The Mikva’ot in Jerusalem
Here we come to one of the most fascinating insights from contemporary archaeology. For centuries paedobaptists have argued that Jerusalem, on the top of Mount Zion, could not possess enough water for the immersion of 3000 people who obeyed Peter’s injunction on the day of Pentecost: “Repent and be baptised, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38). While some aspects of Jerusalem’s water supply, such as Hezekiah’s Tunnel, have been known through archaeologists, it is only in the last two decades that significant discoveries effecting our knowledge of first century baptism have been known.
A. Mazar has made a specific study of the water resources of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. He writes: “The flow of water to Jerusalem, was solely by gravity. Thus, the sources had to be higher than the city being supplied. Such sources are found south of Jerusalem in three concentrations: in Wadi Arrub, where the springs are an average of 810 metres above sea-level; in Wadi Biyar, at the southern end of which there is a spring at the 870 metre level; and in the region of Solomon’s Pools, where there are two springs above the pools, at 800 metres, and two more below the pools, at the 765 metre level. These very slight differences in height, and the numerous topographical obstructions, necessitated a meandering, lengthy route for the aqueducts, with a very slight gradient.
The first section of the aqueduct system, which we call the Arrub Aqueduct, is split up by a number of small wadis, necessitating a route of some 40 kilometres, even though the distance is only 10 kilometres as the crow flies. The aqueduct gathers the abundant waters of the springs of Wadi Arrub, partly stored in a pool of some 20,000 cubit metres capacity.
In this region, the aqueduct is built on a high foundation wall, but in the rocky region east of Beit Fajjar it is a mere channel hewn into the bed-rock, or partly hewn and partly constructed, covered over by stone slabs. In this section, it is some 50 centimetres wide and 50-60 centimetres high. In three places the aqueduct tunnels beneath ridges; the bridging of wadis was done by means of solid dams which could withstand the winter torrents. All along the Arrub Aqueduct, two major building phases can be distinguished. The initial stage is probably to be ascribed to the period of the Second Temple; whereas the second stage is apparently from Mamluk times. The aqueduct of Wadi Biyar is a short one, with a fairly straight route, mostly through tunnels. It is some 4.7 kilometres long and differs entirely from the Arrub Aqueduct. The first three kilometres of the Biyar Aqueduct is actually one long tunnel, hewn at a depth of 8-23 metres along the wadi. The tunnel was hewn through tens of shafts, a well-known technique employed in Roman aqueducts.
Tunnels of this type were generally employed to overcome topographical obstacles, but here the intent differed; the wadi provided no obstacle, especially since the opening of the tunnel is some 70 metres above the upper reservoir at Solomon’s Pools. The intent here for hewing the tunnel was purely hydraulic, showing the knowledge of the engineers involved. The tunnel is hewn into soft hawwar, an impermeable limestone giving rise to springs throughout the Judean hills. The geologist A. Flexer, who has examined the tunnel, writes: “The principle of building the tunnel is in the meeting of an aquifer and an aquiclud, so that all along the way ground water is constantly being gathered.” Thus, we have before us a unique hydraulic project, having no parallel in this country; the entire tunnel was hewn to serve as a water-source – three kilometres long!” “Jerusalem Revealed”. Edited by Yigael Hadin. pp.80,81. Israel Exploration Society 1976.
One purpose of such an intricate system, and this was only one aspect of the Jerusalem water supply in the time of Jesus, is the number of private mikva’ot found in houses near to the Temple Mount, and by the stairs leading to the Temple near where Peter was preaching on the Day of Pentecost. These discoveries only made in the last few years, were possible only because of the removal of valuable Islamic buildings accidentally (?) destroyed in the Six Day war.
I have examined them closely and the results are most powerful in ending much of the centuries long debate on the mode of Christian baptism in the early church.
The outstanding Israeli archaeologist Mier Ben-Dov, who has led the archaeological excavation of many of the areas round the Temple mount, writes of his discoveries:
“Our excavations proved that residential buildings were situated as close as a dozen meters from the walls of the Temple Mount. Still, the area immediately surrounding the mount was designated for public use, meaning thoroughfares and squares as well as public and commercial buildings. It was on the slopes of the western hill and to the north of the City of David that we uncovered the remains of residential neighbourhoods. Their buildings were constructed very close together, reminding us again that Jerusalem of the Second Temple period was both a heavily populated and highly prosperous city whose economy was nourished by the steady traffic of pilgrims and a burgeoning network of commercial ties. Although we also know that the city supported crafts and industrial enterprises, as well, to date no sign of such installations has been unearthed within its bounds. The ancient sources help us on this point by noting how the city fathers made sure that petty-crafts workshops were located outside the walls. They seemed to have been aware that ovens and other industrial apparatus pollute the environment and must therefore be kept well away from residential neighbourhoods. This precaution was all the more apt in a city as crowded as Jerusalem.”“The lively trade in real estate for building purposes, particularly in the areas closest to the Temple Mount, made it necessary to exploit every patch of land to the utmost. Shops were even built into the piers of Robinson’s Arch and Wilson’s Arch. The residential quarters that began near the commercial center adjoining the Temple Mount extended southward and westward, growing into densely built neighbourhoods. In essence the streets were no more than narrow alleys that threaded their way between the houses -when, indeed, these buildings did not actually touch up against each other or share common walls – according the city the look of a typical ancient metropolis. Yet despite the intense exploitation of the real estate and crowded effect on the outside, the houses themselves were relatively spacious inside. The format of a typical residential building in Jerusalem was of a patio house, namely, a set of rooms built around a central courtyard. These enclosures were not in themselves very large, but they allowed for relative privacy in a densely populated city.”
“Sometimes the enclosed courtyards contained no special architectural features; sometimes they were rather like peristylar courts in that they had a few pillars in the centre supporting a thatch of vineleaves. In any event, the houses in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, though planned with care, were modest in size compared to the villas in the country’s rural areas, for the sheer dearth of space and exorbitant price of land prevented even the wealthy from building in a manner commensurate with their economic standing. The houses were constructed out of stone, sometimes well dressed, sometimes only partially so. Their walls were plastered both inside and out, while the interiors were also whitewashed and decorated with simple frescoes and other artistic embellishments.”
“In Herod’s day the barrel vault became almost the exclusive form of roof in Judea. It required considerable engineering skill, auxiliary equipment for building forms, and scaffolds for constructing the vaults – not to mention a good deal of work to dress the stones that would ultimately make up the vaults. When vaults were first built, they were fashioned exclusively out of dressed stone, which required precision chisel work at angles that aligned with the structure of the arches. Nevertheless, barrel vaults proved to be an unparalleled structural solution to the problem of ceilings and roofs in an area where wooden rafters were a highly expensive commodity. The stone vaults also made it possible to construct multi-story houses – and, indeed, many of Jerusalem’s houses in that period rose to a height of two or three stories, which was a boon for coping with the pressures of a burgeoning population.”
“One of the hallmarks of these buildings – an element found in almost every one of them – is the mikveh or ritual bath. Since they were carved out of bedrock, these baths survived almost intact despite the subsequent destruction inflicted on other parts of the houses. Every generation has its social classes, and from this point of view the Second Temple period was no different from any other. Yet rather than be based on economic or social standards, classes then were defined on the basis of a religious guideline. Some were very strict in observing the religious precepts of the halakhah, others were less rigorous. The more fastidious in their observance of the commandments were called haverim (“comrades”), while their less exacting counterparts were called amei aratzot (“the uninitiated” or “common folk”). Yet we should note that the commandments in question are not the religious precepts whose observance or violation distinguishes between religious and non-observant people today, such as the Sabbath and the dietary laws of kashrut. Those commandments were universally observed in the Jewish community during the Second Temple period. What distinguished between the haverim and the amei aratzot was a rigorous observance of halakhic practice – most particularly the laws of impurity and purification – sometimes well beyond the demands of the halakhah. Hence the abundance of ritual baths. According to the halakhah, the water used in a ritual bath must either be rainwater or come from a constantly flowing source such as a spring. In places where there was no water source in the vicinity, rainwater was used. But that gave rise to problems of its own, for when the water in the ritual bath had to be changed in the summertime, it was necessary to draw water from cisterns.”
“The sticklers of the day felt that drawing water from a standard well did not meet the demands of the halakhah, because it was “drawn water” rather than rainwater. In order to make the water fit for use, the following solution was arrived at: a receptacle with a minimum capacity of 40 seah (about 800 litres) was built alongside the ritual bath. Referred to as the “treasury,” this reservoir was used to store rainwater, and its contents could not be used for any other purpose. The “treasury” and the ritual bath were connected by a pipe two fingers in diameter “like the width of the tube of a wineskin,” as the Mishnah puts it.
Whenever a householder wanted to clean his ritual bath and change its water, he plugged up the pipe, cleaned and rinsed the bath, and then refilled it with water drawn from a cistern. Afterward the pipe was unblocked and contact was made between the fresh water already in the bath and the water of the “treasury”. This blend purified the water of the mikveh and made it fit for bathing according to halakhic demands. These three components – the ritual bath itself, the “treasury” beside it, and a cistern from which the water was drawn to fill and change the bath – were found in every one of the houses uncovered on the slopes of the western hill. In cases where there was not enough room to build the three components side by side, or for the sake of conserving space, the “treasury” was sometimes built under the steps leading into the ritual bath. Occasionally the cistern was cut into the rock below them both.
The ritual baths were coated with a gray-coloured plaster to prevent seepage. In addition to lime and sand – the standard ingredients of the plaster – olive oil was added to strengthen it and enhance its impenetrability. The ritual bath was entered by at least six steps that were covered by water and were considered an integral part of the bath. Anyone who entered the mikveh would descend these steps impure and ascend them cleansed. To ensure that the purified bather would not come into contact with the part of the step he had tread on while descending into the mikveh, a number of baths had railings to divide the steps and indicate one side for descent and the other for ascent (we have evidence of this convention in the Mishnah). We also uncovered other kinds of ritual baths within the residential quarters, including “seeded” baths that did not draw upon a “treasury” and baths cut into the rock like caves. So far forty-eight ritual baths have been excavated.
The abundance of ritual baths in the area of the Temple Mount, compared to their relative scarcity in the Upper City and other quarters of Jerusalem, prompted scholars to formulate a number of theories. Some posited that the residents of the neighbourhoods adjoining the Temple Mount must have been more pious than the members of the aristocracy, who lived in the Upper City and were less zealous in their adherence to the halakhah. From the standpoint of strict observance of the laws of ritual purity, it is hardly necessary for everyone to have his own private mikveh, especially as public ritual baths definitely satisfied the need.
Then why this abundance of ritual baths in the houses built near the Temple Mount? As we have seen, a prerequisite for entering the Temple Mount was purification in a ritual bath. We know that many pilgrims lodged in hospices and public hostels, but the custom of renting rooms existed back then, too. Imagine the attraction of a notice tacked up on a street corner were it phrased to the following effect: “Rooms for rent. Reasonable rates. Private mikveh on premises.” That is how I would explain the profusion of these baths, for many of the householders living near the Temple Mount made a living from renting out rooms. The cisterns uncovered in these buildings are huge, accommodating some 150 square metres of water. What’s more, five such cisterns were found in a single building!”
“Our work exposing the entire area revealed a mammoth building with some ten rooms, five water cisterns, and three ritual baths! Its state of preservation, relative to Jerusalem buildings of the Second Temple period, was excellent. In a number of places vaults were unearthed fully intact, as were doorways from the threshold right up to the lintel. The foundations of this structure were hardy walls from the First Temple period. Although our excavation of the building is not yet complete and we still have not compiled all the information on it, clearly we have come upon a multi-roomed building of at least two storeys.” “In The Shadow Of The Temple” Meir Ben-Dov. pp.149-155. Kester Publishing House 1982.
The old paedobaptist arguments that there were no facilities in Jerusalem to immerse 3000 people on the day of Pentecost, and an inadequate water system except the drinking pools which would not have been allowed to be used a baptisteries, have been totally destroyed by recent archaeological discoveries of the 48 mikva’ot in the very area where Peter was preaching.
The “Encyclopaedia Judaica” (1971, Vol , p1543) says:
“There were many mikva’ot on the Temple Mount…even during the fratricidal war on the Temple Mount the laws of ritual immersion were strictly adhered to (Josephus Wars 4:205). The Temple itself contained pools in various places for the priests to bathe even in the vaults beneath the courts. The High Priest had special mikva’ot in the Temple for immersion in the Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. There was an additional place for immersion on the Mount of Olives.”
By the great staircase recently excavated, leading into the Holda Gates and into the Temple Mount, there is a mikveh where women were purified after child-birth. Mary would have entered this special female mikveh for her purification.
This occurred 33 days after the birth of Jesus when they brought Him to the Temple. (Luke 2:21-24). The 48 others are also at the foot of these stairs. The 48 mikva’ot also must not be thought to have been the only ones in the area of the Temple Mount. They are the only ones to have been thus far excavated. The difficulties of trying to excavate in a built-up and extremely sensitive area are enormous, but what has been discovered in a small area already is sufficient to end the old arguments about the availability and sufficiency of water for the performance of immersion baptism of adults in the Early Church.
