NT Gateway Weblog

In previous posts (Cave of John the Baptist (updated) and More on the John the Baptist Cave), I wondered what James Tabor's views were on this phenomenon given his close involvement with the digs. On Thursday he posted to the ANE List:

[ANE] The Cave of John the Baptist

The archive is publicly available so non-subscribers can read the whole message. Here is one excerpt, but it is all worth consulting:

In a sentence, the connection to the 1st century rests on the ceramic evidence, which is in turn connected to ritual activities associated with water purification rites and other ceremonies that were clearly going on in this period. Those who find Gibson's hypothesis weak need to suggest plausible alternatives that take into account such evidence and offer more persuasive explanations related to what was found. The 4th-5th century pilgrim hypothesis misses the mark totally when all is taken into account. It is part of the story, but only one part, in terms of the long history of this cave, its varied use, and its earlier connection to ritual activity.

---

Also in this week's Church Times a short report on the news item of the week:

Was this John the Baptist’s cave, asks archaeologist
Pat Ashworth

This is mainly worth looking at for its little cartoon ("John the Baptist's Cave: Mind Your Head").

In Book Reviews, it's nice to see a mention for the following work, for which I was one of the authors:

THE GOOD BOOK PACK
By BBC Staff

This is only really a notice, though. It features a link to the purchase details: The Good Book Pack

Finally, there is a review by Mark Edwards of the following:

THE SONG OF SONGS: Interpreted by early Christian and medieval commentators
By Richard A. Norris Jr, editor

. . . And is it really nothing but a love song? The austere modern critic pronounces it impossible that God should be conceived as a man with deer-like nipples, playing hide and seek with his bride-to-be through the streets of Jerusalem; but has there been a society, however “primitive” or “oriental”, in which it was thought flattering for a woman to be told that she had a nose like a tower and hair like a flock of goats?

This is in the Eerdmans series The Church's Bible, on which I have commented here before.

---

This week's Church Times carries an enthusiastic review of Ruth Edwards's book on the Fourth Gospel: DISCOVERING JOHN By Ruth Edwards SPCK £14.99 (0-281-05403-7)

The review is by Richard Burridge and he likes the book:

This sensible yet sensitively written, thoroughly well-read study provides a cautious assessment of the state of play of Johannine scholarship, in a way that is helpful for all who teach and study John today. It is the fruit of a lifetime’s study from Ruth Edwards, a Scottish Episcopalian priest who has taught at Aberdeen and Oxford.

It is comprehensive in scope, including both historical and literary approaches; it digs around behind the text, but also faces the way in which it is applied to today . . . .

. . . . More than a decade ago, I was a member of the John Seminar at the British New Testament Conference, with Dr Edwards, during the years in which I taught an undergraduate course on John. I wish this text had been available then. It will be of great benefit, not just to students, but also to churches and individual Christians, for which we owe her thanks.

The book cover picture above is from Amazon.co.uk, who have it for £10.49 (on a £14.95 cover price). I can't find the book on Amazon.com. This may well be because it does not yet have an American distributor -- SPCK do these on a case-by-case basis, e.g. a forthcoming collection of essays on Q is to be released in North America by IVP. If that is the case, and the book is as good as Burridge says it is, it is a shame.

---

I was sorry to read in today's Times of the death of Michael Prior on 21 July 2004:

Father Michael Prior
Roman Catholic priest and scholar who campaigned for the rights of Palestinians

FATHER MICHAEL PRIOR was a biblical scholar who spent much of his life writing and campaigning about the rights of the Palestinians in the Holy Land. A radical priest, he was also an outspoken critic of Zionism, which, he argued in his books, articles and lectures, was unbliblical.

The obituary mentions several of Michael Prior's publications including The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique. Also worth a mention is Jesus the Liberator: Nazareth Liberation Theology (Luke 4.16-30) (The Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).

I first met Michael Prior in 2001 when I began external examining at St Mary's College, Strawberry Hill, where he was employed from 1977 until his death. The obituary describes him as "genial and with a lively sense of humour", which is exactly right -- he was a larger than life character, with real warmth. He will be missed.

The St Mary's College web site features a research profile on Michael Prior. It also has an announcement of his death:

Professor Michael Prior CM

The end of the academic year has been marked by great sadness with the sudden and unexpected death of Professor Michael Prior CM.

Michael Prior was a man of considerable academic distinction, publicly recognised earlier this year through his personal professorship, and a man of strong loyalties and of courage and conviction. He was greatly respected by the students for the personal qualities he brought to his work. He will be greatly missed. The Requiem Mass for Michael Prior was held on Friday 30 July.

The Daughters of Charity have carry the following affectionate tribute:

Tribute to Fr Michael Prior CM

And The Tablet obituary of 31 July is reproduced on this Vincentian Priests and Brothers site, with some further links too:

FR MICHAEL PRIOR CM

---

I picked this up from Dylan's Lectionary Blog:

Best Spiritual Blogs
Beliefnet's picks for the coolest, most interesting faith-based weblogs

I was hoping to discover some new blogs of interest, but alas not, for me at least. But I was delighted to see a mentiion for Jim Davila's Paleojudaica in the list, with the blurb "Weblog about ancient Judaism (yet updated surprisingly often)". Is the implication that one would not expect a blog about ancient Judaism to be updated often? But good to see the honourable mention.

---

Deinde have announced the addition of a new Glossary for Biblical Studies terms on their site. Go to:

Biblical Studies Glossary

(You will have to scroll down a little). I am all in favour of this kind of thing -- I cannot count the number of times that students have come to me asking for definitions of terms that their textbooks have taken for granted. I think we should always add a glossary in introductory text books, but I'm in the minority in thinking / executing this. One of the best I am aware of is:

A Basic Vocabulary of Biblical Studies For Beginning Students: A Work in Progress
Fred L. Horton, Jr., Kenneth G. Hoglund, and Mary F. Foskett

Also excellent is:

A Glossary of Important Terms for New Testament Studies
Felix Just, S. J.

I'm afraid that I can't resist putting them to the test on my favourite topic, the Synoptic Problem. How do they perform? Deinde gives the following:

The question of the relationship between Matthew, The most common, widely held, and probably soundest solution is the 4 source hypothesis that sees Mark as the earliest gospel, with Matthew and Luke each using Mark as a source. Matthew and Luke also used a hypothetical document called 'Q', which explains the verbatim agreements between the two. Matthew and Luke had their own unique material as well (called 'M' and 'L' respectively). So the 4 sources are Mark, Q, M, and L.

Something has gone a bit wrong with the first sentence here; presumably, it would have carried on ". . . Mark and Luke". I would personally have preferred to see more by way of definition of the problem than a launching into an alleged "probably soundest" solution too. I would also suggest that it is potentially confusing to talk about "4 source hypothesis" in this context; if one is to speak of the most popular solution, it is the "Two-Source Hypothesis", i.e. Marcan Priority + Q, and this leaves the issue of M and L, in any case unique material, to one side. I also like to see some acknowledgement of other current solutions, perhaps at least Farrer and Griesbach.

Felix Just, S. J., on the other hand, links to some major explanatory material, both in terms of the problem and proposed solutions. He links to a whole page on The Synoptic Problem and Supposed Solutions, breaking down the problem and offering details of a range of popular solutions, with illustrations.

A Basic Vocabulary site offers the following definition:

Addresses the literary relationships among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Currently, the most prominent resolution to the so-called problem is the Two Source theory of Markan priority that posits Mark's Gospel and the Q document as common literary sources that the authors of both Matthew and Luke incorporated into their Gospels. For the latest argument against Q, see Mark Goodacre's "Mark Without Q."

This is a good, lean definition, a quick explanation of the dominant solution and a link to an alternative explanation.

Personal bias might lend support to the last of these options, but I would add a very honourable mention to Felix Just, S. J.'s materials, which allow the hyperlinking potential of the web to build up a pretty helpful introductory network of materials for the beginning student.

Let me reiterate that this my experiment with just one of 250 terms in Deinde's excellent Glossary is simply a bit of fun with just that, one out of many terms. I have not yet read all the definitions, but this looks like a useful contribution to the discipline.

---

On my most recent visit to Deinde, I was delighted to see that they now have an RSS feed available. If you have not yet discovered the wonders of reading your blogs via an aggregator, let me recommend it. There are plenty out there. The one I use is Bloglines.

---

I have mentioned Robert Webb and Kathleen Corley (eds.), Jesus and Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, due out at the end of this month, on several occasions. I am familiar with it because I wrote one of the essays in it. Quite by chance, I noticed a kind of rival book on Amazon the other day, and the book cover, with a link to Amazon, appears to the left. So the cover's less interesting than ours, but what else does it have to offer? No editors are listed; the publisher is Miramax and the full title is Perspectives on the Passion of the Christ: Religious Thinkers and Writers Explore the Issues Raised by the Controversial Movie.

Well, I ordered my copy several days ago but it has not arrived yet, but I'm impressed that they've beaten us to publication given that our book is the result of intensive, concentrated hard work in a very short period of time. I'm less impressed with their publicity machine. This book has been out for over a month and I, who have more than a passing interest in the subject, had not even heard of this until I chanced upon it by accident. There have been no press releases that I've seen, no media coverage, no attempts to publicise through the internet -- at least as far as I am aware. It's pretty low in Amazon's rankings too, which suggests that it has not been successful yet in reaching a wider audience.

Here is the blurb:

Since its release on Ash Wednesday 2004, The Passion of the Christ has become a commercial success of astonishing proportions, already ranking as one of the highest grossing films of all time. At the same time, it has created a torrent of controversy and debate, provoking passionate responses — both negative and positive—from people of widely divergent backgrounds and beliefs. It has exposed fundamental differences of opinion and belief about everything from the historical truth of the Bible to the political power of Hollywood.

Perspectives on the Passion of the Christ gathers together contributions from theologians, journalists, academics, and philosophers representing a wide spectrum of views and backgrounds. From the film's theological and historical underpinnings, to its cinematic and cultural implications, here is a balanced and thought-provoking exploration of the vital questions raised by The Passion of the Christ. Jews and Christians, evangelicals and agnostics, filmmakers and scholars—the film elicits fascinating responses from all. Among others, Jon Meacham of Newsweek looks hard at the historical record and asks, "Who Really Killed Jesus?" Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite asks why such an exceptionally violent movie has been embraced by so many conservative Christians and argues that The Passion of the Christ presents Jesus as a hero in a war movie; Rabbi Eugene Korn considers the movie's potential impact on interfaith relations; and Steve Martin offers an oblique comic view, from the perspective of a Hollywood insider.

Full of insight into a phenomenon that has raised so many burning and complex issues, this collection is the indispensable guide to understanding the cultural lightning rod that is The Passion of the Christ.

Perhaps the major difference from our volume (and I hope the editors will allow me the use of "our" here, though I need to add that I am only a contributor to the volume; I have not even read the other essays, except for one) is that it features contributions from several of those who were involved with the controversy surrounding the film from the beginning, including several members of the "ad hoc committee". The list of contributors is:

Contributors include: Mary C. Boys, Deborah Caldwell, Philip A. Cunningham, Paula Fredriksen, Lawrence A. Frizzell, Eugene Korn, Linda Kulman, Amy-Jill Levine, James Martin, Steve Martin, Jon Meacham, John T. Pawlikowski, Stephen Prothero, Adele Reinhartz, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Jay Tolson, Jim Wallis, Leon Wieseltier, Ben Witherington III

Of those, Boys, Cunningham, Fredriksen, Korn and Levine were all members of the ad hoc committee. So the book will clearly have something of a view from the inside of the controversy. The down side of that may be that that the views of all of those authors are all pretty well publicised now; Fredriksen alone has written several articles on the film and the controversy, and Boys recently published an article in Cross Currents on which I still have a half-written response for this blog. Witherington's views are known from the Beliefnet "Scholarly Smackdown", now no longer available for free on the net; his dialogue partner, John Dominic Crossan, on the other hand, contributes to our volume.

More anon when I have received my copy.

---

Make sure you don't miss a delightful post from AKMA on the Shimon Gibson story; a couple of excerpts are included below -- but read it all:

Dear John

I think that this sort of story is what helped turn me off archaeology; this, and the weeks of grimy labor sifting sand under the hot sun retrieving nothing but potsherds . . . .

. . . . This story reflects several problematic tendencies in the popular (biblical) archaeological market. We get their textual siblings over in literary historiography, so I’m not casting stones only at the other interpreters. But there have been heaps of hermits (I just spent way too much time trying to devise a collective noun for anchorites) in the Judean wilderness about whom we know absolutely nothing. We happen to know a little about one of them: John. So when an archaeologist finds a hermit’s cave that fits what we might expect John’s cave to have looked like, someone draws the inference that it actually was John’s cave.

The Bible narratives have a power over the imagination that tempts people to lead way beyond what the evidence offers . . . . Given “evidence” over here, and “possible answer” over there, people want badly to connect them and eliminate the uncertainty that dogs inconclusive data. Plus, more people will buy a book or watch a TV special is it says “Cave of John the Baptist” than if it says “Cave of Ascetic With Lustration Pools.”

But that’s a kind of argumentation that we would never accept in other spheres. It’s all circumstantial evidence, no positive evidence (as far as I’ve seen); and though we wouldn’t expect to see a stone at the entrance of the cave saying “937 Hermit Drive, Home of John the Baptist,” we have no particular reason to think that this was John’s own actual cave as opposed to the cave of some other hermit who might have looked like John, or a cave that some post-Johannine Baptists used for memorializing John. “Man with wild hair and carrying a staff”? Must be John the Baptist!

---

David Meadows points out this one on RogueClassicism, a piece in the Athens News bilingual corner:

Is the Greek of the Gospels 'vulgar'?
MARK DRAGOUMIS

. . . . The Greek of the gospels was not the Greek of the intellectuals, it was the vernacular spoken at the time, one that the then 'purists' took great exception to. Manolis Triantafyllidis, the patriarch of modern Greek 'demoticism', pointed this out some eighty years ago to his purist opponents the self-appointed 'defenders of the language' (ΓΛΩΣΣΑΜΥΝΤΟΡΕΣ). Keeping his tongue firmly in cheek, he wonders how could the Holy Spirit, supposedly guiding every action of the Apostles, have made such a blunder as to use an allegedly degraded form of Greek to convey the 'Good Message' (ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟ = gospel) to the world at large.

Prominent among the 'atticisers' of Hellenistic times was a rhetorician and lexicographer named Phrynichus, who lived under the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD121-180) and his son Commodus (AD161-193). Among his writings is a book vituperating against the 'degraders of Greek' - such as the Apostles - and insisting with some stridency on what he called good usage.

He thus objects, for instance, to the third person plural of the verb 'ΟΙΔΑ' (I know) which in attic Greek is ΙΣΑΣΙΝ and not ΟΙΔΑΣΙΝ as in Jesus' statement 'ΑΦΕΣ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ΟΙΔΑΣΙ ΤΙ ΠΟΙΟΥΣΙΝ' ('Forgive them for they know not what they are doing'). He objects strongly to Roman imports into the language and the use of the word centurion (ΚΕΝΤΥΡΙΩΝ) by Mark (15.39). He objects to the word 'ΣΟΥΔΑΡΙΟΝ' (cloth) as used by John in describing the resurrected Lazarus: 'ΚΑΙ Η ΟΨΙΣ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΣΟΥΔΑΡΙΩ ΠΕΡΙΕΔΕΔΕΤΟ' ('and his face wrapped in cloth') as well as to the word ΦΡΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ (whip) coming from the Latin flagellum, that Jesus cracked to chase the traders from the temple.

He even forbids the use of the word ΠΑΝΤΟΤΕ, insisting that 'ΠΑΝΤΟΤΕ ΜΗ ΛΕΓΕΤΕ ΑΛΛΑ ΔΙΑ ΠΑΝΤΟΣ' (Don't say always but for ever). How is it then, Triantafyllidis wonders, that Jesus is quoted as saying (John 12.8) 'ΤΟΥΣ ΠΤΩΧΟΥΣ ΓΑΡ ΠΑΝΤΟΤΕ ΕΧΕΤΕ ΜΕΘ' ΕΑΥΤΩΝ, ΕΜΕ ΔΕ ΟΥ ΠΑΝΤΟΤΕ ΕΧΕΤΕ' ('you will always have the poor with you but you will not always have me'). He also objects to the use of ΒΡΟΧΗ to mean rain instead of the attic term ΥΕΤΟΣ pointing out that ancient Greeks such as Democritus and Xenophon used ΒΡΕΧΕΙΝ in the sense of to moisturise, while to rain is only and should always - or rather forever - be ΥΕΙΝ. Mathew (7.25) is then also committing a linguistic sin when he quotes Jesus as saying 'ΚΑΙ ΚΑΤΕΒΗ Η ΒΡΟΧΗ...' ('The rain fell...')

Astonishingly the 'defenders of the language' throughout history, looking backwards and being as a rule one or two steps behind the Greek speakers, seem to have never learnt anything from the repeated failures of their predecessors.

---

Over on Xtalk, Brian Trafford provides a link to a University of North Carolina at Charlotte Press Release dating back to 21 April 2000, over four years ago:

UNC Charlotte Professor, Students Find Pottery, Drawings in Jerusalem-Area Cave

Late last year, local residents of the Ein Kerem/Soba area of Israel’s Judean hills found a cave hidden by centuries of vegetation growth and debris. A British/Israeli archaeologist Shimon Gibson explored the cave and quickly noticed drawings or etchings that appeared to represent a man in primitive dress and several Christian symbols. Gibson called UNC Charlotte Professor James Tabor to inform him of the find and to ask if the university would like to obtain excavation rights. Tabor, a well-known biblical scholar, archaeologist and authority on John the Baptist, jumped at the chance.

Tabor and Gibson are convinced that the drawings are probably of John the Baptist, dating back to about the fifth century. Tradition holds that John was born and raised in the area and that his mother Elizabeth hid with her infant son in a cave to escape the child slaughter commanded by King Herod. There are several churches in the area dedicated to John or claiming to be sites from which he conducted his ministry.

"It makes sense that the drawings are of John," Tabor explained. "The man in the drawings, holding a staff, wearing what appears to be clothing made from hair, not cloth, and with one hand raised, is similar to the Gospels’ description of John.

"If these drawings or etchings do date back to around the fifth century, they will be the earliest known drawings of John and a most significant archaeological find," Tabor added.

I was wondering yesterday if there might be an informed comment from James Tabor on the fresh press stories about the cave that have emerged as the result of the publication of Shimon Gibson's new book yesterday. There's still nothing on his web page but this piece, from CBC News on Monday, discovered courtesy of Christianity Today's Weblog, suggests that Tabor is a great deal less sanguine about the find than is Gibson:

Archeologists dispute discovery of biblical baptismal cave:

KIBBUTZ TZUBA, ISRAEL - Archeologists in Israel claim to have found a cave where John the Baptist anointed his disciples, but an American professor who participated in the excavation remains skeptical . . . .

. . . . American religious studies professor James Tabor, who participated in the excavation with some of his students, is skeptical. He feels there is no proof that John himself actually used the cave, located more than five kilometres from the New Testament preacher's hometown of Ein Kerem, now part of Jerusalem.

However, both Tabor and Gibson agreed that the wall carvings – which depict a man wearing animal skins and holding a staff – tell the story of John the Baptist. The carvings are believed to have been made by monks in the fourth or fifth century.

Back to Brian Trafford's Xtalk message, there's another useful link on the Foundation for Biblical Archaeology site:

Suba Excavation

This project page includes some useful pictures, different from those appearing in the press reports.

For further sceptical comment on the find, see Ted Olsen's Christianity Today Weblog:

Bring Me the Stead of John the Baptist?

Here Olsen has several more interesting links, and he makes the following comments which echo those of David Meadows on RogueClassicism yesterday:

Well, if you're Shimon Gibson, you get enough amazing discoveries for multiple lifetimes. He discovered a first-century leper—a huge find, given that many scholars had argued that leprosy didn't really exist in Jesus' day and that his healings were of other skin ailments. And then there was his discovery of a shrouded corpse, which Gibson said "could be that of a witness to Christ's crucifixion" and proof that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. And then there was his highly publicized warning that the Temple Mount was in danger of imminent collapse. And his findings on the "real" Via Dolorosa. And all that is just in the last few years.

Weblog isn't suggesting that Gibson is making stuff up. He's a noted archaeologist, not some hack. But given the controversy about the last time someone claimed to have "the first archaeological evidence of the historical reality of the Gospel story," a bit more skepticism is in order these days.

Olsen also features a link to a Charlotte Observer article which does have Tabor offering some muted enthusiasm.

Update (22.18): in a comment that I have accidentally deleted, Jacob Knee notes that there is some discussion of the discovery on the ANE list including one from James Tabor himself from which this is an excerpt:

In the four seasons we worked at the Suba cave I think every Israeli archaeologist in the country came out to the site and visited, offered his or her input, and whether all agree with Gibson's conclusions at least there seems to be a consensus that this site is unique, important, and definitely related to the earliest followers of John the Baptist, if not John himself, and witness to various kinds of water purification rituals dating to the 1st century and previously unknown (foot washing, anointing, incense burning, etc.). Beyond that, the art appears to be among the oldest Christian art so far found in the Holy Land, which alone would make it highly significant. A scientific publication with the IEJ is forthcoming and involves the scientific/historical input of over 20 experts.

---

The big news story, of course, is the discovery of the "cave of John the Baptist". Thanks to several correspondents and bloggers for drawing attention to it (royherzl, Jim West, Bob Webb, Jim Davila, Jennifer Daniel). The story is all over the news and a search of Google News will bring up multiple versions. They are all essentially variations of the one basic Associated Press story. This is it as it appears on BBC News:

John the Baptist's cave 'found'

A British archaeologist says he has found a cave used by the New Testament figure John the Baptist.

Shimon Gibson spent five years excavating the site near Jerusalem, unearthing objects apparently used in ancient purification rituals.

Images carved on the walls include that of a man with wild hair and carrying a staff, said to be reminiscent of John, whom the Bible says baptised Jesus.

Biblical scholars have questioned the find, which they say is inconclusive.

The first question that people are asking is whether this is simply more sensationalist stuff. The answer to this one is that Shimon Gibson, if somewhat given to strident claims, is a reputable scholar and the story at least deserves to be taken seriously. He is perhaps best known in recent times for his discovery of the Jerusalem Shroud, about which CTVC made a television documentary broadcast on ITV in the UK at Easter 2002, The Mystery of the Shroud. Gibson heads the Jerusalem Archaeological Field Unit, a private research group.

Also mentioned in various of the articles is James Tabor, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, U.S.A., who was involved with the Jerusalem Shroud too. Many will know him from his web site The Jewish Roman World of Jesus.

The next and more difficult question concerns what to make of this find. As yet, the story is too young to have generated much public reaction from Biblical scholars and archaeologists and it will be this reaction that will be interesting to look out for in the coming weeks and months. But in the mean time, have a look at this interesting piece:

"Cave of John the Baptist Found"
- A Response by Todd Bolen

Todd Bolen is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at the Israel Bible Extension of The Master's College and knows Shimon Gibson and this archaeological site. He notes that the announcement has been timed to coincide with the release of Shimon Gibson's book on the subject published by Doubleday yesterday, The Cave of John the Baptist: The Stunning Archaeological Discovery that has Redefined Christian History. Bolen writes:

I believe he makes the same mistakes as previous archaeologists in jumping to a conclusion for which the evidence is slim - particularly a conclusion which associates it with the Bible and therefore makes it headline-worthy. If this was just another Iron Age cistern used by hermits in a later period, no one would care about it. But if it's identified with an important, and little-known, biblical figure as John the Baptist, the potential attention is profound and book sales multiplied . . . . And yesterday's headlines bore this out - every website I visited had a link to the story, and the book's sales rank at Amazon skyrocketed to #335.

Bolen's point seems further to be born out by the fact that as of today, the book has risen still further to #223. Speaking for myself, I'm inclined to congratulate Gibson for being a good self-publicist. Why not be savvy and link-up the release of your latest book with media reports? Clearly Gibson is an expert at this -- the Jerusalem Shroud discovery was announced by a tie-in with the TV documentary previously mentioned. I'd bet Doubleday love Gibson! (Alas, books on the Synoptic Problem are not so easy to tie-in with media stories.) But what does concern me a little, and in this I think Bolen makes a useful point, is the somewhat sensational spin not of the media reports but of the book itself. The subtitle "The Stunning Archaeological Discovery That Has Redefined Christian History" has the ring of overstatement that one would have preferred to be absent. Let us say that this was John the Baptist's cave: in what sense does that fact "redefine Christian history"? It may well corroborate, add, provide background, shed light, but does it "redefine Christian history"? Likewise, consider the first sentence on the inside of the book flap,

The first archaeological evidence of the historical reality of the Gospel story.

I suppose it depends what one means by "archaeological evidence" and "the Gospel story" but things like the Pilate inscription from Caesarea Maritima spring to mind.

One other comment from the book flap:

For here is the largest ritual bathing pool ever found in the Jerusalem area, and found in the village where John the Baptist was born . . . .

Let us here bear in mind that the only Gospel to mention John the Baptist's birth is Luke, in an account thought by many to be highly legendary in its details, and even here we have only the vaguest indication of where John the Baptist's parents lived. When Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, she goes "into the hill-country . . . into a city of Juda" (Luke 1.39, ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὴν ὀρεινὴν . . . εἰς πόλιν ἰούδα; cf. 1.65). I find myself a little concerned that our earliest extant text to deal with the question is vague and generalised about a location that is being held to be certain.

One other remark on a detail in the news story. This is taken from the CNN version yesterday, Scholar says he's found John the Baptist's cave:

Crude images had been carved on the walls, near the ceiling, and Gibson said they tell the story of John's life.

One is the figure of the man Gibson had spotted on his first visit to the cave. The man appears to have an unruly head of hair and wears a tunic with dots, apparently meant to suggest an animal hide. He grasps a staff and holds up his other hand in a gesture of proclamation.

James Tabor, a Bible scholar from the University of North Carolina, said there is little doubt this is John himself. The Gospels say John was a member of the Nazarites, a sect whose followers didn't cut their hair, and that he adopted the dress of the ancient prophets, including a garment woven of camel's hair.

No doubt this is a case of media reporting that overstates something more speculative, but it needs to be added that it is not true that "The Gospels say John was a member of the Nazarites". Luke 1.15 has "he will drink no wine or liquor" and Matt 11.18//Luke 7.33 have "John came neither eating nor driking" / "John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine". From these verses we might surmise that John the Baptist took a Nazarite vow since abstinence from alcohol was an essential element in that vow (Numbers 6.1-27), but it's only a surmise. The Gospels show no signs of the other elements in the Nazarite vow (do they?).

Update (17.05): David Meadows notes on Rogue Classicism this article today from News in Science which features comment from Michael White:

Professor of classics and director of the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas at Austin, L Michael White, was cautious of the findings.

"As an archaeologist and biblical historian I would be very cautious of these new 'discoveries' until more evidence is presented," he said.

According to White, the site is most likely a place of veneration created in the period between the 4th and 6th or 7th centuries AD by Christian pilgrims who began to come to the Holy Land to see such legendary places.

"That would also account for the fact that there are ritual implements and baptismal pools installed in the cave. They would have been part of the first tourist trade: get baptised just like Jesus did. The Byzantine style paintings would go along with the veneration," White said.

Note also David's comments which echo mine above -- "Dr. Gibson obviously has a good publicist . . ." David has remembered several more stories about Gibson's finds and claims too -- check out the links in his blog.

---

Latest from the Review of Biblical Literature under the New Testament heading

Aune, David E.
The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric
Reviewed by Mark A. Matson

Bridge, Steven L.
'Where the Eagles are Gathered': The Deliverance of the Elect in Lukan Eschatology
Reviewed by William Malas

Clarke, Howard
The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel
Reviewed by Joel Kennedy

Clarke, Howard
The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel
Reviewed by Eric Noffke

Kaminouchi, Alberto de Mingo
But It Is Not So among You: Echoes of Power in Mark 10:32-45
Reviewed by Douglas Geyer

Meeks, Wayne A.
The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul
Reviewed by Moschos Goutzioudis

Foskett, Mary F.
A Virgin Conceived: Mary and Classical Representations of Virginity
Reviewed by Benjamin Fiore

The only one of these I've read myself so far is Steven L. Bridge's Where the Eagles are Gathered, which is in the series I now edit, and I am pleased to see it getting a deservedly positive review. Although essentially a book on just the one verse, it has an interesting thesis, well argued.

---

There's an unofficial feature in this blog that looks for those "Gospel according to . . ." headlines. The latest is a useful Face to Faith from last Saturday's Guardian (I'm very behind) that particularly appeals to me as one of the very few (only?) Biblical scholars to have once worked for the Disney corporation:

The gospel according to Disney
Mark Pinsky

Good is invariably rewarded and evil punished. Faith in yourself and, more, faith in some higher power is essential. That is, faith in faith. Optimism and the Calvinist paradigm that hard work is rewarded with upward mobility complete the Disney canon. All of this is presented in a context vaguely implying western Christianity. But curiously, this is a largely secular gospel almost without God or Jesus. Salvation is attained through faith and works, not by grace. There is little explicit Judeo-Christian symbolism or substance in 70 years of Disney's animation. This despite the almost pervasive use of a theological vocabulary: words such as miracle, sacrifice, and divine. It seems a contradiction, portraying Judeo-Christian values without sectarian, or even a godly context - the fruits without the roots.

Pinsky's article is a publicity flyer for his book The Gospel According to Disney: Faith, Trust, and Pixie Dust.

---

A couple of weeks ago I wrote Bible and Interpretation come back soon! and it did. Thanks to Mark Elliott for letting me know. Also noted on Paleojudaica and Biblical Theology.

---

Sorry for the stalling of the blog over the last few days. I've been variously overworked, tired, ill, away, relaxing and spending time with the family, though not necessarily in that order. It's a shame to have been away from the blog because I have loads of interesting things to post, so look forward to lots of catching up.

---