It is surprising, therefore, to find the name Baale-judah used instead, except that the names are alternatives in Joshua 15:9, where it is called Baalah (cf. Josh. 15:60, where the name is Kiriath-baal). The names compounded with Baal suggest that it may have been a Canaanite high place; Kiriath-jearim means ‘city of forests’, a name which would again be appropriate today in the light of the reafforestation that is transforming the landscape to the west of Jerusalem. It is now known as Kuriet el-‘Enab, or Abu Ghosh, about nine miles (14 km) from Jerusalem, on the Jaffa road.

Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 8;Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 220-221.

The return of the ark to Kiriath Jearim seemed to be a tangible sign that God was once again among His people to bless them and deliver them from all their oppressors. The mere presence of the ark did not guarantee God’s favor, however, as Israel had learned at the battle of Aphek. Rather, it was submission to the God of the ark that was essential

Eugene H. Merrill, 1 Samuel, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985, 1:438.

A city (lit., “house of the sun”) occupying a small rise near the juncture of the Sorek Valley and the fosse along the western base of the hill country formed by the Wadi Ghurab and Wadi en-Najil. The city was apportioned to the tribe of Dan, but never conquered and occupied (Judg. 1:33). During the Solomonic period it was assigned to the second district (1 Kgs. 4:9). Amaziah and Joash battled in the region, and for a time the city fell under Philistine control during the reign of Ahaz (2 Kgs. 14:11; 2 Chr. 28:18).

Excavations of the 8 ha. (7 a.) Tel Beth Shemesh/Tell er-Rumeileh (1477.1286), W of ʿAin Shems, revealed six strata dating from the Early Bronze through Persian and Hellenistic periods. Excavators consider the Late Bronze city the most prosperous. Only scant remains of the earliest level survive. During the Hyksos period (Middle Bronze II), a wall with a Syrian-style gate and two towers enclosed the entire site.

“BETH-SHEMESH,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 175-176.

In fact, in order to determine if the calamities that had struck each of the cities where the ark had gone (a calamity that was almost certainly an outbreak of the bubonic plague) was merely a chance happening unrelated to any divine wrath from the God of Israel, the Philistines rigged up an experiment that was totally against the grain of nature. They took two cows that had just borne calves, penned up the calves, and hitched these cows, who had never previously been hitched to a cart, to a new cart, and watched to see if against every maternal instinct in the animal kingdom the cows would be directed back to the territory of the Philistines. They were. The Philistines were convinced that what happened to them in the outbreak in each city during the seven months when the ark of God was in their midst was no chance or freak accident at all: it was the hand of God! And they had better not harden their hearts as the Egyptians did years ago (1 Sam 6:6).

Walter C. Kaiser et al., Hard Sayings of the Bible, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996, 220.

And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Acts 8:31–35 KJV

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

Acts 8:36–40 KJV

Mark, Q, and John agree in speaking of a special group of “disciples of John.” Remarkably, these writings witness to the continued existence of this distinct group throughout Jesus’ ministry. The kernel of this group undoubtedly goes back to the lifetime of John. A group of John’s adherents seems to have continued on to rival followers of Jesus even after John’s death. Out of the dialogue, Johannine elements such as fasting and baptism might have been introduced into the nascent Christian faith.

John’s disciples evidently believed John to be the Messiah (Recognitions 1.54.8; 1.60.1–2; John 1). After his execution, they seem to have thought John was hidden away by God to return soon (Mark 6:14, 16; 8:28; Recognitions 1.54.8). In all these aspects John’s movement appears to have established a pattern for the early followers of Jesus.

Bibliography. C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York, 1951); E. F. Lupieri, “John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History,” in ANRW II.26,1 (Berlin, 1993), 430–61; C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia, 1964); R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet. JSNTSup 62 (Sheffield, 1991); W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7 (London, 1968).

“JOHN THE BAPTIST,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 728.

In the Greek OT menein, when used in a theological sense, most commonly speaks of the abiding character of God. In contrast to the transitory nature of all things human, God remains, he endures, he is immutable. In the NT period this was considered to be a trait of the Messiah also, as evidenced by the crowds in John’s Gospel who say, “We have heard from the Law that the Christ abides forever” (12:34). And John would have us know that Jesus is the Son who abides forever (8:35), who gives food that abides unto eternal life (6:27), and who enables one to produce fruit that abides (15:16).
In addition, in the first use of the verb in the Gospel, the Evangelist relates that John the Baptist (see JOHN THE BAPTIST) saw the Holy Spirit (see HOLY SPIRIT) coming down from heaven as a dove and remaining (emeinen) on Jesus (1:32). This was no momentary experience of the Spirit, perhaps like that of the judges or prophets, but an enduring reality in Jesus’ life.

“ABIDING,” DJG, 2.

The exact contents and scope of John’s message are difficult to determine. Josephus presents John as someone who exhorts to virtue, righteousness among fellow Jews, and reverence toward God. Given the general political and religious climate, there are likely to have been political overtones pertaining to the future of the Jewish people. Whether John used apocalyptic imagery (cf. Q) is uncertain. In any event, Christian tradition has moved John into a much more definite role as precursor of the Messiah and as Elijah.
John’s teaching regarding baptism doubtless involved some discussion of repentance, purity, and forgiveness. Josephus is at pains to deny that the baptism was for forgiveness of sins, while Mark affirms this. Both positions seem to be evolved from an original connection of repentance, baptism, purity, and forgiveness, witnessed also in the writings from Qumran. The controlling idea that forgiveness comes from God will not have been displaced.
The location of John’s activity outside Jerusalem, combined with baptism involving forgiveness, raises the question of to what degree John consciously challenged the Jerusalem priesthood. Increasing evidence for the prevalence of Jewish ritual ablutions renders less likely the thesis that a baptist movement must necessarily have stood in opposition to the temple cult.

“JOHN THE BAPTIST,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 728.

Mark, Q, and John agree in speaking of a special group of “disciples of John.” Remarkably, these writings witness to the continued existence of this distinct group throughout Jesus’ ministry. The kernel of this group undoubtedly goes back to the lifetime of John. A group of John’s adherents seems to have continued on to rival followers of Jesus even after John’s death. Out of the dialogue, Johannine elements such as fasting and baptism might have been introduced into the nascent Christian faith.

John’s disciples evidently believed John to be the Messiah (Recognitions 1.54.8; 1.60.1–2; John 1). After his execution, they seem to have thought John was hidden away by God to return soon (Mark 6:14, 16; 8:28; Recognitions 1.54.8). In all these aspects John’s movement appears to have established a pattern for the early followers of Jesus.

Bibliography. C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York, 1951); E. F. Lupieri, “John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History,” in ANRW II.26,1 (Berlin, 1993), 430–61; C. H. H. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia, 1964); R. L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet. JSNTSup 62 (Sheffield, 1991); W. Wink, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition. SNTSMS 7 (London, 1968).

“JOHN THE BAPTIST,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 728.

The almost 400-page book is Gibson’s major publication of evidence from his excavation. While there had been a flurry of press conferences and media reports prior to its publication, the lack of references to any publications in his “Select Notes and Bibliography” suggests this is the only publication on the site. Admittedly, the book is a popular presentation of both Gibson’s dig and subsequent research. Consequently, he does not offer sufficient data for scholars to respond to the evidence with anything but tentative opinions. It was good marketing, but not great for scholarship.

This article is not intended as a book review, but as a response to Gibson’s published evidence. Since I am aware of nothing else about the excavation in print, I can only refer to the evidence (and the lack thereof) given in his book.

I do admit that Gibson presents the excavation in an interesting manner. His additional research also adds considerably to the text. He explains his theoretical reconstruction of events and rituals well, giving the reader a clear understanding of his ideas. In fact, the book shows Gibson to be a careful field archaeologist, well versed in his discipline.

Outside the rectangular entrance, large enough to pass through while standing, is a porch also carved out of the bedrock. Here, on the left (west) side of the entrance, is a third set of carved reliefs. Seven more carved steps lead up from the porch to the surface of the hill. Outside, to the east, are two large stone settling basins carved from bedrock. All of this—basins, steps, porch and cave—were plastered with the same lime plaster and most assuredly constructed as a single unit. The plaster was typologically and geologically dated to the eighth–sixth centuries BC, a date confirmed by the earliest pottery sherds in a stratified level at the site. [1]

In addition, a wide trough was cut into the bedrock above the cave. It was designed to collect runoff rainwater and to channel it to a vertical shaft cut into the cave’s ceiling. In addition, two channels cut into the bedrock in front of the cave also brought water from the valley floor to the settling basins. A stone-built barrier wall across the valley floor collected water to be channeled to the settling basins. These features, too, were believed by Gibson to be original parts of this water collection system. Clearly the time, energy and resources needed to construct such a complex were significant. And, while aspects of this water system are known throughout the country, all the features together at this location from this time period does make it unique. [2]

Gibson identifies the nearest ancient Iron Age city, about 3/4 mi (1 km) away, as Old Testament Suba (2 Sm 23:26) and Crusader period Belmont Castle. After surveying the city, Gibson suggests it was much larger during the Iron Age than previously suspected, with even upper and lower cities. Almost 3/4 mi away, and having a spring of its own, suggests to Gibson that his cave was probably not constructed as part of the city’s water system. The complex’s location at the bottom of the valley also made it useless as part of an irrigation system. If there is truly a “stunning archaeological discovery” at the cave, as Gibson suggests, it might be an early (late Iron Age II) Jewish ritual water system, maybe even a prototype for the Roman period Jewish ritual bath (miqveh).
 
Gibson looked into the Old Testament to find terms that might explain his discovery. He proposed that the cave might be an example of a cavity in the ground sometimes used to store water, often translated “cistern” (Hebrew bor; 1 Chr 11:18). Gibson suggests it might be understood and translated as “reservoir.” The water collected in the valley in front of the cave, Gibson theorizes, may be identified with the Hebrew gbi (2 Kgs 3:16–17) and be translated “artificial pond.”
 
Based on the published evidence, the complex of cave, steps, and settling basins were hewn and plastered sometime during the eighth–sixth centuries BC. Along with a water-collecting trough above and a stone retaining wall in front, the entire complex was constructed together in the late Iron Age II period. Gibson presents an interesting scenario that this water system from the end of the First Temple period did not appear to be constructed for drinking water or irrigation, but may have had a ritual purpose. If he is correct, that would truly be a “redefining” of Judaism and water rituals (especially in reference to the origin of ritual bathing and miqvaoth [plural; miqveh, singular]).
 
I agree that the complex is unique and that its original function is unclear, making Gibson’s explanation an interesting proposal. If correct, it would add tremendously to our understanding of late First Temple Judaism, the water rituals and water complexes mentioned in the Old Testament, and the origin of the Second Temple practice of ritual bathing in miqvaoth.
 
In the end, Gibson may be right about the site being recognized during the Byzantine period as a special site. His interpretation of the complex as originally created is also insightful. But his ideas about the structure during New Testament times are far more creative than the archaeological evidence allows.