Is Jerusalem's Oldest Known Synagogue Originally Christian?

PART II The Findings

In Part I of this series I set forth ten research hypotheses to test dealing with the identity and origins of the ancient synagogue incorporated into a building now venerated by both Jews and Christians. The latter refer to the first floor as David's Tomb and Christians consider the second floor as the location of the ancient Upper Room (now referred to as the Cenacle or the Coenaculum). Based on the data, this investigator rejected four of the ten research hypotheses.

Research Hypothesis 1 - Date of the Original Structure

Epiphanius held that Judeo-Christians returned to Jerusalem from Pella after the fall of the city in CE 70 (Epiphanius De Mensuris 15; Koester 1989:93). Eusebius, writing ca. 385, reported that a large Judeo-Christian population existed at Jerusalem until the time of the siege of Hadrian (Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 3.5; Klijn and Reinink 1973:139). He listed 13 bishops, which appears to be a chronologically collapsed listing, following Simeon son of Clopas (bishop, ca. 63�98), as serving this Judeo-Christian community (Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 4.5; Boyle 1955:130-131).

Depending on how one reckons the time of death of Simeon there followed a 28 to 35 year period during which, according to Eusebius, there were thirteen successive Judeo-Christian bishops. This permits only an average of two to three year terms for thirteen bishops, during a period of little or no persecution or turmoil, which is too little to be taken as normal. The implication is that Eusebius either confused the sees and inserted bishops for adjacent localities into the list or that some bishops were coadjutors (Bagatti 1971a:53).

There is no reason to doubt that a line of Judeo-Christian bishops continued to serve the local Judeo-Christian community well into the fourth century. Why did Eusebius not list any Judeo-Christian bishops after the founding of Aelia Capitolina? The sense of his writing is that the ardent Nicene saw Judeo-Christian bishops as true Christians only through Judas but not thereafter. For his orthodox mind the episcopal throne of James throne passed to the Gentile bishops and that is the history he proceeded to develop.

According to Dio Cassius (ca. 150-235) Roman emperor Hadrian made a grand progress through Syria, Palestine, and Egypt in 129�130. He visited Jerusalem contemplating instituting certain building programs in the city. Hadrin renamed it Colonia Aelia Capitolina and raised a new temple to Jupiter (Dio Cassius Roman History 69.12.1-2; Cary 1969:447).F1 Concerning that visit, Epiphanius in his De Mensuris et Ponderibus wrote that Hadrian:

...found the entire city devastated and the temple of God trampled down, except for a few houses and the church of God, which was small, where the disciples, after they returned when the savior was taken up from the Mount of Olives, went up to the upper room. For there it had been built, that is, in the part of Zion that was kept from the destruction, and the blocks of houses around Zion itself, and seven synagogues, which stood alone like huts, one of which remained until the time of Maximona the bishop and Constantine the king, �like a booth in a vineyard,� as it is written. Therefore Hadrian decided to build the city, but not the temple (Epiphanius De Mensuris 14; Koester 1989:93.)

The fact that Epiphanius stopped at bishop Maximus of Jerusalem (bishop 333�348) suggests that he no longer considered the Judeo-Christian synagogue as a bona fide Christian meeting place but rather from the time of Maximus a seat of heterodoxy. By 325 Greco-Roman Christianity, whose mission then included the eradication of all other forms of Christianity, sought to become the exclusive religion. By then it had distanced itself from the Judeo-Christian Churches of God and all Jewish Christian sects.F2 Nevertheless, the synagogue remained in the possession of the Judeo-Christians until 381, when seized under an imperial decree issued by Theodosius I following the First Council of Constantinople, and turned over to the control of Greco-Roman Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop 384/50-386).

Eusebius and Epiphanius were prolific writers deeply committed to orthodoxy. Both men were well-versed, knowledgeable historians and scholars who demonstrated in their writings their use of the records and original sources extant in their day. While their orthodox paradigm appears throughout their writings there is little, if any, reason to doubt the veracity of their statements as used above. In these instances their statements were incidental and peripheral to Greco-Roman orthodoxy. Particularly in regard to the statement from Epiphanius about Hadrian and the small Church of God on Mt. Sion the report was such a peripheral piece of information that it served no known orthodox purpose to contrive it. Apparently he simply passed on information he understood from his own study to be fact as he recounted historical events.

After the disaster of CE 70, with the remnant of the priesthood of little or no account and the Sadducees scattered, early rabbinic Judaism rejected Judeo-Christianity as heretical at the ca. 85 so-called council at Jamnia with the proclamation of the birkat ha-m�n�m. This benediction was a curse on Nazarenes, in effect excluding any Jew from the emerging Pharistic synagogues if they became a Nazarene (a Levantine Judeo-Christian).F3 Moreover, as pacifists Judeo-Christians took no part in war (see Bagatti 1971a:7; Gonz�lez 1984:53) which led to difficulty in both the 66-70 and 132-135 Jewish attempts to free themselves from Roman rule. Judeo-Christians opposed the messianic claims of Bar Kochba and refused to support the Second Jewish Rebellion.F4 By refusing to take part in the revolts Judeo-Christians appeared as traitors to traditional Jews but as loyalists to the Romans. Following the defeat of Bar Kochba the latter apparently rewarded Judeo-Christians with continuing access to Colonia Aelia Capitolina but denied Jews access to the city under the pain of death thereby precluding the construction of any Jewish synagogue on Mt. Sion 135�362.F5 �This is explained by the fact that with the war a distinction was made between the Jews and the Judaeo-Christians,� argues Bagatti, �and that the decree of expulsion, promulgated by Hadrian, concerned only the Jews (Bagatti 1971a:10).

TABLE 2. Graffiti in the Tomb of David
Graffiti	Translation
	�Conquer, O Savoir, Mercy�

	�Oh, Jesus, that I may live, O Lord of the autocrat�

Only Greek graffiti, not Hebrew nor Aramaic, were found by Jacob Pinkerfeld in the earliest remains of the ancient building on Mt. Sion. �In this first period the hall was plastered. Among the plaster fragments, a few showed traces of Greek letters� (Pinkerfeld 1960:43). Pinkerfeld copied these graffiti and gave them to Professor. M. Schwabe for analysis and publication. Both died without publishing them. Moreover, translations of these graffiti by a team of specialists from the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum led by Emmanuele Testa and Bellarmino Bagatti suggested they were of Christian origin (followed Pixner 1990:25 and Finegan 1992:238, but seen as not determinative by Murphy-O�Connor 1994:297-298).

Table 2 shows the graffiti found in the pseudo-Tomb of David as copied by Pinkerfeld, interpreted by Testa, and published by Bagatti (Bagatti 1971a:120-121; Pixner 1990:23-25; Finegan 1992:238; Murphy-O�Connor 1994:297-298).

The Greek graffiti in the earliest period of the building and their problematic translation are consistent with such logic and especially so since no Hebrew graffiti were found by an experienced archaeologist and the significant unlikelihood of any Greek graffiti with Christian overtones being present in a Pharisaic synagogue. For first-century Judeo-Christians to read the New Testament they would have to have been fluent in Greek. The implication is that the synagogue in its first use was not occupied by traditional Jews but rather by Judeo-Christians using the Greek Language.

The original synagogue on the north wall had an apse with a high niche, 1.92 meters above the original floor, consistent with its functioning as a storage spot for rolls of Scripture rather than for codices. The codex form of the New Testament, which replaced the rolls of Scripture of earlier times, came into use not later than ca. CE 115. The John Rylands Papyrus, a codex fragment dating to ca. CE 115, is the earliest discovered text of the New Testament recording the Greek text of John 18:31-33 and John 18:37-38. While the populace of the Hellenized bilingual society of late Roman period Palestine used both Greek and Mishnaic Hebrew fluently the New Testament was for all intents and purposes a series of documents preserved in Greek. The thousands of extant manuscripts and their fragments are in Greek not Hebrew. The implication is that the construction of the synagogue occurred in the first century when rolls of Scripture were common not codices.

The height of the top of the niche from the original floor extended 4.36 meters (14.3 ft.). The wall, of course, had to extend up further to accommodate the top curvature of the niche. In any case, the niche of the apse, with its floor 1.92 meters above the original floor, would have been significantly above the heads of the building�s occupants and could not have served as a mihrab for Moslems (Pinkerfeld 1960:43). Whatever occupied the niche was large and up and out of the way of the people beneath. Being 2.48 meters wide x 1.20 meters deep x 2.44 meters high (Pinkerfeld 1960:41) the niche was of sufficient breadth and depth to accommodate a chest, an Ark of the Law, for the storage of rolls of Scripture. The physical storage and retrieval of codices at this height would have been awkward and would have worked more efficiently with a different shelf design.

Beneath the present floor of the Tomb of David there were Crusader (12th-century), Byzantine (5th-century), and Roman (1st-century or 2nd-century) floors necessitating that the foundations of the building go back to at least the second century and possibly the end of the first century (Pinkerfeld 1960:42�43; Pixner 1990:23; Murphy-O�Connor 1998:106). The floors of the building not only paralleled the historical data concerning the destructions, reconstructions, and occupancies of the building but the earliest floor dates to late in the Early Roman Period or early in the Late Roman Period. The ancient walls of the original structure consisted of worked limestone in a secondary use, laid in irregular courses of ashlars with chipped corners suggesting their origin was as salvage from a variety of destroyed buildings, such as those resulting from the CE 70 destruction of Jerusalem, but absent any distinctive markings or stylistic features that would limit this secondary use to 1st�3rd century construction. Finegan held that these large stones in the original walls were too large to belong to a private home (Finegan 1992:238).

Bargil Pixner raised the issue of whether or not the builders of the Judeo-Christian synagogue on the western hill reused ashlars from the demolished Second Temple with the intent of transferring some of its elements to a new Mount Zion. This behavior, that is, using actual building materials from the Temple, in an effort to acquire vicarious sacrality, would have been consistent with Judeo-Christian symbolism wherein the New Covenant and its Law of Christ replaced the Old Covenant and its Law of Moses while retaining some elements of the Old in the New.

As Branham stated it, in the context of a tradition relating to an ancient synagogue at Nehardea, �this endeavor physically to incorporate the Temple�s being into the synagogue legitimates the synagogue�s status through the physical and symbolic appropriation of Temple attributes� (Branham 1995:343).

In the apocryphal Odes of Solomon, the fourth ode appears to be a late first-century condemnation of the builders of the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Sion by the Ebionites for removing ashlars from the demolished Herodian Temple with the intent of transferring some of its symbolic elements, for construction of their synagogue on the new Mount Zion. In pertinent part Ode 4 as translated by Charlesworth reads:

1. No man can pervert Your holy place, O my God; nor can he change it, and put it in another place.

2. Because he has no power over it; for Your sanctuary You designed before You made special places.

3. The ancient one shall not be perverted by those which are inferior to it. You have given Your heart, O Lord, to Your believers. (Charlesworth 1985:736.)

Pinkerfeld made the point that the existing western wall, which puts the apse off center, was a much later addition dating to the time of Mameluke rule. He believed that the original large hall was larger (Pinkerfeld 1960:41�42). Nevertheless, the location of the niche relative to the eastern wall, the first footing from the left along the south wall, the termination of the western part of the northern wall, and placing the wall to center the niche imply a footprint for the original western wall. Figure 3 shows the presumed west wall at 1.3 meters in thickness.

FIGURE 3. Original building outline with presumed original west wall.

The implication is that the original hall was small and its western wall was slightly further to the east than the present-day Mameluke wall. This presumed original wall, 1.3 meters thick as the south and east walls, mirroring the dimensions of eastern wall from the midpoint of the apse would lie 5.23 meters from the east wall. This would have made the original hall 5.23 meters in width and 10.50 meters in length. The external dimensions of the original building would have been 7.56 meters wide and 15.0 meters long.

The thickness of the walls, from 1.30 meters on the south and east and 2.80 meters on the north, and the large stones in the lower courses suggest that the ancient synagogue in its initial use served as a public building of some height not a private home. Moreover, the source of these large stones, in secondary use, would have been from destroyed public buildings. The original synagogue, whose footprint was 113.4 sq. meters in area, had external dimensions of 7.56 meters in width and 15.0 meters in length. Its hall was not less than 54.9 sq. meters in area with internal dimensions of 5.23 meters in width and 10.5 meters in length. It was not less than 11.0 meters in height since the top of the highest of the ashlars in situ measures not less than 11.0 meters from the original floor level.

FIGURE 4. The original synagogue in its first building period.

The architectural proportions of the original building appear to have been those of the Solomonic Temple with the height one-half of the sum of the length and width. The Mishna provided an interesting check against this proposition.

According to the Mishna at Baba Bathra 4.4, with respect to the construction of a large room, the �height thereof should be [the sum of] half its length and half its breadth. The sanctuary affords proof of this� (Danby 1980:374). The sanctuary, that is the Temple, in Solomon�s time was 40 cubits long (excluding the height of the porch), 20 wide, and 30 high in external dimensions and �the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height� (I Kings 6:2, 20). By definition large residential rooms [for the observant] in the period of the Mishna measured �15 feet by 12, with a height, following the model of the Temple (1 K 62ff), equal to half the sum of the length and breadth, namely 13� feet; a �small� room measured 12 by 9, with a height of 10� feet (Baba bathra, vi. 4)� (Kennedy and Reed 1963:402). In these terms the exterior dimensions of original building in this study were 49.3 feet by 24.8 feet and the interior 34.5 feet by 17.2 feet, far exceeding the customary space of a private dwelling.

FIGURE 5. Schematic of the small synagogue in its first building period.

Figures 4 and 5 are hypothetical schematics of the original structure.

Strictly following the sanctuary ratio principle the imputed internal height of the building, the interior hall, would have been (1/2)(5.23 meters + 10.5 meters) = 7.73 meters. The imputed external height of the building would have been (1/2)(7.56 meters + 15.0 meters) = 11.28 meters. The difference between the height determined by measurement of the existing ashlars of 11.0 meters on the east wall and the imputed height of 11.28 meters determined by formula yields a difference of a mere 0.28 meters. Figure 6 shows the ashlars in situ rising to 11 meters.

FIGURE 6. Drawing of the eastern wall by Louis Vincent. Ashlars from the original wall rise to a height of 11.0 meters.

This difference presumably arose in measurement errors or perhaps the stone above the existing ashlar was lost. In any case the height of the model derived from the physical evidence was 97.5% of the height imputed by formula or in essence indistinguishable.

The original building was of sufficient height to have a 7.74 meters high ceiling in the hall and another 3.26 meters for an assessable flat roof, with a parapet as a protection against accident, providing a place for congregational observance of the full meal as an element of the Judeo-Christian Passover in the upper room tradition.

The Jewish custom was to surround an accessible roof by a battlement or parapet for safety as set forth in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 22:8; Kennedy and Reed 1963:404).

In Judeo-Christian thinking, the qehal'el succeeded Israel as the people of God. For them the legitimate government of the people of Israel passed from the physical nation to the pos�session of spiritual Israel�the Church of God.


FIGURE 7. To the left is Pixner�s tentative reconstruction of the Small Synagogue. It is in fact a reconstruction of the expanded synagogue of the third or late second century as pictured in the Pudentiana mosaic. To the right is the author�s tentative reconstruction of the small synagogue as it would have appeared at Hadrian�s visit to Jerusalem in CE 135.

Building their synagogue on the highest summit in Jerusalem, overlooking the site of the former symbol of the old covenant, the Second Temple, then removed as prophesied by Messiah Jesus, would have been, in a manner of speaking, a symbolic statement of triumph of the new covenant over the old. If they made such a statement in their new Judeo-Christian synagogue one would expect, in a culture filled with such symbolism, to employ the ratios of the sanctuary in its construction. While it is difficult for many Christians and messianic Jews to accept the first Christians, an exclusively Jewish community, saw themselves as the only legitimate people of God. For them the Church of God with a New Covenant superseded and replaced the physical Israelites and their Mosaic Covenant.

Figure 7 shows Pixner�s tentative reconstruction of the original structure on the left and the author�s tentative reconstruction on the right.

FIGURE 8. Reconstruction of the Small Synagogue. Drawing courtesy of Lawrence A. Thompson, LTA�Architecture of Ventura, California.

Figure 8 is a tentative reconstruction of the Small Synagogue and its courtyard developed by Lawrence A. Thompson of LTA-Architecture of Ventura, California.

The implication of these findings is that the original building was a relatively small Judeo-Christian synagogue, with an interior hall of about 54.9 sq. meters, dating to the interim between the two Jewish wars with the Romans (70�130). Therefore, the data do not support the falsification of Research Hypothesis 1.

Research Hypothesis 2 - The Location of Mount Zion

The Mt. Sion of today, Jerusalem�s southwestern hill, is neither that of King David�s time when Zion was the City of David on the eastern hill nor of Jesus� day when Zion referred to the Temple precincts. Josephus� Wars 5.4.1 and Antiquities 7.3.1-2 place the Citadel of Zion on Jerusalem�s southwestern ridge making it the de facto Mt. Zion. Kathleen Kenyon wrote:

The view that the first Jerusalem was on the western ridge dates back to the time of Josephus, writing in the first century A.D., who calls it Mount Zion, and thus must have considered it to be David�s town. Archaeological evidence is quite clear that this is wrong, and that the Jerusalem of the time of David lay on its eastern ridge. Josephus was a careful historian, and it remains an unexplained mystery why he was confused in this important matter.� (Kenyon 1974:38.)

While Josephus did not call the western ridge Mount Zion, the mystery diminishes with recognition that these passages reflect the belief of the orthodox Greco-Roman Christians whose scribes preserved his writings. The implication is that simple scribal redaction, undertaken to make these texts con�form to Byzantine understanding, accounts for the wording of the passage. Josephus� sense of Jewish history and the remarkable accuracy by which he provides details of Herodian Jerusalem in his works suggests that it was not he who placed the Jebusite Citadel of Zion on the western hill (Martin 1996:263). This can be seen in a contradiction at Wars 1.1.4, a passage the orthodox scribes overlooked, where in reference to expelling the Syrian Greeks, Josephus says �...so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel� (Josephus, Wars 1.1.4; Whiston 1957:608). In the Loeb Classical Library Thackeray translates the passage as �he expelled the troops from the upper city and confined them to the lower portion of the town, known as Acra� (Thackeray 1961:21).

Pixner followed the error preserved in Josephus and cited D. R. A. Hare�s translation of �The Lives of the Prophets� in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Charlesworth 1985:386), as follows:

The earliest mention of Zion in this new outlook is found in the apocryphal Life of the Prophets from the end of the first century A.D. It mentions that Isaiah�s tomb was close to the Siloam Fountain, near the tombs of the Kings, �to the east of Zion.� The �east of Zion� could only refer to Christian Zion on the western hill. (Pixner 1990:28.)

This new outlook was the equation of Sion with the southwestern hill. While Pixner relies on this explanation, Hare wrote that as to the date of writing of The Lives of the Prophets �the most probable date is the first quarter of the first century A.D.� (Hare 1985:381) and as to replication of Josephus� error concluded that �The phrase �east of Zion� need not imply the same error. It may mean simply �on the eastern (Kidron) slope of David�s city�� (Hare 1985:386).

While the Judeo-Christian synagogue on the western hill was a relatively small building, dating to the interim period between the two Jewish wars with the Romans (CE 70�130), connected to it was a vast amount of Judeo-Christian symbolism. The place�ment of the synagogue was upon the highest summit in Jerusalem triumphantly overlooking the place where the Temple once stood. Its design was in proportion to the ratios of the sacred sanctuary. Its builders evidently utilized some ashlars from the Second Temple itself. Its overseer Simeon the son of Cleophas (bishop, ca. 63�ca. 98), with title to the throne of James, was a cousin of Jesus of Nazareth and his brother James. If it was not the exact place it was at least sufficiently near the venue of the Last Supper to become symbolic of it. This Holy Church of God, as Eusebius referred to it (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 6.18; Ferrar 1920b:30), was symbolic of the new Zion and so known by Christians of the Late Roman Period.

While a professor of the Alexandrian school Origin visited Palestine about 215, returned in 230, and permanently took up residence at Caesarea Maritima the following year. He was a prolific writer. In his Commentary on Matthew he informed his readers that he had visited various places of sacred history or as he stated it: �We have visited the places to learn by inquiry of the footsteps of Jesus and of his disciples and of the prophets� (Finegan 1992:xv). The Judeo-Christian synagogue, presumably by then known to Gentile Christians as the Upper Church of the Apostles, and its significance as the imputed place of two of Christen�dom�s most sacred events, the Last Supper and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples, would by necessity have required an investigatory visit. During his residence in Caesarea Maritima he completed his Commentary on Matthew wherein he showed that he understood the western hill to be the place of the Last Supper. He referred to two high places which were �unmistakably Mount Zion, which is the southwestern hill and the high�est point in the city, and the Mount of Olives, with the Kidron Valley between� (Finegan 1992:234).

Origin wrote:

If then we wish to receive the bread of benediction from Jesus, who is wont to give it, let us go in the city to the house of that person where Jesus celebrated the Pascha with his disciples. . . . . Let us go up to the upper part of the house. . . . After they had celebrated the feast with the master, had taken the bread of benediction and eaten the body of the Word and drunk the chalice of the action of grace, Jesus taught them to say a hymn to the Father, and from one high place to another high place, and since there are things that the faithful do not do in the valley, so they ascended, to the Mount of Olives. (Migne Patrologia Graeca 13.1736�1737; Bagatti 1971b:25; Finegan 1992:234.)

On the former high place, in the upper part of the house, his reference corresponds to the flat roof with balustrades of the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Sion, where believers observed their Judeo-Christian Passover on Nisan 14. Albeit an argument from silence, the literature reveals no other site as a likely candidate for the site of house of the Upper Room than that of the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Sion. Origin may have thought, considering the simple design of the Judeo-Christian synagogue, that it was the actual house of the upper room converted into a place of assembly.

Eusebius, writing before 311 (Finegan 1992:xvi), held that the Mount of Olives was east of the Holy Church of God and the mount, the western hill, was the place where the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus� disciples on the first Christian Pentecost creating the Church of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 6.18; Ferrar 1920b:30-31). At the time he also held that Jerusalem, then Colonia Aelia Capitolina, was separate from Mt. Sion, and the site of ancient Jerusalem was now no more than a stone-quarry and Roman farm (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 8.3; Ferrar 1920b:140-141).

When the Pilgrim of Bordeaux visited Mt. Sion in 333, a gate in a primitive �Wall of Sion� provided him access from the south, by means of the steep ascent from the Hinnom Valley, to a walled compound of the Judeo-Christians where they had their synagogue. He recorded in his journal: �Inside Sion, within the wall, you can see where David had his palace. Seven synagogues were there, but only one is left�the rest have been �plowed and sown� as was said by the prophet Isaiah� (Pilgrim of Bordeaux 592-593; Wilkinson 1971:157-158). This suggests a significant portion of Mt. Sion was agricultural land and that the pilgrim believed that the venue of David�s palace, i.e., the citadel of Zion, was the southwestern hill.

While visiting Jerusalem, 381�384, Egeria recorded in her diary the stations in the liturgical year which included the place where the church now stands in Sion where the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples and the location of the column at which the Lord was scourged (Egeria 37.1; Wilkinson 1971:136). In 385 Paula visited first the Anastasis and then ascended up from the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulcher Church to Mt. Sion where she saw the Theodosian Octagonal Memorial and the Upper Church of the Apostles (Jerome Letter 108 at 9:2-4; Wilkinson 1977:49; Schaff and Wace 1989b:199).

Epiphanius writing in 392 held that the Upper Room, which he understood to be the site of the �Upper Church of the Apostles� to which the disciples returned after the Ascension was built on Mt. Sion where Hadrian had seen the small church of God (Epiphanius Panarian 41:843-6; cf De Mensuris 14; Koester 1989:93; see also Williams 1987).

The implication of these findings is that late in the Early Roman Period the southwestern hill of Jerusalem became known in Christian circles as Mount Zion, the location of the Holy Church of God, and that this name continued to designate the southwestern hill throughout the Late Roman Period and the Byzantine Period. Therefore, the data do not support the falsification of Research Hypothesis 2.

Research Hypothesis 3 - The David�s Tomb Tradition

The interment of the Davidic line of kings from David through Ahaz was within the city of David (see Nehemiah I Kings 2:10, 11:43; 14:31; 15:8; 15:24; 22:50 and II Kings 12:21; 14:20; 15:7; 15:38; 16:20). Nehemiah�s description of repairs to Jerusalem�s city walls, made in late sixth century BCE, places the city of David on the eastern hill (see Nehemiah 3). Herod the Great partially looted the tomb of David but on becoming fearful built a propitiatory monument made of white stone at the mouth of David�s sepulcher (Josephus Antiquities 16.7.1; Whiston 1957:487-488). The last person known to know the actual location of the tomb of David was Rabbi Akiva whose testimony places it on the eastern part of the eastern hill where the impurity of the graves would flow out of the city of David into the Kidron (Pixner 1992:21).

The literature of the period shows no evidence of a belief fixing the location of the tomb of David on the western hill in the Late Roman Period nor of any relationship between David�s tomb and the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Sion. When the Crusaders undertook repair of the �Mother of all the churches,� probably about 1167, a wall collapsed admitting workers to a cave, likely remains of an old pre-70 CE synagogue containing a golden crown and a scepter, giving credence to the popularization of the myth that the Tomb of David was on the western hill (see Armstrong 1996:286-287; Pixner 1990:43-35). Throughout the Byzantine period the tomb of David was thought to be in Bethlehem (Wilkinson 1977:151; Murphy-O�Connor 1994:296). The implication of these findings was that late in the Late Roman Period the original building was not known as the Tomb of David. Therefore, the data do not support the falsification of Research Hypothesis 3.

Research Hypothesis 4 � The House of Mary the Mother of John Mark Tradition

The facts as given in Acts 1�2 make it unlikely that the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth occurred in even an extremely large residential upper room in Herodian Jerusalem and that neither the upper room of Acts 1:13 nor the Upper Room of Luke 22:8�10 and Mark 14:13 could have been the venue for the descent of the Holy Spirit. The apostles and their followers likely assembled on the Temple Mount (Acts 2:1), in Solomon�s Portico or one of the large halls in the Temple Court available for public religious meetings, very early in the morning on the Day of Pentecost and they all were seated in a building (Acts 2:2).

Pixner believed that rather than the house of Mary, the venue of the Last Supper, a meatless Passover, was the Essene guest�house on the western hill of Jerusalem (Mackowski 1980:141; Pixner 1992:64). �To my mind� writes Bargil Pixner �this took place in the Essene guesthouse on Mount Zion on the Tuesday night� (Pixner 1992:64). If so, it could explain the persisting tradition that the first Lord�s Supper occurred in an upper room on Mt. Sion. Mackowski, concurring, held that this �must have been a very simple dining hall in keeping with the simple life of the Essenes� (Mackowski 1980:141).F6

The house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, was relatively close to the place of Peter�s imprisonment pursuant to the order of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12).^F7 Mary and her son were probably Luke�s source concerning the Acts 12 account of Peter�s coming to her house upon his CE 43 escape from prison and for other episodes in the early life of the Jerusalem church as well (Marshall 1980:209). Mary was a woman of means, apparently a widow, who was among the earliest disciples and the possessor of a first-floor room large enough for many people to assemble at a convenient location, evidently in the Upper City, with an entrance-way separating the main house from the street by means of a courtyard. The upper room to which the apostles returned following the Ascension was probably the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark. The Upper Room accounts in Luke 22:8�10 and Mark 14:13, however, do not harmonize with the house of Mary account in Acts 12:12�17.

While a very strict reading of a passage in Origin�s Commentary on Matthew suggests that he believed that the actual house of the Upper Room where the disciples had taken the Last Supper was on the western hill and still in place in his day he does not link this belief with the house of John Mark�s mother. Two Byzantine writers, Cyril of Jerusalem and Epiphanius, believed the location of the house of the Upper Room, served as a meeting place for Jesus� disciples from the time of the Ascension to Pentecost, was in that part of the Upper City escaping the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70.

A review of the archeological evidence and the extant literary sources for the period CE 70�325 revealed no site as a candidate for the house of Mary the mother of John Mark except the tradition relating to the Judeo-Christian syna�gogue on Mt. Sion.

The literary and the archaeological evidence indicate that the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70 was total and not a single building remained standing. The implication is that the home of John Mark�s mother perished in the razing of Jerusalem by the Romans in CE 70. The evidence suggests that the Upper Room where Jesus observed the Last Supper with his disciples was the Essene guesthouse on the western hill. The house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, certainly could have been where the Twelve stayed in the Upper City at the time of the Ascension. The weight of the evidence is that the Holy Spirit descended on the assembled disciples on the Temple Mount not in an upper room. Therefore, the data require the rejection of Research Hypothesis 4.

Research Hypothesis 5 � Alignment of the Niche of the Apse

The orientation of the synagogue niche is not with either the Anastasis or the Martyrdom nor with the Temple Mount for the Anastasis lies eleven degrees (11�) counterclockwise, the Martyrdom eight degrees (8�) counterclockwise, and the presumed location of the Holy of Holies chamber in the Herodian Temple on the Temple Mount fifty-one degrees (51�) clockwise from the orientation of the niche. As the former Upper City resembled a more or less large level field with a rise, the synagogue builders had a clear sight line to the traditional Golgotha. Indeed, since the builders had such a clear line of sight they obviously chose not to so orient the niche. Moreover, Murphy-O�Connor argues that �orienting niches are not attested in first-century synagogues (e.g., Gamla, Masada)� (Murphy-O�Connor 1994:306 at n. 1).

For a building of this proportion, with external dimensions of 7.56 meters in width and 15.0 meters) in length, placing the niche in the north wall and aligning building permits natural sunlight to illuminate the interior, through 1.3 meters thick walls, from the east, south, and west.

The implication of these findings is that the original building with the niche of the apse does not have an orienting niche. Therefore, the data require the rejection of Research Hypothesis 5.

Research Hypothesis 6 � Artifacts Found in the Ancient Synagogue

The only artifacts found in the remains of the original synagogue germane to the question of Judeo-Christian origin and occupancy were graffiti, the ashlars themselves, and at the lowest floor level some plaster and smooth stones. The features of the building itself were dealt with in the testing of other hypotheses in this investigation.

The ashlars were dealt with in Research Hypothesis 1 as was the graffiti. This discussion consisted of consideration of the early floor material as well as another look at the graffiti.

There is a certain ambiguity in Pinkerfeld�s observation. At the lowest level he found the remains of (1) a plaster floor, (2) quite possibly the remains of a stone pavement with some small fragments of smooth stones found slightly above this level, and (3) something that made him speculate that the lower floor was a mosaic (Pinkerfeld 1960:42-43).

A tentative explanation for these cir�cumstances would be that in the third century or late second century its enlargement by its Judeo-Christian occupants of the small Judeo-Christian synagogue into the Upper Church of the Apostles, or Holy Church of God as Eusebius described it, the floors remained at the same level. To devote resources to a significant expansion of the building would no doubt have given rise to renovation of the floor as well giving a uniform look to the entire hall. The result in excavation would be the ambiguous debris Pinkerfeld encountered.

No one knows what the western limit was for the Upper Church of the Apostles. The small synagogue was 7.56 meters (24.8 feet) by 15.0 meters (49.3 feet) for an area of 113.4 sq. meters (1,223 sq. feet). Assuming that the footprint of the existing foundations to the west constitute the defining limit of the Upper Church of the Apostles to the west would bring the renovated building to 23.3 meters (76.3 feet) by 15.0 meters (49.3 feet) encom�passing an area of 350 sq. meters (3,758 sq. feet). This makes the building 3.1 times larger than the original building.

FIGURE 9. Plan of the first-century Judeo-Christian synagogue according to Pixner.

While Bargil Pixner did not state any measurements in his 1990 �Church of the Apostles Found on Mount Zion� article this is precisely what he did in his drawings and projections. Figure 9 is Pixner�s Plan of the First-Century Judeo-Christian Synagogue (Pixner 1990:22). On Pixner�s drawing the width is slightly less than 25 meters. This expanded building is what one sees in the Pudentiana mosaic. The expanded building pre�empted the old courtyard.

The finding is that the floor debris at the lowest level reflect a certain ambiguity likely the result of an expansion of the small synagogue into the Upper Church of the Apostles by the Judeo-Christians at the original floor level but renovated to provide a new and uniform look to the hall. The implication of this finding is that the floor debris found in the remains of the ancient synagogue is consistent with the explanation that the original synagogue was of Judeo-Christian origin and occupancy. Therefore, this investigator cannot reject Research Hypothesis 6 and as a result tentatively accepts a Judeo-Christian occupancy for the original structure.

Research Hypothesis 7 � The Architectural Design of the Ancient Synagogue

In Herodian times Jerusalem pilgrims would often be put up in synagogues during the festival seasons when many thousands converged on the city (Grabbe 1995:22; Wigoder 1986:11-12).

The Capernaum �black synagogue� excavators have yet to publish a report with the details of the nature and structure of that likely first-century synagogue and details of its physical nature remain speculative (Grabbe 1995:22; Flesher 1995:34-35). There are three Levantine structures for which sufficient evidence exists to date them as pre-70. They are at Masada, Herodium, and Gamala (Flesher 1995:35). Serving as assembly halls the synagogues at Masada and Herodium measured 50 feet by about 40 feet, had stone benches along the inside walls, and were of unclear orientation (see Wigoder 1986:12; Flesher 1995:36). The Gamla synagogue has rows of benches along the wall, a ritual bath nearby, an orientation toward Jerusalem, a niche in the wall for the Ark of the Torah, and absent evidence of the separation of men and women.

Many of the synagogues of Palestine after CE 200 were of distinguished appearance, consisted basically of a main prayer hall and a courtyard, and built on the highest point in the area or near a body of water.

For over a century after the Jewish revolt of AD 66�70, and especially after the second revolt against the Romans in 132�5, the Jews in Palestine were severely oppressed and the building of synagogues was impossible. But towards the end of the second century the roman attitude relaxed, relations with the Jewish community became more peaceful, the economic situation improved, and the next century saw a spate of building. (Wigoder 1986:18.)

The ancient synagogue on Sion consisted basically of a main prayer hall with a niche. It has no stone benches nor does it show any sign of the separation of men and women. There is no evidence of decoration. It apparently had a courtyard in its first building period. While built on the highest point in the area it was significantly smaller than the structures at Masada, Herodium, and Gamala. Therefore, this investigator cannot reject Research Hypothesis 7 and therefore tentatively regards the original building as a first-century CE synagogue.

Research Hypothesis 8 � The Church of the Apostles

Cyril of Jerusalem was the first to employ the phrase Church of the Apostles in reference to the Judeo-Christian synagogue on Mt. Sion. He referred to the �Upper Church of the Apostles� in the course of delivering a series of lectures to new converts in 347 or 348 in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher during Easter season (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 16.4; Schaff and Wace 1989a:116). Did Cyril indicate in this passage that the phrase Upper Church of the Apostles was in his day common parlance for the title of the structure? Or was he making a statement of fact in the sense of �in the upper church of the apostles� within the meaning of common nouns?

From the perspective of the time Cyril wrote there were two opposing churches. The lower church, usually referred to as the Anastasis and the Martyrdom, and the upper church, in reference to the Judeo-Christian synagogue up on the hill. The orthodox believed the upper church was of apostolic origin. The implication is that Cyril was not using the words �upper church of the apostles� or later in the passage �upper church� as proper nouns. There is no attestation of the name in a formal sense of a proper noun in the ancient literature.

What did outsiders call the synagogue? Eusebius referred to it as the Holy Church of God (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 6.18; Ferrar 1920b:30�31). Egeria does not use the term �mother of all churches� but referred to the buildings as �On Sion� which Wilkinson suggested may have been used as a title (Wilkinson 1971:294). Theodosius, ca. 518, used the term in reference to �Holy Sion which is the Mother of all Churches� (Wilkinson 1977:66). The latter can be just as easily translated as �Holy Sion which is the mother of all churches� in a statement of fact not as a title. Not until the work of Bargil Pixner did the term Church of the Apostles become attached to the original building as a formal name.

Simply put, the ancient literature does not attest to the origi�nal building being commonly called by the title or name Church of the Apostles. Therefore, this investigator rejects Research Hypothesis 8 based on these data.

Research Hypothesis 9 � An Extension of Hagia Sion

FIGURE 10. Hagia Sion Basilica (the large tiered-roofed building in the foreground) and the Cenacle or Coenaculum (the smaller flat-roofed building to the right of the basilica) as they appear in the 6^th century Madaba Mosaic. The buildings appear to be attached at the northeast corner of the basilica.

The Madaba Mosaic Map, ca. 560, presumably a symbolic representation or index map, has the synagogue with a single entrance (presumably due to an enlargement of the entry ca. 415 when the building functioned as the sacrarium for the remains of St. Stephen).

Figure 10 shows the Hagia Sion Basilica as preserved in the Madaba mosaic map with the enlarged former synagogue at the right center. The latter had no windows on the north and west walls. From the view of the mosaic the two buildings seem to touch only at the rear. The mosaic locates the synagogue from the southwest rotated away from the southern wall of the basilica (Avi-Yonah 1964).

About 670, shortly after the rise of Islam, Arculf, a Frankish bishop and pilgrim traveled to Jerusalem where he stayed nine months. He visited various churches including the Hagia Sion Basilica and made wax drawings of them. Later at the Abbey of Iona (near present-day Argyll, Scotland), he related his experiences to Adamnan (abbot, 679�704), who recorded the account of the pilgrimage including the ground plans of the churches he copied from Arculf�s wax tablets (Finegan 1992:xx). Arculf referred to Hagia Sion as a �great basilica� (Wilkinson 1977:100; Finegan 1992:235). Arculf�s drawing shows a northern entrance toward the rear of the basilica with the building�s length measuring 2.4 times its width.

FIGURE 11. Plan of Hagia Sion according to Arculf (ca. 670).

A comparison of the wax sketch made by Arculf (Figure 11) with the Hagia Sion Basilica as shown in the Madaba Mosaic Map (Figure 10) show the buildings in a similar architectural footprint suggesting they depict the same building. The absence on Arculf�s drawing of the significant remaining walls of the Judeo-Christian synagogue then in situ implies the basilica and the synagogue were separate facilities.

FIGURE 12. Hagia Sion after Vincent-Abel, J�rusalem, Recherches de Topogrephie d�Arch�ologie et d�Histoire. Fig. 154 (Vincent 1914-26:356; Ovadiah 1970:Plate 77), Cenacle/Tomb of David.

Heinrich Renard, architect for the Diocese of Cologne, partially excavated Hagia Sion in 1898-1899 during the construction of the Dormition Abbey on Mt. Sion. L. H. Vincent also investigated it. Both estimated the length of the basilica at 55 meters with its width at half of its length (i.e., its length was 2.0 times it width) extending over the whole of the large area situated north and north-west of the Cenacle. Ovadiah speculates that �there should have been another entrance in the north facade, since it was there that the church was reached from the direction of the city� (Ovadiah 1970:89).

In Figure 12 the south wall of Hagia Sion and the northern and southern walls of the synagogue are parallel. In the Madaba mosaic the angle between the Hagia Sion Basilica and the synagogue measures 3.3 � 0.1 degrees suggesting that the designers of the mosaic showed the synagogue in an exaggerated rotation probably deferring to its historic identity as the place of the Last Supper.

The only possible placement of the Octagonal Theodosian Memorial, Figure 13, consistent with its depiction in the St. Pudentiana Mosaic, is immediately to the west of the synagogue, directly in front of its entry on the west not Pixner�s northern location.

FIGURE 13. The Theodosian Memorial at the west of the former Synagogue, then the mother of all churches, as shown in the apse of the Basilica of St. Pudentiana in Rome. The Eleona Church on the Mount of Olives, appears above and behind the latter.

With the placement of the octagon to the west of the synagogue there was a less likely physical necessity for its demolition to provide space for the Basilica of Hagia Sion. Presumably John II had the octagon razed to improve pilgrim traffic flow as part of the process of readying the old synagogue for the bones of St. Stephen and the planning of the enlarged entry. Moreover, removal of the octagon placed a focus upon the synagogue as the sanatorium of St. Stephen and upon the Basilica of Hagia Sion as the de facto mother of all churches.

The weight of the evidence suggests that the synagogue was not an extension of the Hagia Sion Basilica, but rather shared its northern wall, and the Theodosian Octagonal Memorial was west of the Judeo-Christian synagogue. Therefore, this investigator rejects Research Hypothesis 9 based on these data.

Research Hypothesis 10 � Its Relation to The Crusader Church of St. Mary

In the 12th century Crusaders built a church, on the south part of the ruins of the Hagia Sion Basilica, which they named St. Mary of Mt. Sion, honoring the tradition that after the Resurrection Jesus' mother Mary both lived and died on Mt. Sion. Phocas, a Greek monk from Crete, described his 1177 (or 1195) visit to Sion in some detail in his Concise Description of the Holy Land (Kazhdan 1991:1667). He wrote that �In the upper chamber are the places of the Last Supper and of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles�� (Finegan 1992:210). As the ancient synagogue was below these places it would have to lie within the scope of the Crusader Church.

FIGURE 14. The Crusader Church of St. Mary by G. Kroll (Kroll 1979:420) based on H. Renard, M. Gisler and L.-H. Vincent). Walls C-A, A-B, and B-D are in situ remains of the ancient synagogue. E-É is reported as the west-facade of the crusader-church and H a tower foundation.

Muslim authorities destroyed the church in 1219 by order of al-Malik al-Mu`azzam, sultan of Damascus, resulting in the robbing of its building blocks and columns. The Cenacle (Room of the Last Supper and the adjoining Chapel of the Holy Spirit on the floor above David�s tomb) escaped the general destruction and in 1335 the Franciscans took possession of it. They repaired and restored the Cenacle in the form it appears today (Finegan 1992:241).

As in the case of Hagia Sion, Heinrich Renard partially excavated St. Mary of Mt. Sion in 1898-1899 during the construction of the Dormition Abbey. In the 1920s L. H. Vincent and F. M. Abel conducted an important survey of ancient Jerusalem focusing on the topography of the city and the ancient churches and monuments. Figure 14, by Kroll (Kroll 1979:420) based on the work of Renard, Gisler, and Vincent, shows the church measuring 54 by 34 meters with a bell tower to the west.

In July-August 1983, E. Eisenberg conducted a trial sounding at the Church of the Dormition on behalf of the Israel Department of Anti�quities wherein the northwestern corner of St. Mary�s of Mt. Sion, was uncovered. The Dormition church financed the excavations.

FIGURE 15. The Crusader Church of St. Mary by B. Pixner (Pixner 1990:34) following his excavation of its facade.

Exposed were nine column aisles and piers, parts of the plastered parts of the nave (the west wall was 1.5 meters wide while the foundations of the north wall reached a width of 2.2 meters), and the two north aisles sections of the church floor (paved in marble and in mosaic). The remains suggest that the church was longer and wider than originally believed: instead of measuring 54 by 34 meters, it was approximately 72.0 by 36.0 meters. Eisenberg confirms that �The Tomb of David and the Coenaculum (the site of the Last Supper) represent the southeast part of the ancient church and their measurements correspond to those of the building remains uncovered this year� (Eisenberg 1984:47; Bahat 1993:799).

According to Pixner, when a sewage channel was being dug in front of the Dormition Abbey, �I took the occasion to examine the area archaeologically and was able to locate the foundation of the facade of this Crusader church� (Pixner 1990:34). Figure 15 is Pixner�s drawing of the Crusader Church. Oddly, he makes no mention of the work of E. Eisenberg although he and they purportedly exposed the same northwest corner and the excavation results were published in 1984. Pixner, in an apparent memory lapse, claims this occurred in 1985, although this hardly could have been a separate event. He says �the southwest corner of the church is in an exact alignment with the southern wall of the building of the ancient Judeo-Christian synagogue� and the �bases of nine Crusader pilasters and the western section of the northern wall of the Crusader church were also discovered and preserved� (Pixner 1990:34). In reference to the plan of the Crusader Church Pixner concluded that its:

�southwestern corner is in exact alignment with the ancient Judeo-Christian synagogue's southern wall, which is extant to a height of about 12 feet. From this alignment the full length of the southern wall of the Cru�sader church is projected on the plan. In the southeastern part of the basilica, upper right, then cenacle building from Crusader times still stands, as do some of the walls from the first-century Apostolic Church, which now enclose the pseudo-Tomb of David. Among the Crusader remains is the upper half of a column (shown at left and on the plan at left) that once extended from the ground floor up to the ceiling of the church; today it stands just out�side the cenacle building, next to the entrance to the upper room. (Pixner 1990:31�32.)

The weight of the evidence attests to the incorporation of the Judeo-Christian synagogue into the Crusader Church of St. Mary. Therefore, this investigator cannot reject Research Hypothesis 10 based on these data and tentatively accepts the view that the Crusaders integrated the ancient synagogue into their Crusader Church on Mt. Sion.

Conclusions

Based on these data this investigator rejects Research Hypothesis 4 that, in the Late Roman period, the traditional site of the original building was thought to be the house of St. Mark and the location of the Last Supper; Research Hypothesis 5 that the niche of the original building aligns with the traditional location of the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth; Research Hypothesis 8 that the original building became known as the Church of the Apostles; and Hypothesis 9 that the original building became an extension of the Basilica of Hagia Sion.

This investigator cannot reject Research Hypothesis 1 and therefore tentatively accepts that the original building dates to the time of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem in the 1st�4th centuries; Research Hypothesis 2 and tentatively accepts that the original building was in an area known as Mt. Zion in the Late Roman period; Research Hypothesis 3 and tentatively accepts that the original building was not known as the Tomb of David in the Late Roman period; Research Hypothesis 6 and tentatively accepts a Judeo-Christian occupancy for the original building; Research Hypothesis 7 and tentatively regards the original building as a first-century CE synagogue; and Research Hypothesis 10 and tentatively accepts the view that the building was incorporated into the Crusader Church on Mt. Sion.

By the end of the Crusader Period, the ancient synagogue on Mt. Sion had experienced only two occupancies. The first occupancy was by its Judeo-Christian builders initially as The Small Church of God and then as the expanded Holy Church of God. The second occupancy was by their orthodox successors. When the orthodox seized the building in CE 381 they erected an octagonal memorial to its west. With construction of the Basilica of Hagia Sion, the ancient building served as a detached side-chapel. Lastly, it became part of the Crusader Church on Sion.

Part III of this series will consist of a significantly modified explanation of this site.

Part III of this three part series will appear in the July-September 2004 issue.

F1The site of the Olympian Temple of Jupiter was that of the later Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

F2The war of CE 135 facilitated the presence of Gentile Christians in Roman Palestine both in regard to residence and pilgrimage. This fortuity, holds Bagatti, precipitated Gentile Christian contact with indigenous Judeo-Christians leading to conflict and motive to begin a religious war. According to Bagatti: �In fact some gentile Christians could not bear that their coreligionists should perpetuate, more than a century after the death of Christ, those Jewish rites which they, on reading St. Paul, believed had been juridically abolished. The Christians of Jewish stock, on the contrary, thought that it was wrong to abandon those rites, which neither Jesus nor the apostles, Paul excepted, had abrogated� (Bagatti 1971a:78). The CE 135 Roman destruction of Jerusalem in the course of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt marked the conclusion of apostolic times and beginning of the Period of the Great Separation (CE 135-381) in Christendom.

F3It is highly improbable that any Judeo-Christians were in attendance in the first place. By that time the Judeo-Christian and Pharistic communities were far apart in their basic teachings. The birkat ha-m�n�m was a prophylactic measure to insulate and protect emerging Pharistic Judaism. The Talmud records that it was Samuel the Lessor who composed the birkat ha-m�n�m (Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 29a). Some believe that Pharistic Jews added the birkat ha-m�n�m to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Am�dah to curse and anathematize Judeo-Christians to drive these minim (heretics) from the synagogue in an effort to save Judaism (Manns 1988:26). It appears more likely, in light of the established Pharistic practice of legislating to guard against even minor transgressions of the Torah, that the birkat ha-m�n�m was to serve as a barrier, or fence, of sorts to keep observant Pharistic Jews within the fold rather than to keep minim out. If any Jew became a Judeo-Christian he or she then became minim and subject to the daily curse by rabbinical Jews. The underlying policy was to produce a chilling effect on conversions to Judeo-Christianity by anathematizing converts in the eyes of other Jews and by creating conflict and division within the convert�s immediate family.

F4Pritz argues that: it was the �endorsement of a false messiah (and for Jewish Christians a rival messiah)� by rabbi Akiva �which was the last straw�� breaking the ties with rabbinic Judaism (Pritz 1992:59).

F5By the middle of the third century Jews had Roman permission to go to the Mount of Olives to mourn the Temple from afar and later they secured leave to mourn on the 9th of Ab, the anniversary date of the Temple�s destruction, upon the Temple Mount itself (Armstrong 1996:169-170 cf. Avi-Yonah 1976:80-81, Wilkin 1993:106). During the regime of emperor Julian the Apostate (361-363) the Jews once again gained legal access to Jerusalem along with permission to rebuild their Temple.

F6The literary evidence is found in the Gospels of Luke and Mark. Both state that on of the day of the slaughtering of the passover lambs, in reference to Nisan 14, Jesus instructed Peter and John to enter Jerusalem, presumably through the Gate of the Essenes, and to look for a man carrying a pitcher of water (Luke 22:8-10, Mark 14:13). This occurred, as Jews reckoned time at evening, at the dawn of a new day, at nightfall early Nisan 14. They were to follow the man carrying a pitcher of water to where he entered a house and there to inquire of the housemaster about the guest room where Jesus was to eat the Passover, that is, the first Christian Passover not the traditional Passover of the Jews observed at the beginning of Nisan 15, with his disciples. Jesus said �He will show you a large upper room furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there� (Mark 14:15; cf., Luke 22:12). The implication is that Jesus had made some prearrangement for dining there at this occasion as the housemaster apparently expected Jesus� party and had the room furnished and ready. In this ancient culture, the carrying of water in jars to homes was the chore of children and women, not Jewish men. However, an Essene man, typically a celibate monastic, would carry water as a chore since an Essene conclave would have been absent children and women to perform this menial task. The two made preparations, and when it was late� (opsios), that is, at nightfall, Jesus and The Twelve came (Mark 14:16-17). They observed the Last Supper in this Upper Room.

F7About CE 43, as recorded in Acts, Herod Agrippa I had the apostle Peter arrested and placed in prison in Jerusalem just prior to the Passover. Peter awaited trial and summary execution. For several days the Church of God, known at that time among themselves as the qehal�el, had engaged in fervent prayer, in this case group prayer, for his release (Acts 12:5). Late at night following his escape from the place of his confinement, albeit at first a little confused, Peter went straight to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where he was well-known in the household (Acts 12:14). A number of the Jerusalem brethren had gathered together at her house for a prayer vigil on Peter�s behalf. His apparent purpose was to inform the group assembled there of his release and to request that they so inform James [understood to be the brother of Jesus (Mark 6:3)] and others. The implication is that Peter did not have far to walk from the place of his incarceration to Mary�s house as it was the first place he went and his incessant knocking suggests that he did not want to be seen by nearby authorities.

For April-June 2004 Volume 7 Number 2