BiblePlaces Blog - Page 504 of 553

Palace of Queen Helena Found?

The Israel Antiquities Authority announced the discovery of the palace of Queen Helena of Adiabene today. You can read about it in this Jerusalem Post article or in this AFP article. The JPost article also has a great photo of the excavation area. Here are some parts of the JPost article with my thoughts.

The site, which has been unearthed during a six-month ‘salvage’ excavation in the Givati parking lot just outside the Dung Gate ahead of the planned expansion of the Western Wall car park, also indicates that the ancient City of David was much larger than previously thought, said archeologist Doron Ben-Ami, who is directing the dig at the site.

If you’ve been in Jerusalem in the last five years, you’ve seen this gaping hole just south of the Dung Gate – this is the same place. I worked with our students as volunteers in digging here back in the fall of 2003, so it’s not exactly a new excavation as the article implies.

Jerusalem from southwest; excavation area circled

That the “City of David was much larger than previously thought” doesn’t make any sense to me.

The City of David has always been understood to be bordered by the Kidron Valley on the east and the Central Valley on the west and neither of those have moved in the last six months. Nobody has doubted that there was construction in this area in the 1st century A.D., especially given the Crowfoot expedition in the 1920s.

The “monumental” edifice, which was destroyed by the Romans when they demolished the Second Temple in 70 CE, was dated to the end of the Second Temple Period by pottery and stone vessels, as well as an assortment of coins from that time, Ben-Ami said.

When we were there, we were digging in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, and I’ve never been part of a dig where we found more coins than this one.

According to the director of the dig, the elaborate edifice, which is an anomaly in the landscape of the Lower City at the end of the Second Temple period – which was marked with modest buildings – was probably a palace built by Queen Helena, a wealthy Iraqi aristocrat who converted to Judaism and moved to Jerusalem with her sons.

The problem with this statement is that very little digging has been done on the crest of the City of David (as opposed to the eastern slope), and there was much destruction in later periods. So there isn’t much to compare with. If all they have is a magnificent building, I’d say it could be Helena’s and it could be someone else’s.

Helena is an interesting individual. Her tomb in Jerusalem was the second most magnificent one in the ancient world (and it’s still impressive, although difficult to visit because of poor management by the French government; cf. Ant. 20.4.3). Josephus wrote that Helena built three palaces in the Lower City (one for herself, one for her son and one for her mother-in-law; Wars 4.9.11; 5.6.1), which is (I think) the only basis for the identification of this building as hers by the archaeologist.

Though contemporary with the book of Acts, Helena is not mentioned in the New Testament.

Josephus connects her with the famine mentioned in Acts 11:28, indicating that she bought large quantities of food from Egypt to feed the people of Jerusalem (Ant. 20.2.3ff.).

The archeologists carrying out the dig have not yet found any inscription to identify the building they uncovered, but the excavation director said that there was a “high probability” that the site was indeed the 2,000-year-old palace of Queen Helena. “We need more evidence to decide, but almost everything fits,” Ben-Ami said.

This identification could well be, but there’s no evidence for it given in this article. I would think the identification would be stronger if:

1) more of the City of David had been excavated, thus excluding other sites;

2) we had more knowledge of what else was in the City of David in the 1st century; all we really know is that these palaces were here, but it’s doubtful that these occupied the entire area;

3) finds from the building were of Mesopotamian origin (Adiabene was a province in northern Mesopotamia).

The well-preserved structure being uncovered in the ongoing excavation is an impressive architectural complex that includes massive foundations; walls, some of which are preserved to a height in excess of five meters and built of stones that weigh hundreds of kilograms; halls that are preserved to a height of at least two stories; a basement level that was covered with vaults; remains of polychrome frescoes, water installations and ritual baths.

This is great, but there were many impressive buildings in first century Jerusalem, so this alone is not sufficient to prove the identification.

Those interested in Jewish evangelism and conversion in the New Testament period would find Helena’s story worth studying. For a start, take a look at the articles in Anchor Bible Dictionary on Proselyte and Circumcision.

Update: The JPost has a one-minute video of the excavations with an archaeologist talking about the discovery. HT: Joe Lauer.

Update (12/7): InfoLive.tv has a 2-minute video, and this Arutz-7 article has numerous photos which show the well-preserved walls and some of the artifacts discovered. The story is also covered by Reuters, Haaretz, and the AP.

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Jerusalem

Hasmonean Hometown of Modiin

In advance of the coming Hanukkah celebration, the Jerusalem Post has an article on possible locations of Modiin and the area. An excerpt:

At Umm el-Umdan, an Arab village close to the southern entrance of Modi’in, excavations have unearthed the remains of a Hasmonean village including a row of houses, a marketplace, a ritual bath and a synagogue. The discovery of the synagogue, the only remnant still exposed and accessible for public viewing, has led some archeologists to propose that Umm el-Umdan is the site of ancient Modi’in, the hometown of revolt leaders and priestly Hasmonean family.
They claim the synagogue is evidence of the settlement at Umm el-Umdan’s importance. Yet others argue that the remains of ancient Modi’in can be found at Titura Hill, the site of a spectacular Crusader-era fortress at the edge of modern-day Modi’in. Excavations at the fortress have revealed remnants from various periods including those depicting a Hasmonean-era settlement. Proponents of the Titura Hill theory claim that the settlement’s vast dimensions are a point in the site’s favor as the Hasmoneans often constructed large structures to demonstrate their importance.
According to Amit Re’em, Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist for the Modi’in district, the above assertions should be viewed with caution. “As signs declaring the names of the unearthed settlements were not discovered, any evidence that either location is more likely to be that of ancient Modi’in than any another Hasmonean village is purely circumstantial… and thus such claims are no more than speculation.”

You can read the rest here.

HT: Joe Lauer

Gospel of Judas: NG Blew It

April D. DeConick says that National Geographic got it all wrong in their interpretation of the Gospel of Judas. And, what do you know, but their strange choices created the story. DeConick goes further than explaining the translation errors, but she also shows why scholarship should not be done this way – in a closet by a few scholars who sign non-disclosure agreements before a major press conference designed to generate boatloads of money.

Amid much publicity last year, the National Geographic Society announced that a lost 3rd-century religious text had been found, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The shocker: Judas didn’t betray Jesus. Instead, Jesus asked Judas, his most trusted and beloved disciple, to hand him over to be killed. Judas’s reward? Ascent to heaven and exaltation above the other disciples.
It was a great story. Unfortunately, after re-translating the society’s transcription of the Coptic text, I have found that the actual meaning is vastly different. While National Geographic’s translation supported the provocative interpretation of Judas as a hero, a more careful reading makes clear that Judas is not only no hero, he is a demon.
Several of the translation choices made by the society’s scholars fall well outside the commonly accepted practices in the field. For example, in one instance the National Geographic transcription refers to Judas as a “daimon,” which the society’s experts have translated as “spirit.” Actually, the universally accepted word for “spirit” is “pneuma ” — in Gnostic literature “daimon” is always taken to mean “demon.”
Likewise, Judas is not set apart “for” the holy generation, as the National Geographic translation says, he is separated “from” it. He does not receive the mysteries of the kingdom because “it is possible for him to go there.” He receives them because Jesus tells him that he can’t go there, and Jesus doesn’t want Judas to betray him out of ignorance. Jesus wants him informed, so that the demonic Judas can suffer all that he deserves.
Perhaps the most egregious mistake I found was a single alteration made to the original Coptic. According to the National Geographic translation, Judas’s ascent to the holy generation would be cursed. But it’s clear from the transcription that the scholars altered the Coptic original, which eliminated a negative from the original sentence. In fact, the original states that Judas will “not ascend to the holy generation.” To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception.

The rest is here and it is worth reading.

UPDATE (12/8): One of the NG translators responds in a letter to the NYT.

HT: Joe Lauer

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries

More on "Nehemiah's Wall"

Yesterday the Jerusalem Post finally reported on the discovery of “Nehemiah’s wall” first announced several weeks ago. Today the AP has a report. Most of the material is similar to what was reported before, but the Jerusalem Post says that not only the tower but the wall as a whole is from the time of Nehemiah. That would be a significant development, because the wall is large and easily visible to tourists. The AP version quotes two scholars with different views on Mazar’s conclusion. Stern’s expertise is Persian period.

Ephraim Stern, professor emeritus of archaeology at Hebrew University and chairman of the state of Israel archaeological council, corroborated Mazar’s claim. “The material she showed me is from the Persian period,” the period of Nehemiah, he said. “I can sign on the date of the material she found.”
Another scholar disputed the significance of the discovery.
Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, called the discovery “an interesting find,” but said the pottery and other remains do not indicate that the wall was built in the time of Nehemiah. Because the debris was not connected to a floor or other structural part of the wall, the wall could have been built later, Finkelstein said.
“The wall could have been built, theoretically, in the Ottoman period,” he said. “It’s not later than the pottery — that’s all we know.”

You can read the full story here.

Wall (center foreground and below wooden staircase) dated by Eilat Mazar to Nehemiah’s time

On the picture above, the wall redated to Nehemiah’s time is in between the “Southern Hasmonean period tower” and “Northern Hasmonean period tower,” behind the “Stepped Stone Structure.”

Tagged Discoveries

Turkey in Google Earth

I love Google Earth, and with the help of a friend, have located most important biblical sites and many other historical sites as well. I have hopes of getting them in sufficient order to share, but time has not yet permitted. (I know that there are places on the web that distribute files with the locations but some that I have looked at are not reliable.) But a friend just let me know that some of the terrain is Turkey is much improved. So if you’ve looked in the past, you might try again. Ephesus looks great, and there’s finally sufficient resolution to see Colossae. A few more for fun: Laodicea, Antioch on the Orontes, Haran, and Carchemish. (The links are kmz files which you can import into Google Earth for the site’s location.)

Tagged Resources

Maeir Urges Caution in Reaching Archaeological Conclusions

Some much of what makes the news from the archaeological world lies on either extreme of the spectrum: either wild-eyed gullibility of some sensational claim or knee-jerk denial that X has any true historical reality. Adherents of one end of the spectrum usually lack scholarly credentials, while the latter often boasts a boatload, but both extremes are at odds with a normal common-sense approach held by most archaeologists. Archaeologist Aren Maier has been excavating at Gath and he gave a lecture which is reported by the Deseret Morning News.

Contrary to the quest of many biblical archaeologists in years past, today’s “new image” of excavating ancient Near Eastern sites isn’t focused on proving that the Bible is an ancient historical document. Yet there’s no reason to shy away from comparing scientific findings to biblical text, either, says a longtime archaeologist. The challenge is to use caution, rather than leaping to what seem to be “logical conclusions” about findings that go well beyond the actual science involved with high-profile finds, some of which turn out to be forgeries. That is according to Aren Maeir, chairman of the department of archaeology and Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv. Rather than trying to “verify beliefs according to archaeological remains,” Maeir said archaeologists driven by science are leaving those kinds of discussions to theologians. Archaeologists seek to provide information on what they find in the ground, when they believe it originated and how it may or may not play into theological discussions.

You can read the rest of the story here. The main points he makes seem so basic that they hardly need reporting, but given the tendencies of the media to cover the extremes mentioned above, perhaps more fair-handed approaches like this should be covered. As for the ossuary of James, I don’t think that we have heard the last word as he suggests. In the forgery conference earlier this year, most scholars in attendance agreed that the inscription was authentic. But this point is well-made: everyone must exercise caution before making a sensationalistic identification.

Tagged Analysis