Biblical & Theological Issues

by Craig A. Evans

Biblical archaeology is an ongoing enterprise, with new excavations getting under way and older, long-established digs continuing. Sometimes an archaeological discovery is the result not of a planned excavation but pure chance, usually because of construction of one sort or another or because an energetic youngster picked the right cave to climb into.  In recent years a number of discoveries have been made that relate in various ways to Jesus and his world.

SYNAGOGUES

In the New Testament Gospels synagogues are mentioned more than 40 times. Many times they are mentioned as places where Jesus taught. Indeed, the evangelists leave us with the impression that Jesus frequented the synagogues of his people: “And he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom ” (Matt 4:23); “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue , as his custom was, on the sabbath day” (Luke 4:16). In the book of Acts synagogues are mentioned more than 20 times. Whereas all of the synagogues mentioned in the Gospels are in the land of Israel, in Acts we hear of synagogues in Jerusalem, Damascus, Salamis, Antioch of Pisidia, lconium, Thessalonica, Beroea, and Corinth. Other first -century writers, such as Philo of Alexandria and Josephus, mention synagogues.

Besides the many references to synagogues in first-century writings, archaeologists have identified a number of buildings, dated before the year AD 70 (the year of the Roman capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple), which they believe served as synagogues. In addition to this archaeological evidence, inscriptions that mention synagogue buildings have been found. One would think that in view of such a preponderance of literary and archaeological evidence, even a skeptic would concede that synagogues really did exist in the time of Jesus, as the New Testament Gospels clearly presuppose.

Well, think again. About fifteen years ago, distinguished New Testament scholar Howard Clark Kee published a number of studies in which he challenged the widespread assumption that there really were synagogues in Israel in the time of Jesus. Kee argued that all of the synagogues unearthed thus far either dated to a time after AD 70 or were not synagogues at all. Kee reminds us that the Greek word synagogue actually refers to a ” gathering ” of people, not to a building. Kee thinks the inscriptions, in which reference is made to a synagogue building, are also post – 70. Indeed, Key thinks the writers of the New Testament Gospels and Acts, as well as Jewish historian and apologist Josephus (c. AD 37- 100), are guilty of anachronisms when they refer to synagogues, in that they were reading post-70 realities back into the early part of the first century. ¹

Kee ‘s remarkable claims provoked immediate criticism.² It has been pointed out that Philo also refers to synagogue buildings. For example, in one place Philo explains to his readers who may not be familiar with Jewish customs: ” … the seventh day is accounted sacred, on which (Jews) abstain from all other employments, and frequent the sacred places which are called synagogues [synagogai], and there they sit … “(Quod omnis probus fiber sit 81). Because he died c. AD 50, it is impossible that Philo was influenced by post-70 changes. In any case, is it likely that Josephus, who lived more than one half of his life before the year  70, and all four New Testament evangelists , who also lived most of their lives before this eventful year, would have committed sucha flagrant anachronism, so as to speak of the existence of synagogue buildings in the 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s, when in fact there were none? It seems most unlikely.

In any case, we may have archaeological evidence for as many as ten pre-70 synagogues in the land of Israel. Indeed, while visiting Israel last year I learned of  yet  another pre-70 synagogue  discovery  near  the  Sea  of Galilee. These synagogue locations include Capernaum, Gamla, the Herodion, Jericho, Jerusalem, Magdala, Masada, Modi ‘in, Qiryat Sefer, and Shuafat. ³

In my view, one of the oddest features in Kee’s attempt to date all archaeological synagogue evidence to post-70 periods of time was his handling of the well-known Theodotus Synagogue Inscription, which when discovered about a century ago was assigned a pre-70  date. The inscription reads:

Theodotos, (son) of Vettenus , priest and synagogue ruler, son of a synagogue ruler, (and) grandson of a synagogue ruler, built the  synagogue for the reading of the law and the teaching of the commandments , and the guest room, and the  chambers, and the water fixtures, as an inn for those in need from foreign parts, (the synagogue) which his fathers and the elders and Simonides founded. ⁴

Kee, who is neither an archaeologist nor an epigrapher, declared that this inscription dated to the third century AD or even later. To the best of my knowledge no one has followed him. Kee’s improbable dating of this inscription was demolished by John Kloppenborg’s detailed and careful study.⁵

Perhaps most devastating of all for Kee’s argument is the inscription from the North African city Berenike (in Cyrenaica), which reads:

In the second year of the emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus, on the 16th of Chorach. It was resolved by the congregation [synagoge] of the Jews in Berenike that (the names of) those who donated to the repairs of the synagogue [synagoge] be inscribed on a stele of Parian marble.⁶

In this inscription we see the word synagoge used in both senses of congregation and building. The latter sense is obvious in the words “repairs of the synagogue.” The reference to the second year of Nero (reigned AD 54-68) dates the inscription to AD 56.  In view of this evidence it seems clear that buildings referred to as “synagogues” existed prior to AD 70. Moreover, evidence of Jewish connections between Cyrenaica and Judea⁷ increases the probability that the pre-70 existence of Jewish synagogues in North Africa corroborates the existence of the same in Judea. Thus, a pre-70 inscription, found in Jerusalem, in which reference to a synagogue appears, should occasion no surprise.

Finally, it needs to be emphasized that most paleographers and epigraphers date the Theodotus Synagogue Inscription found in Jerusalem to the Herodian period, that is, late second century BC to early first century AD. Moreover, the inscribed stone was found buried beneath ruins that clearly date to the destruction of AD 70, strongly arguing against a post- 70 date.

When all of the evidence is taken into account and fairly assessed, there really are no grounds for doubting the existence of buildings in the time of Jesus that were called synagogues. There is nothing  anachronistic in the Gospels (or  in  Josephus,  for  that matter) .

HEALING AND EXORCISM

In the fall of 2008 French marine archaeologist Franck Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Centre of Maritime Archaeology , announced the discovery of a ceramic cup during underwater exploration of the ancient city  of  Alexandria, Egypt. ⁸ Goddio and  his  team  found  a  cup on which are inscribed the Greek words diachrestou ho goistais, which may mean “the magician by Christ” or “by Christ (performs/acts) the magician, “⁹ perhaps in  the  sense that “the magician (possesses his  power)  by (or through) Christ.” Goddio and Egyptologist David Fabre date the cup sometime between late second century BC and early first century AD. The theory is that in the second half of the first century someone added these words to the cup, which had been in use for a century or more, perhaps to enhance the cup’s magical powers. If the reference is to Jesus Christ, then it would indeed be the earliest inscriptional reference to the founder of Christianity.

Whether or not the magician’s cup refers to Jesus, a number of other magical texts have come to light , in which the name of Jesus is invoked. One would expect Christians to write out prayers in which Jesus’ name is invoked, but it is interesting to note that Jews and pagans also invoked Jesus’ name for healing and for exorcism.

The name of Jesus is invoked in what is probably one of the best known exorcistic charms in the Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM), a charm  said to go back to one  Pibechis, a  legendary magician in Egypt (regarded as the “capital ”  of  magic in the ancient world) . Pibechis directs the enchanter to speak the following words over the person tormented by demons: “I conjure you by the God of the Hebrews, Jesus” (PGM IV.3019- 20). Jesus, “God of the Hebrews”? This extraordinary language is neither Jewish nor Christian, for the latter never spoke of Jesus in this manner and it is inconceivable that a Jewish exorcistic would speak this way, no matter how syncretistic his practices. Most agree that the charm is pagan, even though a number of Jewish themes have been adopted.

The name of Jesus appears among magical names and words in other pagan charms (e.g., PGM IV.296-303, 335-341; P.Mich. 757; PGM Xll. 376- 96). More interesting is its appearance in Jewish charms, as seen in the next two examples. An Aramaic magic bowl (fifth century AD) invokes the name of Jesus, along with other magical names and words, to drive away an evil spirit: “In the name of ZWKSYN ZWKSYN A’ST Christ accept this rebuke and carry away the evil spirit . . .” (MS155, line 12). In another Aramaic Magic Bowl of Jewish origin (also fifth century), we read: “In the name of I – am -that – I – am YHWH Sebaoth and  in  the name of Jesus who conquered the height and the  depth  by his cross. . . ” (M163, lines 29-30).    It   is suspected that these words were added to an older charm that originally made no reference to Jesus and his cross. ¹⁰

We find in these interesting materials a remarkable degree of syncretism. Jewish, Christian, and pagan elements are exploited in attempts to gain the help of heaven, whether for healing, protection against evil spirits or curses, or other matters. ¹¹ What is especially intriguing is the invocation of the name of Jesus by pagans and, on occasion, even by Jews-necessitating a rabbinic ruling against such a practice (cf. Tosefta, tractate Hullin 2.22). What we see in these incantations and charms, many of which admittedly date to three or more centuries after the time of Jesus, is a continuation of a tradition that had its origins in the time of Jesus’ public activities.

The clearest evidence for this claim Is found in Mark 9:38-40:

 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.”

To the best of my knowledge this is unprecedented. Normally it takes generations, if not centuries, for the growth of a legend, whereby an ancient figure gained such an impressive reputation. In Jesus ‘ day the name of Solomon was regularly invoked by Jewish exorcists (cf. Josephus, Ant. 8 .46-47, in reference to the Jewish exorcist Eleazar). But the legend of the famous monarch took centuries to develop. In contrast, the reputation of Jesus developed in his first year of public activities, not long after his death.

The authenticity of the remarkable story in Mark 9 is strongly supported by the improbability of Jesus’ followers inventing a story in which a non-follower was permitted to make use of Jesus’ name. The early Church’s view in this matter is clearly seen in the dramatic episode recounted in Acts , where we hear of the seven sons of Sceva , professional exorcists, who became aware of the potency of Jesus’ name and invoked it in an attempt to cast out an evil spirit (Acts 19:11-20). The attempt ends in disaster for the exorcists and leads to public repudiation of magic. One also thinks of Simon Magus of Samaria, who attempted to purchase the Holy Spirit and was warned of judgment for even thinking of such a thing (Acts 8:18-24). From these stories we should assume that early Christians did not think it was appropriate for non-Christians to invoke the name of Jesus. Yet Jesus himself, as we see in Mark 9, seems untroubled by the Jewish exorcist who was not part of Jesus’ following but who nevertheless invoked Jesus’ powerful name in confronting evil spirits.

Long before Easter and the Christian movement’s proclamation of the resurrection and heavenly enthronement of its Lord and Master, professional healers and exorcists of all stripes had begun to invoke the name of Jesus. One of the elements of Jesus ‘ ministry that impacted his contemporaries, for which he would be remembered by many succeeding generations, was his ability to heal and cast out evil spirits. The awe with which Jesus was held by Christians, Jews, and pagans alike is richly attested in ancient artifacts.

CRUCIFIXION AND BURIAL

In 2009 at Ridgeway in  Dorset,  England, a mass burial from the Middle Ages was discovered. Oxford Archaeology staff are currently conducting the excavation. The remains of some fifty beheaded men, probably viking raiders (c. AD 910-1030), have been unearthed. Angela Boyle, senior osteologist, reports that most of the skeletons ” exhibit evidence of multiple blows to the vertebrae, ” caused by “a large, very sharp weapon such as a sword.” These men had not died in battle; they had been executed .¹² The opposite was observed when hundreds of skeletons were unearthed from a mass grave left behind in the aftermath of the bloody battle of Towton, in fifteenth century Britain. ¹³ Approximately one half of the several hundred slain had suffered fatal head wounds and the other half had suffered fatal sword or spear thrusts through the body. Only one victim suffered decapitation, and it may have been a post-mortem insult, not the actual cause of death. ¹⁴

And what have skeletal remains in Britain to do with Jesus and his contemporaries? They help us settle an interesting question concerning the cause of death in the case of a first-century Jewish man in the land of Israel. I will return to this point shortly.

The important discovery in 1968 of an ossuary (ossuary no. 4 in Tomb I, at Giv’at ha-Mivtar) of a Jewish man named Yehohanan, who had obviously  been  crucified, provides archaeological evidence and insight into how Jesus himself may have been crucified. The ossuary and its grim contents date  to  the late AD 20s, that is, during the administration of Pilate, the very Roman governor who condemned Jesus to the cross.¹⁵ The remains of an iron spike (11.5 cm in length) are plainly seen still encrusted in the right  heel  bone (or calcaneum). Those who took down the body of Yehohanan apparently were unable to remove the spike, with the result that a piece of wood (from an Olive tree) remained affixed to the spike . Later, the skeletal remains of the body-spike, fragment of wood, and all-were placed in the ossuary. Forensic examination of the rest of the skeletal remains supports the view that Yehohanan was crucified with arms apart, hung from a horizontal beam or tree branch.

Also found in the tombs discovered at Giv’at Ha-Mivtar were the remains of a woman who had been decapitated, probably as the result of execution. ¹⁶ In another tomb complex we may have the skeletal remains of one more person who, like Yehohanan, was executed and whose remains eventually were placed in a family tomb. These remains were found in a cluster of tombs on Mount Scopus, north of Jerusalem .¹⁷ In Tomb C the skeletal remains of a woman (aged 50-60) present clear evidence of having been attacked. Her right elbow suffered a deep cut that severed the end of the humerus (elbow). Because there is no sign of   re-growth or infection, it is surmised that she died from the attack.

In Tomb D, which contains the remains of persons related to those interred in Tomb C, were the remains of a man (aged 50), who had been decapitated. It is plausible to speculate that this man had been executed, quite possibly for having murdered the female relative in Tomb C. However, physical anthropologist Joe Zias doubts that the man had been executed, because his neck had been struck twice. Being struck twice, he reasons, suggests an act of violence rather than a judicial execution. ¹⁸ Zias could be correct, of course, but we should not assume that judicial beheadings were always neatly done and did not require more than one stroke of the sword or axe. One only needs to be reminded of the several badly aimed strokes that finally took off the head of James, Duke of Monmouth, in 1685.

Multiple strokes do not in fact argue against interpreting beheadings as judicial executions. I have reviewed the evidence of hundreds of Roman-era skeletons that have been excavated (mostly in Britain, though some in North Africa and elsewhere in the Roman Empire) and have been found to have suffered decapitation. In more than half of the cases two or more strokes of the sword or axe were required before the head was separated from the body.¹⁹

And here we see the relevance of the recent skeletal finds in Dorset, England. The evidence shows that almost always two or more strokes were required in decapitation. And as the skeletal evidence of Towton suggests, if only one combatant suffered decapitation in a pitched battle (assuming that it actually was the result of battle), how likely is it that someone suffered decapitation in a domestic brawl? Not very. This is why I think it is probable that the man buried in Tomb Don Mount Scopus was executed, as was the decapitated woman (or man?) in the Giv’at ha-Mivtar Tomb. These two persons, along with the crucified Yehohanan, though executed, were given proper burial in the Jewish fashion of the t ime.²⁰ And herein lies the relevance for Jesus of Nazareth. According to the New Testament Gospels, after the crucifixion the body of Jesus was taken down and given proper burial (Mark 15:42-47). It was not honorable burial, complete with public lamentation and burial in the family tomb, but it was a proper burial, as prescribed by Jewish law and respected by Roman authorities. Accordingly, we now have evidence of four first-century Jews who were executed-two by crucifixion and two by beheading-and properly buried. There are simply no reasonable grounds for suggesting that Jesus was not buried. ²¹

CONCLUSION

Recent discoveries relating to three very different areas of study shed light on the world of Jesus in various ways. Study of ancient synagogues continues to clarify and confirm important aspects of Jesus’ ministry, as described in the Gospels, whereas discoveries outside the land of Israel potentially clarify, if not confirm, other important dimensions of Jesus’ life and death. I anticipate more of the same in years to come.

Other New Testament Archaeological Finds

Pool of Bethesda – A pool of water near the Jewish temple mentioned in John 5:2. It is believed by many skeptical scholars to have been a literary invention of John until the 19th century when archaeologists discovered it.

Gallio Inscription – In Acts 18:12, Luke mentions one “Gallio the proconsul of Achaia.” An inscription discovered in Delphi in 1880 confirms Luke’s accuracy in ascribing the title “proconsul” to Gallio.

Caiaphas Ossuary – In 1990, an ossuary (bone box) was unearthed in Jerusalem with the inscription “Joseph, son of Caiaphas.” It is generally agreed that the Caiaphas mentioned is the High Priest Caiaphas who presided during the lifetime of Jesus.

Craig A. Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. He is the author of numerous articles and the author or editor of many books, including The World of Jesus and the Early Church (Hendrickson, 2011) and Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (InterVarsity, 2006).

(First appeared in Areopagus Journal Vol. 11 No. 3 – Biblical Archaeology)

NOTES

‘See H. C. Kee, ” The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 C.E.: Its Import for Early Christianity, ” NTS 36 (1990): 1-24; “The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster,” NTS 40 (1994) : 281- 83; and “Defining the First -Century CE Synagogue: Problem s and Progress,” NTS 41 (1995): 481- 500 .

² R. E. Oster, “Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts’ Use of synagoge: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee,”  NTS 39 (1993): 178- 208; L. I. Levine, “The Nature and Origin of the Palestinian Synagogue Reconsidered,” JBL 115 (1996): 425-48.

³For descriptions, primary references, and key bibliography pertaining to all synagogues in the land of Israel, either attested by archaeological discovery or by ancient literary reference, see A. Runesson, D. D. Binder, and B. Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 20- 117. Runesson and his colleagues have identified 88 synagogues in all, ranging in date from the first century BC to the end of the second century AD.

⁴ CIJ 1404. For discussion of the text of this inscription, see R. Riesner, ” Synagogues in Jerusalem,” in R. Bauckham (ed.), The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol. 4: Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 179- 211, here 192-200.

⁵J. S. Kloppenborg, “Dating Theodotos (CIJ 1404),” JJS 51 (2000): 243-80.

⁶ SEG XVII 823 = CJZC no. 72. See Runesson, Binder, and Olsson, The Ancient Synagogue, 168- 70. It is remarked that this inscription is somewhat unusual in that the word synagoge occurs, instead of proseuche (“house of prayer “), which is what is usually found in inscriptions outside the land of Israel. Examples of proseuche are found in Philo (who chiefly resided in Alexandria, Egypt) . See Philo, Flaccus 4 1, 45, 47, 53; Gaius 137, 148, 152, 156, 165, where Philo protests various desecrations of Jewish proseuchai at the hands of pagans.

⁷ One immediately thinks of “Sim on of Cyrene ” (Mark 15:21), present in Jerusalem in all likelihood for the Passover, was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross. Ossuary inscriptions have also been found in Jerusalem, possibly in reference to Simon’s family, thus attesting further the link between Cyrene and the land of Israel. For an ossuary that may have belonged to Simon’s family, see L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem : The Israel Antiquities Authority, 1994), 120 (no. 179) . The ossurary was found by E. L. Sukenik in the Kidron Valley in 1941 (see the announcement in BASOR 88 [1942]: 38) and was published twenty years later by N. Avigad , “A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley,” IEJ 12 (1962): 1-12 + plates 1-4, here 9-11 no. 9 + pl. 4.

⁸The report was featured in a documentary that aired on Discovery Channel. I acknowledge with gratitude the helpful information provided by the staff of the Franck Goddio Society. The cup originally had two handles, one of which has been broken off.

⁹ In this sense  goistais  would  be  understood  as  a variant of goetes or goes (” enchanter”). The spelling chrestou, instead of the more conventional christou, is not necessarily problematic, for this spelling  variant is attested elsewhere, even in Christian writings.

¹⁰ For text, translation, and notes on Magic Bowls 155 and 163, see D. Levene, A Corpus of Magic Bowls: Incantation Texts in Jewish Aramaic from Late Antiquity (London and New York: Kegan Paul, 2003), 110-15, here 111- 12 , and 120- 38, here 124- 25.

¹¹For more examples and discussion, see C. A. Evans, “Jesus and the Spirits: What Can We Learn from the New Testament World?” Transformation 27 (2010): 146-61.

¹² As reported on the Oxford Archaeology web page. I thank the staff, especially Dr Angela Boyle, for the information they provided me.

¹³ The battle took place in 1461 and confirmed the crown for Edward IV (d. 1483).

¹⁴For discussion of the archaeological and forensic evidence, see V. Fiorato, A. Boylston, and C. KnuseI (eds.), Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2000).

¹⁵ For a selection of studies concerned with this find, see Y. Yadin, ” Epigraphy and Crucifixion,”   IEJ 23 (1973): 18 – 2 2 + plate; J . Zias and E. Sekeles, ” The Crucified Man from Giv’at ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal, ” IEJ 35 (1985): 22-27; J.  Zias and J. H. Charlesworth, “Crucifixion:  Archaeology, Jesus, and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in J. H. Cha rlesworth (ed.), Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 273- 89 + plates.

¹⁶The gender of these remains is not certain. This decapitated person may have been a man. For study, see N. Haas, “Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv ‘at ha-Mivtar, ” IEJ 20 (1970): 38-59; J.  Zias, “Anthropological  Evidence of Interpersonal Violence in First – Century A.D. Jerusalem,” Current Anthropology 24 (1983): 233- 34; P Smith, “The Human Skeletal Remains from the Abba Cave,” IEJ 27 (1977) : 121- 24. According to Haas, the “atlas , the ax is vertebrae and the slope of the occipital bone (were) broken into sharp slivers. . . produced by a heavy blow of a blunt  weapon, such as a mace” (p . 44). But Smith and Zias do  not agree. Zias speaks of “decapitation ” (p. 234), while Smith speaks of a “severed  head,”  stating that “the cuts were made with a sword rather than  an axe ” (p. 123).

¹⁷ The Mount Scopus tomb was excavated in 1979 by Gershon Edelstein of Israel’s Department of Antiquities (now the Israel Antiquities Authority).

¹⁸ Zias, “Anthropological Evidence of Interpersonal Violence in First-Century A.D. Jerusalem,” Current Anthropology 24 (1983): 233-34, here 233- 34.

¹⁹ See J. L. McKinley, “A Decapitation from the Romano -British Cemetery at Baldock, Hertfordshire,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3 (1993): 41- 44; A. Boylston, “Evidence of Weapon-Related Trauma in British Archaeological Samples,” in M. Cox and S. Mays (eds.), Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science (London: Greenwich Medical Media , 2000), 357- 80, esp. 367- 68 .

²⁰ On Jewish burial traditions, see C. A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (Waco TX: Baylor University Press, 2003), 17- 30 .

²¹ As is suggested in J. D. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Expo sing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1995) , 160- 88. Crossan states that “we have found only one skeleton and only one  nail” (p. 188). This is poetic, but it is also incomplete and misleading. The evidence, both literary and archaeological, flies in  the   face  of   Crossan’s  conclusion   that  Jesus  was not buried, but was left hanging on the cross.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 11 No. 3 – Biblical Archaeology)