A video of the lecture that I gave at Trinity University on “Who Read the Bible in Antiquity” to kick off their Lennox Seminar. Meeting faculty colleagues there and interacting with the students in the seminar were both a lot of fun for me, although I wish that someone told me that my collar was askew before starting the lecture.
Jewish History
There Was a Temple on the Temple Mount
I have many friends who find the New York Times’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be “anti-Israel.” By this, I think that they mean that given a (surprisingly large) number of possible narratives through which to present a news story, the Times often picks one that lies somewhere within the Palestinian spectrum. I never really bought this argument. The Times to me reads somewhat to the right of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. While the Times maintains a fairly consistent bias, that bias would fit well within the current Israeli spectrum, and not even all that close to the left edge. So I have not always agreed with the coverage, but it has rarely riled me. Today’s article by Rick Gladstone, though, Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place, was so misleading and confused that it really got my goat.
The article claims that there is no definitive evidence that the two ancient Jewish temples stood on the present day Temple Mount. The article strongly implies that this remains a live historical controversy. The problem with posing the issue that way is that it confuses several distinct historical questions. Once those questions are teased apart, it is clear that there is actually very little disagreement among professional historians about most of them. These questions are:
- Did a Jewish temple stand on the present day Temple Mount? Yes. This is as historically certain a fact as one can get in the study of ancient history. The Temple Mount was built by Herod beginning at the end of the first century BCE – the Western Wall is the western retaining wall of that reshaping of the natural hill – and on top of it were a number of structures that belonged to the Jewish temple. These included courtyards, altars, and the Holy of Holies. Now it is true (and has long been recognized even in Jewish law) that we do not know precisely where on the Temple Mount those structures stood, but there is no question that they stood there.
- Prior to Herod’s renovation of the temple, did it stand at this site? Almost certainly. I would give it a 98% possibility. The second temple was built around 520 BCE and underwent a few renovations before Herod gave it a major overhaul. If Herod moved the site of the temple we would know, both from the extensive archaeological excavations conducted all around the temple as well from literary sources. People notice stuff like that.
- Was the second temple built on the same site as the first? Here there is scholarly uncertainty. The first temple was destroyed in 586 BCE along with the entire city of Jerusalem. When Jews returned from Babylonia to rebuild the temple, were they careful to find the site of the old structure, clear the rubble, and build it on the same exact spot? It seems likely, but this we really don’t know. The question is further complicated by the biblical record, in which God never tells Solomon precisely where in Jerusalem he is to build a temple. It is possible that the precise spot did not matter very much to the Israelites at this time. If the first temple did not stand within the confines of the present Temple Mount, though, it would have been within a couple of hundred meters.
The historical issues are thus both more complex and far more interesting than Gladstone implies. But this article is not really about history, it’s about politics. For some Jews and Muslims, this history really matters: it stakes claims to this plot of land. Yet to my mind ancient history can never add clarity or provide a solution to the very real and disturbing conflict presently being played out. It is just too great a burden for history to bear. Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Christians, and Muslims (overlapping groups that are themselves quite internally diverse) all have legitimate claims and grievances. To admit the simple historical truth that there was a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in no way lessens Palestinian claims or grievances or supports Israeli claims to sovereignty. Denying it equally serves no useful purpose. By encouraging a broad readership to focus on the ancient history, and by distorting history in order to promote specific claims, stories like this bring us all only further away from peace.
The Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religion
For the last several years I have worked as a co-editor on The Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religion, “the first comprehensive single-volume reference work offering authoritative coverage of ancient religions in the Mediterranean world.” It is now available for pre-order, with publication scheduled for December 15, 2015. While I have my own skepticism about the proliferation of encyclopedias, dictionaries, and handbooks, I genuinely believe that this fills an important niche for those in the field. I am especially proud of the fact that so many excellent scholars contributed to the work. Check it out here.
The Ein Gedi Scroll: What We Could Potentially, Maybe Learn
A bit over a month ago the Israel Antiquities Authority announced a stunning achievement: a burnt scroll found in excavations of the ancient synagogue of Ein Gedi in 1970 has been partially deciphered using micro-CT technology. It turns out to contain at least the beginning of the book of Leviticus and, after the Dead Sea Scrolls, is the oldest extant text of the Hebrew Bible. The strong implication of the press release, along with many subsequent news reports, is that this was a Torah scroll stored in the ark and used for public, liturgical recitation.
It might indeed be. The few facts that have been released to the public about the scroll, though, also give one pause. (It is worth noting that 45 years after the excavations there is no final archaeological report of this synagogue.) When the sensationalism is brushed aside, what do we really learn?
First, it is clear, this was a terrific technological feat. Not a lot of burnt scrolls are found in excavations, but they do appear and it is very exciting to see that there is yet hope for deciphering them. Second, we have yet further confirmation that a version of the Torah that was more or less identical to the Masoretic Text – the text of the Hebrew Bible that Jews have regarded as authoritative since the early Middle Ages – was present around the fifth century CE. Nothing particularly new or shocking there, but still kind of cool.
What is far less clear is whether this scroll served a liturgical purpose. It was found in the area of the Torah niche, which also housed the ark (no traces of which were found, which is expected since it was probably made of wood). That, however, does not mean that it was deposited in the ark. Remember that it was found along with coins, perfume bottles, lamps, and a menorah. It is unclear if all of these things were in or around the ark (why?) or whether they were somehow swept into the niche before or after the fire the destroyed the building.
More striking, though, is the size of the scroll, at only 7 cm. This is extraordinarily small for a scroll meant for public recitation. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, are several scrolls that are much bigger that seem written for this purpose. A scroll of this size might more typically be used as an amulet or as a personal scroll used for reading or study. Another intriguing possibility is that it was used as a “foundation deposit,” along with the coins and perhaps the other items in the niche. In that scenario, the community would have installed these items in the niche in order to enhance the holiness of the area, much as relics are used in Catholic churches. Whether or not this is true, though, given the facts released so far it is far from clear that this was the community’s Torah scroll.
American Historical Association
I will be participating in a roundtable on “Jewish History/General History: Rethinking the Divide” at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, Monday, January 5, 11 AM – 1 PM. In this paper I will reflect on historical turn in the study of Jews in antiquity from history to “rabbinics” (some thoughts about that category here) and its contemporary implications, particularly since the rise of the concept of “Late Antiquity.” Mostly, though, I am looking forward to learning from the other members of the panel.