Who were the Galatians in the Bible? This map shows the regions of Anatolia during the first century C.E., when Paul would have traveled through the area. Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that the province of Galatia would have included the regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia at that time. Map: Biblical Archaeology Society.

Who were the Galatians in the Bible? The apostle Paul addressed one of his now-canonical letters to the “churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2), but where exactly were these churches located?

Galatia refers to a region in north central Turkey; Ankara, the capital of modern Turkey, was once a major Galatian city (Ancyra). The name of Galatia is derived from the 20,000 Gauls who settled in the region in 278 B.C.E. More than two centuries later, in 25 B.C.E., the area became a Roman province and was extended to the south. In Paul’s day, the new province included the regions of Pisidia, Phrygia, and Lycaonia. Scholars often refer to these new, southern regions as “south Galatia” and to geographic Galatia as “north Galatia.”

Yet recent archaeological discoveries suggest that Galatia extended even further south during the first century C.E.—meaning that the audience of Paul’s letter might be larger than earlier supposed.

In the Fall 2020 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Mark Wilson of the Asia Minor Research Center in Antalya, Turkey, examines the size of Galatia at the time that Paul visited and wrote his letter. As suggested by its title, “Galatia in Text, Geography, and Archaeology,” his article weighs all the available evidence for tracking down this province’s borders to determine the original audience of Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Dated to the late 40s C.E., this Latin inscription from Perga mentions Galatia and Pamphylia as a joint Roman province and names Sextus Afranicus Burrus as its procurator. Photo: Mark Wilson.

The Book of Acts records Paul’s travels through “south Galatia,” including the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–16). Paul also visited Perga and Attalia in the region of Pamphylia on the Mediterranean coast (Acts 13–14). Three recent archaeological discoveries suggest that these cities in Pamphylia were part of Galatia when Paul visited the region:

The Stadiasmus Patarensis, a road monument from the city of Patara in the region of Lycia, dates to 46 C.E. and lists Pamphylia as a bordering province. While some scholars had thought Lycia and Pamphylia were a joint province at this time, this road monument contradicts that theory and shows that Pamphylia and Lycia were not a joint province when Paul visited the area.

Further, two Latin inscriptions, excavated from the city of Perga in Pamphylia, name Galatia and Pamphylia as a joint province during the late 40s and early 50s C.E.

These inscriptions show that the province of Galatia stretched from central Anatolia to the Mediterranean Sea during Paul’s day. Wilson concludes that the audience of Galatians would have included cities in Pisidia, Phrygia, Lycaonia, and Pamphylia. Learn more about Galatia in Mark Wilson’s article “Galatia in Text, Geography, and Archaeology,” published in the Fall 2020 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full article “Galatia in Text, Geography, and Archaeology” by Mark Wilson in the Fall 2020 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female

The Great Paul Debate

Who Governed the Roman Province of Lycia-Pamphylia?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

On the Road and on the Sea with St. Paul

After the Flood!

Paul’s Contradictions

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Dailyin September 2020

The post Who Were the Galatians in the Bible? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

St. Thecla. Who was Thecla? The saint, rebel, and leading lady of the Acts of Thecla is depicted on this stained glass window from the Basilica of Ars in France. Photo: Vassil by CC0-1.0.

Who was Thecla?

The leading lady of the apocryphal work the Acts of Thecla may not be a well-known figure today, but nearly every early Christian knew her name. She was renowned as a Christian martyr and missionary and later venerated by the Church as a saint.

Alicia D. Myers investigates the figure of Thecla, as well as early Christian perceptions of motherhood, in her column “Motherhood and the Early Christian Community,” published in the September/October 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. In the early Church, St. Thecla was seen as a heroine and role model, who eschewed the social norms of the Roman Empire and chose to follow the teachings of the Apostle Paul—despite persecution.

So, who was Thecla really, and what did she believe?

Although it is not clear if St. Thecla was a historical person, stories of this figure come to us from the Acts of Thecla—a section of the Acts of Paul—dated to the end of the second century C.E.

According to the Acts of Thecla, Thecla is a first-century noblewoman of Iconium (in modern Turkey). When she hears Paul preach in her hometown, she is so absorbed in his message that she neither eats nor drinks for three days. She promptly becomes a Christian and decides to remain unmarried and celibate, as Paul advised.

Unfortunately, this is seen as a subversive act by her fiancé and her family, and Thecla is violently persecuted by being burned in a bonfire. Miraculously, the flames do not touch her, and she is spared.

FREE ebook: Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity. Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

After this close brush with death, she leaves Iconium and follows the Apostle Paul to Antioch. There, Alexander, one of the city’s leaders, desires Thecla. When she rejects him, Alexander hauls her in front of the governor, who sentences her to be thrown to wild beasts in an arena. Again, she miraculously survives this persecution—and emerges from the arena unharmed.

After her second miraculous deliverance, Thecla is freed, and she goes in search of the Apostle Paul once more. When she encounters him in Myra, he commissions her to spread the Gospel of Christianity, teach the Bible, and even baptize converts. She goes to Seleucia (in modern day Iraq) and teaches there.

Thecla’s commitment to Paul’s teachings, particularly her disavowal of marriage, was seen as a serious threat to the Roman Empire. Alicia D. Myers explains why:

Rejecting the “blessedness” of motherhood for the kingdom come was threatening to an empire that prided itself on establishing peace for the whole world (the Pax Romana). The Romans certainly weren’t looking for another kingdom to replace their own, and, for their empire to survive and thrive, it needed children. …

In the Roman world, good girls became mothers. Of course, to be able to wed and become a “woman” (the Greek word gyne means both “woman” and “wife”), one needed to be free and of enough means. Becoming a mother, bearing living children (ideally, sons) for her husband and for the stability of his household was essential to being a good wife. In fact, many ancient philosophers and medical authors believed that motherhood was a woman’s sole purpose in creation.

Thecla’s actions were revolutionary to say the least. Her countercultural stance set her at odds with the Roman Empire. Yet her fierce determination and faithfulness were celebrated by many in the early Church, and eventually this perspective would infiltrate the Roman Empire itself.

Learn more about Thecla in Alicia D. Myers’s column “Motherhood and the Early Christian Community,” published in the September/October 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Subscribers: Read the full column “Motherhood and the Early Christian Community” by Alicia D. Myers in the September/October 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on September 24, 2018.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Women in the Bible

Lydia and Tabitha in the Bible

Tabitha in the Bible

Judith: A Remarkable Heroine

Anna in the Bible

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Thecla: The Apostle Who Defied Women’s Destiny

The Christian Apocrypha

The post Who Was Thecla? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Copper Scroll. Found in a cave near the Dead Sea, the Copper Scroll describes a vast treasure—hidden in locations throughout the Judean wilderness. Some think the scroll served as a map to the treasure from the Jerusalem Temple. Photo: Courtesy École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem.

In 1952, archaeologists found the Copper Scroll in a cave at the site of Qumran near the Dead Sea. Made of copper, the scroll stood apart from the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were composed of parchment or papyrus. Once unrolled and deciphered, the Copper Scroll was confirmed as being further unique: It describes a vast treasure—hidden in locations throughout the Judean wilderness. Immediately people began to wonder whether the Copper Scroll might be a map to treasure from the Jerusalem Temple.

Joan E. Taylor of King’s College London analyzes this enigmatic document in her article “Secrets of the Copper Scroll” published in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Since its discovery, the date of the Copper Scroll has been debated. Through studying the scroll’s contents and archaeological context, Taylor offers an answer to when the scroll was most likely written and hidden.

Inscribed on durable material and hidden in a secure location, the Copper Scroll—serving as a sort of treasure map—was meant to survive. Burying a massive treasure, recording the burial locations on a virtually indestructible scroll, and then hiding that scroll show that someone anticipated that the treasure and treasure map would be seized. Moreover, someone went to great lengths to try to prevent that from happening.

Taylor explains why the magnitude and contents of the Copper Scroll treasure suggest it belonged to a temple:

The treasure is vast, far beyond what we could imagine would be the property of an individual or even a group, unless they were the rulers of a nation. … If we look at the Copper Scroll closely in terms of its contents, this treasure seems to come from a temple—perhaps the Temple in Jerusalem—and was secreted away in 64 (or perhaps 61) locations, most of which are close to Jericho. The enormous size of the treasure, as well as the presence of cultic terminology (e.g., references to tithes, priestly vestments) included in the text, indicates the treasure’s sacred origin.

Although the religious terminology in the Copper Scroll indicates it came from a temple, the text does not specify which temple. However, the language of the Copper Scroll, Mishnaic Hebrew with some Greek loanwords, connects the scroll to a Jewish context. Coupled with the proximity of the various hiding locations to Jerusalem, the Jerusalem Temple seems a likely point of origin.

FREE ebook: The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning. What the Dead Sea Scrolls teach about Judaism and Christianity.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

If the Copper Scroll does indeed detail treasure from the Jerusalem Temple, when was it written and hidden? Many scholars think it dates to the First Jewish Revolt against Rome in the first century C.E. (c. 66–70 C.E.) and place it right before the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E. However, Taylor thinks it better fits the period of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (aka, the Bar-Kokhba Revolt) in the second century (c. 132–135 C.E.).

Toward the end of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, Jewish refugees fled to the Judean wilderness and hid in caves—trying to escape the Romans’ wrath. Archaeologists have found evidence that they took shelter at Qumran and caves near the one that held the Copper Scroll, thereby giving them an opportunity to hide the Copper Scroll. Even though there was no standing temple in Jerusalem during this period, Taylor explains this does not preclude the existence of Temple treasure:

It is not necessary to have a functioning temple in Jerusalem for there to be Temple treasure, because some form of cult could continue without a building. If your synagogue or church is destroyed, it doesn’t mean you give up on worship and religious practice. As [scroll scholar Manfred] Lehmann argued, this treasure may never have been in Jerusalem, but rather stored up in various safe localities over time. Josephus describes everything to do with the Temple cult and Jewish law as still functioning through the end of the first century C.E., even though the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. While always referring in the past tense to the Temple as a building, Josephus refers to the continuation of sacrifices in the present (e.g., Against Apion  2.193–198).

The treasure described in the Copper Scroll may very well refer to Temple paraphernalia amassed between the two Jewish revolts and hidden at the end of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. However, since no piece of this treasure has ever been found, we cannot know this definitively. It is possible the treasure was never actually buried. Some event—likely whatever prompted the creation of the scroll—may have prevented its concealment.

Learn more about the Copper Scroll and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt in Joan E. Taylor’s article “Secrets of the Copper Scroll” published in the July/August/September/October 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in September, 2019

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Josephus on the Essenes

The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament

What Are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Secrets of the Copper Scroll

The Mysterious Copper Scroll

26 Tons of Gold and 65 Tons of Silver: Too Much To Believe?

Fleeing the Romans

The post Dating the Copper Scroll appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Where was Jesus born? In the Bible, Jesus’ birthplace is identified as Bethlehem. This scene from the Arena (Scrovegni) Chapel in Padua by the Italian artist Giotto shows Mary, Joseph and Jesus in the Bethlehem stable. The three wise men, along with their caravan, and angels gather around the child. Above the stable, Haley’s comet streaks across the sky. Haley’s comet was sighted in 1301, three years before Giotto painted this scene.

When the Christmas season draws near each year, the Nativity story is revisited in churches and households around the world. Passages from Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2, the infancy narratives in the Gospels, are read and sung—and even acted out in Christmas pageants.

Where was Jesus born? In the Bible, the answer seems straightforward: Bethlehem. Both Matthew 2 and Luke 2 state that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea.

However, Biblical scholarship has called the identification of Bethlehem as Jesus’ birthplace into question: If Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem, why is he called a Nazorean and a Galilean throughout the New Testament, and why is Bethlehem not mentioned as Jesus’ birthplace outside of the infancy narratives in the Gospels? This has caused some to wonder if Jesus was actually born in Nazareth.

In the November/December 2014 issue of BAR, Philip J. King addresses this question—where was Jesus born—in his Biblical Views column “Jesus’ Birthplace and Jesus’ Home.” He takes a close look at what the Bible says about the towns of Bethlehem, traditionally Jesus’ birthplace, and Nazareth, Jesus’ home.

FREE ebook: The First Christmas: The Story of Jesus’ Birth in History and Tradition. Download now.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

While Bethlehem in Judea was known in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament as being the birthplace of King David and the birthplace of the future messiah, the small village of Nazareth in Galilee was much lesser-known, not even warranting a mention in the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud or in the writings of Josephus. King explains, “Nazareth derives its importance entirely from its relationship to the life and teaching of Jesus.”

The contrast between Bethlehem, the birthplace of King David, and Nazareth, a small agricultural village, is obvious. Yet both sites were significant in the life of Jesus.

So if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke attest, why was he called a Nazorean? To see what Philip J. King thinks—and for more information about the Biblical towns of Bethlehem and Nazareth—read the full column “Jesus’ Birthplace and Jesus’ Home” in the November/December 2014 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Subscribers: Read the full column “Jesus’ Birthplace and Jesus’ Home,” by Philip J. King in the November/December 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

How December 25 Became Christmas

Christmas Stories in Christian Apocrypha

Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

The Birth of Jesus

The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke—Of History, Theology and Literature

How Early Christians Viewed the Birth of Jesus

Different Ways of Looking at the Birth of Jesus

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on November 17, 2014.

The post Where Was Jesus Born? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

What kind of stone sealed the tomb of Jesus? Was it a round (disk-shaped) stone or a square (cork-shaped) stone? While both kinds of blocking stones are attested in Jerusalem tombs from the time of Jesus, square (cork-shaped) stones are much, much more common than round (disk-shaped) ones.

How was Jesus’ tomb sealed? While some Jerusalem tombs from the late Second Temple period boasted round (disk-shaped) rolling stones, it was more common to seal tombs with cork-shaped stones, such as the one pictured here. The archaeological evidence suggests that the tomb of Jesus—the unused tomb of Joseph of Arimathea—would have been sealed with a cork-shaped stone. Photo: Tom Powers.

In fact, of the more than 900 Second Temple-period burial caves around Jerusalem examined by archaeologist Amos Kloner, only four have been discovered with disk-shaped blocking stones. These four elegant Jerusalem tombs belonged to the wealthiest—even royal—families, such as the tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Was the tomb of Jesus among the “top four” Jerusalem tombs from the Second Temple period?

Since disk-shaped blocking stones were so rare and since Jesus’ tomb was built for an ordinary person—because it was actually the borrowed, but unused, tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:60)—it seems highly unlikely that it would have been outfitted with a disk-shaped blocking stone.

Archaeology therefore suggests that the tomb of Jesus would have had a cork-shaped blocking stone. Is this confirmed or contested by the Biblical text? How was Jesus’ tomb sealed according to the New Testament?

In his Biblical Views column “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll” from the March/April 2015 issue of BAR, Urban C. von Wahlde looks at the Gospel accounts to see how the stone that sealed the tomb of Jesus is portrayed. His careful analysis of the Greek grammar reveals a detail from the Gospel of John that supports the idea that the tomb of Jesus was indeed sealed with a cork-shaped stone.

Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus
In this free eBook, expert Bible scholars offer in-depth reflections on the resurrection.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

In his BAR column, Urban C. von Wahlde explains that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all use a form of the Greek verb kulio to describe how the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was moved. Kulio means “to roll.”

Measuring 4.5-feet tall, the disk-shaped stone at the so-called Tomb of Herod’s Family could be rolled to cover the entryway of the tomb or rolled back into a niche to open it, thereby permitting new burials to be added to the family tomb. This is one of four Second Temple-period Jerusalem tombs with a round rolling stone. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

Mark 15:46 reads, “Then Joseph bought a linen cloth, and taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of the rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb” (NRSV). The Greek verb used in the last sentence of this passage is proskulisas. Von Wahlde says, “This is a combination of pros (meaning ‘toward’) and the past participle of kulio (meaning ‘to roll or roll along’).”

Mark 16:3 describes the scene on Easter Sunday when Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome visit Jesus’ tomb: “They had been saying to one another, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’” The Greek word for “roll away” is apekulisen, which von Wahlde explains is “a combination of ap’ (meaning ‘away’) and … yes, kulio (meaning ‘to roll’).”

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke use similar compounds of the verb kulio. Thus, all of these accounts imply that the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb was rolled.

Can square (cork-shaped) blocking stones be rolled?

In his article “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” from the September/October 1999 issue of BAR, Amos Kloner added “dislodge” or “move” to the definition of the Greek verb kulio. A square (cork-shaped) blocking stone might more readily be described as being “dislodged” or “moved” than “rolled.” Thus, this definition resolves any incongruity between the Biblical text and the archaeological record. However, von Wahlde disagrees with Kloner’s definition:

In his article on the type of tomb closure used for the tomb of Jesus, Amos Kloner states that the Greek verb kulio means “to roll,” but it can also mean “dislodge” or “move.” I would disagree with this for two reasons: First, I at least cannot find any dictionary articles (including the largest, the Liddle-Scott-Jones) that give this other meaning. Second, as I pointed out above, almost all instances of the verb in the gospel texts are compounds of kulio, either pros-kulio (“roll up to”) or apo-kulio (“to roll away”). These are verbs of motion “toward” or “away from.”

It is not necessary to change the definition of kulio to make sense of the Gospel accounts. Von Wahlde points out: “It may very well be that people rolled the ‘cork-shaped’ stones away from the tomb. Once you see the size of a ‘stopper’ stone, it is easy to see that, however one gets the stone out of the doorway, chances are you are going to roll it the rest of the way.” Although they certainly would not have rolled as easily as round (disk-shaped) stones, cork-shaped stones still could have been rolled.

Many assume that Jesus’ Last Supper was a Seder, the ritual Passover meal. Examine evidence from the Synoptic Gospels with scholar Jonathan Klawans in “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Seder?“

The Gospel of John presents a slightly different picture than the other Gospel accounts—with a different Greek verb used to describe the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb. John 20:1 reads, “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.”

The Greek word for “removed” or “taken away” is hairo, which Von Wahlde defines as “take away.” There is no mention of “rolling” the stone in the Gospel of John. Von Wahlde maintains that this description reflects “the Jewish burial practice much more accurately than any of the other gospels. He [John] has given us a detail none of the other gospels have.”

Thus, both the Gospel of John and archaeology support the interpretation that the tomb of Jesus would have been sealed with a cork-shaped blocking stone. For Urban C. von Wahlde’s full analysis of the type of stone that sealed Jesus’ tomb according to the Gospels, read his Biblical Views column “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll” in the March/April 2015 issue of BAR.

Later, during the late Roman and Byzantine periods, round (disk-shaped) blocking stones became less rare. Dozens of Jerusalem tombs dating to these periods have been found with disk-shaped stones—but on a smaller scale. Whereas the four disk-shaped blocking stones from the Second Temple period were at least 4 feet in diameter, the ones from later periods usually had a diameter of about 3 feet. The date and style of these tombs, however, disqualifies them as candidates for Jesus’ tomb since the tomb of Jesus belonged to an earlier period—the Second Temple period, which ended in 70 A.D. with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

BAS Library Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “A Rolling Stone That Was Hard to Roll,” by Urban C. von Wahlde in the March/April 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Is it possible to identify the first-century man named Jesus behind the many stories and traditions about him that developed over 2,000 years in the Gospels and church teachings? Visit the Jesus/Historical Jesus study page to read free articles on Jesus in Bible History Daily.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

“Jesus Tomb” Controversy Erupts—Again

Did Jesus Exist? Searching for Evidence Beyond the Bible

The Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?

What Did Jesus’ Tomb Look Like?

Queen Helena’s Jerusalem Palace—In a Parking Lot?

Herod’s Family Tomb in Jerusalem

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on March 9, 2015.

The post How Was Jesus’ Tomb Sealed? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
—Matthew 19:11–12

Stephen J. Patterson discusses what Jesus meant when he referred to “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Should the above words of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew be taken literally? Is he saying that men—who can—should emasculate themselves?

The initial question that prompted this controversial teaching about eunuchs in the Bible actually concerned marriage.
When asked about marriage and divorce in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus informs his crowd that anyone who divorces—other than for reasons of unchastity—and marries another, commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).

Upon hearing this, his disciples respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus then says there are indeed some who are called to be eunuchs “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

What is a “eunuch” in the Bible passage? Is Jesus talking literally about castration—or just metaphorically about celibacy? Stephen J. Patterson, the George H. Atkinson Chair of Religious and Ethical Studies at Willamette University, addresses this question about eunuchs in the Bible in his Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He believes that the passage should be taken literally—that Jesus is talking about castration:

Scholars squeamish at the thought of Christian castrati have sometimes insisted that this passage must be referring metaphorically to celibacy. But that is nonsense. If Matthew’s author had meant to speak of celibates (parthenoi), he knew perfectly well how to do that. In a religious context, eunuch had to mean eunuch, else he would simply have confused his audience. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus advises men (who can) to emasculate themselves!

This interpretation is as controversial and countercultural today as it would have been in the days of Jesus—a time saturated with masculine dominance and power. In the Roman world of “phallo-dominance,” castration would have set anyone apart. Stephen J. Patterson explains that Matthew’s eunuchs “remov[ed] the thing that ancients most associated with male power and dominance. This is how they chose to embody the kingdom of heaven on earth.”

FREE ebook, Who Was Jesus? Exploring the History of Jesus’ Life. Examine fundamental questions about Jesus of Nazareth.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Yet not everyone agrees with Stephen J. Patterson on this issue. Birger A. Pearson thinks that this passage about eunuchs in the Bible should be taken metaphorically. He makes the case that Jesus is speaking in hyperbole in his BAR article “Did Jesus Marry?”:

While some people in the early Church took Jesus’ saying literally, we should understand it as a case of deliberate hyperbole, such as is found in other of his injunctions (see, for example, Matthew 5:27–30 on adultery: “… If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.”) The point Jesus is making about the eunuch is that it is possible for a man to live on earth as he would in God’s kingdom, where there is neither marriage nor procreation. Jesus is challenging people who are “able to receive it” to live a life of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, and thus to live now as though the future kingdom had already come.

While there will likely always be debate about this passage, both sides can agree that Jesus’ teaching ran contrary to the majority’s opinion about power and dominance in the Roman Empire. For more information about eunuchs in the Bible—and a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:11–12—read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Punch Thy Neighbor” by Stephen J. Patterson in the May/June 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Did Jesus Marry?

Biblical Detective Work Identifies the Eunuch

From the Land of the Bow

Did Philip Baptize the Eunuch at Ein Yael?

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on May 4, 2015.

The post Eunuchs in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Abraham’s Camels. Did camels exist in Biblical times? Camels appear with Abraham in some Biblical texts—and depictions thereof, such as The Caravan of Abram by James Tissot, based on Genesis 12. When were camels first domesticated? Although camel domestication had not taken place by the time of Abraham in the land of Canaan, it had in Mesopotamia. Photo: PD-1923.

In the Bible, Abraham’s nephew Lot accompanies him from Haran to the land of Canaan (Genesis 12). However, Abraham and Lot eventually separate because the land cannot support both of their possessions, animals, and servants. Abraham allows Lot to pick first the area where he would like to settle. After surveying the surroundings, Lot chooses the well-watered plain of the Jordan River to the east (Genesis 13:11). Abraham then settles in Canaan west of the Jordan River. Later we learn that Lot is living in Sodom, one of the cities of the Jordan plain (Genesis 14:12).

This Biblical episode seems fairly straightforward. A modern reader may consider Lot’s choice to be neutral, perhaps prudent, or maybe even selfish—but probably not wicked. It may then come as a surprise that ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters often attributed sinister motives to Lot’s choice.

Dan Rickett investigates ancient interpretations of Lot’s character in his Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham,” published in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. He shows that ancient interpreters frequently painted Lot as greedy and unscrupulous—a foil to Abraham’s righteousness.

Rickett argues that this was done to safeguard Abraham. In the Bible, God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. Shortly thereafter, Abraham offers to share it with Lot. However, as Rickett points out, this creates a dilemma since “Lot is not part of God’s promise to Abraham.”

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

To make sense of this episode, ancient interpreters would shift the focus off Abraham’s offer onto Lot’s character. The Talmud charges Lot with having a “lustful character.” Chrysostom (c. 349–407 C.E.), who became the Archbishop of Constantinople, refers to Lot’s “youth” and “waxing greed.” In the Midrash Tanhuma (Yelammedenu), Lot is accused of choosing “Sodom so that he might behave as they did.” Genesis Rabbah even claims that Lot “betook himself from the Ancient of the world, saying, I want neither Abraham nor his God.”

All of these interpretations read sinister motives into the text of Abraham and Lot in the Bible. By highlighting Lot’s selfishness, greed, and lust, Abraham appears generous and righteous.

Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!

Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more

Rickett further examines Lot’s motives in this passage:

Genesis 13 states Abraham’s desire for him and Lot to separate but says nothing about Lot’s desire to separate. Some modern readers have noted that Lot’s lack of a counterproposal or deferment to Abraham might indicate his cunning manipulation. Maybe, however, Lot’s response demonstrates his submission to his uncle’s wishes. Perhaps he wants to journey a safe distance from Abraham’s herds to avoid further strife. Or perhaps Lot really has no interest in Abraham or the God that he serves.

Lot may be a misunderstood, maligned character. Even if cunning and manipulative, he is certainly not the sinister villain painted in many ancient sources.

Learn more about ancient interpretations of Lot’s character in Dan Rickett’s Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham,” published in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

BAS Library Subscribers: Read the full Biblical Views column “Safeguarding Abraham” by Dan Rickett in the January/February 2019 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

“Abraham Path” Traces Biblical Tradition and a Path to Peace

The Patriarch Abraham and Family

Where Is Sodom?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library

Biblical Views: Safeguarding Abraham

The Patriarch Abraham and Family

Abraham’s Eight Crises

Abraham’s Sons

How Lot’s Wife Became a Pillar of Salt

Where Lot’s Daughters Seduced their Father

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in February, 2019.

The post Abraham and Lot in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Primeval Murder. The Bible recounts that Cain murdered his brother Abel. Gustave Doré’s illustration shows the moment after this deed has been committed. In antiquity, some believed that this was the first sin in the Bible—and how sin and death entered the world. The Wisdom of Solomon is one text that expresses this view.

What is the origin of sin and death in the Bible? Who was the first sinner?

To answer the latter question, today people would probably debate whether Adam or Eve sinned first, but in antiquity, it was a different argument altogether. They debated whether Adam or Cain committed the first sin.

John Byron of Ashland Theological Seminary explores ancient interpretations of the origin of sin and death in the Bible in his Biblical Views column “Who Sinned First—Adam or Cain?” published in the July/August 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

So, Who Sinned First in the Bible?

According to the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were the first humans. Cain was their first son, and Abel their second. The majority of Biblical interpreters—throughout the ages—have considered Adam and Eve’s disobedient act of eating the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:6) as the first sin in the Bible—the moment sin and death entered the world. However, in antiquity, some believed that Cain’s murder of his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8) was the first sin; certainly, this was the first human death in the Bible. The apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon is one text that expresses this view.

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

Original Sin? This scene by Adolf Hult depicts Adam, Eve and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Most would consider Adam and Eve’s disobedient act of eating the forbidden fruit as the first sin in the Bible—the moment sin and death came into the world.

The Wisdom of Solomon credits Cain’s unrighteousness as ushering in death—and the Biblical flood:

“Wisdom protected the first-formed father [Adam] of the world, when he alone had been created; she delivered him from his transgression and gave him strength to rule all things. But when an unrighteous man [Cain] departed from her [Wisdom] in his anger, he perished because in rage he killed his brother [Abel]. When the earth was flooded because of him, Wisdom again saved it, steering the righteous man [Noah] by a paltry piece of wood.” (Wisdom of Solomon 10:1–4)

John Byron explains that in the Wisdom of Solomon’s interpretation of Genesis, “neither mortality nor bad consequences resulted from Adam’s sin. Rather, Wisdom saved Adam, and his sin is glossed over.” It is Cain who rejects Wisdom, sins and ushers in death.

To learn more about the ancient interpretation of Cain as the first sinner in the Bible, read John Byron’s Biblical Views column “Who Sinned First—Adam or Cain?” in the July/August 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Who Sinned First—Adam or Cain?” by John Byron in the July/August 2017 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Cain and Abel in the Bible

The Adam and Eve Story: Eve Came From Where?

What Happened to Cain in the Bible?

Who Was the Wife of Cain?

All-access members, read more in the BAS Library

Who Sinned First—Adam or Cain?

The Harrowing of Hell

How Did Jesus Die for Our Sins?

In Death as in Life: What the biblical portraits of Moses, Aaron and Miriam share

Where God Can Be Found: The Radical Message of Jesus’ Death

Herod’s Horrid Death

A version of this post first appeared in Bible History Daily in July, 2017

The post The Origin of Sin and Death in the Bible appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Ronald S. Hendel

Who—or what—are the rock giants in Noah the movie?

Genesis 6 makes no mention of rock giants—or fallen angels—helping Noah build the ark. Where then did the rock giants in Noah the movie come from? Are they merely an invention by Hollywood scriptwriters?

The Hollywood blockbuster Noah has generated its fair share of controversy, with some saying the movie took too many liberties with the Biblical text. Certainly it is not a straightforward retelling of the flood story in Genesis 6, but as Ronald S. Hendel points out in his Biblical Views column “Noah, Enoch, and the Flood: The Bible Meets Hollywood,” which appears in the July/August 2014 issue of BAR, the flood story has been reimagined in Christian and Jewish texts, such as the apocryphal Book of Enoch, for millennia.

While rock giants are absent from the Book of Genesis, the Book of Enoch might shed light on their identity.

FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The Book of Enoch is a collection of texts, the earliest dating to the third century B.C.E., supposedly authored by the famous Enoch of the Bible, who lived “in the seventh generation from Adam” (Jude 14) and was taken by God: “Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him” (Genesis 5:24). This apocryphal book reimagines the account of Genesis 5–6, adding details to the flood narrative and elaborating on what was revealed to Enoch in heaven.

Who are the rock giants in Noah the movie? Are they to be identified with the Watchers, fallen angels in the Book of Enoch?

In its expansion of the flood account we are introduced to the Watchers, fallen angels who mated with human women and produced offspring—the Nephilim, the “heroes that were of old, warriors of renown” of Genesis 6:4—or giants. The Book of Enoch states that the Watchers shared secret knowledge with their sons that led to the corruption of the world. The giants ravaged the earth, filling it with destruction and evil; they depleted the world of food and terrified humankind. These actions trigger the flood.

For more on Hollywood movies, read

Darren Aronofsky’s Noah (2014).

When Enoch confronts the Watchers about their impending doom, they implore him to intercede on their behalf. He agrees—but to no avail. The Watchers’ petition is not granted; they and their sons are not able to escape their punishment—the flood.

Returning to our earlier question: Who are the rock giants in Noah the movie? They’re called fallen angels and are based loosely on the Watchers we see in the Book of Enoch.

To find out more about the Genesis Flood and the Book of Enoch, read the full column “Noah, Enoch, and the Flood: The Bible Meets Hollywood” by Ronald S. Hendel in the July/August 2014 issue of BAR.

BAS Library Members: Read the full Biblical Views column “Noah, Enoch, and the Flood: The Bible Meets Hollywood” by Ronald S. Hendel in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily:

The Search for Noah’s Flood

Who Are the Nephilim?

Where Noah Landed?

The Animals Went in Two by Two, According to Babylonian Ark Tablet

Where Noah Landed?

All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library:

Was Noah’s Ark a Sewn Boat?

A Futile Quest: The Search for Noah’s Ark

An Ancient Coin Depicts Noah’s Ark

Enoch’s Vision of the Next World

The Strange Visions of Enoch

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on July 14, 2014.

The post Rock Giants in Noah appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.

Kedesh, located in northern Israel, served as a busy administrative center for the Ptolemies in the third century and for the Seleucids in the second century BCE. It was abruptly abandoned around 150 BCE, and this power vacuum contributed to the success of the Maccabees. Photo: Courtesy of the Tel Kedesh Excavations / Sharon Herbert & Andrea Berlin, Directors.

Who were the Maccabees, what did they do?

From priests to kings, the Maccabees created an independent Jewish kingdom in the second century BCE. Their success was a testament to their zeal—and some significant external factors. The Book of 1 Maccabees tells the story of their rise, while archaeology places the story within a larger historical and political context. Andrea M. Berlin of Boston University analyzes both in her article, “The Rise of the Maccabees,” published in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

There are several ancient texts that describe the Maccabees’ rise to power. These include the apocryphal books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived in the first century. They detail the events, summarized below, which transpired in the second century BCE and led to the foundation of the Hasmonean Kingdom.

The Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires c. 150 BCE. Map: Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Rise of the Maccabees, According to History

1. In the mid-second century BCE, the Seleucid Empire controlled Judea and promoted Hellenistic (Greek) culture and religion. Some Jews embraced this, but others did not.
2. The Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV escalated tensions by sacking Jerusalem, building a fortress (called the Akra), sacrificing a pig in the Jerusalem Temple, and issuing an edict to abolish Jewish law and worship.
3. In opposition, Mattathias Maccabee, a Jewish priest, and his five sons, John, Simon, Judah, Eliezer, and Jonathan, started a rebellion c. 167 BCE. They gathered forces and fought against the Seleucid rulers and those who supported them.
4. The Maccabees suffered loss, with Mattathias, John, Judah, Eliezer, and Jonathan all dying in battle. Nevertheless, they managed to rededicate the Temple and reclaim Jerusalem and Judea. They established an independent Jewish kingdom, called the Hasmonean Kingdom, with Simon Maccabee as its first ruler c. 142 BCE.
5. Later Hasmonean rulers continued to expand their kingdom into Samaria and Galilee. Some even took the title of king.

FREE ebook: Jerusalem Archaeology: Exposing the Biblical City Read about some of the city’s most groundbreaking excavations.

Email(Required)

REQUEST FREE BOOK

The Hasmonean Kingdom c. 110 BCE. Who were the Maccabees, and what did they do? The Maccabees were a priestly family who founded an independent Jewish kingdom, the Hasmonean Kingdom, in the second century BCE. Map: Biblical Archaeology Society.

The Rise of the Maccabees, According to Archaeology

To gain another viewpoint of these events, Andrea M. Berlin takes readers on an archaeological survey of the regions that became Maccabean territory: Judea, Samaria, and part of Galilee. In cities and villages across Galilee and part of the coastal plain, she sees a recurring pattern: Sites prospered and reflect a Hellenistic culture during the beginning of the second century BCE, but then they were abruptly abandoned or destroyed in the 140s BCE. Later in the second century BCE, they were resettled and reflect Jewish life and culture.

The interpretation seems clear: The Seleucids controlled the area and promoted Greek culture and international trade networks. Then they abandoned the area; something forced them out. Later, Jews resettled these areas as part of the Hasmonean Kingdom.
Historical texts credit the Maccabees as being the force that drove the Seleucids from those lands, but Berlin believes that the archaeological remains tell another story. The sites reflect decades of tension between the two major powers in the area: the Ptolemaic Empire, based in Egypt, and the Seleucid Empire, based in Syria and Turkey. Both desired the region, tried to exert their influence over it, and fought each other repeatedly to gain control over its territories. That fighting, as well as infighting among Seleucid factions, is what caused the destruction and abandonment of Galilean sites in the middle of the second century BCE. The land then lay abandoned for about 20 years before being resettled as part of the Hasmonean Kingdom. Berlin explains:

The brutal events of the late 140s left broad regions with abandoned settlements and broken networks. It is exactly inside this moment that Simon retakes the Akra in Jerusalem—an event that, considering how factionalized and otherwise occupied the competing Seleucid forces were, may now be seen as more opportunistic than organized.

The Maccabees certainly had some victories, but they also benefited immensely from the fighting between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires. Essentially, they walked into a power vacuum, which enabled them to establish their kingdom. To learn more, read Andrea M. Berlin’s article, “The Rise of the Maccabees,” published in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, and explore the Special Collection of articles on the Maccabees, “Meet the Maccabees,” in the BAS Library.

BAS Library Members: Read the full article “The Rise of the Maccabees” by Andrea M. Berlin in the Summer 2023 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.

Related reading in Bible History Daily

Hanukkah, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and the Apocrypha

Modi’in: Where the Maccabees Lived

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

Rome and the Maccabees: A Friendship Set in Bronze?

Where the Heroes of the Maccabean Revolt Lie

All-Access membrs, read more in the BAS Library

The Rise of the Maccabees

Inscription Reveals Roots of Maccabean Revolt

Meet the Maccabees

Monumental Tombs from Maussollos to the Maccabees

Modi’in: Hometown of the Maccabees

The post Who Were the Maccabees and What Did They Do? appeared first on Biblical Archaeology Society.