From Ha’aretz:
The Bible and other Jewish sources are full of details about the priests and high priests, from the descriptions of their garments as described in the Book of Exodus, to the number of high priests who served in the First and Second Temples. Now archaeology is providing new evidence to show the institution indeed existed: a fragment from the lid of a sarcophagus, bearing the inscription “son of the high priest” in a Second Temple-era script.
Note the implied leap from an archaeological fragment to ‘proof’ of the biblical text. The piece mentions a high priest and so it must be the case that the descriptions of Exodus are proven.
The fragment was found north of Jerusalem, near Nebi Samuel, in a salvage excavation conducted by the Civil Administration to prepare for the separation fence. The fragment is 1,900 years old and predates the 70 C.E. destruction of the Second Temple by a few decades, archaeologists Naftali Aizik and Benyamin Hareven found.
And then this interesting bit
At the excavation site, public and residential buildings, agricultural installations, pools and cisterns were also unearthed, dating from the Second Temple period to the early Muslim period. The archaeologists believe this was the site of the estate of a high priest who served at the Temple in Jerusalem.
And then this even more interesting (read slightly amusing) bit
“It is reasonable to imagine the high priest’s son died somehow, while his father was serving as the high priest,” said an Antiquities Authority source.
Yes, I would say that it is quite reasonable to suggest that the occupant of the coffin was indeed dead. And if he wasn’t, he certainly is now.
And finally
Incidentally, the fragment of the sarcophagus cover was not discovered at the estate itself, but rather outside. It apparently was moved about a thousand years ago and used to construct a later Muslim building that was built on the ruins of the Second Temple-era houses.
So all the speculation about the connection between the priestly estate, etc., is unprovable because the coffin wasn’t found where the estate was supposed to be…
Ah archaeology (or rather, ah, the interpretation of archaeological relics…)
