Johannine Studies
XIV. ARCHEOLOGY AND THE ORIGINS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL: GABBATHA
Johannine Studies
XIV. ARCHEOLOGY AND THE ORIGINS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL: GABBATHA
Subjects reviewed in this chapter:
Introduction – The Palace as the Praetorium – The Podium as “Gabbatha” – Dating John’s Source
While an early date for the origins of the gospel is now generally accepted, the question of whether the author or authors are rooted in first century Palestine is still in dispute. C.K. Barrett, for example, admits that the Fourth Gospel “contains Palestinian, as well as other material” but maintains that “it was drawn up, edited, and published by persons who had no personal contact with John, and perhaps no contact with Palestine; certainly not an apostle.”2
Raymond Brown, on the other hand, while agreeing that the gospel was written in several stages, still recognizes very early Palestinian roots. Historical, social, and geographical details peculiar to the gospel, especially those which have been illuminated by archeological work, suggest, he says, that the original sources of John date to the period 40-60 A.D. and that, following a forty-year development, the work took its final form about 100 A.D. The gospel, he continues, “reflects a knowledge of Palestine as it was before its destruction in 70 A.D.” and “we do not think it unscientific to maintain that John son of Zebedee was probably the source of the historical tradition behind the Fourth Gospel.”3
Since the Gospel of John refers quite specifically to locations in Jerusalem, mentioning geographical and architectural details, often assigning Aramaic names to them (“Bethesda,” 5:2; “Gabbatha,” 19:13; “Golgotha,” 19:17; etc.) the possibility arises that archeological discoveries which throw light on first century Jerusalem may also provide insights into the question of the origins of the gospel. This essay focuses on one of these locations, the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha (John 19:13), in order to suggest the direction this kind of research into gospel origins might take.
John’s account of the trial of Jesus refers to an architectural feature of the Praetorium (Roman Headquarters) in Jerusalem called the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha. This feature is not mentioned in Headquarters) in Jerusalem called the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha. This feature is not mentioned in the other gospels; indeed, the term “Gabbatha” is not found elsewhere in contemporary literature. The relevant phrases in the gospel are as follows: “Then they led Jesus from the house of Caiphas to the praetorium . . . they themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled . . . So Pilate went out to them . . . Pilate entered the Praetorium again and called Jesus . . . He went out to the Jews again” (18:28ff). “He brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgement seat at a place called The Pavement (Lithostrotos), and in Hebrew, Gabbatha” (19:13).
Our argument will proceed as follows:
I. Archeological and literary evidence converge to identify John’s “praetorium” with the palace of Herod the Great.
II. The podium or platform upon which Herod’s palace was constructed, or some part of that platform, is John’s “Gabbatha.”
III. John’s use of this term provides evidence of a pre-70 A.D. Judean based source underlying the gospel.
I. The Palace as the Praetorium For the past several hundred years, Christian pilgrims have located Pilate’s headquarters at the site of the Fortress of Antonio, that massive structure erected by Herod at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount. Until this day, this place, now covered by the convent of the Sisters of Zion, becomes the starting point for pilgrims tracing the Via Dolorossa (Way of Sorrows) supposedly leading from Jesus’ place of condemnation to where he died. The discovery of an extensive pavement made of large well-cut stones led L.H. Vincent to argue that the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha of John’s Gospel had been found.4 Pierre Benoit decisively refuted this theory,5 however. Archeological work has proven that the so-called Ecce Homo Arch still standing at this place dates to the reign of the emperor Hadrian and was constructed during the refounding and rebuilding of the city following the Bar Kochba Revolt (135-138 A.D.). Since the pavement may not be dated earlier than this arch, it cannot be the Gabbatha of John. Furthermore, this pavement covers the “Struthion Pool” mentioned by Josephus as having been open to the air in 70 A.D. when it was the site of fighting during the First Revolt (Josephus War 5:467), proving that it post-dates the revolt.
Actually, the custom of following the Via Dolorossa beginning at the Fortress of Antonio dates only from Medieval times. The Byzantines located Pilate's house at the church of St. Sophia, just west of the Temple Mount, or near the Nea Church, rediscovered by Avigad at the present south wall of the city in the Jewish Quarter. As we shall see, the identification of these locations with the praetorium of Pilate is also incorrect.
Literary evidence supports the conclusion that Pilate’s praetorium was the palace built by Herod the Great at the crest of the “Western Hill” across the Tyropoeon Valley, stretching along the present western wall from the Jaffa Gate to the present southern wall of the city. Philo of Alexandria, in his Delegation to Gains (38), plainly speaks of Pilate's residence in “Herod’s palace in the Holy City” while visiting Jerusalem during a Jewish feast. He describes the palace as “the residence of the prefects.” Josephus says that the governor Florus also “lodged at the Palace” and that there was a bema (tribunal or judgement platform) in front of it. Here, the “chief priests, the nobles, and the most eminent citizens then presented themselves before tribunal” (Josephus War 2:301). The parallels between Josephus’ account and John 19 are striking: “Florus ventured that day to do what none had ever done before, namely, to scourge before his tribunal and nail to the cross men of equestrian rank” (War 2:308). (It is, of course, the rank of the victims which makes the incident unusual, not the fact that they were scourged at the bema and condemned to crucifixion.)
This incident, though involving a different governor, gives us valuable background for a similar confrontation between Pilate and the Jews. Josephus refers to a bema set up by Pilate where, during one of his visits to Jerusalem (the Roman governors normally resided in Caesarea Maritima) he is “surrounded” and “besieged” by an angry mob (War 2:175-176). These passages, taken together, indicate that: 1) Pilate resided in the Palace of Herod. 2) This place had, as a part of its complex of facilities, an open area where a bema could be located in such a way that a large crowd could surround it. 3) Before this bema, he could, as Roman governor, interrogate prisoners, scourge them, and condemn them to crucifixion.
The testimony of the Synoptic Gospels is consistent with these conclusions. During Jesus’ trials, Luke says that Pilate “called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people” (Luke 23:13; cf. Josephus War 2:301). We may reasonably assume that this gathering took place at the location called by John the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha. Matthew speaks of Pilate’s wife who, he says, sent word of her fears concerning the events which were taking place “while he was sitting on the judgement seat” (Greek, bema; Matthew 27:19). Mark says that during the trial the soldiers led Jesus away “inside the palace (that is, the praetorium); and they called together the whole battalion” to mock him (Mark 15:16).
This event must have taken place in the northern part of the palace complex, since the military would most likely have been housed close to the three huge defense towers constructed there by Herod (see below). Josephus tells us that during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. this area was the headquarters of a Roman garrison (War 2:438-440). It is reasonable to assume that this had been a military barracks during peacetime as well. Of course, another, likely much larger, Roman garrison was lodged in the Fortress of Antonio. The soldiers at the palace probably functioned as a bodyguard, first for the Jewish kings and eventually for the Roman governors. After the destruction of the palace, as we shall see, the area again became a military barracks.
Josephus has given us a detailed description of the palace of Herod. First, he describes the three lofty towers on the north of the complex: Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamme. These, he says, stood on a crest above the western hill and were furnished with fine apartments, baths, and reservoirs for water. One of these towers has survived in its lower courses and may be seen today, incorporated into the Turkish Citadel inside the Jaffa Gate. Josephus’ description of the residential and ceremonial palace rises to eloquence. Enclosed by its own high wall, it “contained immense banqueting halls and bed-chambers for a hundred guests.” Furnishings in the apartments were mostly made of silver and gold, and the walls and ceilings were splendidly decorated. Circular cloisters all around featured open courts and “there were groves of various trees intersected by long walks, which were bordered by deep canals, and ponds everywhere studded with bronze figures, through which the water was discharged, and around the streams were numerous cots for tame pigeons” (War 4:156-181).
Herod’s palace complex was located in the area presently occupied by the Turkish Citadel (now an archeological park and museum) a police station, and the Armenian Garden and School. Major excavations have been undertaken at the Citadel and in the Armenian Garden, despite the tumultuous political and military upheavals which have occurred there during the last fifty years. The excavators and dates of excavation are:
C.N. Johns (1943-1948) A.D. Tushingham (1961-1967) R. Amiran and A. Eitan (1968-1969) D. Bahat and M. Broshi (1971) H. Geva (1979-1980)
When Josephus’ descriptions of the area are combined with discoveries made during these excavations, a fairly detailed picture of the complex begins to emerge. On the north stood the towers and the military barracks, on the south, auxiliary and utility buildings, and in between, the residential and ceremonial area, itself actually a complex of buildings and gardens.
II. The Podium as “Gabbatha” Three of the excavations listed above have provided evidence that Herod’s “palace” was actually a complex of buildings constructed on top of a huge platform or podium. Tushingham’s work in the Armenian Garden showed that this podium was formed by the construction of massive retaining walls. These walls were stabilized by the addition of a network of numerous internal consolidating “walls” designed to contain the immense weight of the earth and stone fill used to build up the platform.6 Apparently this device was only partially effective. Evidence was found of a severe collapse of at least portions of the retaining walls of the podium on the east and west. The excavator concluded that this damage occurred around the time of the reign of Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A.D.) and quickly repaired.7 The events of John 18-19 occurred, of course, a decade or so before this accident.
Bahat and Broshi also excavated part of the Armenian Garden in 1970-1971. They, too, found the podium and noted that Herod’s builders had used the same technique here as for the Temple (more on this later). They were able to estimate the overall dimensions of the podium: 300 to 350 meters from the north to south and some 60 meters from east to west. The same network of stabilizing “walls” was found, but nothing remained of the buildings of the palace complex which had once stood on the podium. This unfortunate fact, they concluded, is probably the result of events some one thousand years later, when the Crusaders cleared the area in order to construct their own palace.8
Fortunately, some remnants of the Herodian buildings were found inside the Turkish Citadel, however, where Amiran and Eitan continued the work began many years earlier by C.N. Johns. At the Herodian level (Level IV) the excavators were confronted “with a radical change in planning as reflected by a considerable artificial rise in the level of the area, a new orientation of the buildings, and certain changes in the city wall.” The most striking feature was “a massive platform or podium, three to four meters above the floor level of stratum VI” (the Hellenistic Period). Here they found the same grid of interior “walls” with rubble fill between them as had been discovered by the earlier excavators.9
A street of beaten earth and remains of two buildings had survived on top of the podium, along with many fragments of colored plaster, many “terra sigillata” bowls, Herodian lamps and coins – all dating before 70 A.D. Signs of fire indicated that this was the destruction level of the First Revolt, described in detail by Josephus. Above this were floors covering the Herodian ruins, on which were built buildings which “may represent the living quarters of the Tenth Legion which, according to Josephus, was quartered here”10 (War 7:2). The excavators concluded that this was the area between the residential-ceremonial palace(s) and the towers and that it represented the “barracks, servants’ quarters and storerooms, or workshops.”11
The huge podium literally created a new geographical entity and allowed Herod’s builders to design a complex on a level surface throughout. John Wilkinson has suggested that this podium so dominated the area that it became the determining factor in the layout of the surrounding streets.12 At any rate, we must think of a complex of buildings beginning near the present Jaffa Gates with the three towers, extending through a military and service quarter, the residential palace(s) and gardens, and ending with additional auxiliary and service buildings on the south. All of this, except, apparently, the towers, stood on what must have been a most impressive platform with thick walls at least three meters high, crowning the high ridge of the city at its western edge.
This construction technique, as we know, was a favorite one for Herod’s architects. The enormous platform by which they extended the Temple Mount is well-known. On the southern end of the Mount, a great series of arches carried the platform out over what had once been a steep slope. Herodian architects also constructed a platform in Hebron, upon which were placed the memorial tombs of the Patriarchs.13 Jacobson notes the strong architectural links between this structure and the Temple esplanade in Jerusalem. Furthermore, “the two Herodian monuments are related in turn to the temenos of Damascus by a common architectural tradition which flourished in Palestine and Syria at the very beginning of the Christian era.”14 The latter structure, built in 15/16 A.D. as a shrine to Jupiter Damascenus, now forms the base for the Great Mosque of Damascus.
Another example of this kind of construction was discovered at Sebaste (ancient Samaria) where Herod’s builders created a huge platform 83 meters by 72 meters by constructing retaining walls and pouring rubble in on top of earlier structures. On this platform they built a temple to Augustus. Crowfoot, the excavator of the site, notes that “in order to obtain sufficient room for the forecourt, Herod was obliged to build out a great platform to the north. This was supported by massive retaining walls. . . .”15 Thus, “the general plan of Herod’s great temple is plain, and it can be realized what an imposing building it must have appeared, on the summit of the hill, with its great artificial platform and the temple towering above that.”16
Each of the structures mentioned here was more specifically a temenos, that is, a sacred enclosure. While several buildings might stand on them, the central building was a temple. Herod chose to construct his palace complex in this same way, placing his residence at the center of a huge artificial platform which served to level and extend the top of a hill and to dramatize the structures built upon it. We suggest that this particular podium, or some part of it, is what the Gospel of John calls the Lithostrotos or Gabbatha.
Lithostrotos is a straightforward, “generic” term referring to stone pavements in general and, sometimes, to mosaic pavements. That this particular paved area is designated the Lithostrotos indicates that it was a public landmark – a gathering place familiar and accessible to the city’s inhabitants. But John also knows an Aramaic name for the place: Gabhatha. It is not uncommon for bilingual communities to have two names for public locations and first-century Jerusalem must be thought of as essentially bilingual (Aramaic and Greek). The same phenomenon may be observed in modern Israel, where many famous locations carry both Hebrew and Arabic names. More often than not, the names carry meanings in their respective languages which are unrelated. In this case, the Greek designation, Lithostrotos, obviously refers to the pavement where public meetings took place and where the bema or public tribunal stood. But what is the significance of the other term: Gabbatha? The precise form of this word transliterated into Greek characters in John 19:13 does not have an ancient parallel, but the general meaning is clear. The root is gab.17 It may be found in such combinations as gubta (a hill), gabbahta (a high forehead), gabbetha (height), etc. Gab signifies “ridge,” “hump,” or “protrusion,” and “connotes in a general way the idea of prominence or height.”18 At John 19:13, the Syriac Version renders Gabbatha peribolos (“mound” or “fence”). This accords well with the idea that the Gabbatha was a massive retaining wall which raised the podium above its surroundings.
Josephus makes reference to a place called Gabath Saoul (Josephus War 5:51; cf. II Samuel 21:6) and explains to his Greek-speaking readers that this should be understood lophos Saoulou, the “hill” of Saul. This explanation throws further light on the connotation carried by the root gab.
Let us now return to Josephus’ account of the confrontation between the Roman governor Florus and the leaders of the Jews which took place at the bema near the palace (War 2:301). Thackeray translates the passages as follows: “Florus lodged at the palace, and on the following day had a tribunal placed in front of the building and took his seat; the chief priests, the nobles, and the most eminent citizens then presented themselves before the tribunal.”
A careful analysis of the Greek text reveals significant details not apparent in this translation. For one thing, the Greek text actually refers to the fact that Florus’ residence is en tois basileios, that is, in the palaces (plural), a reference, we think, to the central residential-ceremonial complex which was, as we have seen, made up of several structures.
But it is the next sentence which provides the most direct confirmation of our thesis: te d'usteraia bema pro auton temenos kathezetai. This may be translated: “On the next day he seated himself at the bema in front of their [that is, the palaces] temenos.”
The word temenos normally refers to the enclosure surrounding a temple. Josephus refers to Herod’s temple to Augustus in Sebaste as being “enclosed in a temenos, a furlong and a half in length, consecrated to Caesar . . .” (War 1:403). In the Septuagint the word is used to refer to the “hill-shrines,” “consecrated grounds” or “high places” of Canaanite worship (Ezek. 6:4, 6; Hosea 8:14; II Kings 4:6 – Vaticanus only). It is initially curious that Josephus should select this word to describe the setting of Herod’s palace, now the Roman praetorium, though the word can mean “a piece of land marked off and assigned as an official domain, especially to kings and chiefs.”19 But his selection of this word is consistent with the fact that the “palace” was actually a complex of buildings, and that these were elevated, standing on and within a large podium or platform which functioned as a temenos. Josephus’ language here squares well with the archeological evidence and we suggest that his temenos is nothing other than the Gabbatha of John’s Gospel – a huge platform which not only formed the foundation for the buildings of the palace complex but also featured a large open paved area (a lithostrotos) accessible to the public, where the ruler could hold public court.
Josephus says that Florus’ meeting with the Jewish leaders ended when he ordered his soldiers to sack the Upper Market (War 2:305). Avi-Yonah suggests that “when Herod built his palaces on the western edge of the Upper City, he probably appropriated the western half of the agora, which henceforth adjoined the east wall of the palace.”20 Thus, we can picture a large gathering just inside the palace walls, probably in the eastern part of the middle residential-ceremonial complex, and the soldiers surging out of the gates along the wall (Josephus War 2:429) down the stairway which must have carried visitors up to the platform, where they fell on the unfortunate crowds in the marketplace. We may also even speculate that the route of these soldiers as they left the palace had been some four decades before the first leg of the real Via Dolorossa.
The archeological evidence also accords well with Josephus’ assertion that this part of the palace complex was destroyed during the siege and fall of the city in 70 A.D., and that the area was left in ruins. As already noted, Tushingham found that part of the podium had collapsed and been rebuilt some time during the 40s or 50s A.D. The destruction associated with the Revolt was much more severe, however. Tiles bearing the symbols of the occupying Roman Tenth Legion were found in the debris above the podium. Their presence does not indicate that the army rebuilt there, however. “While indicating that the legionary barracks was probably nearby,” these tiles “can suggest only that robbing in the Garden took place during the period of the Tenth Legion’s presence in Jerusalem,” says Tushingham.21 Overall, the evidence shows that the area was used as a garbage dump for 500 to 600 years after its destruction in 70 A.D. C.N. Johns did date a building in the immediate vicinity of the towers at the north of the complex to the period after the war and suggested that it was “presumably part of a barrack building” (a drain pipe in the floor bore the Tenth Legion stamp). But even this building was constructed on rubble from the earlier structures on the site.22
Amiran and Eitan found a building in the same area under John’s building which they believe is also a Tenth Legion barracks.23 They base this conclusion on Josephus’ statement that the Tenth Legion used a portion of the western wall of the city “as an encampment for the garrison that was to remain” (War 7:2). But the remainder of the site, as Tushingham has shown, was left a pile of debris, a source for stones robbed for use elsewhere, and a dump. Whatever was left of the Gabbatha thus not only ceased to exist as an identifiable architectural feature, but probably was buried under tons of rubble. Geva’s findings corroborate this conclusion. The Byzantine wall he discovered “was founded on the earth fill of the Second Temple Period.”24
III. Dating John’s Source The residential-ceremonial portion of the Herodian palace disappeared in 70 A.D. and along with it the Gabbatha. The towers and some of the western wall remained and were transformed into quarters for the occupying Roman garrison. Archeological work has confirmed this general picture. Following the Second Revolt (132-135 A.D.) Hadrian refounded the city and renamed it Aelia Capitolina. A new grid of streets was created based on the classic Roman city plan. Aelia lay essentially north of the site of the palace in what are now the Christian and Moslem quarters of the city and centered in the area later dominated by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. An eastern gate stood where the Fortress of Antonio had been (the “pavement” under the Convent of the Sisters of Zion was part of this entrance). Extensive remains of a northern gate under the present Damascus gate have also been found.
Avigad’s excavations in the Jewish Quarter east of Herod’s palace yielded no building remains from the Roman city and only scattered tiles of the Tenth Legion. He concludes: “Our stratigraphic excavations throughout the Jewish Quarter revealed that remains from the Byzantine period always lay directly over the layer of the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) with no Roman stratum intervening.”25
The Fourth Gospel’s knowledge of the Gabbatha thus should be attributed to pre-70 A.D. sources. After that date, the southern part of the city became virtually a desolation, only here and there inhabited, mostly by foreign troops in scattered buildings. When Christian pilgrims began coming to the Holy Land in the fourth century, the site of the Praetorium of Pilate had been forgotten. The earliest pilgrims of this period located it below the Jewish Quarter in the Tyropoeon Valley just east of the temple area.26 Later the pilgrimage site was moved to the Church of Holy Sion on “Mount Zion” just south of where Herod’s palace had actually stood. It is interesting that during this period, quite accidentally, the pilgrims were closer to the correct location than they had been for many centuries previously.
Eventually, as we have seen, the pilgrims’ site moved once again – this time to its present location at the site of the Fortress of Antonio north of the temple mount.
Not only is the Fourth Gospel’s knowledge of the existence of the platform significant, but also its use of an Aramaic name for it. Such an obscure reference, in a language not familiar to John’s readers, and so non-essential to the story that it is ignored by the other gospels, suggests the use of a contemporary source with detailed familiarity of the city prior to the First Revolt.
One such reference does not settle all questions concerning the dating of the sources of the Gospel of John. But the investigation in linguistic, literary, and archeological data such as we have conducted, triggered by John’s reference to the Gabbatha, an identifiable and datable architectural feature, suggests a fruitful method of bringing archeological discoveries to bear on questions raised by New Testament criticism.
