DOCSLIB.ORG

A Biblical Case for the Crucifixion Site of Christ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Biblical Case for the Crucifixion Site of Christ Case for the Crucifixion Site of Jesus Being on the Mount of Olives Based on Our Hebrew Roots by Joseph A. Lenard and Donald H. Zoller 7/5/14 Copyright © 2014 Lenard & Zoller Case for the Crucifixion Site of Jesus Being on the Mount of Olives Based on Our Hebrew Roots Table of Contents I. Problems with the Traditional Sites 4 II. Crucifixion Accounts in the Gospels 5 III. Plausibility of Events Happening on the Mount of Olives 6 A. The Tearing of the Temple Curtain B. Seeing the Tearing of the Curtain C. At Site Well Traveled by the Jews D. Site with Adjacent Graves E. Site with Garden Nearby IV. Sacrifice of the Red Heifer – Represents the Sacrifice of Jesus 11 A. Background of the Sacrifice of the Red Heifer B. Importance of the Ashes of the Red Heifer to Temple Worship C. Location of the Red Heifer Sacrifice/Procedures D. Red Heifer Sacrifice Corresponds to the Sacrifice of the Messiah V. Area Designated for Executions – East of the Temple (Mount of Olives) 15 A. Execution Site from the Roman Perspective B. Execution Site from the Jewish Perspective VI. Significance of Executions Outside the Camp 16 VII. Firstfruits’ Barley Sheaf – Represents Resurrection of Jesus 17 A. The Meaning of Firstfruits B. Preparations for Firstfruits (Location of Special Barley Field) C. Temple Processions at Firstfruits D. Significance of the Shearer’ Harvest on Mount of Olives VIII. Significance of the Pattern of West-to-East vs. East-to-West Movement (Related to the Mount of Olives) 19 A. Leaving Jerusalem (West-to-East Movement), Having Negative Connotation B. Entering Jerusalem (East-to-West Movement), Having Positive Connotation SUMMARY 20 End Notes 21 2 Case for the Crucifixion Site of Jesus Being on the Mount of Olives Based on Our Hebrew Roots by Joseph A. Lenard and Donald H. Zoller 7/5/14 A strong biblical case can be made for the crucifixion site of Jesus being on the Mount of Olives. This paper presents the supporting evidence for this location, which differs from the possible traditional sites in Jerusalem. This case study illustrates the importance of understanding the Hebrew roots of our Christian faith to correctly interpret Scripture. This includes an understanding of the sacrifice of the Red Heifer (located outside of the city walls and outside of the camp) and the Feast of Firstfruits’ ceremonies related to the Mount of Olives, in addition to other biblical and historical considerations. The primary evidence for the definitive location of the crucifixion site is deciphered from the details of the Gospel account of Matthew 27:45-56. Other supporting evidence related to this case is secondary, yet confirming in interesting ways. This paper examines the following considerations: I. Problems with the Traditional Sites II. Crucifixion Accounts in the Gospels III. Plausibility of Events Happening on the Mount of Olives IV. Sacrifice of the Red Heifer – Represents the Sacrifice of Jesus V. Area Designated for Executions – East of the Temple (Mount of Olives) VI. Significance of Executions Outside the Camp VII. Firstfruits’ Barley Sheaf – Represents Resurrection of Jesus VIII. Significance of the Pattern of West-to-East vs. East-to-West Movement (Related to the Mount of Olives) 3 The case for the crucifixion site of Jesus being on the Mount of Olives is not unique to this paper, but is definitely a minority-held position. However, many Christians have not been exposed to the possibility and have not evaluated the case for the Mount of Olives site. This paper uniquely assembles the relevant evidence. The following are some examples of others who have proposed the Mount of Olives as the site of the crucifixion (publication dates shown): • W. J. Hutchinson (1870, 1873),1, 2 cited in website article by James Tabor, cited below (2008). • Nikos Kokkinos (1980; 2007),3 cited in James Tabor’s website article cited below (2008). • Ernest L. Martin proposed that the crucifixion site was on the Mount of Olives (1984)4 and in his subsequent book (1996).5 Ernest L. Martin is, admittedly, the deceased controversial author of another book (1994),6 which has been widely discredited by Leen Ritmeyer (2001)7 and others as to his speculation about the Temple Mount being originally in a southern location over the Gihon Spring. However, it is the opinion of this author that Martin, although having had some beliefs which are far-fetched, was correct on his position on the crucifixion site being on the Mount of Olives. The website article, “Updated Information on the Crucifixion of Jesus” (1992)8 is a good summary of the reasons for supporting the Mount of Olives as the crucifixion site. • Doug Jacoby, of Washington DC, attended Harvard Divinity School, has written a website article supporting the conclusions of this case (1997).9 • James Tabor, professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2008).10 Admittedly, there is presently no archeological evidence to support the case for the Mount of Olives being the location for the crucifixion of Jesus. However, it is well to remember the statement applicable to archeology, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Perhaps, archeological evidence will be found in the future. Some might ask, “Why is this important about determining the correct site of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus?” The pursuit of truth is always important. Church-held positions which do not align with biblical positions, such as overlooking what Scripture has directly stated or reading into scripture what is not there (eisegesis), are a deception which might lead some believers down a road where their faith might be jeopardized. Their next question might be, “What else have I been mislead about?” I. Problems with the Traditional Sites Of course, the traditional sites, which have been widely suggested by the church and others, are vastly different from the Mount of Olives’ location. The competing two traditional sites are what has been termed Gordon’s Calvary, as suggested by an Englishman, General Charles George Gordon, upon visiting Jerusalem in the late 1800’s and widely supported by Protestants, and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, widely supported by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. 4 There are archeological and other problems with the traditional sites. From the work of Gabriel Barkay and Gordon Franz, the site of Gordon’s Calvary has a basic problem. Although the site has a tomb carved from a rock face, with an adjourning garden, and the site was outside of the city walls at the time of Jesus, the tomb has archeological evidence that dates it to Iron Age II, and, hence, is dated prior to the time of Christ.11 In like manner, the archeological evidence for the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, although potentially stronger and also being outside of the city walls at the time of Jesus, is not fully convincing. The site largely originates from the location chosen by Constantine’s mother, Helena, who came to the Holy Land in 326 AD in search of holy artifacts and with a desire to venerate various holy sites. This site was actually the location of the pagan Temple of Venus, the goddess of love, erected by Emperor Hadrian in the late 130s AD. Indeed, the site was sacred – but sacred to the spirit of paganism rather than as the place of Jesus’ crucifixion.12 However, it is acknowledged that some feel that Hadrian built his pagan temple over the site of the crucifixion. Others have speculated that another site west of the city wall might have been the crucifixion site.13 Jacoby states that there is a lack of attestation related to the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, as there is “. no mention of it in records of Christian writings before the 4th century.”14 Jacoby also sites Eusebius, the church historian of Caesarea, who was familiar with Jerusalem and served in the court of Constantine, who “. expressed surprise that the ‘tomb’ of Jesus was found at the [western] location of a pagan shrine.”15 Integral to this case, the basic problem with the traditional sites is that they do not fully meet the test of Scripture. This is, of course, a necessary condition for determining the true location of Calvary. In addition, there are other critical historical considerations mentioned by extra-biblical Jewish and early Christian writers which are problematic for the traditional sites and are addressed in this paper. II. Crucifixion Accounts in the Gospels The crucifixion account of the death of Jesus is contained in the following Gospel accounts: Matthew 27:45-56; Mark 15:33-41; Luke 23:44-49; and John 19:28-37. They are complementary and contain various bits of information related to the death of Jesus. From our understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture, the crucifixion site must be in alignment with all the details of the Scriptural accounts. Specifically, Matthew provides the details on the definitive location of the crucifixion site which is at variance to the traditional sites. The account in Matthews is as follows: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, ‘Surely he was the Son of God!’” (Matthew 27:50- 54; NIV; emphasis added) 5 The biblical account of the death of Jesus in Matthew, given above, states that the centurion and the others who were with him “saw the earthquake and all that had happened.” The preceding verses describe the events which happened and which the centurion and the others observed (note two or more witnesses!), including the following events: (1) the curtain torn from top to bottom; (2) the earthquake; (3) the opening of the tombs and the bodies of many holy people raised to life.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Israelite Inscriptions from the Time of Jeremiah and Lehi
    Brigham Young University BYU ScholarsArchive Faculty Publications 2020-02-04 Israelite Inscriptions from the Time of Jeremiah and Lehi Dana M. Pike Brigham Young University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Mormon Studies Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Pike, Dana M., "Israelite Inscriptions from the Time of Jeremiah and Lehi" (2020). Faculty Publications. 3697. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/3697 This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Chapter 7 Israelite Inscriptions from the Time of Jeremiah and Lehi Dana M. Pike The greater the number of sources the better when investi- gating the history and culture of people in antiquity. Narrative and prophetic texts in the Bible and 1 Nephi have great value in helping us understand the milieu in which Jeremiah and Lehi received and fulfilled their prophetic missions, but these records are not our only documentary sources. A number of Israelite inscriptions dating to the period of 640–586 b.c., the general time of Jeremiah and Lehi, provide additional glimpses into this pivotal and primarily tragic period in Israelite history. The number of inscriptions discovered from ancient Israel and its immediate neighbors—Ammon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, and Phoenicia—pales in comparison to the bountiful harvest of texts from ancient Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gold Plates and Ancient Metal Epigraphy
    THE GOLD PLATES AND ANCIENT METAL EPIGRAPHY Ryan Thomas Richard Bushman has called the gold plates story “the single most trouble- some item in Joseph Smith’s history.”1 Smith famously claimed to have discovered, with the help of an angel, anciently engraved gold plates buried in a hill near his home in New York from which he translated the sacred text of the Book of Mormon. Not only a source of new scripture comparable to the Bible, the plates were also a tangible artifact, which he allowed a small circle of believers to touch and handle before they were taken back into the custody of the angel. The story is fantastical and otherworldly and has sparked both devotion and skepticism as well as widely varying assessments among historians. Critical and non-believing historians have tended to assume that the presentation of material plates shows that Smith was actively engaged in religious deceit of one form or another,2 while Latter-day Saint historians have been inclined to take Smith and the traditional narrative at face value. For example, Bushman writes, “Since the people who knew Joseph best treat the plates as fact, a skeptical analysis lacks evidence. A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative.”3 Recently, Anne Taves has articulated a middle way between these positions by suggesting that 1. Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 58. 2. E.g., Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945); Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Epigraphy, Philology, and the Hebrew Bible
    EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, & THE HEBREW BIBLE Methodological Perspectives on Philological & Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin Ancient Near East Monographs – Monografías sobre el Antiguo Cercano Oriente Society of Biblical Literature Centro de Estudios de Historia del Antiguo Oriente (UCA) EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, AND THE HEBREW BIBLE Ancient Near East Monographs General Editors Ehud Ben Zvi Roxana Flammini Alan Lenzi Juan Manuel Tebes Editorial Board: Reinhard Achenbach Esther J. Hamori Steven W. Holloway René Krüger Steven L. McKenzie Martti Nissinen Graciela Gestoso Singer Number 12 EPIGRAPHY, PHILOLOGY, AND THE HEBREW BIBLE Methodological Perspectives on Philological and Comparative Study of the Hebrew Bible in Honor of Jo Ann Hackett Edited by Jeremy M. Hutton and Aaron D. Rubin SBL Press Atlanta Copyright © 2015 by SBL Press All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit- ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Hous- ton Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress has catologued the print edition: Names: Hackett, Jo Ann, honouree. | Hutton, Jeremy Michael, editor. | Rubin, Aaron D., 1976- editor. Title: Epigraphy, philology, and the Hebrew Bible : methodological perspectives on philological and comparative study of the Hebrew Bible in honor of Jo Ann Hackett / edited by Jeremy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Comptabilités, 8 | 2016 Economic Administration in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah (Ca
    Comptabilités Revue d'histoire des comptabilités 8 | 2016 Archéologie de la comptabilité. Culture matérielle des pratiques comptables au Proche-Orient ancien Economic administration in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ca. 931 – 587 BCE): epigraphic sources and their interpretations Archéologie de la comptabilité. Culture matérielle des pratiques comptables au Proche-Orient ancien Administration économique dans les royaumes d’Israël et de Judah (env. 931-587 av. J.-C.) : sources épigraphiques et leurs interprétations Wirtschaftsverwaltung in den Königreichen Israel und Juda (etwa 931-587 v. Chr.): epigraphische Quellen und ihre Interpretation La administración económica en los reinos de Israel y Juda (hacia 931-587 a.C.): las fuentes epigráficas y sus interpretaciones Alexey Lyavdansky Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/comptabilites/2024 ISSN: 1775-3554 Publisher IRHiS-UMR 8529 Electronic reference Alexey Lyavdansky, « Economic administration in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ca. 931 – 587 BCE): epigraphic sources and their interpretations », Comptabilités [Online], 8 | 2016, Online since 20 June 2016, connection on 19 April 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/comptabilites/2024 This text was automatically generated on 19 April 2019. Tous droits réservés Economic administration in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ca. 931 – 587 BC... 1 Economic administration in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (ca. 931 – 587 BCE): epigraphic sources and their interpretations Archéologie de la comptabilité. Culture matérielle des pratiques comptables au Proche-Orient ancien Administration économique dans les royaumes d’Israël et de Judah (env. 931-587 av. J.-C.) : sources épigraphiques et leurs interprétations Wirtschaftsverwaltung in den Königreichen Israel und Juda (etwa 931-587 v.
    [Show full text]
  • And Type the TITLE of YOUR WORK in All Caps
    BURIAL PRACTICES, FUNERARY TEXTS, AND THE TREATMENT OF DEATH IN IRON AGE ISRAEL AND ARAM by RACHEL VIRGINIA KING NABULSI Under the Direction of RICHARD FRIEDMAN ABSTRACT This research encompasses two branches of evidence regarding the treatment of death and burial among the Iron Age cultures of Israel and Aram – the archaeological and the textual. The importance of this investigation lies in placing these groups in dialogue with one another, and in the comprehensive use of both archaeological and textual information. The archaeological aspect of this research begins by collecting archeological data from a large number of burial sites throughout both of the target territories. The range of this data extends from the time of the Late Bronze Age into the Persian period, but the primary focus is upon the Iron Age. The first section of the dissertation relates to each of these areas and what can be learned from a survey of sites over this period, with particular attention paid to commonalities and contrasts among the two cultural groups. The second half of this research encompasses the textual and inscriptional data. Textual data include inscriptions from coffins, tombs, and funerary monuments from the Iron Age through the Persian period in Israel and Aram. Another crucial aspect of this textual data is the text of the Hebrew Bible. The biblical text, particularly the narrative sections of the text, provides a great amount of material for understanding death in Iron Age Israel and Judah. iv INDEX WORDS: Israel, Judah, Aram, Hebrew Bible, death,
    [Show full text]
  • Contents of Chapter 3 the Mount of Olives – True Site of the Resurrection
    Contents of Chapter 3 The Mount of Olives – True Site of the Resurrection Introduction 3 Pater Noster Tomb Fits the Biblical Description of Yeshua’s Tomb 4 Near the Crucifixion Site “Outside the Camp”, “Outside the Gate” 5 Near the Crucifixion Site “Golgotha” 5 First-Century Tomb 5 Rolling Stone Tomb – Rare Type of Tomb in Jerusalem and Israel 6 Most Preferred Jewish Burial Site and Affordable by Wealthy Joseph of Arimathea 8 Gate of Heaven Above the Mount of Olives 10 In an Olive Orchard Garden 13 Qualifies as a New Tomb 15 Fits Description of Two Angels Inside the Tomb 15 Near Bethany Where Yeshua and His Disciples Resided During Passover 16 Near Tombs of Jerusalem Church Members at Dominus Flevit 17 Early Christians Associated Site with Messiah Yeshua and His Disciples 20 Why the Church of the Holy Sepulcher Tomb Cannot Be Yeshua’s Tomb 21 Not Located Near the Red Heifer Site Identified in Hebrews 13:11-13 22 Site of No Significance to Early Christians 22 Hadrian’s Selection of Venus Temple Site Fits Typical Roman City Plan, Not Deliberate Attempt to Conceal the Crucifixion Site 23 Church of the Holy Sepulcher Built on Pre-Existing Pagan Site Like Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem 25 Eusebius Does Not Document Alleged Dreams, Visions, and Discovery of “True Cross” Claimed to Authenticate Site 26 Site Too Unstable for Crucifixion 27 Tomb Fits the Design of Constantine’s Basilica (Church) 28 Questionable Whether Tomb Is Rolling Stone Tomb 28 Questionable Whether Tomb Is First-Century “New” Tomb 28 Claim of Empty Tomb Invalid as All
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Archaeological Activity in the West Bank 1967–2007
    ISRAELI ARCHAEOLOGICAL ACTIVITY IN THE WEST BANK 1967–2007 A SOURCEBOOK RAPHAEL GREENBERG ADI KEINAN THE WEST BANK AND EAST JERUSALEM ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE PROJECT © 2009 Raphael Greenberg and Adi Keinan Cover: Surveying in western Samaria, early 1970s (courtesy of Esti Yadin) Layout: Dina Shalem Production: Ostracon Printed by Rahas Press, Bar-Lev Industrial Park, Israel Distributed by Emek Shaveh (CPB), El‘azar Hamoda‘i 13, Jerusalem [email protected] ISBN 978-965-91468-0-2 CONTENTS FOREWORD 1 PART 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND EXCAVATIONS IN THE WEST BANK SINCE 1967 Introduction 3 Israeli Archaeology in the West Bank 3 Note on Palestinian Archaeology in the West Bank 7 Israeli Archaeology in East Jerusalem 8 Conclusion 10 PART 2. CONSTRUCTING THE DATABASE A. Surveys 11 Survey Motivation and Design 12 Survey Method 12 Definition of Sites 13 Site Names 14 Dating 14 Survey Database Components 15 B. Excavations 18 Basic Data on Excavations 19 The Excavation Gazetteer 20 Excavated Site Types and Periods 21 C. GIS Linkage and Its Potential 22 Case No. 1: The Iron Age I Revisited 23 Case No. 2: Roman Neapolis 26 Case No. 3: An Inventory of Mosaic Floors 26 D. Database Limitations 28 Concluding Remarks 29 References (for Parts 1 and 2) 30 PART 3. GAZETTEER OF EXCAVATIONS, 1967–2007 33 PART 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 PART 5. INDEX OF EXCAVATED SITES 173 PART 6. DATABASE FILES (on CD only) FOREWORD The authors will be the first to concede that modern been subsumed in a particular view of Jerusalem’s political boundaries—the Green Line, the Separation significance in history.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Temple Mount Floor Looked Like As Published in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2016 Frankie Snyder, Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira
    What the Temple Mount Floor Looked Like As published in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2016 Frankie Snyder, Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira The Temple Mount Sifting Projecta has recovered more than a hundred geometrically cut and polished stone tiles known as opus sectile, from which we learn how Jerusalem’s majestic Herodian Temple Mount was paved. Opus sectile—Latin for “cut work”—is a technique for paving floors and walls in geometric patterns or figurative scenes using meticulously cut and polished polychrome stone tiles.1 These tiles were crafted and laid with such precision that there was Opus sectile expert Frankie Snyder is seen here with opus hardly space to insert a knife-blade between them. sectile tiles discovered by the Temple Mount Sifting Project. Photo: Temple Mount Sifting Project. Opus sectile floors were more prestigious than mosaic ones and were typically used in more important areas of buildings. Along with using frescoed walls, stucco decorations and elegantly carved columns, King Herod the Great (r. 37–4 B.C.E.) introduced this paving technique to Israel to decorate many of his palaces, including Masada, Jericho, Herodium and Cypros. The first-century C.E. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus comments about the pavements in Herod’s Palace in Jerusalem this way: “The interior fittings are indescribable—the variety of the stones (for species rare in every other country were here collected in abundance).”2 Similarly, about the Temple Mount he writes, “The open court [of the Temple Mount] was from end to end variegated with paving of all manner of stones.”3 In his early research at the Sifting Project, Assaf Avraham was able to identify specific paving tiles found in the Temple Mount material as being consistent with the opus sectile technique, and he suggested that some of these may be the paving stones to which Josephus was referring.4 Continued research has allowed us to distinguish the time period in which many of the recovered opus sectile tiles were crafted and to mathematically reconstruct possible floor patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerusalem Forgery Conference Report Hershel Shanks
    B I B L I C A L A R C H A E O L O G Y S O C I E T Y SPECIAL REPORT Jerusalem Forgery Conference by Hershel Shanks With Abstracts by Conference Participants: Shmuel Ahituv André Lemaire Gabriel Barkay Alan Millard Chaim Cohen Ronny Reich Aaron Demsky Amnon Rosenfeld & Howard R. Feldman David Noel Freedman Hershel Shanks Edward Greenstein Andrew Vaughn Avi Hurwitz Ada Yardeni Wolfgang Krumbein Photo Analysis of James Ossuary Inscription Full Text of Comments by Gabriel Barkay Biblical Archaeology Society www.biblicalarchaeology.org T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S 1. Jerusalem Forgery Conference Report Hershel Shanks Preface 3 Introduction 4 I. The James Ossuary Inscription 6 II. The Ivory Pomegranate Inscription 13 III. The Yehoash Inscription 16 IV. The Moabite Inscription 23 V. The Mousaieff Ostraca 24 VI. The Broader Issues 24 2. Appendix—Abstracts by Conference Participants Shmuel Ahituv 3 Gabriel Barkay 4 Chaim Cohen 5 Aaron Demsky 7 David Noel Freedman 12 Edward Greenstein 16 Avi Hurwitz 22 Wolfgang Krumbein 23 André Lemaire 24 Alan Millard 31 Ronny Reich 38 Amnon Rosenfeld and Howard R. Feldman 39 Hershel Shanks 41 Andrew Vaughn 44 Ada Yardeni 47 3. James Ossuary Photo Report 55 Gerald B. Richards 4. Comments by Gabriel Barkay, Full Version 78 R E P O R T JERUSALEM FORGERY CONFERENCE H E R S H E L S H A N K S 2 P R E F A C E On January 16, 17 and 18, 2007, the Biblical Archaeology Society convened a conference in Jerusalem to consider matters relating to the numerous inscriptions that have been recently alleged to be forgeries.
    [Show full text]
  • Opus Sectile Floors on Jerusalem's Herodian Temple Mount
    Frankie Snyder, Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira Opus Sectile Floors on Jerusalem’s Herodian Temple Mount Frankie Snyder, Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeolony, Bar-Ilan University 49* Opus Sectile Floorg oi Jerugalem’g Herodiai Temple Mouit Abstract The Temple Mount Sifting Project has recovered more than a hundred Herodian- era geometrically-cut and polished stone opus sectile tiles that once paved the Temple Mount precincts. Opus sectile—Latin for “cut work”—is a technique for paving floors and walls in geometric patterns or figurative scenes using meticulously cut and polished polychrome stone tiles. These floors were typically used in more important areas of villas and palaces, especially those areas where the owner would entertain his guests. Remnants of 2,000-year-old opus sectile floors can be found in the palaces of King Herod and his successors at Jericho, Masada, Herodium, Caesarea, Cypros, Machaerus, Banias and Tiberias. The finding of Herodian opus sectile tiles in the material from the Temple Mount indicates that these elegant floors were also used there. We have analyzed the size, shape, material, colors and craftsmanship of each tile and have compared them to those used in the opus sectile floors at Herodian palaces. By combining these archaeological parallels with basic geometry, research into historical sources and the study of geological materials, we have reconstructed a series of possible floor patterns that may have created the elegant flooring of Jerusalem’s majestic Temple Mount. 50* It appears that the opus sectile patterns and materials on the Temple Mount were “upgraded” from those used in the Herodian palaces.
    [Show full text]
  • The Burial of Jesus
    The Burial of Jesus Staff for this book: Kathleen E. Miller Sara Murphy Steven Feldman Susan Laden Cover: “Scenes from the Life of Christ: Entombment.” 15th century illuminated manuscript. Jean Colombe Pol de Limbourg. Photo by Erich Lessing Typesetting by Scribe, Inc. © 2007 Biblical Archaeology Society 4710 41st Street, NW Washington, DC 20016 www.biblicalarchaeology.org © 2007 Biblical Archaeology Society i The Burial of Jesus About the Biblical Archaeology Society The excitement of archaeology and the latest in Bible scholarship since 1974 The Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) was founded in 1974 as a nonprofit, nondenominational, educational organization dedicated to the dissemination of information about archaeology in the Bible lands. BAS educates the public about archaeology and the Bible through its bi-monthly magazine, Biblical Archaeology Review, an award-winning web site www.biblicalarchaeology.org, books and multimedia products (DVDs, CD-ROMs and videos), tours and seminars. Our readers rely on us to present the latest that scholarship has to offer in a fair and accessible manner. BAS serves as an important authority and as an invaluable source of reliable information. Publishing Excellence BAS’s flagship publication is Biblical Archaeology Review. BAR is the only magazine that connects the academic study of archaeology to a broad general audience eager to understand the world of the Bible. Covering both the Old and New Testaments, BAR presents the latest discoveries and controversies in archaeology with breathtaking photog- raphy and informative maps and diagrams. BAR’s writers are the top scholars, the leading researchers, the world- renowned experts. BAR is the only nonsectarian forum for the discussion of Biblical archaeology.
    [Show full text]
  • The Forgery, Illicit Trade and Looting of Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and Antiquities
    UNKNOWN PROVENANCE: THE FORGERY, ILLICIT TRADE AND LOOTING OF ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN ARTEFACTS AND ANTIQUITIES By DIRK PHILIPPUS CONRADIE Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the subject of BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR WILLEM S. BOSHOFF MAY 2016 ii DECLARATION I declare that “Unknown provenance: the forgery, illicit trade and looting of Ancient Near Eastern artefacts and antiquities” is my own work and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references, and that this work has not been submitted before for any other degree, at any other institution. Dirk Philippus Conradie Date: 21 May 2016 Student no: 49343165 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to thank the following persons for their respective contributions to this dissertation: Careen Conradie, for her unwavering motivation during the research and writing of this paper. Also for her recognition of my passion for archaeology and ancient studies, and supporting me in this. Vincent and Quinton for the interest they have shown in my progress. Professor Willem S. Boshoff, my supervisor, for the valuable knowledge and recommendations that he imparted while researching and writing this dissertation. Also for his support and advice given during the past few years of my studies in Biblical Archaeology at the University of South Africa. Chrisna Nel, for proofreading and editing this manuscript. James van Vuuren “Van”, for all his informative conversations. Mark Backhouse, for a basic crash course in formatting MS word documents. Gina and Jackson, my two canine companions of “questionable provenance”, who kept me company during the many long nights of research and writing.
    [Show full text]