455.419413.11139.20601.21856.1–680,8614.45849.231141.22856.2–33415.241519.35851.24136.213,33,8515.268110.3321.2832,45,1116.43415.42––16.413910.9–1016–171.32–341116.8–91615.42–4613610.27141.32–33326.14–2912915.4713611.4–541.36–371116.30–333216.1–213711.16–19321.37326.45–463216.4138–911.19321.40–451096.53–563212.3861.401097108Luke12.5861.4194,1097.1–23941.2612.38841.441097.6–131061.310212.48–50361.4532,1117.8201.31–35313.54–55342.1–1214,1097.11–121062.391313.54132.1–41117.111083.297–8,13313.55342.61097.33944.158514.36602.71098.22944.16–3040,73,16.13302.91098.273080–1,8617.21482.111098.31624.16–207517.24–271062.14329.31484.1613,38,40,18.17322.15–17329.58461,8619.4862.15859.17844.18–213320.1–16322.16859.47–48624.2041,61,8520.29–34532.188510.17844.213421.11132.238510.20844.22334.233218.37139.10444.25–273419.1–10539.371154.284119.23210.36794.293519.398410.4379

4.31–384523.3415113.5445.38523.378113.15445.58423.5311513.43445.273213.50445.29–3232John16.14446.6851.388417.4446.20851.4513,3617.17446.36622.62518.7447.1–10462.2011318.8447.2313.28418.13447.3–6464.45–544618.17447.5464.463120.15447.121144.493120.17447.14946.598521.27–36937.29327.53621.28937.31–35327.1580–123.2–51028.2537.53––8.11808.16308.680–1Romans8.213611.1–441176.1068.248411.3911710.15–16798.446011.441158.458411.49981Corinthians9.31612.31791.2369.2914812.34792.269.338412.38793.10–15489.498418.1397–8,13311.23–25710.41618.149814.168110.238518.203814.238110.268618.249815.3–4710.31–329419.23–2415115.413911.333019.208115.5–8712.31419.39–4011512.228519.401152Corinthians13.10–174420.168411.68113.108513.4613.28–3046Acts14.26851.1102Galatians14.27852.22131.186,154n.1215.1324.697–8,13316.1–9334.1380–1Ephesians17.13845.61152.19–204818.1–8326.943–418.10–14326.5946Philippians18.35–43539.2442.86James2.1982

otherjewishandchristianwritingsandsources1Clement13.1–2842.1–28Aristeas,Letterof49102

AugustineCityofGod6.1183

BabylonianTalmudKetubbot50a8381b86111a86111b86Megillah3b11921a85Mo‘edQatan28b99Pesahim57a97Qiddushin22a8631b11640a8681b86Shabbat31a8460a15197a86188b161n.22

CairoDamascusDocument(CD)6.15–171057.174811.21–2229

CIJ(Corpusinscriptionumjudaicarum)748441354105140090140441

CJO(CatalogueofJewishOssuaries)725172n.3729172n.3731172n.3740172n.3

CJZ(CorpusJüdischerZeugnisseausderCyrenaika)72158n.3EstherRabbah1.11(onEsth.1.2)162n.26

EusebiusEcclesiasticalHistory3.36.183.3973.39.1374.3.1–284.7.71006.16.374ExodusRabbah43.4(onExod.32.22)162n.26

IgnatiusTotheEphesians14.28TotheSmyrnaeans1.183.28

IrenaeusAgainstHeresies5.33.47

JerusalemTalmudKetubbot1.10157n.913.1,35c165n.25Megillah3.1,73d165n.25Mo‘edQatan1.5,80c113

JosephusAgainstApion1.6063,822.731292.103922.175732.176832.178832.20463,822.2051182.211118JewishAntiquities1.10653.38734.303735.617314.359–605115.6111515.320–2210415.39011315.39911315.4179216.163–6459,7317.16410517.196–9911517.20011518.310518.269718.359818.63–64918.959818.11912918.12310219.3053920.1610420.9513420.10310220.13110320.19897,133

20.200–201920.206104–520.219113JewishWars1.265512.155–56992.2201292.229882.285–89392.409–10103

2.427964.1–8504.17–83504.518514.555515.1471345.193–94925.5061336.124–28927.44397.163517.30054Life1348819710541873420–21130

JustinMartyrDialoguewithTrypho7274FirstApology557760.1–577LeviticusRabbah18.1(onLev.15.1–2)117

Masadaostraca383105405104461102466105

Mishnah’Abot1.1851.21321.6831.11851.16832.8855.12855.21836.685Keritot1.797Ma‘aserSheni4.10107Megillah3.6744.1744.5–684Mo‘edQatan1.881Nedarim1.31074.5108Nega‘im11.9.11151

Parah3.5100Pesahim10.484Sanhedrin6.5–6130,1366.5117,136,1396.6116–17,13710.281Shabbat6.2151Ta‘anit2.529Yoma8.484

PapyriOxyrhynchus84093–4,167n.3

PesiqtadeRabKahana1.7162n.26

PhiloOnDreams2.12773OntheEmbassytoGaius2108221292300129OntheLifeofJoseph22–231182511926–27119OntheLifeofMoses2.21673Quodomnisprobuslibersit81–8240OntheSpecialLaws2.62–6373QoheletRabbah12.6§1117

Qumran1QIsaiahacol.4377–8col.4477–81QpHab12.9–101054Q282i120

4Q500frag.1904Q524frag.14,lines2–4

1204QpNahfrags3–4,col.i,lines

6–812011Q133511QTemple48.10–1412164.7–13120

Semahot2.131363.211612.111512.911613.7117,136–7,139SipreDeuteronomy§56(onDeut.11.19)84§161(onDeut.17.19)166n.34

SipreNumbers§26(onNum.6.6–8)119§116(onNum.18.1–32)92

SongRabbah1.3§1162n.26Soperim5.984

TargumsJonathanIsa53.179Pseudo-JonathanLev.22.2862

TestamentofMoses1.16–17745.3–61057.6–1094

ToseftaMe‘ila1.1690Menahot13.1910413.21104Qiddushin1.1184Shabbat11.1784Sukkah3.1590

greco-romanwritingsandsourcesAmyzonEpitaph,Cave1129AnthologiaLatina415.23164n.19

Apotelesmatica4.198–2001244.200129

Cicero

Deofficiis1.12819EpictetusDiscourses2.20.10193.22.5016Horace

Epistles1.16.48128

IG(Inscriptionesgraecae)164899

JulianOrations6.193D18

CIL(Corpusinscriptionumlatinarum)186471,124208271,1244289707698b707698c71771671807570830470840870876770

Cynicepistles717151716171918

Digesta48.24.1129–3048.24.3130DiodorusSiculus37.12.128

DiogenesLaertiusLivesofEminentPhilosophers6.13166.6919

JuvenalSatires14.77–78128

Livy29.9.1012929.18.14129

LucianPeregrinus1516

MarcusFabianQuintilianInstitutioOratoria11.2.422911.3.662911.3.702911.3.85–1212911.3.11429

OGIS(Orientisgraeciinscriptionesselectae)59890PapyriOxyrhynchus270563

PetroniusSatyricon111139Plautus

Mostellaria359–61124

PlinytheElderNaturalHistoryPreface§76528.4124Ps.-DiogenesXVII82341,30.316158n.3

XXXIII1277SEG43(SupplementumepigraphicumSenecagraecum)MoralEpistlesVIII1699091.1919

SuetoniusAugustus13.1–2128,139

Vindolandatablets29168

Adams,A.W.165n.23Alliata,E.175Altaner,B.154nn.13–15Andrews,S.J.153n.5Angell,R.155n.17Arav,R.xiAtkinson,K.158n.2Aune,D.156n.5Avery-Peck,A.J.159n.11

Avi-Yonah,M.159n.9;172n.5Aviam,M.175Avshalom-Gorni,D.53

Bagatti,B.155n.1;157n.15;175Bagnall,R.165n.21Baigent,M.131Balch,D.L.164n.17Bar-Ilan,M.162n.4Barag,D.169n.16Barkay,G.xiBatey,R.xi,157n.8Bauckham,R.158n.2Baumgarten,J.M.167nn.1–2Beaudry,M.C.177Bedard,S.J.154n.10Beilby,J.K.154n.11Berlin,A.171n.9Betz,H.D.156n.5Bierbrier,M.173n.2Binder,D.D.159nn.8–10;160nn.12–14,16–19;176Biran,A.2,153n.3Birley,R.68,163n.10Bivin,D.168n.8Black,M.161n.21Bloedhorn,H.159n.8Bonfante,L.173n.4;174n.6Botha,P.J.J.162n.1;165n.26Bottini,G.C.167n.5;175Bowman,A.K.163nn.8,10–13;174n.6Boylston,A.171n.6Brady,A.K.173n.2Brady,M.173n.2Brooke,G.J.167n.1

Broshi,M.163n.5;167n.5Brown,R.E.171n.10

Cameron,J.145Canfora,L.162n.2Chancey,M.A.155n.18;156n.7Charlesworth,J.H.155n.18;156nn.3,5;157n.8;158n.2;161n.24;170n.3;175Chilton,B.156n.5;166n.29;171n.11Chrupcala,L.D.167n.5ClermontGanneau,C.90,92,133,167n.2Cohen,S.J.D.166n.28Cohick,L.H.158n.1Cook,J.G.164nn.17,20Corbett,J.160n.14Corbo,V.C.51,53,175Craffert,P.F.162n.1,165n.26Crossan,J.D.99,156n.4;157n.12;159n.9;162n.1;168n.12;171nn.7,12;175Cumont,F.138

DiSegni,L.167n.5;175Dothan,M.161n.20Doudna,G.L.170n.2Downing,F.G.156n.6Driel-Murray,C.van174n.6

Dunn,J.D.G.154n.12;161n.24;166n.30Eddy,P.R.154n.11Edwards,D.R.xi,156n.7;174n.4;175Elliott,J.K.165n.22Evans,C.A.xii,153n.5;154n.7;156n.5;166nn.29,32;170n.1;171n.11;175Evans,G.87,150Evans,J.xiFagan,B.M.177Fant,C.175Fedak,J.171n.9Ferguson,E.164n.17Fitzmyer,J.A.108,169n.21Flint,P.154n.7Flusser,D.169n.16Foerster,G.51,160

nn.12,16Foster,P.166n.27France,R.T.166n.31Franklin,G.xiiFreyne,S.155n.18Funk,R.W.162n.1Gottschalk,L.155n.17Grabbe,L.L.158n.2Greenhut,Z.168nn.8,12Gregory,A.154–5n.15Gutman,S.159n.10

Gallinger,K.134,154n.9Garfinkel,Y.153n.6Gat,Y.144–5,171n.1Geva,H.168n.12Gibson,S.xi,99,110,144,167n.5;169nn.14,22;172n.1;173n.7;176–7Goddio,F.xiGoldman,N.174n.6Goodenough,E.R.168n.9;172n.5

Hachlili,R.135,168n.8Hanson,K.C.169n.18Harpur,T.4–5,9,154nn.8–10Harrington,D.J.159n.11Harris,J.163n.9;164n.14Harris,W.V.162nn.1,3Hass,N.170n.4

Hendel,R.1,153n.1Hengel,M.128Hicks,D.177Higgins,A.J.B.154n.12Hofius,O.154n.12Holmén,T.158n.2Holmes,M.W.154nn.

13–15Holumn,K.153n.2Hoover,R.W.162n.1Horbury,W.99,159n.8;168n.13;169n.15Houston,G.W.75–6,165n.21Humphrey,J.H.161n.20;163n.13Hurtado,L.165n.24Hüttenmeister,G.159n.8

Jacobovici,S.144–6,172nn.2–4;173n.7Johns,L.L.156nn.3,5Johnson,W.A.165n.21Johnston,J.J.xiKalman,Y.160n.13Kee,H.C.38–43,158nn.1–2Kenyon,F.G.165n.23Killebrew,A.168n.8;

174n.5Kilpatrick,G.D.154n.12Klausner,J.155n.2Kloner,A.144–5KloppenborgVerbin,J.S.

158nn.2–4;159nn.6–8Kluckhorn,C.155n.17Knüsel,C.171n.6Kratz,R.153n.4Kuhn,A.B.5Nagar,Y.170n.25Najar,A.53Neave,R.173n.1Negev,A.177Netzer,E.51–3,160nn.12–13,16Neusner,J.156n.5;159n.11

Lagrange,M.106–7,169n.19Lake,K.130–1Lanciani,R.72,164n.17Laureys,R.160n.13Lemaire,A.153n.3Levine,L.I.157n.8;158n.2;159nn.8–11;160n.16Liberman,S.99,168n.10Oakman,D.E.157n.14;169n.18Obbink,D.xiOlsson,B.159nn.8–10;160nn.12–14,16–19;176Onn,A.56,58,160n.17Osiek,C.164n.17Oster,R.158nn.1–3

McCane,B.R.170n.1;171nn.11–12McCollough,C.T.156n.7;175

McDonald,L.M.166nn.32–3McLean,B.H.164n.17Magen,Y.160n.18Magness,J.139,171n.12;173n.4Maiuri,A.163n.14Malherbe,A.J.18Malina,B.J.157n.14Maoz,Z.159n.11Mason,S.155n.16Massey,G.5Mazar,A.153n.4Mazar,B.99,107,161n.20;168nn.9,11;169n.20Meier,J.P.155n.16;165n.26Meyers,E.M.155n.18;167n.4;170n.1;176–7Milik,J.T.108,169n.21Millar,F.161n.21Millard,A.153n.5;162n.3Murphy-O’Connor,J.176Parker,H.N.165n.21Pellegrino,C.144–6,172nn.2–4;173n.7Picton,J.173n.2Pixner,B.176Porter,S.E.154n.10;158n.2Price,R.5,9,154n.11Puech,E.99,168n.13;169nn.14–15

Quirke,S.173n.2Riesner,R.158n.2;166n.29;176

Rabinovich,A.160n.19Rahmani,L.Y.146,169nn.16–17;170n.24;172n.3Rainey,A.153n.3Raveh,K.xiReddish,M.G.175Reed,J.173n.7;176Reed,J.L.99,157n.12;159n.9;168n.12;175Reich,R.xi,167n.4;168nn.7,12Reichs,K.J.170n.3

Ritmeyer,K.167n.6Ritmeyer,L.167n.6Roberts,P.C.173n.2Robinson,J.A.T.

166n.30Rohrbaugh,R.L.157n.14Roussin,L.A.173–4n.4Runesson,A.42,50,52–5,58,95,106,108,116,159nn.8–10;160nn.12–14,16–19;176Rupprecht,A.167n.5

Safrai,S.58,84,161n.21;165n.25Saldarini,A.J.159n.11Sanders,E.P.155–6n.2Sanders,J.A.166nn.32–3Sauer,N.J.170n.3

Saulcy,L.F.de134Schiffman,L.H.162n.4;163n.5;167n.4;174n.5Schonfield,H.131Schürer,E.161n.21Schwartz,D.R.167n.3Sebesta,J.L.173n.4;174n.6Segal,P.167n.2Sekeles,E.170n.3Shanks,H.161n.20;171n.12;176Sheler,J.L.153n.2;176Sherwin-White,A.N.155n.17Skeat,T.C.165n.22Smith,P.170n.4Snyder,G.F.164n.17Spieckermann,H.153n.4Spigelman,M.169n.22Stern,E.177Stern,M.161n.21;165n.25Stone,M.E.164n.16Strange,J.xi,53,156nn.3,7;157nn.8–11,13;159n.11;176Sukenik,E.L.104,169n.17

Thomas,J.D.163n.8;174n.6Tomei,M.A.164n.18Torgeë,H.170n.25Tov,E.163n.5;167n.4Townsend,J.T.161n.21Toynbee,J.M.C.171n.8Trever,J.C.78Trever,J.E.78Tsafrir,Y.161n.20Tuckett,C.155n.15;156n.5Tzionit,Y.160n.18VanderKam,J.C.154n.7;162n.4;163n.5;166n.33;167n.4;174n.5Vandorpe,K.165n.21Vaux,R.de66Vermes,G.161n.21

Wachsmann,S.xi,176Walker,S.173n.2Waxman,S.176Waywell,G.B.171n.9Weaver,W.P.156n.8;175Weber,K.69–70Weill,R.41,158n.5Weksler-Bdolah,S.

160n.17Wiegand,T.44WitheringtonIII,B.

156n.5

Wolfson,H.A.168n.10Woolf,G.163n.12Yadin,Y.55,151,153,160nn.15–16;161n.23;167n.5;170nn.2–3;173n.4Zangenberg,J.160n.14Zias,J.111,125–6,169n.23;170nn.3–4;

171n.51Clement8

1Corinthians64Q24634Q521311QTemple120

Aaron17Abraham117–18AcceleratorMassSpectrometry12,110Acts38,43,45,80,88,98AeliusBrocchus68AgrippaI9,98,113,129AgrippaII9,96,113Akeldama97,110–11Albinus123Alexamenos73Alexander(rulingpriest)97AlexandertheGreat65Alexandria65,74alms/almsgiving29Amos,bookof87Ananel(highpriest)101Ananias(earlyChristian)115Ananias(highpriest)101–3,105Anaxilaus18Andrew7Annas9,96–7,99,101–2,133,167n.5AnniusRufus123Annunciation3Antigonus51Antioch8AntiochusISoter51AntiochusIVEpiphanes22,39,57,74Antipas9,15,28,32,45Antipater(theCynic)17AntoninusPius26‘Aqavia102–3Aramaic21Aristobulus(highpriest)101AshmoleanMuseumxiAsiaMinor7–8,65AstylusandPardalus,Barof70Athens65Augustine83Augustus58,73,120Autographs76

BarKokhba43,58BarKokhbaCaves151basalt31,46–49Batavians,ninthcohortof68BBC142beheading125–26BeinickeRareBookandManuscriptLibraryxiBelial35Benjamin(patriarch)118Berenice96Berenike41BethShearim147Bethlehem13,144

BodleianLibraryxiBoethos104–5BritishMuseumxi,133burial11,113–40,144BurntHouse103,107Caesar26,39,138CaesareaMaritima13–14,30,122CaesareaPhilippi30Caiaphas9,94,96–102,111,141,147,167n.5CairoDamascusDocument29Caligula120Calliope68–9Cynics,Cynicism4,10,15–22,24,27–8,141,156Cyrenaica41

Canaan118canon87Cantheras104Capernaum13,21,31–2,36,45–9,64Capitolinetriad26carbondating12CATscan12,70CatalogueofJewish

Ossuaries146CaveofLetters151CelsusLibrary65CephasseePeterCharon98–9ChesterBeattyPapyri76Chorazin60–1Chronicles,booksof87ChurchoftheAnnunciation14ClaudiaSevera68–9Claudius120ClementofRome8–9Cleopatra65clothing148–52,173nn.4–5CodexEphraemiRescriptus165n.23CodexSinaiticus165n.23CodexVaticanus75coins26,51,97,134,173n.3CollegioRomano71colobium71Coponius123Corinth7–8,65Cornelius79Crates17criminals116–17,120,126–30,137cross,crucifixion6,9,120–30,137,145crurifragium124–5CuspiusPansa,Houseof70

Daniel,bookof87David1–2,4,86David’sGate107DayoftheLord35DeadSea21,28,54,62,151DeadSeaScrolls9,66,70,119Delos60Deuteronomy56,84,87,120Diaspora44Digesta129–30DigitalImagingEnhancement11Diocaesarea26Diogenes16–18divorce9DNA12,110DominusFlevit115–16Domitian120domusGelotiana71Dora39Dorcas115DuraEuropos60,147

Easter38Ecclesiastes87Egypt63,65–6,69,118,148Egyptology5‘EinGedi151Eleazar(highpriest)101,103EleazarbenYair55ElectricalResistivityTomography12Elijah34–6Elionaeus(highpriest)101Elisha34–6ElizabethI126Ephesians48Ephesus65Essenes40Esther,bookof87Eusebius7,74,100excavation(s)23,26,44,46,50–1,54,64,68–9,142,147eyewitnesses6Ezekiel,bookof56,87Ezra,bookof87

Fadus123Felix9,51,123Festus9,123FirstApology77FlaviusCerialis68FlaviusSilva55Freedmen,synagogueof43FriezeTomb134

fringesseetasselsGalatians6Galba120Galileans21–2,35–6,102,141,152Galilee13–15,21,27–8,30–1,34–5,45,53,86,88,141,147Gamla45,49–51,57GardenTomb138Gath2Gehenna62Gentiles34,44GesiusFlorus123Giv‘atha-Mivtar122,125Gnosticgospels10God118God-fearers44GolanHeights/Mountains49–50Gordon’sTombseeGardenTombgospel/goodnews33–6GospelofPeter9–10GospelofThomas9–10Gospels3–6,8–11,13,30–1,33,38,43,45,47,53,60,76,80,85–7,94,98,115,122,128,136–7,141graffiti70,124,164n.16GreatIsaiahScroll75,77–9Greek21–2,41GroundPenetratingSonar12

Habakkuk,bookof87Hadrian120Hadrian’sWall68Haggai,bookof87Hammath-Tiberias60Hasmonean(s)22,39,52,56–7,147,172n.6HebrewBible1,87HebrewUniversity135,154n.6Hebrews76Herculaneum67,69,71Herod(kingofChalcis)102HerodAgrippaIseeAgrippaIHerodAntipasseeAntipasHerodtheGreat51,54,102,104,113–15,142Herodium44,51–2,57,59Hicetas17Hierapolis7Hillel84HinnomValley110,133,146HollisLibraryxiHolySpirit34Hosea,bookof87HouseofDavid2HouseoftheMoralist70hypocrisy,hypocrites28–30Israel2,35–6,38,44,46,58–9,73–4,110,118,

127IsraelAntiquitiesAuthority100IsraelMuseumxi,97,124Izates134

Ignatius8–9Irenaeus7IronAge2Isaiah,bookof33,61,73,79–80,87,89–90Ishmael(highpriest)101Islam48

Jabesh118Jacob17,118–19Jairus44,46,151James7–8,76Jeremiah,bookof74,87Jericho45,52–3,57,74,114,151Jerusalem2,6,11,40–5,51,55–8,73,85,89,91,96–7,103–4,107,110,112–14,124–5,127,129–30,138,142,144,146–7,173n.6Jesus(highpriest)101JesusPapers,The131Joarib57Joazar/Jozar(highpriest)101;seealsoYoezerJob,bookof87Joel,bookof87John7,76,80,96John(fatherofMattathias)57John(rulingpriest)97JohntheBaptist3,9,89,129Jonah,bookof87Jonathan(highpriest)101Jonathan(sonofMattathias)57Joseph15,34,118–19Joseph(highpriest)101–2JosephofArimathea136JosephCabi(highpriest)101Josephus9,39–40,45,50,58–9,63,73,82,84,92,98–9,102,104–5,113,118,129–30,134Judah17JudahbenTema83JudasMaccabeus22,57Jude8Judea2,21,75,124JuliaSabine132Julian-Claudiangladiators70JuliusCaesar120JustinMartyr74,77

KefarHananya14KhirbetBadd‘Isa57KhirbetQeiyafa154n.6KhirbetUmmel-‘Umdan56–7KidronValley97,132–3,

135KingDavidHotel134kingdom/ruleofGod19,33–4,36Kings,booksof87KircherianMuseum71

Lamentations,bookof87Latin69lawseeTorahLazarus115,117leprosy109–10Levi32lifeexpectancyandhealth110–11literacy11,63–88,142,165n.25longevityofmanuscripts75–6Luke5–6,33,40,45,53,76,96,148,151

Magdala45,53–5,57Magnetometry12Malachi,bookof87Marcellus123MarcusAmbibulus123MarcusAntonius65Mark5–6,17,33–4,45,76,96,109,148,151Martha107,117,151Marullus123

Mary(motherofJames)137Mary(motherofJesus)14,34Mary(motherofJoses)136Mary(sisterofLazarus)117,151MaryMagdalene53–4,136–7MaryQueenofScots126Masada45,52,54–6,74,103–4,151MasoreticText79materialculture11Mattathias57Matthew5–8,34,45–6,76,86,95,109,137,148,151Matthias(highpriest)101MédaillesetAntiquesdelaBibliothèqueNationaledeFrance138MediterraneanSea14,20,30,65,71,141Megiddo2Melchizedek35MelchizedekScroll(11Q13)35Menahem55Menander,Houseof70menorah26,55Messiah3–4,79Micah,bookof87Migdal54milestone64Miletus44minimalism/

minimalists1–4,153miqveh/miqva’ot25–7,51,53,57,94–5,167n.4Mishnah58,81,83,100,130,151Modi‘in/Modein45,56–7‘MonaLisaofGalilee’25Monmouth,Dukeof126Moses17,60,73–4,87,92,109

MountofOlives97,107,115–16,132–3MountOphel41,43MountScopus104,125,132,135,147MountVesuvius67–9MountZion107mourning117mummyportraits148–52Murecine68

NahalHever151NahalMishmar151NahalZofim135Nahum,bookof87Nain114NakedArchaeologist,The142NationalArchaeologicalMuseuminNaples163nn.6–7NaturalHistory65Nazareth4,10,13–15,21–2,27,30,33–6,40,60,73,75,86–7,121–2,128,141,145Nazarethinscription13,138NazarethMountains13Nazirite119Nedebaeus102–3Nehemiah,bookof87Nero41,120Nerva120NeutronActivationAnalysis11,156n.3Nicanor135NicophoriaMonastery134Nile65–6NorthAfrica41–2,44Northumberland68

Obadiah,bookof87Ophel132Origen74ossuaries,ossilegium4,97–102,108,113–17,122–5,127,145–7Otho120Oxyrhynchus65

PaganChrist,The4,154PalatineGraffito71–3,77PalatineHill71PalatineMuseum71Papias7–9papyrus65–6Papyrus4576–7Papyrus6677Papyrus7577parables32–3,62,89–90,94paragraphos77–8PasciusHermes,Houseof71Passover9,84,89,119,

130,142,152PassoverPlot,The131patibulum71,123patriarchs17,46Paul6,9,47–8,76,79,92,102Peter6–7,31,76,79–80Petra135Petrineletters8Phannias(highpriest)101Pharisees9,60,86,88,94,105–6,109,162n.25Philip7Philip(thetetrarch)146Philistia,Philistines2Philo40,42,45,73,82,84,118–19,129phylacteries152,161n.22PilasterTomb,134PlinytheElder65,124Polycarp7–9Pompeii67–8,70–1PontiusPilate9–10,102,122–4,128–30,137,141priest’stithe56prophets,prophecy35,87,89proselytes44Proverbs,bookof87Psalms,bookof87PubliusPetronius39purity/purification9,28,93–4

Q45–6,85Qatra104Qatros103–4Qeiyafa2,153–4QiryatSefer45,57Qorban105–9Quadratus7–8QueenSaddan134Qumran3,35,62,66,74–6,79,87,94,121

rabbis28,63,73,84–5,104,119radiocarbondating2Rehavia/Rehov134resurrection7,142,144Rhodes65RockefellerMuseum41Rome/RomanEmpire21,24,45,63–5,69,71,88,102–3Ruth,bookof87Sepphoris10,14–15,21–7,30,37,49,141Shema82,161n.22ShrineoftheBookxiShroudTomb110ShroudofTurin173n.3Shuafat45,58ShuafatRidge58SilwanVillage132Simon(highpriest)101,105,132Simon(sonofMattathias)57

SimonCantheras(highpriest)101SixDayWar106Smyrna8SocietyofBiblicalLiterature5SocietyofNewTestamentStudies5Solomon1–2,89,92SonofGod3SonofMan79SongofSolomon87SongoftheVineyard90stauros77Styx99SufferingServant(song)79SulpiciaLepidina68synagogue(s)9–10,29,31,36–62,73,79,84,86–8,111,147synagogueruler(s)43–4,46,151Syria2,39SwoonTheory131

sabbath9,33,41,59,86,151SacklerLibraryxiSadducees9,86,88Salome137Samaria21,124Samaritans102Samuel,booksof87sandals/shoes151–2Sanhedrin117,136SanhedrinTombs135,146Sarah118Satan35satellitephotography12Saul118Scripture(s)36,38,40,44,59,61–2,76,80–1,84–8,115,117,121SeaofGalilee14,21,30–1,46,49,53–4SeatofMoses60–1

tabulaeceratae68Talpiot144–5,147,172n.6Targum(s)62,79,88,90tassel(s)60,151–2,161nn.22–3tau-rhocompendium77tax,taxcollectors32,105TelDan2TelDanInscription2temple9,39–40,42–3,58,85–6,89–5,103–7,113–14,119,132,142,147,173n.6TempleScroll119–21TempleWarning(s)91–2TerentiusNeo67–8TestamentofMoses94testimony109,120theatre28,30,157Theodotos44Theodotos

Inscription41–5Theophilus(highpriest)101–2Thomas7Tiberias14,21Tiberius120TiberiusAlexander123titulus81Titus73,120,130Tobit,bookof118TombofAbsalom132–3TomboftheGrapes135,146TomboftheHermit135TombofHerod’sFamily133,138TombofJason111,134TombofJehoshaphat132,146TombofNicanor135TombofPharaoh’sDaughter132TombofPillars135TombofQueenHelenaofAdiabene134TomboftheRoyalSteward133TombofSimontheJust132TomboftheSonsofHezir132–3TombofUmmel-‘Ammed135TombofZechariah132–3TombsoftheKings134Torah82,84,87–8,109,119TorahArk146–7Tosefta104Towton126Trajan26,120treason120triclinium25,51trumpet29Tyche26Tyrianhalfsheqel106

ValeriusGratus123VentidiusCumanus123verisimilitude1,9–10,139,155Vespasian120VillaofthePapyri69Vindolanda68–9,76,152Vitellius102,120

Wadiel-Habibi151WadiMurabba‘at151WesternWall107Writings,the87WrongTombtheory131X-rays12

Yehohanah(granddaughterofhighpriest)102Yehohanan(thecrucifiedman)122–7,137Yehohanan(sonofhighpriest)102Yoezer105;seealsoJoazarZechariah,bookof87Zephaniah,bookof87Zeus26