This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature.

For more information on obtaining a

subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
RBL 10/2007

Charlesworth, James H., ed.
Jesus and Archaeology
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Pp. xxv + 740.
Paperback. $50.00. ISBN 080284880x.
Jonathan Reed
University of La Verne
La Verne, California 91750

This thick book combines the work of thirty authors under the title Jesus and Archaeology.
Although published in 2006, the papers were originally presented in the summer of 2000
at the millennium conference in Jerusalem organized by James H. Charlesworth, who
edited this volume and added a preface (xxiixxv), conclusion (69295), and his own
contribution, Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective (1163). Some of the
essays are short and appear to represent the original oral presentations (e.g., Avraham
Biran, What is Biblical Archaeology?, 18), but most have been reworked for
publication and are between twenty to thirty pages, often with extensive footnotes and
updates by the author or editor that mention subsequent discoveries like the Pool of
Siloam and even the very recent Gospel of Judas.

The bulk of papers relate archaeology to historical Jesus research, but they do so in various
ways and with seemingly competing agendas. Thus, while Charlesworths programmatic
essay at the beginning is subtitled A New Perspective, the collection itself is so diverse
that the book might appropriately have been subtitled Various Perspectives.
Charlesworth himself rightly stresses that the fundamental importance of archaeology
lies in re-creating the social and spiritual world of Jesus of Nazareth (11), and he notes
that too much previous research, including my own, has been preoccupied with Galilean
archaeology at the expense of Jerusalem archaeology. Stressing Jesus Jewish context
This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
throughout, Charlesworth tends to accentuate those discoveries that confirm Gospel
accounts, and he is especially enthusiastic where archaeology corroborates details in Johns
Gospel. By stressing direct links between artifact and text, Charlesworthand some other
authors in the collectionseem to flirt with the old-style biblical archaeology. But for the
most part a broader approach is taken: archaeology can sometimes confirm literary data,
sometimes supplement it, and at other times raise new questions and perspectives and
indeed, sometimes archaeology reveals that a section of a text cannot be historical (27).

The book is divided into two sections, with a lengthy set of papers appearing under the
heading Studies in Archaeology (11520), and a shorter set under Archaeology and
Theology (521691). For the sake of this review, the papers will be categorized according
to how they relate the two disciplines, namely, archaeology and Jesus studies. Some
authors begin with archaeology by examining a particular location, region, discovery, or
set of artifacts, while others begin with exegetical or literary concerns and then turn to
archaeology for clarification.

Among those studies that focus on a location is Rami Aravs Bethsaida, (14566) who
discusses the finds from his excavation and demonstrates, convincingly I think, that et-
Tell is in fact Bethsaida. His essay is unlike Frdric Manns Mount Tabor (16777),
which treats that location as a theological concept in literary texts, almost without
reference to archaeology. Dan Bahat discusses the location of the various Gospel stories in
Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount (300308), and Bargil Pixner summarizes his
well-known but not always accepted theory of an upper room in the Essene Quarter where
Jesus and his disciples celebrated the Last Supper in Mount Zion, Jesus, and Archaeology
(30922). Daniel R. Schwartz adds a note stressing that in literary sources the Birah (even
if not the Baris) was identified with the Antonia (Stone House, Birah, and Antonia
during the Time of Jesus, 34148), and Michele Piccirillo argues on exegetical grounds
that Bethany beyond the Jordan (and not Batanaea) has no symbolic value in John but
is instead a historical memory (The Sanctuaries of the Baptism on the East Bank, 433
43).

Unlike the above-mentioned studies, two essays characterize entire regions and offer far-
reaching implications for first-century society and culture. One is by the late Yizhar
Hirschfeld, who extrapolates from two estate sites he excavated that the disparity between
rich and poor was accelerating at the time of Jesus all across Palestine (Ramat Hanadiv
and Ein Gedi: Property versus Poverty in Judea before 70, 38492). In a similar way,
Jrgen Zangenberg authoritatively summarizes the archaeological surveys and excavations
in Samaria to characterize the Samarians-Samaritans (Between Jerusalem and the Galilee:
Samaria in the Time of Jesus, 393432).
This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Other essays focus on a specific artifact that canor cannotbe tied directly to Jesus.
Thus, on the one hand, Richard A. Batey argues for an early date for Sepphoris theater
and its possible influence on Jesus, even though the ceramic evidence, upon which its
dating ultimately rests, is only discussed and not here presented in a way that can be
evaluated by archaeologists (Did Antipas Build the Sepphoris Theater? 11119). Achim
Lichtenberger, on the other hand, argues that Herod the Greats theater in Jerusalem was
made of wood and therefore temporary, so that it was long disassembled by the time of
Jesus (Jesus and the Theater in Jerusalem, 28399). Craig A. Evans, in a contribution
titled Excavating Caiaphas, Pilate, and Simon of Cyrene: Assessing the Literary and
Archaeological Evidence (32340), provides a balanced perspective on these finds and
warns against uncritically identifying the Yehosef bar Qafa ossuary with Caiaphas the
High Priest. He suggests it is the ossuary of Caiaphas, but prudently underscores the
uncertainty. Joseph Zias offers an examination of the cemeteries at Qumran, and shows, I
think convincingly, that the few females buried there were from later Bedouins while the
cemetery as a whole can be characterized as Essene (The Cemeteries of Qumran and
Celibacy: Confusion Laid to Rest?, 44471). He concludes with an important point
appropriate to the limits of interdisciplinary research: the ultimate interpretation of the
cemetery at Qumran lies with physical anthropologists, whereas its final historical
interpretation lies with the Qumran scholars of today (471). Although Zias never directly
relates his findings to Jesus research, whether or not Qumran was Essene and the site
where the Dead Sea Scrolls were written is of profound importance for assessing the
religious context of Jesus first-century world.

Other chapters begin with either a problem in historical Jesus research, an exegetical
conundrum, or an entire Gospel, and then move to the archaeological record. Bruce
Chilton ponders the evidence for and implications of Jesus illegitimacy, and to that end
notes the (as yet still unpublished) excavations at Bethlehem of Galilee (Recovering
Jesus Mamzerut, 84110). James Dunn consults the most up-to-date synagogue
archaeology to advocate in all probability Jesus did attend the synagogue. Although I
am more skeptical of synagogue remains at Magdala/Migdal, one can now add the
recently discovered first-century structure at Kiryat Sepher outside Tel Aviv to the
discussion, which only strengthens Dunns case (Did Jesus Attend the Synagogue?,
20622). Brian J. Capper picks up on Birgil Pixners thesis of an Essene quarter Upper
Room but tries to show from literary sources that the Essenes had a series of so-called
community or poor houses to host like-minded sectarians (Essene Community Houses
and Jesus Early Community, 472502). William Klassen connects the puzzling phrase
in Matt 26:50 to the same phrase inscribed on several glass cups found across the eastern
Mediterranean, which is best translated Friend, rejoice! Thats what you are here for.
This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Although I am disinclined to think such Greek-inscribed vessels circulated in first-century
Galilee, given at least one other Sidonian glass found in Jerusalems Upper City, these
vessels do lend a measure of support to Klassens positive re-characterization of Judas
(Judas and Jesus: A Message on a Drinking Vessel of the Second Temple Period, 503
22). Urban C. von Wahlde provides a lengthy catalogue of archaeological evidence that
relates to the Gospel of Johns topographical references. Listed in the order they appear in
John, from Bethany Beyond the Jordan (1:28) to A Tomb in the Garden (19:4142),
von Wahlde provides information on the Johannine context, literary citations, and
archaeological evidence; he argues against earlier scholarship that these references are both
earlier and more historical rather than later and more theological (Archaeology and
Johns Gospel, 52386). Paul N. Anderson follows up this article with a more thorough
discussion of the implications, arguing that the Gospel of John is far closer to the
historical Jesus than most scholars have claimed or thought for almost a century (614).
Whether this is due to a later redactor and important for understanding his social context,
or due to the original author (an eyewitness?) and important for his theological claims, is
difficult to tell (Aspects of Historicity in the Gospel of John: Implications for
Investigations of Jesus and Archaeology, 587618).

The collections title, along with Charlesworths preface, essay, and conclusion focus the
book on archaeology, but it appears that the original conference was broader in scope and
included several papers that look at Jesus through Jewish texts. Three of these focus on the
Dead Sea Scrolls: Esther Eshels Jesus the Exorcist in Light of Epigraphic Sources (178
85), Henry W. M. Rietzs Reflections on Jesus Eschatology in Light of Qumran (186
205), and Emile Puechs Jesus and Resurrection Faith in Light of Jewish Texts (63959).
Other authors likewise do not discuss the material culture, such as John W. Welch, who
describes Roman perceptions of and laws concerning magic, and convincingly argues that
Roman fear of Jesus alleged supernatural powers has consistently been ignored by
historical Jesus scholars (Miracles, Maleficium, and Maiestas in the Trial of Jesus, 349
83). John Painter successfully rehabilitates Bultmann, a favorite whipping boy of late for
many New Testament scholars interested in archaeology, history, and Jesus social
context; he was never, as often claimed, a- or anti-historical. He simply cautioned against
certainty with regard to determining much about Jesus life and personality due to the
difficulty of distinguishing Jesus from the process of transmission (623). Painter also
provides a moving description of the friendship between Bultmann and his Jewish student
Hans Jonas in Marburg, before, during, and after the horrors of the Nazi regime
(Bultmann, Archaeology, and the Historical Jesus, 61938). Finally, there are also essays
that deal with archaeology but not really Jesus: Benedict Thomas Vivianos Synagogues
and Spirituality: The Case of Beth Alfa (22335), John Reumanns Archaeology and
Early Christology (66082), and J. K. Elliott, The Christian Apocrypha and
This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
Archaeology (68391). This is not to imply any criticism of these essays, only to note
that the scope of the book is broader than the title Jesus and Archaeology implies.

Three essays stand out for their importance and merit more space in this review. First,
Sean Freyne, one of the recognized deans of Galilean studies, provides an assessment of
the state of the dialogue between the disciplines in Archaeology and the Historical Jesus,
(6483). Completed in 2002, this essay has since published in his highly recommended
Jesus, a Jewish Galilean: A New Reading of the Jesus-Story (T&T Clark, 2004).
Summarizing well over a decade of Jesus scholars critical engagement in archaeology,
Freyne notes that we are only at the very early stages of a dialogue that hopefully will
develop fruitful collaboration . . . (74). Considering the recent events in New
Testament archaeology like the alleged James Ossuary or so-called Jesus tomb at Talpiot,
it appears that there is still a long way to go. Freynes comments on Galilean culture
(which had Judean roots), class (which was increasingly stratified as part of rapid social and
economic changes), and gender (which is just now being seriously considered), are worth a
careful reading.

Second, the essay by Peter Richardson, a New Testament scholar trained also in
architecture and who has participated in numerous Galilean excavations, is a model for
combining archaeology and Jesus research (Khirbet Qana [and Other Villages] as a
Context for Jesus, 12044). His focus is mainly on Qana and Yodefat, but includes also
places like Capernaum, Gamla, and Chorazin, while keeping an eye on the larger towns of
Sepphoris and Tiberias. His conclusionseven if in question formare provocative: Do
the quasi-Hippodamian plans of some villages indicate more centralized economies and
control? Have we exaggerated the differences between villages and cities? Were there
differences in the extent of Hellenization in urban centers and rural villages? (In a word,
yes; 142). What actual evidence, other than inference, is there for either economic
exploitation or development and social stratification? And finally, what archaeological
evidence is there for a common Judaism in both Galilean villages and cities? Ample,
Richardson answers.

Third and finally, John S. Kloppenborg offers a detailed and powerful retort to the
suggestion that the Theodotos synagogue inscription is from a later century and hence
cannot be used as evidence for a Second Temple synagogue building (The Theodotos
Synagogue Inscription and the Problem of First-Century Synagogue Buildings, 23682).
Kloppenborg makes a well-organized and absolutely convincing case, which touches on
methodological issues involved in epigraphic dating of inscriptionsthe least decisive of
which he acknowledges as the style and shape of the letters. After reviewing the
inscriptions complex history of scholarship, which has its own convoluted stratigraphy
This review was published by RBL 2007 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.
after being found by Raimund Weill in his 191314 Jerusalem excavations, Kloppenborg
examines the provenance of the inscription, the character of the document, its
prosopographic data, any datable formulae, and finally its paleography within its regional
context, noting ample parallels. Although it is often said that the Theodotos inscription
was found in an unstratified context, Kloppenborgs strongest argument for an early date
is in fact its provenance, near the areas labeled B, D, and E in the City of David which was
not occupied after the Second Temple. The nature of the archaeological evidence makes
it extremely difficult to imagine the presence of a building on the south end of the eastern
ridge of the Ophel at any time after 70 CE (263). Indeed all the evidence converges on a
date in the Herodian or Early Roman period, which not only helps to solve a
lexicographic issuethe point at which the term synagogue came to be used in Paletine of
buildingsbut also provides important controls on the descriptions of synagogues
encountered in the Gospels (279).

Those three essays alone are worth the price of the book, as they demonstrate not only the
value of archaeology for historical Jesus research but also how to bring the two disciplines
together. A helpful glossary is included (compiled by Jacob Cherian, 7026), but
unfortunately there is only a select bibliography (compiled by Jonathan E. Soyas, 707
29), and only textual and geographical indices. One minor criticism must be raised:
scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworths
collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be
replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite
decanter in Klassens article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana
in Kloppenborgs article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are
analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own
photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven
hundred pages, we should be thankful. This is a book suitable for upper division
undergraduate courses, graduate courses, and is recommended reading for New Testament
scholars interested in the ways in which archaeology is brought to bear on Jesus research.