|
The discovery of "the
cave of John the Baptist" not far away from Jerusalem
was a great journalistic drama. Archaeological news easily
lights the imagination. Remember the movie series of
Indiana Jones. Is it true that John the Baptist began to
baptize his followers in this cave? Let us go over the
facts, and find out.
There are not many
historical sources of information concerning the
whereabouts of John the Baptist. Of these, the Gospels,
especially St. Luke, give us the most accurate
information. Another source may be "the Antiquities
of the Jews" by Josephus Flavius.
St. Luke tells us that
Zachary, the father of John, was a priest, who lived with
John's mother Elisabeth in "a city of Judah" in
"the hill country". No source tells us exactly
where it was. But we should assume that people live near
their work place. If so, that city was situated in the
vicinity of Jerusalem, because priests worked in the
Temple. Traditionally, it is believed that Zachary and
Elisabeth lived in Ein Kerem, a small town near Jerusalem,
but there are no archaeological findings which can prove
it.
Some churches have been
built in Ein Kerem since the Byzantine era, though we do
not know if the earlier churches were dedicated to John
the Baptist or related to him. The first ones who did
associate Ein Kerem to John were the Crusaders, but it
must be emphasized that those Christian conquerors of the
Holy land used to adapt the Holy sites to the area they
ruled.
When the Crusaders
controlled the way to Jerusalem, they said that the
village of Emmaus was situated in the village of Abu
Ghosh, and built there a beautiful church. A hundred years
later, after they were driven away by the Moslems from
there, they did not hesitate to identify Kubeiba as the
one and only Emmaus. Also there they built a church, a
monastery and fortress.
Actually there has been
always a town called Emmaus. It is located in the Ayalon
valley. The early Christians believed that this is the
real Emmaus, mentioned in the Gospels, and magnificent
churches were built there during the Byzantine era, 1500
years ago. The problem with this identification was that
the place is located more than 30 kilometers from
Jerusalem, while according to St. Luke the distance was
only 11 kilometers.
Back to John the Baptist.
We have already considered the location of his birth
place. And now let us ask ourselves: where did he preach
and baptize? The Gospels tell us mainly two geographical
facts. That he did his preaching and religious rituals in
the Judea desert, and that he baptized people who came to
him from Judea and Jerusalem, in the Jordan River.
St John mentions
specifically a place called Aenon, near Salim. He says
John the Baptist operated there "because there was
much water there". St John mentions another place
called "Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing". The only possible conclusion for those
who are acquainted with the area should be that John
baptized his fellow Jews in the vicinity of Jericho. It
was the only place combining the water of the Jordan
River, a convenient road from Jerusalem and Judea and a
geographical closeness to a desert, Judea desert.
St. Luke tells us that John
was born when Herod was the tetrarch of Galilee. It means
John lived when Herod the 2nd, son of King Herod the
Great, ruled the northern and the eastern part of the
country. Many years later, this tetrarch (Roman prince)
arrested John and executed him in a brutal way, by
beheading him.
Why was he imprisoned and
eliminated? Some of the Gospels tell us that John rebuked
the tetrarch publicly for his evil deeds. But the great
Jewish historian Josephus tells us another story. John was
regarded as politically dangerous. St. Matthew insinuates
that this version is reliable, when he says that Herod
"feared the multitude, because they counted him
(John) as a prophet".
The main contribution of
Josephus to our story is telling us where John was
imprisoned and murdered. It was in the fortress of
Machaerus (Mikhvar, in Hebrew), the remains of which can
be seen nowadays in the kingdom of Jordan.
Kibutz Tzuba (the correct
Hebrew name is Tzova) where the cave was found, is located
only four kilometers from Ein kerem, which probably was
the birthplace of John, as mentioned above. But we should
recall that John did not operate there. He needed
"much water". In Tzuba-Ein-Kerem area water is
scarce. The Historical sources put the scene in a
different site: the Jordan River, apparently near Jericho.
Why not believe them?
A few hundred meters from
the Tzuba cave, on the top of another hill, the remains of
a small fortress can be seen. The Crusaders built it to
control a secondary way to Jerusalem, used by Pilgrims.
Those days the Crusaders did not control the main road to
Jerusalem any more, and had no choice but to use their
productive imagination to "create" new
"biblical sites". Nearby Abu Ghosh is one of
them. It became Emmaus.
Is the Tzuba Cave a modern
such an adjustment of versions? May be .But it could also
be a place where John the Baptist really did some
baptizing. Why not? He was born not far away from there.
His parents could still live in Ein Kerem. May be he used
the cave when he came to visit them?
We are dealing here with
speculations. And these are beyond the scope of our
discussion. Most of the Holy sites in Israel are believed
to be the original ones without having any firm scientific
proof. Does it matter? Apparently the answer is negative.
Belief is a matter of the heart, not of science.
What Archaeologists do know
for sure is that the Tzuba cave was used by Jews for a
long period of time, starting during the reign of the
Judean kings some 600 years before John's time. It
continued to be used by Christians until 300- 400 years
after John's time. There are some carvings from that time
on the wall which are symbols related to John the Baptist,
including his image, a drawing of his decapitated head and
a cross shape.
Inside the cave,
archaeologists found many pottery shards, indicating the
cave could be used for baptizing. Is it enough for proving
anything? The answer is no. Is it worth a visit? The
answer is absolutely yes. But for that purpose people
should wait. The cave has not yet been opened to visitors.
Written: 9/9/2004
|
