Posts

How Has Biblical Studies Research Opened New Questions about God?

At the turn of the nineteenth century, theology and biblical studies parted ways. Theology committed itself to the exploration of matters of faith, while biblical studies dedicated itself to history and other humanistic disciplines. This divide has never been a clean one, of course. Whether engaged in scholarship or in public discourse, most of us are aware that appeals to God or some ultimate reality continue to be an active part of human vocabulary, persisting even in the face of claims that religion is dying and being replaced by strict secularism—that is, a focus on this life and this world without any appeal to super-natural causes or influences.

While most of us are probably familiar with the controversial April 1966 Time magazine article asking "Is God Dead?", the average person still believes in God, even among those who have abandoned organized religion. According to the Pew US Religious Landscapes Survey, 71 percent of Americans responded "absolutely certain" to the question, "Do you believe in a universal God or spirit? If so, how certain are you about this belief?" Eighty-eight percent were at least "fairly certain." That's a lot of people, and that's just one country. "Large populations of the world don't see a problem with God," observed Westar Fellow Perry Kea at the new Seminar on God and the Human Future, which convened November 22nd, 2014, at the San Diego Convention Center to discuss critical questions at the intersection of religion and philosophy. "That's not just true of theists," he added. Some atheists are also content to stick with a certain idea of God. But when philosophers began declaring God dead, they weren't referring to a cold body on the floor. So what did they mean?

Scholars of religion confront this question in their own research, implicitly and explicitly. The Death of God question is about more than culture wars, although the culture wars are a symptom of the deeper question. In fact there have always been many definitions of God, and some of the most exciting and challenging ones are hardly the equivalent of an old man in the sky. To begin to open up conversations about some of those options, and to ask whether any particular understanding of God can—or should—have a future in human life, the new Seminar invited members of past Westar seminars to field questions about the visions of God they found in their historical work, as well as what of their own philosophical and theological assumptions came out in their research.

Jesus Seminar scholars Hal Taussig and Bernard Brandon Scott challenged both Jesus Seminar participants and those who have followed the proceedings over the years to acknowledge that the attempt to set aside theology, to say to themselves, "Just the facts, ma'am," was never entirely possible. It was, in fact, shockingly reductionistic at times. They didn't do this with their eyes closed, of course. Jesus Seminar founder Robert W. Funk, in his opening remarks in 1985, touched on this issue:

A fiction is ... a selection—arbitrary in nature—of participants and events arranged in a connected chain and on a chronological line with an arbitrary beginning and ending. In sum, we make up all our “stories”—out of real enough material, of course—in relation to imaginary constructs, within temporal limits.

Our fictions, although deliberately fictive, are nevertheless not subject to proof or falsification. We do not abandon them because they are demonstrably false, but because they lose their “operational effectiveness,” because they fail to account for enough of what we take to be real in the everyday course of events. Fictions of the sciences or of law are discarded when they no longer match our living experience of things.

... Not any fiction will do. The fiction of the superiority of the Aryan race led to the extermination of six million Jews. The fiction of American superiority prompted the massacre of thousands of Native Americans and the Vietnam War. The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies. And we need a fiction that we recognize to be fictive.

Satisfactions will come hard. Anti-historicist criticism, now rampant among us, will impugn every fact we seek to establish. Every positive attribution will be challenged again and again. All of this owes, of course, to what Oscar Wilde called “the decay of lying;” we have fallen, he says, into “careless habits of accuracy.” And yet, as Kermode reminds us, “the survival of the paradigms is as much our business as their erosion.” Our stories are eroding under the acids of historical criticism. We must retell our stories. And there is one epic story that has Jesus in it.

Jesus Seminar scholars knew the risks of assuming they would be able to tell a purely historical story without appeals to faith or belief. This was a necessary commitment in order to be open to new stories of Jesus and Christian history more generally, but of course, as Funk and others have acknowledged, human subjectivity is inescapable at base—a problem faced by all historians, not just historians of religion. Nevertheless, "to the surprise of ourselves and our opponents," noted Taussig, "the Seminar affirmed the existence of Jesus." Much of the energy of the Seminar was then directed toward "empire of God" language, the parables, because those were considered the likeliest voiceprint of the historical Jesus. So who was the God of "God's" empire?

The historical Jesus' God may be better understood as all good, not all powerful, suggested Taussig. Jesus "was breathtakingly comfortable with incompleteness," and his good God was not necessarily a just God. There are limits to the interventions a good God can do. The tension between the desire for an all-powerful God and an all-good one is evident throughout Christian texts. "Frankly, I don't need Jesus to be this good but fragile God," Taussig went on, "but he reappears in this form in later tradition." Scott, picking up on the theme of the historical Jesus and later tradition, observed, "Jesus uses all the wrong metaphors for the empire of God for his time. The church has always been interested in God, but I see no evidence Jesus was interested. ... I would like to draw a distinction between theological questions and ecclesial questions (that is, about the power of the church). The Christ of faith is a power move of the church—a power move, not a theological one." Charles Hedrick, agreeing with Scott, notes, "I would begin by talking about the world. ... There's no real ethical action behind what goes on in the world. It's an absence of God. When I look at the church, there's a theological perception of God. What, then, is the point of reference for God?"

In light of these questions, John D. Caputo posed the question, "Does it matter whether there is an entity behind the kingdom 'of God'?" Without assuming that we can fully know an ancient person's psychology, at the same time Arthur Dewey offered the idea that we can "seek the imagination of Jesus, what his strategies reveal." We can look at those strategies and ask whether we want to play that game. Susan (Elli) Elliot warned the Seminar away from reductionistic thinking. "When we give priority to language and texts, we are making a theological choice." There are many other options for articulating such questions, such as theology of place, ritual and practice. Diversity is quelled by reductionism. How can we avoid this? David Galston advocated for engaging with criticisms of the Jesus Seminar without at the same time labeling any one person who has voiced them as an enemy; meaningful criticism can open up serious philosophical questions.

Paul Seminar scholars Arthur J. Dewey and Lane C. McGaughy opened their session with an appeal to see the apostle Paul's vision as relational rather than doctrinal. "Paul was working out his experience and appealing to the experiences of his listeners. His logic is inductive, playing to the experience of his listeners," Dewey explains. "It's a constant renegotiation of relationships." To put it another way, "We cannot spin a non-temporal cocoon around his writings." Paul lived in a certain time and place, and interacted with specific communities. Furthermore, "for Paul, it is about God, not about Jesus." Paul appeals to trust in God, as Jesus and Abraham before him trusted God. Paul's vision is incomplete; he doesn't draw his apocryphal vision to a close. Thus, the best way to respond to and build on the work of Paul is to explore the use of metaphor, as Paul does, from multiple angles without settling on any one. His advice in his letters should not be seen as the final word.

The work of translation for The Authentic Letters of Paul was often the work of dismantling the translators' own assumptions. Philosophers and theologians, and anyone who is working with second-order (explanatory) language, need to acknowledge that they, like Paul, are working out of metaphors that may not always be obvious and may not be the final word. "I had functioned through the Jesus Seminar, Paul Seminar, and other Westar Seminars ... as a historian, and wasn't sure at first if this was a good launching point for a God Seminar," McGaughy said. "But what this Seminar signals is that over the last generation, since the time of Rudolf Bultmann and his colleague Martin Heidegger, the whole focus of theology and philosophy of religion has changed to the point where it is now possible for biblical studies and theology to link up again ... because of what Martin Marty has called the linguistic turn in philosophy." We are now in a place to recognize that fundamental questions about God are not about a physical deity but about our language for reality and the limits imposed by that language. Language is the meeting point of major philosophers like Wittgenstein and Heidegger, Bultmannian theology and biblical studies, and linguistics. "Notice that in all the humanistic disciplines, language has become the root problem of the twentieth century."

Acts Seminar scholars Milton Moreland and Dennis McDonald picked up on Lane McGaughy's point about the departure of biblical studies from theology. In spite of this attempted separation, many who deal with the New Testament remain very much theologians at heart. Often, they assume a traditional view of God based on a literal reading of Acts. "We've got to re-imagine how one goes about using the stories [of Acts] to talk about the rise of Christianity," Milton said. "What happens when you re-situate Acts into a humanistic enterprise of asking what this text is trying to do in its setting?"

The critical moment for the Acts Seminar came when participants placed Acts in the second century. Acts is not a neutral history but a rhetorical and ideological work. The writer of Acts was apocalyptic, supersessionist in how it placed Christianity in relation to its Jewish heritage, and beginning to feel pressures from Marcionite tendencies. "We know more about Christian origins than Luke. It is clear Luke knew more about Christian origins than he told," McDonald explained based on his work in The Gospels and Homer and Luke and Vergil. "This doesn't mean Luke ceases to be significant. He remains significant not about the period about which he wrote but about the period in which he wrote." He goes on, "What we are doing as critical scholars is reconstructing Christian origins in a way that goes far beyond the simplistic and ideological commitments of the author of Luke-Acts. The challenge for us is to view statements about God, Jesus and so on in Luke-Acts not as metaphysical references but as politically charged foundation mythologies that are used to organize early Christian theology to incorporate Paul into the Petrine tradition."

In response to William O. Walker's question about whether there was theological motivation in the formation of the Acts Seminar, Brandon Scott observed, "I don't think you can raise these questions without raising theological issues. ... When you raise these questions, you're going to be messing with somebody's theology." This theme continued as Joe Bessler revisited discussions around the historical Jesus and the church from earlier in the session to ask, "Is Acts the place where collapsing happens, where ecclesial and philosophical questions merge?" Moreland observed in response that this is precisely why assigning Acts a date appropriate to its concerns is so important. "Taking the author seriously within his time period is productive, not just critical."

Perry Kea tied this to second-century Christians' question, "Who are we in relationship to the Empire? ... Who are these followers of Jesus who are not Jews?" Early Christians struggled on the one hand with who they were in relation to the Jews, yet also wanted to retain some continuity with that tradition. While condemning supersessionism, we can still appreciate that Luke had a tough job. Kea goes on, "The God Seminar might use that historical recognition and extrapolate God language from the lived experience of communities struggling for their voice and their identity in the midst of other voices and often powerful forces."

John Caputo, taking up this thread, asked, "What did God look like to this pre-Nicea community?" Moreland responded, "There's not a single view of God in early Christianity. What does the God of Acts look like? A God who kills people who disagree with the group. We get miracle stories that match up with the larger Greek and Roman story world. ... In that competition and staking of claims, they are starting to formulate a deity that is more powerful, distinctive, that is clearly the God, the power."

I will save a report on the final session of the God Seminar, the papers presented by David Galston, Jarmo Tarkki, and John C. Kelly, for a later report since the topic shifted pretty significantly at that point in the discussions. Also, on a related note, thank you for your patience as I continue to produce these reports. The new timing of the Fall Meeting alongside the Thanksgiving holiday created a busier schedule than I anticipated when I set out to report on the sessions. Reports will continue to come out over the next week or so.

Thanks, and as always, don't leave the last word to me. Share your thoughts below!

[divider style="hr-dotted"]

Cassandra FarrinCassandra Farrin joined Westar in 2010 and currently serves as Associate Publisher and Director of Marketing. A US-UK Fulbright Scholar, she has an M.A. in Religious Studies from Lancaster University (England) and a B.A. in Religious Studies from Willamette University.

Seeking a Historically Sensitive Story of Christianity

How do we tell a historically sensitive story of Christian origins? Is it possible to capture the story in a way that honors the many directions Christianity might have taken, and not just the dominant story we see today?And how will you share it with others? Perhaps you tell it like a book, necessarily linear, traveling through the ideas and practices that survived and sparked from one generation to the next. Or maybe a web is a better metaphor, with its multiple strands departing from key, nodal moments—none of which necessarily equals "progress."

Or perhaps there is another, better metaphor. Whatever the approach, Westar's Christianity Seminar is arguing that it's high time we found a model that works. And frankly, any model that begins with the gospels and marches through Paul to the Apostolic Fathers is just not good enough.

Audio: Interim executive director Lane McGaughy expresses the importance of developing a clear model and methodology to describe the emergence of Christianity (his quote comes from Dominic Crossan's book The Birth of Christianity, 1999). 

The Spring 2014 national meeting laid the groundwork for such a new story. Sessions began with archaeology, touched on the texts discovered at Nag Hammadi, and ended with questions about the advantages and challenges of adopting L. Michael White's four-generational model of Christian origins.

Many people are familiar with the famous red and black beads used by the Jesus Seminar to vote. The Christianity Seminar will also employ voting, but not yet. At this early stage, the statements generated by the Christianity Seminar are not voting items but contours for future work. In other words, what you can find here are lessons learned in the conversations that occurred during these seminar sessions.

Even so, the statements below are likely to challenge uncritical assumptions held by many people about early Christian history.

A full report on the sessions will appear in an upcoming issue of The Fourth R. The original seminar papers that the Fellows discussed can be ordered in either electronic or paper copies for those interested in reading them. This preliminary report presents material from the Seminar in two parts: conversations and statements. The conversations are audio clips from the sessions—occasions where scholars thought aloud together and pressed one another to consider possible assumptions and new ways forward for understanding Christian origins.

The comments of individual scholars are not cemented into peer-reviewed articles, but rather are open attempts to engage with complex questions. We hope you'll share your own thoughts and reflections in the same spirit, and give new ideas the benefit of the doubt. The statements are the scholars' responses to the question, "What have we learned?" These were formulated in the final session of the seminar.

Spring meeting attendees chat in between sessions.

Spring meeting attendees chat in between sessions.

Archaeology and Christian Origins

Conversations

Clip #1: Daniel Schowalter and Arthur Dewey discuss what archaeology reveals about how social memory works. How do we "make" a memory in a material ways? How do human beings handle the memories left behind by others? 

Clip #2: Joanna Dewey asks Milton Moreland about the malleability of the Apostle Peter in stories that claim he went to Rome. There are many such stories, while it is not clear that Peter actually went to Rome in historical fact. Philip Harland joins the conversation with a question about how competing groups employed their own versions Peter against one another. 

Clip #3: After Emily Schmidt looks at the Gospel of Mark through the lens of Herod's temple-building activities, Art Dewey asks whether Herod's activities—specifically, his pantomime of unifying the northern and southern kingdoms—ignited messianic dreams among the people, even if Herod himself wasn't who they believed would bring such dreams to fruition. 

Clip #4: In response to a question from Robert Miller, Philip Harland describes how slaves and free persons participated in Greco-Roman associations. He goes on to explore what role Paul's collection might have played in his attempts to claim he and his communities belong to the Jerusalem-based associations who followed Jesus. 

Clip #5: Jodi Magness, Emily Schmidt, and L. Michael White together caution against claiming one group (in this case, the Jews) directly responded to another (e.g., the Christians) by building their buildings or living their lives in a certain way. Rather, this is what it means to belong to and contribute to a particular culture. Utilizing the language and art of the people around you is a natural way to express yourself, without having to see it as a direct challenge or debate about differences. 

Statements

There is a material component to identity.

The material manifestation is important to a political identity with respect to Herod and later Titus.

Material manifestation is also important to religious identity, such as the Samson motif at Huqoq, monetary donations, sacrifices, the tomb, and synagogues themselves.

There was the reuse of existing structures made to serve different purposes.

Sacred space is recognized in Greco-Roman polytheism regardless of any single group’s affiliation.

A variety of deities were being honored in the same general site.

An event was the impetus for the symbolic moving of Peter to Rome.

Social memory is a mechanism for the formation of group identity.

Herod creates a Roman identity with the building of his three Augustea.

With Herod’s enlargement of the Jewish temple complex, he not only establishes a Roman identity but also reaffirms a strong Jewish identity(?)

Herod created the Jewish contribution to the imperial image(?)

Flavian propaganda set up Jews as the anti-Roman.

Groups form their identities in and through giving.

Statements formulated in response to Huqoq findings:

In the 5th century Jewish/Christian relations were more flexible and diverse than the rabbis or imperial decrees might indicate.

In the Galilee and other parts of Palestine in the 4th–6th centuries, Jews and Christians lived in separate villages. In urban areas, the populations were mixed.

We know almost nothing about what went on in the synagogue in terms of the liturgy.

Material evidence such as furniture and placement of Torah shrines may indicate diversity in liturgy.

The 5th-century synagogue images are engaging with the Christian message.

Many Jews were still expecting the rebuilding of the temple.

The Jews at Huqoq were expecting a warrior Messiah, demonstrating that this anticipation did not die out (See the Samson mosaic).

Synagogues pre-date the 4th century, but we do not have monumental synagogue art and architecture in the land of Israel until the 4th to 6th century.

Monumental synagogues developed alongside or at the same time as Christian monumental buildings.

Synagogues before the 4th century were rather modest assembly buildings, not monumental buildings.

Diaspora synagogues are not purpose-built buildings.

The Maccabees mosaic raises a question about what is canon in this period.

Daniel Schowalter responds to Jodi Magness' report on her recent discoveries at Huqoq as moderator Joanna Dewey and fellow panelist L. Michael White look on

Daniel Schowalter responds to Jodi Magness as Joanna Dewey and L. Michael White look on.

A Preliminary Look at Nag Hammadi

Conversations

The Christianity Seminar will be looking in depth at Nag Hammadi in upcoming sessions (check the Westar website in coming months for information on how you can join that conversation). In this session, Hal Taussig and Maia Kotrosits introduced the Nag Hammadi texts and expressed the need for scholars to give these texts more sustained, serious attention for a full story of Christian origins.

Clip #1: Bernard Brandon Scott and Hal Taussig wrestle with the term "Christian" and the pitfalls of naming participants in these early movements by a word they probably did not use to describe themselves. 

Clip #2: Jarmo Tarkki and Maia Kotrosits exchange some thoughts on the problem of anachronistic assumptions about the past. Jarmo shares a modern, humorous example to show the problem of relying too much on the meaning even of a single term to make one's case, while Maia asks what would happen if we shift our approach from categorical definitions to textured ones, recognizing that even in the same era a single word can mean many things. 

Statements

Time is ripe to move beyond literary-critical analysis of Nag Hammadi and to view them with social-historical lenses.

Time is ripe to integrate the study of Nag Hammadi texts into the study of early Christianity.

A diaspora/colonial model is useful for Nag Hammadi and other early Christian texts.

Expressions of hope for unity/unification, honor, value in context of humiliation/social dislocation/violence—what do these suggest for the experience of the authors/communities of these texts?

“Gnosticism” as an analytical category needs full Westar treatment in near future.

John C. Kelly

Westar Fellow Jack Kelly waits for the next session of the Christianity Seminar to get underway.

Models for Reconstructing Early "Christianity"

Conversations

In this session three panelists—Art Dewey, Joanna Dewey, Bernard Brandon Scott—responded to L. Michael White's book From Jesus to Christianity (2005).

Clip #1: In response to Art Dewey, Mike White explains what he means by "generations" and thinks aloud about how certain events—"nodal" moments—in a people's history can mark generations without trying to pin down the exact years too rigidly. Prior to this, Art had also suggested thinking less linearly by describing the development in terms of a network or web, instead of a forward progression. 

Clip #2: John (Jack) Kelly discusses some of the problems of finding and employing models to understand a subject. In particular, he critiques the notion of telling the story of the development of Christianity through a "process to product" model. 

Statements

We need to develop and use models for our reconstructions.

We need to break away from a canonically based model.

Canonically based models have a misguided dependence on elite texts and do not account for the majority of extant texts.

Using a chronologically based model is more helpful than a canon model.

The "generational" model is useful for our reconstructions in the Christianity Seminar.

The generational model should combine fixed intervals (e.g., 40 years) and event-focused dates.

The generational model is strongest for the first generation (30-70 CE), possibly the second (70-110 CE), but the later periodization is more complicated and arbitrary.

If we use a generational model, we need to account for these items:

  • Missing data
  • Mixture of generations
  • Changes and developments happened at different times in different places
  • Major 'nodal' events
  • Non-elite traditions, rituals
  • Women and other under-represented groups
  • Other possible metaphors: web, network, corporate development

Want to know more about Westar projects? Try "When Was Acts Written? Not in the First Century" or browse the Projects page.

Top 10 Archaeological Discoveries Related to Jesus

Milton Moreland

Milton Moreland

What are the top 10 archaeological discoveries related to Jesus? Westar Fellow Milton Moreland, who has served as a Senior Field Supervisor at the archaeological excavation in Sepphoris, Israel, since 1993, set out to debunk some common myths about archaeology and Jesus at the Spring 2014 national meeting.

Moreland, author of Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching, emphasized the importance of understanding Syria as a region. "To know more about Syria is to know more about Christian origins and the earliest Jesus movements," he explained. Syria was a hotbed of activity, and was hardly the pastoral idyll so often depicted romantically in stories of Christian origins, in spite of the fact that rural-urban relationships played an important role for Jesus followers. With that in mind, here are the top 10 discoveries in the Syrian region of significance for understanding the historical Jesus.

10. Sebaste (Samaria)
Located in Samaria, this was Herod's colonial city with Roman temples to Augustus. Herod the Great brought Judea into the Roman world. He was a "client king" and a fantastic Roman administrator, by which we mean he built cities. Because that's what Roman administrators did: they built cities! Why was this important? Romans had perfected the Greek art of building cities as a way to spread culture, as other discoveries discussed below will highlight further.

Herod built three temples, one of which was right in the center of Sebaste, placing the Roman imperial cult front and center for visitors there. Sometimes we hear people minimizing the importance of the imperial cult. In fact, Jesus was surrounded by it. The very rocks imported to build the cities provided a physical representation of the empire. These magnificent cities even looked like Rome.

9. Caesarea Philippi 
This is mentioned in the Bible, where Jesus had a picnic with his crew. What's so interesting about this site is its celebration of the god Pan with massive building projects. An important theme here is the evidence such sites provide of the Roman Empire's active efforts to build monuments to gods other than Yahweh.

8. Capernaum
Capernaum presents a strong contrast between the cities described above and the villages typical to individuals like Jesus. The life of the village continues amid the building projects of the empire. We can ask ourselves, what's it like to live in a village like Capernaum while Herod is building massive Tiberius not too far away? Just look at the construction of the buildings as revealed by excavations. Capernaum houses were built of unhewn basalt rock, to which residents might have added limestone plaster. So on the one hand we have imported rock recreating Rome, and on the other we have houses of unhewn basalt. Quite a contrast.

7. Early Roman Jerusalem
This was a city under construction even up until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Herod expanded the Temple Mount three times over during his rule—a hint, incidentally, that he was playing up relations with both the Romans and the local Jewish communities. Nevertheless, Jerusalem is a Roman city. It hosted the Olympic Games. It had colonnaded streets. It was Roman, but with a Jewish temple. What's more, the Roman military was stationed in Jerusalem and guarded the Temple, which also happened to be the bank.

After its destruction in 70 CE, Jerusalem was essentially abandoned from 70 to 115 CE, at which point it was renamed. This was experienced by early Jesus followers: the obliteration of Jerusalem and eventual conversion of it into a Roman colony.

6. Dead Sea Scrolls
This is where Westar's work has proven to be very important, in that it has focused on putting the Jesus movement into the broader context evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Through this discovery we have learned that groups contemporary with the Jesus movement, but who may not have had contact with one another, nevertheless shared certain features in their responses to the pressures of the time. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us the earliest texts we have, dating from the first century BCE onward. Importantly, the Dead Sea Scrolls give us a microcosm of one small community, enabling us to glimpse a story of who they were. Qumran, where the scrolls were discovered, laid undisturbed for 1900 years. It's hard to quantify how valuable that is in archaeological terms.

5. Caesarea Maritime
Herod built a breakwater and this massive, monumental city on the coast. Underwater archaeology at Caesarea has been one of the most interesting archaeological methods of exploration in the past 20 years. We've learned that this was the busiest port on this region of the Mediterranean. This provokes us to ask: why urbanize the region by building cities like this? Caesarea Maritime, like many other newly constructed cities, had no natural access to fresh water, requiring engineers to design aqueducts to carry in fresh water long distances, yet Herod still demanded that it be done.

Roman aqueduct in Caesarea Maritima (source: Wikimedia Commons)

Roman aqueduct in Caesarea Maritima

Reinforcing what we see in other cities in this era and region, Caesarea Maritime looked exactly like any other Roman port city, with a temple to Augustus, and yet here it stood just 30 miles from Galilee. It's as though the Syrians were crying out, "Look, we're Roman! We're just as (or even more) Roman as the Romans!" Roads, aqueducts, temple and palace: these were signs of Rome that dominated the landscape. Why build colonnaded roads, after all? A basic road would have been serviceable, but the grand columns provide a wow factor. Why built aqueducts along beautiful beaches? To assert Roman control over nature. This new port city also came to control trade in the region with tariffs as high as 25 percent: imperial presence coupled with control of trade.

4. Sepphoris
Sepphoris is now a national park dedicated to archaeological excavation. It's a major city just three miles from Nazareth, and is located on a natural hill overlooking the region. It dominated the landscape until its destruction in an earthquake. We now know fifteen to twenty thousand people lived there in the time of Jesus, making it not much smaller than Jerusalem and a strong presence in the Galilee. While there weren't massive Roman temples in this part of Galilee, Sepphoris still represented a Roman city with the usual colonnaded roads, aqueducts, walls, and theater.

One discovery of note in Sepphoris is a wealthy Jewish home that shows Roman influence through features like a mosaic of a drinking contest between Hercules and Dionysus. It also features the so-called "Mona Lisa of the Galilee." This suggests another helpful lesson on this era: To be Roman was to keep your indigenous, local traditions while still incorporating the Roman, urban atmosphere of the times.

3. The Galilee Boat
The Galilee Boat, which was found between Capernaum and Tiberias, is made of many different kinds of wood, suggesting it was kept over multiple generations and patched with whatever wood was available to the people who used it. It was nicknamed the "Jesus boat" because it could hold about 13 people. At the same time the fishermen who used this boat were patching it to make it last, brand new Tiberias was being constructed with imported stone. As with Capernaum, this discovery emphasizes the incredible contrast between peasant life and the monumental efforts of the Empire going on in plain view all around the villages.

2. Jewish Ritual Purity
This topic has come into its own in just the past couple decades. This discovery centers on everyday objects: pitchers and cups that basically promised ritual purity when used (yet were made of chalk, hardly a pleasant item from which to drink your water!). Alongside these everyday items we also find ritual baths everywhere. These did not aid much in terms of cleanliness: there were no drains. Rather, such relics open up a picture for us of an increasing interest in a particular local, indigenous belief system of ritual purity alongside Romanization on a massive scale. We can just imagine members of the local communities asking plaintively, "How do I stay pure?"

1. Caiaphas Ossuary and Crucified Man
These are small yet phenomenal finds, not because they prove anything but because they open a window on a particular past era of interest to us. What the Caiaphas ossuary highlights is a change in burial practices. Previously, people buried their dead in undifferentiated tombs, but gradually we begin to see people carrying out a "second burial" of the dead by returning after a year to corpses to gather up bones into ossuaries, which were small burial boxes. Why were people all of a sudden saving bones?

This is a good example of text and archaeology coming together to tell a more complete story. Changes in material culture often show changes in belief. At the same time individual burial became commonplace, people were writing about heaven and final judgment. These developing theological writings help explain the change in otherwise longstanding burial practices.* Likewise, while we can't use the discovery of a nail hammered sideways into the anklebone of a man who was evidently crucified to prove that Jesus himself was crucified (contrary to some popular claims), this kind of discovery can help us understand how Romans carried out crucifixions.

*Update 3/21/2014: Jodi Magness gave a presentation on ossuaries on Friday night of the national meeting that challenges the view described above, which has been a well-established view on burial customs. Jodi pointed out that the problem of looking at resurrection beliefs as tied to ossuaries is that ossuaries didn't contain the full skeletons of the deceased, so they didn't really solve the problem of keeping individual bodies intact for resurrections. Also, ossuaries were in common use among Romans, who cremated their dead. Even though Jewish people did not cremate their dead, Jodi recommended viewing the practice of using ossuaries as basically a fashion trend; the Jewish elite, who were the ones most likely to use ossuaries, were emulating Herod, who in turn was emulating Augustus. Jodi's main point in this regard was that we need to be careful not to isolate Jewish culture from surrounding culture. We have plenty of evidence that Jews willingly adopted Roman customs, art, and architecture, including some aspects of burial practices. So, whichever explanation you find most convincing, there are important lessons to be had here about the role archaeology can play in this debate.

Concluding Reflections
Archaeology does not prove anything and everything about the New Testament or about Jesus per se. What archaeology does do is give us a clearer picture of the Roman world. Through archaeological work we have come to realize that Christianity thrived in major cities, not in small villages in rural areas. Villages like Nazareth don't show signs of Christianization until the 4th century; in other words, they were thoroughly Jewish villages up until Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the empire. Thus, what we can learn from villages is the likely experiences of Jesus and his immediate followers, but for Christian origins we need to turn to the cities.

During his talk Milton Moreland recommended a couple books about the history of this region (warning: they are dense): The Middle East under Rome by Maurice Satre and Roman Syria and the Near East by Kevin Butcher. Many thanks again to Milton Moreland for this introduction to archaeology of significance for the historical Jesus and Christian origins!