The Tomb of Absalom Reconsidered

Full text

THE TOMB OF ABSALOM RECONSIDERED
Joe Zias
Science and Archaeology Group @ The Hebrew University – Jerusalem,
Emile Puech
CNRS - Paris, École Biblique et Archéologique Française - Jérusalem,
Introduction
The imposing stone monument in the Kidron valley, popularly known as the tomb or pillar of Absalom, is
undoubtedly the best known of all Jerusalem’s ancient monuments (Figure 1). This impressive structure, with its
monumental architecture and height approaching 20 meters, and the tombs of Bnei Hezir, Zachariah and
Pharaoh’s Daughter to the south, are important examples of Jerusalem’s Late Second Temple funerary
monuments.
While viewing a photograph of the tomb of Absalom in 2000,1 we were surprised to discover a faintly visible two
line (120 X 20 cm) Greek inscription crudely incised above the original tomb entrance, which had been unnoticed
and disregarded for centuries (Figure 2). Several Greek letters, barely noticeable on the photograph, suggested
that an inscription lay directly above the doorway of the tomb. Numerous visits to the monument proved that our
initial assumptions were correct; however, only during the late hours of the summer, when the sun was at the
appropriate angle, could several letters in the inscription be discerned.
Methodology
1* Generous support for phase I and II of this project was given by The Foundation for Biblical Archaeology (USA). The
East Jerusalem Development Corporation provided funding for Phase I. Vision Foundation of Pasadena CA, together with
a generous grant from The Foundation for Biblical Archaeology, provided the financial resources for Phase II. Leshem
Technologies donated the Rhodosil, which was used in the molding process, and their help is greatly appreciated. I would
also like to thank the administration of the École Biblique for kindly permitting us to use their facilities. Special thanks to
Father Eugenio Alliata from the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem, who provided us with digital color
photographs of the façade which proved to be one of the better photographs which had been taken. Father Alliata also
brought our attention to graffiti in the chapel in the traditional tomb of Zachariah. Thanks to Eli Schiller for granting us
permission to publish the 17th century woodcut by Dapper and the Israel Exploration Society for permission to reproduce
the drawings by N. Avigad.
Zev Radovan took the original photo where we first saw the lettering, some years earlier. We appreciate his sincere
efforts to read the lettering, which over the years had become badly defaced, weathered and barely legible.
1

Originally the tomb facade had been polished to provide a smooth surface, similar to the nearby tomb of Zachariah
to the south. Due to centuries of weathering and vandalism, particularly in the form of intentional stoning (Photo
3), the polished stone surface has become pitted on all four sides of the monument. The lower parts of the
monument were less damaged due to the fact that as the monument was being stoned, the stones falling to the
base of the monument piled up, thus protecting the polished surface.
It was impossible to employ standard techniques to document the inscription because it is 9 meters from the base
of the structure with a gap of approximately three meters separating it from the surrounding bedrock from which
it was quarried. Therefore, it became necessary to erect a wooden scaffold in order to be able to work directly on
the inscription. Technicians from the Israel Museum2 laboratory created a silicone mold of the inscription, which
later became the basis for an epoxy cast (120 X 60 cm) from which we were able to work.
Subsequent attempts to decipher the inscription proved difficult, as surface exfoliation due largely to weathering
and vandalism over the centuries, had worn away the inscription to such a degree that the artificial lighting
techniques employed proved ineffective. It was only when Émile Puech, from the École Biblique, employed a 19th
century technique commonly referred to as a ‘squeeze’ of the inscription (which in effect created a papier mâché
negative) that it became possible to read the inscription.3 This ‘squeeze’ technique was particularly effective as the
chisel marks used to incise the inscription were a few millimeters deeper than the deterioration, which had taken
its toll on the surface over the centuries. By highlighting only those areas which had been incised, we were able to
see the two line inscription to its full extent. Crudely incised in large letters (height: 6.5–9 cm, length: 1.22 cm)
upon the smooth surface, without any space between wordings, was the following two line Greek Koinè
inscription:4
1 ΤΟΔΕΜΝΕΜΕΙΟΝΖΑΚΚΑΡΙΑCΜΑΡ
2 ΠΡΕ(C)ΒΗΤSΘΕΟCΕΒΕSΠΑΠΠΕΑ(C)ΙΟΑ
2 Thanks to Andre Weiner, the head of the Israel Museum Conservation Laboratory who served as our technician for phase I
of the project.
3
3 The 19th century French epigrapher Clermont-Ganneau used this technique to copy the famous Moabite inscription.
4 For the epigraphic notes, see É. Puech et J. Zias, ‘Le tombeau de Zacharie et Siméon au monument funéraire dit d’Absalom
dans la Vallée de Josaphat,’ RB 110 (2003) 321-335.
2

1 Τόδε μνεμei/ον Ζακκαρίας μάρ(τυρος)
2 πρεσβήτ(ερου) θεοσεβέ(στατου) παππέα(ς) Ίο(/ω)ά(ννου)
1 “This is the funerary monument of Zachariah, martyr,
2 a very pious priest, father of John”.
Palaeographic dating
Dating the inscription by the legible remains, all of which resemble inscriptions from the fourth and fifth centuries
(in particular the inscription above the loculi on the tomb of the Prophets on the Mount of Olives), indicates a
probable date in the middle of the fourth century CE. The letters appear to be from an earlier period than those of
the monumental inscription of Justinian discovered in the Nea Church, which was completed in 549–550 CE.
Dating of the newly discovered inscription on Absalom’s tomb is also confirmed by the use of the word “martyr”,
which first makes its appearance in the second century and was used extensively by the early Christians.5 In this
particular context the word referred to Zachariah who was put to death in the Temple by the Zealots according to
the ancient tradition in the apocryphal Proto-Gospel of James (23:3).6 In fact, in his Church History (V I/9)7 at the
beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea recounts the martyrdom of Vettius Epagathus and compares
it to that of the old priest Zachariah, (ω`ς καi.περ ο;ντα νέον συνεξισου//σθαι τη/| του/ πρεsβυτέρου
5 See Y.E. Meimaris, Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining
to the Christian Church of Palestine, Athens 1986, p. 107-36. To our knowledge the term martyr in connection to Zachariah
is not used elsewhere. Eusebius, Church History, II 23 & 18, also presents James the Just as “a true witness (martyr) for the
Jews and the Greeks that Jesus is the Christ”. The same is said in the Proto-Gospel of James 23:3 ‘I am a witness of God.
Take my blood…’
6 One source of the Proto-Gospel of James was already known by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and perhaps also by
Justin. However, the variations of Origen (Com. Matt 23.35, Zachariah father of John who is mentioned by Matthew and
Luke) and of Hippolytus of Thebes on the martyrdom of Zachariah in the Temple by the Jews for having introduced Mary
into the Holy place and defended her virginity after the birth, may derive from an Apocryphal of Zachariah or from an
apocryphal gospel of the second century, partially taken up in the Proto-Gospel of James 23-24 which can be dated to the 4th
century at the latest. Similarly, Peter of Alexandria (†311), Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, hold that Zachariah,
father of John, is the prophet who was killed between the Temple and the altar, these are testimonies of a Christian
transposition of the martyrdom of the priest Zachariah. See J. Chapman, ‘Zacharias, slain between the Temple and the Altar,’
JTS 13 (1912) 398-410, p. 398, and F.-M. Abel, “La sépulture de Saint Jacques le Mineur,’ RB 28 (1919) 480-99, partly
reprinted in H. Vincent and F.-M. Abel, Jérusalem. Recherches de topographie, d’archéologie et d’histoire, II/IV Jérusalem
Nouvelle, Paris 1926, p. 846b-847a.
7 Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. A Select Library of Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series, translated into English with Prolegomena and explanatory
Notes under the supervision of P. Schaff and H. Wace, I, Grand Rapids, reprinted 1991, p, 212.
3

Ζαχαρι,ου μαρτυρι,α) “for he had walked in all the commandments and in all the precepts of the Lord in an
irreproachable manner,” to quote almost textually Luke 1:6.
While working from the photos8 we were able to discern two additional inscriptions incised in Koinè Greek to the
right of the entrance (Figure 4) along with the word nephesh inscribed to the left of the entrance. The word
nephesh is inscribed vertically, begins with a Greek cross and is 40 cm long:9
+ΗΨΥΧΗ
+ η` ψυχη, - + The nephesh
This Greek word (Figure 3) translates the Hebrew-Aramaic words nephesh שפנ and qubr - רבק and means
altogether “tomb” and “stele”. In an Aramaic inscription found in the Jason tomb in Jerusalem and dated to the
beginning of the 1st century BCE (its construction is almost contemporary to the Memorial of Absalom), both
words appear together: lines 1-2: ‘…because I built for you a tomb (רובק) and a memorial (שפנו ), be in peace in
Jer[u]sa[le]m’.10 This pair is also found in the Hebrew inscription on the tomb of Benei Hezir, which lies to the
south: ‘This is the tomb ( הז רבק) and the stele/memorial (שפנהו ) of Eleazar...’11 In these three examples, the
nephesh must be the pyramid structure above or beside the tomb. Here, beside the mention of tόδε μνεμei/ον of
the Zachariah inscription, the word nephesh was probably added somewhat later to the first inscription, thus
designating the entire monument like nephesh beside qubr in the other two examples. In the nearby Benei Hezir
structure to the south, archaeologists dispute the exact position of the nephesh: does it refer to the relatively small
pyramid that Avigad restored on the left side of the portico,12 which, according to D. Barag, became a tower of
Nabatean style, prior to the construction of the large pyramid to the south.13?
Phase II
8
9 See Puech – Zias, cit., p. 326f, and É. Puech et J. Zias, ‘Le tombeau de Siméon et Zacharie dans la Vallée de Josaphat,’ RB
111 (2004) 563-577, p. 564-67.
10 See É. Puech, ‘Inscriptions funéraires palestiniennes : tombeau de Jason et ossuaires,’ RB 90 (19830 481-533, p. 481-91. I
correct now the readings byt and rb’ following Avigad into bnt and nps.
11 N. Avigad, Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley, Jerusalem 1954, p. 59-61.
12 Ibidem.
13 D. Barag, ‘The 2000-2001 Exploration of the Tombs of Benei Hezir and Zechariah, IEJ 55 (2003) 78-110, p. 99, 110.
4

On carefully studying the photographs, we discovered another barely legible inscription, to the right of the
Zachariah inscription. Using the techniques employed in phase I, we made a silicone mold of the large inscription
to the right of the entrance. An epoxy cast was then made from which a papier mâché cast was created. The
chiseled letters were highlighted by chalking the slightly raised areas (Figure 5)14. Unlike the inscription above the
door which was relatively easy to transcribe, this 6 line inscription, which measured 1.40 X 0.67 cm, proved more
difficult to decipher. Whereas the two-line inscription above the door ran horizontal, this inscription, like the word
nephesh, ran vertical. Apparently, the Byzantine monks had fashioned a wooden bridge15 which connected the
tomb entrance to the bedrock, three meters away. Using this bridge they were able to engrave the inscription.
Similar to the inscription above the entrance, the Greek letters were without spacing and there were well known
abbreviations inserted; however, whereas the former inscription was more carefully executed, this inscription bore
signs that the engraving was haphazard. The reading by Puech is as follows:16
1 ΟΘΑΦΟCCΥΜΕωΝΟCΗΝ(?)
2 ΔΙΚΑ[Ι]ΟΤΑΤΟCΑΝΘΡωΠ
3 ΚΑΙΓΗΡ[ω]ΝΕΥCΗΒΗCΤΑΤΟC
4 ΚΑΙΠΑΡΑΚΛΗCΙΝ
5 Λ[Α]ΟΥ (?)
6 ΠΡΟCΔΕΧS
1 ~Ο θάφος Συμεών ο[ς η=ν (?)
2 δικα[ι]ότατος α;νθρωπ(ος)
3 και. γέρ[ω]ν ευvσηβήστατος
4 και. παράκλησιν
14 Once the papier mâché cast was chalked and photographed, the negative had to be printed on the reverse side so that the
inscription could be visualized in its correct form, i.e., so that it could be read from left to right.
15 Traces of this can be seen on the photographs.
16 See Puech - Zias, cit., RB 2004, p. 567f .
5

5 λ[α]ου/ (?)
6 προσδεχ(όμενος)
1 The tomb of Simeon who was
2 a very just man
3 and a very devout el(der)
6 and (who was) waiting for
4 the consolation of
5 the people.
We are certain that some sequences of letters in lines 1 to 4 are accurate, such as CΥΜΕωΝΟC, ΑΝΘΡωΠ,
ΚΑΙ, ΕΥCΗΒΗC, and ΛΗCΙΝ and the others are probably correct. There is still some doubt about line 5, but the
reading Λ[Α]ΟΥ is much better than the first attempt ΑΥΤΟC. Eventually, when it became clear that the scribe
had engraved the main part of a verse of the gospel of Luke, 2:25 (kai. ivdou. a;nqrwpoj h=n evn VIerousalh.m
w-| o;noma Συμεών και. o` a;nqrwpoj ou-toj di,kaioj kai. euvlabh.j (variant euvsebh.j) prosdeco,menoj para,klhsin
tou/ vIsrah,l), it became easier to propose the reading Λ[Α]ΟΥ, because this word replaces Israel in the verse of
the Gospel. The orthography of the first word ΟΘΑΦΟC is not surprising in the Koinè, nor the use of ΓΗΡ[ω]Ν
“Old man or Elder”, because the Infancy Narrative of Pseudo-Matthew describes Simeon as “a man of God, a
prophet and just of 112 years” (15:2), and according to the Proto-Gospel of James he was a priest who followed
Zachariah the martyr, and even a high priest in the Gospel of Nicodemus A 1 and in the Apocalypse of Zachariah,
Simeon and James (vv. 44, 58, 60).17 Since abbreviations were commonly used in the early Byzantine period, the
main words of the verse can thus be understood as part of the narrative account: CΥΜΕωΝ ΟC ΗΝ(?),
ΔΙΚΑ[Ι]Ο(τατο)C, ΑΝΘΡωΠ(ος), ΚΑΙ ΕΥCΗΒΗC(τατος), ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗCΙΝ, (ΛΑΟΥ), ΠΡΟCΔΕΧ(ομενος).
17 For a French translation of the Georgian manuscript, see S. Verhelst, ‘L’Apocalypse de Zacharie, Siméon et Jacques,’
RB 105 (1998) 81-104.
6

The inner portion of the monument, carved entirely out of bedrock, originally contained two loci for burials 18 to
which a kokh, to the left of the stairway was apparently later added.19 Thus it is reasonable that, according to
tradition, two important figures of the early Christian period, Zachariah the father of John, the precursor of Jesus,
and Simeon, a devout hierosolymitan in the Temple (according to the Proto-Gospel of James 24:4 and the Gospel
of Nicodemus,) who succeeded Zachariah as the high priest, were supposed to be buried together.
The inscriptions engraved here bear witness to the written traditions from the Byzantine period and those of the
early church fathers. Moreover, the inscription from the Gospel of Luke is identical to that found in the Codex
Sinaiticus, dated to the second quarter of the fourth century, prior to a correction according to the text of the
Vaticanus codex (euvshbh,j prima manu instead of euvlabh,j) circa the middle of the sixth century, thus
showing that the local Palestinian text was widely accepted as authoritative by the Early Church of Palestine.20
This inscription is the earliest evidence for a New Testament verse engraved in stone, and more precisely
according to the Palestinian tradition.21
Discussion
Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist. These two historical figures, who lived at the beginning turn of our
era, well known to historians and theologians alike, are important to the early Judeo-Christian community of
Palestine. According to Josephus, our earliest source, the zealots forced the Sanhedrin to hold a trial of Zachariah
on false charges of betraying the state to the Roman authorities.22 Found guilty, he was killed in the Temple
18 Avigad, op. cit., p. 100.
19 This loculus, most probably, is ancient, but the thin wall was open to the outside when more holes were made in the
Byzantine period to allow ventilation of the tomb (see Avigad, op. cit., p. 100-102). On all four sides of the monument, the
outer walls were breached to allow ventilation and light into the monument which had by now become a dwelling place or
cell for monks.
20 See H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Corrections of the Codex Sinaiticus, including Contributions by D.
Cockerell, with Plates and Figures, London 1938, p. 61: ‘before the middle of the [fourth] century’, p. 64: ‘The Sinaiticus is
not likely to be much later than about A.D. 360’, and p. 69: ‘…suggest rather Caesarea or at least Palestine, as the
provenance’. See now also T.C. Skeat, ‘The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine,’ JTS, NS 50 (1999)
583-625, where the author shows clearly that the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus were copied in the same scriptorium at
Caesarea and almost at the same period following an order of Constantine (+ 337) according to a letter to Eusebius. Whereas
the smaller codex Vaticanus was copied, the huge but incomplete copy of the Sinaiticus remained at Caesarea, and was later
revised according to the more accepted text before being taken to St. Catherine Monastery sometime before the middle of the
sixth century.
21 See Puech – Zias, cit., RB 2004, p. 572.
22 Josephus Jewish Antiquities, Book XV-XVII Marcus R., translator completed and edited by A. Wikgren, Series: The
Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann, 1963.
7

enclosure and his body tossed into the ravine below. This is probably the source of the legend regarding the
Zachariah inscription above the door, although Avigad regards the monument as a nephesh for the impressive
family tomb lying immediately to the east (Jehoshapat’s tomb) and not as a monument for the tomb itself23. While
the New Testament describes in some detail the events concerning the story of the birth of John the Baptist, there
is no mention in Luke of Zachariah being martyred. According to a Talmudic source (Yerushalmi, Ta`anit IV 9
(69a) the priest Zakariah was killed ( תרזעב םינהכה ) in the court of the priests. Thus, it is clear that the Byzantine
tradition is based upon the story of Zachariah, who in the time of Vespasian (69-79 BCE), was falsely accused of
treason and murdered in the temple by Zealots, who cast his body into the valley below (Josephus, The Jewish
War IV 6).
He mistakenly became known by the early church as the father of John the Baptist. In addition, a Byzantine
tradition appearing in the Proto-Gospel of James (24:2-3,) also testifies that Zachariah, the father of John, was the
prophet slain between the altar and the sanctuary. Thus the inscription confirms all the known textual data.
Historical sources for the Kidron valley monuments of James, Zachariah and Simeon
While Clement of Rome at the end of the first century, and Hegesippus (†182) claimed that the stele for the tomb
of James, brother of Jesus, was near the southeast corner of the Temple,24 the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, in the year
333, only mentioned that the Temptation of Jesus occurred here. He did, however, note two imposing funeral
monuments across the valley below: the tomb of King Hezekiah next to the tomb of Isaiah.25 Regarding the tomb
of James, Rufinus does not mention the stele which, according to Jerome, remained untouched until the Hadrianic
destruction of Jerusalem in the second century. Towards the end of the fourth century (circa 392), Jerome
23 Avigad, op. cit., p. ?.
24 This place cannot be localized on the temple mount in the early Judeo-Christian tradition because the sacred place was
empty of tomb (see the tomb of Hulda and all the tombs around the Temple mount mentioned in the Copper Scroll), thus the
remarks of Verhelst, cit., RB 1998, p. 102-104, can not be accepted.
25 Anonymi itinerarium a Burdigala Hierusalem usque, P.L. VIII, Paris 1844, col. 790-91, or P. Geyer, De situ Terrae
Sanctae. Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi IV-VIII, CSEL 39, Vienna 1898, p. 21-23:591 and 595: Inde non longe quasi ad
lapidis missum sunt monumenta duo monubiles mirae pulchritudinis facta. In unum positus est Isaias propheta, qui est vere
monolithus, et in alium Ezechias rex Judaeorum. Inde ascendis in montem Oliveti...
8

reported a local tradition which had already taken root but which he believed was false because it was contrary to
the literary tradition deriving from Hegesippus, as the tomb below the pinnacle26 had vanished in the plan of Ælia
Capitolina following the Bar Kochba Revolt (132–135 CE). This later tradition now placed it on the slope facing
the foot of the Mount of Olives.27 The testimony of Theodosius (circa 530) provides an explanation for the tomb’s
relocation: James himself had built the tomb of Zachariah where he had buried Simeon and where he decided that
he too would be buried.
The origin of this local tradition probably can be attributed to the visions of the old hermit Epiphanus who had set
up home opposite to the pinnacle in the necropolis in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, which was now becoming a
monastic site in Constantinian Jerusalem. Saint James appeared in a vision before Epiphanus telling him to ask
Bishop Cyril to excavate in his grotto, in order to recover the bones that were hidden there: those of himself the
brother of the Lord, the old man Simeon and the priest Zachariah. Since his request was not implemented, in a
subsequent vision Epiphanus was instructed to go to Eleutheropolis and address himself to Paul who would
accede to the request. Thus excavations were undertaken by the faithful and the remains of the three saints were
exhumed. This time Cyril descended the Kidron and deposited the remains of the saints provisionally buried in the
Holy-Zion on December 1, 351. Then Paul ordered a chapel built on the site of the discovery and the bodies were
deposited under the altar on May 25, 352.28 This building containing the remains of the three saints is also
mentioned in liturgical documents of the Byzantine period and in Western sources, Gregory of Tours (+ 594), the
Account of the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 ,29 and the Chartres manuscript, as well in the
Apocalypse of Zachariah, Simeon and James.30 According to the Life of the Prophets attributed to St. Epiphanus,
26 Hegesippus, (P.G. V, Paris 1857, col. 1313-1314): Atque ita felici martyrio vitam finiit; sepultus est eodem in loco,
manetque adhuc cippus illius prope templum.
27 Jerome, De viris illustribus 2 (P.L. XXIII, Paris 1845, col. 613-614): Triginta itaque annos Hierosolymorum rexit
Ecclesiam, id est, usque ad septimum Neronis annum, et juxta templum ubi praecipitatus fuerat, sepultus est. Titulum usque
ad obsidionem Titi, et ultimam Hadriani, notissimum habuit. Quidam e nostris in monte Oliveti eum putaverunt conditum,
sed falsa eorum opinio est - “…Some of ours believed that James was buried on the Mount of Olives, but their opinion is
false.”
28 According to the Chartres Library 10th century hagiographic manuscript, Analecta Bollandiana 8 (1889) 123f, see F.-M.
Abel, cit., RB 1919, p. 485-87 and Vincent-Abel, op.cit., p. 846a.
29 See J.T. Milik, ‘La topographie de Jérusalem vers la fin de l’époque byzantine,’ MUSJ 37 (1961) 125-89, 172-75.
According to Milik, this chapel is represented on the Madaba map between two towers flanking on one side the building of
the Golden Gate and on the other the stepped road leading to Siloah.
30 See Verhelst, cit. RB 1998. The author summons his views on this manuscript in S. Verhelst, ‘Les lieux de station du
lectionnaire de Jérusalem’, Proche-Orient chrétien 54 (2004) 13-70, p. 56f, and again in ‘Les lieux de station du lectionnaire
de Jérusalem. IIème partie : les lieux saints’, idem, 247-289, p. 256f, but nothing proves that the tradition at the basis of the
9

Zachariah is buried next to Haggai near the tomb of the priests.31 This traditional belief was still current at the time
of the Crusades and archaeological excavations in the 1960s unearthed the remains of a Byzantine chapel
(archaeological dates from circa the fifth –sixth century), with eleventh century restorations in front of the so-
called Tomb of Zachariah. Ruins of hermit cells were also found nearby.32
Local legends that exist until today from Epiphanus, Theodosius, etc.,33 of a single tomb for the three saints
(James, Zachariah, Simeon) can no longer be considered completely accurate as these newly discovered
inscriptions engraved on the so-called tomb of Absalom show that the tomb of Zachariah and Simeon, two priests
of the Temple in the apocryphal tradition,34 were believed to be interred there. Pending further research on the
façade, no epigraphic evidence of James has been found to include his burial with Simeon and Zachariah in a tomb
with only two arcosolia, despite the ancient sources. Therefore the traditional tomb of Zachariah, lying to the
south in the area where the chapel by Paul of Eleutheropolis was erected, have been, as many believe, the ‘tomb of
James’. On the basis of these newly discovered inscriptions, one thing is evident: one can no longer situate the
tomb of James, at least from the early Byzantine period onward until the end of the Crusader period, in the tomb
Latin text is later than the one of the Georgian. In any case the name Simeon was known there much before the date the
author proposes for the Georgian version (around the end of the fifth century.). The mention of Simeon in the inscription at
the right of Zachariah (no mention of James) argues in favor of an old tradition about the three Saint’s burial in this area, but
James joined the two others only when he was later deposited into the church. Many details of the Georgian Text, such as
James as high priest and the proofs for authenticity, …, favor a later textual tradition than that of the Latin text, and do not
support the conclusions of Verhelst.
31 See Vincent-Abel, op.cit., p. 847a.
32 See J.T. Milik, ‘Notes d’épigraphie et de topographie palestiniennes, RB 67 (1960) p. 561 and Pl. XXXI, H.E. Stutchbury,
‘Excavations in the Kidron Valley,’ PEQ 93 (1961) 101-113, V. Corbo, Mort et sépulture de St. Jacques le Mineur, premier
évêque de Jérusalem, Jérusalem 1962, p. 59-75. Surprisingly Barag, cit., still locates the church in front of the Benei Hezir
tomb, but Abel, cit. RB 1919, p. 498f, already located the church at its right place .
33 In his description The Holy Sites, circa 685, Adomnan writes “in the valley, not far from the church of S. Mary, the Tower
of Jehoshapat in which he has his tomb and on the right of this little tower there is a house carved in the rock and separated
from the Mount of Olives, in which one sees two tombs carved with a chisel but without decoration, one is that of Simeon the
Just who holds the infant Jesus in his arms and prophesied about him, and the other that of Joseph, also a just man, the
husband of St. Mary and the foster father of the Lord Jesus’ (Geyer, op.cit., CSEL 39, p. 241), a tradition taken on by Bede in
702-703 (CSEL, p. 309).
34 See also the Georgian translation of the Apocalypse of Zachariah, Simeon, and James, Verhelst, cit., vv. 44, 58 and 60.
This Zachariah, high priest, is the father of John the Baptist, and the predecessor of Simeon, himself high priest, the same is
said for James.
10

of Benei Hezir,35 or with that of Zachariah and Simeon. While local traditions and the narratives tell a different
story, these newly discovered inscriptions should now take precedence.
Karaite traditions
In a Karaite guide book from the 10th century, undoubtedly based upon an earlier Jewish tradition, known from the
first century CE (the Copper Scroll, see below) one reads:
“And on this side (is) the Mount of Olives, which one ascends. At the beginning of the ascent (is located) the
Memorial of Absalom, a circular edifice with a thin summit, similar to a household “kettle” with its cover, and it is
so described by the Arabs as Kamkam (kettle).36 And (on) the path towards the tombs (is) the tomb of (O)rnan the
Jebusite.37 And it is made out of just one stone, and the walls all around (of a) length (= ht) of 20 cubits, 12 cubits
wide and the roof made of just one stone. Connecting with it that (= the tomb) which is next to it, of only one
stone its roof, its floor, its walls and its pillars, (all) [of] only one stone. And facing it (is) a church of (two) floors
called the church of James the brother of Jesus the Messiah. [And on the south of the church of J]ames the
‘churches’ built by Solomon at Astarte, the idol of Moab, and at its side a palm tree grows, and according to the
fathers this place faces the gate of Gehenna, as it said “for there I shall sit to judge all the nations.” And on the left
side of the road (is) another ‘church’, that built by Solomon also for Kamosh, the abomination of Ammonites.”38
According to this passage from the guide-book the author is familiar with the tombs of Absalom, Ornan the
Jebusite, and the tomb of Benei Hezir which connects with the latter and the church of Saint James (in front of the
monolith on the south with the hermit cells surrounding it). However, the author appears to be unaware of our
35 While the Templars were reorganizing the space of the Haram esh-Sherif, they tried to localize the house of the pious
Simeon at the south-east corner which had changed into a church above the crypt supposed to contain the cradle of Jesus;
they dedicated to James the mosque of the Chain, situating there also the killing of Zachariah and the announcement of
John’s birth. But this short and double tradition did not oust the Byzantine one, as it is testified by the Follower of William of
Tyre: ‘Prèz du Val de Josaphas avoit une esglyse où sainz Zachariez li prophetes et sainz Simeon li Vielz et sainz Jaques li
evesques furent enseveli,’ Michelant – Raynaud, Itinéraire français, p. 169 (see Abel, cit. RB 1919, p. 496-97), tradition
which distinguishes Zachariah the father of John and Zachariah the prophet.
36 Phocas in 1177 saw there an Iberian recluse who called this monument by the popular appellation of o ` kou,ko u m o j
“pot” which confirms the kamkam of the manuscript, see Abel cit. RB 1919, p. 495f.
37 It was normal for Jewish tradition to situate opposite the Temple a tomb in memory of Ornan who had ceded his area to
King David in order to construct the Temple, for even though he was a Jebusite, as a non-Judean he could not be given a
place of burial in the City of David. This agrees well with the localization of the Memorial-tomb of Absalom, the cursed
David’s son.
38 According to my reading and translation, see Puech – Zias, RB 2003, p. 331-333, with bibliography for the published
plates and some comments.
11

newly found inscriptions of Zachariah and Simeon, as he still uses the term “Memorial of Absalom” given to the
monolith more than a millennium before Benjamin of Tudela. The anonymous author was also unaware of the
Hebrew inscription prominently displayed on the façade of the Benei Hezir tomb.
Scholars have generally attributed the naming of the tomb of Absalom to the north, to Benjamin Metudela, a
twelfth century traveler in Jerusalem. According to his itinerary “if you leave the gate of Jehoshaphat, you may
see the pillar on Absaloms place”,39 however scholars have seemingly overlooked the fact that some ten years
earlier the site appears on the Cambrai map of Jerusalem as the pillar of Absalom. Thus it is clear that by the
twelfth century the tradition of the monument being attributed to Absalom had evolved (sometime prior to 1150)
and was believed to be the memorial monument erected by Absalom himself (Samuel II 18:18). According to
Avigad’s definitive study of the tomb,40 Josephus Flavius, who described the pillar of Absalom as being two rials
from Jerusalem, already knew or influenced the site identification. He believed that although the distance between
the Temple Mount and the monument exceeds two rials, it is not by much and thus it would have appeared
plausible to pilgrims visiting the site.41 As for Josephus, who was born and lived some time in Jerusalem during the
first century CE (37-96), it is difficult to accept Avigad’s claim that he had misidentified the spot, unless during
the time of Josephus, the tomb was already believed by many to be the tomb of Absalom who had lived and died
some ten centuries earlier.
In fact, the monument was already known as ‘The Memorial of Absalom’ in the first century CE, as it was
mentioned in the Copper Scroll discovered in 1952 in Cave 3, some 2 km in the cliffs north of Khirbet Qumrân.42
Column X, lines 12–14 state: ‘Below the Absalom’s Memorial, from the west side, (are) buried twelve cubits
(deep) 80 k(arsh of) silver.’
39 Benjamin of Tudela, Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela. Translator and Editor A. Asher (London and Berlin, A. Asher
and Co. 1840) p. 71. While most sources attribute the first literary reference to the site as Absalom’s tomb, to Benjamin of
Tudela, the name appears on the Cambrai map of Jerusalem which is some ten years earlier.
40 Avigad, op cit., p. 4.
41 Avigad, op. cit., p. 4.
42 See J.T. Milik, ‘Le rouleau de cuivre,’ in Les petites grottes de Qumrân. Texte, DJD III, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1962,
p. 295 (Puech’s translation).
12

The Copper Scroll can be dated at the latest to the spring of 68 CE, before the fall of Qumran and its resettlement
by the Roman army. Excavations west of the monuments carried out by John Allegro in the 1960’s attempted to
find this treasure, to no avail.
ABSALOM THE SON OF KING DAVID
According to 15th century travelers it had been the local custom of Jews, Christians43 and Moslems44 to physically
stone the pillar of Absalom, while simultaneously cursing him, for his act of rebellion against his father King David
(Samuel II 14–18). In fact, his rebellious conduct against his father was such that, according to the Mishna, he is
sentenced to be among those who have no share in the world to come (Bab. Sanh.103b) and “his abode is in hell
where he will be in charge of ten heathen nations”45. Such was the severity of his rebellion that sixteenth century
travelers reported that children were taken to the monument by their fathers to witness the stoning as a possible
deterrent for unruly behavior. In fact, so popular was the custom that each year the area surrounding the
monument was cleared of stones. A woodcut from 1677 (Figure 3) by the Flemish artist Dapper depicting the
monument with the Mount of Olives and the tomb of Jehoshaphat in the background, also portrays the stoning of
the monument by pilgrims and the inhabitants of Jerusalem during the seventeenth century46, thus supporting the
travelers accounts. As Dapper never actually visited the Holy Land, many of his woodcuts were copied from
works of earlier artists such as Breyden (1483), Zuallart (1586), Amico (1593) and Doubdon (1652); therefore
one can assume that this tradition of stoning the ‘Tomb of Absalom’ could have begun centuries earlier.
Additional evidence of this centuries-old custom of stoning can be seen in photographs of the tomb taken in the
late nineteenth century, which show that the level of debris in some places reached approximately 7 meters above
ground level. (Figure 5)47 In 1923, prior to excavations by archaeologists who were later to become the Israel
Exploration Society, a photograph shows that the situation had barely changed, with debris several meters high
43 Metudela 1481, Voyage of Meshulam Metudela, p. 73.
44 G. Williams, The Holy City. Historical, Topographical, and Antiquarian Notices of Jerusalem. The second edition, with
additions including an Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by R. Willis, London, 1849, vol. 2, p. 157f.
45 A. Jellinek, Beit ha-Midrash, 2 [1938] 50.
46 Dapper, Neukewwrige Beschryving van gantsch Syrie, en Palestyn of Heilige Lant, 1677.
47 Peter Bergheim, the photo was taken during the 1860’s.
13

surrounding the monument.48 What is remarkable about these early photos is that on the southern side of the
monument the debris reached such a height, that anyone taking the effort to climb to this height would easily have
been within a meter or two of the newly discovered Greek inscriptions.49
CONCLUSIONS
Of particular historical interest here is, why for circa 1600 hundred years Jerusalem’s Christians, Jews and later
Moslems ignored the fact that the monument known as Absalom’s Tomb bore Greek inscriptions prominently
incised above and around the door, which were in direct conflict with the local traditions. It is also difficult to
understand why the Hebrew inscription prominently incised on the facade of the Benei Hezir monument (to the
south) was disregarded. Three of the four monuments in the Kidron valley, Benei Hezir, Pharaoh’s Daughter,
Absalom, the exception being the so-called Tomb of Zachariah, are now known to have had inscriptions,50 yet
over the centuries they have been referred to under various names with popular traditions being in direct conflict
with and overriding the inscribed evidence. The inscription on the façade of the tomb of Benei Hezir, which was
never defaced, is a prime example, whereas the traditional tomb of Absalom described here can now be added to
the growing list of misattributed tomb/monuments in the valley.
Byzantine monks reused many of these tombs in the Kidron and neighboring valleys as cells, thus it is even more
difficult to understand the confusing Christian sources, which are the earliest.51 Wilkinson wrote that Jerusalem
underwent a radical change following the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135 CE) with Rome forbidding the Jews to live
in the city, changing its name and its population, thus severing the link between the Jews and their monuments.52
Perhaps this explains the historical reasons for the failure of the Jewish community to record and thus remember
48 See Salucey N., Excavations Around the Absalom Monument, in Handbook of the Society for the Exploration of
Antiquities in the Land of Israel. Vol.1.2, 1925, Fig. 2, p. 13.
49 Access to this viewing area today is difficult and dangerous due to work carried out by religious authorities who eventually
prevented the completion of the work, particularly the fencing around the monument. In light of this, anyone attempting to
view the inscription from the southern side should be aware of the danger.
50 The tomb popularly referred to as the Tomb of Pharaoh’s Daughter evidences a pre-exilic palaeo-Hebrew inscription above
the doorway. Unfortunately, only two letters remain as the inscription was chiseled away, presumably by monks in the
Byzantine period, who modified the tomb into a monk’s cell.
51 For a more complete presentation of Christian sources, see Puech – Zias, citati 2003 and 2004, and Abel, cit. RB 1919.
52 Wilkinson J., Christian Pilgrims in Jerusalem During the Byzantine Period. PEQ 1976, 75-101, p. 77.
14

the rightful owners of these four monuments in the Kidron valley; however it does not explain the forgetfulness on
the part of the Christian communities from the fourth century onward. Is this an example of faith triumphing over
reason, or as Wilkinson wrote “the authenticity of the Holy Places for the early Christians was to be measured by
a standard of faith and prayer rather than logical proof”?53 Whereas Wilkinson was referring to early Christians,
the power of faith over the written word, proclaiming rather than proving, is a testament plainly shared by all three
faiths in the Kidron, situated between the valleys of ‘he who judges’ and ‘biblical hell,’ for almost two millennia.
On the other hand, it may cast doubt on the literacy in the Holy Land of the two Peoples of the Book.
53 Wilkinson J., Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Jerusalem, Ariel 1977, p.37.
15