Masada

Over the past fifty years, archaeological excavations in Israel have unearthed about half a dozen ancient synagogues that were in use at different points in time between the first century BCE through the outbreak of the Bar-Kochba rebellion early in the second century of the Common Era.  In close proximity to each of these synagogues, a mikveh (ritual bath) has been discovered.  In contrast, no mikvaot have been discovered adjacent to any of the dozens of later synagogues that have been excavated and studied, with only one or two possible exceptions. 
At this point it is impossible to determine exactly when mikvaot ceased to be built in connection with synagogues, as the archaeological record reports very little about synagogues of the late second - early third century CE.  From an archaeological perspective, it is clear that at least from the second half of the third century, synagogues began to be built without regard for proximity to mikvaot.
Talmudic sources make no mention of a requirement to build mikvaot adjacent to synagogues. To date, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the evident connection between the synagogue and the mikveh in the early period, and the disappearance of such a connection in later periods of synagogue history. The objective of this paper is to present and explore a possible interpretation of this puzzling phenomenon.
  During the Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods, a rabbinical enactment was in effect requiring mikveh ablutions prior to engagement in Torah study and prayer for individuals who had experienced seminal emission. Careful study of the Talmudic sources reveals that this enactment was nullified early in the Amoraic Period, sometime during the second quarter of the third century CE.
It would appear that the mikvaot built adjacent to the earlier synagogues were intended for this precise function, serving visitors to the synagogue who required ritual ablutions prior to Torah study and prayer.  Once the rabbinical enactment regarding these ablutions was nullified, there was no longer need for such mikvaot, and hence the absence of mikvaot in proximity to the later synagogues.

This essay, based on six months of participant observation fieldwork at Masada National Park, offers an experimental tour of the site. The main text is an amalgamation of Youth Israel Experience Tours while the footnotes serve as a dialectical response, commenting on and critiquing the tour structure and post-tourist practice. This essay suggests that the meaning and significance of place, particularly while on tour, is found in the relationship between tourists more so than in the mythical stories told about the site.

In diesem Artikel werden zunächst die Gruppenbezeichnungen sowie die inhaltlichen Hinweise zum Zelotentum innerhalb der Schriften des Flavius Josephus untersucht. Die hieraus gewonnenen Grundmuster dieser gewaltsam-revolutionären Strömung werden dann auf latente, grundsätzlich nur schwach erkennbare Andeutungen innerhalb der neutestamentlichen Schriften angewandt und eine entsprechende zelotische „Atmosphäre“ der jeweiligen Situation hervorgehoben. Abschließend werden Schnittmengen sowie Gegensätze zwischen den zelotischen Anklängen und der neutestamentlich-christlichen Geisteshaltung herausgestellt.

ENGLISH 
The myth of the siege of Masada (73 CE) was one of the essential elements of the Israeli nation building. The article analyzes how the Zionist movement and the State of Israel have used the myth in the XX century. 

ITALIAN 
Il mito dell'assedio di Masada (73 d.C) è stato un elemento centrale del nation building israeliano. Il saggio esamina come il movimento sionista e lo Stato di Israele hanno utilizzato il mito nel XX secolo.

It is not often that the three disciplines of archaeology, ancient history and epigraphy come together to illuminate a particular event.  But this is precisely what happens in the case of Masada.  The desert fortress built by Herod the Great is still surrounded by the remains of Roman siegeworks built at the end of Rome’s first Jewish War. And, while Josephus provides the historical narrative, a detailed military career inscription brings Masada’s Roman captor to life.

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John 18:3 and 18:12 state that Jesus on the Mount of Olives was confronted by a speira – a Roman cohort of 500 to 1,000 soldiers. This suggestion of a battle preceding Jesus’ arrest is reminiscent of an event described by Josephus in the 50s (A.J. 20.169-172; B.J. 2.261-263), involving the so called ‘Egyptian Prophet’ (or simply ‘the Egyptian’). This messianic leader – who had previously spent time “in the wilderness” – had “advised the multitude … to go along with him to the Mount of Olives”, where he “would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down”. Procurator Felix, however, sent a cohort of soldiers to the Mount of Olives, where they defeated ‘the Egyptian’.
Although the twenty-year time difference would seem to make all comparisons futile, there are other coinciding aspects: The preceding messianic leader named by Josephus, Theudas (A.J. 20.97-99), shares distinct characteristics with John the Baptist: Like John, Theudas gathered his followers by the river Jordan, and, like John, he was arrested by the authorities, and they “cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem”. Curiously, although the names of dignitaries may differ, comparing the New Testament accounts with Josephus’ accounts of the mid-40s to early 50s in several respects appears to be more productive than a comparison with his accounts of the 30s: It is in this later period, not the 30s, that Josephus describes the activity and crucifixion of robbers (absent between 6 and 44 C.E.), a conflict between Samaritans and Jews, two co-reigning high priests, a procurator killing Galileans, an attack on someone named Stephanos outside Jerusalem, and at least ten more seemingly parallel events. Importantly, these are parallels that, judging by Josephus, appear to be absent in the 30s. The significance of this will be discussed.

There are so many areas which need to be studied when it comes to the First and Second Centuries of the Common Era, and so much more to learn about that time in history. If you read this paper and still wonder about various parts of it, it may mean that you need to do some reading to get caught up to where some of us already are.

Many within academia, for instance, still do not realize that when they are talking about the Jews of the time, they need to know exactly which 'Jews' they need to identify according to time, place and sect. This is important to better know what was being said by those recording both the Jewish historic material (i.e., the Talmud; 'Flavius Josephus' was not an actual 'Jew', but a Roman of Jewish descent).

This paper was written from the larger overview of an actual war going on at the time, instead of the view of isolated or sporadic Jewish "revolts". For more information about it being an actual long-standing war, read my other papers that cover the issue. A lot of material that that is necessary in order to uncover the fact of a genuine all-out war between the Romans and Jews can be deduced from items in the works of Flavius Josephus, various Roman authors, the Talmud, and the work of scholars such as Sir Ronald Syme, Joseph Neusner, and Abelard Reuchlin.

But, of course, you would have to read be at a level of study-ability that would allow you to know just what it is that you are reading. It is preferred that you know how to read the ancient texts involved in the original languages, using primary source documents and/or materials. When it comes to Classical material, the Loeb Classical Library edition is highly recommended. What must be known to reveal the truth about this long all-out war is that it did not begin with a disagreement between the Romans and Jews; it began with a split between the Jewish sects.

Ritual baths (miqwa’ot) built adjacent to winepresses and olive-presses have been unearthed at about twenty sites dating to the Second Temple period, most of them in Judea and the environs of Jerusalem. While much has been written in recent years on the form and function of ancient ritual baths in general, little scholarly attention has been paid to miqwa’ot found in agricultural contexts.
The presence of these miqwa’ot suggests that the ritual purity of the wine and olive oil processed in these installations was of particular importance. The fact that these ritual baths were situated adjacent to winepresses and olive-presses suggests that agricultural laborers made use of these miqwa’ot immediately prior to commencing work in these installations, a practice which accords with the Pharisaic concept of tevul yom. These finds thus provide rare archaeological evidence for the observance of ritual purity laws based on the Pharisaic system of halakhah.

T&T Clark Encyclopedia to Second Temple Judaism. 2 Vols. Daniel Gurtner and Loren T.
Stuckenbruck, editors (London: T & T Clark, 2019).
Kenneth Atkinson:
Alexander Jannaeus (vol. 2, pgs. 13-15).
Aristobulus I (vol. 2, pgs. 71-72).
Aristobulus II (vol. 2, pgs. 72-73).
Hasmoneans (vol. 2, pgs. 306-308).
Hyrcanus I (vol. 2, pgs. 342-343).
Hyrcanus II (vol. 2, pgs. 343-344).
Jerusalem in Second Temple Literature (vol. 2, pgs. 370-372)
Masada, History of (vol. 2, pgs. 456-457)
Moses, Assumption of (vol. 1, pgs. 379-380).
Salome Alexandra (vol. 2, pgs. 677-678)
Shem, Treatise of (vol. 1, pgs. 484-485).
Simon (vol. 2, pgs. 719-720)

Almost throughout its development and duration, the Jewish revolt was approached by the Roman administration with an attitude completely opposed to that generally witnessed in the subjugation of other provincial revolts. Various aspects of this different Roman treatment of the Jews – whether in Judea and Galilee or in Diaspora communities – have been noticed and analyzed by scholars. But there is a twofold risk in over-emphasizing only the differences; if we neglect to notice that the case of the Jews did not exist in complete isolation in the Roman world, we are liable to come to extreme conclusions regarding Jewish uniqueness on the one hand, and Roman innovation on the other. In fact, the relevant Roman actions can hardly be considered as unprecedented, if we only shift our perspective – as the Roman government must have done – to regard the rebelling Jews as foreign enemies of the Roman empire. Cestius Gallus, Syria’s governor, came to Jerusalem in 66 to subjugate the revolt in its early stages, and was humiliatingly defeated by the rebels. After this event, the long and generally friendly relationship of Rome with the Jews was put on a hold, as were all prospects for a prompt renewal of mutual trust in the region. Instead, the next campaign was prepared, executed, and later commemorated in the same manner as, for example, the invasion of Britain in 43. Most measures turned against the rebelling population stemmed naturally from Rome’s habitual policy in the case of foreign wars, and not from invention in the face of some perceived exceptionality in Judaism or the Jews.

A lo largo de su historia el Imperio romano tuvo que hacer frente a numerosas revueltas, debido al enorme territorio que controlaba. De entre los pueblos que las protagonizaron, los hebreos se contaban entre los que con mayor insistencia lucharon por recuperar su independencia. En cuanto a los diversos conflictos que enfrentaron a judíos y romanos, la que, a la postre, seria recordada como la Primera Guerra Judeo-romana (66-73 d.C.) pasó a la historia como el más importante de todos. Ello se debe tanto a que requirió de la participación de dos futuros emperadores al mando de las tropas romanas que debían restablecer la paz en la provincia de Judea, Vespasiano y su hijo Tito, como al hecho de que la ciudad de Jerusalén y el Gran Templo que albergaba acabaron completamente destruidos.

En el año 66 d.C. numerosos factores se unieron al odio que sectores radicales hebreos sentían hacia sus conquistadores romanos, provocando la caída del procurador de Judea, Gesio Floro, y la derrota del Legado de Siria, Cestio Galo, en Beth Horón, quien acudió con sus tropas a pacificar la región sin conseguirlo. El movimiento fue cobrando fuerza tras estos éxitos, y Jerusalén se convirtió en el epicentro del independentismo judío. Roma no podía permanecer pasiva ante estos acontecimientos y Nerón envió allí a Vespasiano, un general experimentado, para acabar de una vez por todas con el problema. La resistencia implacable que demostraron los rebeldes y los problemas políticos que, durante ese tiempo, se produjeron en Roma, provocaron que la conquista final quedara en manos de su capaz hijo Tito quien, a la postre, consiguió conquistar Jerusalén y acabar con la revuelta. El gran triunfo que se celebró en Roma para conmemorar la victoria era lo que la nueva dinastía Flavia necesitaba para afianzar su poder. Sin embargo, la campaña no finalizó hasta el año 73 d.C., tras la toma de la fortaleza de Masada, donde los últimos insurrectos prefirieron suicidarse antes de ser derrotados. El enfrentamiento se saldaría con una enorme pérdida de vidas, tanto entre los soldados romanos como entre los insurrectos judíos y la población civil. Gracias a la obra de Flavio Josefo, podemos reconstruir lo sucedido para poder así conocer con detalle uno de los grandes episodios de la Historia Antigua.

Camp F at Masada, southern Judea, is part of the siege works constructed by the Roman Army against the Jewish rebels during the Jewish Revolt. It is divided into two areas and chronological stages: the larger outer Camp F1, is dated to the time of the siege against Masada, until its fall in 73/4 AD and the inner Camp F2, is dated between 106 and 113 AD or even later in 115–117 AD. A group of luxury and common mostly drinking vessels were discovered in the 1995 Excavations in Camp F at Masada, concentrated in several units that probably served as the senior officers living quarters and headquarters, and the common soldiers dwellings. Their analysis will be used to study cultural and social implications as a reflection of the personal drinking habits of high ranked commanders and legionaries of the Roman army.

La prima guerra giudaica coinvolse l'Impero Romano fra il 66 e il 70 d.C., durante l'impero di Nerone. La rivolta si scatenò nel 66 a Cesarea, dapprima per dissapori religiosi fra la comunità greca e quella giudaica in Palestina, crescendo a causa della protesta contro le tasse, finendo per prendere di mira i cittadini Romani. il presente contributo narra in modo didattico l'assedio della fortezza di Masada da parte delle forze romane.

A lo largo de su historia el Imperio romano tuvo que hacer frente a numerosas revueltas, debido al enorme territorio que controlaba. De entre los pueblos que las protagonizaron, los hebreos se contaban entre los que con mayor insistencia lucharon por recuperar su independencia. En cuanto a los diversos conflictos que enfrentaron a judíos y romanos, la que, a la postre, seria recordada como la Primera Guerra Judeo-romana (66-73 d.C.) pasó a la historia como el más importante de todos. Ello se debe tanto a que requirió de la participación de dos futuros emperadores al mando de las tropas romanas que debían restablecer la paz en la provincia de Judea, Vespasiano y su hijo Tito, como al hecho de que la ciudad de Jerusalén y el Gran Templo que albergaba acabaron completamente destruidos. En el año 66 d.C. numerosos factores se unieron al odio que sectores radicales hebreos sentían hacia sus conquistadores romanos, provocando la caída del procurador de Judea, Gesio Floro, y la derrota del Legado de Siria, Cestio Galo, en Beth Horón, quien acudió con sus tropas a pacificar la región sin conseguirlo. El movimiento fue cobrando fuerza tras estos éxitos, y Jerusalén se convirtió en el epicentro del independentismo judío. Roma no podía permanecer pasiva ante estos acontecimientos y Nerón envió allí a Vespasiano, un general experimentado, para acabar de una vez por todas con el problema. La resistencia implacable que demostraron los rebeldes y los problemas políticos que, durante ese tiempo, se produjeron en Roma, provocaron que la conquista final quedara en manos de su capaz hijo Tito quien, a la postre, consiguió conquistar Jerusalén y acabar con la revuelta. El gran triunfo que se celebró en Roma para conmemorar la victoria era lo que la nueva dinastía Flavia necesitaba para afianzar su poder. Sin embargo, la campaña no finalizó hasta el año 73 d.C., tras la toma de la fortaleza de Masada, donde los últimos insurrectos prefirieron suicidarse antes de ser derrotados. El enfrentamiento se saldaría con una enorme pérdida de vidas, tanto entre los soldados romanos como entre los insurrectos judíos y la población civil. Gracias a la obra de Flavio Josefo, podemos reconstruir lo sucedido para poder así conocer con detalle uno de los grandes episodios de la Historia Antigua.

Archaeology is like a picture puzzle. The researcher’s job is to make a coherent picture of all the
disparate pieces recovered in an archaeological dig. At several Herodian sites, evidence of opus sectile
tiles and fragments has been discovered – sometimes as in-situ tiles, sometimes as tile impressions in
the original foundational mortar, but sometimes just as scattered tiles and tiny fragments. Trying to
understand the original floor patterns when most of the tiles were looted, or, more likely, commercially
salvaged after the building went out of royal use, presents many challenges. This article will investigate
what types of tiles salvagers “took” and which they “rejected” or “left behind”. Understanding this,
archaeologists can begin to reassemble the “rejected” tiles into meaningful floor patterns at sites where
only a few scattered tiles remain.

Recently most of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been published online in high resolution photographs at http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/ and http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/. This book is designed to integrate those images into Logos / Verbum, so that you can read along with the original images.
For a video showing how the book works within Logos / Verbum, cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3lU0ZJ4n1M
Forum discussion can be found here: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/66223.aspx?PageIndex=1

Intensive concern for the proper observance of the Levitical purity laws was characteristic of various Jewish groups living in Judea during the late Second Temple period. The purity laws, concentrated in the Priestly Code (mostly in Lev 11–15 and Num 19), describe numerous sources of ritual impurity (e.g. dead swarming creatures, male and female genital discharges, human corpses etc.), venues whereby impurity is transferred from one object or person to another, and methods for purifying people, clothing and vessels that have become impure. Rigorous interest in the Levitical purity laws is evidenced in the literature of the period, including the Biblical apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and the works of Josephus Flavius. Continued interest in ritual purity law, at least within the rabbinic academy, is evidenced by the copious early rabbinic literature devoted to the topic; these laws are the focus of an entire order of the Mishnah and Tosefta (Ṭeharot; lit., “Purities”), and are the topic of many rabbinic pericopes interspersed throughout the Talmudic literature of the Roman and Early Byzantine periods.

Of late, the literary sources have been supplemented by a plethora of archaeological finds which provide evidence for the centrality of ritual purity observance in the daily lives of Jews in Judea during the Roman period. Chief amongst these finds are stepped water installations which served as ritual baths (miqwāʾôt) for the purificatory immersion of ritually impure people, clothing and vessels. Another important archaeological phenomenon which indicates observance of ritual purity laws is the widespread use of chalkstone vessels, as stone was regarded to be a material impervious to ritual impurity. Additionally, a marked absence of imported pottery at most Jewish sites throughout the Early Roman period has been explained by numerous scholars as a reflection of concern over the ritual impurity of ceramic vessels produced outside the borders of the Land of Israel.

En los últimos años han proliferado los estudios sobre las masadas o masías de la provincia de Teruel, especialmente las localizadas en las zonas del Maestrazgo y Gúdar-Javalambre, dos de las áreas más montañosas del sur de Aragón. La elec-ción de estas abruptas comarcas como objeto de estudio y zona de concentración de hábitat disperso, estaba justificada por la propia funcionalidad de las masadas. El vocablo masía, mas o masada, procedente del mansus latino (mansión o morada), se identifica actualmente con una "casa de campo aislada", frecuentemente alejada del núcleo de población, ubicada predominantemente en zonas mal comunicadas o relativamente aisladas de los núcleos urbanos o de concentración de población. Algunas de ellas son denominadas también "torres", con origen etimológico en el turris de procedencia también latina (casa elevada, castillo, palacio). Estas formas de hábitat disperso se corresponden, de este modo, con un pobla-miento diseminado, destinado a controlar los espacios más aislados del término municipal, en el que las viviendas se encuentran dentro de una explotación agríco-la, ganadera y "forestal" que cada familia o grupo humano aprovecha. En cada par-tida agrícola se puede encontrar una masada o varias, más o menos distante de otras, dependiendo de la zona en que se localicen y de los recursos económicos que tengan a su disposición. El aislamiento de las masadas les obligó a adoptar comportamientos autárquicos, intentando abastecerse de la mayor parte de los productos necesarios para la sub-sistencia, alternando el ganado con los campos de cereal y algún pequeño huerto en las proximidades de la vivienda, junto al pozo, la fuente, la balsa o el río que garan-tizan el suministro del agua. La organización de la producción es muy compleja, requiriendo múltiples aprovechamientos económicos que tienen su reflejo en la Masadas y ventas en el valle del Jiloca

This is the English Original of ‘Prawda i wyobrażenie w (starożytnej) historii‘ (Truth and Imagination in [Ancient] History), translated into Polish by Maciej Owczarzak and colleagues for a three-part essay on https://testimonia.pl. Maciej requested after watching my two-part illustrated podcast, hosted by Derek Lambert on his Mythvision YouTube channel: Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7dBExyQigs. Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onnnEknXCxs. On 29 June 2021 I've replaced the original paper with a corrected version.