No big miracle was not here

Dr. Yechiam Sorek says in response to the claim of the Antiquities Authority researchers regarding a Hasmonean structure in Jerusalem: the findings still do not prove this; The Maccabees did not build in Jerusalem but in other cities such as Jaffa and Susita

Dr. Yechiam Sorek says in response to the claim of the Antiquities Authority researchers regarding a Hasmonean structure in Jerusalem: the findings still do not prove this; The Maccabees did not build in Jerusalem but in other cities such as Jaffa and Susita

on the science site, as well as in the well-known press, an article was published, perfectly timed, about a structure from the Hasmonean period that was uncovered in Jerusalem in the Givati ​​parking lot in the City of David, and it is architecturally constructed using the "heads and patinas" method (a type of construction of "two-and-a-half"/length and width), one that dates back to the Hasmonean period , to the second century BC, when the height of the building rises to 4 m. Pottery, other small finds and coins were also found there.

One of the newspapers goes even further, with the title printed on it being - "The miracle of Hanukkah: Hasmonean Jerusalem resurrected from the books" and its subtitle states: "The buildings of the Hasmonean city existed until now only in the writings of Joseph ben Matthew. Now, after more than 2000 years, a building from this period has been uncovered for the first time in the City of David."

And I, the crowned, and perhaps rightfully so, as an "obsessive mythbuster", would like to shed some light on the archaeological festival that is unfolding here before our eyes. And I will preface your permission with a personal note. At the beginning of each academic course, I announce in front of the student body that I have no pretensions, desire and desire to sign every tag and comma that I will study. Moreover, I am not ready to sign any guarantee, most of the subjects that will be taught in the course, did happen in history, and this is for the simple and painful reason, of course, that the independent sources of support are almost non-existent, and it is similar to a legal court that will accuse so-and-so-anonymous of committing a minor or serious crime only for The basis of eyewitness testimony only or even hearsay testimony.
Most of the material itself, that's how I talk to the public, can be put in the question marks drawer that will wait until the written texts are confirmed or rejected, and in the meantime we will try to deal with the texts with logical tools and a lot of "academic audacity".

And as I hung in my rabbi's confusion I remember at the time that my teacher and rabbi at the university, the late Prof. Shmuel Safrai, despite being religious, was not afraid to criticize rumors and myths that over time became "facts". For example, the assumption that the decorated and magnificent tomb in Beit Shaarim is the world home of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, and why is there no inscription of any kind, unlike other tombs? Because everyone already knew then that the famous president was buried there and therefore there is no need for any epigraphic identification regarding him.

Well, the same goes for the Maccabean tombs in Modi'in, the same for Herod's tomb estate in the Herodion, the same for the Masada myth, the same for the buildings uncovered by the archaeologist Eilat Mazar in Jerusalem and attributed to Jews from the days of the First Temple, the tombs of the righteous throughout the country, and more. As long as it is not possible to prove on the basis of an independent source, that the event narrated did indeed take place, the credibility of the story must be questioned.

And for our purposes, we will try to examine the connection between the discovery of the building and the Hasmonean construction described by Joseph ben Matthew. Well, the source of his writings, and the reference is mainly to the compilation of Jewish antiquity, will be surprised to read how meager the structural projects in Jerusalem, from the days of Judah the Maccabee onwards until the last Hasmonean rulers - Alexander Yanai and Shlomzion Alexandra, his wife-heiress, were. The Hasmoneans did build, but mostly outside of Jerusalem and in the Hellenistic polis cities such as Jaffa, Gersh, Hipos-Susita and more.
And what is said of Joseph ben Mattathias about Judah the Maccabee, since the conquest of the city and the resumption of work on the temple (154 BC)? Well, "And Judah surrounded the city (Jerusalem) with a wall and built high towers (as a barrier) against the attacks of the enemies..." (Kadamoniyat Ha-Jewidis 326, XNUMX). Fits the archaeological find discussed here? Great no. And this is where the testimonies about Judah Maccabee end.
Let's move on to his successor, my brother Yonatan - "And so Yonatan established his residence in Jerusalem and renewed the face of the city, and arranged everything according to his will, as he ordered the city's walls to be built with ash stones, so that their resistance to the enemy would be more secure" (ibid. 41:182). Suitable for the finding in question? Only in part and by implication. Further, - "And Jonathan gathered all the people to the Temple and strengthened the repair of the walls of Jerusalem and rebuilt the destroyed part of the wall surrounding the Temple and fortified the places around it with high towers, and built, in addition to these, another wall in the middle of the city..." (ibid. 181 , XNUMX-XNUMX). Suitable for the finding in question? Not at all.

Jonathan's successor was his older brother Shimon, about which Joseph ben Matthiyahu attests the following sentence: "Immediately Shimon gathered all those of his men who were qualified for war and hurried back to build the walls of the city and fortified it with the highest and strongest towers..." (ibid. 202). Suitable for the finding in question? Not at all.

This is where the Hasmonean enterprises in Jerusalem end, according to Josephus, without mentioning the enterprises of their successors - Yohanan Hyrcanus, Yehuda Aristobulus, Alexander Yanai and Shlomzion Alexandra. But when we open Josephus ben Mattathias's work called The Wars of the Jews in the Romans, we read that Yohanan Hyrcanus built the Hasmonean citadel in the northwest corner of the Temple Mount and named it Baris (Birta in Aramaic and capital in Hebrew), that Herod would build the citadel of Antonia in its place. Suitable for the finding in question? Absolutely not.

So what are we going to do? We will open the sources that preceded Yosef ben Matthiyahu, i.e. the two Maccabees books, and look at them carefully and what do we find? The same evidence regarding the strengthening of the city walls and the construction of sturdy and fortified external towers, and perhaps, for the sake of good order, an allusion can be found in Maccabees XNUMX about the "building of the city", but this is adjacent to the subject of the fortification of Jerusalem and its walls.

We will move on. Among all the finds that were uncovered - ceramic vessels and coins with the help of which the timeline of the uncovered structure can be dated, relatively of course, there is no hint that it is a structure associated with the Jews of the period, and hence it is not a Hanukkah miracle nor in Hasmonean Jerusalem, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And again, I cannot rule unequivocally that this is not a Jewish building, a building that belonged to the Jews of the Hasmonean period, but that such an argument needs support, a proper evidentiary infrastructure. Moreover, the publication of what was found in the midst of Hanukkah right now at the initiative of the respected Antiquities Division in itself makes me move uncomfortably on the academic chair and wish I would kill myself.