This 11th-century mosaic, which shows the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion, comes from the Church of the Dormition in Daphne, Greece. Early Christians found parallels between the Adam and Eve story and Jesus and the Church. In the mosaic, blood and water flow from Jesus’ pierced side in the direction of his mother, Mary. Early Christians believed that just as Eve was birthed from the side of Adam, so the Church was birthed from the side of Jesus.

The creation of woman in the Bible has been the topic of much debate in Biblical Archaeology Review. In “Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?” from the September/October 2015 issue, Ziony Zevit makes a shocking claim about the Adam and Eve story in the Bible.

The Biblical text says that Eve was created from Adam’s tsela‘. Although tsela‘ has traditionally been translated as “rib,” Zevit argues that it is better translated as Adam’s os baculum. This controversial conversation continues in Mary Joan Winn Leith’s article “Creating Woman,” published in the March/April 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

In her article, Leith examines the creation of woman in the Bible. She looks at the etiological and euphemistic support for Zevit’s interpretation, and she considers how this would have fit into ancient views of biology. Then Leith focuses on an interesting part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible: the “punishment poem” in Genesis 3:14–19.

This poem occurs after Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit. Because of their disobedience, God curses them. As Leith explains, this curse takes positive relationships, including childbirth, and turns them negative:

[T]he “punishment poem” in Genesis 3:14–19 reverses to negative effect all the positive relationships that prevailed before the humans disobeyed God. Humans and God, man and woman, humans and animals, humans and the earth now become alienated from each other where before all was harmonious. The most famous negative effect of the human disobedience is the woman’s pain in childbirth. At least theoretically then, before the punishment, childbirth in Eden should have been painless. If the father-as-child-bearer principle is hovering in the background of the creation of the woman, then the difficult childbirth promised to the woman in Genesis 3:16 reverses the painless “birth” in Genesis 2, where not only does a man—rather than a woman—give birth, but thanks to the anaesthetic “deep sleep” (tardemah), the man suffers no pain.

Thus, the creation of woman in the Bible from man—the first birth, according to Leith—is painless, but, as the “punishment poem” illustrates, all subsequent births are painful. Further, not only was the first birth painless, but it was a man—not a woman—who shockingly gives birth, setting it apart from all others.

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Leith then examines Christian symbolism related to the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. Early Christians believed that Eve was created from Adam’s rib or side, and they found parallels between Adam’s side and Jesus’ side that was pierced during his crucifixion. John 19:34 records, “Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his (Jesus’) side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.” Early Christians believed that the blood represented the holy Eucharist, and the water represented baptism—two sacraments given by Jesus to the Church. Therefore, the Church was birthed from the side of Jesus, just as Eve was birthed from Adam’s side.

This interpretation is illustrated well in an 11th-century mosaic from the Church of the Dormition in Daphne, Greece. In this mosaic, blood and water flow from the pierced side of Jesus in the direction of his mother, Mary. Leith explains that Mary is often referred to as the “new Eve” and “considered to personify the Church.” The birth of the Church is visually depicted by the blood and water (sacraments) flowing toward Mary (the Church). Adam also makes an appearance in this scene. Jesus’ blood drips onto Adam’s skull at the foot of the cross. This symbolizes 1 Corinthians 15:21–22: “For since death came through a human being (Adam), the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being (Christ); for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

To learn more about the creation of woman in the Bible, read the full article by Mary Joan Winn Leith—“Creating Woman”—in the March/April 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Creating Woman” by Mary Joan Winn Leith in the March/April 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on March 14, 2016.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

Related reading in Bible History Daily

The Adam and Eve Story: Eve Came From Where?

Lilith in the Bible and Mythology

What Does the Bible Say About Infertility?

All Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Was Eve Made from Adam’s Rib—or His Baculum?

Creating Woman

Did Eve Fall or Was She Pushed?

Eve and Adam

How Did Adam & Eve Make a Living?

The post The Creation of Woman in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Abraham’s Camels. Did camels exist in Biblical times? Camels appear with Abraham in some Biblical texts—and depictions thereof, such as The Caravan of Abram by James Tissot, based on Genesis 12. When were camels first domesticated? Although camel domestication had not taken place by the time of Abraham in the land of Canaan, it had in Mesopotamia. Photo: PD-1923.

In the Bible, Abraham’s nephew Lot accompanies him from Haran to the land of Canaan (Genesis 12). However, Abraham and Lot eventually separate because the land cannot support both of their possessions, animals, and servants. Abraham allows Lot to pick first the area where he would like to settle. After surveying the surroundings, Lot chooses the well-watered plain of the Jordan River to the east (Genesis 13:11). Abraham then settles in Canaan west of the Jordan River. Later we learn that Lot is living in Sodom, one of the cities of the Jordan plain (Genesis 14:12).

This Biblical episode seems fairly straightforward. A modern reader may consider Lot’s choice to be neutral, perhaps prudent, or maybe even selfish—but probably not wicked. It may then come as a surprise that ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters often attributed sinister motives to Lot’s choice.

Dan Rickett investigates ancient interpretations of Lot’s character in his Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham,” published in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He shows that ancient interpreters frequently painted Lot as greedy and unscrupulous—a foil to Abraham’s righteousness.

Rickett argues that this was done to safeguard Abraham. In the Bible, God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. Shortly thereafter, Abraham offers to share it with Lot. However, as Rickett points out, this creates a dilemma since “Lot is not part of God’s promise to Abraham.”

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

To make sense of this episode, ancient interpreters would shift the focus off Abraham’s offer onto Lot’s character. The Talmud charges Lot with having a “lustful character.” Chrysostom (c. 349–407 C.E.), who became the Archbishop of Constantinople, refers to Lot’s “youth” and “waxing greed.” In the Midrash Tanhuma (Yelammedenu), Lot is accused of choosing “Sodom so that he might behave as they did.” Genesis Rabbah even claims that Lot “betook himself from the Ancient of the world, saying, I want neither Abraham nor his God.”

All of these interpretations read sinister motives into the text of Abraham and Lot in the Bible. By highlighting Lot’s selfishness, greed, and lust, Abraham appears generous and righteous.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

Rickett further examines Lot’s motives in this passage:

Genesis 13 states Abraham’s desire for him and Lot to separate but says nothing about Lot’s desire to separate. Some modern readers have noted that Lot’s lack of a counterproposal or deferment to Abraham might indicate his cunning manipulation. Maybe, however, Lot’s response demonstrates his submission to his uncle’s wishes. Perhaps he wants to journey a safe distance from Abraham’s herds to avoid further strife. Or perhaps Lot really has no interest in Abraham or the God that he serves.

Lot may be a misunderstood, maligned character. Even if cunning and manipulative, he is certainly not the sinister villain painted in many ancient sources.

Learn more about ancient interpretations of Lot’s character in Dan Rickett’s Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham,” published in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

BAS Library Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham” by Dan Rickett in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

Related reading in Bible History Daily

“Abraham Path” Traces Biblical Tradition and a Path to Peace

The Patriarch Abraham and Family

Where Is Sodom?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Biblical Views: Safeguarding Abraham

The Patriarch Abraham and Family

Abraham’s Eight Crises

Abraham’s Sons

How Lot’s Wife Became a Pillar of Salt

Where Lot’s Daughters Seduced their Father

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in February, 2019.

The post Abraham and Lot in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
—Matthew 19:11–12

Stephen J. Patterson discusses what Jesus meant when he referred to “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Should the above words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew be taken literally? Is he saying that men—who can—should emasculate themselves?

The initial question that prompted this controversial teaching about eunuchs in the Bible actually concerned marriage.

When asked about marriage and divorce in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus informs his crowd that anyone who divorces—other than for reasons of unchastity—and marries another, commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).

Upon hearing this, his disciples respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus then says there are indeed some who are called to be eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

What is a “eunuch” in the Bible passage? Is Jesus talking literally about castration—or just metaphorically about celibacy? Stephen J. Patterson, the George H. Atkinson Chair of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University, addresses this question about eunuchs in the Bible in his Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He believes that the passage should be taken literally—that Jesus is talking about castration:

Scholars squeamish at the thought of Christian castrati have sometimes insisted that this passage must be referring metaphorically to celibacy. But that is nonsense. If Matthew’s author had meant to speak of celibates (parthenoi), he knew perfectly well how to do that. In a religious context, eunuch had to mean eunuch, else he would simply have confused his audience. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus advises men (who can) to emasculate themselves!

This interpretation is as controversial and countercultural today as it would have been in the days of Jesus—a time saturated with masculine dominance and power. In the Roman world of “phallo-dominance,” castration would have set anyone apart. Stephen J. Patterson explains that Matthew’s eunuchs “remov[ed] the thing that ancients most associated with male power and dominance. This is how they chose to embody the kingdom of heaven on earth.”

FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Yet not everyone agrees with Stephen J. Patterson on this issue. Birger A. Pearson thinks that this passage about eunuchs in the Bible should be taken metaphorically. He makes the case that Jesus is speaking in hyperbole in his BAR article “Did Jesus Marry?”:

While some people in the early Church took Jesus’ saying literally, we should understand it as a case of deliberate hyperbole, such as is found in other of his injunctions (see, for example, Matthew 5:27–30 on adultery: “… If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”) The point Jesus is making about the eunuch is that it is possible for a man to live on earth as he would in God’s kingdom, where there is neither marriage nor procreation. Jesus is challenging people who are “able to receive it” to live a life of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, and thus to live now as though the future kingdom had already come.

While there will likely always be debate about this passage, both sides can agree that Jesus’ teaching ran contrary to the majority’s opinion about power and dominance in the Roman Empire. For more information about eunuchs in the Bible—and a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:11–12—read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Did Jesus Marry?

Biblical Detective Work Identifies the Eunuch

From the Land of the Bow

Did Philip Baptize the Eunuch at Ein Yael?

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 4, 2015.

The post Eunuchs in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

This map shows pilgrimage routes from Galilee to Jerusalem. In the first century C.E., many Jews traveled to the Jerusalem Temple to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths.

To celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), and the Feast of Booths (Sukkot), many Jews traveled to the Jerusalem Temple during the first century C.E. This was sometimes a long journey. Even for those living in Galilee, it could take up to a week

Jeffrey P. García of Nyack College explores pilgrimage routes connecting Galilee and Jerusalem in his article “Jesus and His Pilgrimage Practices,” published in the Summer 2021 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. The Gospels record several pilgrimages taken by Jesus and his disciples. Using these accounts, García reconstructs three major routes between Galilee and Judea: an eastern, central, and western path.

Three Pilgrimage Paths from Galilee to Jerusalem

1. The central—and shortest—route goes through Samaria. Pilgrims would have passed the cities of Sepphoris, Nazareth, Tirzah, Shechem, Shiloh, and Bethel. Although this route would have taken only three days by foot, many Jews chose to avoid it. They preferred longer routes that were historically safer. The Jewish historian Josephus records a violent quarrel between some Galilean Jews and Samaritans, while the Galileans were traveling through Samaria (Antiquities). Passing through this volatile region carried real risks. Yet, García observes that sometimes Jesus and his disciples did indeed travel this path (John 4).
2. Skirting Samaria, the eastern route crosses the Jordan River, passes through the region of Perea, and then crosses back over the Jordan River near Jericho. It would have taken pilgrims five to seven days to traverse it. Cities along this path include Beth Shean, Pella, Sukkoth, and Jericho, as well as smaller villages like Bethpage, and Bethany. Because of the Jewish communities in Perea, this region was safer—and more hospitable—than Samaria for Galilean pilgrims.
3. The third major route that García outlines is situated closer to the Mediterranean Sea. This western route also avoids Samaria, but this time in favor of the coastal plain. It was the longest way for Galilean pilgrims to reach Jerusalem. Pilgrims going this way would have passed Megiddo, Aphek, Lod, and either Emmaus or Beth Horon.

These pilgrimage paths shed light on social tensions and religious practices in the first century. Sometimes Jews took longer routes to avoid dangerous regions—as they took seriously the biblical command to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Passover), the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot), and the Feast of Booths (Sukkot) in Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:16).

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

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Learn more about ancient pilgrimage routes—and the paths Jesus walked to reach Jerusalem—in Jeffrey P. García’s article “Jesus and His Pilgrimage Practices,” published in the Summer 2021 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Jesus and His Pilgrimage Practices” by Jeffrey P. García in the Summer 2021 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in July, 2021

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Jewish Pilgrimage in Second Temple Jerusalem

Pilgrimage Pit Stop

Pilgrimage to the Jerusalem Temple

The Pax Romana and Maritime Travel

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Evidence of Earliest Christian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land Comes to Light in Holy Sepulchre Church

Prize Find: An Incense Shovel from Bethsaida

Jesus and His Pilgrimage Practices

Christian Pilgrimages

Evidence of Earliest Christian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land Comes to Light in Holy Sepulchre Church

The post 3 Pilgrimage Paths from Galilee to Jerusalem appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

A reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. Drawing: Leen Ritmeyer.

King Solomon’s Temple was resplendent. Described in 1 Kings 6–7, the temple was divided into three parts: the forecourt (ulam), the outer sanctum (heikhal) and the inner shrine (devir), also known as the Holy of Holies. Built of stone and roofed with wooden beams, Solomon’s Temple was intricately ornamented. Its interior walls and floors were lined with wooden boards and covered in gold. It took seven years to complete the temple and its furnishings.

Despite the Biblical description and archaeological parallels, there are still some mysteries about Solomon’s Temple. For example, 1 Kings 6:31 describes the doorways of Solomon’s temple between the outer sanctum and the inner shrine as having five mezuzot (the plural form of mezuzah).

This is an example of a modern mezuzah secured to a doorframe. However, this is not what is meant by a mezuzah in the Bible—and not how we should envision the doorways of Solomon’s Temple. Photo: “Mezuzah at Chesed-El Synagogue, Singapore – 20100815,” by SMUConLaw is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0.

This building model from Khirbet Qeiyafa depicts an elaborate doorframe surrounding an opening. With three—or maybe four—interlocking frames, the recessed doorframe sets apart the inner room as sacred space. This model may unlock the meaning of a mezuzah in the Bible regarding the description of Solomon’s Temple. Photo: G. Laron/Courtesy of the Khirbet Qeiyafa Expedition.

What is a mezuzah? In the Bible, mezuzah is normally translated as “doorpost.” However, in the context of Solomon’s Temple, doors with five doorposts do not make sense.

Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel explore this enigma in “The Puzzling Doorways of Solomon’s Temple” in the July/August 2015 issue of BAR. They contend that a recent discovery from Khirbet Qeiyafa may hold the answer to unlocking the meaning of a mezuzah in the Bible regarding Solomon’s Temple.

Located 20 miles from Jerusalem, Khirbet Qeiyafa was occupied in the 11th–10th centuries B.C.E. It is noteworthy as being a fortified site in Judah from the time of King David.

Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel present a building model from Khirbet Qeiyafa that depicts a doorframe with three—or maybe four—interlocking doorframes surrounding an opening. They suggest that these interlocking frames are what is meant by mezuzot in the description of Solomon’s Temple. According to their interpretation, then, the doors to the inner shrine (devir) of Solomon’s Temple did not have five doorposts—but rather five recessed doorframes.

Temples with recessed doorways have been uncovered throughout the ancient Near East, and Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel further note that recessed doorframes set apart inner rooms and spaces as being sacred. In the case of Solomon’s Temple, the more recessed the doorframes, the holier the space:

There is a gradual increase in the number of recessed doorframes from the entrance to the forecourt (three) to the outer sanctum (four) and finally to the entrance from the outer sanctum to the devir (five). It is as if the devir had the highest number of mezuzot because it was the most sacred part of the Temple.

For a full description of the doorways of Solomon’s Temple—and parallels throughout the ancient Near East—read the article “The Puzzling Doorways of Solomon’s Temple” by Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel in the July/August 2015 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “The Puzzling Doorways of Solomon’s Temple” by Madeleine Mumcuoglu and Yosef Garfinkel in the July/August 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on June 15, 2015.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Solomon’s Temple Destruction Gives Clues to Modern Science

The Doorways of Solomon’s Temple

A Rival to Solomon’s Temple

Ivory Pomegranate Revisited: A Relic from Solomon’s Temple?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Solomon’s Temple in Context

Inside Solomon’s Temple

Temple Architecture: What Can Archaeology Tell Us About Solomon’s Temple?

The New ‘Ain Dara Temple: Closest Solomonic Parallel

An Ending and a Beginning

Newly Discovered: A Fortified City from King David’s Time

The post The Doorways of Solomon’s Temple appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Kedesh, located in northern Israel, served as a busy administrative center for the Ptolemies in the third century and for the Seleucids in the second century BCE. It was abruptly abandoned around 150 BCE, and this power vacuum contributed to the success of the Maccabees. Photo: Courtesy of the Tel Kedesh Excavations / Sharon Herbert & Andrea Berlin, Directors.

Who were the Maccabees, what did they do?

From priests to kings, the Maccabees created an independent Jewish kingdom in the second century BCE. Their success was a testament to their zeal—and some significant external factors. The Book of 1 Maccabees tells the story of their rise, while archaeology places the story within a larger historical and political context. Andrea M. Berlin of Boston University analyzes both in her article, “The Rise of the Maccabees,” published in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

There are several ancient texts that describe the Maccabees’ rise to power. These include the apocryphal books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the first century. They detail the events, summarized below, which transpired in the second century BCE and led to the foundation of the Hasmonean Kingdom.

The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires c. 150 BCE. Map: Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Rise of the Maccabees, According to History

1. In the mid-second century BCE, the Seleucid Empire controlled Judea and promoted Hellenistic (Greek) culture and religion. Some Jews embraced this, but others did not.
2. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV escalated tensions by sacking Jerusalem, building a fortress (called the Akra), sacrificing a pig in the Jerusalem Temple, and issuing an edict to abolish Jewish law and worship.
3. In opposition, Mattathias Maccabee, a Jewish priest, and his five sons, John, Simon, Judah, Eliezer, and Jonathan, started a rebellion c. 167 BCE. They gathered forces and fought against the Seleucid rulers and those who supported them.
4. The Maccabees suffered loss, with Mattathias, John, Judah, Eliezer, and Jonathan all dying in battle. Nevertheless, they managed to rededicate the Temple and reclaim Jerusalem and Judea. They established an independent Jewish kingdom, called the Hasmonean Kingdom, with Simon Maccabee as its first ruler c. 142 BCE.
5. Later Hasmonean rulers continued to expand their kingdom into Samaria and Galilee. Some even took the title of king.

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

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The Hasmonean Kingdom c. 110 BCE. Who were the Maccabees, and what did they do? The Maccabees were a priestly family who founded an independent Jewish kingdom, the Hasmonean Kingdom, in the second century BCE. Map: Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Rise of the Maccabees, According to Archaeology

To gain another viewpoint of these events, Andrea M. Berlin takes readers on an archaeological survey of the regions that became Maccabean territory: Judea, Samaria, and part of Galilee. In cities and villages across Galilee and part of the coastal plain, she sees a recurring pattern: Sites prospered and reflect a Hellenistic culture during the beginning of the second century BCE, but then they were abruptly abandoned or destroyed in the 140s BCE. Later in the second century BCE, they were resettled and reflect Jewish life and culture.

The interpretation seems clear: The Seleucids controlled the area and promoted Greek culture and international trade networks. Then they abandoned the area; something forced them out. Later, Jews resettled these areas as part of the Hasmonean Kingdom.
Historical texts credit the Maccabees as being the force that drove the Seleucids from those lands, but Berlin believes that the archaeological remains tell another story. The sites reflect decades of tension between the two major powers in the area: the Ptolemaic Empire, based in Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire, based in Syria and Turkey. Both desired the region, tried to exert their influence over it, and fought each other repeatedly to gain control over its territories. That fighting, as well as infighting among Seleucid factions, is what caused the destruction and abandonment of Galilean sites in the middle of the second century BCE. The land then lay abandoned for about 20 years before being resettled as part of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Berlin explains:

The brutal events of the late 140s left broad regions with abandoned settlements and broken networks. It is exactly inside this moment that Simon retakes the Akra in Jerusalem—an event that, considering how factionalized and otherwise occupied the competing Seleucid forces were, may now be seen as more opportunistic than organized.

The Maccabees certainly had some victories, but they also benefited immensely from the fighting between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. Essentially, they walked into a power vacuum, which enabled them to establish their kingdom. To learn more, read Andrea M. Berlin’s article, “The Rise of the Maccabees,” published in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, and explore the Special Collection of articles on the Maccabees, “Meet the Maccabees,” in the BAS Library.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “The Rise of the Maccabees” by Andrea M. Berlin in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Hanukkah, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Apocrypha

Modi’in: Where the Maccabees Lived

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

Rome and the Maccabees: A Friendship Set in Bronze?

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

All-Access membrs, read more in the BAS Library

The Rise of the Maccabees

Inscription Reveals Roots of Maccabean Revolt

Meet the Maccabees

Monumental Tombs from Maussollos to the Maccabees

Modi’in: Hometown of the Maccabees

The post Who Were the Maccabees and What Did They Do? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

“… For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.”
—1 Corinthians 10:4

A WALKING ROCK IN THE DESERT. A walking rock, sailing stone, moving rock or sliding rock are all names for a rock that moves along a smooth valley floor without the assistance of humans or animals. What does Paul mean in the Bible when he talks about the “spiritual rock that followed” the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness? Is he talking about a walking rock? No—the natural phenomenon of a walking rock is very different than the miraculous water-giving rock mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Photo: Lgcharlot’s is licensed under CC-by-SA-4.0

What does Paul mean in the Bible when he says that the Israelites drank “from the spiritual rock that followed them” during their wanderings in the wilderness?

Paul makes this claim—in 1 Corinthians 10:4—while recounting how the Israelites were sustained in the wilderness after their dramatic Exodus from Egypt before they entered the Promised Land. They “all ate the same spiritual food” and “drank the same spiritual drink” (1 Corinthians 10:3–4).

Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) might stop and wonder: What does Paul mean? In the Bible, it says that the Israelites miraculously received water from a rock two times (Exodus 17:1–7 and Numbers 20:1–14). Both times Moses hit the rock, which then produced water, but the text never claims that the Israelites were followed by a water-giving rock. Therefore, what does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 10:4?

John Byron examines this passage in his Biblical Views column “Paul, Jesus and the Rolling Stone” in the September/October 2015 issue of BAR.

Byron notes that, interestingly, Paul is not the only person to suggest that the Israelites were followed by a water source during their wilderness wanderings. A first-century C.E. source called Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities makes a similar claim: “But as for his own people, he led them forth into the wilderness: Forty years did he rain bread from heaven for them, and he brought them quails from the sea, and a well of water following them” (10.7).

MOSES HIT THE ROCK, and water gushed forth—as depicted in this fresco by Raphael Sanzio. Did a water-giving rock follow the Israelites through the wilderness? If not, what does Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 10:4?

Pseudo-Philo claims that a well of water followed the Israelites through the wilderness, whereas in 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul says that it was a rock that followed them. How did these two ancient interpreters come to their conclusions?

“What they seem to have concluded,” Byron explains, “is that since Moses named both the rock at Rephidim (Exodus 17:7) and the one at Kadesh (Numbers 20:13) ‘Meribah,’ the logical conclusion was that both were one and the same rock and that it, therefore, must have accompanied Israel on their journey.”

1 Corinthians 10:4 reflects a common ancient interpretation—that the Israelites were followed by a water source during their wilderness wanderings, which is demonstrated by Paul’s casual reference and supported by Pseudo-Philo.

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

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

In the passage, Paul makes a second unusual claim: The rock that followed the Israelites through the wilderness was Christ.

How should we respond to these two claims? Was Paul speaking literally or figuratively?

“At the end of the day it’s unclear whether Paul really thought the rock followed Israel in the desert,” Byron says. “Most ancient and modern commentators assume that Paul is reading Israel’s story typologically rather than suggesting that Jesus was present with Israel in the wilderness in the form of a movable water source.”

To see John Byron’s full explanation of 1 Corinthians 10:4, read his column “Paul, Jesus and the Rolling Stone” in the September/October 2015 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Paul, Jesus and the Rolling Stone” by John Byron in the September/October 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on September 7, 2015.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Exodus in the Bible and the Egyptian Plagues

Who Was Moses? Was He More than an Exodus Hero?

Out of Egypt: Israel’s Exodus Between Text and Memory, History and Imagination

Searching for Biblical Mt. Sinai

The post Water from a Walking Rock appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Map of Ammon, Moab and Edom. Map by Biblical Archaeology Society.

When the kingdoms of Israel and Judah controlled the land of Canaan, the kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom ruled east of the Jordan. Although the Bible offers information about these three Iron Age kingdoms, recent archaeological discoveries are bringing to light a fuller picture of them. In his article “Ammon, Moab and Edom: Gods and Kingdoms East of the Jordan,” published in the November/December 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Joel S. Burnett examines the incredible archaeological discoveries from Ammon, Moab and Edom.

Who were the Ammonites?

Ammonite king. Standing more than 6.5 feet tall and dating to the Iron Age, this statue of an Ammonite king was uncovered in 2010 at Amman, Jordan. Who were the Ammonites? In the Bible and from archaeology, a full picture of the Ammonites is emerging. Photo: Joel S. Burnett

In the Bible, they are described as being descendants of Ben-ammi, who was the son of Lot (Abraham’s nephew) and Lot’s younger daughter (Genesis 19:38). The capital of the Iron Age kingdom of Ammon was Rabbah, which is located at modern-day Amman, Jordan. Burnett describes the boundaries of Ammon: “The Ammonite heartland comprised the north-central Transjordanian Plateau encircled by the upper Jabbok … within a 12.5-mile radius of its capital at the headwaters of the Jabbok.” The Ammonites’ primary deity was the god Milcom. Depictions of Milcom have been uncovered through archaeological excavations—as have representations of Ammonite kings, such as the monumental statue uncovered at Rabbah in 2010.

Who were the Moabites?

We learn about the Moabites in the Bible and in the famous Mesha Stele. Photo: “Stèle de Mésha” by Mbzt 2012 is licensed under CC-by-3.0

In the Bible, the Moabites are said to have descended from Moab, the son of Lot and his oldest daughter (Genesis 19:37). The kingdom of Moab stretched “north and south of the Arnon River” with its capital at Dibon. The Moabites worshiped the god Chemosh, who may be depicted in the Balua‘ Stele (dated to the end of Late Bronze Age). The most famous Moabite king—from the archaeological record at least—is Mesha. The large inscription he left behind is the longest Moabite text. Dating to the ninth century B.C.E., the Mesha Stele describes how King Mesha rescued the Moabites from Israelite rule.

Who were the Edomites?

Wearing a three-horned headdress, this Edomite goddess figurine was discovered at Horvat Qitmit. Photo: “Edomite Goddess, Qitmit” by Chamberi is licensed under CC-by-SA-3.0

In the Bible, the Edomites are the descendants of Esau, Jacob’s twin and Isaac’s oldest son (Genesis 36). The Edomites controlled an area east of the Arabah, from the Zered to the Gulf of Aqaba. Their capital was Bozrah, which sat in the northern part of their territory. Although no name of an Edomite deity is given in the Bible, archaeologists know from inscriptions that the Edomites’ principal deity was Qaus (or Qos). Several Edomite places of worship and cultic figurines have been uncovered. One of the most notable is the depiction of an Edomite goddess wearing a three-horned headdress from the site of Qitmit, Israel.

The kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom fought with the Israelites and the Judahites over territory. The Bible presents things from the Israelites’ and Judahites’ point of view, and archaeological discoveries help show us the other side. By looking at what these ancient peoples wrote and left behind, we are able to better understand their perspective. We now have a fuller picture of their kings, gods and daily life.

To learn more about the kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom, read Joel S. Burnett’s comprehensive article “Ammon, Moab and Edom: Gods and Kingdoms East of the Jordan,” in the November/December 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Ammon, Moab and Edom: Gods and Kingdoms East of the Jordan,” by Joel S. Burnett in the November/December 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on October 12, 2016.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

First Person: Human Sacrifice to an Ammonite God?

Bible Artifacts Found Outside the Trench: The Moabite Stone

The Edomite Stronghold of Sela

Where Is Sodom?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

What Ever Happened to the Ammonites?

“Rabbath of the Ammonites”

Moab Comes to Life

Why the Moabite Stone Was Blown to Pieces

New Light on the Edomites

Edomites Advance into Judah

The post Who Were the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites in the Bible? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ Time. In the first century C.E., Jerusalem was home to diverse communities. Monuments, texts, and burials shed light on the city’s population. In this photo, taken from the Mt. of Olives, the Dome of the Rock, the ancient Temple Mount platform, and some burials are visible.
Photo: Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer.

What was the population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time?

Much as today, Jerusalem was a diverse city and pilgrimage center in the first century C.E. Many different people visited and called it home. In the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reconstructs part of its population in her article, “Journey to Jerusalem: Pilgrims and Immigrants in the Time of Herod.” She analyzes ancient texts, monuments, and burials to illuminate some of the city’s Diaspora Jewish communities.

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

First Name:*

Last Name:*

Email Address: * * Indicates a required field.

SUBMIT

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

The Population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ Time

Before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., Jerusalem was home to numerous Diaspora Jewish communities. Evidence of these communities abounds. Texts, such as the New Testament, Mishnah, and Josephus’ writings, help us reconstruct who they were. Additionally, burials and inscriptions serve as major sources for understanding the population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time.

In her BAR article, Magness conducts a thorough investigation of texts and artifacts. Here, we highlight three of them:

Tomb of the Kings. Jerusalem’s so-called Tomb of the Kings is a first-century C.E. burial complex that likely entombed Queen Helena of Adiabene, who had converted to Judaism and moved from the kingdom of Adiabene (located in modern Kurdistan) to Jerusalem. This photo from 1890–1900 shows the complex’s courtyard and elaborate entrance. Photo: Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, LC-DIG-ppmsca-02706.

1. Tomb of the Kings. The so-called Tomb of the Kings is an elaborate first-century C.E. burial complex. With eight interior chambers and a grand entry porch, once topped with three pyramids, a large courtyard, staircase, and ritual bath, the Tomb of the Kings is one of the most impressive tombs in all of Jerusalem. Yet, despite its name, it served as the final resting place not for a king—but a queen. Queen Helena of Adiabene, who had converted to Judaism and moved from the kingdom of Adiabene (located in modern Kurdistan), was entombed in the complex.
   

   Tomb of Nicanor. 1: A large first-century tomb complex on Jerusalem’s Mt. Scopus contained an ossuary for Nicanor of Alexandria, a wealthy Jew from Alexandria, Egypt, who had famously donated two bronze gates to the Temple. The burial complex features a pillared entry porch (see remains of three pillars) and five burial chambers. 2: Inside one of the burial chambers, with replica ossuaries. 3: Looking inside one of the burial niches, with a replica ossuary. Photos: Courtesy Nathan Steinmeyer.

2. Nicanor Burial Cave. A large tomb complex on Mt. Scopus sheds light on another Jerusalem pilgrim: Nicanor of Alexandria, a wealthy Jew from Alexandria, Egypt, who had famously donated two bronze gates to the Jerusalem Temple. This tomb also featured a courtyard, pillared entry porch, and five interior chambers. One of the chambers contained an ossuary (bone box) with an inscription identifying Nicanor.
   

   Theodotos Inscription. This stone block, found in the City of David, is inscribed in Greek and commemorates a synagogue built by Theodotos son of Vettenos. Courtesy Tamar Hayardeni, via Wikimedia Commons.

3. Theodotos Inscription. A synagogue inscription from Jerusalem reveals that numerous pilgrims visited the city in the first century C.E.  The inscription describes guest accommodations for sojourners at the synagogue itself. Theodotos, the head of the synagogue, and his father, Vettenos, are named in the inscription. The name Vettenos is Latin, which suggests that Theodotos’ family may have originated in Rome or Italy.

These tombs and synagogue inscription show that Jews traveled from diverse locations—from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and even Italy—to visit and sometimes move to Jerusalem. Other texts and artifacts highlight additional Jewish Diaspora communities and pilgrims amid the population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ time. Learn more about them in Jodi Magness’s article “Journey to Jerusalem: Pilgrims and Immigrants in the Time of Herod,” published in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Journey to Jerusalem: Pilgrims and Immigrants in the Time of Herod” by Jodi Magness in the Fall 2022 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

Related reading in Bible History Daily

How Large Was King David’s Jerusalem?

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City

Start of the Jewish Diaspora

Ancient Synagogues in Israel and the Diaspora

The Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City

The Exodus and Cultural Memory

Synagogues: Before and After the Roman Destruction of the Temple

The post The Population of Jerusalem in Jesus’ Time appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

When was Jesus born? This predella panel from an altarpiece by Mariotto Albertinelli (1474–1515) depicts the newborn baby Jesus flanked by Joseph and Mary. In which year was Jesus born—B.C. or A.D.? The evidence suggests he was born in 4 B.C. or before. Photo: John G. Johnson Collection, 1917, courtesy of the Philadelphia Museum of Art.

In which year was Jesus born?

While this is sometimes debated, the majority of New Testament scholars place Jesus’ birth in 4 B.C. or before. This is because most date the death of King Herod the Great to 4 B.C. Since Herod played a major role in the narrative of Jesus’ birth (see Matthew 2), Jesus would have had to be born before Herod died.

This begs the question: How could Jesus have been born in B.C.—“before Christ”?

The terms B.C. and A.D. stand for “before Christ” and “anno Domini,” which means “in the year of the Lord.” These terms are used to mark years in the Gregorian and Julian calendars—with the birth of Jesus as the event that divides history. In theory, all the years before Jesus’ birth receive the label B.C., and all those after his birth get A.D. If Jesus had been born in 1 A.D., these designations would be completely accurate.

However, as mentioned above, it seems most likely that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. or earlier. How then did the current division between B.C. and A.D. come to be?

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

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary examines the calendar division in his Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus,” published in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He identifies the monk Dionysius Exiguus, who lived during the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., as the originator of the B.C. and A.D. calendar (based on when he calculated Jesus was born):

Dionysius was born in Scythia Minor, which means somewhere in Romania or Bulgaria, and he lived from about 470 to 544 A.D. He was a learned monk who moved to Rome and became well known for translating many ecclesiastical canons from Greek into Latin, including the famous decrees from the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Ironically, he also wrote a treatise on elementary mathematics. I say ironically because what he is most famous for is the “Anno Domini” calculations that were used to number the years of both the Gregorian and the adjusted Julian calendars.

Although we are not exactly sure how he came to this conclusion, Dionysius dated the consulship of Probius Junior, who was the Roman Consul at the time, to “525 years after ‘the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ’”—meaning 525 years after Jesus’ birth, that is, 525 A.D. Because of Dionysius’s calculations, a new calendar using B.C. and A.D. was born. The terms B.C.E (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) also use this calendar.

Even though Dionysius Exiguus calculated his date for the year in which Jesus was born in the sixth century, it was not until the eighth century that it became widespread. This was thanks to the Venerable Bede of Durham, England, who used Dionysius’s date in his work Ecclesiastical History of the English People.

Learn more about when Jesus was born and Dionysius Exiguus’s calculations for B.C. and A.D. in Ben Witherington III’s Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus” in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “The Turn of the Christian Era: The Tale of Dionysius Exiguus” by Ben Witherington III in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 29, 2017.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

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

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

How December 25 Became Christmas

Christmas Stories in Christian Apocrypha

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

O Little Town of…Nazareth?

The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke—Of History, Theology and Literature

How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus

Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus

Part I

The post When Was Jesus Born—B.C. or A.D.? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.