Rene Salm has posted responses to Nazareth-related arguments in Ken Dark’s last three publications. Richard Carrier relies heavily on Ken Dark for the site of first century Nazareth and has recommended others read Dark’s work carefully. My first recommended reading for Carrier is Salm’s detailed analysis of Dark’s claims.
Compare the difference:
| Carrier’s response to Dark‘s argument that the “large” stone before the tomb is evidence of a date before 100 CE | Salm’s response (pages 18-20) to the same point by Dark
Reference: |
| Similarly, critics might “skip over” the fact that Dark makes a distinction between “large” (far more expensive) rollstones (which are all pre-100) and small ones (which were abundant in later periods but nowhere found at Nazareth). Indeed, the tomb in question may have been cut for one of the priests resettled there after the first war.
And again, statistically, to have such a tomb there entails decades, probably at least a generation (about half a century), of prior town flourishing. So even if against the odds this was the last such tomb built, in exactly the year 100, that still makes it more likely than not that Nazareth had been there since at least 50 AD. And once you are admitting Nazareth predates the War, insisting it only “just” got established “right” after Jesus is supposed to have lived there is playing a high-wire act of coincidences—and on no evidence, just a desire for the result. It can’t be argued that there is no evidence of Herodian occupation “except” for all the evidence of Herodian occupation, simply because you “desire” all that evidence to be post-Herodian. |
We turn to another invention of Prof. Dark: that the rolling stone at the SoN [Sisters of Nazareth] convent site is of the “large” variety. In fact, the stone is 1.09 m (3.6 ft.) in diameter (Dark 2021:121). Despite the imposing impression given by photographs in general circulation (Illus. 3 above), this diameter is typical and places it in the “intermediate” category.
However, Dark describes the rolling stone at the SoN site as “large” and then uses that false characterization to date it before 100 CE: (11a) Although smaller rolling stones continued in use into the Byzantine period, stones of the size attested here [i.e. at the SoN convent site] were no longer used after c. AD 100… (Dark 2021:121) (11b) A key chronological indicator is the use of a large rolling stone (0.8 m or over in diameter) to seal the entrance of the tomb [at the SoN site]. (Dark 2021:121) Dark’s confusion regarding rolling stone sizes is underlined by the foregoing citation 12b, in which he considers that a rolling stone of diameter 0.8 m (2.6 ft.) is “large.” It is no typo, for he confirms the error in the following passage: (12) In Galilee, where they apparently have no associations with tombs of exceptional status at all, tombs sealed by large (0.8 m or over) circular rolling stones seem to have been especially common. (Dark 2020:97) However, an 0.8 m diameter stone is at the small end of the rolling stone scale. Virtually all rolling stones (and round leaning stones — see below) were larger than 0.8 m in diameter! Yet with this error Dark dates the Nazareth rolling stone (and thus the associated SoN tomb complex) to I CE: (13) Hachlili (2005) and Kloner and Zissu (2007) also agree that although rolling stones were used after c. AD 100, the stones were much smaller than those before that date. Consequently, a tomb sealed by a rolling stone of c. 0.8 m or more in diameter can confidently be assigned to between the late first BC and the late first century AD, and probably more specifically to the mid- to late first century AD. (Dark 2020:97) This is another case of misrepresentation, for Hachlili, as well as Kloner and Zissu, wrote nothing of tomb blocking stones in II CE and beyond — both of the cited books deal specifically with Second Temple–period tombs (2nd c. BCE–1st c. CE). In my opinion, it is probable that Dark did not properly understand a certain passage in Kloner’s 1999 BAR article (below). Indeed, I too misunderstood the passage on first reading it, for Kloner makes a fine distinction (one that only a tomb specialist would make) between a “round blocking stone” and a “rolling stone.” In fact, Kloner avoids the designation “rolling stone,” even at the risk of rendering his English (which is not his native language) quite cumbersome. For him, the “blocking stone” that closed a tomb could come in a variety of forms — some unknown to the average lay reader. In the first instance, the blocking stone could be square (the vast majority) or round in shape. In the second instance (and this is what escaped me at first, and what escapes most readers — including Dark) is that the round blocking stone could (a) “lean against the rock facade” (BAR p. 28) or (b) be “set on one end between two parallel walls and thus moved on a sort of track” so that they “could easily be rolled away” (p. 25). It is the latter that we casually call “rolling stone,” but we must bear in mind that all round blocking stones are not automatically “rolling stones.” There also existed the category of round blocking stones that simply leaned against the entrance to the tomb. These “leaning stones,” if you will, came to preponderate in Late Roman and Byzantine times — and they were much smaller than the earlier round stone that rolled away (what we call the “rolling stone”). A leaning stone was a smaller round stone simply propped against the tomb entrance, without a carved track. The critical takeaway from this abstruse discussion on tomb blocking stones is this: when Kloner writes of “later round stones” that “were much smaller” (in the citation below) he is not writing about rolling stones at all — he is writing about round “leaning stones,” which constitute an entirely different mechanism of tomb closure than the stone that rolls away. Furthermore, the leaning stone (as I call it for simplicity) does not require a hewn recess into which it is rolled. Nor does it require the thickness of a stone that, while being rolled, must stay upright — lest it fall over. For these reasons leaning stones were much smaller and lighter than “rolling stones.” They were generally less than 0.9 m (3 ft.) in diameter — small enough for one or two people to move (or roll) aside — while not requiring either a hewn track or a hewn recess to one side. With the foregoing discussion in mind, here is Kloner’s description of later “leaning stones” (not to be confused with “rolling stones”): (14) So far we have been talking about blocking stones from the Second Temple period, which ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones [read: “leaning stones”] became much more common. Dozens of them have been found from the late Roman to Byzantine periods (second to seventh century C.E.). These later round stones were much smaller than the Second Temple period stones (less than 3 feet in diameter), and they did not move on a track but simply leaned against the rock facade, making them even simpler to move. (A. Kloner, BAR 1999.5:25, 28.) I suspect that Dark read the foregoing passage and simply assumed that “rolling stones” diminished in size after ca. 100 CE. That conclusion is, after all, what he writes (above, citations 10, 11, 13). However, what actually happened was that the preferred mechanism of closure changed from a round rolling stone to a round leaning stone, with the concomitant reduction of stone weight. Nevertheless, a few rolling stones of the larger variety continued to be used after 70 CE — including the one at the SoN site at Nazareth.16 Unfortunately, the foregoing nuances have apparently escaped Dark. He proposes a change in rolling stone size ca. 100 CE and calls a small rolling stone of 0.8 m “large.” Heaping error upon error, he then dates the tombs at the SoN convent site before 100 CE, simply because Tomb 1 was closed by a rolling stone of very average size. On the basis of these several errors, the archaeologist then proposes that the (alleged) dwelling predated the tombs and thus the alleged dwelling must date to early I CE. This entirely wayward concatenation is, however, only in Dark’s mind. Armed as he is with a fertile imagination, neither the physical evidence at the SoN site, nor tomb typology, nor the published scholarly literature prevent him from reaching one overriding goal: the discovery of a dwelling at the SoN site “in the time of Jesus.” 16 Excavated and published sites include (a) Khirbet Midras (Judean Shephelah), Bar Kochba period, rolling stone diameter ~1.5 m; (b) Horvat ‘Ethri (Judean Hills), Bar Kochba period, rolling stone diameter ~1.4 m; (c) Khirbet Shema (Upper Galilee), II–III CE, rolling stone diameter ~1.45 m. In comparison, the rolling stone at the SoN site is 1.09 m in diameter. |
Carrier speaks of lazy/lazily and apologetic dating and presents himself as the “PhD brain” against the “amateur” Salm. I suggest the above comparison shows Carrier as the lazy reader and it is Salm who is the genuine scholar with his genuinely critical reading. Read the full response by Salm for a full appreciation of the apologetics and confusion throughout Dark’s attempts to establish an early first century Nazareth.
Moving on to another reading recommendation for Richard.
In my previous post I offered a series of works arguing that Jerusalem was not an “uninhabited ruin” from 70 CE to 132 CE in the sense that it had no practical place in the religious life of the Jews. Evidence tells us that it continued to be visited by Jews (or Judeans) in their regular pilgrimages and even informal sacrifices were offered there. There were hopes that the temple would be rebuilt.
In the same post RC makes his point about Jerusalem being “by law” an “uninhabited ruin” suggesting it was bereft of any cultic relevance. Two sentences later he cites Matthew Grey’s dissertation:
The debate is discussed in Matthew Grey’s 2011 dissertation for UNC Chapel Hill (“Jewish Priests and the Social History of Post-70 Palestine”).
So this is my next recommended reading for Richard. (He evidently did not critically read it himself when he made his point in the same paragraph about the condition of post 70 CE Jerusalem.)
- Grey, Matthew J. “Jewish Priests and the Social History of Post-70 Palestine.” Ph.D., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2011.
The city was occupied by the 10th legion. Yet priests continued to live nearby, hoping for a new temple, and as we have seen, still able to offer personal sacrifices at the temple site, still partaking in festival pilgrimages to the city.
Families of the priestly aristocracy also seem to have settled in northern Judea and just outside of Jerusalem, likely to await the rebuilding of the temple. . . . It appears that many Jews of the post-70 generation fully expected that the Romans would rebuild the temple in their lifetime. (p. 156)
Note Grey’s added detail:
Some scholars have even suggested that aspects of the sacrificial cult continued in Jerusalem in the period between the revolts. Kenneth W. Clark, “Worship in the Jerusalem Temple after A.D. 70,” NTS 6 (1959-1960): 269-280 made the following observations:
1) No sources explicitly declare the cessation of a sacrificial cult in 70.
2) The exilic and post-exilic Jews maintained a sacrificial cult for some time before the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple in the fifth century B.C.E.
3) The Romans issued no decree prohibiting worship at the temple site until 135.
4) Hints exist in the literature of some ongoing pilgrimage activity for several years after 70.
These are intriguing arguments. However, Clark‟s lack of conclusive evidence has left many scholars skeptical of the continuation of cultic sacrifices in Jerusalem between 70 and 135. See Barclay, Apion, 279 n.769. Cohen, Three Crowns, 160 points out that if there was some form of post-70 sacrificial cult, priests undoubtedly would have retained much of their involvement in it and still would have been seen as being able to facilitate contact with the divine. (p. 156)
One can see extracts of Clark’s article along with more details of more recent publications arguing the same point in the previous post. Note that Grey appears to be more open to the argument for an ongoing, though subdued, active Jewish cultic engagement with Jerusalem than Carrier would want to admit.
But I was curious after reading Grey’s remark that “many scholars” are sceptical so I consulted his two supporting references.
The first support, Barclay, is as follows:
Pace Clark 1959-60, there is no firm evidence that the temple sacrifices continued after 70 CE in a reduced form (see Smallwood 1981: 347-48): the Romans would hardly shut down the relatively harmless temple in Leontopolis (War 7.420-21) but allow the symbolic focus of the Revolt in Jerusalem to remain (on their policy, see Rives 2005). So Josephus is writing at a time when there is no temple of the one God.
Barclay appears to have misread Clark. Clark does not argue that there was a standing temple where sacrifices were offered. He says nothing more than that private persons offered their own sacrifices at the site of the temple. There was no national cult or national sacrifice, of course. Barclay is also pitting what he imagines would have been in the minds of the Romans with respect to those sacrifices against the evidence cited in the previous post. As for Barclay’s appeal to Smallwood, again see the previous post where I have quoted Smallwood’s words.
But the second reference was most interesting. Here is what Cohen writes in The Three Crowns, page 160 (my bolding etc):
Whether – and if so, for how long some Jews continued to offer sacrifices on the Temple mount after 70 C.E. has long been debated. That many continued to observe the custom of three annual pilgrimages to the site seems beyond doubt.39
I will take his word for it that sacrifices at the temple post 70 has “long been debated”, but from what I have seen so far there is more incredulous disbelief (and mind-reading) on the side of the doubters than any engagement with the evidence that has been cited to argue the “for” side of the case. But by no means does Cohen represent post 70 Jerusalem as a place lost from all relevance to Jews: Jews continued visiting and engaging in cultic practices related to the city and held fast to hopes for its Temple’s restoration.
Just as the Temple was destroyed, Israel did not cease from making pilgrimage three times a year. (382) . . . Indeed, they go up to Jerusalem, but with melancholy and gloom. . . A Roman citizen used to go up and visit Jerusalem every year. . . then before us is testimony concerning a merchant from the Galilee who had the means to make pilgrimage to Jerusalem from time to time. (383) . . . . The earliest accounts of sages going up to visit Jerusalem are already from the generation of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai . . . “Once Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem, and Rabbi Joshua was walking behind him and saw the Temple destroyed. Rabbi Joshua said: Woe to us that this is destroyed!” From the next generation, the tradition is known about the visit of the head of the Sanhedrin. . . they were going up to Jerusalem. When they reached the watchtowers, they tore their garments. When they reached the Temple Mount and saw a fox emerging from the Holy of Holies, they began to weep. (385) . . . . From the sources we have brought, not only did they visit, but they also entered the Temple Mount. (391) . . . . Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the destruction was accompanied by a number of legal regulations. As we have seen, one who saw the destruction of Israel was obligated to rend his garments. (384) . . . . There is no doubt that pilgrims came not only from the circles of the sages and their disciples, but from much broader circles, as emerges from the general descriptions we have brought and even from some of the detailed testimonies we will bring below. (385) . . . . From all the numerous testimonies we have brought, it follows that they made pilgrimages on the three pilgrimage festivals and on all the days of the year. No Jewish source connects specifically to the day of the Temple’s destruction. These testimonies cast doubt upon the testimonies of the Church Fathers and its writers that the Jews were permitted to visit Jerusalem only once a year on the Ninth of Av.86 (393)
86. The first to mention this custom is the Bordeaux Pilgrim in his itinerary (*Itinerarium Burdigalense*, ed. Geyer, p. 12, written around 333). See also Jerome’s commentary on Zephaniah 1:15 (*In Sophoniam P.L.*, ed. Migne, t. 22, col. 1355) and the words of Gregory of Nazianzus (*Orat. V 4 P.G.*, t. 35, col. 668).
Extracts from the footnote 39 are found in the side box here.
The text is by S. Safrai, translated from Hebrew: —>
- Safrai, Shmuel. “Pilgrimage to Jerusalem after the Destruction of the Second Temple.” In Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period Memorial Volume for Abraham Schalit, edited by Aharōn Oppenheimer, Uriel Rappaport, and Menaḥēm Šṭern. Jād Jiṣḥāq Ben-Ṣeḇī, 1981. — That’s a translation. The original citation = S. Safrai, ‘Ha-‘Aliyah la-Regel Lirushalayim la-‘Ahar Hurban Bayit Sheini’, Peraqim be-Toledot Yerushalayim Bimei Bayit Sheini (eds. A. Oppenheimer, et al.; Jerusalem, 1981), pp.376-93.
All of this means that the ideal of Jerusalem as a centre of worship and hopes for a rebuilt temple were still alive in the minds of Judeans in the time of Hadrian. Physical practices sustained these hopes. Other works (I hope to discuss at least one major one soon) point to the actual place — the site of the Holy of Holies in the old Temple — where Hadrian set up his statue. That was the Abomination of Desolation of which the synoptic gospels speak. Hadrian was not doing something that had by his time lost any relevance for the Judeans.
Reading Grey’s thesis, critically, is a good place to start one’s journey into other literature that witnesses to the ongoing practical, day to day relevance of Jerusalem and its temple centre as a cultic focus for Judeans right up to the Bar Kokhba revolt.
