No broadband?
Instead of reading pages online, open the ones you want in quick succession. Then go offline, call them up with the "History" button (Explorer] or Ctrl+H [Netscape], and read at your leisure

Stones and texts
One of the most interesting and fruitful areas today for increasing our accuracy about the historical Jesus is to examine the background to the New Testament.

For many centuries the search has centred around the texts. They have been ransacked, tortured and interpreted until it seems nothing more can be wrung from them. Of course, more is got out of them if only because each person and each new generation of critics succeeds in projecting their own "new" meaning onto the text.

The authors of this book have combined their efforts to produce a look at Jesus from two angles - in terms of the layers of text we find in the Gospels, and in terms of the layers of physical evidence we find when we dig down.

Reed is an archeologist, engaged at the time of publishing in digging up the town of Sepphoris (about which there are many pages on the Web). His focus is on the layers of evidence which he and others find when they excavate. Crossan's concern is with the layers of Gospel text which, as one is separated from the other, reveal a complimentary picture of the Palestine in which Jesus and the early Christians lived.

The two perspectives are combined. Both style and subject matter of each contributor are very different from each other. I wish I could say that the marriage of Reed and Crossan was a happy one. 

I for one found Crossan's contributions jarring. His thought is lucid enough, though his prose is somewhat tortuous. I found myself cruising easily and enjoyably through the relatively clear waters of archeology and reconstruction only to be suddenly brought up short against a reef of textual analysis.

Much as I respect Crossan's scholarship and enterprise, I must say that this volume could perhaps have done as well without his input. Or rather, what he has to say about the various layers of Gospel material would have been better stated in a separate work where it could have been more integrated and more carefully stated. As it is, the change from archeology to textual archeology is often too abrupt and not always appropriate.

Layer upon layer
I found myself coming back again and again to the colour plates in this book. They are extremely well done. For the first time ever I was able to put a picture into my mind of what first-century Nazareth might have looked like.

Thirty or forty houses and courtyards perch on the side of a hill. The vantage point of the picture is a hillside vineyard and wine-press. On the opposite page is a picture from the same vantage point of modern Nazareth. There is no comparison. In contrast with ancient Nazareth, the modern town stretches into the distance.

At the other end of the scale was surprise at the size and splendour of Herod the Great's Caesarea Maritima, a harbour built on the Mediterranean coast to export agricultural produce from the hinterland. Herod's image for most of us isn't positive. He's thought of as a cruel killer of babies on the basis of a thoroughly non-historical report in Matthew's Gospel. 

If one evaluates him from the perspective of personal achievement, however, it's hard not to grant him grudging respect. He must have had an eye for architectural beauty and the ability to combine it with practicality. His Masada fortress is quite simply breathtaking in scale and concept.

Archeology looks a deadly-dull pursuit at first sight. It seems to consist of a combination and hard labour and painstaking work with spoons and brushes. Reed's enthusiasm for his subject shines through. He can't help communicating to his readers a sense of excitement as layer after layer of history is revealed.

Crossan's stripping of textual layers wasn't that interesting to me - but then perhaps I'm jaded by plodding through so many versions of the last word on the Gospels.

Brutal truths
It could be also that my imagination is deficient. Even though I've read quite a bit about the background to the gospels, it wasn't until I'd finished this book that I felt I had the "feel" of what it must have been like to have been an ordinary peasant like Jesus in Palestine.

The first of the brutal truths to come home to me was the size of what we would today call the "wealth gap" between rich and poor.

Herod Antipas didn't have the wealth to do at Tiberias and Sepphoris what his father had done at Caesarea Maritima - water reservoir, shopping mall, harbour and quay, army barracks, theatre and seaside palace - some built the glorify Roman power and status, others built with a subtle combination of Roman and Jewish style, using top-grade materials.

Nor could he afford Herod the Great's splendid desert tomb, named Herodian, with its gardens, fortress built on a high artificial mound (a nearby natural hill having been lowered to enhance the comparison), a pool and gazebo, a modest palace with dozens of rooms, not mention servants quarters which formed a sizeable village abutting the main buildings.

If the Gospel authors are to be believed, Jesus made Capernaum a base from which he moved out into the surrounding countryside. Sepphoris and Tiberias, to the south-west, were four or five times larger and much wealthier. But the quality of work there reveals that Antipas, himself astronomically richer than his subjects, could not match the splendour of his father's palaces.

Another brutal truth was a realisation of the degree to which the Jewish priesthood in Jerusalem - but probably not elsewhere - collaborated with the Roman authorities to enrich themselves and to help maintain Imperial power in Palestine.

Josephus Flavius (himself a much-rewarded collaborator) in his Jewish Antiquities often exaggerates the facts by inflating numbers and dimensions in his descriptions. But his account of how the High Priests raided the threshing floors of the countryside to steal tithes belonging to the local clergy rings true.

Then look at a beautifully-done plate showing a reconstruction of the home in Jerusalem's Upper City of a wealthy priest - and the overall picture begins to come together. The furnishings are lavish. The marble floor is a striking mosaic. The view of the city is panoramic. This is sophistication and money a world away from the packed earth floors and poverty of Nazareth.

The remains of a house burnt down when Jerusalem and the entire priestly quarter were destroyed in the year 70 yield further clues. 

A coin proclaims that it was minted in "Year four of the redemption of Zion" as the Jewish revolt against Rome was termed. The house turns out to have belonged to a "son of Kathros," one of four high-priestly families of the time. A workshop in the house indicates that the owner ran a profitable monopoly producing spices and incense for the Temple.

This is not to say that the Palestinians then, as now, were a notably peaceful people. Every dig of any importance reveals that no major centre was without barracks or fortress to house Roman troops. Jerusalem was no exception. But then its population was notoriously liable to riot and insurrection. 

Then, as now, the authorities could be rapacious. The absence of a full application of Roman law in this "occupied territory" meant, for example, that what we would today call local "warlords" could and did take what they wanted at will. Violent resistance from time-to-time was eminently understandable.

Only non-violent resistance on the part of ordinary people could sometimes restrain the high-placed robbers. Then the  Jewish religion could become a focus for resistance. 

For example, as the Roman historian Philo recounts, when the Syrian Governor Petronius tried to erect the Emperor's statue in the Jerusalem Temple thousands gathered in Tiberias to resist. The Jews assembled with their wives and children and told him that "... if he wished to set up these statues, he must first sacrifice the entire Jewish nation." Petronius backed off.

A fatal pilgrimage
My mental picture of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was limited to a rough idea of the Temple precincts and an aerial view of the modern Temple Mount. That picture in my mind has been usefully extended and coloured by the plates showing Jerusalem as Jesus would have seen it.

Given the ruthlessness of the ruling powers and the resulting volatility of the city's people, particularly when religion was used to express their anger, both Romans and High Priests were extra vigilant at major feasts. Thousands streamed into the city from the countryside and packed the Temple area.

Naturally, in such circumstances, the Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem housed troops who could look down on the Temple for the first signs of any disturbance. A large walkway or overpass took pedestrians and water directly from the wealthy Upper City to the Temple Mount. Neither troops nor the rich needed to rub shoulders with the masses!

It was into this city, with its soldiers, its riotous fanatics and its greedy priests that Jesus came on a pilgrimage. Crossan comes into his own as he writes about Jesus against the background of archeological history.

Traditional theology bows to the Gospel authors by attaching blame primarily to the Jewish priests and people for the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. This book reinforced for me me that this is, quite plainly, nonsense.

We don't know for sure if Jesus visited Jerusalem more than once. At any rate, whether out of ignorance or defiance, this occasion was enough to clearly mark him as a troublemaker in the eyes of both the High Priests and the Romans. 

In other words, Jesus' teaching may have been an irritant to the Jewish authorities, if they even noticed it. But we err if we think that there wasn't a healthy climate of discussion and debate about religion, and if we suppose that the priestly cast was as savage as the Church in putting down heretics. There were too many broad variations in first-century Judaism - from Essenes to Sadducees - for High Priests and Romans to bother with such matters.

Recall that they were in league with each other. Any disturbance would put their mutual interests at risk. The wealth of the priests could be wiped out, as it was some 35 years later. The Roman garrison could be severely dealt with from Rome if the slightest trouble broke out to threaten revenues, trade and the land route to Egypt (which in those days supplied much of the Empire's grain).

It was the desire to preserve power, position and possessions - not religious controversy - which motivated the rulers of Judea to be hyper-vigilant about unrest and ruthless in suppressing it.

Crossan rightly locates the text describing Jesus entry into Jerusalem in a very early layer of Mark. Perhaps he stretches his case somewhat when he adds that the entry was 

... almost a lampoon, a satirical triumphal entry into Jerusalem. A general entered his conquered city in a war chariot or on a ceremonial steed, using the symbols of violent power, but Jesus entered on a donkey.

But he's right when he adds that

... the authorities would not have found that amusing. That public action [alone] would have been enough for public crucifixion.

Jesus may not have realised the full significance and therefore the danger of the occasion. But once a crowd had feted him, he would have guessed what was likely to happen. 

The second event of his pilgrimage sealed his death sentence, probably passed quickly and quietly by the Roman authorities, no doubt at the behest of the priests.

Crossan thinks that the so-called cleansing of the Temple, with its references back to Jeremiah 7.11 and Isaiah 56.7, was "... not so much a ritual cleansing as a symbolic destruction of the Temple." The archeology reveals that the Temple's Court of the Gentiles was a huge space, indicating how many came to see and honour Herod's construction, one which could justifiably be called the Third Temple.

To stop the "fiscal, sacrificial and logistical operations of the Temple," writes Crossan, upon which a substantial structure of wealth and privilege was built, was to pronounce its destruction with a truly prophetic voice which would have been instantly recognised by all. In short, analysis of textual and physical layers of Jerusalem reveal, if there are still those who doubt it, the heavy doctrinal motives of the gospel authors.

Crossan's speculations on the resurrection tended to obscure for me some interesting and useful archeological information about burial in these times. I realised that the Gospel authors created a suitable grave for Jesus not because that's the way it actually happened, but because they perceived him as a great king - and kings had to be buried in graves suitable for them. Not only would ordinary people not have had such a grave, but no crucified criminal would have been allowed to be buried as were the rich of the day.

I have marked this book to be re-read in the near future so that I can fully internalise the layers of history it deals with. For me, these layers illuminate and straighten out some of the twisted strands of the New Testament texts. 

Excavating Jesus makes it clear that the biblical text alone isn't enough to expose the Jesus of history. If we are to deepen our understanding of Jesus as our pioneer, as a real man who really lived and really did certain things, then the scientific knowledge revealed by archeology is vitally important. Let's hope that Reed (with or without Crossan's help) is able to expand and clarify his work for us sometime in the future.

[Home] [Back]