|
|
|
Click here to send us Questions or Comments
Copyright �
1997-2004
| For July-September 1999
|
|
It is doubtful that Macarius expected to find any tomb beneath the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter let alone that of Jesus. There is no evidence, literary or archaeological, suggesting that during the Apostolic Period that the tomb of Jesus itself held any special significance nor that it ever served as a cult center for the ancient church. Early Judeo-Christians, as participants in Jewish culture, abhorred idolatry and did not venerate places as holy as did illiterate superstitious pagans.
When the Romans constructed their Capitoline temple in Aelia Capitolina in ca. CE 135, selecting a site to fit their own master plan and needs, Christianity was neither a threat nor an issue. There was no reason for the Romans to concern themselves about where Jesus may have been entombed one way or the other. In CE 135 Christians, whether Gentile or Judeo-Christian, were hardly a threat as at the time they were almost exclusively nonviolent pacifists and as there could not have been more than 25�50 thousand of them in the whole empire.
The tradition that the Tomb was to be found under the Capitoline temple, which he understood as a temple dedicated to Venus, appeared secure to Bagatti. He was a Roman Catholic priest-scholar heavily invested in the traditions of the Church and its holy sites, but he held that it was very uncertain as to the exact place where the tomb lay as the temple covered a great area. In his opinion:
From 326, the year of Helena�s visit to Jerusalem, to 135 when the temple of Venus was erected, there are 191 years and therefore the memory must have been pretty vague, or it was based on writings, because all those who were there at the time of Hadrian were dead. The authors speaks of �inhabitants� and of �Jews�, and these can only be the Judaeo-Christians. Actually they only were present at the time of the building of the temple of Venus, and they only were interested to transmit from father to son the memory of the tomb of the Lord. The other Jews, who had not accepted Christ, were not interested in the tomb of Jesus and after 135 they could no longer live in Jerusalem. (Bagatti 1971b:58.)
On the surface it seems sensible that a succession of oral traditions about the tomb�s location would have been continuously available among the Judeo-Christian population of Jerusalem. Dan Bahat, writing in the Biblical Archaeology Review, argued that logic. He wrote:
The fact that it had indeed been a cemetery, and that this memory of Jesus' tomb survived despite Hadrian's burial of it with his enclosure fill, speaks to the authenticity of the site. Moreover, the fact that the Christian community in Jerusalem was never dispersed during this period, and that its succession of bishops was never interrupted supports the accuracy of the preserved memory that Jesus had been crucified and buried here. (Bahat 1986:37.)
Preserved by whom? If this tradition persisted in either the Judeo-Christian or Gentile Christian communities of Jerusalem then why was this not made known at the time? The historical evidence suggests that the bishops, particularly Eusebius, held deep doubts about the authenticity of the site. If this persisting tradition did in fact exist Macarius certainly did not offer this obvious evidence to the bishops of proof of authenticity. Why? Because they knew of no such tradition. The tradition argument appears, on the surface, as plausible to present-day scholars seeking to explain why Macarius and his associates accepted this site and tomb as authentic but it would have been unconvincing in CE 325.
In a peculiar exercise of mental gymnastics Bahat reasoned that "perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the authenticity of the site...is that it must have been regarded as such an unlikely site when pointed out to Constantine's mother Queen Helena in the fourth century" (Bahat 1986:37). If low probability is the strongest argument for authenticity then the tomb's authenticity, in any scholarly sense, has no basis in fact whatsoever. Rather than such speculation the standard of proof in biblical archaeology is, at the very least, a high degree of certainty established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ernest Martin, who argued that the Mt. of Olives was the actual place of the tomb, rejected the tradition argument and explained why. In his words:
While this supposition appears reasonable, it must be recalled that Jerusalem and its surroundings underwent two devastating destructions (A.D. 70 and A.D. 135) which drastically altered its geographical features. There were also major political upheavals within those two and a half centuries. Indeed, there is almost nothing known about the Christian bishops of Jerusalem for a hundred years after the emperor Hadrian destroyed the city in A.D. 135 nor are Christian activities precisely documented for the Jerusalem area during that time. In spite of these �unknowns,� most scholars feel the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is �probably� the proper site for Jesus� crucifixion. But when the biblical and historical data...are considered, the area of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher has no credentials whatever. (Martin 1996:161-162.)
Moreover, the lingering doubt about the Holy Sepulcher being the site of the tomb of Jesus among Cyril�s catechumens, in a ca. 347 or 348 catachetical lecture at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, provides more evidence that the supposed tomb of Jesus was a family cave tomb with a round blocking stone from the Second Temple period. When his catechumens asked Cyril for proof of its authenticity he was unable to offer it (Cyril Catachetical Lectures 13.35; see Martin 1996:163-164; Parrot 1957:56-57). Eusebius, who placed little import on holy sites because God would not come to those who sought him in "lifeless matter and dusky caves" but rather to "souls purified and prepared with rational and clear minds", had his doubts as well (Eusebius Proof of the Gospel 5, Introduction; Ferrar 1920a:228-229; Armstrong 1966:175). He knew the traditions of the Judeo-Christians identifying Eleona Cave on the Mount of Olives and the Holy Church of God (the Cenacle) on Aelia�s western hill as significant sacred sites. Pilgrims would gather for prayer at the Eleona Cave. In his Proof of the Gospel (Eusebius 1920), written about 303, Eusebius did not refer to any traditions regarding the Tomb and Golgotha in connection with the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter site but mentioned the Eleona Cave as significant (Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 6.18; cf., Wilkinson 1983:173, 177). Eusebius reported that:
The Mount of Olives is therefore literally opposite to Jerusalem and to the east of it, but also the Holy Church of God, and the mount upon which it was founded, of which the Saviour teaches: "A city set on a hill cannot be hid, raised up in place of Jerusalem that is fallen never to rise again", and thought worthy of the feet of the Lord, is figuratively not only opposite Jerusalem, but east of it as well, receiving the rays of the divine light, and become much before Jerusalem and near the Sun of Righteousness himself. (Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 6.18.)
Ernest Martin argues that the Eleona Cave, lying about 100 yards to the south and slightly to the west of the monticulus or hillock on the Mount of Olives (the small knoll described in CE 333 by the Bordeaux Pilgrim (Pilgrim of Bordeaux 595; Wilkinson 1971:160) was the actual Tomb of Jesus with the monticulus the spot, or near the place, of the Crucifixion (Martin 1996:104-110, 169-174).
|
Martin held that workers had carved out a tomb, or cave/tomb, in an existing grotto belonging to Joseph of Arimathea in which they placed the body of Jesus (Martin 1996:173). Relying on Josephus� lament about the countryside surrounding Jerusalem at the end of the First Jewish Revolt, Martin attributed the appearance of the cave after CE 70 to the activities of Roman soldiers during the siege of Jerusalem.
The area was left in sheer desolation! What was no doubt a beautifully decorated tomb made by Joseph of Arimathea in which Jesus was buried would certainly have been left in shambles (as well as all other buildings, tombs, etc. on Olivet) at the conclusion of the war in A.D. 70. Stripped of its ornaments and interior decorations and serving as a shelter for Roman troops of the Tenth Legion for 3 and 1/2 years would have left the tomb looking more like a cave rather than a resplendent tomb of a rich man. Indeed, when the tomb of Jesus is described by Jewish Christians in the early second century, they were then calling it a cave. (Martin 1996:170.)
Murphy-O�Connor held that it was unlikely that the Eleona Cave was originally a tomb but offered no rationale. He wrote:
A kokim (pl. kokhim) or loculus (pl. loculi) grave is a horizontal recess or niche, usually about 6 feet deep, 1.5-2.0 feet wide, and 1.5-2.0 feet high (from the niche floor), in a burial cave or a rock-cut tomb. A loculus would not only serve as the place for the primary burial of a deceased party but sometimes functioned as a repository for an ossuary for placement of the bones of the deceased party after the corpse had decomposed (Kloner 1999:24, 28-29). Wilkinson, who commented on the crude construction of these five kokhim graves wrote:The cave acquired its present shape under the chisels of the C4 builders. There were two entrances, one opposite the other; the cutting near the apse may have been the original entrance. In preparing the cave the builders broke through into a C1 AD kokhim tomb. They blocked the hole with masonry which has now been removed; the tomb can be entered via the steps at the end opposite the apse. It seems unlikely that the venerated cave was originally a tomb; had the builders cut away kokhim graves it would have been much wider. (Murphy-O�Connor 1998:126.)
It is hardly likely that this particular chamber was used for burying the bishops of Jerusalem, since it is a crude affair, which obviously existed before Constantine�s church. We are told, however, that their tombs were at the church, and therefore they cannot have been far away. (Wilkinson 1983:122.)
The implication is that Eusebius either suspected that the Eleona Cave was Jesus� tomb and the monticulus the place of Jesus� execution but lacked sufficient evidence to argue the matter or that he wanted Constantine to set a sufficient standard of proof for authenticating any proffered tomb as that of Jesus. In any case he did not appear to know what the criteria were for the selection of the site nor for the identification of Jesus� tomb. According to Bagatti:
Eusebius, the first to write, about ten years after the event, at which he assisted, in Vita Constantini (3,25-45: PG 20, 1085-1105) is preoccupied with the angle to contrast the desire of the pagans had to hide the Holy Sepulcher, and how, victoriously, it returned to splendor: but he has not troubled to tell us either who carried out the excavations, or the criterion used in selecting the site. He refers, it is true, to the visit of St. Helena to the Holy Places, but he does not connect this evidently with the Holy Sepulcher. (Bagatti 1971b:57.)
In 326 a concerned Eusebius requested an audience with Constantine to present a scriptural discourse on the subject of Jesus� sepulcher. The emperor standing, refusing to be seated on his throne despite several requests by Eusebius, heard him out and the matter so ended (Eusebius Life of Constantine 4.33; cf., Martin 1996:209-210). Eusebius the careful historian did not seem to understand that to Constantine, an astute and patient statesman, historical veracity had little to do with important matters of state. Constantine�s decisions were political. The tomb of Jesus, authentic or not, would strengthen Greco-Roman Christianity and thereby advance the security and stability of the empire.
|
Eusebius� continuing doubts about the factualness of the Capitoline temple site as the authentic location of the Tomb and Calvary were the misgivings of a troubled true believer. In his dedicatory remarks at the 335 dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, occurring on the 30th anniversary of Constantine�s reign, he again raised the authenticity matter. He beseeched the emperor, who was not physically present but his representatives were in attendance (Armstrong 1996:189-190, Martin 1996:200), to show him and the assembled bishops "the convincing proofs...which caused you to raise up that sacred edifice" (Eusebius The Oration of Eusebius Pamphilus 18; Eusebius 1986b:610). Apparently the emperor kept questioning bishops and doubters at bay by resorting to the "God revealed it to me in a dream" defense. Once enunciated he needed not repeat it and accordingly, as to Eusebius� remarks at the dedicatory ceremony, the emperor�s response was official silence.
The oral tradition argument provided a convenient pretext for Macarius� selection of the Capitoline temple location as the Tomb of Jesus site but he apparently had an ulterior motive. Macarius� selection of the site of the Capitoline temple as the Tomb site was not made on the basis of some Judeo-Christian tradition. The circumstances suggest a more pragmatic reason. The excavation of the Capitoline temple was a clever ruse devised by bishop Macarius to reach an important political objective�the destruction of the heart of the city�s paganism. This was a perfect reprisal.
Macarius' followers believed the tomb of Jesus was beneath the Capitoline temple, but that the pagans had destroyed the tomb to denigrate Jesus memory, and built the temple over the holy site. Eusebius, who participated in the demolition of the Capitoline temple and clearing the area beneath its platform, wrote that finding the tomb of Jesus was "beyond all hope" and "contrary to expectation" (Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.29). Either he thought the pagans had destroyed it or did not believe the Tomb was at this location at all.
Bagatti held that the "conviction that the pagans had destroyed all, should have been very deeply rooted, if Constantine himself in a letter to bishop Macarius judged the finding a great miracle" (Bagatti 1971b:58; see Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.30; Eusebius 1986a:528). The "action of Macarius," said Bagatti, "employing the imperial family to destroy it, could not be done without a good reason, because if the desired tomb were not found, it could have unpleasant consequences" (Bagatti 1971b:57). Perhaps there was much less risk involved than Bagatti thought. The implication of the emperor�s reported reference to "a great miracle" is that Constantine did not expect the tomb to be found any more than Macarius. The earliest account of the excavation is that of Eusebius and he does not mention any special involvement of Helena in the matter. She occupied herself searching for holy sites practicing her own form of holy archaeology not overseeing the Jerusalem dig. Thus, the excavation appeared to be more to destruct the Capitoline temple than to discover the Jesus� tomb.
In 325, while at the Council at Nicea, with a twist of political intrigue, Macarius approached the imperial family to interest Constantine the Great in searching for the tomb of Jesus below the Capitoline temple platform (Bagatti 1971b:48). Karen Armstrong held that:
Makarios did not get everything he wanted, but it seems likely that it was at Nicaea that he proposed a scheme that would have far more impact on the status of Aelia than a cautiously worded conciliar directive and would do far more to ensure the eventual victory of Athanasius� theology than the creed signed by the reluctant bishops. Makarios asked Constantine�s permission to demolish the Temple of Aphrodite and unearth the Tomb of Christ, which was said to be buried beneath it. (Armstrong 1996:179.)
Macarius succeeded. Constantine, who had intended to visit the Holy Land but could not due to matters of state, had already sent the dowager empress Helena Augusta, who arrived in Jerusalem late in 326 shortly before her death (ca. 327) at age 80, on an imperial progress to the Holy Land and the eastern provinces which included the imperial gift of two basilicas�the basilica on the Mount of Olives enshrining the Eleona Cave and the basilica at Bethlehem enshrining the so-called Cave of the Nativity (Armstrong 1996:179, 186-187; Finegan 1992:xvii). Helena arrived in Jerusalem late in 326 during the planning of the Martyrdom and the excavations for The Tomb (Armstrong 1996:187; cf., Bagatti 1971b:56-57; Martin 1996:209).
When the workmen came across a first-century Jewish cemetery beneath the platform it undoubtedly even surprised Macarius who, understanding the potential of the discovery, promptly seized the opportunity to find Jesus� tomb. Soon the excavators produced a first-century style tomb, with a rolling stone in a stone track to close off its entrance, which they claimed was that of Jesus of Nazareth. Round blocking stones were quite common in the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (2nd-7th centuries CE) but in the Early Roman Period this was not the case.
|
Of the over 900 rock tombs discovered in and around Jerusalem from Herodian times only four had round blocking stones. The rest were square. In Jesus� day round blocking stones, set in stone tracks, were extremely rare and found only in the tombs of wealthy and distinguished families. This was neither the kind of stone placed at Jesus� tomb nor the kind of tomb into which Joseph of Arimathea placed him. Jesus� tomb was a standard small burial room, with a standing pit and burial benches along three sides, with a square blocking stone placed at its entrance (Kloner 1999:23).
Just before the High Sabbath of Nisan 15 Pilate ordered Jesus� body to be given over to Joseph of Arimathea. He hastily removed it from the cross, covered it with a linen burial shroud, and placed it on a burial bench in his own new tomb, a small burial cave, which he had hewn out in the rock (Matthew 27:60). Before he left he moved, not rolled, a large square stone against the entrance of the tomb (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46). In both verses the Greek word proskulio, the only two usages of it in the New Testament, can mean rolled or moved.
The tomb claimed by Macarius to be the Tomb of Jesus, however, had a round blocking stone not a square one. In Macarius� day round blocking stones were common. In that context one would expect the Greek word proskulio, used only in Matthew 27:60 and Mark 15:46, to be erroneously understood in context as rolled and not as moved. The workers, believing that the stone on Jesus' tomb had been rolled away, understandably thought this to be Jesus' tomb as it was apparently the only tomb found there with a rolling stone. The rest had simple square blocking stones.
Cyril, ca. 348, lecturing in the new Church of the Holy Sepulcher confirmed that the stone at the presumed tomb of Jesus was not only present at the tomb but that it was a rolling stone. He corroborated the presence of "the stone which was laid on the door, which lies to this day by the tomb" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catachetical Lectures 13.39; Schaff 1989:) and also said "the rock of the sepulcher which received Him; the stone also shall rise up against the face of the Jews, for it saw the Lord; even the stone which was then rolled away, itself bears witness to the Resurrection, lying there to this day" (Cyril of Jerusalem Catachetical Lectures 14.22; Schaff 1989:).
Jerome, soon after the death of Paola on January 26, 404, wrote an obituary (Wilkinson 1977:1-2) containing an account of Paola�s pilgrimage to the Holy Land in CE 386 and her visit to Jerusalem�s holy places (Jerome Letter 108; Jerome 1989:195-212; Wilkinson 1977:47-49). He said, acknowledging the presence of the stone, "on entering the Tomb of the Resurrection she kissed the stone which the angel removed from the sepulcher door" (Jerome Letter 108 at 9.1; Wilkinson 1977:49).
Adomnan, ca. 650, reported Arculf's description of his many visits to the Anastasis. There he entered the tomb, which Constantine had reworked into a small building, into an antechamber whose floor was about three palms lower than the Sepulcher within. It was the mouth of this tomb where "the stone was rolled and then rolled back when the Lord rose again" inside of which "contains the Lord's Sepulcher, which has been cut into the rock on the north side" and by Arculf's measurements was seven feet long. "The whole thing is a single shelf stretching from head to foot without division, which would take one person lying on his back...like a cave with its opening facing the south part of the tomb, and is made with a low roof" (Adomnan 2.1; Wilkinson 1977:96). By Arculf's day artisans had reworked this rolling stone into two altars.
This is the place to say something about the Stone...which after the lord's crucifixion and burial, with several men pushing it, was rolled against the door of his burial place. Arculf reports that it was split, and divided into two pieces. The smaller piece has been shaped and squared up into an altar, which is to be seen set up in the round church we have mentioned in front of the door of the Lord's Tomb, the small building already described. The larger part of this stone has also been cut to shape, and forms a second square altar which stands, covered with linen, in a position at the east of this church. (Adomnan 3.1; Wilkinson 1977:96.)
The excavators had uncovered a family burial cave with a standing pit, a bench on the north side, and a rolling blocking stone, which they believed the Tomb of Jesus. One could not expect less from true believers, victims of a classic hermeneutic circle, caught up in the self-fulfilled prophecy syndrome. Moreover, since it was general knowledge that Calvary had to be close to the tomb, the excavators soon found that site as well. Such electrifying discoveries, believed by many to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, called for the construction of a new edifice�the Constantinian Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The discovery served Macarius� personal ambitions and his objective of pulling down the seat of power of the pagan cult and promoting the importance of Jerusalem over Caesarea but the emperor�s even more.
Constantine the Great intended the excavation from its inception to be a success whether or not a tomb was found. The spin, in this incredible ruse, was that the pagan builders of the Capitoline temple had destroyed Jesus� tomb in the first century. According to Karen Armstrong, Constantine the Great "knew that his Christian empire needed symbols and monuments to give it a historical resonance" (Armstrong 1996:179). He recognized the need of Greco-Roman Christianity for significant symbols to consolidate itself and thereby strengthen the empire. His actions demonstrate his intent to create not only a memorial to commemorate the death of Jesus but also to establish memorials at the sites of his birth and ascension as well. These were important matters of state where symbolism had more important than authenticity. Armstrong raised the question, as others have, as to exactly how certain could the Christians be that Golgotha and The Tomb were really under the Capitoline temple. In her words:
The pagans of Aelia would be understandably enraged if they lost their temple for nothing. Emperor and church alike would suffer an unacceptable embarrassment, not to mention the fact that if the excavations drew a blank, this might reveal a worrying lacuna at the heart of imperial Christianity. (Armstrong 1996:179.)
This was apparently not of concern to the emperor who simply exploited the political potential of an opportunity to put an important basilica on the Capitoline temple site when he approved and ordered the excavation. "This object he had indeed for some time kept in view," wrote Eusebius, "and had foreseen, as if by the aid of a superior intelligence, that which should afterwards come to pass" (Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.29; Eusebius 1986:528). In any case, in 326, following the unexpected discovery, Constantine formally ordered the building of the basilica in Jerusalem upon the site claimed to be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Macarius, "the bishop of Aelia had certainly achieved a coup by masterminding the discovery of the tomb" (Armstrong 1996:186). Constantine wrote to Macarius:
Indeed, the nature of this miracle as far transcends the capacity of human reason as heavenly things are superior to human affairs. For this cause it is ever my first, and indeed my only object, that, as the authority of the truth is evincing itself daily by fresh wonders, so our souls may all become more zealous, with all sobriety and earnest unanimity, for the honor of the Divine law. I desire, therefore, especially, that you should be persuaded of that which I suppose is evident to all beside, namely, that I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered as it were of the heavy weight of foul idol worship; a spot which has been accounted holy from the beginning in God�s judgment, but which now appears holier still, since it has brought to light a clear assurance of our Saviour�s passion. (Eusebius Life of Constantine 3.30; Eusebius 1986:528.)
Bagatti argued that there were those in Jerusalem, specifically in its pagan community, who resisted the project (Bagatti 1971a:13, 1971b:57). The construction of the new facility took ten years, CE 326�335. With its dedication, in 335, the Judeo-Christians held control of the primitive center of the Church of God on Mt. Sion with the bishops of orthodox Gentile stock installed at the Holy Sepulcher (Bagatti 1971a:10).
Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us Comments.
I read your editorial, coming to the conclusion that you are a very lazy scholar. Jesus, in the earliest NT translations, never ate meat or multiplied "fish" in his miracles. The scriptures were intentionally mistranslated and abridged to hide Jesus' vegetarianism (and other aspects of His message and God's Kingdom), because Paul knew he'd have difficulty winning converts if he required gentiles to give up meat (it was tough enough to get Jews to do so). Jesus was brought up as an Essene, a vegetarian Jewish sect, and their writings suggest that they considered Paul a liar, who changed his stances to appeal to different audiences (Paul does this regarding uncleanness of food, as well as circumcision, and even admits to being someone who adapts his teachings to the audience, [rather than to God's Truth]). It's right there in the New Testament, with further explanation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Essene Scriptures. Visit www.essene.org for further enlightenment.
�Jed Shlackman
As a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a professional animal damage controller, I appreciated the way you corrected PETA's claim that Jesus was a vegetarian. I do get so tired of the pop exegesis of the media and these animal rights pagans. I have created a similar page on my website. Thank you again for making this issue known.
�Stephen Vantassel
You may visit Stephen Vantassel's site at: http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.
For the record, Jesus was neither an Essene nor a vegetarian. Jesus received the baptism of John not Essene baptism. The writers of the New Testament condemned Essene Judaism. The apostle Paul wrote the letter of the Colossians to condemn the Essene gnosticism that troubled the apostolic church. If you missed our editorial on this matter you may view it by clicking here.
Since these first century issues inspire such deep passion perhaps http://www.essene.org and http://www.nazarene.net can enlighten us in this matter better than their ancient Essene and Nazarene predecessors.
�editor
Your site is marvelous and it leads me to believe you may be able to help my search. I've been commissioned to paint a large mural for an Episcopalian Church in PA that depicts the first miracle story -- the Wedding at Cana. I want the image to be as authentic to the time period, material culture of costumes, etc., ethnicity, customs as possible. Please let me know what you think. I am a willing detective. Good luck with your work and thank-you very much for the help.
�Mary Veronica Sweeney, New York City
I do not know what Jesus of Narareth wore at this occasion. I assume he was dressed-up since it was a wedding. I do know that he was a typical Jew of his day.
His eyes were not blue and he did not have blond hair. His hair was probably fuller, but not long, as he was not a Nazarite. His hair was most likely black as was his beard. Eyes dark brown. Complexion quite olive dark. He was not an Essene so he did not wear a nice white, Palm Beach style, robe (the gospels inform us that you could not distinguish him from other Jews in a crowd). The people were quite short and I assume he was not much more than 5' 1" or thereabout. He wore the customary prayer shawl with tassels on it that people could touch.
Almost always over-looked is that fact that we are dealing with a humble man not an over-dressed, flamboyant, preacher nor a hippie. I know that this is not the picture people have of Jesus, but it is at least 90% of the actual Jesus of Nazareth in the New Testament. He was not a "comely" man so he was not good looking in any sense. He was a construction worker and probably reflected that look to some extent.
�editor
I want to thank you for having such a nice and informative site. I have book-marked it and will visit it regularly. It would be great if you could produce an article on the papyri discoveries of the mid 1890's and the impact they had on lexical studies as pertaining to the New Testament text. It was hailed as one of the greatest discoveries for archaeology in the last century. Through it Dr. Deissmann rendered Thayer's lexicon an outdated instrument--almost as soon as it came off of the presses. I would like to see a write-up on that subject sometime. Thanks again for having such a great site.
�David Walden
It has been added to the list of projects.
�editor
I have accessed your web site to read about Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, I did not find the information I was searching for. I seek the manner of death of Antiochus, and wish to verify this with Daniel 8:25. Many believe that Antiochus is the Little Horn in Daniel's vision (Ch 8). I am testing this theory. Would you please assist me in this matter?
�R. Kennedy
Specific knowledge of the circumstance and cause of the death of Antiochus IV may no longer exist. Some say he became insane and died. Others report he died in battle. The Britannica states he died of an illness at Tabae. You might try Antiochus IV of Syria by Otto Morkholm (Morkholm 1966).
I do not sense a connection with the manner of his death and Daniel 8:25. I believe the question is the identity of the "He" who opposes the "Prince of princes" (NASB) in verse 25. In context, then, to what time period does the phrase "time of the end" (vs. 17, 19) refer? A rabbinical analysis of this material will be quite different from a premillenialist Christian one. My sense of the material is that the nature of the latter aspects of this prophecy are messianic. That is, the He = the beast of Daniel 11 (specifically the "he" in verses 40-45) and the Prince of princes = the resurrected Jesus Christ in his second coming. The main theme of the book of Daniel leads to the final coming of the Messiah at the end of the age of mankind's rule.
�editor
I read your thesis on the Lost tribes of Israel with tremendous interest. Having considered the issue in my own research, I would like to draw your attention to several factors. Evidently the matter is quite a perplexing one and indeed the sources require elaborate analysis. It is possible that we have given too much currency to them. For instance, the ancient histories we have pertaining to the Northern Kingdom and its subsequent exile come almost entirely from the Book of Kings and Chronicles. From the academic dimension, the account suffered due to the inherent Judean bias and the uncertainty of any truly Northern contributions.
The underlying message of Kings and Chronicles, which I personally believe were completed in their virtually final forms in Babylon, was one of hope for the future. This hope was to be crystallized through the gathering of the exiles and a return to the Promised Land as one nation. However, by this time the Northern Kingdom had lost its independence, heritage and identity. It had become assimilated amongst the peoples of the Assyrian hegemony.
As stated earlier, the lack of a truly Northern record clouds our understanding of the Ten tribes. I am of the view that following the division of the Kingdom in the lifetime of Rehoboam, the North lost its focus in terms of the Ten tribes. After all, they were in reality only significant for the land partition. The North's later history showed it to be far more under foreign influences than its southern neighbor. Of course the tribal lineage was probably maintained as is inferred by the account of Naboth and King Ahab, but its practical use had become archaic. The North reviled everything Judean and stood to be counted in a different context. Ultimately, the concept of a tribal system in the Northern Kingdom began to decline long before the Assyrian deportation.
�Harvey Miller
Our editorial addressed the scientific aspects of this matter. There are many thousands of people in the United States and Europe who believe that certain modern nations have a biblical identify with prophetic implications.Equating the British and northern Europeans as the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, e.g., Manasseh = the United States of America, Ephraim = the United Kingdom and some of its former possessions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the like), Ruben = France, Dan = Ireland and Denmark, and so forth; and then applying these identities to interpretation of biblical prophecy provides a startling, controversial hermeneutic. It includes Queen Elizabeth II occupying the throne of King David. There is a growing literature on this topic.
Our analysis of the arguments put forward by the advocates of this hermeneutic suggests that archaeology, history, and linguistics fail to "prove" that the British and northern Europeans are the descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. No more than soft evidence is available and none of it is scientific. Proponents put forward interesting but not compelling evidence. Yet there is insufficient evidence submitted by its critics to falsify the theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some people simply dismiss the theory as British Israelism missing the point. British Israelism is an elitist nineteenth mindset advancing British superiority and justifying British colonialism. The theory in issue, however, has to do with ethnic origins and their biblical implications not the behavior of British aristocrats. It is unscientific, anti-intellectual, and naive to reject a theory because you don't like it. Science does not advance this way. We still suggest a significant scientific study to put the matter to rest.
If you are a viewer who has not read the editorial in question you may visit it by clicking here.
�editor
Amazing relationships developed between the Scythian Germans (!) and the Anglo Saxon tribes with also a bit of Celtic mystery for flavor. I don't know about you, but every time I heard somebody mentioning the obscure Scythians I got bright flashing lights warning me of sheer madness... To extrapolate that these people of probable Persian extraction were the ancient Israelites and, even more miraculously, migrated from their lands to the wilderness of Teuton land...it's amazing.
�Rod S., Phoenix
The basis of this comment was the viewer's visit to several websites claiming that the ancient Assyrians migrated to Europe and that accordingly Germany = Assyria in biblical prophecy and the ancient Scythians = wandering tribes of Israelites.
�editor
I just want to let you know what a help this web site was to me. I am a high school student and I did a research paper on archaeological evidence that proves the Bible is true. Your web site was a big help and i just wanted to say thank you for putting it together.
�Lauren D
Please feel free to submit short questions. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. Click here to submit a question to the editor.
This site was recommended to me by some one who said that you could answer my questions concerning Biblical Archaeology. First of all, I am a 14-year-old, home-schooled freshman and I am interested in becoming a biblical archaeologist. What prep courses would be best to take before college, would it be wise to go for my doctorate, and what would be the best college to go to for all this stuff? I would be very happy if you could answer my questions.
�Sarah DBiblical archaeology is a specialty in archaeology. This is one of the four major sub-fields of anthropology. To be truly successful as a biblical archaeologist you would need to go to a good university and major in anthropology with a strong background in physics, chemistry, and the biological sciences. Plan to go to one of the better graduate schools where you can pursue a master's and doctorate in anthropology with an emphasis in archaeology. The career path is university teaching and then doing archaeological research. When the time comes you will want to find a graduate school that maintains a program that deals with the near east.
�editor
I am a senior in high school. All my life I have wanted to be an archaeologist. Since I was in second grade. My dad has been pushing me lately to study law so I can work with his corporation. My dad believes that wealth is somewhat important in my decision. I need to know how archaeologists live.
�ChoiYou might want to consider both. I am a licensed attorney at law in the State of California as well as a biblical archaeologist. Hershel Shanks of the Biblical Archaeology Society is a lawyer as well. Unless you want to teach to support yourself there is no money in biblical archaeology. All of my friends in this field, with one or two exceptions, are academics. But, if you major in anthropology and minor in business, or even visa versa, you position yourself for both careers. Today law schools are not particular about what your major as long as you do well on the LSAT and a 4.0 up, with emphasis on the up, GPA. In any case, your dad makes a good point. With wealth you can maintain a foot in archaeology and have a good life as well. I can not rely on archaeology to support my family that is one reason I worked in academe and the law for so may years.
�editor
First, what are the implications of the recent DNA evidence (front page New York Times June 15) demonstrating that a tribe of people living in South Africa are shown to be distant immigrants from Yemen who travel southward along the Arabian Peninsula--perhaps from Jerusalem. Second, is there a genetic correlation between the Kohanim? The Levites?
�J. Phillip Obrien
At BibArch� we support such efforts. There is as yet insufficient information to establish genetic relationships as refined as the priestly class and the Levites. The article by Nicholas Wade appeared in the May 9, 1999, Sunday, New York Times entitled "DNA Backs a Tribe's Tradition Of Early Descent From the Jews". The Lemba, a Bantu-speaking people of southern Africa, have a tradition that they were led out of Judea by a man named Buba. They practice circumcision, keep one day a week holy and avoid eating pork or piglike animals, such as the hippopotamus.
�editor
I would like to ask your help in regard to some information on Nero. I have a friend that said that he during his reign went to Jerusalem and desecrated the Temple and set himself up there as god. I have searched through quite a bit of information on Nero in encyclopedias, etc and this is never mentioned. I am wondering if you could direct me to a book and author if this is true or you can just e-mail me back and say no he didn't do that at any time during his reign.
�Lori Baker
I think your friend may have confused Nero with Antiochus Epiphanies. Nero did not go to Jerusalem. Antiochus did and as I recall had a pig offered on the altar which provoked a revolution by the Maccabees.
�editor
My pastor asked me if I knew of a passage in the scriptures that stated Mary rode into Bethlehem on a donkey while Joseph walked beside her...I couldn't really find a scripture that said that. My pastor says that she read where it is considered degrading for the man to walk while the woman rode. Something about Jewish traditions. I said that I felt that Joseph, being a compassionate man, and obviously in love with Mary, would not have wanted his pregnant wife walking while he rode.......can you enlighten us?
�William Swearengin
The reason you could not find a scripture placing Mary on a donkey is that there is none. How her husband transported her from Nazareth to Bethlehem I do not know. I am not aware of a custom in the Jews of the first-century CE which would place the pregnant woman about to give child in that position. I think you explanation quite fitting under the circumstances.
�editor
�Kevin Birdwell
The land of Nod? No one really knows.
�editor
My daughter is 12 years old and has some questions about this subject. Did the dinosaurs exist before or after Adam and Eve? If they existed during that time, why didn't they eat Adam and Eve? Why weren't they on Noah's Ark? How did they die?
�pilkeyr
Many people believe that God created the earth and all life forms on the earth about 6,000 years ago. This is not biblical. It is an assumption many well-meaning Christians have made. According to biblical chronology God created Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago not the earth. The earth is quite old and life has been on this planet for many millions of years. The first anatomically modern Homo sapiens populations appeared about 200,000 years ago. The fossil evidence indicates that dinosaurs appeared on the earth on the earth about 210 million years ago at the beginning of the Mesozoic era. The dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Mesozoic era about 65 million years ago.
�editor
I am interested in any information dealing directly and only with the archaeological digs going on at Elijah's well (at Mt. Carmel) I think it's also known as Wadi ein Siah. Any information you could provide will be greatly appreciated.
�Faith
There are over 3,000 digs in Israel. On this one we have no information. You may need to contact the Israeli Department of Antiquities for the name and address of the excavators.
�editor
I am trying to find out more about the way of life during the time of Jacob (Book of Genesis). I'm particularly interested in the role of women and Jacob's return to his homeland. Any help would be appreciated.
�Jenny Baker
We are here dealing with a nomadic people who were patriarchal pastoralists. In Jacob's case we see matrilateral cross-cousin marriage, polygamy, and bridewealth exchange. Women were property. They were one step from animism. You might want to take a look at a good anthropology text such as Cultural Anthropology by Raymond Scupin (Scupin 1999) for some basic characteristics of tribes.
�editor
I am trying to find the name during biblical times of the present country of Turkey.
�Marie Herrin
The location of Turkey is Asia Minor. For political names I suggest you consult a good set of biblical maps. You can look at the maps for the time frame you are interested in and you should get the name from the map.
–editor
Page last edited: 08/29/04 07:37 PM
|
Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
|
starting web/internet resource by the
