Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer
Leen and Kathleen Ritmeyer are the owners of Ritmeyer Architectural Design and have over 20 years of archaeological experience in various digs in the Holy Land.
Completing the Scriptural quote of the title concerning Zion, we read that the servants of God also “favor the dust thereof” (Ps 102:14). This verse was somewhat of a motto for volunteers at the Temple Mount excavations in the late sixties and seventies. Although, of course, many of them were lacking in the deeper appreciation of the Word, they were aware that the soil they were painstakingly digging, trowelling, brushing or sifting was unlike that on any other dig, no matter how notable.
George Adam Smith, author of the classic Historical Geography of the Holy Land, wrote on the subject of Jerusalem:
In all it has been 33 centuries of history, climbing slowly to the Central Fact of all time, and then toppling down upon itself in a ruin that has almost obliterated the scenes and monuments of the life which set her alone among the cities of the world (1907: 8).
In fact, the omnipresent dust is one of the strongest impressions on first arrival in Jerusalem, and in the years between the destruction of the city by the Romans and the last century, it had almost buried the tangible remains of the city’s history. The Tyropoeon or Central Valley, which originally separated Mount Moriah and the Eastern Hill from the Western Hill, is now so choked with accumulated rubbish as to be barely discernible.
The advent of the science of archaeology in the 19th century, however, turned the seemingly inexorable trend on its head. Now, instead of Jerusalem’s walls and landmarks being progressively buried, they could be reclaimed and jealously protected. Edward Robinson, the American Biblical scholar, blazed the trail in 1838 with his meticulous topographical survey of the city. Then followed the landmark explorations of Charles Warren between the years 1867 and 1870, under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund, which produced a still invaluable set of plans and sections. Since then, independent scholars, and those from the schools of archaeology established by different nations, have continued to uncover the city’s past. Following the Six-Day War in 1967 unprecedented opportunities have opened up, and Israeli archaeologists have planned systematic excavations
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 13
with precise objectives in mind.
An article such as this cannot hope to survey the entire sphere of archaeological discovery in the city, which, it is fair to say, has been unequaled in any other modern archaeological endeavor. Recently, three excellent overviews have been produced to summarize the results of archaeological research in the city (Stem 1993; Geva 1994; Shanks 1995). In this short review we will try to pick out the sites which can best furnish us with a sympathy for and understanding of the Biblical record.
In a similar way that W. M. Thomson wrote of the land, that it is
one vast tablet whereupon God’s messages to men have been drawn and graven deep in living characters by the Great Publisher of glad tidings, to be seen and read of all to the end of time (1885: 1),
so some of the archaeological findings in the city, when put together with the Book, constitute a text that is invaluable for its power both to confirm the convinced believer and change the hardened sceptic. We certainly do not restrict our faith in Scripture to those parts that have been demonstrated archaeologically, but nevertheless it is deeply satisfying to walk on, touch, or even glimpse, some fragment that has survived from the time that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pt 1:21).
Old Testament Jerusalem
One fragment of Old Testament times is the Jebusite city wall that has been discovered on the eastern slopes of the City of David. This had been partially excavated in the sixties by Dame Kathleen Kenyon, then Director of the British School of Archaeology in the city. It consisted of a 41 ft length of cyclopean fortification, some 7–10 yd wide. Kathleen Kenyon interpreted the right angle, which was a feature of the wall’s northern portion, as a gate-tower, which gave access in peacetime to the Gihon Spring below, and the gate became known as the Water Gate.
The recent excavations led by the late Yigal Shiloh uncovered a 100 ft long continuation of this wall (Shiloh 1984). This broad sweep of fortification, determined from pottery found in its fill to have been initially constructed in the Middle Bronze IIB period (1800 BC), proves that the Jebusite city was large enough to warrant such defenses.
The negative evidence, namely that no remains of such a defensive wall were found dating from before this time, fills in the elusive story of the meeting between Abraham and
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 14
Melchizedek in the Kings Dale (Gn 14:17). The great priest-king who foreshadowed Messiah, of whom the reference in Hebrews 5 whets the appetite to know more, appears to have presided over a city that had no need for physical defenses, making him truly a “King of peace” (Heb 7:2). Remains dating from this period consist of a series of broad rooms with benches along their interior walls, and which lay beneath the massive defenses of later periods.
Warren’s Shaft
Again in the City of David, the three major water systems that have been discovered are directly relevant to the Bible record. Warren’s Shaft, the first chronologically, was discovered, as its name implies, by Charles Warren. This underground system made it possible for the city’s inhabitants to get water from their sole perennial water source, the Gihon Spring (which lay outside the city), without having to venture beyond its protective walls. It consisted of an entrance chamber, located just below the city’s acropolis, which led down to a rock-hewn tunnel, then a vertical shaft, and finally a feeder tunnel to the waters of the Gihon.
Jerusalem in the 1860s, which was the time when Warren’s Shaft was discovered, was charged with expectation of finding sensational remains from the Biblical period. The shaft was quickly identified with the “gutter” (Heb. tsinnor) mentioned in 2 Samuel 5:6–10 as the means by which Joab, David’s commander, captured the city from the Jebusites. Later archaeologists, comparing this system with other underground water systems from sites such as Megiddo, Hazor and Gibeon, which can be proven stratigraphically to have been constructed in the ninth century BC, concluded that this shaft cannot have been in existence at the time of David’s conquest of the city.
Recently, however, following a thorough geological survey of the shaft led by Dan Gill, there have been renewed suggestions that the identification with the tsinnor may be correct. The geologists found that the shaft incorporates many natural features which existed long before the time of David. They discovered, for example, that the vertical shaft was a natural sinkhole which the city’s earliest inhabitants adapted to make access to the life-giving spring possible in times of danger.
This latest information brings home forcefully the courage demanded of David’s men in taking up the challenge to capture the city. The Jebusites had apparently complete confidence in the impenetrability of their defenses – as we have seen, the thickness of their walls was such as to inspire awe – so that they really believed what they said when they taunted David, “Thou shalt not come hither” (1 Chr 11:5). Yigal Shiloh described his scaling of the shaft with a group of Alpine mountaineers, when the first to ascend used the most advanced equipment available and took two hours. This made it possible for a team of archaeologists to ascend by means of a lowered rope. Of their number, however, only two made it to the top. In the light of this, the expression
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 15
“whosoever laboureth up the gutter” (Heb. yiga be tsinnor), which is a more exact translation than that of the AV, “Whosoever getteth up to the gutter” (2 Sm 5:8), does not seem at all exaggerated.
The Siloam Channel and Hezekiah’s Tunnel
The next of the City of David’s water-systems chronologically is the Siloam Channel. This channel also conveyed water from the Gilion Spring, but here the similarity ends, as the system lay outside the city walls, on the eastern slopes of the City of David. Its destination was the large reservoir at the southern end of the Tyropoeon Valley.
The Siloam Channel was hewn out of the rock and was uncovered for most of its extent, which is some 1312 ft, with apertures through which the cultivated terraces on the eastern ridge could be irrigated. Scholars are generally in agreement that the Biblical “waters of Shiloah [or Siloam] that go softly” (Is 8:6) refers to this channel.
The archaeological evidence testifies that various reservoirs were built at the southern end of the Tyropoeon Valley over the years. The Biblical record in Ecclesiastes would seem to indicate that we must look to Solomon as the original inventor of this project: “I made me great works; I builded me houses; I planted me vineyards: I made me gardens and orchards, and I planted trees in them of all kind of fruits: I made me pools of water, to water therewith the wood that bringeth forth trees” (2:4–6).
The obvious absence of any form of protection for the Siloam Channel indicates that it was constructed during a time of peace. This is a feature for which, in the time prior to King Hezekiah, only the reign of King Solomon was noted. Indeed, Yigal Shiloh wrote in his excavation report that the Siloam Channel may have served the city in his Stratum 14 – tenth century BC – the very century in which Solomon sat on the throne. Today, the site of the reservoir is known as Birketel Hamra (Pool of Clay Soil), and is one of the most fertile areas of the city, fig and almond trees growing there in lush abundance.
Hezekiah’s Tunnel, chronologically the last of the City of David’s water systems, has been extensively documented and is known as an impressive corroboration of Scripture. During the seventies, when we took volunteer diggers on tours of various sites in Jerusalem to relieve the monotony of digging, we always pointed out that Hezekiah’s Tunnel preserved the most authentic atmosphere of a Biblical site. (Warren’s Shaft was opened to the public only in the 1980s. Before that, the entrance to the shaft was marked by a small opening formed by two leaning stones.)
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 16
David’s Palace
The most well-known discovery of Yigal Shiloh’s team was the stepped-stone structure on the eastern slopes above the Gihon Spring. Its fame stems more from the opposition of the city’s Orthodox Jews to the excavation in Area C, on the grounds that human remains would be desecrated, than from an understanding of this impressive structure. The sometimes violent attacks of the black-coated rabbis and yeshiva students were beamed to television sets around the world.
Incongruously, the backdrop to these confrontations can be identified as the substructure of King David’s palace. It consisted of a series of terraces filled with stones which faced eastwards, rising to the top of the slope. Yigal Shiloh believed that the massive stone structure had originally been created to allow the construction of a Jebusite citadel, and then strengthened and expanded by David as a foundation for his palace. The Bible gives no details of the style of building used, but we do know that the materials used in its construction, dressed building stones and cedar wood, were not in common use.
No architectural remains firmly attributable to the palace have been found, but a number of fragments which would appear to derive from
The stone-stepped structure in Area G of the City of David Excavation. See the reconstruction drawing on the front cover. The plaque in the form of two stone tablets, visible in the photograph, is a satire on Ultra-Orthodox Jewish opposition to the dig, and reads: “Thou shalt not dig; thou shalt not investigate; thou shalt not know; for I, the Rabbinate, have brought you out of the land of the Law.”
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 17
such a source have been discovered. The most notable of these is a capital of the proto-Aeolic type (thought to be developing towards the Greek Aeolic form), found in the excavations of Dame Kathleen Kenyon. The capital was found near Area G of Shiloh’s excavations. Thirty-four such capitals have been found in Israel in sites such as Dan, Ramat Rahel and Megiddo. As here in the City of David, none of these were found in situ, but all were discovered in the vicinity of large public buildings or palaces.
Also near Shiloh’s Area G, ashlars, square blocks of hewn stone which could have been cut by Phoenician craftsmen, were found by Kenyon, which are similar to those later found by Shiloh himself on the edge of this excavation area. In addition, a casemate wall (that is, a wall into which square compartments were built) which the excavator dated to the tenth century BC was found in Kenyon’s Area H. These elements have all been incorporated into the reconstruction drawing of David’s palace (see cover), which was founded on the stone stepped structure. Proto-Aeolic capitals were used in the entrances and courtyard. Ashlars are the basic building blocks, and the casemate wall protected the palace from the north (right in the drawing).
In the reconstruction drawing we are looking to the southwest, and can easily understand that a vantage point such as this would have made it possible for David to look down on the city and see Bathsheba while bathing (2 Sm 11:2). The tent for the Ark is shown to the west, as here there would have been sufficient space to accommodate it and gatherings connected with it.
Gemariah’s Seal
Impressive though these massive remains are, it was not large architectural remains, but what is known as a “small find,” that brought tears to the eyes of the normally reserved and strictly academic director of the Jewish Quarter Excavations where Leen worked as site architect for a number of years. Professor Nachman Avigad, of Czech origin, but a veteran of many years of archaeological endeavor in the land and the leading expert on ancient seals, was moved to this rare display of emotion by the finding of a bulla impressed with the name of a man mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, and found in the City of David excavations. Other bullae (that is, small lumps of clay used in antiquity to seal the strings around documents, and impressed with the name of the sender) had come to light from antiquities dealers, but their provenance was unknown. Among these were found the names of Biblical personalities such as Baruch the scribe, Hilkiah the priest, and Yerahmeel son of Jehoiakim.
However, it is on a bulla found among a hoard of 51 bullae in the City of David that we find the only name of a character known from Scripture firmly tied to a specific location. It bears the name of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe, from whose office Baruch the scribe read the prophecies of Jeremiah in the hearing of all the people (Jer 36:10). Although a trained architect as well as a palaeographer,
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 18
Professor Avigad (who died in 1992) said that it was contact with human personalities from the Bible that really moved him. A find such as this, with its extraordinary exactness, brings the Biblical world significantly closer.
Priestly Relics
Moving out of the City of David, but staying with the First Temple period, we come to the find of the priestly blessing from the site of Ketef Hinnom (the Shoulder of Hinnom). This site is located on a hill southwest of the walls of today’s Old City above the Hinnom Valley. Here, in a repository which also contained human remains, pottery, arrowheads and jewelry, were found two small silver scrolls with the priestly benediction of Numbers 6:24–26 inscribed on them. The remains preserved in this repository cast much light on the period, especially that which followed the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, but also on the Persian period.
However, it is the finding of these two most ancient inscriptions from the Bible, albeit with slight variations, that has been most publicized. Written in the seventh century BC, they predate the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls by some 300 years. The manner of their engraving, by delicate incision with a sharp instrument, brings to mind the words of Jeremiah: “…written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond” (17:1). It would appear that these rolled-up metal amulets were literal renditions of the exhortation to take heed to wise sayings: “they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck” (Prv 1:9).
Also much publicized, and again bearing the name Yahweh, was the inscribed ivory pomegranate recently acquired by the Israel Museum. We remember being invited to the first official viewing of the pomegranate in the Museum. A whole hall had been set aside for it, and the single vitrine with its minuscule occupant, surrounded by the excited buzz of archaeologists, seemed most incongruous. It is only 1.68 in high, with a body diameter of 0.83 in.
It was dated to the late eighth century BC by Professor Andre Lemaire, the French Biblical scholar, who originally discovered the pomegranate in the shop of a Jerusalem antiquities dealer. Professor Avigad, and Professor Frank Moore Cross, another palaeographer, would rather assign it to the middle of the eighth century. Either way, the form of the script used in the inscription, some of which has had to be reconstructed, and which reads, “Holy to the priests, belonging to the T[emple of Yahwe]h”, assigns it to the reign of Hezekiah. From parallels found in Lachish and other sites, scholars have concluded that the ivory pomegranate was a scepter-head.
Although this dainty find gives one a lively sense of how history can speak from objects, we actually have no record in the Bible of the use of such a scepter. However, from the emphasis given to the shape of the pomegranate in the decoration of the capitals of the two bronze columns, Jachin and Boaz, that stood outside Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 7:42, etc.), and in the hem of the high priest’s robes (Ex 28:33, 34), we may assume that it was an important Biblical symbol The description
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 19
of the temples of the Bride in the Song of Songs “like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks” (4:3) presents a beautiful picture of how the minds of the believers must be full of the Word of God as the pomegranate is full of seeds.
Traces of Solomon’s Temple
Concerning the Temple of Solomon, it has recently been possible, after 22 years of research by Leen, to trace the negative impressions of the walls of the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount. The Dome of the Rock enshrines the rocky summit of Mount Moriah. Visitors to the Muslim shrine today can see within the octagonal building, with its magnificent windows and mosaics, the huge mass of es-Sakhra, as the rock is known in Arabic. Tradition has always held that the Temple was built on the highest point of the mountain. His previous research, which had established the location of the original 500-cubit-square Temple Mount, built, in all probability, by King Hezekiah, had verified this.
However, there was a difference of opinion as to whether it was the Holy of Holies or the altar that occupied the place of the Sakhra. With the placing of the altar over the Sakhra, the problem would be that the rock, which measures 43 ft by 56 ft, would have disappeared completely beneath it, as the Sakhra is smaller than the altar. Another problem with the placing of the altar over the Sakhra would be that the well-known cave which lies below the Sakhra, and which was supposed to have drained off the blood to the Kedron Valley, was in the wrong place. According to Middot 3.2, this original drain was located at the southwest corner of the altar, while the cave is in the southeast. An additional difficulty would be that, if the Temple was built to the west of the Sakhra, its foundations would need to have been 49 ft, whereas according to Middot they were only 6 cubits (10 ft 4 in).
Two flat rectangular areas on the southern side of the pitted and scarred surface of the Sakhra were recognized to have been foundation trenches for a large wall. When the thickness of this wall, which was over 10 ft, turned out to coincide with the measurement given in Middot for the walls of the Temple (6 cubits), the conclusion that here stood the southern wall of the Temple (Holy of Holies) was inescapable.
The western scarp of the Sakhra measures 20 cubits, as did each side of the Holy of Holies. The northern scarp had originally been cut to fit these
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 20
measurements. The partition between the Holy of Holies would have stood over the area where the rock slopes to the east and which has had its level reduced by Crusader quarrying.
A completely unforeseen outcome of this research was the discovery of the former resting-place of the Ark of the Covenant on the Sakhra. Having homed in from the exterior walls of the Temple Mount onto the interior of the Temple itself, a rectangular depression was identified right in the center of the holy of holies. The dimensions of this level basin agree with those of the Ark of the Covenant, which were 1.5 cubits by 2.5 cubits (2 ft 7 in x 4 ft 4 in), with the longitudinal axis coinciding with that of the Temple. It appears therefore that during the First Temple period a special place was prepared for the Ark by cutting this flat basin in the rock. It is clear that without such a flat area the Ark would have wobbled about in an undignified manner, which would not conceivably have been allowed.
Several texts in 1 Kings 6 and 8 may actually refer to a specially prepared place for the Ark. In 1 Kings 6:19 it says that Solomon prepared “the Oracle” (Heb. Dvir) in the midst of the house from within “to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord”; and in 1 Kings 8:6
the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his [or its] place, into the Oracle [Dvir] of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubims.
This means that a special place was prepared or assigned to the Ark. This
Fig 1. Reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon, showing the Ark of the Covenant in its emplacement in the Sakhra.
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 21
Fig 2. Reconstruction of the Middle Gate mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3
is further emphasized in verses 20 and 21 of the same chapter, where Solomon says that he has
built an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel. And I have set there a place for the ark….
The Hebrew verb seem, which is translated here as “set,” can also mean “put” or “make.” In the light of this discovery we suggest translating this verse as, “I have made there a place for the ark.” A reconstruction drawing of Solomon’s Temple is at Figure 1.
Broad Wall and Middle Gate
Another find from the First Temple period which harmonizes perfectly with the text is the Broad Wall in the Jewish Quarter Excavations (Avigad 1983). The archaeological evidence shows that this 23 ft wide city wall cut through and destroyed eighth-century BC houses which stood in its way. This fits in precisely with the picture given in the Bible of Hezekiah’s building activities: “and the houses have ye broken down to fortify the wall” (Is 22:10).
In the western part of this wall section the remains of a gateway were discovered. The section of city wall in this part of Jerusalem was shifted to the north later on in the First Temple period. In this new wall the remains of a tower was found which Leen identified as the Middle Gate of Jeremiah 39:3 (see Fig. 2).
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 22
New Testament Jerusalem
The time of the Second Temple was another period which saw much expansion of the city. This is reflected in the abundant archaeological remains which date from this period. Both of the major excavations which followed the liberation of the city demonstrate how completely the city was changed during that time. The excavations to the west and south of the Temple Mount, which were directed by the late Professor Benjamin Mazar, continued all year round for ten years. This dig was the focus of much interest by the media, which fanned expectations of sensational discoveries such as the Ark of the Covenant, the ashes of the red heifer, the pot of Jeremiah, etc.
Although, in God’s wisdom, finds such as this were never made, the remains of Herod’s Temple complex that were discovered meant it became possible to make a realistic reconstruction drawing of the spectacularly beautiful Temple complex of the time of Jesus for the first time. Before this, any reconstruction drawings were of necessity restricted to the information given in sources such as Josephus and the Mishnah.
Now, from finds made on the excavations, information was available, for example, as to the manner of the exterior decoration of the retaining walls of the Temple platform. We learned that the flatness of the upper part of these walls was in fact relieved by rectangular engaged pillars or pilasters. Remains of such pilasters found in the rubble dating from the Roman destruction of AD 70 nicely supplemented the ancient sources, which are silent on this matter. More than anything else, however, it was the ways of access to the Temple Mount and its adjoining streets that were given a new dimension of reality by these excavations.
King Herod had a passion for building, and a desire to emulate the vast Oriental-Hellenistic sanctuaries of Heliopolis and Palmyra then under construction. Here in Jerusalem, however, he was limited to enlarging the height of the new Temple porch to its original Solomonic dimensions, embellishing its exterior and doubling the size of the platform on which it stood.
Entrances to the Temple
Josephus documented this project very fully in his Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews. The excavations both confirmed his record and shed new light on hitherto misunderstood passages. For instance, he wrote that the western wall of the Temple Mount had four entranceways. These have all been found, and are now known by the names of the explorers who first discovered them; from north to south: Warren’s, Wilson’s, Barclay’s and Robinson’s Gates. Strictly speaking, it was the recent excavations carried out by the Rabbinic authorities which investigated the first two of these gates. Warren’s Gate had particular significance for them as here we are more or less directly opposite the Stone of Foundation, or Even ha-Shetiyah as the Sakhra is known by the Jews, and which tradition also holds was the site of the Holy of Holies.
Robinson’s Arch, the southernmost point of access to the Temple Mount,
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 23
had been completely misconstrued, however. The massive arch-spring, which had been discovered in the previous century, was presumed to have been the first of a series of arches which spanned the Tyropoeon Valley leading to the Upper City on the Western Hill. Josephus had recorded (Antiquities 15.410) that
the last [gate] led to the other part of the city, from which it was separated by many steps going down to the ravine and from here up again to the hill.
However, the finding in the excavations of a series of equidistant arches of graduated height, ascending from the south and then turning eastwards over Robinson’s Arch, forced archaeologists to look again at the description of Josephus. When the finds were put on plan and a reconstruction drawing made, the record of Josephus and the archaeological remains were found to be in complete harmony. Access to the Temple Mount at this point was, in fact, via a monumental stairway which led up from the Tyropoeon Street over these small arches and then turned at right angles over the large arch to lead into the Royal Stoa, a portico which ran the full length of the southern wall of the Temple platform.
Excavators cleared the full extent of the southern wall, exposing the remarkable stairway, some 210 ft wide, which led up to the Double Gate. For a number of years the Muslim authorities, who had jurisdiction over the Mount, permitted the dig staff to explore the many cisterns that lie under the esplanade, and also to measure and draw underground structures such as the Golden Gate in the eastern wall. These halcyon days did not last long, as the ill-founded criticism of UNESCO that the Israeli archaeologists were destroying Muslim remains brought harmonious relations to an end. Nevertheless, file after file has been accumulated with precious information on the secrets of the Temple Mount.
A Dazzling Sight
When Jesus and his disciples looked on the city from the Mount of Olives, they saw spread at their feet a city which they had seen utterly transformed in their lifetime, whose stones were still dazzlingly fresh and new. Although Herod had passed off the scene in AD 4, it was only now that his grand design for the city could clearly be seen. Viewed from the east, with the Judean desert behind them, the light and shade of evening – for it was then that Jesus used to resort to the Mount of Olives after spending the day in the Temple – played on the splendid buildings with which Herod had adorned the city.
Off to the western edge of the Upper City, the exclusive residential quarter, which enjoyed purer air than did the Lower City in the foreground, stood his own palace, sheltered by the three great towers of Mariamne, Phasael and Hippicus. From this spot the old wall, which he had strengthened with many towers, ran along the upper crest of the Hinnom Valley, across the Tyropoeon which bisected the city, to enclose the ancient City of David with its densely packed houses.
It was, of course, the Temple that
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 24
was the crowning glory of all his architectural creations. Here the ample description of Josephus and the Mishnah must suffice, as no archaeological activity is permissible. A detailed model has recently been made which is based on these sources, but which also includes input from an analysis of the visible remains on the Temple Mount.
Fig. 3. The Reception Room of the Palatial Mansion found in the Jewish Quarter Excavations.
The whole picture was one of a golden age. How strange therefore the words of Jesus,
See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down (Mt 24:2),
must have sounded in the ears of his disciples.
First-century Dwellings
It was the second of the major digs which commenced after the Six-Day War that provided a wealth of information on the exclusive Upper City. Here, under the direction of Professor Avigad, laboring under most difficult conditions, as the renovation of the Jewish Quarter was proceeding all around us, evidence of the luxurious lifestyle of the city’s first-century inhabitants was brought to light.
A palatial mansion with an area of 6,500 square ft was one of the dig’s major finds. Centered around a paved courtyard, it was one living unit and not divided into smaller residences. This major structure, which, from the sumptuousness of its fittings, including elaborate mosaics, fresco and stucco, is worthy of the description “palace,” also contains four ritual baths. The latter feature, coupled with the traces of a great conflagration found in the Palatial Mansion, points to a possible identification of this residence with the palace of Annas, the
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 25
high priest. Annas’s palace is recorded (War 2.426) as having been burnt, together with the palace of Agrippa and Bernice, in AD 70. It was only a short walk from here to the Royal Bridge, whereby the priests could cross directly to the Temple platform without first having to descend into the Tyropoeon Valley. A reconstruction drawing of the main reception hall of the Palatial Mansion is at Figure 3.
Avigad’s team also discovered the Burnt House, which preserved dramatic evidence of the tragedy of AD 70 in the form of soot-covered walls, charred beams and the remains of a young woman who had obviously attempted to flee when the Upper City was set ablaze by the Romans. From the nature of the complex and from the many ovens found there, it appears that it was used as a type of workshop located well out of sight under a large building. A stone weight inscribed with the words “[of] Kathros” points to a connection with another of the high priestly families, the House of Kathros, infamous for their cruel way with the written word:
Woe is me because of the House of Kathros, woe is me because of their pens
(from a satirical song preserved in the Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim 57.1).
It has been suggested that the workshop may have been used in the manufacture of a product used in the Temple service, for example, spices for the incense or the anointing oil. The manufacture of a product which was in such constant daily demand would indeed have been a profitable industry,
Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the tomb of Annas in the Hinnom Valley.
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 26
and one which this family may well have appropriated to itself. We can imagine how residents of the city and visitors alike would have been forcibly reminded each time they passed these modern residences of the illegitimacy of their high priesthood. Since the beginning of Herod’s reign in 37 BC, only one (the first) of their high priests had come from a legitimate Zadokite family. The remainder came from the families of Boethus (of which the House of Kathros was an offshoot), Annas or Phiabi, low-born families which, once they had risen to power, strove to keep the office for as long as possible.
Priestly Tombs
The tomb of Annas the high priest has recently been identified in a complex of elaborately decorated Second Temple tombs located at the southeast end of the Hinnom Valley (Ritmeyer 1994) (see Fig. 4). Although this tomb was once lavishly ornamented in imitation of the decoration of the nearby Temple Mount, and a city landmark, it has been robbed of all its grave goods, and is today used by Bedouins as a stable.
It is rare to find preserved stone ossuaries in tombs such as these. Many have been appropriated for use as animal drinking troughs, and some have been known to end up as flower boxes in artistically designed gardens. Thus the finding of two ossuaries bearing the name of Caiaphas, who presided at the trial of Jesus, was something of a sensation. Both of these contained bones of various individuals. The most elaborate of these ossuaries included those of a male of about 60 years old.
Carved stone ossuary of Caiaphas.
Looking at this beautifully carved stone box, it is difficult not to feel a shiver at the thought that here rested the powerful man who conferred with Judas, asked Jesus, “Art thou the Messiah?”, and then, after the death of Christ, heard Peter testify to the resurrection from the dead. So impressive was this find that it was chosen, with the ivory pomegranate, to comprise an exhibition to travel to Washington in 1993 as representative of the recent dramatic archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem.
As we mentioned at the beginning of this article, in a brief survey such as this we have had to confine ourselves to the major finds. For those who wish to investigate further, we recommend that they peruse any of the three general overviews that have recently been
BSP 10:1 (Winter 1997) p. 27
published, with the encyclopaedia giving the most complete treatment of the subject.
It would be tragic, however, if, like the majority of archaeologists who are secular, a fascination with the past led to a blindness as to the far more glorious future of the city. We used sometimes to walk through the beautiful restorations of archaeological sites in Jerusalem, with many of which we have been involved, and reflect on how they would all be destroyed in the earthquake des-cribed in Zechariah 14. An upheaval such as this is necessary in order to raise the level of the mountain, which is now lower than the surrounding mountains, to make a fitting site for the temple of Ezekiel.
Far more, then, than taking pleasure in her stones and cherishing the dust thereof, we look to hear God’s words:
Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion” (Is 52:1, 2).
(Reprinted by permission of the authors from The Testimony, Vol. 66, No. 786, July 1996, pp. 272–83.)
Bibliography
Avigad, N.
1983 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Geva, H., ed.
1994 Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Ritmeyer, L. and K.
1994 Potter’s Field or High Priest’s Tomb? Biblical Archaeology Review 20/6: 22.
Shanks, H.
1995 Jerusalem, An Archaeological Biography. New York: Random House.
Shiloh, Y
1984 Excavations at the City of David. Qedem 19. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Smith, G. A.
1907 Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to AD 70, Vol. 1. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Stern, E., ed.
1993 Jerusalem. Pp. 698–804 in The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Thomson, W. M.
1885 The Land and the Book. London: Thomas Nelson.