samaritans Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse

BAS Staff — Tue, 23 Dec 2025 12:00:41 +0000

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.

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

John A. Cramer responds:

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

Read an excerpt from Andrew E. Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), pp. 235–238 [footnotes removed]; see also his article “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009), pp. 1–29.

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.

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

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

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

Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?

Jonathan Klawans — Sun, 02 Nov 2025 12:00:41 +0000

Read Jonathan Klawans’s article “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?” as it originally appeared in Bible Review, October 2001. Klawans also wrote a follow-up article, “Jesus’ Last Supper Still Wasn’t a Passover Seder Meal.” —Ed.

Traditional Views of Jesus’ Last Supper as a Passover Meal

With his disciples gathered around him, Jesus partakes of his Last Supper. The meal in this late-15th-century painting by the Spanish artist known only as the Master of Perea consists of lamb, unleavened bread and wine—all elements of the Seder feast celebrated on the first night of the Jewish Passover festival. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke appear to present Jesus’ Last Supper as a Seder. In John, however, the seven-day Passover festival does not begin until after Jesus is crucified. Jonathan Klawans suggests that the Passover Seder as we know it developed only after the time of Jesus. Christie’s Images/Superstock

Many people assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, a ritual meal held in celebration of the Jewish holiday of Passover. And indeed, according to the Gospel of Mark 14:12, Jesus prepared for the Last Supper on the “first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb.” If Jesus and his disciples gathered together to eat soon after the Passover lamb was sacrificed, what else could they possibly have eaten if not the Passover meal? And if they ate the Passover sacrifice, they must have held a Seder.

Three out of four of the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree that the Last Supper was held only after the Jewish holiday had begun. Moreover, one of the best known and painstakingly detailed studies of the Last Supper—Joachim Jeremias’s book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus—lists no fewer than 14 distinct parallels between the Last Supper tradition and the Passover Seder.¹

The Passover Seder and Sacrifice

The Jewish holiday of Passover commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. The roots of the festival are found in Exodus 12, in which God instructs the Israelites to sacrifice a lamb at twilight on the 14th day of the Jewish month of Nisan, before the sun sets (Exodus 12:18). That night the Israelites are to eat the lamb with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The lamb’s blood should be swabbed on their doorposts as a sign. God, seeing the sign, will then “pass over” the houses of the Israelites (Exodus 12:13), while smiting the Egyptians with the tenth plague, the killing of the first-born sons.

FREE ebook: Ancient Israel in Egypt and the Exodus.

A San Francisco seder. California Rabbi Jack Frankel and his family lift the first glass of wine during a Seder meal, held on the first night of Passover (and the second night in the Diaspora). The Seder commemorates the Exodus from Egypt. Throughout the meal, the biblical story is retold; the food is linked symbolically with the Exodus. Photo by Rodger Ressmeyer, San Francisco/Corbis.

Exodus 12 commands the Israelites to repeat this practice every year, performing the sacrifice during the day and then consuming it after the sun has set. (According to Jewish tradition, the new day begins with the setting of the sun, so the sacrifice is made on the 14th but the beginning of Passover and the meal are actually on the 15th, although this sequence of dates is not specified in Exodus.) Exodus 12 further speaks of a seven-day festival, which begins when the sacrifice is consumed (Exodus 12:15).

Once the Israelites were settled in Israel, and once a Temple was built in Jerusalem, the original sacrifice described in Exodus 12 changed dramatically. Passover became one of the Jewish Pilgrimage festivals, and Israelites were expected to travel to Jerusalem to sacrifice a Passover lamb at the Temple during the afternoon of the 14th day, and then consume the Passover sacrifice once the sun had set, and the festival had formally begun on the 15th. This kind of celebration is described as having taken place during the reigns of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chronicles 30 and 35).

As time passed, the practice continued to evolve. Eventually, a number of customs, recorded in rabbinic literature, began to accumulate around the meal, which became so highly ritualized that it was called the Seder, from the Hebrew for “order”: Unleavened bread was broken, wine was served, the diners reclined and hymns were sung. Furthermore, during the meal, the Exodus story was retold and the significance of the unleavened bread, bitter herbs and wine was explained.

The bread and wine, the hymn, the reclining diners—many of these characteristic elements are shared by the Last Supper, as Jeremias pointed out. (Jeremias’s 14 parallels are given in full in endnote 1.) What is more, just as Jews at the Seder discuss the symbolism of the Passover meal, Jesus at his Last Supper discussed the symbolism of the wine and bread in light of his own coming death.

It is not only Jeremias’s long list of parallels that leads many modern Christians and Jews to describe the Last Supper as a Passover Seder. The recent popularity of interfaith Seders (where Christians and Jews celebrate aspects of Passover and the Last Supper together) points to an emotional impulse that is also at work here. The Christian celebration of the Eucharist (Communion)—the Last Supper—is the fundamental ritual for many Christians. And among Jews the Passover Seder is one of the most widely practiced of all observances. In these times of ecumenicism and general good feeling between Christians and Jews, many people seem to find it reassuring to think that Communion (the Eucharist) and the Passover Seder are historically related.

Historical Doubts about Jesus’ Last Supper as a Passover Seder

History, however, is often more complex and perhaps a little less comforting than we might hope. Although I welcome the current ecumenical climate, I believe we must be careful not to let our emotions get the better of us when we are searching for history. Indeed, even though the association of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder remains entrenched in the popular mind, a growing number of scholars are beginning to express serious doubts about this claim.

Of course a number of New Testament scholars—the Jesus Seminar comes to mind—tend to doubt that the Gospels accurately record very much at all about Jesus, with the exception of some of his sayings. Obviously if the Gospels cannot be trusted, then we have no reason to assume that there ever was a Last Supper at all. And if there was no Last Supper, then it could not have taken place on Passover.²

The sacrifice of the Passover lamb is conducted annually on Mt. Gerizim, in Nablus (ancient Shechem), in the West Bank, by the Samaritans, a religious group that split from Judaism by the second century B.C.E. The Samaritans retained the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) as their Scripture, although with some alterations. The Samaritan Bible refers to Mt. Gerizim, not Jerusalem, as the center of worship. David Harris.

Furthermore, several Judaic studies scholars—Jacob Neusner is a leading example—very much doubt that rabbinic texts can be used in historical reconstructions of the time of Jesus. But rabbinic literature is our main source of information about what Jews might have done during their Seder meal in ancient times. For reasons that are not entirely clear, other ancient Jewish sources, such as Josephus and Philo, focus on what Jews did in the Temple when the Passover sacrifice was offered, rather than on what they did afterward, when they actually ate the sacrifice. Again, if we cannot know how Jews celebrated Passover at the time of Jesus, then we have to plead ignorance, and we would therefore be unable to answer our question.

There is something to be said for these skeptical positions, but I am not such a skeptic. I want to operate here under the opposite assumptions: that the Gospels can tell us about the historical Jesus,³ and that rabbinic sources can be used—with caution—to reconstruct what Jews at the time of Jesus might have believed and practiced.⁴ Even so, I do not think the Last Supper was a Passover Seder.

Read “Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible” by Lawrence Mykytiuk from the January/February 2015 issue of BAR >>

Jesus’ Last Supper in the Gospels

While three of the four canonical Gospels strongly suggest that the Last Supper did occur on Passover, we should not get too comfortable based on that. The three Gospels that support this view are the three synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark and Luke. As anyone who has studied these three Gospels knows, they are closely related. In fact, the name synoptic refers to the fact that these three texts can be studied most effectively when “seen together” (as implied in the Greek etymology of synoptic). Thus, in fact we don’t really have three independent sources here at all. What we have, rather, is one testimony (probably Mark), which was then copied twice (by Matthew and Luke).

Against the “single” testimony of the synoptics that the Last Supper was a Passover meal stands the lone Gospel of John, which dates the crucifixion to the “day of Preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14). According to John, Jesus died just when the Passover sacrifice was being offered and before the festival began at sundown (see the sidebar to this article). Any last meal—which John does not record—would have taken place the night before, or even earlier than that. But it certainly could not have been a Passover meal, for Jesus died before the holiday had formally begun.

So are we to follow John or the synoptics?⁵ There are a number of problems with the synoptic account. First, if the Last Supper had been a Seder held on the first night of Passover, then that would mean Jesus’ trial and crucifixion took place during the week-long holiday. If indeed Jewish authorities were at all involved in Jesus’ trial and death, then according to the synoptics those authorities would have engaged in activities—holding trials and carrying out executions—that were either forbidden or certainly unseemly to perform on the holiday. This is not the place to consider whether Jewish authorities were involved in Jesus’ death.⁶ Nor is it the place to consider whether such authorities would have been devout practitioners of Jewish law. But this is the place to point out that if ancient Jewish authorities had been involved in something that could possibly be construed as a violation of Jewish law, the Gospels—with their hatred of the Jewish authorities—would probably have made the most of it. The synoptic account stretches credulity, not just because it depicts something unlikely, but because it fails to recognize the unlikely and problematic nature of what it depicts. It is almost as if the synoptic tradition has lost all familiarity with contemporary Jewish practice. And if they have lost familiarity with that, they have probably lost familiarity with reliable historical information as well.

There are, of course, some reasons to doubt John’s account too. He may well have had theological motivations for claiming that Jesus was executed on the day of preparation when the Passover sacrifice was being offered but before Passover began at sundown. John’s timing of events supports the Christian claim that Jesus himself was a sacrifice and that his death heralds a new redemption, just as the Passover offering recalls an old one. Even so, John’s claim that Jesus was killed just before Passover began is more plausible than the synoptics’ claim that Jesus was killed on Passover. And if Jesus wasn’t killed on Passover, but before it (as John claims), then the Last Supper could not in fact have been a Passover Seder.

FREE ebook, Recipes from the BAR Test Kitchen Make your own food from recipes handed down from biblical times. Download now.

A Jewish Last Supper Celebration

What then of Jeremias’s long list of parallels? It turns out that under greater scrutiny the parallels are too general to be decisive. That Jesus ate a meal in Jerusalem, at night, with his disciples is not so surprising. It is also no great coincidence that during this meal the disciples reclined, ate both bread and wine, and sang a hymn. While such behavior may have been characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal.

A number of scholars now believe that the ritual context for the Last Supper was not a Seder but a standard Jewish meal. That Christians celebrated the Eucharist on a daily or weekly basis (see Acts 2:46–47) underscores the fact that it was not viewed exclusively in a Passover context (otherwise, it would have been performed, like the Passover meal, on an annual basis).

An ancient Christian church manual called the Didache also suggests that the Last Supper may have been an ordinary Jewish meal. In Chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, the eucharistic prayers are remarkably close to the Jewish Grace After Meals (Birkat ha-Mazon).⁷ While these prayers are recited after the Passover meal, they would in fact be recited at any meal at which bread was eaten, holiday or not. Thus, this too underscores the likelihood that the Last Supper was an everyday Jewish meal.

Moreover, while the narrative in the synoptics situates the Last Supper during Passover, the fact remains that the only foods we are told the disciples ate are bread and wine—the basic elements of any formal Jewish meal. If this was a Passover meal, where is the Passover lamb? Where are the bitter herbs? Where are the four cups of wine?^a

Learn about dining and farming practices in the Biblical world in the BAS Library Special Collection Feeding the Biblical World.

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

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

If you'd like to help make it possible for us to continue Bible History Daily, BiblicalArchaeology.org, and our email newsletter please donate. Even $5 helps:

The Symbolic Explanation of the Bread and Wine at Passover and Jesus’ Last Supper

We are left with only one important parallel (Jeremias’s 14th) that can be explained in terms of a Seder: the surprising fact that Jesus at his Last Supper engaged in symbolic explanation of the bread and wine, just as Jews at the Seder engage in symbolic explanations, interpreting aspects of the Passover meal in light of the Exodus from Egypt: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant’” (Matthew 26:26–28=Mark 14:22; see also Luke 22:19–20). Is this not a striking parallel to the ways in which Jews celebrating the Seder interpret, for example, the bitter herbs eaten with the Passover sacrifice as representing the bitter life the Israelites experienced as slaves in Egypt?

However, this last parallel between the Last Supper and the Passover Seder assumes that the Seder ritual we know today was celebrated in Jesus’ day. But this is hardly the case.

FREE ebook: Frank Moore Cross: Conversations with a Bible Scholar. Download now.

The Development of the Modern Passover Seder

When Jews today sit down to celebrate the Passover Seder, they use a book known as the Haggadah. The Hebrew word haggadah literally means “telling”; the title refers to the book’s purpose: to provide the ordered framework through which the story of Passover is told at the Seder. Telling the story of Passover is, of course, one of the fundamental purposes of the celebration, as stated in Exodus 13:8: “And you shall tell your child on that day, ‘It is because of what the Lord did for me when I went forth from Egypt.’”

The text on this particular page from an illuminated Haggadah created by Zeev Raban (1890–1970) provides rabbinic commentary on a Biblical passage relating to Israel’s sojourn in Egypt. After discussing Jacob’s journey to Egypt, the text continues, “‘And he lived there’—this teaches that our father Jacob did not go to Egypt to settle there permanently, just temporarily, as it is written: ‘And the sons of Jacob said to Pharaoh: “We have come to live in this land temporarily, for there is no pasture for the flocks that belong to your servants, for the famine is harsh in the land of Canaan”’” (quoting Genesis 47:4). From the Raban Haggadah/Courtesy of Mali Doron.

The traditional text of the Haggadah as it exists today incorporates a variety of material, starting with the Bible, and running through medieval songs and poems. For many Jews (especially non-Orthodox Jews), the process of development continues, and many modern editions of the Haggadah contain contemporary readings of one sort or another. Even many traditional Jews have, for instance, adapted the Haggadah so that mention can be made of the Holocaust.⁸

How much of the Haggadah goes back to ancient times? In the 1930s and 1940s, the American Talmud scholar Louis Finkelstein (1895–1991) famously claimed that various parts of the Passover Haggadah were very early, stemming in part from the third century B.C.E.⁹ In 1960, Israeli scholar Daniel Goldschmidt (1895–1972) effectively rebutted practically all of Finkelstein’s claims. It is unfortunate that Goldschmidt’s Hebrew article has not been translated, because it remains, to my mind, the classic work on the early history of the Passover Haggadah.¹⁰ Fortunately, a number of brief and up-to-date treatments of the history of the Haggadah are now available.¹¹ A full generation later, the Goldschmidt-Finkelstein debate seems to have been settled, and in Goldschmidt’s favor. Almost everyone doing serious work on the early history of Passover traditions, including Joseph Tabory, Israel Yuval, Lawrence Hoffman, and the father-son team of Shmuel and Ze’ev Safrai, has rejected Finkelstein’s claims for the great antiquity of the bulk of the Passover Haggadah. What is particularly significant about this consensus is that these scholars are not radical skeptics. These scholars believe that, generally speaking, we can extract historically reliable information from rabbinic sources. But as demonstrated by the late Baruch Bokser in his book The Origins of the Seder, practically everything preserved in the early rabbinic traditions concerning the Passover Seder brings us back to the time immediately following the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.¹² It’s not that rabbinic literature cannot be trusted to tell us about history in the first century of the Common Era. It’s that rabbinic literature—in the case of the Seder—does not even claim to be telling us how the Seder was performed before the destruction of the Temple.^b

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

Let me elaborate on this proposition by examining the Haggadah’s requirement of explaining the Passover symbols:

Rabban Gamaliel used to say: Whoever does not make mention of the following three things on Passover has not fulfilled his obligation: namely, the Passover sacrifice, unleavened bread (matzah) and bitter herbs.

(1) The Passover sacrifice, which our ancestors used to eat at the time when the Holy Temple stood—what is the reason? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, passed over the houses of our ancestors in Egypt. As it is said, “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover…” (Exodus 12:27).

(2) The unleavened bread, which we eat—what is the reason? Because the dough of our ancestors had not yet leavened when the King of Kings, the Holy One Blessed be He revealed Himself to them and redeemed them. As it is said, “And they baked unleavened cakes…” (Exodus 12:39).

(3) These bitter herbs, which we eat—what is the reason? Because the Egyptians made the lives of our ancestors bitter in Egypt. As it is said, “And they made their lives bitter…” (Exodus 1:14).

Read Andrew McGowan’s article “The Hungry Jesus,” in which he challenges the tradition that Jesus was a welcoming host at meals, in Bible History Daily.

Rabban Gamaliel instructs his students in this illumination from the Sarajevo Haggadah. The Haggadah credits Gamaliel with introducing the requirement that the symbolic significance of the food served during the Seder be explained during the meal. Some scholars who assume the Last Supper was a Seder have suggested that Jesus deliberately explained the significance of the bread and wine in fulfillment of this requirement. But the requirement may not have even been in place in the time of Jesus. There were two leaders of the rabbinic academy called Gamaliel: One lived around the time of Jesus; the other, after the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Sarajevo National Museum.

On first reading, Jeremias might appear to be correct: Jesus’ explanation of the bread and the wine does seem similar to Rabban Gamaliel’s explanation of the Passover symbols. Might not Jesus be presenting a competing interpretation of these symbols? Possibly. But it really depends on when this Rabban Gamaliel lived. If he lived later than Jesus, then it would make no sense to view Jesus’ words as based on Rabban Gamaliel’s.

Unfortunately for the contemporary historian, there were two rabbis named Gamaliel, both of whom bore the title “rabban” (which means “our master” and was usually applied to the head of the rabbinic academy). The first lived decadesbefore the destruction of the Temple, according to rabbinic tradition.¹³ It is this Gamaliel who is referred to in Acts 22:3, in which Paul is said to have claimed that he was educated “at the feet of Gamaliel.” The second Rabban Gamaliel was, according to rabbinic tradition, the grandson of the elder Gamaliel. This Gamaliel served as head of the rabbinic academy sometime after the destruction of the Temple. Virtually all scholars working today believe that the Haggadah tradition attributing the words quoted above to Gamaliel refers to the grandson, Rabban Gamaliel the Younger, who lived long after Jesus had died.¹⁴ One piece of evidence for this appears in the text quoted above, in which Rabban Gamaliel is said to have spoken of the time “when the Temple was still standing”—as if that time had already passed. Furthermore, as Baruch Bokser has shown, the bulk of early rabbinic material pertaining to the Passover Haggadah is attributed in the Haggadah itself to figures who lived immediately following the destruction of the Temple (and were therefore contemporaries of Gamaliel the Younger). Finally, a tradition preserved in the Tosefta (a rabbinic companion volume to the earliest rabbinic lawbook, the Mishnah, edited perhaps in the third or fourth century) suggests that Gamaliel the Younger played some role in Passover celebrations soon after the Temple was destroyed, when animal sacrifices could for this reason no longer be offered.¹⁵

Thus, the Passover Seder as we know it developed after 70 C.E. I wish we could know more about how the Passover meal was celebrated before the Temple was destroyed. But unfortunately, our sources do not answer this question with any certainty. Presumably, Jesus and his disciples would have visited the Temple to slaughter their Passover sacrifice. Then they would have consumed it along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs, as required by the Book of Exodus. And presumably they would have engaged in conversation pertinent to the occasion. But we cannot know for sure.

According to scholar Jonathan Klawans, ancient Jews—including the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes—cared as much about matters of Jewish theology as about laws and practices. Read more >>

Why the Synoptic Gospels Portray the Last Supper as a Passover Meal

Having determined that the Last Supper was not a Seder and that it probably did not take place on Passover, I must try to account for why the synoptic Gospels portray the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Of course, the temporal proximity of Jesus’ crucifixion (and with it, the Last Supper) to the Jewish Passover provides one motive: Surely this historical coincidence could not be dismissed as just that.

Another motive relates to a rather practical question: Within a few years after Jesus’ death, Christian communities (which at first consisted primarily of Jews) began to ask when, how and even whether they should celebrate or commemorate the Jewish Passover.¹⁶ This was a question not only early on, but throughout the time of the so-called Quartodeciman controversy. The Quartodecimans (the 14-ers) were Christians who believed that the date of Easter should be calculated so as to coincide with the Jewish celebration of Passover, whether or not that date fell on a Sunday. The Jewish calendar was (and is) lunar, and therefore there is always a full moon on the night of the Passover Seder, that is, the night following the 14th of Nisan. But that night is not always a Saturday night. The Quartodeciman custom of celebrating Easter beginning on the evening following the 14th day apparently began relatively early in Christian history and persisted at least into the fifth century C.E. The alternate view—that Easter must be on a Sunday, regardless of the day on which the Jewish Passover falls—ultimately prevailed. Possibly the Gospels’ disagreements about the timing of the Last Supper were the result of these early Christian disputes about when Easter should be celebrated. After all, if you wanted to encourage Christians to celebrate Easter on Passover, would it not make sense to emphasize the fact that Jesus celebrated Passover with his disciples just before he died?

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.

Related to the question of when Christians should recall Jesus’ last days was a question of how they should be recalled. Early on, a number of Christians—Quartodecimans and others—felt that the appropriate way to mark the Jewish Passover was not with celebration, but with fasting. On the one hand, this custom reflected an ancient Jewish tradition of fasting during the time immediately preceding the Passover meal (as related in Mishnah Pesachim 10:1). On the other hand, distinctively Christian motives for this fast can also be identified, from recalling Jesus’ suffering on the cross to praying for the eventual conversion of the Jews.¹⁷

Is it possible to identify the first-century man named Jesus behind the many stories and traditions about him that developed over 2,000 years in the Gospels and church teachings? Visit the Jesus/Historical Jesus study page to read free articles on Jesus in Bible History Daily.

Jesus is the Paschal lamb in the Gospel of John, which associates the crucifixion, rather than the Last Supper, with the Passover festival. According to John, Jesus died on the “day of Preparation for the Passover” (John 19:14), when the Passover sacrifice was being offered but before the festival began at sundown.
In Matthias Gruenewald’s altarpiece (1510–1516) for the monastery of Isenheim, Germany (but now in the Unterlinden Museum, in Colmar), the crucified Jesus is explicitly linked with the Paschal sacrifice. To the right of the cross stands a wounded lamb, which carries a cross and bleeds into a chalice. The disciple whom Jesus loved comforts Jesus’ mother at left. Mary Magdalene kneels at the foot of the cross, her alabaster ointment jar beside her. At right, John the Baptist points to Jesus. His prediction that Jesus will overtake him (“He must increase, but I must decrease,” John 3:30) is inscribed beside him in Latin. Giraudon/Art Resource, NY.

The German New Testament scholar Karl Georg Kuhn has argued that the Gospel of Luke places the Last Supper in a Passover context in order to convince Christians not to celebrate Passover. He notes that the synoptic Last Supper tradition attributes to Jesus a rather curious statement of abstinence: “I have earnestly desired to eat this Paschal lamb with you before I suffer, for I tell you that I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God…[and] I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes” (Luke 22:15–18; cf. Mark 14:25 [“I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”]=Matthew 26:29). The synoptics’ placement of the Last Supper in a Passover context should be read along with Jesus’ statement on abstinence; in this view, the tradition that the Last Supper was a Passover meal argues that Christians should mark the Passover not by celebrating, but by fasting, because Jesus has already celebrated his last Passover.¹⁸ Thus, until Jesus’ kingdom is fulfilled, Christians should not celebrate at all during Passover.

New Testament scholar Bruce Chilton recently presented an alternate theory. He argues that the identification of the Last Supper with a Passover Seder originated among Jewish Christians who were attempting to maintain the Jewish character of early Easter celebrations.¹⁹ By calling the Last Supper a Passover meal, these Jewish-Christians were trying to limit Christian practice in three ways. Like the Passover sacrifice, the recollection of the Last Supper could only be celebrated in Jerusalem, at Passover time, and by Jews.^c

Without deciding between these two contradictory alternatives (though Kuhn’s is in my mind more convincing), we can at least agree that there are various reasons why the early church would have tried to “Passoverize” the Last Supper tradition.²⁰ Placing the Last Supper in the context of Passover was a literary tool in early Christian debates about whether or not and how Christians should celebrate Passover.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

Other examples of Passoverization can be identified. The Gospel of John, as previously noted, and Paul (1 Corinthians 5:7–8) equate Jesus’ crucifixion with the Passover sacrifice: “Our Paschal lamb, Christ has been sacrificed. Therefore let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” This too is a Passoverization of the Jesus tradition, but it is one that contradicts the identification of the Last Supper with the Seder or Passover meal.

Both of these Passoverizations can be placed in the broader context of Exodus typology in general. W.D. Davies and N.T. Wright have argued that various New Testament sources depict the events of Jesus’ life as a new Exodus. Early Christians interpreted Jesus’ life and death in light of the ancient Jewish narrative of redemption par excellence, the story of the Exodus from Egypt. Surely the depiction of the Last Supper as a Passover observance could play a part in this larger effort of arguing that Jesus’ death echoes the Exodus from Egypt.²¹

This process of Passoverization did not end with the New Testament. The second-century bishop Melito of Sardis (in Asia Minor) once delivered a widely popular Paschal sermon, which could well be called a “Christian Haggadah,” reflecting at great length on the various connections between the Exodus story and the life of Jesus.²²

Passoverization can even be found in the Middle Ages. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic custom of using unleavened wafers in the Mass is medieval in origin. The Orthodox churches preserve the earlier custom of using leavened bread.²³ Is it not possible to see the switch from using leavened to unleavened bread as a “Passoverization” of sorts?

Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder? Most likely, it was not.

Interested in Jesus’ Judaism? The Bible History Daily post “Was Jesus a Jew?” includes the full article “What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus?: To wrench Jesus out of his Jewish world destroys Jesus and destroys Christianity.” by Anthony J. Saldarini as it originally appeared in Bible Review.

When Passover Begins: The Synoptics versus John

	14th of Nisan (Ending at Sundown)	15th of Nisan (Beginning at Sundown)
	Day of Preparation for Passover. Passover lamb sacrificed in late afternoon.	Passover holiday begins and a festive Seder meal is held at night. Passover lamb is consumed.
Matthew 26–27, Mark 14–15 and Luke 22–23	Jesus and his disciples prepare for Passover.	Jesus and his disciples hold a Last Supper at the time of the Passover Seder. Jesus is arrested that night. He is killed the next morning, which is the day of the 15th of Nisan.
John 19	Jesus crucified while the Passover lambs are being sacrificed. (The Last Supper is not mentioned by John, but it would have taken place the night before the crucifixion or even earlier.)

“Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?” by Jonathan Klawans originally appeared in Bible Review, October 2001. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily in October 2012.

Jonathan Klawans is Professor of Religion at Boston University. He is the author of Josephus and the Theologies of Ancient Judaism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2005) and Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), which received the Salo Wittmayer Baron Prize for the best first book in Jewish studies.

Notes

a. Some may also ask, where is the unleavened bread? The Gospels do not specify that Jesus fed his disciples unleavened bread, which is what Jews would eat at Passover. This however does not preclude the possibility that Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper, as Jews commonly refer to unleavened bread (called in Hebrew, matzah) as simply “bread.” See, for example, Deuteronomy 16:3 and Nahum N. Glatzer, The Passover Haggadah (New York: Schocken Books, 1981), pp. 24, 64.

b. See Baruch Bokser, “Was the Last Supper a Passover Seder?” Bible Review, Summer 1987.

c. See Bruce Chilton, “The Eucharist—Exploring Its Origins,” Bible Review, December 1994.

1. The book first appeared in 1935 and was revised and translated various times after that. The 14 parallels are listed in the 1960 third edition, which was translated into English in 1966. See Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 3rd ed. (London: SCM Press, 1966), esp. pp. 42–61. His 14 parallels may be summarized as follows: (1) The Last Supper took place in Jerusalem, (2) in a room made available to pilgrims for that purpose, and (3) it was held during the night. (4) Jesus celebrated that meal with his “family” of disciples; and (5) while they ate, they reclined. (6) This meal was eaten in a state of ritual purity. (7) Bread was broken during the meal and not just at the beginning. (8) Wine was consumed and (9) this wine was red. (10) There were last-minute preparations for the meal, after which (11) alms were given, and (12) a hymn was sung. (13) Jesus and his disciples then remained in Jerusalem. Finally, (14) Jesus discussed the symbolic significance of the meal, just as Jews do during the Passover Seder. For brief surveys summarizing the question see Robert F. O’Toole, “Last Supper,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), vol. 4, pp. 235–236 and Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), pp. 423–427.

2. For a representative statement denying the historicity of the Last Supper traditions, see Robert W. Funk and The Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 139.

3. For an excellent treatment of what we can and cannot know of the historical Jesus, see the recent book by my colleague Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999).

4. For an excellent summary of Judaism in Jesus’ time—one which makes judicious use of rabbinic evidence—see E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E.–66 C.E. (London: SCM Press, 1992). For more on the use of rabbinic sources, see Sanders’s Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), esp. pp. 59–84.

5. There are those who attempt to harmonize John and the synoptics by supposing that they disagreed not about when the Last Supper occurred, but about whether the date of Passover was supposed to be calculated by following a solar calendar or a lunar one. Annie Jaubert presents this theory in her book, The Date of the Last Supper (Staten Island: Alba House, 1965). This view cannot be accepted, however. It is too difficult to conceive of Passover having been celebrated twice in the same place without any contemporary or even later writer referring to such an event. Surely it would have been remarkable if two Passovers were held in the same week! Moreover, while we do know of solar calendars from the Book of Jubilees and the Temple Scroll, we do not know how any of these calendars really worked. Jubilees’s calendar, for instance, explicitly prohibits any form of intercalation (the adding of extra days in a leap year). And without intercalation, by Jesus’ time, Jubilees’s 364-day solar calendar would be off not just by days, but by months. It is only by hypothesizing some manner of intercalation that we can even come up with the possibility that in Jesus’ time the two calendars were both functioning, but off by just a few days. Thus in the end, Jaubert’s book presents a good theory, but it remains just that, a theory. For more on these questions, see James C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London: Routledge, 1998).

6. On the question of Jewish authorities and their role in Jesus’ death, see John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995).

7. For more on the parallels between the Didache and the Jewish Birkat ha-Mazon, see Enrico Mazza, The Celebration of the Eucharist: The Origin of the Rite and the Development of Its Interpretation (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999), esp. pp. 19–26 (where he discusses these parallels) and pp. 307–309 (where he provides translations of the texts).

8. A useful version of the traditional text of the Haggadah, with introduction and translation, can be found in the widely available edition of Nahum N. Glatzer, The Passover Haggadah (New York: Schocken Books, 1981). Those interested in appreciating how the Haggadah brings together material from various historical periods might look at Jacob Freedman, Polychrome Historical Haggadah for Passover (Springfield, MA: Jacob Freedman Liturgy Research Foundation, 1974).

9. Finkelstein published his theories in three articles: “The Oldest Midrash: Pre-Rabbinic Ideals and Teachings in the Passover Haggadah,” Harvard Theological Review (HTR) 31 (1938), pp. 291–317; “Pre-Maccabean Documents in the Passover Haggadah (Part 1),” HTR 35 (1942), pp. 291–332; and “Pre-Maccabean Documents in the Passover Haggadah (Part 2),” HTR 36 (1943), pp. 1–38. Glatzer summarizes some of Finkelstein’s claims in The Passover Haggadah, pp. 39–42.

10. Goldschmidt, The Passover Haggadah: Its Sources and History (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960). Glatzer’s edition of the Haggadah (cited above) is based in part on Goldschmidt’s research, but the first edition of Glatzer’s Haggadah was published in 1953, years before Goldschmidt’s final 1960 version of his article.

11. See especially the collection of essays, Passover and Easter: Origin and History to Modern Times, ed. Paul F. Bradshaw and Lawrence A. Hoffman (Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1999). Those who read Hebrew will want to consult Shmuel Safrai and Ze’ev Safrai, Haggadah of the Sages: The Passover Haggadah (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Carta, 1998).

12. Baruch Bokser, The Origins of the Seder (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1984).

13. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sabbath, 15a.

14. This view can be traced back well into the middle ages—it is advocated in a 14th-century Haggadah commentary by Rabbi Simeon ben Zemach Duran. This view has also been advocated more recently by, among others, Daniel Goldschmidt, Joseph Tabory, Israel Yuval and Baruch Bokser. Bokser, Origins of the Seder, pp. 41–43, 79–80, and 119 n. 13; Goldschmidt, Passover Haggadah, pp. 51–53. See also the articles by Joseph Tabory and Israel Yuval in Passover and Easter, esp. pp. 68–69 (Tabory) and pp. 106–107 (Yuval). Goldschmidt, Tabory and Yuval go even one step further, suggesting that Jeremias had it backwards. It was not that Jesus was reinterpreting a prior Jewish tradition. Rather, Rabban Gamaliel the Younger required the explanation of the Passover symbols as a way of countering Christian manipulation of these symbols.

15. Tosefta Pesahim 10:12; see Bokser, Origins of the Seder, pp. 41–43, 79–80.

16. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 66 and 122–125.

17. On the Quartodecimans and on fasting before Easter, see Bradshaw, “The Origins of Easter” in Bradshaw and Hoffman, Passover and Easter, pp. 81–97.

18. See Karl Georg Kuhn, “The Lord’s Supper and the Communal Meal at Qumran,” in The Scrolls and the New Testament, Krister Stendahl, ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), pp. 65–93. Kuhn builds here on work of B. Lohse, published in German (and cited in his article). See also Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 216–218.

19. Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meanings: Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus Through Johannine Circles (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), esp. pp. 93–108.

20. The term “Passoverize” is used by Mazza, in his brief treatment of the issue; see Celebration of the Eucharist, pp. 24–26.

21. See especially W.D. Davies, Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1964), pp. 25–92.

22. Commonly entitled “On the Passover,” the sermon survives in numerous copies and fragments in Coptic, Greek, Syriac, Latin and Georgian. The oldest copy, from the third or early fourth century, is in Coptic. See James E. Goehring and William W. Willis, “On the Passover by Melito of Sardis,” in The Crosby-Schoyen Codex MS 193, James E. Goehring, ed. (Leuven [Louvain]: Peeters, 1999).

23. On the medieval debate between the Catholic and Orthodox churches on this matter, see Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 177–178. On the archaeological evidence pertaining to this dispute, see George Galavaris, Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1970).

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?

Was The Last Supper a Passover Seder?

Easter and the Death of Jesus

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

The post Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable

BAS Staff — Sat, 01 Nov 2025 11:00:08 +0000

Gustave Dore, The Good Samaritan. Dr. Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt University explains how getting an accurate answer to the question “Who were the Samaritans?” can shed light on how shocking the Good Samaritan parable would have been to Jesus’ audience.

The Good Samaritan parable is one of the most beloved gospel stories for young and old alike. The story is told in Luke 10:29–37: A man going from Jerusalem to Jericho is attacked by robbers who strip him and beat him. A priest and a Levite pass by without helping him. But a Samaritan stops and cares for him, taking him to an inn where the Samaritan pays for his care.

As Dr. Amy-Jill Levine discusses in a column in the January/February 2012 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the story has proven a popular one for sermons over the years, and it has been interpreted in many different ways—ranging from a tale about ritual purity to lessons about personal safety and even freedom fighters or universal healthcare. These sometimes-unusual interpretations are no doubt an attempt to find meaning in the parable for the times and concerns of a changing audience. And although that may be a worthy cause, Levine notes that in order to grasp the full import of the story, one must understand the times and concerns of first-century Judea, where Jesus and his followers lived. To do this, one must understand the relationship between Jews and Samaritans. This is sometimes hinted at in modern interpretations of the parable but rarely fully grasped.

FREE ebook: The Galilee Jesus Knew

So who were the Samaritans, really? Levine explains that they were not simply outcasts: They were the despised enemies of the Jews. Yet where listeners would have expected a Jew to be the hero of Jesus’ story, instead they would have been shocked to hear that it is a Samaritan. As Levine explains, only by understanding this reality does the powerful message of the parable come through:

The parable offers … a vision of life rather than death. It evokes 2 Chronicles 28, which recounts how the prophet Oded convinced the Samaritans to aid their Judean captives. It insists that enemies can prove to be neighbors, that compassion has no boundaries, and that judging people on the basis of their religion or ethnicity will leave us dying in a ditch.

Read more from Dr. Amy-Jill Levine about interpreting the Good Samaritan parable in Biblical Views, “The Many Faces of the Good Samaritan—Most Wrong,” Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 2012.

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

This article was originally published in Bible History Daily January 2012.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Samaritans

Biblical Views: The Many Faces of the Good Samaritan—Most Wrong

Bells, Pendants, Snakes & Stones

Samaria

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

The post Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Temple on Mount Gerizim—In the Bible and Archaeology

Megan Sauter — Tue, 02 Sep 2025 11:00:05 +0000

Temples have been found throughout the ancient Near East. What went on at these sites? Along with reconstructing architectural remains, can scholars piece together ancient worship practices?

Temple Staircase. This massive staircase led to the Mount Gerizim temple.
Photo: Bukvoed/CC by 3.0.

Although it is not possible to identify every ritual activity that took place at ancient temples, Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme of the University of Copenhagen has reconstructed some that may have occurred at the temple on Mount Gerizim. In her article “Reactivating Remembrance: Interactive Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim” published in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, she investigates the inscriptions found at the Mount Gerizim temple. These featured in people’s worship at the temple.

Although the Mount Gerizim temple isn’t mentioned in the Bible, worship on Mount Gerizim is referenced in John 4:19–24, where Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman. During their conversation, she asks whether people should worship at Gerizim or Jerusalem: “The woman said to him, ‘Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem’” (John 4:19–20, NRSV). From this passage in the Bible and other historical texts, we see that the Samaritans viewed Mount Gerizim as their primary place of worship.

Mount Gerizim Temple. These ruins once belonged to the temple on Mount Gerizim.
Photo: Amos Meron/CC by-SA 3.0.

Archaeological evidence shows that a temple was built on Mount Gerizim around 450 B.C.E. during the Persian period. The temple complex was expanded during the Hellenistic period around 200 B.C.E., and it functioned until the Maccabees destroyed it in 110 B.C.E. Therefore, the omission of the Mount Gerizim temple in the New Testament isn’t surprising since the temple was destroyed long before the New Testament was written. Since the first temple on Mount Gerizim dates to the Persian period, we might expect a reference to it in the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible), such as the Book of Nehemiah.¹ However, the text is silent about its existence.

The temple on Mount Gerizim once contained numerous inscriptions, many of which commemorate offerings. They name a gift that is offered to the deity, the giver, and his or her dependents. Of these dedicatory inscriptions, Gudme has identified about 50 that request a counter-gift of “good remembrance” from the deity. She explains that the dedicatory inscriptions would have been placed within the Mount Gerizim temple to remind the deity of the offering and the giver:

There appears to be a common notion … that to be remembered positively by a deity is desirable—probably conceptually similar to the notion of being blessed—and that it can be obtained by placing a physical object in close proximity to where the deity is perceived to be present, so that this object—the inscription—may continuously remind the deity of the worshiper who donated the inscription.

Although we do not know the original location of the inscriptions within the sanctuary, they would have been placed where visitors could see them. Gudme describes how later worshipers—both literate and illiterate—might have interacted with these inscriptions:

We simply cannot assume that all visitors to these sanctuaries were literate, so an actual recitation of the text of the inscription seems unlikely. However, it is possible that some literate visitors could have read aloud to others. It may even be possible that literate temple personnel could have assisted visitors in reading inscriptions. Even if visitors were unable to read and had no opportunity to have the inscriptions read for them, these inscriptions may have been culturally recognizable as objects that required an interactive response. If that is the case, then the inscriptions may have triggered visitors to the sanctuary to touch one or several of the inscriptions that they passed on their way and to mumble, “Remembered be,” as they did so.

If this reconstruction is correct, it gives us a window into what a ritual practice at the Mount Gerizim temple may have entailed: Worshipers read and/or echoed the inscriptions, repeatedly reminding the deity of the giver and his or her offering. Thus, the inscriptions featured in the worship of the giver and of later visitors.

Temple Inscription. This dedicatory inscription comes from the temple on Mount Gerizim and reads, “[That which] Yosef [son of …] offered [for] his [wi]fe and for his sons [before the Lo]rd in the temple.” It mentions a gift offered to the Lord (Yahweh) at the Mount Gerizim temple. The inscription is currently housed in the Good Samaritan Museum.
Photo: Bukvoed/CC by 4.0.

Mount Gerizim is not the only place to have interactive inscriptions. Gudme identifies temples throughout the Eastern Mediterranean with dedicatory inscriptions that call on others to remember them positively before the deity:

[T]he Gerizim inscriptions resemble a large number of Aramaic dedicatory inscriptions and graffiti in the Eastern Mediterranean area where the phrase “for good remembrance” and the more common “may he/she be remembered for good” is widespread. These other inscriptions are dated roughly from the second century B.C.E. to the second century C.E., and come from sanctuaries in places such as Hatra and Assur (in modern Iraq) and Palmyra (in modern Syria).

Such dedicatory inscriptions appear to have been common during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Learn more about the temple on Mount Gerizim and its interactive inscriptions in Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme’s article “Reactivating Remembrance: Interactive Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim” published in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Reactivating Remembrance: Interactive Inscriptions from Mt. Gerizim” by Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Notes

1-“Dating of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim,” Bible History Daily (blog), published on March 6, 2011.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Gerizim, Mount

Samaritan Synagogue Faces Mt. Gerizim

Reactivating Remembrance

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

This story first appeared in Bible History Daily in August, 2019

The post The Temple on Mount Gerizim—In the Bible and Archaeology appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Samaritan Schism

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Sat, 01 Mar 2025 12:00:02 +0000

This post was originally published on Professor Schiffman’s website as the second part of a series of articles on schisms in Jewish history. Bible History Daily republished this article with the consent of the author. Visit lawrenceschiffman.com for print and multimedia resources on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Babylonian Talmud, Jesus, Hellenism, Christianity and more.

<< Schisms in Jewish History: Part 1 Schisms in Jewish History: Part 3 >>

There is considerable scholarly controversy regarding the date of the Samaritan schism. Although some seek to identify the origins of the Samaritans in the Hellenistic period, their beginnings should be traced back to the 6th century B.C.E. When the Assyrians destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722, they exiled the upper crust of society in order to deprive the country of its leadership. At the same time, as they did elsewhere, they brought in foreign elements in order to create a mixed population unlikely to unify and revolt. These new elements eventually mixed with the native population and together they evolved a syncretistic form of Israelite worship.

Mt. Gerizim. Photo: Sonia Halliday.

When the Judeans returned to rebuild the Temple in about 520 B.C.E., the Samaritans, identifying with the Judeans, offered to help in the endeavor. The Judeans rejected the Samaritans because of their questionable Jewish descent and their syncretistic cult. As a result, long centuries of hostility began. The Samaritans constantly attempted to block the rebuilding of Jerusalem by appealing to Persian authorities.

Following their rejection by the Judeans, the Samaritans set up their own cult center at Mt. Gerizim, near Schechem, modern Nablus. Yet the subsequent history of Jewish-Samaritan relations was one of continued decline. In the Hellenistic period, the Samaritans often took stands against their Judean neighbors. The Samaritan Temple was destroyed by the Hasmoneans. Nonetheless, throughout this period, the Samaritans continued to have an ambiguous status as Jews. They were regarded as Jews who had somehow been corrupted in their religious practices. As we enter the tannaitic period, we can trace, generation by generation, the process of the final separation of the Samaritans from the Jews. Relationships were deteriorating, especially as the Samaritans sided with the Romans, perhaps already in the Great Revolt (66–73 C.E.) but definitely in the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.). By the end of the tannaitic period, the Samaritans were treated as non-Jews.

Explore the Scholar’s Study “Dating of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim” in Bible History Daily.

This view is enshrined in the post-Talmudic tractate Kutim which simply appropriates laws regarding non-Jews and applies them to the Samaritans, substituting the word kuti, meaning Samaritan, for goy, non-Jew. In fact, kuti became practically synonymous with non-Jew, leading to its use by Christian censors as a substitute for goy in Hebrew printed texts.

In the case of the Samaritan schism, certainly by tannaitic times, Jews would not marry Samaritans, since they were of a doubtful status. At some point, probably in the Middle Ages, Samaritans were forbidden to marry Jews. These two groups saw themselves as independent religious communities, acknowledging only their historical connections. The rise of the modern State of Israel has ameliorated the social aspects of this conflict, but Jews are still forbidden to marry Samaritans. Some Samaritans permit marriage to Jewish women, but this leniency came about only recently, since their population shrank to a dangerously low number that threatened their survival. Clearly, Jews and Samaritans separated permanently, and the prohibition of marriage between these two communities was a natural result.

Lawrence H. Schiffman is the Judge Abraham Lieberman Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies in New York University’s Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies. He is also the director of the Global Institute for Advanced Research in Jewish Studies. He has extensive experience analyzing and publishing the Dead Sea Scrolls, including positions as co-editor-in-chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (2000) and editor-in-chief of the Center for Online Judaic Studies from 2005 to 2008.

Lawrence H. Schiffman on Schisms in Jewish History

Part 1: The Limits of Tolerance: Halakhah and History

Part 2: The Samaritan Schism

Part 3: Sectarianism in the Second Temple Period

Part 4: The Jewish-Christian Schism

This post was originally published in Bible History Daily on August 11, 2014.

The post The Samaritan Schism appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Lod Mosaic—Jewish, Christian or Pagan?

Robin Ngo — Sat, 20 Apr 2019 14:16:27 +0000

The excellence in artistry and state of preservation of the 1,700-year-old Lod Mosaic is without parallel in Israel. Was the owner of the Lod Mosaic Jewish, Christian or pagan? Photo: Courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

In 1996, a portion of an ancient mosaic was discovered during the construction of a highway in Lod, a town in Israel about 9 miles from Tel Aviv. Subsequent excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) under the direction of archaeologist Miriam Avissar revealed stunning Roman floor mosaics that belonged to what was a house or manor dating to 300 C.E. The Lod mosaics’ artistic quality and fine state of preservation had not been seen before in Israel.

Among the subjects that decorate the exquisite Roman floor mosaics are lions, birds, fish and ships—but there are no human figures. Who lived at the house at Lod? Can the Lod mosaics themselves hint at the identity of the house’s owner? This question is explored in the article “The Lod Mosaic—Jewish, Christian or Pagan?” in the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

The Roman floor mosaics that were discovered at Lod during the initial rescue excavation in 1996 are known as “the Lod Mosaic.”¹ Measuring 30 feet wide and 56 feet long—the largest mosaic in Israel—the Lod Mosaic is comprised of two rectangular mosaic carpets separated by a colorful band.
Birds and other animals decorate the Lod Mosaic’s south carpet.

FREE ebook: Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity. Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.

The north carpet features scenes of animals in combat. At the center of the carpet, in an octagonal panel, are a lioness and lion facing off and surrounded by a giraffe, rhinoceros, elephant, tiger, water buffalo and a mythological sea monster in a body of water.

The central panel in the Lod Mosaic north carpet. Photo: Nicky Davidov, courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

Just below these scenes of land animals is a rectangular panel featuring a marine scene: Two merchant ships are depicted amidst various fish, a whale, a dolphin and other creatures of the sea. The ships are not steered by anyone.

The marine scene in the Lod Mosaic north carpet. Photo: Nicky Davidov, courtesy Israel Antiquities Authority.

In fact, as Rina Talgam, Professor of the History of Art at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, points out, no human figures are seen in the Lod mosaics:

“The absence of depictions of human figures raises the question of whether this can be regarded as suggesting that the owners were Jews or Christians, since a pagan certainly would not have been concerned by their presence. … The appearance of small crosses on the prows of the ships and at the ends of the northern mosaic carpet may have been intended to suggest the Christian identity of the owner, but we cannot rule out the possibility that this is merely a decorative pattern.”²

What else can we glean from the Lod Mosaic and from the ancient town at Lod (then known as Lydda or Diospolis)? Can the mosaics and the town offer clues into the identity of the Lod Mosaic’s patron? Learn more by reading the full article “The Lod Mosaic—Jewish, Christian or Pagan?” in the May/June 2016 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “The Lod Mosaic—Jewish, Christian or Pagan?” in the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library member yet? Join the BAS Library today.

Notes:

1. More colorful Roman floor mosaics were discovered during excavations in 2009 and 2014.

2. Rina Talgam, “The Late Roman Mosaics at Lod,” in Israel Antiquities Authority, ed., The Lod Mosaic: A Spectacular Roman Mosaic Floor (New York: Scala Arts Publishers, Inc., 2015), pp. 100–101.

Heavy Rains Reveal Limestone Funerary Busts Near Beth Shean, Israel

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:46:37 +0000

Archaeologists are not always the only ones to unearth the past; mother nature has occasionally been known to excavate ancient artifacts and reveal hidden ruins. Erosion and wind storms can expose antiquities and reveal entire cities once concealed beneath the ground. You may recall from this past summer when a heatwave struck the UK, showing “shadows” of buried architecture in the browning grasses. In Israel, however, it was the heavy winter rains that recently led to the discovery of a pair of rare specimens.

Winter rains helped expose these two busts at Beth Shean. Photo: Eitan Klein, Israel Antiquities Authority.

Following a particularly torrential rain this past December, a local resident was taking a stroll around the northern cemetery of the old city of Beth Shean in Israel’s Northern District. Looking down, the hiker noticed the top of a curious marble-white head peeking through the soil. Upon realizing her chance discovery, the woman and her husband immediately called the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) Theft Prevention Unit, which then dispatched archaeologists to the site.

Beth Shean has served as a critical crossroads city at the junction of the Jezreel Valley and the Jordan River Valley since the settlement was first founded in the Early Bronze Age I (approximately 3200–3000 B.C.E.). Excavations at the site under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania in the 1920s and ’30s first revealed the cemetery on the northern mound of the settlement with interments from the earliest occupation of the site through Byzantine times.¹

Upon arriving at the scene, IAA Theft Prevention Unit inspector Nir Distelfeld identified the partially-inhumed head as a limestone bust. He carefully excavated the statuary and—following a brief probing of the immediate area—quickly discovered a second, similar piece nearby.
The recent rains contributed to the exhumation of the limestone statues.

“It seems that the busts were exposed following the recent heavy rainfall in the area,” said Distelfeld. He continued, “It’s important to note that heavy winter rains can bring other finds to the surface and we call on people to report them to us.”

The natural excavation of antiquities exposes them to harmful forces such as weather damage or looters; luckily, it was a not a grave robber but a local Good Samaritan who happened upon this fortuitous discovery. The pair of heads were then taken to IAA laboratories in Har Hotzvim in order to safeguard them from theft as well to study and preserve them.

Nir Distelfeld, Israel Antiquities Authority Theft Prevention Unit inspector, with the two busts. Photo: Eitan Klein, Israel Antiquities Authority.

Dr. Eitan Klein, deputy head of the IAA Theft Prevention Unit, identified the two busts as protomae—funerary statuary datable to the Late Roman era (third–fourth century C.E.). These busts would have been placed outside of burials and served as grave markers in the cemetery. Although approximately 200 similar protomae are currently housed in museums and private collections from Israel to America, most were purchased from looters or on the illicit antiquities market and thus lack conclusive provenance, rendering them useless for archaeological study.

A recent exhibition curated by Dr. Avshalom Zemer at the National Maritime Museum at the University of Haifa displayed several protomae from the collection of Dr. Alexander Roche (the founder and first director of the Museum of Ancient Art in Haifa). Zemer suggests that protomae are generally schematic, although some show evidence of an attempt at a likeness. In other words, although most known protomae are rather general in appearance, some may have been attempts to reconstruct the appearance of the deceased. Not one of the protomae resembles another, each with their own facial expressions, hairstyles, clothing, and adornments. Made of local limestone, one of the busts recently discovered depicts a bearded man.

The custom of marking graves with limestone busts appears limited to only two cities in antiquity: Beth Shean and Sebastia to the south, known during the Roman era as Skythopolis and Sebaste, respectively. Most similar busts are known (or thought) to have originated from cemeteries near Beth Shean, like the one the hiker recently came across.

A three-dimensional rendering of the busts. Image: Argita German-Levanon, the National Laboratory for Documentation and Digital Research in Archaeology, Israel Antiquities Authority.

Palestine boasted a diverse population during the Roman era. Especially as a critical hub along major thoroughfares, Beth Shean would have been home to Jews, Samaritans, Romans, and Christians originating from across the Mediterranean and Near East. Protomae are often inscribed with Greek, Latin, and Semitic names, although the ones recently discovered are not. These inscriptions are thought to name the deceased but offer little in the way of identifying the dead, as most adopted some form of Greek or Latin moniker. Klein proposes that the protomae likely did not mark the interments of Jews or Samaritans because of the restriction on graven images in the Ten Commandments.

The earliest known protomae date to the end of the reign of Trajan (98–117 C.E.) and, according to Zemer, the custom appeared limited to the upper classes. Fine details and particular stylistic tendencies in the early busts indicate several active artisans and workshops. However, by the middle of the third century C.E., the lower classes of Beth Shean also adopted the practice—poor workmanship on some of the busts and lower-quality limestone suggest cheaper protomae available to the masses. Zemer notes that by the third century, there was a marked “decline in artistry, expressed in generalization and standardization.” By the middle of the fourth century, it appears that protomae had vanished from style, perhaps due to the spread of Christianity in Palestine.

Archaeologists separate protomae into two stylistic traditions—Roman and Oriental. Although both reflect Hellenistic iconographic forms, Roman is more reminiscent of imperial busts and memorial portraits of family ancestors, while the Oriental style exhibits Nabataean influences. Craftsmen at Beth Shean appeared to influence one another; although each statue is distinct, there appear to be general stylistic trends and shared techniques throughout the centuries of protomae production.

Klein told the Times of Israel that further excavation is being planned for the area where the two busts were found. For her good judgment, the hiker will be awarded a certificate of appreciation from the IAA.

Samuel DeWitt Pfister is a graduate student in the Department of Anthropology at the George Washington University.

Notes:

1. For more information on the archaeological work at Beth Shean, see the Jewish Virtual Library’s entry on the site.

The post Heavy Rains Reveal Limestone Funerary Busts Near Beth Shean, Israel appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Sold! Earliest Surviving 10 Commandments Stone

Megan Sauter — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 16:04:32 +0000

A 10 Commandments stone tablet—believed by some to be the oldest stone copy of the 10 Commandments—was sold at an auction in November 2016 for $850,000. Photo: Courtesy Heritage Auctions/HA.com.

An early copy of the 10 Commandments sold for $850,000 last November.

Dated by some to c. 300–500 C.E., this marble tablet may be the oldest stone copy of the 10 Commandments—even though it displays only nine of the traditional 10 Commandments from Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.¹ The 10 Commandments stone omits the command to not take the Lord’s name in vain (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11) and includes instead a charge to build a temple on Mt. Gerizim. Although this addition is likely unfamiliar to many Christians and Jews, it reflects the particular religious beliefs of the Samaritans. The tablet, which is written in the Samaritan script, likely adorned a Samaritan synagogue.

About 115 pounds and 2 feet tall, the 10 Commandments stone entered the collection of the Living Torah Museum in Brooklyn, New York, in 2005. According to the museum’s founder, Rabbi Shaul Deutsch, the tablet was first discovered in Yavneh (near Tel Aviv in modern Israel) during the construction of the Palestine-Egypt railway in 1913.

The Living Torah Museum auctioned the 10 Commandments stone last November with an opening bid of $250,000. It sold for more than three times that amount.

Although the purchaser of the 10 Commandments stone does not wish to be identified at this time, there is no fear that this piece will become lost in a private collection. A stipulation in the original export agreement with the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) mandates that the tablet be put on public display, which means that soon this piece will be accessible to the public once more.

Our free eBook Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries brings together the exciting worlds of archaeology and the Bible! Learn the fascinating insights gained from artifacts and ruins, like the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored the sight of the blind man, and the Tel Dan inscription—the first historical evidence of King David outside the Bible.

Notes:

1. See Hershel Shanks, “Yes, Virginia, There IS an American Biblical Archaeology Museum,” BAR, November/December 2004.

The Samaritans: A Profile

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:10:56 +0000

The Samaritans: A Profile

By Reinhard Pummer
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 42 illust. and photos, iv + 362 pp., $30 (paperback)
Reviewed by Craig Evans

Reinhard Pummer has written another excellent book on the Samaritans. This one traces the history of the people from Biblical times to the present. He assesses all things Samaritan: their scripture, traditions, worship, holy days, marriage, funerals, demographics, topography and relevant archaeological data, both in the Land of Israel and in the diaspora. The book is both informative and readable.

Probably the most important issue regarding the Samaritan people is their relationship to the people of Judea, that is, to the Jewish people. Pummer faults modern scholarship for all too often accepting the tendentious and biased account in Josephus (mostly in Antiquities 11, though see also Antiquities 9.288–291 and 10.183–184), which itself is based on a jaundiced reading of 2 Kings 17:24– 41. In places Josephus is simply mistaken, often with respect to chronology and demographics. Pummer concludes, along with a number of other scholars in recent years, that the “Samaritans are not a sect that broke off from Judaism, but rather a branch of Yahwistic Israel in the same sense as Jews.” This issue is no mere academic debate, but a very relevant issue today for Samaritans living in the Land of Israel.

For Samaritans, the only authoritative Scripture is their version of the Torah, which is in Hebrew and is not greatly different from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. A number of other writings hold quasi-authoritative status, including several commentaries.

In recent years significant progress has been made in Samaritan archaeology, much of it in Samaria, though some of it in the diaspora. Of special interest is the work on Mount Gerizim, the sacred mountain of Samaritan faith. Despite the efforts of Israeli archaeologist Yitzhak Magen, who from 1984 to 2006 carried out excavations on the mountain, the Samaritan temple has not been found. The large precinct that Magen has uncovered, however, encourages us to think that a temple at one time stood nearby. The precinct dates to the Persian period, not to the Hellenistic period, as Josephus claims. Persian-era coins, animal bones, pottery and carbon-14 dating have confirmed the Persian date of this precinct.

A number of important inscriptions, written in paleo- Hebrew script, have been found in the precinct. All of them support the view that the Samaritan temple once stood here. One inscription contains the Tetragrammaton, one refers to “priests,” another reads, “before God in this place,” and still another reads, “house of sacrifice.”

Several synagogues in Israel, mostly dating to the Byzantine period, have been excavated more recently. Because of the similarities between Jewish and Samaritan synagogues, archaeologists may not initially be sure that a synagogue is, in fact, Samaritan. When inscriptions are found, their content and the use of the Samaritan script often confirm Samaritan identity. Orientation toward Mount Gerizim is another indicator. Ten synagogues have been identified as possibly Samaritan. A few synagogues in the diaspora have also been identified as Samaritan, including one on the island of Delos that in a Greek inscription refers to a “Mount Gerizim temple.”
Both scholars and nonexperts alike will learn much from this well-researched book.

Craig Evans is the John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins and Dean of the School of Christian Thought at Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas. He is the author of several books on Jesus and the Gospels. His most recent is Jesus and the Remains of His Day: Studies in Jesus and the Evidence of Material Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2015).

The post The Samaritans: A Profile appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Mosaics of Faith

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:31:14 +0000

Mosaics of Faith: Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims in the Holy Land

By Rina Talgam
(Yad Ben-Zvi Press, Jerusalem, and The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, 2014), 579 pp., 144 b & w/ 360 color illust., $129.95 (hardcover)
Reviewed by Henry Maguire

In this handsome book, Rina Talgam has presented a magisterial survey of the floor mosaics in the ancient provinces of Palaestina and Arabia (present-day Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan). Although the uncovering of mosaic pavements in this region began in the 19th century, recent years have seen a spate of new and often spectacular discoveries, which have brought floor mosaics to the forefront of historical research. Talgam’s book covers the epoch from the second century before Christ to the eighth century of the Christian era, a span of nearly a thousand years that encompassed the successive Hellenistic, Roman, early Byzantine and Umayyad periods, and the religions of polytheism, Judaism, Samaritanism, Christianity and Islam.

The book unravels the complex interactions between these faiths as revealed by the pavements of both secular and religious buildings. It also demonstrates that mosaic pavements, for long a relatively neglected field of study, are not only works of art in themselves but also eloquent witnesses of their wider historical and cultural contexts. Floor mosaics, being underfoot, were intrinsically unlikely to carry imagery of an authoritative or official nature, such as might be incorporated into wall or ceiling mosaics—or into large-scale sculptures. They were an underlying background to people’s lives and thus more likely to express fundamental attitudes than dogmatic statements of state or religious ideology. It is for this reason that pavements often reveal the common mentalities and beliefs of the various groups and faiths occupying the Holy Land, in addition to their differences; they present a more complex picture of interaction on the basis of shared inheritances than we receive from the more categorical statements of higher-status art.

Furthermore, floor mosaics have survived in far greater numbers than the decorations of walls or vaults because frequently the pavements have been preserved when the upper parts of buildings have been lost. The relative ubiquity of surviving pavements makes it easier to establish cultural norms within and across the contexts of time, space, ethnicity and religion.

The free eBook Life in the Ancient World guides you through craft centers in ancient Jerusalem, family structure across Israel and ancient practices—from dining to makeup—throughout the Mediterranean world.

The book is organized chronologically into three parts, with the first covering the mosaics of the Hellenistic and Roman periods. Part two, the longest because of the volume of surviving material, is devoted to the Byzantine period, while part three discusses mosaics from the time of the Muslim conquest in the mid-seventh century through the end of the eighth century. In the second part, the author devotes separate chapters to the mosaics of Christian churches, Jewish synagogues, Samaritan synagogues and secular buildings, drawing out their similarities and differences. Church floors, for example, often expressed cosmic ideas, presenting images of the terrestrial world in all of its variety, including such natural elements as seasons and rivers, frequently in the form of personifications, as well as plants and animals, scenes of agricultural and pastoral activities and portrayals of cities. Synagogue floors also contained a cosmic element but with an emphasis on the notion of time, a favored motif being the central portrayal of the sun surrounded by the signs of the zodiac and the four seasons. In the third part of the book, Talgam discusses the arrival of Islam and the new anxieties concerning figurative art that can be observed in both Jewish synagogues and Christian churches. These tensions led, in the eighth century, to the outright physical destruction of portrayals of human beings and even animals in pavements adorning the houses of worship of both religions. She comes to a measured conclusion regarding the much-debated causes of this wave of iconoclasm, seeing in both Judaism and Christianity an initial impetus that came from internal opposition to religious images, which later could have been strengthened by the iconophobia of the Islamic conquerors of the region.

One of the great merits of this book lies in its integration of the methods of art historical and historical analyses. We are not just given a survey of mosaics as works of art, nor are the pavements seen only as documents to be mined for historical information, but rather we find a subtle combination of the two approaches. Talgam asks, for example, why it was that “the Jews did not develop a distinctive style of their own” (p. xiv). For them, it was not necessary to distinguish themselves with a particular stylistic practice, even while they developed an iconography that differentiated their places of worship from those of the Christians. This is among the many fascinating questions raised by this rich study, which for many years to come will be the standard work of reference on the mosaics of ancient Palestine, in all of their cultural and artistic complexity.

Henry Maguire is Professor Emeritus of the Department of the History of Art at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

samaritans Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse

When Was Jesus Born?

When Was Jesus Born? When Did Herod Die?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

A Different Fast

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

When Did Herod Die? And When Was Jesus Born?

There’s More Evidence from Josephus

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?

Traditional Views of Jesus’ Last Supper as a Passover Meal

The Passover Seder and Sacrifice

Historical Doubts about Jesus’ Last Supper as a Passover Seder

Jesus’ Last Supper in the Gospels

A Jewish Last Supper Celebration

Our website, blog and email newsletter are a crucial part of Biblical Archaeology Society's nonprofit educational mission

This costs substantial money and resources, but we don't charge a cent to you to cover any of those expenses.

The Symbolic Explanation of the Bread and Wine at Passover and Jesus’ Last Supper

The Development of the Modern Passover Seder

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Why the Synoptic Gospels Portray the Last Supper as a Passover Meal

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

When Passover Begins: The Synoptics versus John

Notes

Related Reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Understanding the Good Samaritan Parable

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Temple on Mount Gerizim—In the Bible and Archaeology

Notes

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

The Samaritan Schism

Lawrence H. Schiffman on Schisms in Jewish History

The Lod Mosaic—Jewish, Christian or Pagan?

Notes:

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Heavy Rains Reveal Limestone Funerary Busts Near Beth Shean, Israel

Notes:

Sold! Earliest Surviving 10 Commandments Stone

Notes:

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

The Samaritans: A Profile

The Samaritans: A Profile

Mosaics of Faith

Mosaics of Faith: Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians, and Muslims in the Holy Land

Related reading in Bible History Daily: