Analysis Archives - Page 12 of 29

Franz: Let’s Get Our Facts Straight

Gordon Franz was at today’s press conference and has written a short piece on the experience and his amazement at some of the responses he has read. He writes:

I was at the press conference at Discovery Times Square on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 for the unveiling of the new book The Jesus Discovery by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici.

I am not a supporter of Simcha’s ideas, in fact, I have critiqued some of them on my website (see the Cracked Pot Archaeology section at www.lifeandland.org). But what I have found amusing is the misstatements and misunderstanding on some of the blogs by leading scholars. First of all, you should get the book and read it before you comment, or at least look at the pictures! It will save you some embarrassment.

Simcha had an exact replica of both ossuaries in question made by the museum staff at Discovery Times Square. This was accomplished by the measurements and photographs taken with the impressive robotic arm. I am grateful for Walter Klassmen for showing me how it worked. This tool will have many applications in the archaeology of Israel and Simcha should be commended for working closely with this expert to produce such a valuable tool.

The first thing that struck me on the ossuary is the orientation of the “fish.” On all the blogs and news articles I have read, the picture of the “fish” is facing the wrong way. Sometimes it is horizontal, either facing left or right, and made to look like a swimming fish. Or the “fish” has the round ball (Jonah, according to Simcha) facing upwards, thus making the “fish” look like a funerary monument.

Usually pictures of Absalom’s Pillar are shown to bolster the case for this view. The fact of the matter is that the “fish” is facing down! So we should orient the picture correctly before we continue the discussion.

My initial impression is that the “fish” looks like an ornamental glass vessel, perhaps a pitcher or flask of some sort. The Ennion vessel found by Prof. Avigad in the Jewish Quarter comes to mind (page 108 in Discovering Jerusalem). Perhaps some glass expert might suggest a better parallel from this period than the Ennion vessel, but this is worthy of consideration.

Ossuary etching compared with Ennion pitcher, both from Jerusalem. Left image: Associated Producers Ltd./Haaretz; Right: Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, p. 108.

Tagged Analysis, Excavations, Jerusalem

Jesus Discovery: Book Excerpt and Photos

The Huffington Post provides an excerpt from The Jesus Discovery book along with a series of photos from inside the tomb. Here are some excerpts from the excerpt, with emphasis added:

The discovery provides the earliest archaeological evidence of faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, the first witness to a saying of Jesus that predates even the writing of our New Testament gospels, and the earliest example of Christian art, all found in a sealed tomb dated to the 1st century CE….
We believe a compelling argument can be made that the Garden tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. We argue in this book that both tombs are most likely located on the rural estate of Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy member of the Sanhedrin who according to all four New Testament gospels took official charge of Jesus’ burial….
We now have new archaeological evidence, literally written in stone, that can guide us in properly understanding what Jesus’ earliest followers meant by their faith in Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, with his earthly remains, and those of his family, peacefully interred just yards away. This might sound like a contradiction, but only because certain theological traditions regarding the meaning of resurrection of the dead have clouded our understanding of what Jesus and his first followers truly believed. When we put together the texts of the gospels with this archaeological evidence, the results are strikingly consistent and stand up to rigorous standards of historical evidence.

James Tabor stated in a comment here yesterday that he is “not sure how finding the earliest evidence of faith in Jesus’ resurrection would negate Christianity,” but the book excerpt above shows otherwise. In their interpretations of the evidence, the authors claim that the evidence refutes “certain theological traditions” about the bodily resurrection of Jesus. They claim that Jesus’ followers denied his physical resurrection. Yet the traditions of his resurrection go back to one of the earliest books in the New Testament (ca. AD 50). Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

These verses and the rest of the chapter make it clear that Paul is speaking of a bodily resurrection.

The same Christ that was buried was raised. The Christ that appeared to the disciples could be seen.

If Jesus’ body is still in the tomb, our faith is in vain. A spiritual resurrection is no resurrection at all.

The Huffington Post article features 10 photos and one video clip.

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Jerusalem

Rollston and Meyers on the Talpiot Tombs

Christopher A. Rollston has published a brief review of “the new Jesus Discovery” at the ASOR Blog. Among other things he concludes:

3. There is no necessary connection between these two tombs and there is no convincing evidence that some famous figure of history (such as Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph of Arimathea, or Mary Magdalene, etc.) was buried in these tombs.
4. Furthermore, these tombs do not provide any evidence that can be construed as suggesting that Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene were married or had a child together.
5. I highly doubt that the inscription in Talpiyot Tomb B refers to a resurrection. In any case, many Jews during the Second Temple Period believed in a resurrection, long before the rise of Christianity. Thus, even if there were some evidence for a notion of a resurrection in this tomb, it does not necessarily follow that this was a Jewish-Christian tomb.
6. I am certain that the tetragrammaton (i.e., “Yahweh”) is not present in the four-line inscription from Talpiyot Tomb B.
7. The ornamentation on the ossuary in Talpiyot Tomb B that Tabor and Jacobovici wish to consider “Jonah and the Whale” (with Jonah pitched on the nose of the whale!) is a nephesh tower or tomb façade, just as Eric Meyers has stated. Such an image is quite common in the corpus of ossuaries.
Ultimately, therefore, I would suggest that these are fairly standard, mundane Jerusalem tombs of the Late Second Temple period. The contents are interesting, but there is nothing that is particularly sensational or unique in these tombs. I wish that it were different. After all, it would be quite fascinating to find a tomb that could be said to be “Christian” and to hail from the very century that Christianity arose. Moreover, it would be particularly interesting to find a tomb that could be associated with Jesus of Nazareth and his family. But, alas, the evidence does not suggest this. A basic methodological stricture is this: dramatic claims require dramatic and decisive evidence. In this case, Tabor and Jacobovici have strained the evidence far beyond the breaking point.

Thus he is essentially rejecting everything that would make this new discovery worthy of media attention. You can read his full review here. (The link has been acting up this morning, so if it doesn’t work, go directly to www.asorblog.org.)

Eric M. Meyers is no more positive.

The book is truly much ado about nothing and is a sensationalist presentation of data that are familiar to anyone with knowledge of first-century Jerusalem. Nothing in the book “revolutionizes our understanding of Jesus or early Christianity” as the authors and publisher claim, and we may regard this book as yet another in a long list of presentations that misuse not only the Bible but also archaeology.

Ouch. His full review is here (or here).

James Tabor has just emailed the following:

I am posting an article at http://bibleinterp.com that offers a preliminary report and analysis with maps and illustrations of the recent Talpiot “patio” tomb exploration by remote camera that Rami Arav and I conducted in 2009-2011. It should go up on that web site by noon today.

Fish/tomb monument image, rotated 90 degrees
Photo: Associated Producers Ltd./Haaretz

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Jerusalem

Follow-up on Givat Yona

In contrast to the IAA report on the Givat Yona excavations (previously criticized here), Ran Shapira has written a well-researched and accurate report on the excavations of the site within modern Ashdod.

A commenter on the previous blog post also observed that the place “of Saint Jonah” is depicted on the Medeba Map (c. AD 600). As can be seen in the photo below, its location is quite a bit north of Ashdod and in the area of Dan’s (original) tribal allotment. The map probably refers to Tell Yunis, 4 miles (6.5 km) south of Joppa.

It may also be noted that the Survey of Western Palestine records about half a dozen sites preserving the name Jonah, most of them in Galilee.

Medeba map showing the place of Jonah in the vicinity of Joppa, not Ashdod

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries

Thoughts on the Gold of Sheba

The claims are grand, indeed:

A British excavation has struck archaeological gold with a discovery that may solve the mystery of where the Queen of Sheba of biblical legend derived her fabled treasures.

The archaeologist is claiming to have found a gold mine, a temple, and a battleground. The gold mine is the basis of the connection with Sheba, for 1 Kings 10:10 reports that the Queen of Sheba gave Solomon 120 talents [4.5 tons] of gold.

If you read on further, however, you learn that the gold mine has not been excavated. In fact, the entrance is blocked by stones. You won’t be surprised by what follows:

Schofield will begin a full excavation once she has the funds and hopes to establish the precise size of the mine. Tests by a gold prospector who alerted her to the mine show that it is extensive, with a proper shaft and tunnel big enough to walk along.

So somebody searching for gold has convinced an archaeologist to publicize her “discovery” in order to raise the money to dig for treasure.

Schofield found above the blocked mine a “20ft stone stele (or slab) carved with a sun and crescent moon, the ‘calling card of the land of Sheba.’” That’s a curious statement given that evidence for the ancient kingdom of Sheba is sparse and most scholars believe that it was located not in Ethiopia but in Yemen. I’d be interested to know more about this “calling card.”

The article says that Louise Schofield is “an archaeologist and former British Museum curator,” and credits her with the establishment of multinational rescue excavations in Turkey and an environmental development project in Ethiopia. The latter is being done by a charity that Schofield founded to help the poor develop a sustainable lifestyle. According to another website, Schofield “was for 13 years Curator of Greek Bronze Age and Geometric Antiquities at the British Museum, and was responsible for the Mycenaean collection.” She also authored The Mycenaeans.

If you wish to pursue the subject further, I’d recommend starting with this post at Paleojudaica and following the links. As of this writing, the story is only being reported by the Observer.

The screenshot below shows the area of the present discovery (Maikado) along with the location of Marib, another candidate for the capital of ancient Sheba.

Possible locations of Sheba in relation to Jerusalem

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries

Iron Age Fortress Excavated in Ashdod

Attempts to sensationalize this story by connecting it to the prophet Jonah should not be allowed to obscure the significance of a fortress recently uncovered in Ashdod. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) press release blows it on all things “Jonah.”

At ‘Giv’at Yonah’, in Ashdod, Archaeological Finds were Uncovered that Verify the Existence of Life there at the Time of Jonah the Prophet
The foundation of a large fortress that was situated there during the First Temple period was exposed in an excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority conducted with funding provided by Hofit – Ashdod Development & Tourism Company, Ltd.
At ‘Giv’at Yonah’ (the Hill of Jonah) in Ashdod, which according to various traditions is identified with the burial place of the prophet Jonah, archaeological finds were exposed that verify the existence of life there during the First Temple period, at the time of this prophet.
In a trial archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority carried out on ‘Giv’at Yonah’ in Ashdod prior to development work by Hofit –Ashdod Development & Tourism Company, Ltd. remains of massive walls more than 1 m wide were found that are dated to the late eighth century and early seventh century BCE.
In the estimation of the excavation director, Dmitri Egorov, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, these walls constituted the base of a large building from the First Temple period, the time when Jonah the prophet was active, who lived in the eighth century BCE and was famous for having been swallowed by a fish after he refused to “go to Nineveh…and proclaim against it” (Jonah 1:2).

One can understand why a news organization would try to hype this discovery and in the process distort the data, but it is disturbing that a scientific governmental organization such as the IAA would fail to get basic historical and geographical facts right.

1. The IAA gets the chronology wrong. Jonah was a prophet in the first half of the 8th century, during the reign of Jeroboam II (793-753 BC). This fortress dates to the late 8th and early 7th centuries.

Thus the claim made in the headline and throughout the story is false. This should be clear later in the press release when the district archaeologist states that the fortress belonged either to the Assyrians or to the Judean king Josiah (640-609 BC).

2. The IAA gets the geography wrong. Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom, from the Galilean city of Gath-hepher (2 Kgs 14:25). He fled on a ship via the port at Joppa. There is no
evidence that he ever traveled to Judah or to the territory then controlled by the Philistines.

3. The IAA fails to note the value of the “various traditions” that identify the site as the “Hill of Jonah.” There is no Jewish or Christian tradition that Jonah was buried here. Only a decade ago did
“Atra Kadisha” identify it as the tomb of Jonah. It is relevant that the purpose of Atra Kadisha is to prevent the excavation of ancient Jewish tombs. The Atra Kadisha declaration follows a Muslim tradition, which is much too late to be taken as having historic value.

What is important in this story is the discovery of a fortress apparently from the time of Hezekiah when the Philistines were caught in a bit of a tug of war between Judah and the Assyrians. For more details, see Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem in Context of Scripture 2.119B.

Excavations of Iron Age fortress at Givat Yona. Photo by IAA.

Tagged Analysis, Discoveries, Excavations, Philistines