Giotto, Adoration of the Magi, c. 1306.

Both Luke and Matthew mention Jesus’ birth as occurring during Herod’s reign (Luke 1:5; Matthew 2:1). Josephus relates Herod’s death to a lunar eclipse. This is generally regarded as a reference to a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. Therefore it is often said that Jesus was born in 4 B.C.

But physics professor John A. Cramer, in a letter to BAR, has pointed out that there was another lunar eclipse visible in Judea—in fact, two—in 1 B.C., which would place Herod’s death—and Jesus’ birth—at the turn of the era. Below, read letters published in the Q&C section of BAR debating the dates of Herod’s death, Jesus’ birth and to which lunar eclipse Josephus was referring.

When Was Jesus Born?

Q&C, BAR, July/August 2013

Let me add a footnote to Suzanne Singer’s report on the final journey of Herod the Great (Strata, BAR, March/April 2013): She gives the standard date of his death as 4 B.C. [Jesus’ birth is often dated to 4 B.C. based on the fact that both Luke and Matthew associate Jesus’ birth with Herod’s reign—Ed.] Readers may be interested to learn there is reason to reconsider the date of Herod’s death.

This date is based on Josephus’s remark in Antiquities 17.6.4 that there was a lunar eclipse shortly before Herod died. This is traditionally ascribed to the eclipse of March 13, 4 B.C.

Unfortunately, this eclipse was visible only very late that night in Judea and was additionally a minor and only partial eclipse.

There were no lunar eclipses visible in Judea thereafter until two occurred in the year 1 B.C. Of these two, the one on December 29, just two days before the change of eras, gets my vote since it was the one most likely to be seen and remembered. That then dates the death of Herod the Great into the first year of the current era, four years after the usual date.

Perhaps the much-maligned monk who calculated the change of era was not quite so far off as has been supposed.

John A. Cramer
Professor of Physics
Oglethorpe University
Atlanta, Georgia

FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

When Was Jesus Born? When Did Herod Die?

Q&C, BAR, January/February 2014

Professor John A. Cramer argues that Herod the Great most likely died shortly after the lunar eclipse of December 29, 1 B.C., rather than that of March 13, 4 B.C., which, as Cramer points out, is the eclipse traditionally associated with Josephus’s description in Jewish Antiquities 17.6.4 (Queries & Comments, “When Was Jesus Born?” BAR, July/August 2013) and which is used as a basis to reckon Jesus’ birth shortly before 4 B.C. Professor Cramer’s argument was made in the 19th century by scholars such as Édouard Caspari and Florian Riess.

There are three principal reasons why the 4 B.C. date has prevailed over 1 B.C. These reasons were articulated by Emil Schürer in A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, also published in the 19th century. First, Josephus informs us that Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiquities 17.9.3, The Jewish War 2.1.3), making a lunar eclipse in March (the time of the 4 B.C. eclipse) much more likely than one in December.

Second, Josephus writes that Herod reigned for 37 years from the time of his appointment in 40 B.C. and 34 years from his conquest of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. (Antiquities 17.8.1, War 1.33.8). Using so-called inclusive counting, this, too, places Herod’s death in 4 B.C.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Third, we know that the reign over Samaria and Judea of Herod’s son and successor Archelaus began in 4 B.C., based on the fact that he was deposed by Caesar in A.U.C. (Anno Urbis Conditae [in the year the city was founded]) 759, or A.D. 6, in the tenth year of his reign (Dio Cassius, Roman History 55.27.6; Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.2). Counting backward his reign began in 4 B.C. In addition, from Herod the Great’s son and successor Herod Antipas, who ruled over Galilee until 39 B.C., who ordered the execution of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14–29) and who had a supporting role in Jesus’ trial (Luke 23:7–12), we have coins that make reference to the 43rd year of his rule, placing its beginning in 4 B.C. at the latest (see Morten Hørning Jensen, “Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew,” BAR, September/October 2012).

Thus, Schürer concluded that “Herod died at Jericho in B.C. 4, unwept by those of his own house, and hated by all the people.”

Jeroen H.C. Tempelman
New York, New York

John A. Cramer responds:

Trying to date the death of Herod the Great is attended by considerable uncertainty, and I do not mean to claim I know the right answer. Mr. Tempelman does a good job of pointing out arguments in favor of a 4 B.C. date following the arguments advanced long ago by Emil Schürer. The difficulty is that we have a fair amount of information, but it is equivocal.

The key information comes, of course, from Josephus who brackets the death by “a fast” and the Passover. He says that on the night of the fast there was a lunar eclipse—the only eclipse mentioned in the entire corpus of his work. Correlation of Josephus with the Talmud and Mishnah indicate the fast was probably Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month (mid-September to mid-October) and Passover on the 15th day of the first month (March or April) of the religious calendar. Josephus does not indicate when within that time interval the death occurred.

Only four lunar eclipses occurred in the likely time frame: September 15, 5 B.C., March 12–13, 4 B.C., January 10, 1 B.C. and December 29, 1 B.C. The first eclipse fits Yom Kippur, almost too early, but possible. It was a total eclipse that became noticeable several hours after sundown, but it is widely regarded as too early to fit other information on the date. The favorite 4 B.C. eclipse seems too far from Yom Kippur and much too close to Passover. This was a partial eclipse that commenced after midnight. It hardly seems a candidate for being remembered and noted by Josephus. The 1 B.C. dates require either that the fast was not Yom Kippur or that the calendar was rejiggered for some reason. The January 10 eclipse was total but commenced shortly before midnight on a winter night. Lastly, in the December 29 eclipse the moon rose at 53 percent eclipse and its most visible aspect was over by 6 p.m. It is the most likely of the four to have been noted and commented on.

None of the four candidates fits perfectly to all the requirements. I like the earliest and the latest of them as the most likely. The most often preferred candidate, the 4 B.C. eclipse, is, in my view, far and away the least likely one.

If Jesus was born in Bethlehem, why is he called a Nazorean and a Galilean throughout the New Testament? Learn more >>

A Different Fast

Q&C, BAR, May/June 2014

John Cramer responds to Mr. Tempelman’s letter to the editor (“Queries and Comments,” BAR, January/February 2014) that Herod’s death occurred between a “fast” and Passover. Mr. Cramer acknowledges that the fast of Yom Kippur fits the eclipse but doesn’t fit the time frame of occurring near Passover. There is, however, another fast that occurs exactly one month before Passover: the Fast of Esther! The day before Purim is a fast day commemorating Queen Esther’s command for all Jews to fast before she approached the king. Purim fell on March 12–13, 4 B.C. So there was an eclipse and a fast on March 12–13, 4 B.C., one month before Passover, which would fit Josephus’s statement bracketing Herod’s death by a fast and Passover.

Suzanne Nadaf
Brooklyn, New York

This suggestion seems plausible and, if I recall correctly, someone has already raised it. The consensus, if such exists, seems, however, to be that the fast really should be the fast of Yom Kippur, but resolving that issue requires expertise to which I make no claim. Too many possibilities and too little hard information probably leave the precise date forever open.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

When Did Herod Die? And When Was Jesus Born?

Q&C, BAR, September/October 2014

Regarding the date of the death of Herod the Great, the question of which lunar eclipse and which Jewish fast the historian Josephus was referring to must be considered in light of other data that Josephus reported. Professor John Cramer’s suggestion that an eclipse in 1 B.C.E. would place Herod’s death in that year, rather than the generally accepted 4 B.C.E., cannot be reconciled with other historical facts recorded by Josephus.

As is well known, Herod’s son Archelaus succeeded him as the ruler of Judea, as reported by Josephus (Antiquities 8:459). Josephus also recorded that Archelaus reigned over Judea and Samaria for ten years, and that in his tenth year, due to complaints against him from both Jews and Samaritans, he was deposed by Caesar Augustus and banished to Vienna (Antiquities 8:531). Quirinius, the legate or governor of Syria, was assigned by the emperor to travel to Jerusalem and liquidate the estate of Archelaus, as well as to conduct a registration of persons and property in Archelaus’s former realm. This occurred immediately after Archelaus was deposed and was specifically dated by Josephus to the 37th year after Caesar’s victory over Mark Anthony at Actium (Antiquities 9:23). The Battle of Actium is a well-known event in Roman history that took place in the Ionian Sea off the shore of Greece on September 2 of the year 31 B.C.E. Counting 37 years forward from 31 B.C.E. yields a date of 6 C.E. for the tenth year of Archelaus, at which time he was deposed and Quirinus came to Judea. And counting back ten years from that event yields a date of 4 B.C.E. for the year in which Herod died. (The beginning and ending years are both included in this count, since regnal years for both Augustus and the Herodians were so figured.)

These reports, and the chronology derived from them, provide compelling evidence for the generally accepted date of Herod’s death in the spring of 4 B.C.E., shortly after the lunar eclipse of March 13, regardless of the fact that eclipses also occurred in other years.

Jeffrey R. Chadwick
Jerusalem Center Professor of Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah

Read Lawrence Mykytiuk’s BAR article “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” >>

There’s More Evidence from Josephus

Q&C, BAR, January/February 2015

In the letter to the editor in BAR, September/October 2014, Jeffrey Chadwick gives the argument for the death of Herod in 4 B.C. [used for determining the date of Jesus’ birth]. For over a century, this has been part of the standard reasoning for the 4 B.C. of Jesus’ birth. However, it does not come to grips with all of the data from Josephus. Elsewhere I have written about this. [An excerpt by Professor Steinmann can be read below.—Ed.]

One cannot simply and positively assert that a few short statements by Josephus about the lengths of reigns of his sons can be used to prove that Herod died in 4 B.C. Instead, one needs critically to sift through all of the evidence embedded in Josephus’s discussion as well as evidence external to Josephus to make a case for the year of Herod’s death.

Andrew Steinmann
Distinguished Professor of Theology and Hebrew
University Marshal
Concordia University Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Originally Herod had named his son Antipater to be his heir and had groomed Antipater to take over upon his death. However, a little over two years before Herod’s death Antipater had his uncle, Herod’s younger brother Pheroras murdered. Pheroras had been tetrarch of Galilee under Herod. Antipater’s plot was discovered, and Archelaus was named Herod’s successor in place of Antipater. Seven months passed before Antipater, who was in Rome, was informed that he had been charged with murder. Late in the next year he would be placed on trial before Varus, governor of Syria. Eventually Herod received permission from Rome to execute Antipater. During his last year Herod wrote a will disinheriting Archelaus and granting the kingdom to Antipas. In a later will, however, he once again left the kingdom to Archelaus. Following his death his kingdom would eventually be split into three parts among Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip.

Josephus is careful to note that during his last year Herod was forbidden by Augustus from naming his sons as his successors. However, in several passages Josephus also notes that Herod bestowed royalty and its honors on his sons. At Antipater’s trial Josephus quotes Herod as testifying that he had yielded up royal authority to Antipater. He also quotes Antipater claiming that he was already a king because Herod had made him a king.

When Archelaus replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir apparent some two years before Herod’s death, Antipater may have been given the same prerogatives as Archelaus had previously enjoyed. After Herod’s death Archelaus went to Rome to have his authority confirmed by Augustus. His enemies charged him with seemingly contradictory indictments: that Archelaus had already exercised royal authority for some time and that Herod did not appoint Archelaus as his heir until he was demented and dying. These are not as contradictory as they seem, however. Herod initially named Archelaus his heir, and at this point Archelaus may have assumed royal authority under his father. Then Herod revoked his will, naming Antipas his heir. Ultimately, when he was ill and dying, Herod once again named Archelaus his heir. Thus, Archelaus may not have legally been king until after Herod’s death in early 1 B.C., but may have chosen to reckon his reign from a little over two years earlier in late 4 B.C. when he first replaced Antipater as Herod’s heir.

Since Antipas would eventually rule Galilee, it is entirely possible that under Herod he already had been given jurisdiction over Galilee in the wake of Pheroras’ death. This may explain why Herod briefly named Antipas as his heir in the year before his death. Since Antipas may have assumed the jurisdiction over Galilee upon Pheroras’ death sometime in 4 B.C., like Archelaus, he also may have reckoned his reign from that time, even though he was not officially named tetrarch of Galilee by the Romans until after Herod’s death.

Philip also appears to have exercised a measure of royal authority before Herod’s death in 1 B.C. Philip refounded the cities of Julias and Caesarea Philippi (Paneas). Julias was apparently named after Augustus’ daughter, who was arrested for adultery and treason in 2 B.C. Apparently Julias was refounded before that date. As for Caesarea Philippi, the date of its refounding was used to date an era, and the first year of the era was 3 B.C. Apparently Philip chose to antedate his reign to 4 B.C., which apparently was the time when Herod first entrusted him with supervision of Gaulanitis.

Additional support for Philip having been officially appointed tetrarch after the death of his father in 1 B.C. may be found in numismatics. A number of coins issued by Philip during his reign are known. The earliest bear the date “year 5,” which would correspond to A.D. 1. This fits well with Philip serving as administrator under his father from 4–1 B.C. He counted those as the first four years of his reign, but since he was not officially recognized by Rome as an independent client ruler, he had no authority to issue coins during those years. However, he was in position to issue coinage soon after being named tetrarch sometime in 1 B.C., and the first coins appear the next year, A.D. 1, antedating his reign to 4 B.C. While the numismatic evidence is not conclusive proof of Herod’s death in 1 B.C., it is highly suggestive.

Given the explicit statements of Josephus about the authority and honor Herod had granted his sons during the last years of his life, we can understand why all three of his successors decided to antedate their reigns to the time when they were granted a measure of royal authority while their father was still alive. Although they were not officially recognized by Rome as ethnarch or tetrarchs until after Herod’s death, they nevertheless appear to have reckoned their reigns from about 4 B.C.

This article was first published in Bible History Daily on January 7, 2015.

FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Christmas Stories in Christian Apocrypha

Who Was Jesus’ Biological Father?

Why Did the Magi Bring Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh?

Herod Antipas in the Bible and Beyond

August 2017: An Eclipse of Biblical Proportions

Classical Corner: A Comet Gives Birth to an Empire

How Old Is That? Dating in the Ancient World

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey

Antipas—The Herod Jesus Knew

Herod’s Horrid Death

How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus

How December 25 Became Christmas

The Magi and the Star

The post Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. Did Jesus of Nazareth exist as a real human being? Outside of the New Testament, what is the evidence for his existence? In this article, author Lawrence Mykytiuk examines the extra-Biblical textual and archaeological evidence associated with the man who would become the central figure in Christianity. Here Jesus is depicted in a vibrant sixth-century C.E. mosaic from the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy. Photo: Sant’Apollinare Nuovo Ravenna, Italy/Bridgeman Images.

After two decades toiling in the quiet groves of academe, I published an article in BAR titled “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible.”^a The enormous interest this article generated was a complete surprise to me. Nearly 40 websites in six languages, reflecting a wide spectrum of secular and religious orientations, linked to BAR’s supplementary web page.^b Some even posted translations.

I thought about following up with a similar article on people in the New Testament, but I soon realized that this would be so dominated by the question of Jesus’ existence that I needed to consider this question separately. This is that article:¹

Did Jesus of Nazareth, who was called Christ, exist as a real human being, “the man Christ Jesus” according to 1 Timothy 2:5?

The sources normally discussed fall into three main categories: (1) classical (that is, Greco-Roman), (2) Jewish and (3) Christian. But when people ask whether it is possible to prove that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, as John P. Meier pointed out decades ago, “The implication is that the Biblical evidence for Jesus is biased because it is encased in a theological text written by committed believers.² What they really want to know is: Is there extra-Biblical evidence … for Jesus’ existence?”^c

Therefore, this article will cover classical and Jewish writings almost exclusively.³

Roman historian Tacitus. Photo: Bibliotheque nationale, Paris, France / Giraudon / Bridgeman Images.

Tacitus—or more formally, Caius/Gaius (or Publius) Cornelius Tacitus (55/56–c. 118 C.E.)—was a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer, and arguably the best of Roman historians. His name is based on the Latin word tacitus, “silent,” from which we get the English word tacit. Interestingly, his compact prose uses silence and implications in a masterful way. One argument for the authenticity of the quotation below is that it is written in true Tacitean Latin.⁴ But first a short introduction.

Tacitus’s last major work, titled Annals, written c. 116–117 C.E., includes a biography of Nero. In 64 C.E., during a fire in Rome, Nero was suspected of secretly ordering the burning of a part of town where he wanted to carry out a building project, so he tried to shift the blame to Christians. This was the occasion for Tacitus to mention Christians, whom he despised. This is what he wrote—the following excerpt is translated from Latin by Robert Van Voorst:

TACIT CONFIRMATION. Roman historian Tacitus’s last major work, Annals, mentions a “Christus” who was executed by Pontius Pilate and from whom the Christians derived their name. Tacitus’s brief reference corroborates historical details of Jesus’ death from the New Testament. The pictured volume of Tacitus’s works is from the turn of the 17th century. The volume’s title page features Plantin Press’s printing mark depicting angels, a compass and the motto Labore et Constantia (“By Labor and Constancy”). Photo: Tacitus, Opera Quae Exstant, trans. by Justus Lipsius (Antwerp, Belgium: Ex officina Plantiniana, apud Joannem Moretum, 1600). Courtesy of the Philadelphia Rare Books & Manuscripts Co. (PRB&M).

[N]either human effort nor the emperor’s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts … whom the crowd called “Chrestians.” The founder of this name, Christ [Christus in Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate … Suppressed for a time, the deadly superstition erupted again not only in Judea, the origin of this evil, but also in the city [Rome], where all things horrible and shameful from everywhere come together and become popular.⁵

Tacitus’s terse statement about “Christus” clearly corroborates the New Testament on certain historical details of Jesus’ death. Tacitus presents four pieces of accurate knowledge about Jesus: (1) Christus, used by Tacitus to refer to Jesus, was one distinctive way by which some referred to him, even though Tacitus mistakenly took it for a personal name rather than an epithet or title; (2) this Christus was associated with the beginning of the movement of Christians, whose name originated from his; (3) he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea; and (4) the time of his death was during Pontius Pilate’s governorship of Judea, during the reign of Tiberius. (Many New Testament scholars date Jesus’ death to c. 29 C.E.; Pilate governed Judea in 26–36 C.E., while Tiberius was emperor 14–37 C.E.⁶)

Tacitus, like classical authors in general, does not reveal the source(s) he used. But this should not detract from our confidence in Tacitus’s assertions. Scholars generally disagree about what his sources were. Tacitus was certainly among Rome’s best historians—arguably the best of all—at the top of his game as a historian and never given to careless writing.

Earlier in his career, when Tacitus was Proconsul of Asia,⁷ he likely supervised trials, questioned people accused of being Christians and judged and punished those whom he found guilty, as his friend Pliny the Younger had done when he too was a provincial governor. Thus Tacitus stood a very good chance of becoming aware of information that he characteristically would have wanted to verify before accepting it as true.⁸

CHRESTIANS OF CHRIST. Book XV of Tacitus’s Annals is preserved in the 11th–12th-century Codex Mediceus II, a collection of medieval manuscripts now housed in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, Italy, along with other manuscripts and books that belonged to the Medici family. Highlighted above is the Latin text reading “… whom the crowd called ‘Chrestians.’ The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate …” Photo: Codex Mediceus 68 II, fol. 38r, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, Italy.

The other strong evidence that speaks directly about Jesus as a real person comes from Josephus, a Jewish priest who grew up as an aristocrat in first-century Palestine and ended up living in Rome, supported by the patronage of three successive emperors. In the early days of the first Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), Josephus was a commander in Galilee but soon surrendered and became a prisoner of war. He then prophesied that his conqueror, the Roman commander Vespasian, would become emperor, and when this actually happened, Vespasian freed him.

“From then on Josephus lived in Rome under the protection of the Flavians and there composed his historical and apologetic writings” (Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz).⁹ He even took the name Flavius, after the family name of his patron, the emperor Vespasian, and set it before his birth name, becoming, in true Roman style, Flavius Josephus.

Most Jews viewed him as a despicable traitor. It was by command of Vespasian’s son Titus that a Roman army in 70 C.E. destroyed Jerusalem and burned the Temple, stealing its contents as spoils of war, which are partly portrayed in the imagery of their gloating triumph on the Arch of Titus in Rome.¹⁰ After Titus succeeded his father as emperor, Josephus accepted the son’s imperial patronage, as he did of Titus’s brother and successor, Domitian.

Yet in his own mind, Josephus remained a Jew both in his outlook and in his writings that extol Judaism. At the same time, by aligning himself with Roman emperors who were at that time the worst enemies of the Jewish people, he chose to ignore Jewish popular opinion.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Josephus stood in a unique position as a Jew who was secure in Roman imperial patronage and protection, eager to express pride in his Jewish heritage and yet personally independent of the Jewish community at large. Thus, in introducing Romans to Judaism, he felt free to write historical views for Roman consumption that were strongly at variance with rabbinic views.

Jewish historian Josephus is pictured in the ninth-century medieval manuscript Burgerbibliothek Bern Codex under the Greek caption “Josippos Historiographer.” Photo: Burgerbibliothek Bern Cod. 50, f.2r.

In his two great works, The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, both written in Greek for educated people, Josephus tried to appeal to aristocrats in the Roman world, presenting Judaism as a religion to be admired for its moral and philosophical depth. The Jewish War doesn’t mention Jesus except in some versions in likely later additions by others, but Jewish Antiquities does mention Jesus—twice.

The shorter of these two references to Jesus (in Book 20)¹¹ is incidental to identifying Jesus’ brother James,¹² the leader of the church in Jerusalem. In the temporary absence of a Roman governor between Festus’s death and governor Albinus’s arrival in 62 C.E., the high priest Ananus instigated James’s execution. Josephus described it:

Being therefore this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, “sanhedrin”] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah … James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.¹³

James is otherwise a barely noticed, minor figure in Josephus’s lengthy tome. The sole reason for referring to James at all was that his death resulted in Ananus losing his position as high priest. James (Jacob) was a common Jewish name at this time. Many men named James are mentioned in Josephus’s works, so Josephus needed to specify which one he meant. The common custom of simply giving the father’s name (James, son of Joseph) would not work here, because James’s father’s name was also very common. Therefore Josephus identified this James by reference to his famous brother Jesus. But James’s brother Jesus (Yehoshua) also had a very common name. Josephus mentions at least 12 other men named Jesus.¹⁴ Therefore Josephus specified which Jesus he was referring to by adding the phrase “who is called Messiah,” or, since he was writing in Greek, Christos.¹⁵ This phrase was necessary to identify clearly first Jesus and, via Jesus, James, the subject of the discussion. This extraneous reference to Jesus would have made no sense if Jesus had not been a real person.

Visit the historical Jesus study page in Bible History Daily to read more free articles on Jesus.

JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS. In Jewish Antiquities, parts of which are included in this mid-17th-century book of translations, Josephus refers to a James, who is described as “the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah.” Josephus’s mention of Jesus to specify which James was being executed by the high priest Ananus in 62 C.E. affirms the existence of the historical Jesus. Photo: Josephus, Famovs and Memorable Works of Josephvs, trans. by Thomas Lodge (London: J. L. for Andrew Hebb, 1640).

Few scholars have ever doubted the authenticity of this short account. On the contrary, the huge majority accepts it as genuine.¹⁶ The phrase intended to specify which Jesus, translated “who is called Christ,” signifies either that he was mentioned earlier in the book or that readers knew him well enough to grasp the reference to him in identifying James. The latter is unlikely. First-century Romans generally had little or no idea who Christus was. It is much more likely that he was mentioned earlier in Jewish Antiquities. Also, the fact that the term “Messiah”/“Christ” is not defined here suggests that an earlier passage in Jewish Antiquities has already mentioned something of its significance.¹⁷ This phrase is also appropriate for a Jewish historian like Josephus because the reference to Jesus is a noncommittal, neutral statement about what some people called Jesus and not a confession of faith that actually asserts that he was Christ.

This phrase—“who is called Christ”—is very unlikely to have been added by a Christian for two reasons. First, in the New Testament and in the early Church Fathers of the first two centuries C.E., Christians consistently refer to James as “the brother of the Lord” or “of the Savior” and similar terms, not “the brother of Jesus,” presumably because the name Jesus was very common and did not necessarily refer to their Lord. Second, Josephus’s description in Jewish Antiquities of how and when James was executed disagrees with Christian tradition, likewise implying a non-Christian author.¹⁸

This short identification of James by the title that some people used in order to specify his brother gains credibility as an affirmation of Jesus’ existence because the passage is not about Jesus. Rather, his name appears in a functional phrase that is called for by the sense of the passage. It can only be useful for the identification of James if it is a reference to a real person, namely, “Jesus who is called Christ.”

This clear reference to Jesus is sometimes overlooked in debates about Josephus’s other, longer reference to Jesus (to be treated next). Quite a few people are aware of the questions and doubts regarding the longer mention of Jesus, but often this other clear, simple reference and its strength as evidence for Jesus’ existence does not receive due attention.

The longer passage in Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities (Book 18)¹⁹ that refers to Jesus is known as the Testimonium Flavianum.

If it has any value in relation to the question of Jesus’ existence, it counts as additional evidence for Jesus’ existence. The Testimonium Flavianum reads as follows; the parts that are especially suspicious because they sound Christian are in italics:²⁰

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.²¹ For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him, for on the third day, he appeared to them restored to life. The prophets of God had prophesied this and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out.²²

All surviving manuscripts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are in Greek, like the original, contain the same version of this passage, with no significant differences.

The main question is: Did Flavius Josephus write this entire report about Jesus and his followers, or did a forger or forgers alter it or possibly insert the whole report?²³ There are three ways to answer this question:²⁴

Alternative 1: The whole passage is authentic, written by Josephus.

Alternative 2: The whole passage is a forgery, inserted into Jewish Antiquities.

Alternative 3: It is only partly authentic, containing some material from Josephus, but also some later additions by another hand(s).

Regarding Alternative 1, today almost no scholar accepts the authenticity of the entire standard Greek Testimonium Flavianum. In contrast to the obviously Christian statement “He was the Messiah” in the Testimonium, Josephus elsewhere “writes as a passionate advocate of Judaism,” says Josephus expert Steve Mason. “Everywhere Josephus praises the excellent constitution of the Jews, codified by Moses, and declares its peerless, comprehensive qualities … Josephus rejoices over converts to Judaism. In all this, there is not the slightest hint of any belief in Jesus”²⁵ as seems to be reflected in the Testimonium.

The bold affirmation of Jesus as Messiah reads as a resounding Christian confession that echoes St. Peter himself!²⁶ It cannot be Josephus. Alternative 1 is clearly out.

Regarding Alternative 2—the whole Testimonium Flavianum is a forgery—this is very unlikely. What is said, and the expressions in Greek that are used to say it, despite a few words that don’t seem characteristic of Josephus, generally fit much better with Josephus’s writings than with Christian writings.²⁷ It is hypothetically possible that a forger could have learned to imitate Josephus’s style or that a reviser adjusted the passage to that style, but such a deep level of attention, based on an extensive, detailed reading of Josephus’s works and such a meticulous adoption of his vocabulary and style, goes far beyond what a forger or a reviser would need to do.

Even more important, the short passage (treated above) that mentions Jesus in order to identify James appears in a later section of the book (Book 20) and implies that Jesus was mentioned previously.

THE TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. This 15th-century manuscript, now in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, contains the portion of Josephus’s Testimonium Flavianum that refers to Jesus (highlighted in blue). The first sentence of the manuscript, highlighted in green, reads, from the Greek, “Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man.” The majority of scholars believe this passage of the Testimonium is based on the original writings of Josephus but contains later additions, likely made by Christian scribes. Photo: Codex Parisinus gr. 2075, 45v. Courtesy Bibliothèque Nationale de France.

The best-informed among the Romans understood Christus to be nothing more than a man’s personal name, on the level of Publius and Marcus. First-century Romans generally had no idea that calling someone “Christus” was an exalted reference, implying belief that he was the chosen one, God’s anointed. The Testimonium, in Book 18, appropriately found in the section that deals with Pilate’s time as governor of Judea,²⁸ is apparently one of Josephus’s characteristic digressions, this time occasioned by mention of Pilate. It provides background for Josephus’s only other written mention of Jesus (in Book 20), and it connects the name Jesus with his Christian followers. The short reference to Jesus in the later book depends on the longer one in the earlier (Book 18). If the longer one is not genuine, this passage lacks its essential background. Alternative 2 should be rejected.

Alternative 3—that the Testimonium Flavianum is based on an original report by Josephus²⁹ that has been modified by others, probably Christian scribes, seems most likely. After extracting what appear to be Christian additions, the remaining text appears to be pure Josephus. As a Romanized Jew, Josephus would not have presented these beliefs as his own. Interestingly, in three openly Christian, non-Greek versions of the Testimonium Flavianum analyzed by Steve Mason, variations indicate changes were made by others besides Josephus.³⁰ The Latin version says Jesus “was believed to be the Messiah.” The Syriac version is best translated, “He was thought to be the Messiah.” And the Arabic version with open coyness suggests, “He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” Alternative 3 has the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars.

We can learn quite a bit about Jesus from Tacitus and Josephus, two famous historians who were not Christian. Almost all the following statements about Jesus, which are asserted in the New Testament, are corroborated or confirmed by the relevant passages in Tacitus and Josephus. These independent historical sources—one a non-Christian Roman and the other Jewish—confirm what we are told in the Gospels:³¹

1. He existed as a man. The historian Josephus grew up in a priestly family in first-century Palestine and wrote only decades after Jesus’ death. Jesus’ known associates, such as Jesus’ brother James, were his contemporaries. The historical and cultural context was second nature to Josephus. “If any Jewish writer were ever in a position to know about the non-existence of Jesus, it would have been Josephus. His implicit affirmation of the existence of Jesus has been, and still is, the most significant obstacle for those who argue that the extra-Biblical evidence is not probative on this point,” Robert Van Voorst observes.³² And Tacitus was careful enough not to report real executions of nonexistent people.
2. His personal name was Jesus, as Josephus informs us.
3. He was called Christos in Greek, which is a translation of the Hebrew word Messiah, both of which mean “anointed” or “(the) anointed one,” as Josephus states and Tacitus implies, unaware, by reporting, as Romans thought, that his name was Christus.
4. He had a brother named James (Jacob), as Josephus reports.
5. He won over both Jews and “Greeks” (i.e., Gentiles of Hellenistic culture), according to Josephus, although it is anachronistic to say that they were “many” at the end of his life. Large growth in the number of Jesus’ actual followers came only after his death.
6. Jewish leaders of the day expressed unfavorable opinions about him, at least according to some versions of the Testimonium Flavianum.
7. Pilate rendered the decision that he should be executed, as both Tacitus and Josephus state.
8. His execution was specifically by crucifixion, according to Josephus.
9. He was executed during Pontius Pilate’s governorship over Judea (26–36 C.E.), as Josephus implies and Tacitus states, adding that it was during Tiberius’s reign.

Some of Jesus’ followers did not abandon their personal loyalty to him even after his crucifixion but submitted to his teaching. They believed that Jesus later appeared to them alive in accordance with prophecies, most likely those found in the Hebrew Bible. A well-attested link between Jesus and Christians is that Christ, as a term used to identify Jesus, became the basis of the term used to identify his followers: Christians. The Christian movement began in Judea, according to Tacitus. Josephus observes that it continued during the first century. Tacitus deplores the fact that during the second century it had spread as far as Rome.

As far as we know, no ancient person ever seriously argued that Jesus did not exist.³³ Referring to the first several centuries C.E., even a scholar as cautious and thorough as Robert Van Voorst freely observes, “… [N]o pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus’ historicity or even questioned it.”³⁴

Nondenial of Jesus’ existence is particularly notable in rabbinic writings of those first several centuries C.E.: “… [I]f anyone in the ancient world had a reason to dislike the Christian faith, it was the rabbis. To argue successfully that Jesus never existed but was a creation of early Christians would have been the most effective polemic against Christianity … [Yet] all Jewish sources treated Jesus as a fully historical person … [T]he rabbis … used the real events of Jesus’ life against him” (Van Voorst).³⁵

Thus his birth, ministry and death occasioned claims that his birth was illegitimate and that he performed miracles by evil magic, encouraged apostasy and was justly executed for his own sins. But they do not deny his existence.³⁶

Want more on Biblical figures? Read “53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically,” “New Testament Political Figures: The Evidence“ and “Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree“ by Lawrence Mykytiuk.

Lucian of Samosata (c. 115–200 C.E.) was a Greek satirist who wrote The Passing of Peregrinus, about a former Christian who later became a famous Cynic and revolutionary and died in 165 C.E. In two sections of Peregrinus—here translated by Craig A. Evans—Lucian, while discussing Peregrinus’s career, without naming Jesus, clearly refers to him, albeit with contempt in the midst of satire:

It was then that he learned the marvelous wisdom of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—what else?—in short order he made them look like children, for he was a prophet, cult leader, head of the congregation and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books, and wrote many himself. They revered him as a god, used him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector—to be sure, after that other whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.³⁷

For having convinced themselves that they are going to be immortal and live forever, the poor wretches despise death and most even willingly give themselves up. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshiping that crucified sophist himself and living according to his laws.³⁸

Although Lucian was aware of the Christians’ “books” (some of which might have been parts of the New Testament), his many bits of misinformation make it seem very likely that he did not read them. The compound term “priests and scribes,” for example, seems to have been borrowed from Judaism, and indeed, Christianity and Judaism were sometimes confused among classical authors.

Lucian seems to have gathered all of his information from sources independent of the New Testament and other Christian writings. For this reason, this writing of his is usually valued as independent evidence for the existence of Jesus.

This is true despite his ridicule and contempt for Christians and their “crucified sophist.” “Sophist” was a derisive term used for cheats or for teachers who only taught for money. Lucian despised Christians for worshiping someone thought to be a criminal worthy of death and especially despised “the man who was crucified.”

• Celsus, the Platonist philosopher, considered Jesus to be a magician who made exorbitant claims.³⁹
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor and friend of Tacitus, wrote about early Christian worship of Christ “as to a god.”⁴⁰
• Suetonius, a Roman writer, lawyer and historian, wrote of riots in 49 C.E. among Jews in Rome which might have been about Christus but which he thought were incited by “the instigator Chrestus,” whose identification with Jesus is not completely certain.⁴¹
• Mara bar Serapion, a prisoner of war held by the Romans, wrote a letter to his son that described “the wise Jewish king” in a way that seems to indicate Jesus but does not specify his identity.⁴²

Other documentary sources are doubtful or irrelevant.⁴³

One can label the evidence treated above as documentary (sometimes called literary) or as archaeological. Almost all sources covered above exist in the form of documents that have been copied and preserved over the course of many centuries, rather than excavated in archaeological digs. Therefore, although some writers call them archaeological evidence, I prefer to say that these truly ancient texts are ancient documentary sources, rather than archaeological discoveries.

Some ossuaries (bone boxes) have come to light that are inscribed simply with the name Jesus (Yeshu or Yeshua‘ in Hebrew), but no one suggests that this was Jesus of Nazareth. The name Jesus was very common at this time, as was Joseph. So as far as we know, these ordinary ossuaries have nothing to do with the New Testament Jesus. Even the ossuary from the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem, whose inscription is translated “Yeshua‘, son of Joseph,” does not refer to him.⁴⁴

As for the famous James ossuary first published in 2002,^d whose inscription is translated “Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua‘,” more smoothly rendered, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” it is unprovenanced, and it will likely take decades to settle the matter of whether it is authentic. Following well established, sound methodology, I do not base conclusions on materials whose authenticity is uncertain, because they might be forged.⁴⁵ Therefore the James ossuary, which is treated in many other publications, is not included here.⁴⁶

As a final observation: In New Testament scholarship generally, a number of specialists consider the question of whether Jesus existed to have been finally and conclusively settled in the affirmative. A few vocal scholars, however, still deny that he ever lived.⁴⁷

“Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” by Lawrence Mykytiuk originally appeared in the January/February 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily on December 8, 2014.

Lawrence Mykytiuk is associate professor of library science and the history librarian at Purdue University. He holds a Ph.D. in Hebrew and Semitic Studies and is the author of the book Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200–539 B.C.E. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004).

Notes

a. Lawrence Mykytiuk, “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible,” BAR, March/April 2014.

b. See biblicalarchaeology.org/50

c. John P. Meier, “The Testimonium,” Bible Review, June 1991.

d. See André Lemaire, “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus,” BAR, November/December 2002; Hershel Shanks, “‘Brother of Jesus’ Inscription Is Authentic!” BAR, July/August 2012.

1. I gratefully dedicate this article to my brother, Thomas S. Mykytiuk, to the memory of his wife, Nancy E. Mykytiuk, and to their growing tribe of descendants. I wish to thank Dr. Stuart D. Robertson of Purdue University, a Josephus scholar who studied under the great Louis H. Feldman, for kindly offering his comments on an early draft of this article. As the sole author, I alone am responsible for all of this article’s errors and shortcomings.

The previous BAR article is supplemented by two more persons, officials of Nebuchadnezzar II, mentioned in the “Queries and Comments” section, BAR, July/August 2014, bringing the actual total to 52. That previous article is based on my own research, because few other researchers had worked toward the twin goals I sought: first, developing the necessary methodology, and second, applying that methodology comprehensively to archaeological materials that relate to the Hebrew Bible. In contrast, this article treats an area that has already been thoroughly researched, so I have gleaned material from the best results previously obtained (may the reader pardon the many quotations).

Another contrast is that the challenge in the research that led to the previous article was to determine whether the inscriptions (down to 400 B.C.E.) actually referred to the Biblical figure. In the present article, most of the documents very clearly refer to the Jesus of the New Testament. Only in relatively few instances, such as some rabbinic texts, is the reference very unclear. The challenge in this article has been to evaluate the relative strength of the documents about Jesus as evidence, while keeping in mind whether they are independent of the New Testament.

2. Of course, the New Testament is actually a small library of texts, as is the Hebrew Bible.

3. Because Meier only covered writings of the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, his article stays within the first century. This article covers writings that originated in the first several centuries C.E. These non-Christian sources deserve to be welcomed and examined by anyone interested in the historical aspect of Scripture. At the same time, Christian sources found in the New Testament and outside of it have great value as historical evidence and are not to be discounted or dismissed.

The Gospels, for example, are loosely parallel to writings by members of a Prime Minister’s or President’s cabinet, in that they are valuable for the firsthand information they provide from inner circles (F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, Knowing Christianity [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1974], pp. 14–15). While allowance must be made for human limitations (at least lack of omniscience) and bias (such as loyalty to a particular person or deity), no good historian would completely discard them.

An example that is more to the point is Bart D. Ehrman’s strong affirmation of Jesus’ existence in his Did Jesus Exist? (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 142–174. It is based on New Testament data and is noteworthy for its down-to-earth perception. Ehrman bases his conclusion that Jesus existed on two facts: first, that the apostle Paul was personally acquainted with Jesus’ brother James and with the apostle Peter; and second, that, contrary to Jewish messianic expectation of the day, Jesus was crucified (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 173).

In the last analysis, all evidence from all sources must be considered. Both Biblical and non-Biblical sources “are in principle of equal value in the study of Jesus” (Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998], p. 23). An excellent, up-to-date resource on both Christian and non-Christian sources is Craig A. Evans, ed., Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus (New York: Routledge, 2008).

4. “As Norma Miller delightfully remarks, ‘The well-intentioned pagan glossers of ancient texts do not normally express themselves in Tacitean Latin,’ and the same could be said of Christian interpolators” (Norma P. Miller, Tacitus: Annals XV [London: Macmillan, 1971], p. xxviii, quoted in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], p. 43).

5. Annals XV.44, as translated in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 42–43. Instead of the better-documented reading, “Chrestians,” the word “Christians” appears in a more traditional translation by Alfred J. Church and William J. Brodribb, Annals of Tacitus (London: Macmillan, 1882), pp. 304–305.

6. Along with these corroborations, Tacitus’s statement also contains difficulties that might cause concern. Three that I consider the most important are treated in this note. Although debates will continue, proper use of historical background offers reasonable, tenable solutions that we may hold with confidence while remaining open to new evidence and new interpretations if they are better. Every approach has difficulties to explain. I prefer those that come with this article’s approach, because I consider them smaller and more easily resolved than the problems of other approaches.

First, it is common for scholars to observe that Pontius Pilate’s official title when he governed Judaea (26/27–36 C.E.) was not procurator, as in the quotation from Tacitus above, but praefectus (in Latin, literally, “placed in charge”; in English, prefect), as stated on the “Pilate stone” discovered in 1961. This stone was lying in the ruins of the theater in the ancient city of Caesarea Maritima, on Israel’s northern seacoast. The stone had been trimmed down to be re-used twice, so the first part of the title is broken off, but the title is not in doubt. With square brackets marking missing letters that scholars have filled in, two of its four lines read “[Po]ntius Pilate . . . [Pref]ect of Juda[ea]”:

line 2 […PO]NTIUS PILATUS
line 3 […PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E

The inscription could potentially be dated to any time in Pilate’s career, but a date between 31 and 36 C.E. seems most likely. See Clayton Miles Lehmann and Kenneth G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima, Joint Expedition to Caesarea Excavation Reports V (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000), pp. 67–70, no. 43, p. 249 Pl. XXVI.

The family name Pontius was common in some parts of Italy during that era, but the name Pilatus was “extremely rare” (A. N. Sherwin-White, “Pilate, Pontius,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986], p. 867). Because of the rarity of the name Pilatus and because only one Pontius Pilatus was ever the Roman governor of Judea, this identification should be regarded as completely certain.

It is possible that “procurator” in the quotation above is a simple error, but the historical background reveals that it is not so much an error as it is an anachronism—something placed out of its proper time, whether intentionally or by accident. As emperor until 14 C.E., Augustus gave governors of western and southern Judea the title praefectus. But later, Claudius (r. 41–54 C.E.) began conferring the title procurator pro legato, “procurator acting as legate” on new provincial governors. A procurator, literally, “caretaker,” was a steward who managed financial affairs on behalf of the owner. Roman governmental procurators managed taxes and estates on behalf of the emperor and had administrative duties. The English verb to procure is derived from the same root.

From then on, the title procurator replaced praefectus in many Roman provinces, including Judea. “So the early governors of western and southern Judea, after it became a Roman province in A.D. 6, were officially entitled praefecti. Later writers, however, usually referred to them anachronistically as procurators or the Greek equivalent …” (A. N. Sherwin-White, “Procurator,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 979.)

Writing in 116 or 117 C.E., Tacitus, who was above all a careful writer, might have intentionally chosen to use the then-current title procurator in keeping with the anachronistic way of speaking that was common in his day. Even today, we accept titles used anachronistically. One might read comparable statements about “U.S. Secretaries of Defense from Henry Stimson during World War II to Chuck Hagel,” even though Stimson’s actual title was Secretary of War, and the current title is Secretary of Defense. Readers who are unfamiliar with Stimson’s title would nevertheless understand which position he held in the government.

Whether procurator was used intentionally or not, in effect this anachronistic term helped readers quickly understand Pilate’s official position and avoided confusing people who were not familiar with the older title.

The second difficulty is that Tacitus’s word for “Christians” is spelled two different ways in existing Latin manuscripts of Annals: both Christianoi and Chrestianoi. The name Chrestus, meaning “good, kind, useful, beneficent,” was commonly given to slaves who served Roman masters. In spoken conversation, people in Rome could easily have mistakenly heard the Latinized foreign word Christus as the familiar name Chrestus. Chrestianoi, “good, kind, useful ones,” is found in the oldest surviving manuscript of this passage in Tacitus.

[T]he original hand of the oldest surviving manuscript, the Second Medicean (eleventh century), which is almost certainly the source of all other surviving manuscripts, reads Chrestianoi, “Chrestians.” A marginal gloss “corrects” it to Christianoi. Chrestianoi is to be preferred as the earliest and most difficult reading and is adopted by the three current critical editions and the recent scholarship utilizing them. It also makes better sense in context. Tacitus is correcting, in a way typical of his style of economy, the misunderstanding of the “crowd” (vulgus) by stating that the founder of this name (auctor nominis eius) is Christus, not the name implicitly given by the crowd, Chrestus. Tacitus could have written auctor superstitionis, “the founder of this superstition,” or something similar, but he calls attention by his somewhat unusual phrase to the nomen [name] of the movement in order to link it directly—and correctly—to the name of Christ (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 43–44. See also John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library [New York: Doubleday, 1991], p. 100, note 7.).

It is very common for ancient classical writings to be represented by manuscripts that were copied many centuries later. For example, the earliest manuscript of the Odyssey is from the 900s C.E., yet it is traditionally ascribed to the blind Greek poet Homer, who is dated variously from about the 800s to the 500s B.C.E., roughly 1,400 to 1,700 years earlier. Similarly, it is not unusual for the earliest surviving manuscripts of various works of the Greek philosopher Plato to date from over 1,000 years after he wrote.

For a technical, critical discussion of Christus and Chrestus in English, see Robert Renahan, “Christus or Chrestus in Tacitus?” Past and Present 23 (1968), pp. 368–370.

The third difficulty is more apparent than real: Why did it take about 85 years for a classical author such as Tacitus to write about Jesus, whose crucifixion occurred c. 29 C.E.? (The A.D. system, devised by the Christian Scythian monk Dionysius Exiguus [“Dennis the Small”] in the 525 C.E. and used in our present-day calendar, was not perfectly set on the exact year of Jesus’ birth, though it was close. As a result, Jesus was born within the years we now refer to as 6 to 4 B.C.E. That would put the beginning of his ministry, around age 30 (Luke 3:23), at c. 25 C.E. In the widely held view that Jesus’ ministry lasted 3.5 years before his death, a reasonable date for the crucifixion is c. 29 C.E.)

The following two observations made by F. F. Bruce are relevant to works by Tacitus and by several other classical writers who mention Jesus:

1. Surprisingly few classical writings, comparatively speaking, survive from the period of about the first 50 years of the Christian church (c. 29 to 80 C.E.). (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, p. 17.)
2. Roman civilization paid almost no attention to obscure religious leaders in faraway places, such as Jesus in Judea—just as today’s Western nations pay almost no attention to religious leaders in remote parts of the world, unless the national interest is involved. Rome became concerned only when Christians grew numerous. (Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, pp. 17–18. For thorough discussion, see Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 68–71.)

A time factor that affects Tacitus in particular is:

3. In the Annals, the reference to Jesus appears only in connection with the cruel treatment of Christians in Rome by Nero, as part of a biography of Nero (d. 68 C.E.). By happenstance, Tacitus did not get around to composing Nero’s biography until the last group of narratives he wrote before he died. A writer for most of his life, Tacitus began with works on oratory, ethnography of German tribes and other subjects. His book Histories, written c. 100–110, which covers the reigns of later Roman emperors after Nero, was actually written before his book Annals, which covers the earlier reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero. Thus Tacitus wrote his biography of Nero at the end of his career.

7. Asia was the name of a Roman province in what is now western Turkey (Asia Minor).
8. Perhaps he compared it to Roman records, whether in general governmental archives or in records concerning various religions. I have read one analysis by an author who arbitrarily assumes that Tacitus got his information only from Christians—no other source. Then, on the sole basis of the author’s own assumption, the analysis completely dismisses Tacitus’s clear historical statement about “Christus.” This evaluation is based on opinion, not evidence. It also undervalues Tacitus’s very careful writing and his discernment as a historian. He likely had access to some archives through his status, either as Proconsul of Asia, as a senator—or, as is often overlooked, from his connections as a high-ranking priest of Roman religion. In 88 C.E., he became “a member of the Quindecimviri Sacris Faciundis [“The Board of Fifteen for Performing Sacrifices”], the priestly organization charged, among other things, with … supervising the practice of officially tolerated foreign cults in the city … [and facing] the growing necessity to distinguish illicit Christianity from licit Judaism” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 52), or, given Jewish resistance to oppressive measures taken by Rome, at least to keep a close watch on developments within Judaism. Indeed, “a Roman archive … is particularly suggested by the note of the temporary suppression of the superstition, which indicates an official perspective” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 83). Membership in this priestly regulatory group very likely gave Tacitus access to at least some of the accurate knowledge he possessed about Christus. With characteristic brevity, he reported the facts as he understood them, quickly dismissing the despised, executed Christus from the Annals (see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 90).

Tacitus himself tells us … that in 88 [C.E.] both in his capacity as priest of the college of quindecimviri sacris faciundis and as a praetor he had been present at and had paid close attention to the ludi saeculares [“secular games”] celebrated by Domitian in that year… [Annals, XI.11, 3–4]. It rather sounds as if he took his religious office seriously …

Tacitus presents himself as a man concerned to preserve traditional Roman religious practice, convinced that when religious matters are allowed to slide or are completely disregarded, the gods will vent their anger on the Roman people to correct their error. What on his view angers the gods is not so much failure to observe the niceties of ritual practice, as disdain for the moral order that the gods uphold” (Matthew W. Dickie, “Magic in the Roman Historians,” in Richard Lindsay Gordon and Francisco Marco Simón, eds., Magical Practice in the Latin West: Papers from the International Conference Held at the University of Zaragoza, 30 Sept. – 1st Oct. 2005, Religions in the Greco-Roman World, vol. 168 [Leiden: Brill, 2010], pp. 82, 83).

Tacitus was in his twenties in 79 C.E., when an eruption of Mt. Vesuvius annihilated the city of Pompeii. One can reasonably suppose how he might have interpreted this disaster in relation to the Roman gods.

9. Quoted from Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 64.

10. Titus’s troops captured and treated as war booty the sacred menorah that had stood in the holy place inside the Temple. See articles on the menorah as depicted on the Arch of Titus, in Yeshiva University’s Arch of Titus Digital Restoration Project, etc., at yeshiva.academia.edu/StevenFine/Menorah-Arch-of-Titus-Digital-Restoration-Project.

11. Jewish Antiquities, XX.200 (or, in Whiston’s translation of Jewish Antiquities, XX.9.1).

12. James’s name was actually Jacob. Odd as it may seem, the English name James is ultimately derived from the Hebrew name Jacob.

13. Jewish Antiquities, XX.9.1 in Whiston’s translation (§200 in scholarly editions), as translated by Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 57. Meier’s original passage includes the phrases in square brackets [ ]. The omitted words indicated by the ellipsis (…) are in Greek, to let scholars know what words are translated into English.

14. Winter asserts that Josephus mentions about twelve others named Jesus. Feldman puts that number at 21. See Paul Winter, “Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James: Ant. xviii 3, 3 (63–64) and xx 9,1 (200–203),” in Emil Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3 vols., rev. and ed. by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and Martin Goodman (Edinburgh: Clark, 1973–1987), vol. 1, p. 431; Louis H. Feldman, “Introduction,” in Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1987), p. 56.

15. See Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, pp. 57–58. Messiah, the Hebrew term for “anointed (one),” came through Greek translation (Christos) into English as Christ.

16. See Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 59, note 12; pp. 72–73, note 12.

17. Richard T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, The Jesus Library (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1986), p. 26.

18. Josephus says James was executed by stoning before the Jewish War began, but Christian tradition says he was executed during the Jewish War by being thrown from a height of the Temple, then, after an attempt to stone him was prevented, finally being clubbed to death. See Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 58.

19. XVIII.63–64 (in Whiston’s translation: XVIII.3.3).

20. It was modern scholar John P. Meier who put these passages in italics.

21. Christians believe that Jesus was fully human, but also fully Divine, having two natures in one person. To refer to him as “a wise man,” as the earlier part of the sentence does, would seem incomplete to a Christian. This clause seems intended to lead toward the two boldly Christian statements that come later.

22. This straightforward translation from Greek, in which I have italicized three phrases, is by Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, pp. 65–66.

In his Bible Review article (Meier, “The Testimonium,” Bible Review, June 1991, p. 23), John P. Meier subtracts these three apparently Christian portions from the Testimonium. What remains is a very plausible suggestion, possibly the authentic, smoothly flowing report written by Flavius Josephus—or very close to it. Here is the remainder:

Around this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who did surprising deeds, and a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who in the first place came to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, have still to this day not died out (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, pp. 65–66, after deleting the apparent Christian additions as Meier would).

23. Regarding differing religious convictions of readers that have generated disagreements about this passage at least since medieval times, see Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Studies in Biblical Literature, vol. 36 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003). Whealey’s observations in her conclusion, pp. 203–207, may be summarized as follows:

In the High Middle Ages (c. 1050–1350), Jewish scholars claimed it was a Christian forgery that was inserted into Josephus’s text, and Christians simply claimed it was entirely authentic. The problem was that with few exceptions, both sides argued from a priori assumptions with no critical examination of evidence. In the late 1500s and the 1600s, some Protestant scholars made the public charge of forgery. By the mid-1700s, based on textual evidence, scholarly opinion had rejected the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum and the controversy largely ended for over two centuries.

Twentieth-century scholars, however, revived the controversy on the basis of “new” variations of the text and whole works from ancient times that had been overlooked. Instead of the generally Protestant character of the earlier controversy, the controversy that began in the twentieth century is “more academic and less sectarian … marked by the presence of Jewish scholars for the first time as prominent participants on both sides of the question, and in general the attitudes of Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and secular scholars towards the text have drawn closer together” (p. 206).

24. Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 65–69. Meier, “The Testimonium,” Bible Review, June 1991, gives the third answer.

25. Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), p. 229.

26. Matthew 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20.

27. According to Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, pp. 66–67, unless otherwise noted, these phrases that are characteristic of Josephus include: 1) Calling Jesus “a wise man” and calling his miracles “surprising deeds”; 2) Use of one of Josephus’s favorite phrases, “accept the truth gladly,” that in the “gladly” part includes the Greek word for “pleasure” which for Christian writers of this era, as a rule, had a bad connotation; 3) The reference to attracting “many of the Greeks” (meaning Hellenistic Gentiles), which fits better with Rome in Josephus’s time than with the references to Gentiles in the Gospels, which are few (such as John 12:20–22). On the style being that of Josephus, see also Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 89–91; 4) “The execution of Jesus by Pilate on the denunciation of the Jewish authorities shows acquaintance with legal conditions in Judaea and contradicts the tendency of the Christian reports of the trial of Jesus, which incriminate the Jews but play down Pilate’s responsibility” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 67); 5) Calling Christians a “tribe” tends to show a Jewish perspective.

28. On whether the Testimonium Flavianum interrupts the structure of its literary context, see Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, pp. 67–68, under “The interpolation hypothesis.” They describe E. Norden’s analysis (in German) of the context in Jewish Antiquities. Also see France, Evidence for Jesus, pp. 27–28, which mentions that Josephus’s typical sequencing includes digressions. Josephus’s key vocabulary regarding revolts is absent from the section on Jesus, perhaps removed by a Christian copyist who refused to perpetuate Josephus’s portrayal of Jesus as a real or potential rebel political leader.

29. Various scholars have suggested that Josephus’s original text took a hostile view of Jesus, but others, that it took a neutral to slightly positive view of him. See Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, pp. 68–71 (hostile views) and pp. 71–74 (neutral to slightly positive views).

30. Josephus scholar Steve Mason observes, “Long after Eusebius, in fact, the text of the testimonium remained fluid. Jerome (342–420), the great scholar who translated the Bible and some of Eusebius into Latin, gives a version that agrees closely with standard text, except that the crucial phrase says of Jesus, ‘He was believed to be the Messiah’” (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p. 230, italics his. A decades-long, simmering debate continues about whether Jerome’s translation accurately represents what Josephus wrote.).

Besides Jerome’s Latin version, other examples of variation in manuscripts that are mentioned by Mason include an Arabic rendering and a version in Syriac. The Syriac language developed from Aramaic and is the (or an) official language of some branches of Orthodox Christianity.

A passage in a tenth-century Arabic Christian manuscript written by a man named Agapius appears to be a version of the Testimonium Flavianum. Shlomo Pines gives the following translation from the Arabic:

Similarly Josephus [Yūsīfūs] the Hebrew. For he says that in the treatises that he has written on the governance [?] of the Jews: ‘At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

This is what is said by Josephus and his companions of our Lord the Messiah, may he be glorified (Shlomo Pines, An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and Its Implications [Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1971), pp. 8–10).

Feldman thinks that Agapius mixed in source material from writers besides Josephus and provided “a paraphrase, rather than a translation” (Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937–1980 [New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984], p. 701). John P. Meier tends not to attribute much significance to Agapius’s description of the Testimonium Flavianum; see Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, pp. 78–79, note 37.

Of the three apparently Christian portions that are italicized in the translation of the Greek text above, the first is missing, and the other two are phrased as neutral statements (“they reported” he was alive, “he was perhaps” the Messiah), rather than as affirmations of Christian faith, such as, “He was” the Messiah, “He appeared” alive again.

Mason also refers to Pines’s translation of a version in Syriac found in the writings of Michael, the Patriarch of Antioch:

The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this] day” (Pines, Arabic Version, pp. 26–27).

Pines adds a note about the Syriac text of the sentence “He was thought to be the Messiah”: “This sentence may also be translated Perhaps he was the Messiah.”

These Latin, Arabic and Syriac versions most likely represent genuine, alternative textual traditions. “The Christian dignitaries who innocently report these versions as if they came from Josephus had no motive, it seems, to weaken their testimony to Jesus” (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p. 231). Actually, Christians tended to make references to Jesus more glorious. Nor is there any indication that anti-Christian scribes reduced the references to Jesus from glorious to mundane, which would likely have been accompanied by disparagement. “It seems probable, therefore, that the versions of Josephus’s statement given by Jerome, Agapius and Michael reflect alternative textual traditions of Josephus which did not contain” the bold Christian confessions that appear in the standard Greek version (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, p. 231). They contain variations that exhibit a degree of the fluidity that Mason emphasizes (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, pp. 230–231). But these versions are not so different that they are unrecognizable as different versions of the Testimonium Flavianum. They use several similar phrases and refer to the same events, presenting phrases and events in a closely similar order, with few exceptions. Thus, along with enough agreement among the standard Greek text and the non-Greek versions to reveal a noteworthy degree of stability, their differences clearly exhibit the work of other hands after Josephus. (It is by this stability that we may recognize many lengthy additions and disagreements with the manuscript texts of the Testimonium Flavianum that are found in a passage sometimes called the Testimonium Slavianum that was apparently inserted into the Old Russian translation, called the Slavonic version, of Josephus’s other major work, The Jewish War.)

In the process of finding the similarities of phrases and references in extant manuscripts, one can come to recognize that the standard Greek form of the Testimonium Flavianum is simply one textual tradition among several. On balance, the Greek version is not necessarily supreme over all other textual traditions (Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, pp. 234–236). Despite a degree of stability in the text, the fluidity that is evident in various textual traditions is plain evidence that what Josephus wrote was later altered. When viewed from the standpoint of the Latin, Arabic and Syriac versions, the Greek text looks deliberately altered to make Josephus seem to claim that Jesus was the Messiah, possibly by omitting words that indicated that people called him Christos or thought, said, reported or believed that he was. Also, although of course the evidence is the crucial factor, alternative 3 also happens to have the support of the overwhelming majority of scholars, far more than any other view.

31. Almost all of the following points are listed and elaborated in Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 99–102.

32. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 99.

33. “The non-Christian testimonies to Jesus … show that contemporaries in the first and second century saw no reason to doubt Jesus’ existence” (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus, p. 63).

34. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 15. His footnote attached to this sentence states, with reference to Justin Martyr:

The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin’s Jewish interlocutor, states, “But [the] Christ—if indeed he has been born and exists anywhere—is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing.” This may be a faint statement of a nonexistence hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue, in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 15, note 35).

Even in this statement, in which Trypho tries to imply that an existing report of Jesus as the Christ is erroneous, his reason is not necessarily that Jesus did not exist. Rather, he might well have wanted to plant the doubt that—although Jesus existed, as Trypho consistently assumes throughout the rest of the dialogue— the “report” that Jesus was the Christ was “groundless,” and that later on, someone else might arise who would prove to be the true Christ. Trypho was attempting to raise hypothetical doubt without here stating any actual grounds for doubt. These suggestions, more likely taunts, from Trypho, which he immediately abandons, cannot be regarded as an argument, let alone a serious argument. They are simply an unsupported doubt, apparently regarding Jesus’ being the Messiah.

35. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 133–134.

36. The chief difficulty in working with rabbinic writings that might be about Jesus is that

it is not always clear if Jesus (variously called Yeshua or Yeshu, with or without the further designation ha-Noṣri [meaning “the Nazarene”]) is in fact the person to whom reference is being made, especially when certain epithets are employed (e.g. Balaam, Ben Pandira, Ben Stada, etc. … Another serious problem in making use of these traditions is that it is likely that none of it is independent of Christian sources (Craig A. Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research, 2nd impression, New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 6 (Boston: Brill, 1998, 1994), pp. 443–444).

Thus Van Voorst finds that “most passages alleged to speak about him in code do not in fact do so, or are so late as to have no value” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 129).

From among the numerous rabbinic traditions, many of which seem puzzling in their potential references to Jesus, a fairly clear example is as follows:

And it is tradition: On the eve of the Passover they hanged Yeshu ha-Noṣri. And the herald went forth before him for forty days, “Yeshu ha-Noṣri is to be stoned, because he has practiced magic and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and speak concerning him.” And they found nothing in his favor. And they hanged him on the eve of the Passover. Ulla says, “Would it be supposed that Yeshu ha-Noṣri was one for whom anything in his favor might be said? Was he not a deceiver? And the Merciful has said, ‘Thou shalt not spare, neither shalt thou conceal him’ [Deuteronomy 13:8]. But it was different with Yeshu ha-Noṣri, for he was near to the kingdom’” (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a; compare Sanhedrin 67a).

The following paragraph summarizes Craig A. Evans’s comments on the above quotation from the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a:

According to John 18:28 and 19:14, Jesus’ execution occurred during Passover. The phrase “near to the kingdom” might refer to the Christian tradition that Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1; Mark 10:47, 48), or it could refer to Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom of God was at hand (Mark 1:15). Deuteronomy 13:1–11 prescribes death by stoning for leading other Israelites astray to serve other gods, giving a sign or wonder, and Deuteronomy 21:21–22 requires that “when a man has committed a sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, you shall hang him on a tree” (compare the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 6:4, “All who have been stoned must be hanged”). When Judea came under Roman rule, which instituted crucifixion as a legal punishment, apart from the question of whether it was just or unjust, Jews roughly equated it with hanging on a tree. (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 448)

The passage above simultaneously implies the rabbis’ view that Jesus really existed and encapsulates the rabbis’ uniformly negative view of his miracles as magic and his teachings as deceit (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 120).

37. Passing of Peregrinus, §11, as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 462.

38. This paragraph is a separate quotation from Passing of Peregrinus, §11, again as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 462.

39. On Celsus: in c. 176 C.E., Celsus, a Platonist philosopher in Alexandria, wrote The True Word (this title is also translated as The True Doctrine, or The True Discourse, or The True Account, etc.) to lodge his severe criticisms of Judaism and Christianity. Although that work has not survived, it is quoted and paraphrased in Origen’s reply in defense of Christianity, Against Celsus (c. 248 C.E.). Prominent among his many accusations to which Origen replies is as follows:

Next he makes the charge of the savior that it was by magic that he was able to do the miracles which he appeared to have done, and foreseeing that others also, having learned the same lessons and being haughty to act with the power of God, are about to do the same thing, such persons Jesus would drive away from his own society.

For he says, “He was brought up in secret and hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and having tried his hand at certain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those powers gave himself the title of God” (Origen, Against Celsus, 1.6, 38, as translated in Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 460).

It is unknown whether Celsus became aware of information about Jesus, including reports of his miracles, from the Gospel tradition(s) or independently of them. Thus it cannot be said that Celsus adds any new historical material about Jesus, though it is clear that in accusing Jesus of using magic for personal gain, Celsus assumed his existence.

Charges that Jesus was a magician are common in ancient writings, and Christian replies have been published even very recently. Evans refers readers to “an assessment of the polemic that charges Jesus with sorcery”: Graham N. Stanton, “Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God’s People?” in Joel B. Green and Max Turner, eds., Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, I. Howard Marshall Festschrift (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 166–182 (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 460, note 45).

40. On Pliny the Younger: A friend of Tacitus, and like him the governor of a Roman province (in 110 C.E.), Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (c. 61–113 C.E.), known as Pliny, seems to have been excessively dependent on the Emperor Trajan for directions on how to govern. In his lengthy correspondence with Trajan, titled Epistles, X.96, along with his inquiries about how to treat people accused of being Christians, Pliny wrote:

They [the Christians] assured me that the sum total of their error consisted in the fact that that they regularly assembled on a certain day before daybreak. They recited a hymn antiphonally to Christus as to a god and bound themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and embezzlement of property entrusted to them. After this, it was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to partake of a meal, but an ordinary and innocent one (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 459)

The things that Pliny wrote about Christians can be found in or deduced from the New Testament. He reveals nothing new about Jesus himself, nor can his letters be considered evidence for Jesus’ existence, only for Christian belief in his existence. One may note what seems to have been early second century Christian belief in Jesus as deity, as well as the sizable population of Christians worshiping him in Pliny’s province, Bithynia, in Asia Minor, despite Roman prohibition and punishments.

41. On Suetonius: In c. 120 C.E., the Roman writer, lawyer and historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c. 70–140 C.E.), a friend of Pliny, wrote the following in his history, On the Lives of the Caesars, speaking of an event in 49 C.E.: “He [Claudius] expelled the Jews from Rome, because they were always making disturbances because of the instigator Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 30).

In the first place, the term “the Jews” could refer to Christians, whom Romans viewed as members of a Jewish sect. So the “disturbances” could be understood as riots among Jews, among Christians viewed as Jews, or, most likely, between those whom we would call Jews and Christians.

The use of the name “Chrestus” creates more ambiguity in this passage than the term “Chrestians” did in the passage in Tacitus treated above. Tacitus implicitly corrected the crowd. Here, with Suetonius speaking of events in 49 C.E., we have two options to choose from. The first option is that it’s a spelling of a mispronunciation of Christus, which Romans thought was Jesus’ name. If so, then Suetonius misunderstood Christus, whom he called “Chrestus,” to be an instigator. Suetonius’s key appositive phrase, “impulsore Chresto,” is much more accurately translated “the instigator Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 31) than the usual “at the instigation of Chrestus” (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 29). Another logical result would be that the uproarious disputes in 49 C.E. were actually disturbances sparked by disagreement about who Jesus was and/or what he said and did. Considering the two sides, namely, the rabbinic view that he was a magician and deceitful teacher, versus early Christians whose worship was directed to him “as to a god” (as described from the Roman perspective of Pliny the Younger), one can see how synagogues could become deeply divided.

The second option is that it refers to an otherwise unknown “instigator” of disturbances who bore the common name of slaves and freedmen, Chrestus. Actually, among hundreds of Jewish names in the catacombs of Rome, there is not one instance of Chrestus being the name of a Jew (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, p. 33). For this and other reasons, it seems more likely that Suetonius, who often uncritically repeated errors in his sources, was referring to Christus, that is, Jesus, but misunderstood him to be an agitator who lived in Rome in 49 C.E. (Van Voorst, Jesus Outside, pp. 29–39).

42. On Mara bar Serapion: In the last quarter of the first century C.E., a prisoner of war following the Roman conquest of Samosata (see under Lucian), Mara bar Serapion wrote a letter to his son, Serapion. In Stoic fashion, he wanted his son to seek wisdom in order to handle life’s misfortunes with virtue and composure.

For what advantage did the Athenians gain by the murder of Socrates, the recompense of which they received in famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, because in one hour their country was entirely covered in sand? Or the Jews by the death of their wise king, because from that same time their kingdom was taken away? God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” pp. 455–456)

All we know of the author comes from this letter. Mara does not seem to have been a Christian, because he does not refer to a resurrection of Jesus and because his terminology, such as “wise king,” is not the usual Christian way of referring to Jesus. It is entirely possible that Mara received some knowledge of Jesus from Christians but did not name him for fear of displeasing his own Roman captors. His nameless reference makes the identification of “the wise king” as Jesus, though reasonable, still somewhat uncertain.

43. Doubtful sources contain “second- and third-hand traditions that reflect for the most part vague acquaintance with the Gospel story and controversies with Christians. These sources offer nothing independent” (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 443). Doubtful sources include the following:

Many rabbinic sources, including the Sepher Toledot Yeshu, “The Book of the Generations of Jesus” (meaning his ancestry or history; compare Matthew 1:1). It might be generally datable to as early as the eighth century C.E. but “may well contain a few oral traditions that go back to the third century.” It is “nothing more than a late collection of traditions, from Christian as well as from Jewish sources … full of fictions assembled for the primary purpose of anti-Christian polemic and propaganda,” and has no historical value regarding the question of Jesus’ existence (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 450).

The Slavonic (or Old Russian) Version of Josephus’s Jewish War “contains numerous passages … [which] tell of Jesus’ amazing deeds, of the jealousy of the Jewish leaders, of bribing Pilate,” etc. (Evans, “Jesus in Non-Christian Sources,” p. 451). These additions have no demonstrated historical value. The Yosippon (or Josippon) is a medieval source which appears in many versions, often with many additions. Its core is a Hebrew version of portions of Josephus’s writings that offers nothing from before the fourth century C.E. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain no contemporary references to Jesus or his followers. Islamic traditions either depend on the New Testament or are not clearly traceable to the early centuries C.E.

44. Regarding archaeological discoveries, along with many other scholars, I do not find that the group of ossuaries (bone boxes) discovered in the East Talpiot district of Jerusalem can be used as a basis for any conclusions about Jesus of Nazareth or his family. See the variety of views presented in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Tomb of Jesus and His Family? Exploring Ancient Jewish Tombs Near Jerusalem’s Walls (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), especially the essay by Rachel Hachlili, “What’s in a Name?” pp. 125–149. She concludes, “In light of all the above the East Talpiot tomb is a Jewish family tomb with no connection to the historical Jesus family; it is not the family tomb of Jesus and most of the presented facts for the identification are speculation and guesswork” (p. 143).

45. See Nili S. Fox, In the Service of the King: Officialdom in Ancient Israel and Judah, Monographs of the Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 2000), pp. 23–32; Christopher A. Rollston, “Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests,” Maarav 10 (2003), pp. 135–193, and his “Non-Provenanced Epigraphs II: The Status of Non-Provenanced Epigraphs within the Broader Corpus of Northwest Semitic,” Maarav 11 (2004), pp. 57–79.

46. See Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Ossuaries (Waco, TX: Baylor Univ. Press, Markham Press Fund, 2003), pp. 112–115. Regarding identification of the people named in the James ossuary inscription, even if it is authentic, the question as to whether it refers to Jesus of Nazareth has not been clearly settled. It is worth observing that its last phrase, “the brother of Jesus,” whose authenticity is disputed, is not the characteristic Christian way of referring to Jesus, which would be “the brother of the Lord,” but this observation hardly settles the question.

47. On G. A. Wells and Michael Martin, see Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), pp. 27–46. On others who deny Jesus’ existence, see Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? , especially pp. 61–64, 177–264.

The post Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The largest coin struck by King Herod the Great. Photo: Copyright 2010 by David Hendin, from Guide to Biblical Coins, 5th Edition.

Fifty-three people from the Hebrew Bible have been confirmed by archaeology. What about the New Testament?  In three articles for Biblical Archaeology Review—“Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible”, “New Testament Political Figures Confirmed”, and “New Testament Religious Figures Confirmed”—Purdue University scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk examines the religious and political figures in the New Testament who can be identified in the archaeological record and extra-biblical writings. Below, see Mykytiuk’s extensive evidence, covering Jesus and John the Baptist to King Herod and his royal family.—Ed.

Evidence Guide

• New Testament Figures Evidence Chart
• Sample Evidences from Ancient Writings and Archaeology
• “Almost Real” People
• People Not Clearly Documented Outside the New Testament
• Abbreviations and References

BAS Library Subscribers: Read Lawrence Mykytiuk’s articles

• Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible in the January/February 2015 issue
• New Testament Political Figures Confirmed in the September/October 2017 issue
• New Testament Religious Figures Confirmed in the Summer 2021 issue

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

If charts are not displaying correctly, make sure your browser window is maximized to full screen.

New Testament Figures Evidence Chart

FREE ebook: Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries. Finds like the Pool of Siloam in Israel, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored sight to a blind man.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Sample Evidences from Ancient Writings and Archaeology

This list does not pretend to be exhaustive in its coverage of the evidence. As the above title indicates, the evidences listed below are intended as samples of both kinds of evidence: ancient writings (manuscripts) and ancient inscriptions (normally on hard objects, such as potsherds). In a few instances, given the ravages of time and the somewhat haphazard nature of archaeological excavations, we have ancient writings but lack inscriptions that are known to be authentic.

Why consider historical evidence from outside the New Testament?

In order to evaluate the historical reliability of any ancient writing, in the last analysis, established historical methodology calls for all evidence to be considered, whether from inside or outside of that writing. Thus many readers who are already familiar with the New Testament are very interested in the external evidence. Likewise, historians of the world to which the New Testament writings refer are obliged to consider relevant evidence or potential evidence in these writings.

1. Jesus.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–64; 20.200.
Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus 11.
Celsus, On the True Doctrine (via Origen, Against Celsus).
Pliny the Younger, Epistulae 10.96.

2. Gamaliel the Elder, renowned Pharisee.
Mishnah: Orlah 2.12a; Rosh ha-Shanah 2.5e; Yebamoth 16.7e, h; Sotah 9.15e, l; and Gittin 4.2b, e, 4.3c.
Josephus, Life 38.

3. John the Baptist.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.116–119.

4. James, brother of Jesus.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.200–201.

5. Ananus/Annas, son of Seth/Sethi, High Priest.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.26; 18.34–35; 20.198.

There is also potential but inconclusive archae­ological evidence for the same high priest Annas. His tomb may have been uncovered in the Akeldama field south of Jerusalem’s walls.

6. Caiaphas, High Priest.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.35; 18.95.

An archaeological find might poten­tially identify the high priest Caiaphas, but it does not provide enough information to draw a firm conclusion. It is a small family tomb, containing ossuaries, on the south side of old Jerusalem. An Aramaic inscription on one of the ossuaries contains at least one possible version of Caiaphas’s name: Yhwsf br Qyf’, “Joseph, son of Caiaphas,” but it seems more likely to be read as Yhwsf br Qwf’, “Joseph, son of Qopha,” rather than “of Caiaphas.” On another ossuary in the same family tomb, the name Qf’ appears alone. Unfortunately, none of the inscriptions discov­ered in this tomb makes any explicit reference to the priestly status of anyone buried there.

7. Ananias, son of Nebedaios, High Priest.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.103; 20.179.

During the 1960s at Masada, in a room in the fortress wall, excavators discovered a small inscription that might relate to Ananias. Written across a potsherd, the inscription consists of five Aramaic words: H[nny]h khn’ rb’ ‘qby’ bryh, translated “H[anania]h the high priest, ‘Aqavia his son.” Hananiah in Hebrew can be translated Ananias or Ananus (or Annas) in Greek. Extant ancient writings do not mention this son in relation to the high priest Ananias. Although the high priest Ananias is a candidate, two other high priests of the first century C.E., Ananus the Elder and the Younger, are also candidates, and we do not have enough information to know to which one the inscription refers.

8-11. Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero.
The four Roman emperors mentioned in the New Testament are all abundantly verified in the writings of Roman historians, such as Tacitus’s Annals, which mentions all four, as well as in Josephus’s writings and in many inscriptions. For these, no further verification is needed. (Gaius, nicknamed “Caligula,” the Roman emperor after Tiberius, goes unmentioned in the New Testament.)

12. Herod I, the Great, Rome’s King of the Jews.
Josephus, Antiquities 14.14.4, 15.6.7
Josephus, Wars 1.33.8‒9
Coins:
At Masada, 393 coins of Herod the Great were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, p. 71, pp. 87–91 no. 110–502, Plate 62 no. 115–461. These coins from Masada have the inscription, “Of King Herod,” in Greek, sometimes abbreviated to only a few letters.
At Meiron, 6 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, pp. 21–22 no. 200–205, p. 127 (photographic plate) no. 200, 202, 203.
At Herodium, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Herodium, p. 75 no. 2.
At Tel Anafa, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins 1968–1986 Tel Anafa, p. 253 no. 249; also in Ancient Jewish Coinage 2, p. 237, type 17.
At Caesarea Maritima, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Caesarea Maritima, p. 138.

13. Herod Archelaus, Ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria and Idumea.
Josephus, Antiquities 17.8.2‒4, 17.13.1‒3, 18.2.1
Josephus, Wars 1.33.9, 2.6.1‒3, 2.7.3

Coins:
In the inscriptions in Greek on all his coins, he calls himself only “Herod” or “Herod the Ethnarch” (sometimes abbreviated), never using his name Archelaus.
At Masada, 176 coins of Herod Archelaus were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 91‒93, and Plate 63 no. 503–677 (with gaps among numbered photographs).
In various parts of Palestine, including Galilee and Transjordan, other coins of Archelaus have been discovered, according to Treasury of Jewish Coins, p. 85.

14. Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.1, 18.2.3, 18.4.5, 18.5.1, 18.5.2, 18.7.1
Josephus, Wars 2.9.1, 2.9.6

Coins:
Archaeology confirms his rule and title of Tetrarch (of Galilee and Perea) on several coins with the inscription “Of Herod the Tetrarch” in Greek, without giving his name Antipas. Also inscribed on some of his coins is the name of a city, “Tiberias,” which Antipas founded in Galilee and where he built a mint that produced these coins. Josephus’s writings and modern analysis of Jewish coins reveal that the only tetrarch named Herod who ever ruled Galilee was Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas apparently produced fewer coins than his father and brothers did, and according to the dates inscribed on his coins compared with theirs, he minted them less often. As a result, fewer have been recovered in excavations.
Near Tiberias, where they were minted, is the area that has yielded most of Antipas’s coins that have a known place of discovery.
At Meiron, 3 coins of Herod Antipas were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, p. 22 no. 206–208, p. 127 (photographic plate) no. 208 only (from year 37 of the Emperor Tiberius (33 C.E.). Meiron was north of the city of Dan in Galilee, which Antipas ruled. Coins no. 206 and 207, from the Emperor’s 34th year (29/30 C.E.), are recognizably his by their decorations and visible Greek letters.
At Jerusalem, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Treasury of Jewish Coins, p. 85.

15. Herod Philip (not a ruler; compare Philip the Tetrarch, below).
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.1 and 4
Josephus, Wars 1.28.4, 1.29.2, 1.30.7

16. Herodias, wife of Herod Philip, mother of Salome; then Herod Antipas’s wife.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.1 and 4
Josephus, War 2.9.6

17. Salome, Herodias’s daughter.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4
Coins of her second husband, Aristobulus, king of Chalcis, display her image (Hendin, Guide, pp. 276‒277, no. 1255).

18. Philip, Tetrarch of Trachonitis, Iturea and other northern portions of Palestine, sometimes called Herod Philip II, to distinguish him from his half-brother, Herod Philip, who was not a ruler (see above).
Josephus, Antiquities 17.1.3, 18.2.1
Josephus, Wars 1.28.4

Coins:
Philip did not have to avoid portraits on his coins because his subjects were generally not Jewish and had no religious prohibition against graven images. One of his coins from Tel Anafa features the head of Caesar Augustus on one side and the head of Philip on the other—literally a two-headed coin (Coins 1968–1986 Tel Anafa, p. 253 no. 250, p. 260 = coins plate 3, no. 250).
Most of his coins were discovered in his own tetrarchy in Palestine’s northern territories.
At Meiron, 2 coins of Philip the Tetrarch were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, p. 23 no. 209 & 210, p. 127 (photographic plate) no. 209 and 210.
At Tel Anafa, 7 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins 1968–1986 Tel Anafa, pp. 253–254 no. 250–256, p. 260 = coins plate 3, no. 250, 251, 252, 254.
On Cyprus, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Treasury of Jewish Coins, p. 90.

19. Herod Agrippa I, King of Trachonitis, Batanea, gradually all of Palestine.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4, 18.7.2, 19.5.1
Josephus, Wars 2.9.5‒6

Coins:
At Masada, 114 of Herod Agrippa I’s coins were excavated, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 79, 100 no. 1195–1198, Plate 66 no. 1195–1198.
At Meiron, 5 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, pp. 23–24 no. 211–214, p. 127 (photographic plate) no. 211 and 214.
At Herodium, 5 identical coins of his were discovered, according to Herodium Coins, p. 75 no. 4.
In and near Jerusalem, as well as in all parts of Palestine, on Cyprus, at Dura-Europos in Syria, and even on the acropolis at Athens, his prutah coins (Jewish coins of low value, made of copper; see Hendin, Guide, p. 270, no. 1244) have been discovered. They are distinctive in their decorations and the spelling of his name.

20. Herod Agrippa II, Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, then also over parts of Galilee and Perea, Chalcis and northern territories.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4, 20.7.3
Josephus, Wars 2.11.6

Coins:
Quite a few series of Agrippa II’s coins are identified as his because they have the name Agrippa, sometimes abbreviated, and can be dated to his reign, rather than his father’s (King Herod Agrippa I).
At Masada, 2 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 79, 100 no. 1308–1309, Plate 66 no. 1309.
At Meiron, 6 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, pp. 24–25 no. 215–220, p. 128 (photographic plate) no. 216–220.

21. Berenice/Bernice, Sister and companion of Herod Agrippa II, distinguished by her fuller name Julia (in Latin, Iulia) Berenice from several other noted women of ancient times named Berenice.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4, 19.5.1, 20.7.3
Josephus, Wars 2.15.1

In the National Museum of Beirut is a partly broken, Roman-era dedicatory inscription in Latin that mentions “Queen Berenice.” The inscription states that she, and someone who is implied to be her fellow offspring, restored a building which “King Herod their ancestor” had made. Note the plural: “their ancestor.”

By using facts of the historical background, it is possible to identify both her and her relatives as the ones to whom the inscription refers, because of its location and because the names of her family members seem uniquely suited to fit this inscription. Berenice is said to be “of the great king A—” (name broken off), and the prominent family ties in the inscription suggest a daughter or descendant. The “great king A—” is very likely her father, King Herod Agrippa I, who was a descendant of King Herod the Great. The other offspring, her contemporary, is very likely her brother, King Herod Agrippa II.

A scholarly book in Italian describes this inscription: Laura Boffo, Iscrizioni Greche e Latine per lo Studio della Bibbia (Brescia, Italy: Paideia Editrice, 1994), pp. 338‒342, no. 41. For a photograph of this partly broken inscription in Latin and an English translation which fills in the broken portions using data from ancient historical writings, see www.livius.org/pictures/lebanon/beirut-berytus/beirut-insciption-of-king-agrippa-ii.

22. Drusilla, Sister of Herodias and Herod Agrippa I; wife of Roman governor Felix.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.4

23. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (= Cyrenius), Roman Imperial legate to Syria-Cilicia.
Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.5, 18.1.1, 18.2.1
Josephus, Wars 7.8.1

The Lapis Venetus inscription discovered in Beirut is a stone inscription in Latin that mentions a census that this Quirinius ordered in a Syrian city. It is included in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum vol. III, no. 6687. See Craig L. Blomberg, “Quirinius,” in ISBE, vol. 4, pp. 12–13.

24. Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect of Judea.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.1‒2, 18.4.1‒2
Josephus, Wars 2.9.2‒4

Tacitus, Annals 15:44, in The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero (trans. J. C. Yardley; introduction and notes Anthony A. Barrett; Oxford World’s Classics; New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2008), p. 438. Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55‒c. 118 C.E.) was a historian, a Roman senator and a member of the priestly organization that supervised foreign religions in Rome; therefore he had exceptional access to information known by his colleagues and to archives accessible to the elite.

Philo, De Legatione ad Gaium 38, in The Works of Philo, Complete and Unabridged (trans. C. D. Yonge; new updated ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 784. Philo Judaeus of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.E.‒c. 50 C.E.) was Pilate’s learned contemporary.

The “Pilate Stone” was discovered at Caesarea Maritima in 1961 in the theater or arena of the ancient city of Caesarea Maritima, on Israel’s northern seacoast. This limestone block—2.7 feet high, 2 feet wide and 0.6 feet thick—was lying face down and had been used as a step. It had been trimmed down to be reused twice. Two of its four lines read, in English translation with square brackets marking missing portions that have been supplied by scholars: “[Po]ntius Pilate … [Pref]ect of Juda[ea],” as shown in Inscriptions Caesarea Maritima, pp. 67–70, no. 43, Plate XXXVI. The inscription could potentially be dated to any time in Pilate’s career, but a date between 31 and 36 C.E. seems most likely (Inscriptions Caesarea Maritima, p. 70.). The word for the building dedicated to the emperor Tiberius, “Tiberieum,” is in the first line of writing (on the line above it is only a mark resembling an apostrophe). On the second line of writing are the last four letters of the family name Pontius, which was common in central and northern Italy during that era. Still visible, clearly engraved in the stone, is the complete name Pilatus, which is translated into English as “Pilate.” Pilatus was “extremely rare” (A. N. Sherwin-White, “Pilate, Pontius,” in ISBE, vol. 3, p. 867). Because of the rarity of the name Pilatus, and because only one Pontius Pilatus was ever the Roman governor of Judea, this identification should be regarded as completely certain and redundantly assured.

Coins:
As with other Roman governors, the coins Pilate issued do not have his name on them, but rather display only the name of the Roman emperor, in this case Tiberius. Pilate’s coins also display his distinctive decorations.
At Masada, 123 of Pontius Pilate’s coins were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 79, pp. 96–97 no. 851–973a, Plate 64 no. 851–912, Plate 65 no. 913–930.
At Caesarea Maritima, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Caesarea Maritima, p. 139 no. 6, p. 146.
At Herodium, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Herodium, p. 75 no. 3.

25. Lucius Junius Gallio, Roman proconsul of Achaia.
Seneca, Letters 104
Tacitus, Annals xv.73
Dio Cassius lx.35
Pliny the Elder Naturalis Historia xxxi.33

Near the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece, a stone inscription in a now-fragmented stone block discovered in the late 19th century refers to this particular Gallio. Carved into a stone now broken into fragments, with some words missing, it takes the form of a letter from the Roman emperor Claudius and includes a date. See C. K. Barrett, ed., The New Testament Background (rev. ed.; San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1989), pp. 51‒52, no. 49.

26. Marcus Antonius Felix, Roman procurator of Judea.
Josephus, Antiquities 14.11.7, 20.7.1‒2, 20.8.5
Josephus, Wars 1.12.1, 2.12.8, 2.13.7

Coins:
Felix followed the custom of Roman governors, issuing coins that do not display his name. But they are identifiable as his, because they display the name and regnal year of the emperor. Several also have the name of the empress, Julia Agrippina.
At Masada, 39 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 79, 97‒98 no. 974‒1012, Plate 65 no. 974‒1012 with gaps in the numbered photographs.
At Meiron, 4 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, pp. 25–26 no. 221–224, p. 128 (photographic plate) no. 221 and 223.
At Caesarea Maritima, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Caesarea Maritima, p. 139 no. 7.
At Herodium, 1 of his coins was discovered, according to Coins Herodium, p. 75 no. 5.

27. Porcius Festus, Roman procurator of Judea.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.9, 20.9.1

Coins:
During the reign of the emperor Nero, Festus minted coins in the custom of Roman governors, which do not show his own name. Still, as with Felix, we can identify them as his by using the name and regnal year of the emperor.
At Masada, 184 of Festus’s coins were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 72, 79, pp. 98–99 no. 1013–1194, Plate 65 no. 1013–1194 with gaps among the numbered photographs.

28. Aretas IV, king of the Arabian kingdom of Nabatea.
Josephus, Antiquities 13.13.3, 14.1.4
Josephus, Wars 1.6.2, 1.29.3

During Aretas IV’s reign, the Arabian kingdom of Nabatea reached the height of its power, wealth through trade, and political influence.
Stationary inscriptions that name King Aretas IV and members of his immediate family have been discovered south of the Dead Sea at Petra, at Avdat (Obodat) in southern Israel and even at Puteoli, Italy (Coins Nabataea, pp. 48, 61).

Coins:
The fact that the coins Aretas minted have been discovered in “enormous quantity … testifies primarily to a flourishing economy,” as observed in Coins Nabataea, p. 41. Aretas IV’s coins are treated on pp. 41–63, with photos on Plates 4–7 no. 46–122. These coins typically refer to him as “Aretas, king of the Nabataeans, who loves [lit., the lover of] his people” (Coins Nabataea, pp. 46–47, table: “Dated Coins and Inscriptions of Aretas IV.”
At Masada, 22 of Aretas IV’s coins were discovered, according to Coins of Masada, pp. 76, 79, Plate 73 no. 3603–3623.
At Meiron, 2 of his coins were discovered, according to Coins of Ancient Meiron, p. 26 no. 225 and 226, p. 128 (photographic plate) no. 226.
At Curium on Cyprus, at Dura-Europas in what is now eastern Syria, and at Susa in Persia (present-day Iran), his coins have been discovered far and wide, according to Coins Nabataea, p. 41 note 2.

29. The unnamed Egyptian leader who escaped after his violent uprising was suppressed by the Roman governor Felix.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.6
Josephus, Wars 2.13.5

30. Judas of Galilee, the leader of the rebellion against Cyrenius (also spelled Quirinius, identified above) because of Cyrenius’s census and taxation, which scholars usually date to 6 C.E.
Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.6, 20.5.2
Josephus, Wars 2.8.1

Want more on Biblical figures? Read “53 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically,” “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” and “Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree” by Lawrence Mykytiuk.

“Almost Real” People (Not Certain, but Reasonable): The Evidence

The biblical figures in this category might potentially be mentioned in particular inscriptions or historical texts, but in each case, data in the text might also point to some other person(s). What is keeping these people in the Bible from being clearly identified?

It takes three things to identify a biblical figure in an inscription or historical writing:

1. Reliable data. Specifically, this means that the inscription or historical writing is authentic, not forged or altered, and that the biblical text is well based in the ancient manuscripts.
2. Setting. The time and place settings must match between the inscription and the biblical text. “Time” usually means the person in the inscription and the one in the Bible are within about 50 years of each other, which was a normal period of active life in the ancient world. “Place,” culturally speaking, means the group to which the person belongs, usually a kingdom or ethnicity.
3. Matching attributes. Enough attributes of an individual must match between the person in the inscription and the person in the Bible to ensure that they are not two different people, but one and the same.

Lysanias, the first “almost real” New Testament figure below, lacks a match in one of the two elements in a time-and-place setting. Jonathan, the second figure, is well based in ancient manuscripts, but he lacks a reliable biblical text.

“Almost Real” Figures

Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene
The first New Testament candidate in this category is Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene. His identity is not clear enough in a relevant inscription to be certain he is the one referred to in Luke 3:1, but it is reasonable enough for some scholars to consider a New Testament identification probable. According to a dedicatory inscription carved in stone at Abila, capital city of the ancient tetrarchy of Abilene, a certain “Lysanias the tetrarch, a freedman” ruled there (Raphaël Savignac, “Texte complet de l’inscription d’Abila relative à Lysanias,” Revue biblique, new series 9 [1912], pp. 533–540.). In line 1, the “august lords” are most likely the Emperor Tiberius and Tiberius’s mother, Livia, who was granted the title Augusta in 14 C.E. and died in 29 C.E. Luke 3:1 dates the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist using dates established with reference to several rulers, including Lysanias. By referring to these rulers and to other events, many scholars place the start of John’s ministry at c. 28 C.E., which falls within the potential time span of the tetrarchy of the Lysanias in this inscription. On the other hand, the dates used are somewhat imprecise, and the date of the inscription is based on likelihood, rather than complete clarity. If the “august lords” were Nero and his mother Agrippina, then this Lysanias’s rule might have lasted as late as the reign of Nero (54–68 C.E.). (Hemer, Acts, pp. 159–160, note 1.)

In Josephus, Antiquities 19.5.1 and Wars 2.11.5, the references to “Abila of Lysanias” and “the kingdom of Lysanias,” respectively, are too vague in their time reference to be a clear confirmation of Luke 3:1. Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene, must not be confused with the earlier Lysanias, a tetrarch in the same area who is also mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities(Scott T. Carroll, “Lysanias,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, p. 425). Josephus also mentions a third Lysanias, who ruled Chalcis and died in 36 B.C.E., in Antiquities 14.330; 15.92; and Wars 1.248.

Jonathan, High Priest
The second “Almost Real” New Testament candidate is the high priest Jonathan, son of Ananus son of Seth, but his identification is a matter of ancient manuscript evidence. In most of the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, Acts 4:6—referring to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin’s trial of Peter and John—mentions that “Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and the other men of the high priest’s family.” These support the reading “John.” But Codex Bezae (one of the ancient manuscripts consulted by the King James translators) does not have the Greek word for “John,” but rather the Greek word for “Jonathan.” Some of Jerome’s writings and some manuscripts of his Latin Vulgate translation also support “Jonathan,” as do three papyrus manuscripts of the old Latin translation (called the Itala). Most importantly, there is impressive agreement on the name Jonathan between, on one hand, Codex Bezae, the Itala, and some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, and on the other hand, the independent textual witness of Josephus in Antiquities 18.95; 18.123; 19.313–315; 20.162–164; and in Wars 2.240 & 243; 2.256. The reading of Bezae might be a correction of most manuscripts of Luke, according to historical facts, or it might be a substitution of a familiar name, John, for a less common one, Jonathan (see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. [London: United Bible Societies, 1971], pp. 317‒318). Following Josephus, James C. Vanderkam does not include any high priest John, son of Ananus son of Seth, and instead places Jonathan, son of Ananus son of Seth, as the immediate successor of Joseph Caiaphas as high priest in 36 or 37 C.E. (From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], pp. 436–440).

Because Josephus was raised in first-century Roman Palestine as a Jewish aristocrat from a priestly family, he was writing on matters with which he was very familiar indeed. Therefore, despite the quantity of manuscripts that have the Greek word for “John” in Acts 4:6, it is difficult to raise an objection against the Greek for “Jonathan” based on the quality of the reading. Ultimately, experts on the text of the Book of Acts or of the New Testament must settle the matter to the extent possible.

People Not Clearly Documented Outside the New Testament

Political figures who cannot be clearly identified in ancient writings and inscriptions outside the New Testament include:

1. Lucius Sergius Paulus or Paullus, Proconsul of Cyprus during the reign of Emperor Claudius, appears in Paphos, according to Acts 13:6–13. But only the family to which this person might potentially have belonged is documented (Hemer, Acts, pp. 109, 166–167, 227, all on Acts 13:7).
2. Theudas, who appears in Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.1, does not seem identifiable outside the New Testament in view of the chronological difficulties discussed in Hemer, Acts, pp. 162–163, on Acts 5:36.

3. The Erastus of Corinth who is described in most detail in Romans 16:23 cannot be clearly identified in an inscription in stone discovered at Corinth (Acts 19:22 and 2 Timothy 4:20 might or might not refer to the same Erastus), in view of the difficulties and uncertainties raised by Steven J. Friesen, “The Wrong Erastus: Ideology, Archaeology, and Exegesis,” in Steven J. Friesen, Daniel N. Schowalter and James Christopher Walters, eds., Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 231–256. Difficulties in attempting such an identification were pointed out much earlier by Henry J. Cadbury, “Erastus of Corinth,” Journal of Biblical Literature 50 (1931), pp. 42–56.

   Nor can the Erastus of Romans 16:23 be clearly identified in a second inscription discovered in 1960 that might conceivably refer to him, according to Andrew D. Clarke, “Another Corinthian Erastus Inscription,” Tyndale Bulletin 42.1 (1991), pp. 146–151.

4. Candace turns out to be an inherited, dynastic title customarily conferred on Ethiopian queens, rather than the given name of an individual (Hemer, Acts, p. 163, on Acts 8:27).

Abbreviations and References

Ancient Jewish Coinage 2 = Ya’akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, vol. 2: Herod the Great through Bar Cochba (Dix Hills, NY: Amphora Books, 1982).

Coins 1968–1986 Tel Anafa = Y. Meshorer, “Chapter 4: Coins 1968–1986,” in Sharon C. Herbert, Tel Anafa I, i: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series 10, Part I, i and Kelsey Museum Fieldwork Series; Ann Arbor, MI: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan and Museum of Art and Archaeology of the University of Missouri—Columbia, 1994).

Coins of Ancient Meiron = Joyce Raynor and Yaakov Meshorer, The Coins of Ancient Meiron (Winona Lake, IN: ASOR/Eisenbrauns, 1988).
Coins Caesarea Maritima = D. T. Ariel, “The Coins,” in Lee I. Levine and Ehud Netzer, Excavations at Caesarea Maritima, 1975, 1976, 1979—Final Report (Qedem 21; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).

Coins Herodium = Ya’akov Meshorer, “The Coins,” in Ehud Netzer, Greater Herodium (Qedem 13; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1981).

Coins Nabataea = Ya’akov Meshorer, Nabataean Coins (Qedem 3; Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1975).

Coins of Masada = Yaacov Meshorer, “The Coins of Masada,” in Masada I: The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963‒1965: Final Reports. (ed. Joseph Aviram, Gideon Foerster, and Ehud Netzer; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1989).

Hemer, Acts = Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. Conrad H. Gempf; Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989; reprinted Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2001, 2016).

Hendin, Guide = David Hendin and Herbert Kreindler, Guide to Biblical Coins (5th ed.; New York: Amphora Books, 2010).
Inscriptions Caesarea Maritima = Clayton Miles Lehmann and Kenneth G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima (The Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima, Excavation Reports 5; Boston, MA: The American Schools of Oriental Research, 2000).

ISBE = International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 4 vols., fully rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979–1988).

Josephus, Antiquities = Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews, in The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged (trans. William Whiston; new updated ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), pp. 27‒542. An alternative translation of the title is: Jewish Antiquities.

Josephus, Wars = Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, in The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged (trans. William Whiston; new updated ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), pp. 543‒772. An alternative translation of the title is: The Jewish War.

Treasury of Jewish Coins = Ya’akov Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (Nyack, NY: Amphora, 2001).

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on September 7, 2017. Updated May 2021.

The post 30 People in the New Testament Confirmed appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Following on from our previous drawing, the Temple Mount during the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods, we now examine the Temple Mount during the Herodian period. This was, of course, the Temple that is mentioned in the New Testament.

Herod extended the Hasmonean Temple Mount in three directions: north, west and south. At the northwest corner he built the Antonia Fortress and in the south, the magnificent Royal Stoa. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

In 19 B.C. the master-builder, King Herod the Great, began the most ambitious building project of his life—the rebuilding of the Temple and the Temple Mount in lavish style. To facilitate this, he undertook a further expansion of the Hasmonean Temple Mount by extending it on three sides, to the north, west and south. Today’s Temple Mount boundaries still reflect this enlargement.

The cutaway drawing below allows us to recap on the development of the Temple Mount so far:

King Solomon built the First Temple on the top of Mount Moriah which is visible in the center of this drawing. This mountain top can be seen today, inside the Islamic Dome of the Rock. King Hezekiah built a square Temple Mount (yellow walls) around the site of the Temple, which he also renewed. In the Hasmonean period, the square Temple Mount was enlarged to the south (red walls). Finally, King Herod the Great enlarged the mount to double its size (grey walls) by building 15 feet-thick retaining walls, which are still standing today. The many cisterns cut into the mountain are also shown. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

A visualization of this Temple Mount was made possible by combining the historical sources with the results of archaeological exploration. The main historical source is the first-century historian Josephus Flavius. His works, The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, although prone to exaggeration, are indispensable for this period. Also invaluable is the Mishnah, the earliest code of rabbinic law, written about 200 A.D., particularly the Tractate Middot, which deals with measurements. The New Testament adds further detail and context. All this was augmented by the results of the excavations to the south and west of the Temple Mount following the Six-Day War in 1967.

Read “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount” by Leen Ritmeyer as it was published in BAR.

Herod’s extension of the Eastern Wall to the north required the filling in of a deep valley to the north of the pre-Herodian Temple Mount. The Shushan Gate remained the only gate in the Eastern Wall. Towers were erected at each corner and a large water reservoir was built at the northeast corner, the so-called Pool of Israel.

The present-day Eastern Wall of the Temple Mount is 1536 feet long. The central part of this wall (shown in blue) dates from the time of King Hezekiah. In the drawing, the gate just below and to the right of the Temple is the Shushan Gate. To the south of the central section is the Hasmonean extension (red), while both ends of this wall were further extended by Herod the Great (yellow). The Herodian extension to the north of the central part of the Eastern Wall (Hezekiah’s expansion) required the filling in of a deep valley, known as the Bezetha Valley. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

The Western Wall, which had four gates, was placed some 82 feet (25 m) outside the square platform with its southwest corner built on the opposite side of the Tyropoeon Valley.

The Western Wall of the Temple Mount is 1590 feet long. The Antonia Fortress is on the left. The four gates in the Western Wall are, from left to right, Warren’s Gate, Wilson’s Arch and bridge, Barclay’s Gate and Robinson’s Arch and stairway. This drawing also shows the lay of the bedrock below the Herodian street. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

The Southern Wall featured two gates, the Double Gate and the Triple Gate, often erroneously referred to as the Huldah Gates.

The Southern Wall of the Temple Mount is 912 feet long. The extant remains of this wall are shown in yellow. A monumental stairway led up to the Double Gate, indicating that this was an important entry point for many worshippers. In between this stairway and that leading up to the Triple Gate is a ritual bathing complex and a public building. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

The most fortified feature in the Northern Wall was the massive Antonia Fortress (right in the drawing below), built to protect the Temple against attacks coming from the north and to guard the mount in times of strife. A large reservoir, the Pool of Israel (left) provided additional protection to the Temple Mount.

The Northern Wall of the Temple Mount is 1035 feet long. The Pool of Israel, which was constructionally an integral part of the Temple Mount, can be seen on the left. The Antonia Fortress is on the right. A brief reference in Josephus points to the possible existence of a gate in the middle of this wall. Copyright Ritmeyer Archaeological Design ritmeyer.com

Once the platform was completed, double colonnades, or porticoes, were built above the outer walls to provide shelter from the elements. A huge hall called the Royal Stoa, with four rows of columns, was erected on the southern end. The pre-existing eastern portico that stood on the square mount was left unchanged. As it belonged to a pre-Herodian period, it was called Solomon’s Porch. Near the center of this platform a new gold-covered Temple was constructed that in turn was surrounded by many other buildings.

In 70 A.D., this splendid structure that had taken 46 years to build (John 2.20) was destroyed by the Romans. The only vestiges of the compound to survive the destruction were the four retaining walls that supported the Temple platform; the best known today is the Western Wall.

This drawing is the 7th in this series that were made specially for the new Temple Mount guide book. For the previous drawings see: Mount Moriah, Jebusites, Solomon, Hezekiah, Nehemiah and the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Leen Ritmeyer is an archaeological architect who has been involved in all of Jerusalem’s major excavations. He was chief architect of the Temple Mount Excavations, directed by the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar, and of the Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem, directed by the late Prof. Nahman Avigad, both of the Hebrew University. Together with his wife, Kathleen, he runs a firm called Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, which produces teaching and learning tools used throughout the world and offers consultancy on archaeological background and illustration. In 2006, his major work, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, was published after thirty years of intensive research.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History

Sifting Antiquity on the Temple Mount Sifting Project

What the Temple Mount Floor Looked Like

What Did Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem Look Like?

Herod’s Temple Mount Revealed in Al-Aqsa Mosque Restoration

Ancient Chisel Unearthed at the Western Wall

Study Investigates Western Wall Erosion

Herod the Great: Friend of the Romans and Parthians?

Herodium: The Tomb of King Herod Revisited

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem

How Herod Moved Gigantic Blocks to Construct Temple Mount

Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount

Herod’s Roman Temple

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Herod’s Horrid Death

King Herod the Great

Searching for Portraits of King Herod

Herod’s Mighty Temple Mount

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on December 3, 2014.

The post The Temple Mount in the Herodian Period (37 BC–70 A.D.) appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

And he burnt the finest parts of the city, and pulling down the walls, built the Akra (citadel) in the Lower City; for it was high enough to overlook the temple, and it was for this reason that he fortified it with high walls and towers, and stationed a Macedonian garrison therein.
—Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.252

Ancient walls and a tower were excavated in the Givati Parking Lot in Jerusalem. Has the 2,200-year-old Seleucid Akra finally been located? Photo: Assaf Peretz, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Where is the Hellenistic-period Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem? Both the Book of Maccabees and Jewish historian Josephus reference an akra (Greek for “citadel” or “fortress”) that Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes constructed following his conquest of Jerusalem around 167 B.C.E. to keep order in the city. In late 142–early 141 B.C.E., Simon, the Jewish leader of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids at that point, captured and, according to Josephus, completely demolished the Akra.¹

The precise location of this Seleucid stronghold said to have overlooked the Temple has long been a matter of debate among archaeologists and historians, but, as Biblical archaeologist Eric Cline has said, “it is certain that it stood for some two decades as a symbol of Seleucid power over the Jews.”² In 2015, archaeologists excavating in the Givati Parking Lot south of the Temple Mount in the City of David believe they have found the Seleucid Akra.

The excavations in the Givati Parking Lot have been led by Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) archaeologists Doron Ben-Ami, Yana Tchekhanovets and Salome Cohen. According to a recent IAA press release, the archaeologists exposed a portion of a massive wall, a large tower base measuring 13 x 66 feet and a glacis–an artificial slope built for defensive purposes. The excavations also uncovered remnants of battle dating to the Hellenistic period: lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads and ballista stones. The finds were stamped with images of a trident, the mark of King Antiochus.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

In the IAA press release of November, 2015, the excavation codirectors commented on how the finds in the Givati Parking Lot offer evidence of the historical battle between the Seleucids and the Jewish rebels in the second century B.C.E.:

This sensational discovery allows us for the first time to reconstruct the layout of the settlement in the city, on the eve of the Maccabean uprising in 167 B.C.E. The new archaeological finds indicate the establishment of a well-fortified stronghold that was constructed on the high bedrock cliff overlooking the steep slopes of the City of David hill. This stronghold controlled all means of approach to the Temple atop the Temple Mount, and cut the Temple off from the southern parts of the city. The numerous coins ranging in date from the reign of Antiochus IV to that of Antiochus VII and the large number of wine jars (amphorae) that were imported from the Aegean region to Jerusalem, which were discovered at the site, provide evidence of the citadel’s chronology, as well as the non-Jewish identity of its inhabitants.

Bronze arrowheads stamped with tridents, symbolizing King Antiochus IV Epiphanes’s reign, were found in the Givati Parking Lot excavations. Photo: Clara Amit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The debate on the location of the Seleucid Akra, however, is likely far from over. For instance, archaeological architect Leen Ritmeyer has cast doubt on the latest proposal from the IAA on his blog:

The quote from 1 Maccabees tells us that the whole of the City of David was fortified with a wall. The Hellenistic walls found [in the Givati Parking Lot] may indeed be part of these fortifications. Josephus, however, is speaking of a separate citadel—the Seleucid Akra. This fortress, we are told, “overlooked the temple.” In order for the Givati remains to belong to this citadel and also overlook the Temple, it must have been over 400 feet high at least … What hill is there to be seen in the Givati Parking Lot?

Read Ritmeyer’s examination of the Seleucid Akra, which includes schematic drawings of the Hellenistic-period Temple Mount, at Ritmeyer Archaeological Design.

Notes:

1. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.6.213–14.

2. Eric H. Cline, Jerusalem Besieged (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 2004), p. 79.

This post originally appeared in Bible History Daily in November, 2015.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Hasmonean Jerusalem Exposed in Time for Hanukkah

Modi’in: Where the Maccabees Lived

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

Rome and the Maccabees: A Friendship Set in Bronze?

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History

Contested Temple Mount History?

The post The Seleucid Akra: 2,200-Year-Old Jerusalem Fortress Uncovered? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Opus sectile expert Frankie Snyder is seen here with opus sectile tiles discovered by the Temple Mount Sifting Project. Photo: Temple Mount Sifting Project.

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 hardly space to insert a knife-blade between them. 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.

DAZZLING DESIGNS. More than a hundred colorful stone tiles that once decorated the floors of King Herod’s Temple Mount have been recovered by the Temple Mount Sifting Project. The technique by which these geometrically-cut tiles were paved is called opus sectile, Latin for “cut work.” Reconstructing the patterns in which these tiles were laid can reveal what the Temple Mount floors looked like in the time of Herod. Photo: Temple Mount Sifting Project.

Roman tiles can be distinguished from others found at the Sifting Project—Byzantine, Crusader and Islamic—by careful analysis of the size, shape, material, color and craftsmanship of each tile. A key characteristic of Herodian tiles is the size, which is based on the Roman foot, 11.6 inches. In the floor patterns, each tile was surrounded by tiles of contrasting colors. Dark tiles were frequently made from bituminous chalk (bitumen) quarried locally just northwest of the Dead Sea, around Nebi Musa. Some of the contrasting light-colored tiles were made from local limestone and calcite-alabaster, while others were made of imported alabaster, africano, breccia coralline, breccia di Aleppo, breccia di Settebasi, giallo antico, pavonazzetto and portasanta from Greece, Asia Minor, Tunisia and Egypt.

FREE ebook: Israel: An Archaeological Journey. Sift through the storied history of ancient Israel.

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Email Address: * * Indicates a required field.

SUBMIT

If you don’t want to receive the Bible History Daily newsletter, uncheck this box.

Some opus sectile patterns popular in the Roman world during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. are shown here. These give us some idea of what the flooring on the Temple Mount looked like.

Two blocks comprising four squares arranged in a diamond design in each block have been reconstructed with tiles and tile fragments from the Temple Mount (below left and center).

GEOMETRIC BEAUTY. Roman tiles found by the Temple Mount Sifting Project have patterns that are consistent with popular opus sectile patterns found throughout the Roman world in the first century B.C.E.–first century C.E. These patterns include two blocks comprising four squares arranged in a diamond design in each block (see left and center blocks) and an eight-pointed-star pattern in which eight triangles radiate from a central octagon (see right block). Photo: Temple Mount Sifting Project.

Eight-pointed-stars popular in Roman patterns appear to have been depicted on the Temple Mount. This pattern features an octagonal central tile surrounded by small black triangles and contrasting-colored squares and triangles (above right).

Several Herodian floors use the specifically shaped “Herod’s triangle”—a triangle whose base is equal to its height, like a triangle constructed inside a square. This triangle with the unusual corner angles of 52°-64°-64° was very common in Herodian patterns but was rarely seen in floors elsewhere in the Roman world. When used in a pattern, the Herod’s triangles cause adjacent tiles to also have unusual, but mathematically recognizable, corner angles.

On the Temple Mount, this Herod’s triangle appears to have been used in a way similar to what we find at some of Herod’s palaces. The Temple Mount’s triangular tiles each have a base and height of 1 Roman foot (below right, top).

“HEROD’S TRIANGLE,” a triangle whose base is equal to its height, was featured on several Herodian floors. This pattern appears to have been used on the floors of his Temple Mount, where the triangular tiles have a base and a height of 1 Roman foot (11.65 in) (right, top). Herod’s triangles made of black bitumen have also been used to create the pinwheel pattern popular throughout the Roman period (left image). The popular four-pointed-star pattern can be produced a variety of ways, with Herod’s triangles radiating from a central square tile. The popular four-pointed-star pattern can be produced a variety of ways, with Herod’s triangles radiating from a central square tile (right, bottom). Photo: Temple Mount Sifting Project.

Several smaller Herod’s triangles made of black bitumen were found in the Temple Mount material and may have been used in the popular Roman pinwheel pattern (above, left).

Herod’s triangles can be used to generate fascinating designs. For example, if four Herod’s triangles are drawn inside a 1-Roman-foot square, this creates a versatile template from which to generate several tile patterns. By adding a small square in the center, variations of a popularly used four-pointed-star pattern can be produced, as shown (above right, bottom).

This is just a sample of the opus sectile patterns used on the Temple Mount. Several other complete bitumen opus sectile tiles with dimensions based on the Roman foot have been found in the Sifting Project. Further research may help us understand how these tiles were used in Temple Mount floor patterns.

HEROD’S TEMPLE MOUNT. On the southern end of the Temple Mount was Herod’s Royal Stoa, a roofed, open-air, basilical building where public and commercial activity took place. It was described by Josephus as “more noteworthy than any under the sun.” The Royal Stoa was the perfect place to showcase ornate opus sectile floors. Images: Leen Ritmeyer.

The covered porticoes that surrounded the eastern, northern and western sides of the esplanade may also have had opus sectile floors. Above all, opus sectile pavements may have been used inside the Temple itself.

Once the Temple and its courtyards were destroyed by the Romans, the opus sectile tiles would have been easily looted for use in other buildings. Any tiles made of imported marble or marble-like materials would have been highly prized.⁶

Although the Temple and its courtyards were destroyed almost 2,000 years ago, the fact that we have some of the very tiles that were originally used to pave the floors of the Herodian Temple Mount offers us a unique perspective into the ornate architecture of this extraordinary edifice.

“What the Temple Mount Floor Looked Like” by Frankie Snyder, Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira originally appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2016. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily on October 24, 2016.

Notes:

a. See Gabriel Barkay and Zachi Dvira, “Relics in Rubble: The Temple Mount Sifting Project,” Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 2016.

1. Katherine M.D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999), pp. 254–264.

2. Josephus, The Jewish War, V.178, trans. by H. St. John Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library 210 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1928).

3. Josephus, War, V.192–193.

4. Assaf Avraham, “Addressing the Issue of Temple Mount Pavements During the Herodian Period,” in Avraham Faust and Eyal Baruch, eds., New Studies on Jerusalem 13 (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2007), pp. 87–96 (Hebrew), English abstract, pp. 22*–23*.

5. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XV.412, trans. by Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren, Loeb Classical Library 489 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1943).

6. James A. Harrell, Lorenzo Lazzarini and Mathias Bruno, “Reuse of Roman Ornamental Stones in Medieval Cairo, Egypt,” in Lorenzo Lazzarini, ed., ASMOSIA 6: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Venice, June 15–18, 2000 (Padova: Bottega d’Erasmo, 2002), pp. 89–96.

More on Temple Mount Sifting Project Discoveries in Bible History Daily:

Sifting Antiquity on the Temple Mount Sifting Project

Tenth-Century B.C. Stone Seal Discovered by the Temple Mount Sifting Project

Amulet with Cartouche of Thutmose III Discovered in Jerusalem

How Ancient Taxes Were Collected Under King Manasseh

More on Temple Mount history in Bible History Daily:

Searching for the Temple of King Solomon

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History

What Did Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem Look Like?

The Temple Mount in the Herodian Period (37 BC–70 A.D.) by Leen Ritmeyer

Contested Temple Mount History?

Herod’s Temple Mount Revealed in Al-Aqsa Mosque Restoration

Ancient Chisel Unearthed at the Western Wall

Study Investigates Western Wall Erosion

The post What the Temple Mount Floor Looked Like appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

King Herod is remembered as a Friend of the Romans. Jason Schlude suggests that Herod exploited the broader geopolitical circumstances of the day. Photo: Hulton-Archive/Getty Images.

Another view of Herod, however, complicates this picture. Herod was not merely a passive subject of Rome. In fact, if we only view Herod against the Roman backdrop, we risk misunderstanding the circumstances of his rise to power and underestimating his accomplishment. While the Romans were indeed a key source of Herod’s authority, he rose to power and maintained his position through timely manipulations of the contentious geopolitics that defined his day.

FREE ebook: Masada: The Dead Sea’s Desert Fortress. Discover what archaeology reveals about the Jewish rebels’ identity, fortifications and arms before their ultimate sacrifice.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Rome was not the undisputed master of the Near East. The empire of Parthia stretched from modern Afghanistan through Iran to the Euphrates River in Iraq, encompassing territories once ruled by Persian kings and then by Alexander the Great and his successors. Existing for nearly 500 years (c. 250 B.C.E. to the 220s C.E.), the Parthian state was the only advanced civilization that bordered the Roman Empire. And the two states were not without violent encounters. In 53 B.C.E. the famed Crassus led Roman legions into the Parthian empire only to see his troops massacred and to die violently himself near Carrhae. Later, between 40 and 39 B.C.E., the Parthian king Orodes II conquered and controlled the Roman Near East, including Israel, until Mark Antony organized a counter-offensive that drove his forces from the region. But for the Romans, the damage was done; henceforth, no one would see the Romans as invincible and their control of the Near East certain.

Herod faced this volatile situation and exploited it to his advantage. Indeed it was no coincidence that the Romans entrusted the throne of Judaea to Herod the Great at the close of 40 B.C.E., the same year of the Parthian conquest. During the campaign the Parthians installed Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II and scion of the Hasmonean dynasty, as king of Judaea. Herod fled to Rome to use this event to make a bid for kingship. He sought out Antony and underscored the Parthian threat (and threw in a bribe for good measure!). As the ancient sources make clear, the strategy worked; the Parthian actions motivated the Senate to make Herod the Great king. In this situation, Herod is best seen as a manipulator of Rome’s confrontation with Parthia for his own advantage.

Herodium excavator Ehud Netzer was a member of BAR’s editorial advisory board for 30 years. In commemoration of his scholarship, we’ve made all of his publications in the BAS Library available for free. Click here to read a collection of works by the illustrious scholar.

Herod then took the first opportunity to further his position by working with the Parthians. On the Roman side, Herod was in good shape. After the Senate made him king and Herod pacified his new kingdom, Antony had Antigonus executed in 37 B.C.E. and thus eliminated Herod’s most potent rival. But Herod still had a Parthian problem. He must have feared another Parthian invasion of the Roman Near East.

When the Parthians invaded Palestine in 40 B.C.E., they arrested Hyrcanus II, a high priest and member of the Hasmonean family, and cut off his ears. The Parthians then carried him back to their empire in retreat from Roman troops. Despite the disfigurement, which disqualified him from holding the high priesthood, Hyrcanus remained the ranking member of the royal Hasmonean family. Might the Parthians not try to make Hyrcanus their own vassal king in Judaea? Herod hedged his bets. He wanted to have Hyrcanus in his own possession and to have the Parthians as friends. To achieve these ends, after Orodes perished in 37 B.C.E.—and with him, the worst of the bad blood between Herod and the Parthians—Herod immediately opened diplomatic relations with his successor Phraates IV in 36 B.C.E. He sent the new king presents and pledges and requested permission for the return of Hyrcanus, which was granted. Though not explicitly mentioned in the sources, this exchange must have resulted in some level of official amicability between Herod and the Parthians. In short, it was to the advantage of Herod to be friend of the Romans and the Parthians.

Learn about the archaeological evidence of King Herod’s palace in Jerusalem, where the trial of Jesus may have occurred >>

King Herod is carried off by servants in a 17th-century German engraving. Hulton-Archive/Getty Images

To come to a full appreciation of Herod the Great, we must understand him as more than a one-dimensional Roman front man. He actively and aggressively manipulated the complex imperial circumstances of his day to secure a position of authority for himself. In the process, the “Friend of the Romans” also became a friend of the Parthians, even if the friendship appears short-lived. After more than a century of intense scholarly scrutiny, there remains much more to learn about Herod the Great.¹

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on March 29, 2013.

Jason Schlude is an Assistant Professor of Classics at College of Saint Benedict and Saint John’s University and specializes in the relationships shared by ancient Rome, the Near East and the Parthian empire. He is an Associate Director of the archaeological excavations at Omrit in northern Israel.

Read more in Bible History Daily:

Herod the Great and the Herodian Family Tree

Herodium: The Tomb of King Herod Revisited

Herod the Great—The King’s Final Journey

Monumental Entryway to King Herod’s Palace at Herodium Excavated

Ehud Netzer Publications Available to Public

The Stones of Herod’s Temple Reveal Temple Mount History

The Masada Siege: The Roman assault on Herod’s desert fortress

Machaerus: Beyond the Beheading of John the Baptist

Notes

1. For the events of Herod’s career recounted here, see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 14.330–491, 15.1-21, 161-196; Jewish War 1.248–357, 386–393, 433–434.

The post Herod the Great: Friend of the Romans and Parthians? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Martin Abegg Jr.

The Cartel Buster: Martin Abegg Jr.

Martin Abegg, Jr. is a professor of Biblical studies at Trinity Western University in British Columbia. In the late 1980s, Abegg was a doctoral candidate at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, studying under Ben Zion Wacholder. Chief editor of the scrolls John Strugnell had sent a copy of the secret concordance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to Wacholder. Using a computer, Abegg was able to reconstruct the texts from the concordance and, in 1991, BAR published the reconstructions, breaking the more-than-40-year-old monopoly on the scrolls. Abegg founded, at Trinity Western, the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute and is currently compiling a three-volume concordance to the official Dead Sea Scrolls publications at the request of editor-in-chief Emmanuel Tov.

FREE ebook: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning. What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about Judaism and Christianity.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

John Marco Allegro

The Outcast: John Marco Allegro

John Marco Allegro, called the “stone in the soup” by John Strugnell was the maverick of the Scroll publication team. He focused on open dissemination of the Scrolls and hastily published the Scrolls assigned to him. He took 3Q15, the Copper Scroll, to Manchester in 1956 in order to have it unrolled. Convinced it was an actual treasure list he would spend time later in life trying to track the treasure down.

A controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, in which he argued that Christianity was a sect based on a hallucinogenic mushroom, ruined his career. However, he remains popular: There is a John Allegro Society and there is a new Web site with many of his photographs, writings and theories.

Sources:

Davies, Philip R. “Allegro, John Marco.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Brown, Judith Anne. John Marco Allegro: Maverick of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005

Photo: Estate of John Marco Allegro

Jean-Dominique Barthélemy

The French Epigrapher: Jean-Dominique Barthélemy

Jean-Dominique Barthélemy co-edited with Father Milik the first volume of Discoveries in the Judean Desert. He published an early article on the main Isaiah scroll using the photographs of John C. Trever. His work on the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as other scrolls, such as the Dodekapropheton (Twelve Prophets scroll) found at Nahal Hever, revolutionized the study of the historical development of the Greek texts of the Bible.

Sources:

Briend, Jacques. “Barthélemy, Dominique.” In Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sanders, James A. “Tribute to Dominique Barthélemy,” at http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/Barthelemy2002obit.html. Accessed on May 1, 2007.

Joseph M. Baumgarten

The Jewish Law Specialist: Joseph M. Baumgarten

Long-time professor of Rabbinic Literature at Baltimore Hebrew University, Baumgarten was the editor of the Damascus Document and the Halakhic texts from Qumran Cave 4. He holds a B.A. from Brooklyn College and a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. He retired in 1993 and lives in Maryland.

Photo: Courtesy of Joseph Baumgarten
 

Magen Broshi

The Overseer: Magen Broshi

Magen Broshi was the curator of the Shrine of the Book from 1964 to 1994, the wing of the Israel Museum where most of the intact scrolls are housed. He was appointed to the committee that oversees the publication team. He has lead many important excavations in Israel, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the habitation caves at Qumran.
 

James H. Charlesworth

The Princeton Professor: James H. Charlesworth

James H. Charlesworth is considered one of the world’s leading experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. He is editor of The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls and The Dead Sea Scrolls: Graphic Concordance. He is the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature and director and editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project of Princeton Theological Seminary.
 
 
 
 

Sidnie White Crawford

The DSS “Kid”: Sidnie White Crawford

Sidnie White Crawford called herself one of the “kids” of Dead Sea Scroll research in an essay in BAR, and says it was a matter of being in the right place at the right time—Harvard University studying under John Strugnell, and her advisor Frank Moore Cross. For her dissertation, Cross suggested that she work on his Deuteronomy manuscripts, which she has published. She is currently a professor of Hebrew Bible at the University of Nebraska—Lincoln and is President of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeology in Jerusalem, the American school for the study of the ancient Near East in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Frank Moore Cross, Jr.

The Doyen: Frank Moore Cross, Jr.

A young scholar with a Ph.D. in Semitic languages from Johns Hopkins University in Balitmore, where he studied under William F. Albright the great scholar of the ancient Near East, Frank Moore Cross was one of only two Americans on the original scroll-publication team. He identified thousands of fragments; all of them have now been published. Cross is widely considered a pioneer in Qumran studies.

Cross was a professor at Harvard from 1957 until his retirement in 1992. He supervised more than a hundred dissertations, was curator and then director of the Harvard Semitic Museum and has published over 200 articles. As one of the only living members of the original Scrolls team, he reminisced about the discovery of the Scrolls in an interview with BAR editor Hershel Shanks for the May/June 60th anniversary of the Dead Sea Scrolls issue.

Source:

Ulrich, Eugene. “Cross, Frank Moore.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Photo: Estate of John Marco Allegro

FREE ebook: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning. What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about Judaism and Christianity.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Roland de Vaux

The Editor: Roland de Vaux

Père Roland de Vaux, a Dominican priest, was the director of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, editor of the Revue biblique and president of the Palestine Archaeological Museum, or PAM; later the Rockefeller Museum) when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. He had already conducted many important archaeological excavations, most notably at Ma’in, Abu Ghosh and Tell el-Far’ah. At the request of G. Lankester Harding, director of the Antiquities Department of Jordan, de Vaux began excavating Cave 1 at the beginning of 1949. He and his team recovered large amounts of pottery and additional scroll fragments from the cave. Throughout the 1950s, he led several expeditions to the caves near Qumran and would eventually excavate all of them and publish the results (except Cave 11).

From 1951 to 1958 de Vaux excavated the site of Qumran. Although not an epigrapher, he was named editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team, serving mostly in an administrative capacity. He did, however, publish three fragments from Cave 1. He remained the editor-in-chief until he died in September of 1970.

Source:

Briend, Jacques. “De Vaux, Roland,” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Photo: Biblical Archaeology Society

Florentino Garcia Martinez

The Spanish Scholar: Florentino Garcia Martinez

Florentino Garcia Martinez is on the faculty of theology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. He has published widely on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the people of Qumran and is a member of the official publication team. He is considered one of the leading Scroll scholars today and is the director of the Qumran Institute for the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the University of Gronigen in the Netherlands.

Photo: K.U. Leuven

Gerald Lankester Harding

The Museum Director: Gerald Lankester Harding

G.L. Harding was the Director of Antiquities in Jordan from 1936 to 1956. In 1948, after the creation of the State of Israel, he became responsible for the Palestine Archaeological Museum (PAM, now the Rockefeller Museum) where the Scroll fragments were stored and studied. Harding was instrumental in the creation of an international team of scholars to publish and translate the Scrolls. He also undertook the excavations at Qumran with Père De Vaux. Harding was forced out of office in 1956 due to political strife, but his service to the kingdom of Jordan was recognized upon his death in 1979 when the Jordanian government allowed his ashes to be buried there. Harding is interred at Jerash overlooking the archaeological site.

Source:

Winnet, Fred V. “Gerald Lankester Harding: 1901-1979.” In Biblical Archaeologist, American Schools of Oriental Research. Spring 1980, p. 127

Muhammed edh-Dhib Hassan

The Finder: Muhammed edh-Dhib Hassan

Muhammed edh-Dhib Hassan (right) is credited, along with at least two other Ta’amireh Bedouin, with the discovery of the first scrolls from Cave 1. Supposedly while searching for a lost sheep or goat he threw a rock into a cave and heard the sound of breaking ceramic. When he entered the cave thinking there might be some sort of treasure inside, he found the first of the scrolls. Several people have claimed to be him throughout the years, so his true identity is uncertain.

Photo: John C. Trever
 

Claus Hunno-Hunzinger

The German Scholar: Claus Hunno-Hunzinger

Claus Hunno-Hunzinger was the first German scholar to join the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team. He was assigned the War Scroll and many of the papyrus fragments. He is an emeritus professor at the University of Hamburg.

Photo: John Marco Allegro, Alexander Schick
 

Jozef T. Milik

The Prodigious Priest: Jozef T. Milik

Jozef T. Milik, called by Time magazine “the fastest man with a fragment,” deciphered hundreds of the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls throughout his tenure on the publication team. He started translating and publishing them in the early 1950s while a student at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. His scholarly pursuits caught the eye of Père Roland de Vaux, then director of the École Biblique et Archaeologique Francaise and co-director of the excavations of Cave 1 and Khirbet Qumran.

Joining de Vaux’s team, Milik helped discover Cave 3, excavated and unearthed hundreds of fragments from Cave 4, and took part in the discovery and excavations of Caves 5 and 6. He would later become one of the most essential participants of the translation and publication team. De Vaux entrusted him with some of the most important scrolls, including the Copper Scroll (3Q15). He published more than any other scholar, yet, since he did not manage to publish the huge amount of work he was assigned, he occasionally was blamed for the 40-year lag in the publication of the scrolls.

Source:

Puech Emile. “Milik, Jozef T.” In Enclyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Photo: Estate of John Marco Allegro

Émile Puech

The French Priest: Émile Puech

Father Émile Puech is Director of Research at the CNRS and is a professor at the École Biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. An eminent specialist on Qumran, Father Puech is France’s representative among the international group of official editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts. He began work for one of the site’s original archeologists, Jean Starcky, in 1973 and has now fully taken over his work.

Photo: Garo Nalbandian

Elisha Qimron

The Litigious Scholar: Elisha Qimron

In 1980, Elisha Qimron and Emmanuel Tov became the first Israelis to be appointed to the translations and publication team. Qimron, with a Ph.D. from Hebrew University, where he wrote his dissertation on the Hebrew of the Scrolls, is a leading scroll scholar. He worked on the translation of scrolls—most notably 4QMMT—with John Strugnell. In 1991, the Biblical Archaeology Society published Qimron’s reconstruction of MMT without his permission. Qimron sued for copyright infringement. The case went all the way to the Israel Supreme Court, which, in 2001, ruled in Qimron’s favor.

Photo: Willy Feffer

Anthansius Yeshue Samuel

The Broker: Anthansius Yeshue Samuel

Anthanasius Yeshue Samuel was born in Turkey on Christmas day. He received his education at St. Marks’ monastery, rising through the ranks of the priesthood until he was appointed the metropolitan of the Syrian Orthodox Church for Palestine and Jordan. He was contacted by a member of his congregation, George Shaya, about an antiquities dealer named Kando who had some scrolls that were found in the desert. George brought Kando and the Scrolls to Mar Samuel, and the metropolitan immediately recognized them as ancient. He purchased the Isaiah, Habakkuk and Genesis scrolls (1QIsaa; 1QapHab; and 1QapGen). He contacted several experts in order to have them authenticated, but it wasn’t until the spring of 1948 that he contacted the American School of Oriental Research; John C. Trever, acting director at the time, sent a picture of the scrolls to famed American scholar William F. Albright, who dated them to around 100 B.C.

Mar Samuel left Israel in 1949, taking his scrolls with him. He tried in vain to sell them to a few American universities, such as Yale, but to no avail. Finally, in desperation, he placed an ad in The Wall Street Journal on June 1, 1954, listing the “Four Dead Sea Scrolls” for sale. Several American journalists thought that the sale of the scrolls might make a good story, and word spread until it reached the ear of Avraham Harman, the Israeli counsel-general in New York. He contacted Yigael Yadin, who was in the United States on a lecture tour. They two men knew that if word got out that the State of Israel was attempting purchase, it might cause some controversy, so clandestine arrangements were made and Yadin managed to purchase the scrolls for $250,000 for Israel. Unfortunately for Mar Samuel, the IRS looked upon it as a taxable sale even though he was selling them on behalf of his church, and most of the proceeds went to the U.S. government. Mar Samuel remained in the United States, and was eventually named the first Archbishop of the Syrian Orthodox Archdiocese of the United States and Canada. He died on the Orthodox Palm Sunday in 1995.

Source:

Breind, Jacques. “Samuel, Athanasius Yeshue” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Photo: John C. Trever

James Sanders

The Psalms Scholar: James Sanders

James A. Sanders was a professor of intertestamental and Biblical studies at Claremont School of Theology Graduate school from 1977 to his retirement in the late 1990s. As one of the editors of the scrolls, he was the first to translate and edit the Psalm Scroll, which contained a previously unknown psalm. In 1980, he founded the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center (ABMC) for the preservation and research of ancient and medieval Biblical scripts.
 

Lawrence Schiffman

The Rabbinics Scholar: Lawrence Schiffman

Lawrence Schiffman is the Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University. He is a member of the DSS editorial team and has published more than 150 articles on the scrolls. He is considered on of the world’s preeminent scroll scholars and an expert in Rabbinic Judaism. He is also chair of New York University’s Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies.

Photo: Jim Haberman
 

Khalil Iskander Shahin

The Middleman: Khalil Iskander Shahin

Kando was a Syrian Orthodox Christian from Bethlehem who lived his life as a cobbler but had an antiquities shop on the side. He later opened an antiquities shop in Jerusalem, not far from the École Biblique, to pursue that career full-time. He was one of the major intermediaries between Bedouin and Metropolitan Samuel for the purchase of the scrolls. Kadno also acted as the middleman between the Bedouin and the Department of Antiquities of Jordan for fragments from Caves 2 and 4. Knowing how valuable the scrolls were, he stashed some away for himself, most notably the Temple Scroll, which was seized from him by Yigael Yadin in June 1967.

Source:

Briend, Jacques, “Shahin, Khalil Iskander (Kando).” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Photo: Biblical Archaeology Society

Hershel Shanks

The Crusading Journalist: Hershel Shanks

In the early 1990s Shanks used his position as editor of Biblical Archaeology Review to lead the campaign for open access to the scrolls. He was joined by many scholars who had been excluded from the small publication team. A lawyer by training, Shanks is a self-taught editor and archaeology specialist; over his career he has edited four magazines and has written or edited 20 books.

Photo: Jim Haberman
 

Patrick William Skehan

The American Priest: Patrick William Skehan

Monsignor Patrick Skehan was appointed to the team in charge of the publication of the Scrolls in 1953. He was ordained in 1933 and graduated from the Catholic University of America in 1938 where he immediately landed a teaching position in the department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature. He was named monsignor by Pope Pius XII in recognition of his contribution to the study of scripture. He taught at Catholic until his retirement in August 1980.

He was put in charge of editing and translating the Paleo-Hebrew scripts found in Cave 4 and issued preliminary publications the most significant texts in his control. He died before the final publication in the Discoveries in the Judean Desert series.

Sources:

Ulrich, Eugene. “Skehan, Patrick J.” In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

“An Inventory of the Patrick W. Skehan Papers at The American Catholic History Research Center and University Archives,” http://libraries.cua.edu/achrcua/patsk.html. Accessed May 1, 2007.

Photo: The American Catholic History Research Center & University Archives, The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.

Jean Starcky

The French Orientalist: Jean Starcky

Jean Starcky was one of the original members of the international publication team and worked closely with Father Milik and Pere de Vaux on the initial publications of some of the scrolls. He participated in the intial classification of the fragments and published a few of the fragments from Cave 4 that had been assigned to him.

Source:

Puech, Émile, “Starcky, Jean.” In Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam, Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

John Strugnell

The Disgraced Editor: John Strugnell

John Strugnell was a young Oxford graduate in 1954 when Sir Godfrey Driver, an Oxford don (professor) of Semitic philology from 1918 to 1960, nominated him to join the Scrolls editorial team. Although Strugnell had no previous experience in paleography, he learned very quickly to read the Scrolls. He would be involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls project for more than forty years, becoming the Editor in Chief in 1984 when he succeeded Pierre Benoit. He was dismissed in 1990 after a controversial interview he gave to Ha’aretz (republished in BAR in January/February 1991) that branded him an “anti-Judahite.” He attempted to clarify his views in a later interview with BAR in July/August 1994 emphasizing that his statements were meant to express his belief in the superiority of the Christian religion over Judaism, which he called “high Christology.” Strugnell’s life has been riddled with personal problems such as alcoholism and manic depression.

Strugnell has published very few of his assigned scrolls but the ones he has published are “exceptionally important,” such as the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Cave 4, and he is praised for his contributions to the studies of Hellenistic Judaism and the pseudepigrapha. He was also the first editor to add Jewish scholars to the Scrolls’s editorial team. Strugnell is currently a professor emeritus at the Harvard Divinity School and lives in Massachusetts.

Sources:

Collins, John J. in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Who’s Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology, second edition. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1993.

Eleazar Lipa Sukenik

The Scholar: Eleazar Lipa Sukenik

In the tense days leading up the the end of the British Mandate over Palestine in the fall of 1947, Eleazar Lipa Sukenik became the first scholar to recognize the significance of the scrolls found in the Judean Desert in caves near the Dead Sea. In a week-long series of events that reads like a Hollywood script complete with clandestine meetings through barbed wire fences, dangerous military zone crossings and tense bus rides, he managed to acquire two scrolls–1QM, the War Scroll and 1QH, Hodayot from an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem on the very day of the United Nations vote to partition Palestine and create a Jewish state for the first time in 2,000 years. That night he would celebrate in the streets of Jerusalem both the UN vote and his “great discovery.”

Sukenik (PhD, Dropsie College, Philadelphia 1926) was the first archaeologist on the faculty of The Hebrew University, and as such it was his responsibility to acquire items for the collection of the National Museum of Jewish Antiquities at the university. It was his contacts from his collection activities that made the purchase of the scrolls possible. He would eventually acquire IQIsaiah and examine the scrolls in the possession of Mar Samuel and would make the connection between the scrolls and the determination that they were written by the Essenes.

Sukenik would spend the last years of his life translating and publishing commentaries on the scrolls. He also made many efforts to purchase Mar Samuel’s scrolls to no avail. He died thinking that through his failure to acquire the other scrolls “the Jewish people [had] lost a precious heritage.” However, his son, famed archaeologist Yigael Yadin, would fulfill the mission of his father.

Sources:

Silberman, Neil Asher. &#147Sukenik, Eleazar L.&#148 In Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls edited by Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Yadin, Yigael. The Message of the Scrolls, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957.

Photo: Israel Museum

John C. Trever

The Photographer: John C. Trever

By Martin Abegg

John C. Trever was the American scholar who photographed the Great Isaiah Scroll and other important Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts from Mar Samuel in Jerusalem in 1948. As a post-graduate student in war-torn Jerusalem during the fall of 1947 and the spring of 1948, Trever was literally “found” by the Dead Sea Scrolls when Syrian Orthodox clergy brought them to be evaluated at what is now the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research. Millar Burrows was the director of the school but was on a two-week excursion in Baghdad—leaving Trever as director pro tempore—when the telephone call came on February 18, 1948, that changed John Trever’s life. Scrolls in ancient Hebrew, the caller said, had been found in the library of the Syrian Orthodox Monastery in Jerusalem’s Old City. These scrolls, as we now know, were the Manual of Discipline (1QS), the Habakkuk Commentary, the Genesis Apocryphon and the Great Isaiah Scroll.

A semi-professional photographer with rare and valuable experience with color photography, Trever persuaded the Syrians to allow him to photograph three of the manuscripts. It was in response to a letter from Trever with a description of the find and a sample of these photos that prompted W.F. Albright’s famous and oft-repeated judgment: “My heartiest congratulations on the greatest MS discovery of modern times!”

Today Trever’s original negatives are housed in California at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center of the Claremont School of Theology, one of several colleges at which he taught. They are an irreplaceable record of the scrolls because they reflect their color and condition when first discovered. His photographs of the Great Isaiah Scroll are once again being prepared for publication as plates for the Great Isaiah Scroll edition, edited by Peter Flint and Eugene Ulrich, of the official series Discoveries in the Judaean Desert.

Emanuel Tov

The Chief Editor: Emanuel Tov

Emanuel Tov is the J.L. Magnes Professor of Bible at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He was appointed head of the scrolls publication team in 1990. Thirty volumes of Discoveries in the Judean Desert were published under his supervision. He also edited the electronic version published by Brill in 2006.

Photo: David Harris
 
 
 

Eugene Ulrich

The Biblical Specialist: Eugene Ulrich

Eugene Ulrich is a professor of Hebrew Scripture and theology at the University of Notre Dame. He is chief editor of the Biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and co-authored The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible with Martin Abegg and Peter Flint. He is also member of the translation teams of both the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the New American Bible.
 
 

James VanderKam

Looking Beyond the Canon: James VanderKam

James C. VanderKam is the John A. O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. One of the world’s leading authorities on the world of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, he is the author of several books, including The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls with Peter Flint, and The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with Lawrence Schiffman. VanderKam has also written widely on non-canonical books among the Dead Sea Scrolls and on the calendar used at Qumran.
 

Géza Vermes

The Oxford Don: Géza Vermes

One of the first scholars to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, Géza Vermes is the author of the standard English translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He was the first professor of Jewish studies at Oxford University, where he taught from 1965 to 1991. Vermes is also a world-renowned expert on the historical Jesus.
 
 
 

Yigael Yadin

The Icognito Buyer: Yigael Yadin

Yigael Yadin was probably the most renowned and influential of Biblical archaeologists–excavating Hazor and Masada, discovering the Bar Kochba Letters, and writing extensively on the scrolls. When his father, Eleazar Sukenik, became aware of the scrolls Yadin was in the military, and was well-aware of the danger his father faced; he even advised him not to go to Bethlehem on November 29, 1947. His father ignored him, coming back to Jerusalem full of excitement, with two scrolls under his arm. But the significance of the two coinciding events of the discovery of the scrolls and the creation of the state didn’t escape him. He would later say:

“I cannot avoid the feeling that there is something symbolic in the discovery of the scrolls and their acquisition at the moment of the creation of the State of Israel. It is as if these manuscripts had been waiting in caves for two thousand years, ever since the destruction of Israel’s independence, until the people of Israel had returned to their home and regained their freedom. This symbolism is heightened by the fact that the first three scrolls were bought by my father for Israel on 29th November, 1947, the very day on which the United Nations voted for the re-creation of the Jewish state in Israel after two thousand years. These facts may have influenced my approach to the scrolls. It was a tremendously exciting experience, difficult to convey in words, to see the original scrolls and to study them, knowing that some of the Biblical manuscripts were copied only a few hundred years after their composition, and that these very scrolls were read and studied by our forefathers in the period of the Second Temple. They constitute a vital link–long lost and now regained–between those ancient times, so rich in civilized thought, and the present day.”

Sukenik had obtained only three of the seven major scrolls, however. The other four found their way to America, where the Metropolitan Mar Samuel tried to sell them. This proved more difficult than the Metropolitan had anticipated. Eventually, he placed a classified ad in July 1954 in The Wall Street Journal.

Yadin was in the United States on a lecture tour when Avraham Harman, the Israel consul-general in New York, called the ad to Yadin’s attention. Through intermediaries Yadin arranged to purchase the scrolls for the State of Israel for $250,000, thus completing the task his father had started. Today the seven scrolls are housed in the Shrine of the Book of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Yadin himself edited two of the seven scrolls, the War Scroll and the Genesis Apocryphon Scroll. His last contribution the the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls was his work on the Temple Scroll , which he seized from antiquities dealer Kando in June of 1967.

Yadin was more than a famed archaeologist, he was a military hero and a statesman, rising to Deputy Prime Minister of Israel. Yigael Yadin died of a heart attack on June 28, 1984 at the age of 67.

Sources:

Hershel Shanks, “Yigael Yadin 1917–1984,” BAR, September/October 1984.

Neil Asher Silberman, “Yadin, Yigael,” in Lawrence Schiffman and James VanderKam, eds., Enclyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Neil Asher Silberman, A Prophet from Amongst You: The Life of Yigael Yadin: Soldier, Scholar, and Mythmaker of Modern Israel (Boston: Addison Wesley, 1993).

Yigael Yadin, The Message of the Scrolls (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957).

Photo: Zev Radovan.

FREE ebook: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning. What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about Judaism and Christianity.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The post Cast of Characters appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Jerusalem’s Traitor: Josephus, Masada, and the Fall of Judea

by Desmond Seward

Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2009, xxii + 314 pp.
$28 (hardcover)
Reviewed by Louis H. Feldman
 
 
Josephus’s soul-stirring account of the Great Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–70 C.E.), titled The Jewish War, has recently been translated from Greek into Hebrew by Lisa Ullman. In a review in Haaretz, Hebrew University political scientist Shlomo Avineri recalls a mock trial in 1948 during Israel’s War of Independence in which Josephus was the defendant: Was Josephus a hero or a traitor? For many years such trials of Josephus were common in Israel. The unusual feature of the mock trial that Avineri recalls, however, is that there were two defendants: Josephus and Yohanan Ben Zakkai, the rabbinic leader who fled a besieged Jerusalem to the camp of the Roman Tenth Legion to ask the Roman commander Vespasian to spare Yavneh and its sages, a request that was granted.

Both defendants, however, were acquitted in the mock trial. Professor Avineri recalls that the argument that won the day was that the harm caused by their respective choices to cross the lines and to go to the enemy was not as bad as the good that they did for the Jewish people.

In Yohanan Ben Zakkai’s case, the survival of the rabbinic academy at Yavneh enabled the sages to create an alternative framework for Jewish identity after the Roman destruction of the Temple.

Josephus, too, defected to the Romans. He went to Rome and returned with Titus and the Roman forces to witness the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, after which, living in Rome, he wrote The Jewish War. Josephus’s arguments against the revolt were his effort to preserve the identity of the Jews as a nation. In his review, Avineri calls Josephus the first Zionist in the sense that Zionism is an expression of Jewish nationalism.

To judge from the title of the book here under review (Jerusalem’s Traitor), one would expect that the author would make a case depicting Josephus as a prejudiced historian and as a traitor to the Jewish people. Actually, Seward argues that Josephus, far from being a quisling, did his best to save Judea from the inevitable catastrophe. Seward agrees with St. Jerome, who ranked Josephus on a par with the great Roman historian Livy, though Seward recognizes that, as a human being, Josephus was vain and unscrupulous. Moreover, Seward admires Josephus for his unwavering belief in the destiny of his faith and his nation. If he was an opportunist, he was nevertheless loyal in his own way to what he considered the best interests of his people. If we may judge from the Talmud, Josephus’s viewpoint was shared by many of the rabbis.

At Masada a small group of rebels held out against the Romans for three or four years after the fall of Jerusalem. Although Josephus was not there, Seward goes so far as to say that Masada inspired Josephus to write two more books?the Jewish Antiquities, relating the history of the Jewish people from the beginning to the outbreak of the revolt against Rome, and the essay Against Apion, which defends the Jews against anti-Semitic charges leveled by one Apion. As far as I am aware, Josephus never states that the incident at Masada inspired him to write these works, contra Seward.

When Josephus surrendered and obtained a meeting with the then Roman commander Vespasian, Josephus predicted that Vespasian would become emperor. Seward tells us that upon investigation, Vespasian learned that Josephus had turned out to be a veracious prophet in other matters and eventually freed him. Josephus then proceeded to urge the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem to surrender, because God was on the Romans’ side. Does this make Josephus a traitor, or was he sincere in trying to save Jewish lives and the Temple?

As noted by Seward, several of Josephus’s actions might well lead a reader to suspect Josephus’s loyalty. When Josephus was commanding rebel troops in Galilee early in the revolt, a fellow revolutionary, John of Gischala, asked Josephus for permission to make off with grain lying in some villages. Josephus refused, replying that he wanted the grain either for the Romans (actually the Jewish king, Agrippa II, who was a faithful ally of the Romans) or for his own use. Seward does not mention this episode, although it reflects badly on Josephus.

In his autobiography Josephus admits that after his defection, he was often in danger of death, both from the Jews, who were keen to have him at their mercy for the sake of revenge, and from the Romans, who had imagined that whenever they suffered a defeat, this resulted from his betrayal. Strangely, his autobiography is utterly silent on the last 20-odd years of his life when he was in Rome regarding specific incidents of this nature.

Finally, we may wonder why Josephus is never mentioned in the literature of the Talmud or the Midrashim. Is this because he was regarded as a traitor? Or was it because of his undue regard for Greek wisdom?

In assessing the Jewish revolt against the Romans that ended with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, history must have a vote. Seward is well aware of this and is even-handed in his treatment. On the whole, with some exceptions, the Jews in Judea were well treated during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Romans realized that they themselves were a minority within their empire. The majority of people in the empire did not speak Latin. The key figures during this period were Julius Caesar and Augustus, both of whom were favorably disposed toward the Jews. When questions arose, the Jews of Judea would send delegations to Rome and generally presented their case successfully. Hence, Josephus would seem to be right in opposing rebellion, at least at this time.
 

 
Louis H. Feldman is the Abraham Wouk Family Professor of Classics and Literature at Yeshiva University in New York. An authority on Josephus and Josephus scholarship, he has written or edited 18 books (the most recent is Flavius Josephus, Judean Antiquities 1–4: Translation and Commentary [Leiden: Brill, 2000]) and more than 170 articles.

The post Jerusalem’s Traitor appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.