18 Feb 2008 04:37:51 | moshe reinfeld
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.
About Author :
The Author is a freelance journalist and a tour guide in Israel 
