Archaeology, Israel, and, Usually, Much Ado About Nothing

Posted on by

A while back the press was screaming or screeching excitedly that a synagogue had been found in Magdala.  Nope.  Turns out it wasn’t that at all.  Jona Lendering sums up the situation in a sentence or two-

The palace of David in Khirbet Qeiyafa is not the palace of David. Solomon’s stables in Megiddo are not Solomon’s stables. The boat of Jesus is not the boat of Jesus. The first archaeological press release in Israel is always misleading. Always.

Indeed.  So whenever the media spews some new discovery, just wait a while and not only will the truth come out, but it won’t be what the first suggestions suggested.  But boring nothings don’t sell tourist rides.

UPDATE (9 December):  Richard Bauckham comments

There is a confusion here between two different buildings. The building that was excavated in the Franciscan area in the 1970s and identified as a synagogue was subsequently shown not to be a synagogue. This is the building to which Anna Lena’s report in Hadashot Arkeologiyot (Magdala 2008) refers. Lena’s report relates entirely to the Franciscan area. But the synagogue that was discovered in 2005 is in the northern area of Magdala, to the north of the Franciscan enclosure. This is the synagogue about which there was so much publicity at the time and which is now shown to visitors to the site. It is indubitably a synagogue.

UPDATE II:  Antonio comments

Despite all the media buzz, the archaeologists didn’t say that in the only (up to now) scholarly report on that discovery: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1236&mag_id=115 However, it might also be a synagogue, but I was writing about the Franciscans’ discovery in my brief comment. Besides, if you consider that the Magdala Project has been handed over the Legionaries of Christ (scary name, isn’t it?) I’d be rather skeptical on everything is being published on that website.

To which Richard Responds

Antonio, the fact that the building in the Franciscan area is not a synagogue is very old news, and I don’t think there was ever a media buzz about that building. The report you have now cited is not relevant at all. It was a just a trial excavation, south of the Byzantine monastery. The relevant reports are here http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1601&module_id=#as
and especially here: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120
These reports are by the IAA archaeologists who excavated the synagogue on the Magdala Project’s property. You don’t have to rely on the Magdala Project’s website.
I’ve spent several days there and I can tell you: it’s a synagogue! The design is just like the contemporary synagogue in Gamla. There really is nothing else it could be.

8 thoughts on “Archaeology, Israel, and, Usually, Much Ado About Nothing”

  1. Beth Saida is not Beth Saida, but the buses still arrive, the pilgrims are happy, souvenirs are bought, people pray and the show goes on….

    Like

  2. There is a confusion here between two different buildings. The building that was excavated in the Franciscan area in the 1970s and identified as a synagogue was subsequently shown not to be a synagogue. This is the building to which Anna Lena’s report in Hadashot Arkeologiyot (Magdala 2008) refers. Lena’s report relates entirely to the Franciscan area. But the synagogue that was discovered in 2005 is in the northern area of Magdala, to the north of the Franciscan enclosure. This is the synagogue about which there was so much publicity at the time and which is now shown to visitors to the site. It is indubitably a synagogue.

    Like

  3. Despite all the media buzz, the archaeologists didn’t say that in the only (up to now) scholarly report on that discovery: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1236&mag_id=115 However, it might also be a synagogue, but I was writing about the Franciscans’ discovery in my brief comment. Besides, if you consider that the Magdala Project has been handed over the Legionaries of Christ (scary name, isn’t it?) I’d be rather skeptical on everything is being published on that website.

    Like

  4. Antonio, the fact that the building in the Franciscan area is not a synagogue is very old news, and I don’t think there was ever a media buzz about that building. The report you have now cited is not relevant at all. It was a just a trial excavation, south of the Byzantine monastery. The relevant reports are here http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_Item_eng.asp?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1601&module_id=#as
    and especially here: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120
    These reports are by the IAA archaeologists who excavated the synagogue on the Magdala Project’s property. You don’t have to rely on the Magdala Project’s website.
    I’ve spent several days there and I can tell you: it’s a synagogue! The design is just like the contemporary synagogue in Gamla. There really is nothing else it could be.

    Like

Comments are closed.