The View from Jerusalem

Last century’s excavations of Nazareth by the Franciscans led to a rather remarkable reconstructed picture of the domiciles and government of this New Testament town. After having uncovered a little more than an acre of rocky surface with little or no evidence for walls, Bagatti and his team probed the numerous holes in the surface to find scores of intact storage caves, cisterns, silos and installations. With nothing more to build upon, the domiciles of this Galilean village appeared to be caves in a rocky hill, which could have housed only a few hundred inhabitants.

Recent excavations and surveys within the immediate surroundings of ancient Nazareth, have uncovered realia left behind by the inhabitants of the original town. These remnants can help us to better understand and define its physical structure and social character.

In an area just 500 meters away from the remains of the ancient town and present Basilica, the staff of the University of the Holy Land surveyed and excavated a farm and stone quarries associated with the town’s construction and the livelihood of its inhabitants.

The quarries, dating to the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods, bear witness to the stone-built buildings which were constructed in the nearby town. The dimensions of the stones match those found in other Galilean towns and cities. The stony slopes were quarried, yielding squared stones to build homes in the town and leveled depressions on the ground to hold the terraces.

Quarried rock slope and renewed terraces:

Quarried stones, prepared for removal, still in situ:

 

The sophisticated complex of irrigated and non-irrigated terrace farms with tailor-made terraces, watchtowers, wine presses and olive presses, bears witness to a successful agrarian economy. Here are the remains of the central tower and terrace walls of area B:

Remains from the first centuries BC and AD were found including pottery, watch towers, agricultural terraces and a wine press. Advanced methods of viticulture and agriculture was practiced at the farm as has been revealed by excavations of the early terrace systems. An ancient terraced road was also found cutting though the farm connecting ancient Nazareth with nearby Sepphoris and Jaffia. Coins from this period were also unearthed in other excavations in the vicinity of the town’s spring. Little doubt can now persist that the Nazareth of the Second Temple Period, Jesus and his fellow townspeople, was a bustling Galilean town.

If so, why has the evidence for first century Nazareth been brought into question? First of all, first century pottery and lamps were in fact found by Bagatti during the excavation of the infrastructure of the town, its cisterns, silos and storage caves (with lids still fitted to the openings on the horizontal rock surfaces). In fact, a sizable wall belonging to a public building, dated by him to the first century, was discovered under the Byzantine Church. All of this was published in the original report.

The problem comes when one paints the picture, as has been done, of a town of two hundred and fifty inhabitants who lived in the caves of a rocky hill (bringing into question the feasablity of the synagogue of the Gospel story). Why is the evidences for walled houses and buildings virtually lacking from the earlier excavations if recent excavations have revealed first century quarries which provided cut stones for building the town? The answer lies in the construction of the Byzantine Church. The ruins of Roman period Nazareth were the most available source of stone for building the Byzantine Church. After the stones were robbed out from the ruins, all that was left behind was one of the best preserved set of basement systems found in the Galilee. For the evidence in Nazareth itself see this powerpoint.

The official final publication of these excavations has just appeared recently in the Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society vol. 25 (2007) pp. 19-79: S. Pfann, R. Voss, Y. Rapuano, “Surveys and Excavations at the Nazareth Village Farm (1997–2002): Final Report”. The summary of the ceramic finds from this rather lengthy article has been provided by Antonio Lombatti here.

For more about the Nazareth Village Project follow the links in the UHL web site beginning here.

1083-OL - Historical Geography of the Land of the Bible: Second Temple Period and New Testament Credits - 3 This course surveys the historical and cultural geography of eight distinct regions of the Holy Land during antiquity. Issues in historical geography, natural history, archaeology, ancient texts, and anthropological models are explored. This course continues the work of the fall semester bringing the student into the Second Temple Period and the New Testament era. The Student Map Manual (R. Cleave) will be utilized, in conjunction with the University of the Holy Land’s unique guidebook. Instructor: D. Liid, M.A. (ON-LINE COURSE)

1091-OL - The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Societies that Produced Them Credits - 3 This course will focus on the interrelationship of the scrolls with the literature and the history of the centuries leading up to the First Jewish Revolt. The contents of the scroll collections from the Judean wilderness will be utilized to help reveal the rationale and ideologies of the persons or groups who left them in the caves. Thus, the individual collections of manuscripts will warrant close examination to learn what unites them, and more importantly, to discern distinctions among them. As a result, a clearer picture of Jewish sectarian activity in the Judean wilderness at the close of the Second Temple Period will emerge. Instructor: S. Pfann, Ph.D. (For more on our ONLINE and SUMMER COURSES)

1019-OL - The Anthropology of Pilgrimage Credits - 3 This is an advanced level graduate course. It is designed to familiarize students online to contemporary anthropological theory with a specific focus upon the study of pilgrimage. In addition to researching Jewish, Christian, and Islamic pilgrimage in ancient, medieval, and contemporary historical contexts, students will be expected to become familiar with the work of contemporary scholars working on pilgrimage such as Victor and Edith Turner, Carol Delaney, John Eade, and Yoram Bilu. Students will examine various notions of sacred space and movement. Emphasis will be placed not only on the experience of pilgrims but on pilgrimage management and the contestation of sacred sites. While pilgrimage to Lourdes, Mecca, and other religious sites around the world will be discussed, prominence will be given to specific sites of pilgrimage in the Holy Land. Instructor: C. Hutt, Ph.D.
1028-OL - Religion and Public Life Credits - 3 This is a graduate level survey course. It is designed to familiarize students online with recent developments in religion and political theory. Of particular interest will be the role played by religion in the public square, in Western secular societies as well as in the Near East. Attention will be given to two main forms of secular liberalism - namely, the natural human rights liberalism developed by David Little and the political liberalism of John Rawls. The work of Martha Nussbaum will also be addressed. Challenges to the secular liberal political traditions will be presented, such as is found in the work of Nicholas Wolterstorff and Jeffrey Stout. The class will end with an examination of Roxanne Euben’s recently published text on religion and comparative political theory, Enemy in the Mirror: Islamic Fundamentalism and the Limits of Modern Rationalism. Instructor: C. Hutt, Ph.D. (ON-LINE COURSE)
1056-OL - Topics in Comparative Ethics: Historians and Believers Credits - 3 This is an advanced online graduate course on the ethics of historical belief. It focuses on the relationship between historians and believers, as well as that between the historians of competing religious traditions. Students will be encouraged to wrestle with the following questions: What does it mean to find or discover the past? To what extent is what counts as the past created or manufactured by narrativists in the present? What makes a belief about the past justified? Amongst the scholars we will turn to when answering these questions are Leopold von Ranke, Hayden White, R.G. Collingwood, Van Harvey, and John Dewey. Particular attention will be paid to problems generated the work of nineteenth century critical historians like David Strauss and Albert Schweitzer on early Christianity. Instructor: C. Hutt, Ph.D. (ON-LINE COURSE)
(For more on our ONLINE and SUMMER COURSES)

The Varied Faces, Names and Shades of Color of the Josephs of History. (Just to name a few)

Throughout the history of Israel and the Jewish people there have been many Josephs, starting with Joseph the son of Jacob. Each one was the namesake of the first. However, the name Joseph took on several forms.

Joseph, son of Jacob

Throughout the Hebrew Bible the name “Joseph” is spelled “YWSF” in the original language (with a single exception, below). Apparently, YWSF is short for the name YEHOSEF “(God) will cause increase” .

In Psalm 81:6 the same individual, Joseph the son of Jacob, is called YHWSF in the Hebrew.

“He made it a decree in Joseph, when he went out over the land of Egypt. I hear a voice I had not known.”

In this one place, the name Joseph is awarded the full spelling. In all other places in the Biblical narrative, he is called by the shortened form YWSF.

Apparently an even shorter form of Yehosef was in use at a later period: “Yoseh” (or the later form “Yosey”).

In the superior Kaufmann manuscripts of the Mishnah this shortened form YWSH “Yoseh” occurs 357 times and YWSY “Yosey” only 62 times.

In the Eshkol edition of the Mishnah YWSY “Yosey” is found 429 times; (YWSH “Yoseh” does not occur at all.)
In both sources the name YWSF “Yosef” occurs only 11 times en toto (not all the same references, however).

In both sources the form YHWSF “Yehosef”, which predominates in the ossuaries, does not occur at all.

Yoseh ben Yoezer and Yoseh ben Yohanan, the first of the Zugot “Pairs” (from c. 174 BCE)

In the Kaufmann manuscript: YWSH BN YW‘ZR “Yoseh ben Yoezer” occurs 6 times (Hagig. 2:2, 6:7; Eduy. 8:4; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4 [2x])

In the Eshkol manuscript:
YWSY BN YW‘ZR “Yosey ben Yoezer” occurs 5 times (Hagig. 2:2, 6:7; Eduy. 8:4; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4 [2x])

However, surprisingly the formal form “Yoseph ben Yoezer” also appears in that edition:
IWSF BN YW‘ZR occurs once (at Hagig. 6:7) for the same person.

(For Yose ben Yohanan: predictably, the Kaufmann manuscript has “Yoseh” (4x) and the Eshkol edition has “Yosey” instead (Hagig. 2:2; Sota 9:9; Avot 1:4; 1:5 )

Joseph the Priest or Yoseh the Priest?

In Mikv. 10:1 and Hal. 4:1, both the Kaufmann and Eshkol manuscripts read YWSF HKWHN “Yoseph haKohen”.

In the Eshkol edition, the formal form YWSF HKWHN “Yoseph haKohen” is used 3 times (Eduy. 8:2; Avot 2:8 [2x])

However in the same passages, the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah uses the informal form YWSH HKWHN “Yoseh haKohen”.

All of these passages are referring to the same priest.

Joseph the brother of Jesus? or Joses the brother of Jesus?

The same phenomenon. Two different versions of the story, Mark’s and Matthew’s, and the two different forms IWSF/IWSHS used by the two authors.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

Of Jesus’ brother: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55)

~

We would contend that the given individuals were called by the formal name by some and by the informal name by others. Other scholars say that “Jose” is merely the Galilean way of saying “Joseph” (see Anchor Bible Dictionary: “Joseph: 10″. Whatever the case, the bottom line is that both forms were considered to be alternative forms of the other by the ancient sources.

By the way, believe it or not, among the ossuaries the Biblical spelling “YWSF” is by far the rarest of all of the spellings for “Joseph”, occuring on only one ossuary CJO 573: PYNHS BR YWSF (written twice for the same person).

Throughout the year there has been an emphasis by supporters of the “Jesus Family Tomb” hypothesis as to how very rare the name “Yoseh” was during the Second Temple Period, based on the following assumptions.

1) The name “Yehosef” is seen as the predominant form of the name.

2) It was also assumed and asserted that when the shortened form Yose was used during that time, it was far more likely to be spelled YWSY than YWSH.

3) Thus YWSH/Yoseh was very rare indeed.

However, after having rechecked the sources and having reassessed the frequency of Yoseh during that time, a different picture began to appear.

Any student of ancient Jewish literature realizes that the proper evaluation of one’s sources is absolutely essential to the discipline. Such an evaluation yielded the following observations.

1) Utilizing the best manuscripts of early Jewish sources written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the name applied to living individuals during the Second Temple Period was often YWSH and not YHWSF. (As in the case, for example, of Yoseh b. Yo’ezer and Yoseh ben Yochanan, the first of the zugot from the second century BCE.)

2) According to Ilan (p. 159 note 96) YWSH is correctly listed as the predominant form used in Galilean synagogue inscriptions (10x), over against YWSF (1x) (cf. Naveh’s corpus in On Stone and Mosaic, p. 152).

If this is the case, then why do we find so many individuals named “Joseph” in Second Temple funerary inscriptions?

It is clear that among the Jewish Hebrew ossuary inscriptions, the use of the formal name YHWSF “Yehosef” (17x) by far predominates over the informal, familiar form Y(W)SH “Yoseh” (2x). However, this is to be expected in funerary inscriptions. In any individual’s lifetime he would be called one of the two alternatives depending upon the formal or informal context in which the name was used. On an ossuary or a grave stone during the first century, like today, the formal name “Joseph” was almost certainly more appropriate than the deceased’s informal name “Joey” or “Joe” (which he might have been called while he was still alive). This does not mean that there are some people running about named “Joseph” and a separate group of individuals named “Joey”! Parallel to this are the formal and informal forms of the names Mariam/Maria, Yehoshua’/Yeshua’, Matitiyahu/Mattiah, Yehochanan/Choni, etc. (See “How do you Solve a Problem like Maria“).

The near exclusive use of the informal “IOSES” (Greek for “Yoseh”) among the Greek inscribed ossuaries.
One should be careful to note that among the Greek inscribed ossuaries, the familiar form “Ioses” is used nearly exclusively (5 occurrences over 4 ossuaries). The formal name IWSEPOS is found only once. This is a fact that was not brought to the attention of the audience by the filmmakers.

This is astounding, since the filmmakers also did not point out that the New Testament occurrences of this name IWSHS “Joses”, limited to the Gospel of Mark, are also in Greek. This name is used once in a list of Jesus’ brothers.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. (Mark 6:3)

<>It is found twice referring to the brother of “James the less”, the son of Clopus and Mary.

¶ There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, (Mark 15:40) . . . Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid. (Mark 15:47)

Then why are these same individuals called by the formal name IWSHF “Joseph” in Matthew’s Gospel?

Of Jesus’ brother: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” (Matt. 13:55)

<>Of the sons of Clopas and Mary: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. (Matt. 27:5)

Whether a historian uses the formal or informal name when referring to an individual may depend upon how familiar the individual was to them or on whether or not the individual was deceased. There is reason to believe that these individuals could be alive 30 years after the crucifixion when Mark wrote his Gospel. However, it is unlikely that that they would still be living 50 years later when Matthew’s gospel was generally understood to be written. (It may also be simply a reflection of their own personal style.)

There are so many holes in the film there is no need to add this one to the list. We can, on the other hand, challenge the assertion that was made by the filmmakers that the name Yoseh was so rare. In fact, what comes down to us is in Greek. The Gospel of Mark passage is unique with respect to providing this shortened Greek name for Jesus’ brother. However, in Greek inscriptions, the shortened form “Iose/Ioses” is more popular than “Iosepos”.

YWSY or YWSH?
1) In Tal Ilan’s treatment under YWSF, the sole form of “Yose” in the ossuaries is spelled Y(W)SH, on two Jerusalem ossuaries (cf. T. Ilan, Lexicon, p. 152 no. 89 [Ilan rightly corrects this reading]; p.154 no. 118, 133).

2) In the early second century Murabba’at papyri, YWSH, but not YWSY, is found (papMur 46).

3) In most of the Tannaitic manuscripts, YWSY is simply a minority alternative spelling of YWSH, both pronounced the same. YWSH (pointed “Yoseh” in vocalized versions) is by far the predominant form of the word in the superior Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishna.

[Prof. Ilan (p. 157 note 3) infers that YWSH is the Palestinian form of the name since it is found in the Vienna manuscript of the Tosefta in place of YWSY (found in the Erfurt manuscript). Unfortunately, Ilan’s numerous examples of YWSY come primarily from the handy concordances of Kasowski, which have been the standard source for scholars up until only very recently. The manuscripts that formed the basis for Kasowski’s concordances of the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Mechilta, the Sifra and the Jerusalem Talmud, are today considered inferior and are currently being replaced by electronic concordances which rely upon better manuscripts (e.g., Accordance Bible software now provides the Kaufmann manuscript of the Mishnah).]

In conclusion, we really don’t have any compelling evidence for the predominant use of YHWSF, as opposed to YWSH during the Second Temple Period, but rather the occasional use of both depending upon the formality of a situation. Also there is no evidence for the use of YWSY, as opposed to YWSH during the Second Temple Period, but rather, the contrary. In the case of the Talpiot tomb, YWSH should probably be pronounced “Yoseh” following the contemporary Greek pronunciation of that name (which preserves no examples of “Yosah”).

Also of interest: see Preliminary Autopsy of CJO 703 (80.502) and CJO 705 (80.504) Mattiah and Yoseh

Bibliography:

Hachlili, R., Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Brill: Leiden and Boston. 2005.
Rahmani, L.Y. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem. The Israel Antiquities Authority/The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. 1994.

With the ossuary of Mary Magdalene generally accepted as a pipe dream of only a few, certain of the remaining Jesus Tomb theorists are willing to place their bets on this ossuary inscription,”Yoseh/Joseh”.

“Statistical: Even without any a priori inclusion of Mary Magdalene in a Jesus family tomb, just the names we have, based on Kilty’s calculations, endorsed by Fuchs, yields a .48 probability. This is far from random, in fact it means if we had two tombs to look at one of them would probably be the Jesus family tomb. Even one in ten would be interesting but .48 I find quite compelling, given the other evidence of history and epigraphy.” From James Tabor’s statement.

Although the abandonment of the Mary Magdalene for Joseh reduces the odds of the Talpiot Tomb being that of Jesus and his family from 1:1600 (previously 1:600) to 1:2, maybe the world will warm up to Joseh after growing cold on Mary Magdalene! However, if we try to follow the logic of the theorists, we may end up just as lost in the web of their logic as before. To arrive at this 1:2 probability (in other words, a 50-50 chance) that the Talpiot tomb is the “Jesus family tomb”, one must allow for another unfounded, a priori assumption to be introduced as real evidence.

More to come.

 

Degree Programs

www.uhl.ac/academic.html

a. UHL’s student body is international, interdenominational and intergenerational. Students from diverse backgrounds can celebrate their graduation in first century dress in the authentically built, first century synagogue at Nazareth Village, a showcase for UHL’s archaeological and New Testament degree programs.

b. Degree offerings include the Master of Theological Studies and the Master of Arts in the History & Culture of Ancient Israel, New Testament & Early Christianity, Archaeology, Judaic Studies or Cultural Anthropology. UHL offers a research Ph.D. program, focusing on majors best studied in the land of the Bible.

c. Getting down and dirty is a daily experience for students of archaeology at the University of the Holy Land. Dig opportunities throughout the country take the study of archaeology out of the realm of the theoretical and into the real world. The archaeology student becomes equipped to understand the field, literally from the ground up, beginning with the basics of field archaeology and culminating in the final phases of the publication of field reports.

d. Distance Learning. The rich resources of UHL’s curriculum travel from Jerusalem to your living room through UHL’s Distance Learning courses. The use of the Internet, with its powerful graphic and data tools, brings the world of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period, Historical Geography, Cultural Anthropology, Theology and other subjects, alive, linking students from around the world in a “virtual” classroom. www.uhl.ac/courses

* Cooperative Programs. UHL offers the student the opportunity to experience the finest that Jerusalem has to offer in both Jewish and Christian scholarship. Sister-school relationships with the Hebrew University’s Rothberg School for International Students and the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique Française open an unparalleled door of opportunity to study with the finest “consortium” of scholars and utilizing the finest library resources in the Middle East. www.uhl.ac/coop.html

University of the Holy Land
POB 24084, Mt. Scopus
Jerusalem 91240 Israel

Website: www.uhl.ac
E-mail: info@uhl.ac

The Spring 2008 courses

 

The Spring and Summer 2008 Course offerings

Graduate Seminar this Spring 2008:

Archaeological and Literary evidence for the Gospel Story

Graduate Seminar participants on the ancient avenue to the Siloam Pool

Forensic handwriting analysts look for distinct diagnostic features to identify or distinguish various individuals, including slant, size, overall form and shape of letters; the consistency of space and slope between adjacent letters and words on a line; the apparent fluidity of writing, and the pressure of the pen.

A number of these diagnostic features have already been dealt with in previous posts. The following image can help to clarify the distinctive features related to line formation.

The Linearity of the Inscription
The baseline of MAPIAMH is horizontal and virtually straight (with the exception of the bottoms of the second A and M, each of which appears to be avoiding a blemish on the ossuary’s surface).

The line of letters of KAI MAPA was initiated noticeably above the baseline of MAPIAMH and its letters form a shallow U-shaped or garland-shaped line (or chain). The garland shape is even more prominently featured in the draped underscore which was added to combine both stages of the inscription.

Metrics of the Inscription
SPACE between words: MAPIAMH and KAI: 10 mm, but between KAI and MAPA: 5.5 mm. The wide space between MAPIAMH and KAI indicates that these two words are well separated with no such space provided before the H eta, (providing further evidence, besides the change in script, that the inscription is not to be read MAPIAM H KAI MARA “Mariam who is also called Mara”.

SPACE between letters of MAPIAMH = 6, 4, 11, 14, 9, 3.5 mm; KAI = 4 and 0 mm; MARA = 0, 2.5, 3.5 mm. Although both the beginning (MAPIAMH) and the end of the inscription have the same number of letters (KAI MAPA), the end (KAI MAPA) is only 3/4 the length of the beginning name (MAPIAMH).
STROKES: Maximum width of stroke of the letters in MAPAIMH = 2.0 mm (both M’s, P, I, H); KAI = 2.5 mm ( I ); MAPA = 2.2 mm (2nd A). The looped underscore is 2.5 mm wide and therefore matches the width of the letters in KAI MAPA. Either two different tools were used to inscribe CJO Ossuary 701, or else the hand that made the second part of the inscription pressed much harder.

In summary, at least twenty-five features–epigraphic, syntactic and forma–have been set forth which argue against the suggestion that the inscription is speaking of only one person. In particular, it is no longer prudent to speculate that this ossuary belongs to Mary Magdalene, nor, to the best of our knowledge, to any other known individual from ancient history.

I was sent the following cartoon of the DNA and statistics experts, evidently modified slightly, (Thanks to Tabtoons):

“Without Mary Magdalene the tomb is like any other tomb with an unremarkable common set of names.”

Andrey Feuerverger, Mathematician, University of Toronto