“Lost Tomb of Jesus” claim

A brief comment on this, as so many people have asked me about it. It would have to be an archaeologist’s worst nightmare. Imagine – your careful academic work, as was Amos Kloner’s supervision of the tomb’s excavation for the IAA (Israel Antiquities Authority) in 1980 – hijacked by Hollywood. And that to produce a sensationalist documentary that the Discovery Channel website, for whom the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” was produced, foretells “will be carried round the world”. It is possibly the most cynical claim yet to be made in the field of Biblical Archaeology and only serves to give the subject a bad name.

Will the world take heed to the comments of Amos Kloner, quoted in the Jerusalem Post who said that the documentary’s claims were “impossible” and “nonsense” and that there was “no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb in Jerusalem”? Jesus and his family hailed from Nazareth in Galilee, as anyone with a shred of Bible knowledge knows and there was no reason for them to have a family tomb in Jerusalem. It is worth knowing that Jacobovici and Cameron are not original in their claim. The assertion that the family tomb of Jesus has been located was made in James D. Tabor, “The Jesus Dynasty, The Hidden Story of Jesus, His Royal family, and the Birth of Christianity” (2006).

Watch this theory go the way of all such contrived “sizzling” and “staggering” “discoveries”!

Recent discoveries at the Siloam Pool

It was very exciting to see the following picture taken by Todd Bolen of the stairway which was recently uncovered to the immediate west of the Siloam Pool.

Todds pic

This grand stairway was first discovered by Bliss and Dickie during the years of 1894-1897. They drew accurate plans which made it possible for me to reconstruct the building and the adjacent stairway. Here is the drawing which I made in 1995 (included in this book):

Siloam Pool reconstruction

Bliss and Dickie wrote the following: “The discoveries in this [Tyropoeon] valley were of considerable interest, including a paved street, with a fork above the Pool of Siloam, one branch leading to the gate … and another connected by a stairway with the original pool … A church was discovered, built over the disused stairway, and extending over the north arcade of the pool.”
The plans they published made a reconstruction plan possible. The following plan shows the street which descends from the Temple Mount through the Tyropoeon Valley. At one point it splits in two, with the eastern branch leading down to the pool.


They further wrote that the two branches of the street were separated by a rocky ramp: “On the west the steps [of the stairway] butt against the scarp, and on the east against the west wall of the original pool (see photo). As the scarp and wall are not parallel, the breadth of the steps varies from 27 feet at the top to 22 feet at the bottom. The number of steps is thirty-four. They vary in height from 6 to 9.5 inches, and are arranged in a system of wide and narrow treads alternately.”

Bliss and Dickie also observed that the western part of this grand stairway were partially cut out of the scarp itself. The description of this street with the alternating wide and narrow steps, some of which were carved out of the rock, reminds us very much of the identical construction of the grand stairway leading up to the Double Gate in the southern wall of the Temple Mount. The construction of the stairway to the Siloam Pool is therefore strongly reminiscent of the Herodian construction.

They also found remains of a Byzantine church, which was partly built on the stairway and partly into the northern part of the pool. Here is a reconstruction drawing of the Byzantine church:

Byzantine church

Bliss and Dickie were very conscientious about recording and publishing the results of the findings. These descriptions have made it possible for me to make reconstruction drawings of this famous pool. It is even more satisfying to finally see pictures of this grand stairway, which I feel I have known already for a long time. It was like meeting a long lost friend.

South of the Siloam Pool a stepped water reservoir has been found, on which I will comment later.

New discoveries in the City of David

On the About page, I mentioned that “things are developing so rapidly in the world of Biblical Archaeology” Yet, some of the finds were not totally unexpected.
It was exciting to read last year, and recently again (on Todd Bolen’s blog) and here too, about the excavations conducted by Eilat Mazar in the City of David. She found remains of a large monumental building, possibly the palace of King David. Seven years ago, Kathleen and I published a book called “From Sinai to Jerusalem“. It has a chapter called ‘King David’s palace and the Ark of the Covenant’. We wrote the following: “Scholars agree that David’s palace could only have stood on the summit of the hill occupying the area previously fortified by the Jebusites. The Bible gives no details of the style of building used, but we do know that the materials used in its construction, dressed building stones and cedar wood, were not in common use. No architectural remains firmly attributable to the palace have been found …”
This statement is no longer valid in the light of the new discoveries. No plans have been published yet, but parallels with other buildings and the finding of an proto-aeolic capital by the late Kathleen Kenyon made it possible for me to have proposed a reconstruction drawing of David’s palace some ten years ago. Minor details may need to be changed, but I believe that the location of the palace in relation to the stone-stepped structure and the basic outline of my reconstruction drawing are still correct.

David’s Palace
© Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, 2007

These excavations may prove archaeologically that Jerusalem was indeed the capital of Israel during the reign of David and beyond. Some have argued that this city was too small for a capital city. Does size matter? Look at some modern examples of capital cities which are by no means the largest cities in their respective countries: Washington DC (USA), Canberra (Australia), Brasilia (Brazil) and of course modern Jerusalem (Israel). The new evidence that has come to light indeed boosts the credibility of the Biblical record.

Patrich’s Response

Since the previous post I made on the topic of Joseph Patrich’s Temple Location theory, I have been in contact with him to clarify that I do not agree with his position. He replied with the following and has graciously allowed me to post it here:

Sorry Leen, I was not aware that people will give such interpretation; I just wanted to credit you as the artist. This and only this. In the press released it was said: “Drawing (Temple1) shows Prof. Patrich’s description of the location of the Temple compound (the rectangle defined by a solid line in the center of the drawing). (Drawings by Leen Ritmeyer).” In Hebrew it says: Drawn by Leen Ritmeyer following Prof. Patrich’s instructions.” The sole legitimacy I am looking for is from my own arguments, based on the archaeological data and the Rabbinic sources. From now on I’ll refrain from this. I know your ideas are entirely different than mine. Sorry it caused you embarrassment.

I hope that posting this helps to clarify that even though as a friend I helped him with the drawings, I do not agree with his position.

Response to Joseph Patrich’s Temple Location

I have known Joseph Patrich for many years and have worked with him in the past to develop ideas about the construction of Herod’s Temple (Patrich, J. (1986). “The Messibah of the Temple According to the Tractate Middot” in Israel Exploration Journal 36, pp. 215–233. Patrich, J. (1987). “Picturing the Second Temple” in Eretz Magazine, Spring 1987, pp. 67–70 ).

He recently approached me with the request that I draw up some plans to illustrate his ideas on the location of Herod’s Temple. I agreed to help him, but made it clear that I did not want to be associated with his research, as I do not agree with it.

As one can see in my recently published book The Quest, many factors need to be taken into consideration when determining the location of the Temple. The location of one of the 38 cisterns on the Temple Mount is insufficient evidence to use as a basis for the site of the Temple. According to the ancient sources, the Temple faced east and not south-east:

Josephus – The Jewish War, 5.222

Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor…

Mishna Middot 2,4

All the walls there were high, save only the eastern wall, because the [High] Priest that burns the [Red] Heifer and stands on the top of the Mount of Olives should be able to look directly into the entrance of the Sanctuary when the blood is sprinkled.

Patrich places the ramp of the Altar between the northern two branches of this Cistern no. 5, to explain how water could have been drawn for ritual purposes. However, neither of these two branches have well-heads, so that water could not have been drawn up to the Laver, as he proposes.

Patrich’s location of the Temple

Patrich’s proposal as it appears here.

As convenient as this theory may appear, as it leaves the Dome of the Rock outside the Temple site, it is completely unworkable. It therefore joins the equally nonviable Temple location theories such as the northern one of Asher Kaufman, the symetrical layout of David Jacobson (which places the altar at the center of the Temple Mount) and the southern proposal of Tuvia Sagiv. Only a location which takes into account all the historical and archaeological evidence is tenable.

My proposal for the location of the Temple, as documented in The Quest and Secrets of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount is as follows:

Temple Mount Plan

I hope to offer responses to the other theories in due course.