the bible and archaeology Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

Left-Handed People in the Bible

BAS Staff — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:00:26 +0000

There are only three mentions of left-handed people in the Bible—and all of them refer to members of the tribe of Benjamin, including their deadly accurate slingers (see drawing above). Were these people from the tribe of Benjamin left-handed by nature or nurture? Modern studies in the genetics of left-handedness may be able to shed light on this curious case. (Drawing by Josh Seevers, courtesy of Boyd Seevers)

The Hebrew Bible mentions left-handed people on three occasions: the story of Ehud’s assassination of the Moabite king (Judges 3:12–30), the 700 Benjamites who could use the sling with deadly accuracy (Judges 20:16) and the two-dozen ambidextrous warriors who came to support David in Hebron (1 Chronicles 12:2). All of these stories of left-handed people in the Bible appear in military contexts, and, curiously, all involve members of the tribe of Benjamin.

In a Biblical Views column in the May/June 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, professors Boyd Seevers and Joanna Klein ask the question, “Were these warriors from the tribe of Benjamin left-handed by nature or nurture?” Citing studies in the genetics of left-handedness and Biblical texts, Seevers and Klein show that it may have been a bit of both.

Benjamites may have been genetically disposed to left-handedness at birth, but the trait may also have been encouraged in soldiers to give them a strategic advantage in combat—somewhat like left-handed baseball pitchers today—against right-handed opponents who were unaccustomed to fighting “lefties.” Warriors from the tribe of Benjamin might have been trained to be equally or more effective with their left hands.

Then again, perhaps the Biblical writers simply enjoyed a bit of word play. The name Benjamin means “son of (my) right hand.” Perhaps the irony of left-handed “sons of right-handers” caused the Biblical authors to take note in these cases.

For more about the tribe of Benjamin, left-handedness in the Bible, and the genetics of left-handedness, see Boyd Seevers and Joanna Klein, Biblical Views: “Left-Handed Sons of Right-Handers” in the May/June 2013 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 May 31, 2013.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Biblical Views: Left-Handed Sons of Right-Handers

Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son

Ancient Israel’s Neighbors—The Transjordanian Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab, and Edom

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

The post Left-Handed People in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

First Person: Did the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon Actually Exist?

Hershel Shanks — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 12:00:01 +0000

Hershel Shanks

Amihai Mazar (better known as Ami) is one of Israel’s most highly regarded archaeologists. He recently retired from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I remember long ago when I featured him on the cover of BAR together with his famous uncle, Benjamin Mazar, a former president of the Hebrew University and a famous archaeologist; Ami was angry. He didn’t want to be pictured with his uncle. Ami wanted to make it on his own—not because of his relationship to his distinguished uncle. Well, Ami certainly has now made it on his own.

This is by way of introducing a seminal article that he recently published that includes a critical assessment of the historicity of the United Monarchy of Israel. It is a thoroughly balanced review of the matter, considering both the Biblical text and the archaeological evidence. It is too detailed to rehearse here in detail—and, as he says, it’s “highly specialized and complicated”—but it is worthwhile just to set forth the issues and Ami’s conclusions.¹

The Biblical narratives, he tells us, although written hundreds of years after the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, “retain memories of reality.” It’s these “cultural memories … embedded in the Biblical narratives” that are sometimes captured with the help of archaeology. And the “contribution of archaeology to the study of the past ever increases.”

His conclusion is quite nuanced: “I adhere to the moderate views which, in spite of considerable variations and degrees of confidence, agree that the [Biblical] authors worked with ancient sources, including oral and written narratives, transmitted poetry, archival documents, public inscriptions, etc.” Although not written in the tenth century B.C.E. (the time of the United Monarchy), the Biblical narratives “retain memories of realities rooted in that century.”

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

Let’s begin by considering the famous passage in 1 Kings 9:15–19, which tells us that King Solomon fortified Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. The great Israeli archaeologist Yigal Yadin long ago attributed the three impressive six-chambered city gates at these three major sites to the time of Solomon. For a long time, this dating was considered secure. Then Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University came along with his “Low Chronology,” according to which he extends the time of the relevant archaeological period—Iron IIA—by 80–100 years or so, long after King Solomon’s time. Thus he dates these gates to a later time in the Iron IIA, initially about a hundred years later, probably to the time of King Ahab. Ami Mazar disagrees with Finkelstein and convincingly argues that, although some time adjustment should be made in the length of the archaeological period involved, these monumental gates “cannot be dated later than the tenth century [B.C.E.],” the time of King Solomon.

Gezer. Photo: Courtesy Steve Ortiz.

If Iron IIA extended into the ninth century B.C.E., Finkelstein could be right that the gates were later than Solomon’s time. But there is no doubt that it began in the tenth century B.C.E. Thus the gates could also be from the tenth century B.C.E. “The question of dating the monumental structures at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer,” writes Ami Mazar, “remains in my view unresolved. The evidence is ambivalent, and a tenth century date for this architecture remains plausible. Thus 1 Kings 9:15–19 can still be taken as a source relating to tenth-century B.C.E. reality.” Perhaps there were two phases to Iron IIA, early and late, but “the date of the transition between these two sub-phases is not entirely clear.” (This tells you why the dating of potsherds is so important in archaeology; subtle changes in pottery could help us to distinguish early from late in the same period.)

Next let’s go to Jerusalem. It was surely a small city in King David’s time, perhaps a bit more than 10 acres with about a thousand residents. Solomon’s annexation of the Temple Mount more than doubled the size of the city with a population of about 2,500 people. Although it was small, it was strong and not to be trifled with. The huge Stepped Stone Structure (SSS), rising to the height of a nine-story building, was there in the tenth century B.C.E., if not before. So was the Large Stone Structure (LSS) on top. Ami Mazar agrees with the following senior archaeologists who date this complex to the tenth century B.C.E. or slightly earlier: Kathleen Kenyon (who first came upon walls of the LSS), Yigal Shiloh, Eilat Mazar (who excavated the LSS), Jane Cahill, Margreet Steiner and Avraham Faust.

The Stepped Stone Structure. Photo: Zev Radovan.

“This immense complex [was] one of the largest structures in ancient Israel,” and the massive fortifications from the Late Bronze Age protecting the Gihon Spring and excavated by Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, continued in use during the time of King David and King Solomon.

Eilat Mazar has also been excavating structures south of the Temple Mount that “must have been part of Jerusalem’s royal administrative complex” in the time of the United Monarchy. Enabling her to date this complex were large amounts of Iron IIA pottery. In his usual cautious way Ami Mazar concludes, “Although the excavator’s specific dating of these structures to the time of Solomon may be regarded as conjectural, the date cannot be far off, since the pottery in the fills is clearly Iron IIA, namely dated to the tenth to ninth centuries B.C.E.”

As to Solomon’s Temple as described in the Bible, its plan is known in temple architecture of the Levant since the second millennium B.C.E. and continues into the Iron Age. Although archaeology cannot determine whether Solomon was the builder of the Temple, “the Bible does not hint at any other king who may have founded such a temple.”

That there was a central government ruling the United Monarchy is shown by the recent excavation of Yosef Garfinkel at Khirbet Qeiyafa, a site in the Judahite Shephelah on the border with the Philistines.^a Although a small site, Qeiyafa was protected with a massive casemate wall surrounding the site and a large public building on the summit. It was occupied only briefly in the late 11th or early 10th century B.C.E., the time of kings Saul and David. As Ami Mazar observes, “There must have been a central authority that initiated this well-planned building operation. … While no Canaanite parallels are known for either the city plan or the fortifications,² these are a prototype for later Judean [Judahite] towns, such as Beth Shemesh, Tel en-Nasbeh (Biblical Mizpah), Tel Beit Mirsim and Beersheba.”

Finally, Solomon’s kingdom appears to have been backed up with an elaborate metallurgical industry. Initially the vast copper mining operation in the Wadi Feinan in Jordan^b was associated with the Edomites who inhabited the high plateau above the mines. But there is no evidence of these settlements in Edom earlier than the eighth century B.C.E. Instead, these copper mines at the base reflect an affinity with a similar copper mining and smelting operation in the Timnah Valley in the Negev of Israel.^c “It is now clear,” Ami Mazar tells us, “that large-scale copper mining and smelting industry flourished in the Arabah Valley throughout the late eleventh, tenth and ninth centuries [B.C.E. The structures in Feinan] indicate that the industry was administered and controlled by a central authority” and worked by a tribal-state of semi-nomads.

This should be enough to entice the more scholarly minded to explore the additional and often powerful details in Ami Mazar’s trenchant article, evidencing the existence and nature of Israel’s United Monarchy ruled by Saul, David and Solomon. Yes, they very likely were actual historical figures, and they had a kingdom—although not nearly so vast as the Bible describes. Much of the Biblical text is what Ami Mazar recognizes as being of a “literary-legendary nature.”

First Person: Did the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon Actually Exist? by Hershel Shanks was originally published in Biblical Archaeology Review, September/October 2017. This article was first published on BHD on September 11, 2017.

Notes

a. Yosef Garfinkel, Michael Hasel and Martin Klingbeil, An Ending and a Beginning, BAR, November/December 2013.

b. See Mohammad Najjar and Thomas E. Levy, Condemned to the Mines—Copper Production and Christian Persecution, BAR, November/December 2011; Thomas E. Levy and Mohammad Najjar, Edom and Copper: The Emergence of Ancient Israel’s Rival, BAR, July/August 2006.

c. Hershel Shanks, First Person: Life Was Not So Bad for Smelters, BAR, January/February 2015.

1. Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History,” in C.M. Maier, ed., Congress Volume Munich 2013, Vetus Testamentum Supplements (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 347–369.

2. For this and other reasons, Ami Mazar rejects Nadav Na’man’s suggestion that Qeiyafa is a Canaanite town.

The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count

BAS Staff — Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:00:22 +0000

Back to “Jesus Tomb” Controversy Erupts—Again

Rarely does the world of Biblical archaeology make as much news as when filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici announced at a press conference in late February 2007 that they had identified the remains of Jesus. Those remains, the two filmmakers claimed, had been in an ossuary, or bone box, inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph” that had been uncovered in 1980 during construction of an apartment building in the Jerusalem neighborhood of East Talpiot. As if that were not news enough, Cameron and Jacobovici further claimed that the tomb also contained the ossuaries of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and of Mary Magdalene. And if that weren’t enough, they went on to claim that another ossuary in the tomb, inscribed “Yehudah [Judah, or Judas in Greek] son of Jesus,” was the son of Jesus of Nazareth and of Mary Magdalene, who, the filmmakers said, were married. The Talpiot tomb, they concluded, was nothing less than the tomb of Jesus and his closest family.

Cameron and Jacobovici’s views were elaborated soon after the press conference in The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a program that aired on the Discovery Channel.

It did not take long for the criticism against the show’s claims to mount. Some of the criticism was personal and ugly, sometimes motivated by a misguided sense of defending Christianity. Much of the criticism, however, came from scholars who raised substantive objections to the program’s claims. Some quickly pointed out that the Talpiot tomb- cut into bedrock and containing niches for ossuaries- was a type of tomb popular among Jerusalem’s wealthy in the first century.

Jesus’s family was not wealthy, these scholars noted, and would not have had such a family tomb. Several other criticisms were raised: Jesus’s family, coming from Galilee, would not have had a tomb in Jerusalem; if they had one at all, it would have been in their home region. The scholars also noted that the purported ossuary of Jesus is inscribed simply as “Jesus son of Joseph.” People from outside Judea, these scholars argued, would have been called by their city or region of origin- Mary of Magdala, Paul of Tarsus and, indeed, Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars also pointed out that Jesus, in the Gospels, is invariably called “Jesus of Nazareth” and not “Jesus son of Joseph,” which is how the Talpiot ossuary is inscribed.

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

Other objections included the fact that the Jesus ossuary contained no title, such as Master or Messiah, that we might expect Jesus’s earliest followers to have inscribed on the bone box of their revered teacher. Also missing was any history of veneration of the Talpiot tomb as the burial place of Jesus; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in contrast, was thought by early Christians to be the site of Jesus’ death and burial as far back as the second century.

None of the proceeding objections are by themselves strong enough to be fatal to the claim that the Talpiot tomb was the tomb of Jesus and his family. But note that every one of those objections has to be wrong for the claim to be right- even if one of those objections is correct, the Talpiot tomb is not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that these objections are indeed all wrong. Even if we grant that Jesus’ family had a tomb in Jerusalem (and not in Galilee), that they could afford (and had a desire to own) a rock-cut family tomb of the type favored by Jerusalem’s wealthy, that Jesus’ ossuary would have been inscribed simply as “Jesus son of Joseph” (and not “Jesus of Nazareth” or with the title Master or Messiah), and that the early Christian community in Jerusalem not only would have forgotten where their leader had been buried but would later come up with an entirely spurious tradition that he was buried where the Holy Sepulchre would later be built- if we assume all that, how strong a case do the makers of The Lost Tomb of Jesus have? The answer is: a surprisingly weak one.

When the Talpiot tomb was discovered in 1980, the excavators found ten ossuaries inside; six were inscribed. In addition to the one inscribed “Jesus son of Joseph,” there were ossuaries inscribed “Mariamne Mara,” “Maria,” “Mattia,” “Judah son Jesus” and “Joseh.” The “Mariamne Mara” inscription is written in Greek letters; the others are in Hebrew/Aramaic.

The “Mariamne Mara” ossuary is key to the filmmakers’ argument- and it is the one over which their claims are particularly unconvincing. They argue that Mariamne, one of several Greek variations on the Hebrew name Miriam, refers to none other than Mary Magdalene (the name Mary, too, derives from Miriam). They point to the fourth-century apocryphal work the Acts of Philip, in which a woman named Mariamne plays a prominent role. The filmmakers, basing themselves on an interpretation by Francois Bovon, of Harvard Divinity School, argue that this Mariamne was thought by the author of the Acts of Philip to be Mary Magdalene.

There are several severe problems with this theory, however. The Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is not identified as Mary Magdalene and does not do any of the notable things Mary Magdalene does in the Gospels (for example, Mary Magdalene is healed by Jesus in Luke 8:8; is witness to Jesus’ place of burial in Mark 15:40-47; and is witness to the resurrection of Jesus in Mark 16:1-8). The Mariamne of the Acts of Philip also does numerous things for which we have no parallel in the Gospel accounts (such as converting talking animals and slaying a dragon!). Indeed, the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is identified as the sister of Martha. So whatever we are to make of the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip, she is not Mary Magdalene.

The Galilee is one of the most evocative locales in the New Testament—the area where Jesus was raised and where many of the Apostles came from. Our free eBook The Galilee Jesus Knew focuses on several aspects of Galilee: how Jewish the area was in Jesus’ time, the ports and the fishing industry that were so central to the region, and several sites where Jesus likely stayed and preached.

But even if we accept Bovon’s theory that the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip was meant to be Mary Magdalene (and Bovon has recently stated that he does not think Mariamne is the real name of the historical Mary Magdalene), what bearing does a fourth-century work, composed far from Palestine (probably in Asia Minor), have on first-century artifacts from Jerusalem?

About eight times in the Gospels the form Maria is used to refer to Mary Magdalene (and a ninth time, if one counts Mark 16:9, part of Mark’s ending added much later). Four times the Semitic form Mariam is used. We see the same variation of names in reference to Mary, the sister of Martha, and to Mary, the mother of Jesus. In fact, Mariam is used in reference to the mother of Jesus more than a dozen times.

Accordingly, to identify the Mariamne of the Talpiot ossuary with one specific Mary of the New Testament is little more than special pleading. The Mariamne in the Talpiot tomb is almost certainly someone else.

The filmmakers also take the second name on that ossuary- Mara- to be a title, the feminine form of the Aramaic title for “Master” or “Teacher.” To the filmmakers, this gives added weight to their identification of the Mariamne in the ossuary with Mary Magdalene. In their view, Mary Magdalene was a central and honored early leader in the church, and her role was acknowledged by the inscription on the ossuary- “The Honored Teacher Mariamne.”

But here, too, the filmmakers are almost certainly wrong. Some epigraphers think the Greek inscription on the ossuary actually reads “Mariamne and Mara.” This interpretation is supported by similar, even identical, forms in Greek papyri (for example, P.Oslo 2.47; P.Oxy. 2.399; 4.745; P.Columbia 18a; and, from Palestine, 5/6Hev 12; 5/6Hev 16; and XHev/Seiyal 63 and 69). And, in fact, there is another ossuary, at Dominus Flevit, in which the names “Martha and Mary” are inscribed, thus providing an example where the names of two women are given.

In any case, we have no certain examples of “Mara” as a title (besides, the Aramaic Mara is normally masculine). The inscription on this ossuary should be read either as “Mariamne, known as Martha” or perhaps as “Mariamne and Martha,” to indicate that there were two women in the ossuary (it was common for ossuaries to hold the remains of several people).

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 Lost Tomb of Jesus suggests that “Mariah” (written in Hebrew letters) is a “Latinized” form of Miriam and is quite rare and thus supports an identification with Mary the mother of Jesus. This is not convincing, however, for “Mariah” (written in Hebrew letters) is found on ossuaries from Mount Scopus (see L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel, ossuary no. 26), the Mount of Olives (no. 27), Jericho (no. 55), in Jerusalem (for example, nos. 48, 49, 53, 56-58) and elsewhere (nos. 33-36, 41). Moreover, the name “Maria” (written in Greek letters) occurs in Josephus (Jewish Wars 6.201) and on ossuaries (Rahmani nos. 25, 28, 46). There is nothing about the name- written in Hebrew or in Greek- that points to Mary the mother of Jesus.

There are also problems with the interpretations of the other names found in the Talpiot tomb. We know of no one in the family of Jesus by the name of “Mattia” (Matthew). The filmmakers point to ancestors of Jesus who had forms of that name, but their point is not convincing and is another example of special pleading.

The filmmakers also misunderstand another of the names found in the Talpiot tomb. The name YWSH should be pronounced “Yosah” (as Professor Tal Ilan in fact does in the documentary), not “Yoseh,” as the documentary consistently does. “Yosah” is not the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek form Joses, the name of Jesus’ brother (as in Mark 6:3 and elsewhere). The Hebrew equivalent is YWSY (and is found on a number of ossuaries in Greek and in Hebrew). The documentary’s discussion of this name is very misleading.

The Talpiot tomb also contained a “Judah son of Jesus.” The filmmakers suggest this Judah is the son of Jesus and of his wife Mary Magdalene. This whole line of interpretation needs to be challenged.

There is no credible evidence anywhere, at any time, that suggests that Jesus had a wife or a child. Had he a wife, it would not have been an embarrassment or something that needed to be kept secret. A wife of Jesus would have been a celebrated figure; children would have occupied honored places in the church. But there is no hint of this. Even the second century Gnostic Gospels of Mary and of Philip do not support the claim some make that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married or were lovers.

This important point seems not to have registered with the filmmakers. The inscription “Judah son of Jesus” argues against the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Whoever this Jesus was, he had a son named Judah; Jesus of Nazareth had no children and he had no wife.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

The filmmakers also suggest that a tenth ossuary from the Talpiot tomb, now lost, was in fact the now-famous James ossuary, whose inscription reads “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus.” Amos Kloner, who excavated the Talpiot tomb, rejects the suggestion; he says the tenth ossuary from Talpiot was not inscribed. In addition, the owner of the James ossuary claims that he has photographic evidence that shows that the James ossuary was in his possession years before the discovery of the Talpiot tomb in 1980.

And finally, the filmmakers also misinterpret the pointed gable (or “chevron,” as they call it) above the rosette (or “circle”) at the entrance to the Talpiot tomb. They suggest that the gable and rosette were an early Jewish-Christian symbol. They also call our attention to an ossuary at the Dominus Flevit church (some of whose ossuaries may have belonged to early Christians), which on one end has markings similar to those of the Talpiot tomb entrance.

The pointed gable and rosette pattern has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, this pattern predates Jesus and the Christian movement by many years. It is found on Hasmonean coins and on coins struck by the tetrarch Philip, son of Herod the Great, well before the activities of Jesus and the emergence of his movement. The gable and rosette pattern is also found in Jewish funerary and synagogue art, usually symbolizing the Temple or the Ark of the Covenant. The pattern is seen on several ossuaries that we have no reason to think are Christian (see Rahmani nos. 282, 294, 392, 408, 893). The pointed gable over the rosette is a pre-Christian Jewish symbol that referred to the Temple and is not a Jewish Christian symbol. Given Jesus’ criticism of the Temple cult, it is especially ironic that the filmmakers have confused a Temple symbol for a sign used by the earliest Christians.

Was there a Jesus family tomb in ancient Jerusalem? We think there likely was not, but if there was it was almost certainly not the Talpiot tomb.

Steven Feldman is the former Web Editor of the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Craig Evans is Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada. He earned a doctorate in biblical studies at Claremont Graduate University in 1983. Prior to his appointment at Acadia he was Visiting Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and for twenty-one years was Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, where for many years he chaired the Religious Studies Department and directed the graduate program in Biblical Studies. He was also for one year a Visiting Fellow at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, New Jersey.

Professor Evans is author or editor of more than fifty books. Among his authored books are To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9Ð10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (1989), Luke (1990), Jesus (1992), Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (1992), Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue (1993), Luke and Scripture: The Function of Sacred Tradition in Luke-Acts (1993), Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (1995), Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (1997), Mark (2001), The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: MatthewÐLuke (2003), Jesus and the Ossuaries (2003), and Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (2005).

Professor Evans has also authored more than two hundred articles and reviews. He served as senior editor of the Bulletin for Biblical Research (1995Ð2004) and the Dictionary of New Testament Background (2000), winner of a Gold Medallion. Currently Evans is serving on the editorial boards of Dead Sea Discoveries, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, and New Testament Studies. He is also writing Matthew for the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series and a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian faith. His newest book, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, was released by InterVarsity Press in December 2006. At the spring 2006 commencement the Alumni Association of Acadia University honoured Professor Evans with the Excellence in Research Award.

Professor Evans has given lectures at Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, Yale, and other universities, colleges, seminaries, and museums, such as the Field Museum in Chicago and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. He also regularly lectures and gives talks at popular conferences and retreats on the Bible and Archaeology, including the Biblical Archaeology Society summer sessions, as well as fall sessions at the annual Society of Biblical Literature meetings. He has lectured on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jesus and archaeology, canonical and extra-canonical Gospels, and the controversial James Ossuary and has appeared several times on the television programs Faith and Reason and the John Ankerberg Show. He has appeared in the History Channel presentation on the Historical Jesus and the recent BBC and Discovery Channel presentation on Peter the apostle. He was also featured in Dateline NBC’s specials “The Last Days of Jesus” and “Jesus the Healer,” which aired in 2004 and were watched by more than 25 million North Americans. In 2005 he appeared on Dateline NBC’s “The Mystery of Miracles” and “The Birth of Jesus,” as well as History Channel’s “The Search for John the Baptist.” Professor Evans also appeared in 2006 in National Geographic Channel’s documentary on the recently discovered Gospel of Judas and in Dateline NBC’s “The Mystery of the Jesus Papers.” He also appeared in National Geographic Channel’s recently aired documentary sequel to the Gospel of Judas, entitled “The Secret Lives of Jesus.” He has recently been interviewed for documentaries investigating the extracanonical Gospels, the resurrection of Jesus, and the controversial Talpiot Tomb in Jerusalem.

Professor Evans lives in Kentville, Nova Scotia, with his wife Ginny; they have two grown daughters and a grandson.

This article was first published in Bible History Daily on March 11, 2007.

The post The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

When Did Christianity Begin to Spread?

BAS Staff — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:00:08 +0000

The early church at Laodicea. Photo: Dr. Celal Şimşek/Laodikeia excavation.

How old is Christianity? When did it stop being a Jewish sect and become its own religion? As reported in “Crossing the Holy Land” in the September/October 2011 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, new archaeological discoveries of churches are crucial to helping answer those questions. But when did Christians begin to build these churches? Early Christian gathering places are difficult to identify because at first Christians met together mostly in private homes. Even as Christian populations grew, distrust and persecution by their Roman rulers forced the early church to stay out of the public eye.

The situation changed in 313 A.D. when the emperor Constantine made Christianity a licit religion of the Roman Empire. With this acceptance came the construction of large public buildings, or churches, to serve the worship needs of Christians. Remains of these churches are now turning up in Biblical archaeology findings around the world, helping to answer the questions: How old is Christianity in places like Turkey and Egypt? And when did Christianity begin to spread beyond Israel throughout the Roman Empire?

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

In early February 2011 the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) announced some Biblical archaeology findings, including a large Byzantine Church at Horvat Midras southwest of Jerusalem. The structure, which was used as a church in the fifth–seventh centuries, was among many recent archaeology discoveries at the site and was located inside an earlier Jewish compound. The highlight of the basilica is the mosaic carpeting. The colorful geometric patterns and images of fish, peacocks, lions and foxes are rare in both the level of craftsmanship and the state of preservation.

But then disaster struck. Someone attacked these mosaics with a hammer. In the wake of the vandalism, the IAA covered the Biblical archaeology findings, stating that they hoped the mosaics could be mostly preserved, although it will now require significantly more time and money.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

But how old is Christianity’s presence in Turkey? Given the importance of Asia Minor to the apostle Paul and other early followers of Jesus, it should come as no surprise that a church from the fourth century was among the recent archaeology discoveries there. Turkey announced at the end of January 2011 that a large, well-preserved church had been found at Laodicea using ground-penetrating radar. According to the excavation director the church was built during the reign of Constantine (306–337 A.D.) and destroyed by an earthquake in the early seventh century.

Laodicea is mentioned several times in the New Testament, in both Paul’s letter to the Colossians and the Book of Revelation. Paul’s letter suggests that Laodicea had a very early Christian community. A bishop’s seat was located at Laodicea very early on, and it remains a titular see of the Roman Catholic Church today, although the city is uninhabited and the bishop’s seat has been vacant since 1968. In 363–364 A.D., clergy from all over Asia Minor convened at the regional Council of Laodicea. It is possible that the recently discovered church is the very same building where Asia Minor’s clergy met to hold the influential Council of Laodicea.

For more about these and other recent church discoveries, read “Crossing the Holy Land” by Dorothy D. Resig in the September/October 2011 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

King Hezekiah in the Bible: Royal Seal of Hezekiah Comes to Light

Robin Ngo — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 12:00:28 +0000

HEZEKIAH IN THE BIBLE. The royal seal of Hezekiah, king of Judah, was discovered in the Ophel excavations under the direction of archaeologist Eilat Mazar. Photo: Courtesy of Dr. Eilat Mazar; photo by Ouria Tadmor.

The royal seal of King Hezekiah in the Bible was found in an archaeological excavation. The stamped clay seal, also known as a bulla, was discovered in the Ophel excavations led by Dr. Eilat Mazar at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The discovery was announced in a press release by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Institute of Archaeology, under whose auspices the excavations were conducted.

The bulla, which measures just over a centimeter in diameter, bears a seal impression depicting a two-winged sun disk flanked by ankh symbols and containing a Hebrew inscription that reads “Belonging to Hezekiah, (son of) Ahaz, king of Judah.” The bulla was discovered along with 33 other stamped bullae during wet-sifting of dirt from a refuse dump located next to a 10th-century B.C.E. royal building in the Ophel.

In the ancient Near East, clay bullae were used to secure the strings tied around rolled-up documents. The bullae were made by pressing a seal onto a wet lump of clay. The stamped bulla served as both a signature and as a means of ensuring the authenticity of the documents.

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.

Who Was King Hezekiah in the Bible?

King Hezekiah in the Bible, son and successor of Ahaz and the 13th king of Judah (reigning c. 715–686 B.C.E.), was known for his religious reforms and attempts to gain independence from the Assyrians.

The Ophel excavation area at the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Andrew Shiva.

In Aspects of Monotheism: How God Is One (Biblical Archaeology Society, 1997), Biblical scholar P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., summarizes Hezekiah’s religious reforms:

According to 2 Chronicles 29–32, Hezekiah began his reform in the first year of his reign; motivated by the belief that the ancient religion was not being practiced scrupulously, he ordered that the Temple of Yahweh be repaired and cleansed of niddâ (impurity). After celebrating a truly national Passover for the first time since the reign of Solomon (2 Chronicles 30:26), Hezekiah’s officials went into the countryside and dismantled the local shrines or “high places” (bamot) along with their altars, “standing stones” (masseboth) and “sacred poles” (’aásûeµrîm). The account of Hezekiah’s reform activities in 2 Kings 18:1–8 is much briefer. Although he is credited with removing the high places, the major reform is credited to Josiah (2 Kings 22:3–23:25).

Hezekiah’s attempts to save Jerusalem from Assyrian king Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 B.C.E. are chronicled in both the Bible and in Assyrian accounts. According to the Bible, Hezekiah, anticipating the attack, fortified and expanded the city’s walls and built a tunnel, known today as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, to ensure that the besieged city could still receive water (2 Chronicles 32:2–4; 2 Kings 20:20).

The Sennacherib Prism on display in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Photo: Hanay’s image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0/ Wikimedia Commons.

On the six-sided clay prism called the Sennacherib Prism as well as other annals of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib details in Akkadian his successful campaigns throughout Judah, bragging that he had Hezekiah trapped in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage.” According to the Bible, however, Sennacherib ultimately failed to capture Jerusalem before his death (2 Kings 19:35–37).

The bulla discovered in the Ophel excavations represents the first time the royal seal of King Hezekiah has been found on an archaeological project.

“Although seal impressions bearing King Hezekiah’s name have already been known from the antiquities market since the middle of the 1990s—some with a winged scarab (dung beetle) symbol and others with a winged sun—this is the first time that a seal impression of an Israelite or Judean king has ever come to light in a scientific archaeological excavation,” Eilat Mazar said in the Hebrew University press release.

Bullae bearing the seal impressions of Hezekiah have been published in Biblical Archaeology Review. In the March/April 1999 issue, epigrapher Frank Moore Cross wrote about a bulla depicting a two-winged scarab. The bulla belonged to the private collection of antiquities collector Shlomo Moussaieff.¹ In the July/August 2002 issue, epigrapher Robert Deutsch discussed a bulla stamped with the image of a two-winged sun disk flanked by ankh symbols—similar to the one uncovered in the Ophel excavations. Both bullae published by Cross and Deutsch bear a Hebrew inscription reading “Belonging to Hezekiah, (son of) Ahaz, king of Judah.”

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

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

The Hebrew University press release explains the iconography on the Ophel bulla and other seal impressions of Hezekiah:

The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in his life, when both the royal administrative authority and the king’s personal symbols changed from the winged scarab (dung beetle)—the symbol of power and rule that had been familiar throughout the ancient Near East, to that of the winged sun—a motif that proclaimed God’s protection, which gave the regime its legitimacy and power, also widespread throughout the ancient Near East and used by the Assyrian kings.

The prize find of the so-called Ophel treasure unearthed in the Ophel excavations is a gold medallion featuring a menorah, shofar (ram’s horn) and a Torah scroll. Photo: Courtesy of Dr. Eilat Mazar; photo by Ouria Tadmor.

The renewed excavation of the Ophel, the area between the City of David and the Temple Mount, occurred between 2009 and 2013. Under the direction of third-generation Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar, the excavation unearthed another extraordinary find: the so-called Ophel treasure, a cache of gold coins, gold and silver jewelry and a gold medallion featuring a menorah, shofar (ram’s horn) and a Torah scroll.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on December 3, 2015.

Notes:

1. See also Meir Lubetski, “King Hezekiah’s Seal Revisited,” BAR, July/August 2001.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Aspects of Monotheism

King Hezekiah’s Seal Bears Phoenician Imagery

Lasting Impressions

King Hezekiah’s Seal Revisited

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

The post King Hezekiah in the Bible: Royal Seal of Hezekiah Comes to Light appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:00:14 +0000

The imposing tell of Beth Shean. In the Bible the city plays an important role following the death of King Saul and as a major Israelite administrative center. Excavations over the past century have revealed what archaeology (and the Bible) can—and can’t—tell us about the site’s history. Photo: Gaby Laron, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

The most famous episode featuring Beth Shean in the Bible follows the death of King Saul on Mt. Gilboa:

The Philistines came to strip the slain, and they found Saul and his three sons lying on Mt. Gilboa. They cut off his head and stripped him of his armor … They placed his armor in the temple of Ashtaroth, and they impaled his body on the wall of Beth Shean. When the men of Jabesh-Gilead heard about it—what the Philistines had done to Saul—all their stalwart men set out and marched all night. They removed the bodies of Saul and his sons from the wall of Beth Shean and came to Jabesh and burned them there. Then they took the bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and they fasted for seven days (1 Samuel 31:8–13; cf. 1 Chronicles 10:8–12).

Archaeology seeks to uncover an even broader picture of a site’s past. In the Bible, Beth Shean is a major administrative center in Solomon’s kingdom, but excavations show that the site was an important one long before (and after) the kings of Israel reigned over it. Even so, can archaeology and the Bible corroborate the same historical event?

Multiple excavations at Beth Shean in the past century have revealed a 6,000-year history of settlement at the site. Located near the intersection of two well-traveled ancient routes, Beth Shean proved to have important strategic value as early as the fifth millennium B.C.E., when it was first settled. Civilizations rose and fell at the site throughout the Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age. Some of the most impressive finds at Beth Shean came from the Late Bronze Age, when Egyptian pharaohs ruled over much of Canaan and used Beth Shean as a crucial administrative center to rule over its vassal kingdoms.

Unfortunately, due in part to later Roman and Byzantine construction at the base of the mound, excavators have not yet revealed any portion of the Beth Shean city wall from the 11th century B.C.E., when the Biblical story about King Saul’s death most likely occurred. And although the city was certainly occupied at this time, there is no evidence of a Philistine presence at the site then. So archaeology has not confirmed the Bible’s stories, but it has shed light on an even richer past at Beth Shean.

For more about the death of King Saul and the aftermath at Beth Shean in the Bible, as well as the extent to which archaeology and the Bible agree about Beth Shean’s past, read “Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?” by Amihai Mazar in Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2012.

——BAS Library Members: Read “Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?” by Amihai Mazar as it appeared in the March/April 2012 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 February 23, 2012.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Glorious Beth-Shean: Huge new excavation uncovers the largest and best-preserved Roman/Byzantine city in Israel
Was King Saul Impaled on the Wall of Beth Shean?
Searching For Saul: What we really know about Israel’s first king
King Saul—A Bungler from the Beginning

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

The post Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Nicea Church: Where Did the Council of Nicea Meet?

Robin Ngo — Fri, 09 Apr 2021 14:03:02 +0000

In 325 C.E., Emperor Constantine assembled more than 300 bishops together in Nicea (today, Iznik in Turkey) to come to a consensus on whether Jesus was a created being or divine. The early church had been in such conflict over this issue that Constantine felt it imperative to unite Christian leaders and define their religious doctrine. The resulting resolution—the Nicene Creed (which was subsequently expanded upon in later council meetings)—affirmed Jesus’s divine nature. Where exactly did the Council of Nicea meet in 325? As described in their article “Nicea’s Underwater Basilica” in the November/December 2018 issue of BAR, Mustafa Şahin and Mark R. Fairchild have an idea.

In the free eBook Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity, learn about the cultural contexts for the theology of Paul and how Jewish traditions and law extended into early Christianity through Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.

In 2014, an ancient basilica was discovered 165 feet off the coast of Iznik, submerged 6–10 feet under Lake Askanios. Subsequent survey and excavation headed by Professor Mustafa Şahin of Uludağ University determined that this Nicea church had three aisles and a central apse and dated to the late fourth–early fifth century C.E.

Visible in this aerial view are the submerged remains of the late fourth–early fifth century C.E. Nicea church near Iznik in Turkey. Beneath this lies an earlier church that may have accommodated the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. Photo: Mustafa Şahin.

The floor of the basilica’s nave lay 1.6 feet lower than its walls, suggesting to the archaeologists that the basilica had been built over an earlier structure. And this earlier structure, it seems, had been constructed atop a necropolis, as evidenced by the discovery of several graves. Şahin and Fairchild elaborate on the significance of these graves:

Was the church built on this spot to commemorate the burial place of a saint, possibly an early martyr? Perhaps this is why the church was constructed outside of the southwestern walls of the city. (A city’s necropolis was always outside of its walls.)

A late Byzantine tradition claims that St. Neophytos was martyred in Nicea during the reign of Diocletian (284–305). According to the tradition, Neophytos was slain because he refused to offer a sacrifice to the gods when the governor Decius came to the city and commanded the people to do so. The storyline in the tradition is late and legendary, but there is good reason to believe that the tradition echoes the martyrdom of Neophytos in Nicea.
It was common for early Christians to desire burial near the tombs of saints and martyrs. These places became sites for memorials, as well as places for worship. This may account for the reason this church was built not only outside of the city walls of Nicea, but also over a burial site. Several coins found at the graves date from the time of Emperor Valens (364–378) and Emperor Valentinian (378–383).

The archaeologists suggest that the graves surrounded the tomb of Neophytos.

This fifth–sixth century C.E. token discovered near the Nicea basilica depicts the image of Christ Pantocrator (“ruler of all”)—Jesus sitting on a throne with his right hand making a gesture of a blessing and his left holding a copy of the scriptures. Photo: Mustafa Şahin.

Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, described the Council of Nicea as follows: “The most eminent servants of God from all the churches that filled Europe, Africa, and Asia gathered together, and one place of worship, as if expanded by God, accommodated the people.”

Şahin and Fairchild posit that the early Christian church underneath the fourth–fifth-century basilica, constructed at such a meaningful location, could have been the place where Constantine first convened over 300 bishops in 325 C.E. The Council of Nicea would eventually move to—and conclude in—Constantine’s palace in Nicea.

To further explore the archaeological discoveries off the shore of Nicea, from structural remains to coins to the skeletons of those buried in this important city, read the full article “Nicea’s Underwater Basilica” by Mustafa Şahin and Mark R. Fairchild in the November/December 2018 issue of BAR.

——————
Subscribers: Read the full article “Nicea’s Underwater Basilica” by Mustafa Şahin and Mark R. Fairchild in the November/December 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a subscriber yet? Join today.

This post originally appeared in Bible History Daily in 2018

Ancient Latrine: A Peek into King Hezekiah’s Reforms in the Bible?

Robin Ngo — Thu, 27 Jun 2019 13:00:45 +0000

The latrine discovered in what may be a shrine at Lachish. Photo: Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

A millennia-old latrine discovered at Tel Lachish in Israel might reveal some interesting insights into Biblical history. According to Sa’ar Ganor and Igor Kreimerman, who conducted the excavations on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the latrine could be evidence of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms enacted throughout the Kingdom of Judah in the eighth century B.C.E. The archaeologists detail their discovery in the article “Going to the Bathroom at Lachish” in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

The Hebrew Bible has several references to King Hezekiah’s reforms and attempts to centralize worship in Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 29–32 describes his efforts during the first year of his reign to cleanse and refurbish the Temple in Jerusalem, believing that his ancestors had not worshipped the God of Israel dutifully. 2 Kings 18:4 narrates that “he removed the high places (bamot), broke down the pillars (masseboth), and cut down the sacred pole (asherah).”

Lachish, located in the foothills of Judah (the Shephelah), was regarded as the second most important city in the Kingdom of Judah after Jerusalem. Spanning more than 18 acres on the tell, the Iron Age city boasted a palace-fort, city wall and six-chambered gate complex—within which, Ganor and Kreimerman argue, may be an Israelite gate-shrine.

The massive six-chambered city gate at Tel Lachish. Photo: Guy Fitoussi, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The excavations at Tel Lachish fully exposed the massive city gate complex, which measures about 80 feet by 80 feet. Discovered at the complex were remnants of storage jars—including some that bore the stamp lmlk (“[belonging] to the king”)—that may be evidence of Hezekiah’s preparations against Assyrian king Sennacherib’s impending attacks. Lachish was completely destroyed in 701 B.C.E.

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.

Part of this gate complex, the archaeological team found, was a large room that appears to have been a shrine. The room contained two four-horned altars, whose horns had been intentionally damaged, and several ceramic lamps, bowls and stands. Ganor and Kreimerman believe that the destroyed altars corroborate Biblical references to King Hezekiah’s reforms: his efforts to centralize worship in Jerusalem and abolish it elsewhere (see 2 Kings 18:4).

The left-most chamber in this isometric reconstruction of Lachish’s gate complex shows where the archaeologists found what they interpret to be an Israelite gate-shrine. In the innermost room, archaeologists discovered two four-horned altars (visible in the drawing). Photo: Sharon Gal, Israel Antiquities Authority.

Most surprising of all was that in one corner of the room, the archaeologists discovered a seat carved of stone with a hole in the center—what Ganor and Kreimerman believe to be a toilet. This latrine, Ganor and Kreimerman say, was unquestionably a form of desecration of this shrine room—a practice described in the Hebrew Bible: “Then they demolished the pillar of Baal, and destroyed the temple of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day” (2 Kings 10:27).

The four-horned altar with evidence of intentional destruction—perhaps due to King Hezekiah’s reforms in worship. Photo: Yoli Shwartz, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

BAR authors Sa’ar Ganor and Igor Kramerman believe this latrine excavated at Lachish was symbolically placed to desecrate the shrine as part of Hezekiah’s reforms. Photo: Igor Kreimerman.

“Laboratory tests we conducted in the spot where the stone toilet was placed suggest it was never used,” Ganor said in an IAA press release. “Hence, we can conclude that the placement of the toilet had been symbolic, after which the holy of holies was sealed until the site was destroyed.”

“This is the first time that an archaeological find confirms this phenomenon,” Ganor explained.

Learn more about Sa’ar Ganor and Igor Kreimerman’s interpretation of the gate-shrine at Lachish in the context of other known archaeological examples of King Hezekiah’s religious reforms by reading the full article “Going to the Bathroom at Lachish” in the November/December 2017 issue of BAR.

——————
BAS Library Members: Read the full article “Going to the Bathroom at Lachish” by Sa’ar Ganor and Igor Kreimerman in the November/December 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

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

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on October 4, 2016. It has been updated and expanded.

On View: Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered

Robin Ngo — Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:00:44 +0000

This summer, come face to face with ancient relics associated with Biblical figures. Now on view through August 19, 2018, the exhibit Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered presents two seal impressions (bullae) found 3 feet apart in the Ophel excavations led by archaeologist Eilat Mazar at the foot of Jersualem’s Temple Mount. The exhibit can be seen at the Armstrong Auditorium on the campus of Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Visitors of the Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered exhibit can see up close the bullae of King Hezekiah (left) and of Isaiah (right). Photo: Courtesy Dr. Eilat Mazar.

The Isaiah bulla was revealed to the world for the first time in the special March/April May/June 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review honoring longtime BAR editor and founder Hershel Shanks. Bearing a Hebrew inscription that reads “[Belonging] to Isaiah nvy,” the bulla is damaged and missing its upper left section. In her reconstruction of the last portion of the inscription, Mazar proposes that the impression reads, “[belonging] to Isaiah the prophet.” Mazar thus suggests that the bulla was associated with the Biblical prophet Isaiah.

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.

As recounted in the Bible, the prophet Isaiah served as counsel to the Judahite king Hezekiah (r. 727–698 B.C.E.), including during the critical period in which the Assyrian king Sennacherib waged war against Judah. It therefore seems fortuitous that the bulla of King Hezekiah was located near that of Isaiah’s in the Ophel excavations. Decorated with a two-winged sun disk flanked by ankh symbols and containing a Hebrew inscription that reads “Belonging to Hezekiah, (son of) Ahaz, king of Judah,” Hezekiah’s bulla from the Ophel represented the first time the king’s seal impression was found in an archaeological excavation. Other examples had been known from the antiquities market.

Visitors to the Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered exhibit will also be able to see the Sennacherib Prism (a six-sided clay prism detailing the Assyrian king’s campaigns against Judah), several other Assyrian inscriptions, Judahite clay vessels, and weapons used during the siege of Lachish.

Arrowheads and sling stones from Lachish as well as other artifacts illuminating King Hezekiah’s reign will be on display in the Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered exhibit. Photo: Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

“The stars of the show are the Hezekiah and Isaiah bullae,” said Brad Macdonald, curator of the Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered exhibit. “But the supporting cast—the arrowheads from Lachish, the Sennacherib Prism, the Assyrian wall reliefs—is also pretty extraordinary. We will use maps, illustrations, interactive aids, and storyboards to connect all these [artifacts] and create what we believe will be a unique and moving experience.”

Raising the BAR

Biblical Archaeology Society Staff — Mon, 05 Mar 2018 14:09:37 +0000

Some of Hershel Shanks’s major campaigns and archaeological explorations are highlighted on the cover of BAR, March/April May/June 2018.

It was 1983; my staff of nine and I were working out of my unfinished basement—fulfilling each of the responsibilities of the publishing arm of an internationally recognized popular magazine, while running a small mail order merchandise program (the product was stored in a different basement three blocks away), and coordinating a small travel/study program. It had been only eight years since the founding of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Someone began walking down the basement stairs—we all looked up. On the stairs to the basement was a little old man. In a thick Israeli accent, he exclaimed, “Oh my God, in Israel we think the Biblical Archaeology Review has a great big building. And look at this!”

We certainly did not look like a sophisticated publishing house capable of producing a “real” magazine. Let’s just say the basement was cramped and somewhat primitive. Our mailroom was a storage closet. There was no need for the intercom button on our phones—we just called across the room. Our printer was a converted teletype machine whizzing along at 33 characters per second. When it reached the end of the line, the carriage whipped back, and it started all over again. We had one computer, an IBM desktop with two 5¼-inch floppy drives and 64KB of RAM. Our mismatched desks were in a line back to back to save space, and we froze in the winter until one day I saw my circulation person typing through her mittens, prompting me to install wall heaters. We’ve come a long way.

Actually, the story of BAR and BAS truly begins in the early 1970s. Hershel Shanks was a partner in a law firm in downtown Washington, D.C. He decided to take his entire family—himself, his wife, and his two young girls (then aged six and three)—to Jerusalem on a year-long sabbatical from September 1972 through 1973. He barely knew anyone in Jerusalem. He had never taken a course in the Bible or archaeology. And yet Hershel spent much of his time wandering around archaeological sites (often through active digs!), writing about his experiences, and meeting the great archaeologists who would later grace the pages of BAR with their wisdom and discoveries.

Hershel Shanks, Susan Laden, Suzanne F. Singer, and Jordanian archaeologist Mohammad Najjar stand on a Herodian staircase at Machaerus in modern Jordan. Hershel founded BAR and served as its Editor until he was promoted to Editor Emeritus in 2018. Sue Laden is BAS’s Publisher, and Sue Singer was BAR’s longtime Managing Editor and now serves as a Contributing Editor. Photo: Hershel Shanks/Photo by Gyozo Vörös.

Hershel had met Bill Dever, then Director of the W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, on a prior trip. Dever introduced Hershel to the larger archaeology community. A month before Hershel left Jerusalem, he connected with his law school buddy, Max Singer, and his wife, Suzanne (Sue), who with family had just arrived to start a year-long sabbatical that stretched into four years. Among his many archaeological adventures, he got involved in a project at the City of David and explored the Siloam (Hezekiah’s) Tunnel. He and his family also took a tour of Hazor excavated by the eminent archaeologist and former army general Yigael Yadin. During his visit to Hazor, Hershel’s older daughter, Elizabeth, found a jar handle incised with a male figure. Later that year, Hershel met Yadin at his home in order to give him his daughter’s find. Yadin talked Hershel into writing an article on it and offered to help him publish it.

While on a visit to the archaeological site of Hazor, Elizabeth Shanks (Hershel’s older daughter) found an incised handle. Although she was just six years old at the time, she recognized that it was a significant discovery and gave it to the excavator of Hazor, the late Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin. In return, he gave her a restored juglet from the site. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

Yadin identified the figure carved on the handle as a Syro-Hittite deity and dated the find to around 1400 B.C.E. Yadin helped Hershel publish the handle in the Israel Exploration Journal. This was Hershel’s first foray in archaeological publishing, and the rest is history. Photo: Zev Radovan/ biblelandpictures.com.

The article on the incised handle was eventually published in the Israel Exploration Journal. Hershel also wrote a short guidebook on the City of David. Most important, he developed the idea for contributing a column on Biblical archaeology to a magazine in the U.S. The column was to be his reason for returning to Jerusalem and maintaining a relationship with the archaeological community there.

The column proposal was rejected. Never one to take rejection, Hershel morphed his archaeology column concept into an archaeological newsletter, and then into an archaeology magazine, before pen ever hit paper. Hershel had originally planned to call his publication Biblical Archaeology Newsletter. But one evening in the living room of scholars Carol and Eric Meyers, Carol objected to the negative acronym—BAN—created by Biblical Archaeology Newsletter. She countered that because Hershel was a lawyer, there was obviously only one choice for the title—Biblical Archaeology Review, or BAR. Just like that, a magazine was born!

By the end of 1974, the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) was incorporated as a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) corporation. BAS’s mission statement described itself as a nondenominational, educational organization dedicated to the dissemination of information about archaeology in the lands of the Bible. I am proud of the fact that we have stayed true to our mission for 43 years—we educate about archaeology and the Bible through BAR, our award-winning website, books, videos, tours, and seminars. Our readers rely on us to present the latest that scholarship has to offer in a fair and accessible manner. BAR serves as a credible authority and as an invaluable source of reliable information.

In March 1975, Hershel, working with a freelance graphic designer, published the first issue of BAR. It was 16 pages—7 by 10 inches—with brown ink on cream paper and one sepia-toned photo. Hershel takes full responsibility for the admittedly ugly covers of the first few years. He wrote the entire first issue himself. But soon thereafter, he prevailed upon scholars to write the articles, and Hershel edited them so they would be accessible to the general public.

The first cover of Biblical Archaeology Review, for the March 1975 issue, Vol. 1, No. 1.

As early as the first issue, Hershel aimed to connect interested volunteers with excavations throughout the Holy Land. This initiative has figured prominently in BAR ever since, primarily through our annual “Dig” issue (now the January/February issue) that provides information about active excavations in the Biblical lands looking for volunteers.

From the very beginning, Hershel has never been one to run from controversy or shy away from voicing his opinion. Once, when he was denied photos by Nahman Avigad because they had not first been published in a peer-reviewed journal, Hershel published an empty box in the December 1977 issue with a caption stating that the box should have been a picture, but Avigad would not allow for its publication. He broadened his criticism calling for the end of the practice of withholding photographs of archaeological excavations from the public. When he saw that some archaeologists took decades to release final reports of their excavations (with some never publishing at all), he called for them to publish their findings in a timely manner. And Hershel didn’t just complain; he even helped establish funds to support publications in an effort to fix the problem. Hershel believes strongly that the past belongs to everyone—not just the academic elite.

Biblical Archaeology Review is the world leader in making academic discoveries and insights of the archaeology of the Biblical lands and textual study of the Bible available to a lay audience. Every word, every photo, every insight—it can all be yours right now with an All-Access membership. Subscribe today!

In the 1970s, the late Israeli archaeologist Nahman Avigad exposed part of Jerusalem’s Cardo (main north-south road) from the Byzantine period, but he refused to release photos of this discovery to BAR because he had not yet published them in a peer-reviewed journal. In protest of Avigad’s decision, Hershel published a large blank space in the December 1977 issue of BAR. Its caption explained that if the photos of the cardo had been released, they would have been published in BAR.

Hershel also believes the past should be protected. Almost immediately, he began campaigning in BAR to preserve and restore archaeological sites. As a result, he established the society’s Archaeological Preservation Fund in 1977. Although this initiative has not led to the extent of preservation and restoration he had originally envisioned, the urgency of this cause has not lessened over the years.

The core staff—Hershel, Sue Singer, Rob Sugar (head of BAR’s design team), and I (Sue Laden)—came together in the early years of the magazine. We all grew with the magazine. Hershel’s prior publishing experience had been as editor of his high school newspaper and editor of a book on Judge Learned Hand. Sue Singer, a chemistry major, originally was BAR’s Jerusalem Correspondent. When she returned to the States four years later, she became the Managing Editor—with only her experience as Jerusalem Correspondent as applicable credentials.

Rob Sugar, while still a student majoring in graphic design at American University, began designing BAR in 1977. He convinced Hershel with the March/April 1978 issue to increase the size to a standard magazine size, with a full color cover and some color on the inside as well. I remember Phyllis Katz, who was then the Publisher of Archaeology magazine, teasing Hershel, saying she could hardly wait for each issue of BAR to come because she never knew what she would find and where. Rob brought structure to the magazine along with a consistency and a design that is so effective and beautiful, he and his team of designers at AURAS Design still design BAR today.

As a history major and a caseworker for the Department of Public Welfare before staying home with my children for several years, I was hired in 1976 to open envelopes for 10 to 16 hours a week. I began adding staff, namely, housewives and one male. By the time our befuddled Israeli friend appeared on my basement stairs seven years later, the foundation was in place for a consumer publication, merchandise program, and travel/study program, with the flexibility to add other endeavors as well.

In 1984, the District evicted us for running a business in a residential neighborhood. I found space in an old residential/office building across the street from the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. At the same time, Sue Singer moved the editorial offices to the new location. My husband teased that we were on the wrong side of the street! He wasn’t far wrong. The wonderful chaos and excitement of creating a meaningful product eagerly anticipated by the public, the organization to support it, and all the other activities of the society brought us years of fun. Our guiding principle was that anything that went out our door, from a promotion to a publication, must be of the highest professional quality. In the 10 years since the founding of BAR, we had gone from zero subscribers to a paid circulation of 110,000, with only a $2,500 investment that was repaid after the first few months.

The first cover of Bible Review, for the Spring 1985 issue.

During the 10 years we were at the “zoo,” we launched a second magazine—Bible Review, in 1985. Around this time, Hershel left his law practice to devote himself full time to editing. Bible Review developed a very loyal and devoted following, and it ran for 20 years (until 2005).

The BAR travel/study program also flourished. We organized tours to the Middle East, domestic seminars of various sizes, a week-long program at Oxford, as well as seminars on cruise ships to Alaska and the Caribbean. Our largest event, the Bible and Archaeology Fest, was launched in 1987. Now, having just celebrated its 20th year, Fest is still an annual favorite.

The merchandise program grew as well. We published or co-published many books. Hershel was our prime talent. Among the volumes he structured and edited were Ancient Israel, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, and Partings. Well-known publishing houses co-published with us, primarily for the purpose of distribution. These three titles, especially Ancient Israel, appeal to the general public and are also used in college classrooms. Hershel also wrote books for Random House and Continuum. Our offerings of CDs and other books increased during this time as well. We even tried Dead Sea Scroll mugs and t-shirts. The lectures from the seminar programs were filmed, and we turned these into videos. In 1991, we hosted a lecture series with the Smithsonian that was quite successful. This was before videotaping had become common. So we transcribed the lectures and turned them into books.

From 1985 to 1991, Hershel campaigned to free the Dead Sea Scrolls from the small group of scholars who had held control of them for decades without publishing anything. One of BAR’s most famous covers from this period (the July/August 1989 issue) features Jerusalem’s Rockefeller Museum, where the publication team was working, and called it “The Dead Sea Scrolls Prison.”

By this time, BAR was well established. Our circulation was growing, as were the ancillary activities of the society. During the ’80s, Hershel began one of his most important, and most costly, endeavors—a campaign to free the Dead Sea Scrolls from the monopoly of scholars who had held them hostage since their discovery, beginning in 1947.¹ Although a small team of scholars had been tasked with the assignment of publishing the scrolls, they had published next to nothing in those three decades—sharing neither their transcriptions nor photographs with the greater academic community and public. The first time Hershel commented on the problem was in 1984, and his first call for the scrolls to be made public was in 1985.² He continued this call until 1991, when several events transpired simultaneously, resulting in the end of the monopoly.

First, Marty Abegg had managed to reconstruct the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the publication team’s concordance. His advisor, Ben Zion Wacholder, convinced him to publish his results. They approached Hershel, and the Biblical Archaeology Society decided to take the risk. The first of four volumes of A Preliminary Edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls, the reconstructed texts by Abegg and Wacholder, appeared on September 4, 1991.

Second, Hershel was approached by Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University and Professor James M. Robinson of Claremont Graduate School. They had acquired a complete copy of photographs of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments, and they were having trouble finding a publisher. Hershel jumped at the opportunity. I still remember the excitement when UPS dropped off the grocery store cardboard boxes containing photos of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments from Cave 4. In his lengthy introduction to the two-volume facsimile edition, Hershel included the document known as MMT as reconstructed by John Strugnell, the head of the Dead Sea Scroll publication committee, and a young scholar named Elisha Qimron. The volumes were published on November 19, 1991. A press conference was held in New York City. The New York Times, as well as other papers, had us on their front page multiple times. The publicity caused our readership to soar.

A famous BAR cover (the March/April 1990 issue) depicts the late John Strugnell, who was the chief editor of the scrolls, surrounded by fleas. The fleas were labeled as the various individuals and institutions protesting the monopoly’s control of the scrolls. The largest flea was BAR.

Two months prior to our publishing of the two-volume, 900-page facsimile set of photographs, the Huntington Library in California, one of the original repositories for the photos from Cave 4, opened up its collection of photos to qualified scholars. The publication of the Abegg-Wacholder work, the Huntington Library bowing to the inevitable by declassifying their photos, and our publication of the facsimile edition meant the scrolls were finally freed!

Our educational programs were flourishing, circulation was soaring, and we had a little money in the bank. It was at this point that Elisha Qimron sued Hershel Shanks and the Biblical Archaeology Society for copyright infringement of the MMT document he had been researching. After a grueling trial in Israel, we lost the suit. All of this added to our notoriety and public exposure. In the July/August 1993 issue, we announced the verdict with a full-page headshot of Qimron, captioned, “The Victor.”³ We continued to report faithfully on the story in subsequent issues.

In 1994, I left the society. The stresses and strains of working with Hershel had caused our relationship to reach a breaking point. I had to leave. Was I fired? I contend yes. Hershel would say no. Either way, I felt I had no choice. All of this coincided with the society’s move to our current address in northwest D.C.

Almost 10 years later, Hershel asked me to come back. My first reaction was shock. I could barely speak. He dropped the subject, and we went on with our lunch. Two weeks later, he brought it up again, and I accepted. To this day, I’m not sure why. We had maintained a casual relationship over the years, occasionally having lunch, and I had stayed close with many on staff. Or maybe it was simply Hershel’s style. No matter how upset one gets with him, often justifiably so, he doesn’t push and has great patience for each situation to turn around. And I, in this case anyway, learned from him. Over time, we had both cooled down (and it only took 10 years!).

The Biblical Archaeology Society’s current headquarters in Washington, D.C.

No matter how upset people get with Hershel, he usually turns it around. I remember running into Magen Broshi once at a conference. I mentioned Hershel’s name. He turned beet red, steam came out of his ears, and he sputtered, “Hershel Shanks, yes, a very fine fellow”—not meaning a word of it. And yet, they later again became friends. Magen was not alone.

The first cover of Archaeology Odyssey, for the Winter 1998 issue.

These were the years—the late ’90s and early 2000s—that Hershel started another magazine. In 1998, he launched Archaeology Odyssey, which dealt with Classical archaeology. During these same years he also brought several new contentious issues to BAR’s readers: (1) He highlighted the minimalist-maximalist debate.⁴ (2) Although he takes a clear stance against looting, Hershel campaigned that unprovenanced artifacts should still be published because they provide invaluable information about the past.⁵ (3) He also addressed so-called forgeries and campaigned that they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The most famous example of this was the James Ossuary—an unprovenanced artifact that BAR first published in 2002.⁶ The debate about the ossuary’s inscription and its authenticity would turn into the “forgery trial of the century” in Israel, which ultimately ended in the judge ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove that the ossuary was not authentic. He felt this was an issue for the academy, not the courthouse. Hershel rarely takes sides. However, on the issue of the James Ossuary, he feels the inscription is authentic, and he has told BAR readers exactly why.

By the time I returned, in 2004, the magazine world looked very different. There was a computer on every desk; preparing film for the printer with amberlith and X-ACTO knives was a thing of the past. Everything was digitized. Email had become the preferred way of communicating, and the internet was dominating. The Biblical Archaeology Society had a primitive website dating from 1998 and had just finished digitizing all its issues into an archive.

The infamous James Ossuary, first published in BAR, has been featured on various covers, including BAR’s November/December 2002.

The James Ossuary on BAR’s September/October 2003 issue.

But BAS was in crisis! And we weren’t alone. The entire magazine world was in turmoil. Changes needed to be made. We shut down Bible Review in 2005 and Archaeology Odyssey in 2006, with some elements from each migrating to BAR. Prevailing wisdom in the industry said that magazines would be gone in three to five years. Our staff was reduced, the travel/study program was cut back, and adjustments were made to the merchandise program. It became evident that the web needed to be incorporated more completely into the equation both as a method of delivery and as a purveyor of information.

Hershel Shanks stands upon ruins in Israel. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

Susan Laden visits the tomb of Obadiah Bertinoro in Israel. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

In 2011, we launched our new site (biblicalarchaeology.org) with a blog, Bible History Daily, which covers key issues from the magazine and the greater world of Biblical archaeology. We also made BAR available to read on iPads, iPhones, and Android devices. All of our offerings are now mobile-friendly. However, as important as the web has become, niche publications like BAR can still have a successful print presence. The predicted doomsday of print magazines did not come to pass.

Hershel Shanks and Sue Laden in Jerusalem. Photo: Garo Nalbandian.

BAR remains the vibrant magazine it has always been from its very first issue in 1975. Putting the controversies and Hershel’s crusades aside, the solid reporting on archaeology in the lands of the Bible has been consistent. And we are now in a position to be open to new initiatives. A video streaming site is nearing completion, and there are other ventures waiting in line. Through it all, BAR has stayed true to its core mission and will continue to do so.

In 2017, after 43 years of editing Biblical Archaeology Review, our founder and Editor Hershel Shanks, at 87 years old, retired. Our new Editor, Bob Cargill, has already published his first issue (January/February 2018). We feel very fortunate to have him along with our marvelous staff to take us bravely into the future. Hershel, now as Editor Emeritus, will have a column in the magazine when he wants and will continue to make many contributions to the society.

In addition to the print magazine, BAR can now be viewed digitally on computers, tablets, and smartphones. The BAS Library includes every issue of BAR, Bible Review, and Archaeology Odyssey—in addition to other multimedia features.

As I conclude this short history, I can’t help but feel exceedingly proud of everyone, past and present, associated with our flagship publication, Biblical Archaeology Review, and of the Biblical Archaeology Society that produces this magazine. There have been many highs and some lows. Foremost, I appreciate the network of people who have lent their expertise, energy, and ingenuity over the years to making Hershel’s vision a reality. Thank you for your contributions. It has been a lot of fun to build a high-quality and sustainable organization with you. I know Hershel’s legacy and entrepreneurial spirit will keep pushing us into new frontiers.

Working with Hershel all these years has been particularly meaningful for me. I have had the opportunity to learn much about our subject matter and about the business of running an organization. What is especially precious to me is what Hershel has helped me learn about myself and, yes, how to deal with difficult people.

“Raising the BAR” by Susan Laden was originally published in the March/April May/June 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Notes:

1. See Martin Abegg, Jr., “Hershel’s Crusade No. 1: He Who Freed the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR, March/April May/June 2018.

2. “Jerusalem Rolls Out Red Carpet for Biblical Archaeology Congress,” BAR, July/August 1984; “Israeli Authorities Now Responsible for Delay in Publication of Dead Sea Scrolls,” BAR, September/October 1985.

3.See Hershel Shanks, “Qimron Wins Lawsuit: Paying the Price for Freeing the Scrolls,” BAR, July/August 1993.

4. See William G. Dever, “Hershel’s Crusade No. 2: For King and Country: Chronology and Minimalism,” BAR, March/April May/June 2018.

5. See Ada Yardeni, “Hershel’s Crusade No. 3: Forgeries and Unprovenanced Artifacts,” BAR, March/April May/June 2018.

6. See André Lemaire, “Burial Box of James the Brother of Jesus,” BAR, November/December 2002.

The post Raising the BAR appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

the bible and archaeology Archives - Biblical Archaeology Society

Left-Handed People in the Bible

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

First Person: Did the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon Actually Exist?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Notes

Related reading in Bible History Daily

The Tomb of Jesus? Wrong on Every Count

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.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

When Did Christianity Begin to Spread?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Related reading in Bible History Daily

King Hezekiah in the Bible: Royal Seal of Hezekiah Comes to Light

Who Was King Hezekiah in the Bible?

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Notes:

Related reading in Bible History Daily

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Beth Shean in the Bible and Archaeology

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

The Nicea Church: Where Did the Council of Nicea Meet?

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Ancient Latrine: A Peek into King Hezekiah’s Reforms in the Bible?

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

On View: Seals of Isaiah and King Hezekiah Discovered

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Raising the BAR

Notes: