spin

Inaccurate at best.

We have a 3rd or 4th c. inscription mentioning Nazareth. It indicates a tradition about post-2nd Jewish War movement of priestly families there, ie after 135 CE. It's just a late inscription concerning a tradition that we have no way of checking. If the movement was explained correctly, how long exactly after 135 CE did the families arrive and what was their trajectory, ie did they go directly to Nazareth for some reason?

But what has this got to do with the gospel development? I don't have any opinion on whether Nazareth existed early or not. I don't care. It doesn't really change anything. How could it impact on the trajectory from nazarhnos to Nazara to Nazareth?

The only problem I have is that I can't find the actual text of the inscription to understand exactly what it says.


spin

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that the archaeological evidence suggests that round tomb doors became common only after 70 CE. Prior to that, they appear to have been used rarely and only for wealthy family tombs.

Ted Hoffman

Carrier writes :

• Amos Kloner, in "Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus' Tomb?" (Biblical Archaeology Review 25:5, Sep/Oct 1999, pp. 23-29, 76), discusses the archaeological evidence of Jewish tomb burial practices in antiquity. He observes that "more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones" (p. 23), and only four round stones are known prior to the Jewish War, all of them blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich (such as the tomb complex of Herod the Great and his ancestors and descendants). However, "the Second Temple period...ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common" (p. 25).

Amaleq13

That's the reference I was recalling and I appear to have accurately summarized it.

Are you saying that the four round doors mentioned by Finegan are the same four mentioned in the article? I don't recall their location in Nazareth being discussed in the BAR article.

Otherwise, the article would suggest that the round tomb doors from Nazareth likely date from after 70 CE.

Ted Hoffman

Yeah, you did get it accurately.

There are a number of issues here:
1. Carrier cites Kloner's >98 percent of the Jewish tombs from 100BCE to 70 CE having square stones. No reason is given (wrt Kloner) why 2% were round.

2. Carrier states that only four round stones are known. He states all of them were entrances to "elaborate tomb complexes". He doesn't cite his source. Does it mean that only four "elaborate tomb complexes" are known to be of the 2nd temple period?

3. Yes, per Finegan, the 4 round stones were in Nazareth.

4. Finegan implies usage of the round stones saw a cessation after the war. Kloner says the opposite.

My Thoughts.

• Regarding 1., we need to know who did the survey and how many tombs were found in total.
  Then we need to know how the dating of the stones were done, whether by patination etc.
  We may also need to know the location and distribution of these tombs per shape, per region, per social class of inhabitants.
  
• How many elaborate tomb complexes have been found? Are there any in Nazareth? Were four round stones found in Nazareth?
  
• Is there an explanation as to why square stones would be "cheaper" or less noble?
  
• Is Finegan right that the round stones were used by Jews up to 70 AD - or is Kloner right?

I will be off the net for the next several hours but if you could dig up something towards answers to the questions above, it would be helpful. But we need these answers before we can evaluate the assertions in any meaningful manner.

Both Finegan and Prof. Amos Kloner appear to have done archaeology - related work... Could you see what you can dig?

Thanks spin.

Diogenes the Cynic

I can't speak to the rest of your questions but common sense should offer a plausible answer to this one. Round stones are easier to move and would require more stonework to prepare. Round would therefore be more desirable as well as more labor intensive and more costly to purchase. As such, it's not unreasonable that a round stone would be a status symbol for rich stiffs.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks.
Why would creating a round shape require more stonework?
Round is desirable for both the nobility and the peasants so that would not be the reason.
It is my understanding that the door stone could be stood up to block the tomb entrance or laid down to open it.
Functionally, these rectangular stones could be tapered to fit over the entrance like a cork in a bottle thus had advantages. And grave robbers would shy away from raiding such tombs compared to tombs with round doors.
How did you determine the purchase price of these stones?

I checked Finegan again to make sure I had not misquoted him.

In p. 29, he states that the rolling stones were a type of closure typical of the late Jewish period.
He provides examples of the Tomb of Helena and the Tomb of Herod as the only two tombs in Jerusalem with round tomb enclosures. The third example he gives is the one in Abu Ghosh, NW of Jerusalem.
He later writes in p.202 "judging by these examples, this manner of tomb closure seems to have become characteristic Jewish practice only in the Roman period up to AD 70"

As per archaeological periods, the Roman period was 63 CE - 323 CE (the Byzantine 232 CE - 838 CE and the Hellenistic preceding the Roman period).

He refers to R. Koppel, in Biblica 16, 1935, pp. 58-73 and Clemes Kopp in The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 18, 1938, pp 191-207 and Lagrange, pp 14-15 and B. Bagatti, in Dictionaire de la Bible, Supplement VI, cols. 318-329

I would think that the 4 tombs in Nazareth need to be added to the three above to make 7 examples. This would question the notion that it was a preserve of the nobility IMHO. Expensive? maybe. But status symbol (ie. for the extremely rich)?

The above would contradict Carrier's claim that (a) only four round enclosures are known prior to the Jewish war and (b) round enclosures were used for "blocking entrances to elaborate tomb complexes of the extremely rich", but is consistent with Kloner's statement that "more than 98 percent of the Jewish tombs from this period, called the Second Temple period (c. first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.), were closed with square blocking stones" and "the Second Temple period...ended with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In later periods the situation changed, and round blocking stones became much more common"

spin

Your sure 'bout that?


isnp

Ted Hoffman

That was an error. It should have been 63 CE - 323 CE.
Thanks. I will modify it.

S.C.Carlson

I'm not so sure. 63 BCE was when Pompey conquered Judea and brought under the Roman sphere of power. I don't know why the Roman period should be in 63 CE, though, since Pilate was already the commander of Judea from 26-36 CE, etc.