For April-June 2000
Volume 3 Number 2

[ Home ] [ More Editions of Perspectives ] [ Our Feature Article ] [ Comments from Viewers ] [ Questions & Answers ]

This page provides a place for the opinion of our editors and viewers and for answers to short questions from our viewers.

Our Feature Article

Jerusalem's Temples: Lost and Found? or Simply Forgotten? 

Is the Haram esh-Sharif the site of the ancient Roman Fortress Antonia? Did Jews, Christians, and Muslims simply forget where Herod's Temple once stood? Has the site been found at last? New study says, yes! and its author challenges you to prove it.

by Michael P. Germano

If there has been any one spot in Jerusalem that biblical scholars agree is authentic, at least until now, it is the identification of the Haram esh-Sharif as the Temple Mount of Herod's day. As I strolled across its platform, looking at my Bible map in an attempt to visual the glorious Second Temple, I found myself suddenly surrounded by thugs screaming "temple, temple, temple" at the top of their lungs.

Once sanity reigned, upon their leader deciding I simply was another stupid American tourist, I was freed and allowed to keep my Bible so long as I did not open it. Obviously Jerusalem's Jews and Muslims feel quite strongly about the identity of this site. The question is, however, in this identification by Christians, Jews, and Muslims could we all have erred?

"Yes!" says biblical historian Ernest L. Martin. In his fascinating new book The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot Martin goes to elaborate pains to show that the Second Temple, that of Herod the Great, had to lie about 600 feet to the south of the Haram esh-Sharif over the Gihon spring. He argues that the Haram esh-Sharif is actually the remains of the Roman fortress Antonia.

This is an unexpected, exceptional analysis of the historical and archaeological data of the Temples of Jerusalem. This new explanation of the venue of the First and Second Temples provides the solution to heretofore incongruous statements in Josephus with the evidence of the biblical and archaeological records. Not only a work of significant scholarly impact it may well serve as the awaited stimulus for the building of Jerusalem's Third Temple by shifting our collective focus from the Haram esh-Sharif to the area of the Gihon Spring.

Professional archaeologists, historians, and clerics would be remiss if they simply reject Martin's theory out of hand. That may be an initial knee-jerk reaction by those steeped in their cultural tradition particularly for a paradigm shift of this magnitude. It was my thought when I first heard the theory. As the publisher and editor of BibArch� I decided I should take the time to read the book. I am glad I did. If you are interested in Jerusalem then you need to read this book as well! 

Martin has developed sufficient literary evidence in support of the proposition that it needs to be taken seriously. Testing the theory is appropriate. What does the archaeological record evidence? Did Martin keep the literary evidence in its sociocultural context? Is the literary evidence consistent with the theory? We must evaluate Martin's theory by combining in-depth historical information with archaeological data.

This kind of inquiry necessitates concrete evidence. Simply developing a well-reasoned narrative to spin the literary evidence is not helpful. A careful exegesis of the textual evidence Martin proffers is in order. This would verify that the text has been understood in its original sociocultural context.

Martin, who takes the words of Jesus at Luke 19:43-44 and Luke 21:5-6 literally, argues the total removal of the Second Temple and its foundations in accord with Jesus' statements. Is then all of the evidence of archaeological record gone? If so, it would be a convenient excuse for a failure of verification -- a self fulfilling prophecy that serious scholars will not dismiss. Absent archeological evidence there would remain only historical information which, as textual data, is always open to interpretation.

The book's readers need to take care that they don't fail to see the forest for the trees. There are some problems with Martin's presentation and his argument of the evidence but he does, in deed, make a credible prima fascia case.

Martin's argument is in the form of an elaborate proof. Its weakness is that his sourcing is inconsistent. Serious readers require detailed citations to original sources in a standard citation format. The absence of some citations in critical aspects of Martin's analysis tend to weaken it. For example, the nature of the land of Eden and its garden appears in the discussion as does the tower at Babel. He states that God divided the garden into sections but offers no proof. His assertions read as fact but in reality he has assumed facts not in evidence.

Martin relies heavily on Josephus to make his case. In doing so he draws from a heavily redacted document but attempts to minimize such corruption. He takes the time to flush out meaning from the Greek. He brings out subtle details not evident in the standard English translations. For example, he shows that Josephus stated that Herod's Temple was a stadia, about 600 feet, from the Roman Antonia Fortress. He also shows that Josephus was well aware that Zion was not the western hill area. He brings to our attention the problem of scribal additions and redaction. This is indicative of the whole problem of the orthodox Gentile Christian corruption of Scripture and historical documents.

The book could make a far more powerful case by elimination of repetition and by inclusion of extensive scholarly citations. Repetition does not make an assertion fact. Redundancy easily offends serious scholars as they tend to see it as insulting their intelligence.

The route of the Bordeaux Pilgrim is important to understanding Jerusalem as it existed in 333. Martin understands that the Pilgrim entered the city from the north. He also states that after passing through the Sion gate there were no structures of significance until he came to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (see also Golgotha! Calvary and the Elusive Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth -- the Bishop's Secret!). If so, why did the Pilgrim go to the trouble of scaling the western hill from the valley? The answer is that the mother of all churches, the Judeo-Christian synagogue called the Holy Church of God by Eusebius (Eusebius Demonstratio Evangelica 6.18; Ferrar 1920a:30-31), dominated the plateau (see also The Cenacle). Martin does not recognize the site as authentic.

Moreover, Martin argues that the rotation of Herod's Temple and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher from true north is by 10 degrees to align the structures with the garden in Eden. He claims the shape of the Temple was a square in one sense and a cube in another. While he explains these matters, and he may be right in this interpretation, he offers little evidence from the Scriptures or ancient literature for these propositions. So, in my opinion they remain open issues.

Critics will find plenty upon which to focus their talents. The text has its share of incomplete sentences, spelling errors, and repetition. This is a common problem in small publishing enterprises and self-published books. The larger publishing houses assign editors to projects who often stimulate authors to perfect their text. This work suffers from a lack of this level of professional editing. Perhaps in a second edition these matters can be put to rest, so scholars can focus on the main propositions of the Temple location rather than fussing over trivia.

The drawings are helpful even though there is some inconsistency. Serious readers will need a good map of Jerusalem to help visualize Martin's reasoning. I recommend the Jerusalem Old City Map by the Survey of Israel which is an excellent survey map.

Several references indicate that more information will appear on the askdoc.com website. This suggests that Martin may not have had time to develop all the material he envisioned for inclusion in the book. This is difficult for the typical reader as the world wide web is still in its infancy. I know of some archaeologists who remain reluctant to use the web, let alone rank and file avocational archaeologists, and people of faith attracted to this book.

If Martin is right, he may be, it will have a significant impact on how we all see Jerusalem. It will also provide a location for construction of a Third Temple in an area that is unoccupied and in Israeli not Palestinian hands. This is an exciting proposition that should excite Jews and Christians alike. For more information or to order your copy see The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot.

I would like to inform you, dear reader, that this analysis is not wholly objective. Dr. Martin is a friend of many decades. I had the privilege of being dean of faculty when he chaired the theology department at Ambassador College, Pasadena, California. Dr. Martin first introduced me to the Holyland in 1973 when I visited Professor Benjamin Mazar and the excavations at the Ophel. While we differ theologically on some matters we share many of the same views concerning early Jerusalem.

Comments from Our Viewers

Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us comments.

On Plugging the Holes in the Gap Theory

Reading the respondents to the article on Genesis Unbound, it's obvious to me that few if any of them have actually read the book. I have. Sailhamer's contention is one that all evangelicals must agree with, viz., that the first job of hermeneutics to understand what the text is saying. This he does in a commendable way. I found his arguments compelling. The review (posted on this site) summarizes his contentions well. There are some weak spots in his exegesis, but no one should assail his evangelical credentials. I speak as a capital C conservative evangelical!

--Dr. Glenn Layne, Temple City, CA

In reference to the Gap theory and plugging the gaps, you might find the information on this site helpful: http://www.kjvbible.org.

--Christian Geology Ministry

The gap theory is a classical example of the biblical hermeneutical method of eisogesis, reading one's own interpretations into the Bible rather than letting the text speak for itself. May I recommend a series of books by Zecharia Sitchin, The Earth Chronicles and Genesis Revisited. Sitchin found that without question the Book of Genesis was a retelling of ancient Sumerian texts such as the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, the "Plain Truth" will never be accepted by those who bring their pre-conceived notions to the table.

--Corey Wicks

This subject has long been an interest of mine, and in fact I was asked to speak to a high-school biology class as a counterpoint speaker to the idea of "evolution". However, what the class got was something for which both the students and the teacher were not prepared. I spoke of the idea that science and religion were not mutually exclusive. They expected to hear a typical young earth theory but instead I agreed with them that the earth was billions of years old.

It seems that the idea of the young earth creationism is almost universally represented as "THE" theory of creationism that all Christians espouse. At least that is what the young earth believers would have non-believers think! The old-earth theory is almost never mentioned when it is an evolution versus creationism debate. As a result, Christians are made to be fools in the world's eyes because of the obviously preposterous (at least to me) ideas that all of creation can be explained in an approximate 6,000 year span of time. This is exactly what happened with the Scopes Monkey trial.

The biggest thing that young earth creationists hang their arguments on is the idea that sin and death ONLY entered the world through ADAM. To that idea, I would refer them to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 that speak of the fall of Lucifer. Why is it such a stretch for them to believe that Lucifer, now Satan, could not have been cast down to earth and as a result "corrupted" the earth at some time prior to Adam? Further, why is it hard for young earth creationists to conceive of a God who would use such corruption as the means by which He would bring to pass perfection? After all, if God would not do this, then He surely made a big mistake in allowing Jesus to suffer death, right?

It is a fact that fossil fuel in great abundance exists under the earth. Could God have simply made such pools in one command? Of course! But could He have not also have used the death of billions of creatures as a good thing to provide oil for man? And further, could He have not allowed the natural process of decay and pressure over time to make this process come to pass?

Now, many young earth creationists point to the flood as proof. While I do not know for a fact that the flood was only local, the Bible itself paints a picture of a flood that did not go particularly high. Would it have covered Mt Everest? Gen. 7:20 "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." I can point to trees that are more than 8,000 years old (Bristlecone pines) that obviously survived if there had been a flood over the whole earth, because if the flood had truly "covered all the mountains", then goodbye Bristlecone pine tree. I know of no tree that can survive 150 days underwater. And I can point to sharks, alligators, and fish that are still alive today that also exist in fossil records. There are intact frozen wooly mammoth carcasses that can be reliably dated prior to Adam. So we have not only fossil rock records but ice records that agree with rock records.

The list goes on and on. So much so, that I am forced to believe that the young earth creationists are using eisegesis simply because they want so badly to justify God, so that the real doctrine of sin and death can be explained. I too want to justify God. I believe though that trying to contain God to a few thousand years actually serves the opposite purpose. It LIMITS God! The fact is, Genesis is not intended to be a treatise on all of mankind and explains everything as a scientific journal would. It is intended to tell us one simple fact. God is, and God created us! Genesis doesn't even pretend to tell us HOW God did all this. It simply tells us that it happened! There is even latitude within the text that indeed the days of creation can be eons of time. Although I do not ascribe to this, there is nothing in the text that would PRECLUDE it.

So on and on it goes. The devil has gotten Christians to fight amongst themselves about matters that cannot be proven from the bible, and in the meantime we are being ridiculed by the world because one particularly ridiculous and indefensible view is taken by a few self-professed creation scientists who themselves don't use the principles of science to make their case. And as all this goes on, the world dishonors God because we cannot do as we are told to do in 1 Timothy 1:4: "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." Also, the clear statement in the same book 6:20: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen."

True scientists accept the evidence brought to them. As far as evolution goes, the strict idea of evolution is indeed anathema to the gospel. But the idea of natural selection is not. In fact, there are many true scientists who are not Christians who would agree with this statement! When arguing about evolution with a non-believer, a christian should put true evolution where it belongs - as a faith! But a real Christian scientist (if I may borrow a term) would not deny that natural selection does exist, and would not get it confused with evolution. If they did, then the arguments for an old earth and creation, and science, could be easily reconciled, and God would receive the glory!

I maintain that true Christians do not oppose science, they complement it. Those who argue against clear knowledge of the facts found out by men of good science and of good will, only seek to promote their own personal agendas, not the agenda of God, who would have us get about the task of proclaiming Christ rather than fighting amongst ourselves to the detriment of finding out what is really true in science.

Why oh why are we Christians so foolish?

--Doug Moody, NC

Doug Ward discusses the Genesis 1 controversy in Plugging the Gaps in the Gap Theory: Genesis 1 Revisited based upon the book Genesis Unbound by John H. Sailhamer. Today's popular view of the early Old Testament  and a basic assumption underlying scientific thinking was set by the Cartesian-Newtonian Paradigm. The paradigm requires that all innovations must necessarily arise within preexisting species and matter. In this important work Sailhamer provides a fresh exegesis of Genesis 1 which challenges that paradigm. He argues that the ancient Semitic writer of Genesis 1 understood that God only, not matter, is eternal and credits God as the sole creator.  Implicit in the "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, wherein matter came from nothing, suggests there will be an end. Sailhamer holds that the seven days of creation are not a discussion of the creation of the earth and its life forms, but rather of God's preparation of The Land (Eretz) for humans. Their position in Eden was to worship and obey God. God prepared the land for the residence of Adam and placed him in it.  The Land in question is that which the Israelites understood to be the Promised Land.  If Sailhamer is correct then his exegesis falsifies both Creation Science and young-earth creationism. 

–editor

Lindsay's Egyptian Timeline

Ancient Egypt has given birth to most of the religions of the world, both East and West.  It seems Human beings evolved Out-of-Africa with a religion very early in Human evolution.

Conventional Egyptian dates are not based on Astronomy and are off in their dates. Egyptian History can be shown by Astronomical Methods to be older than 6000 years, assuming the stars move regularly in their paths. Using Egyptian History can enlighten us on Biblical Timelines. I propose an interesting timeline that contains much of Biblical significance and can shed light on  Biblically significant events.

In Matthew 1:17, a time line is given that covers Biblical History. "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

Assuming 40 years is a generation, this timeline gives us when these events occurred that is, 14x40 = 560 years apart.  The timeline correctly dates the carrying away to Babylon ~560 BC ( 586- 539 BC).  David would be around 1120 BC and Abraham would be 1680 BC! 

This dating is compatible with the generations from Abraham to "Joseph" in Egypt.  Abraham (1680) to Isaac (1580) to Jacob/Israel(1520) to Joseph (1450). This assumes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had the indicated son's late in life as the Bible says.

Joseph, can be shown to be the vizier to Akhenaten, the Pharaoh who mandated worshipping only Aton.  This occurred around 1450 BC in Egypt. The Jews of today are the descendants of the Old Egyptian Sabean religion of the Coming Son of the Mother, Seth or Set.  Moses was an Egyptian of that religion and led a revolt and exodus around 1300 BC.

This 1300 revolt was the third exodus of Set religionists form Egypt the first was during the rise of the 18th Dynasty, around 1800 BC. The second was after the fall of Akhenaten, around 1450 BC. 

The Set religion was the prehistoric religion of Ancient Egypt and was carried out of Egypt by emigrants into other parts of the world. After the rise of Thutmose III, around 1650 BC, the father God religion of Amen became the world religion, with Zeus-Amen in Greece and Jupiter-Amen in Rome.

As the Pope has asked for Christian Forgiveness for the sins of the church in the past, it is time to re-look at the religions Judaism and Christianity evolved from! We will find that we are all descendants of an older religion,  Out-of-Africa.

There is more to this story.

--Wardell Lindsay

Will the Anti-Christ be a Jew?

The issue mentioning the Falwell statement has some way concluded with an open door to believe that even though Paul, Daniel or even John directed the evidence or signs to leaders of their time, I believe in my opinion, that the same Holy Ghost that inspired them to write these words (prophetic words ) has and will guide us to know the manifestations of this one called the Anti-Christ. To my understanding, this person (Satan in all of his glory in a human form ) must have some sort of ties or bondings with the Hebrew nation that awaits "their Messiah" and in that fact, I find that although the authority allowed to this figure will be of great proportions over humanity, the religious order or highest office to the Hebrew Nation must have good if not overall reason to even consider a man to rule as their "Messiah". As I can recall, their idea of a Messiah wasn't Jesus because, according to many rules and man made laws, He didn't complete or observe them as they wanted Him to. (The above mentioned has to do with them accepting Jesus as the Son of God as Jesus himself confessed in many occasions.) They are waiting for a leader that will be as any other President, Ruler or King. They want military, social, economic, etc status. And that power will be available through the Anti-Christ. Why shouldn't he be a Jew? or at least with ancestry roots to back up his deceit?

--Roberto Reyes

We know of no biblical evidence, from either the Hebrew Scriptures or the New Testament, that even hints, let alone suggests, that either the beast or the false prophet are to be of Jewish descent. The implication is that these men, anti-Semites, are to be of Gentile stock.

--editor

Questions & Answers

Please feel free to submit short questions. We cannot give a personal reply to every question due to the sheer volume of questions we receive. Therefore, we reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be of interest to our viewers. Click here to submit a question to the editor.

The Minimalist Factor

In today's Jerusalem Post (internet edition), I read a lengthy article about a group of archaeologists (called minimalists) in Israel that are "attempting" to show that the archaeological record indicates that the facts set forth in the Bible for the period before about 800 C.E. are not true. Several examples are given in the article. For instance, the minimalists say that Abraham could not, as the Bible claims, have traveled or lived among the Philistines because the Philistines did not live in the region where Abraham lived until long after he died. Other examples are cited. How does a religious person not that familiar with archaeology deal with this in a plausible way without doing violence to his sense of being open minded about the evidence?

--Ken Applebaum

If none of the facts set forth in the Bible before about 800 CE are not true doesn't that reject the whole Bible? The New Testament was finished centuries before 800 CE. Also, where does the Bible record that there were Philistines in Abraham's day? The first mention of Philistines in the Hebrew Scriptures is at I Samuel 10:5. That was many centuries after Abraham. 

Nevertheless, you ask a very important question. First, there is nothing in biblical archaeology that excludes the veracity of the biblical account. Second, we all sometimes read into the biblical account images that may not be what the scripture really says (e.g., viewing Genesis 1 as the creation of the earth per se and not simply the promised land). Third, the Bible is the word of God--its inspiration is both in its writing and preservation and in its reading. Faith has its basis on God's revealing himself through what theologians call special revelation not general revelation.

The archaeological discoveries of the last 100 years have only illuminated our understanding of the Bible. When placed in context they verify what the Bible teaches. Are there items we do not understand? Sure. Hopefully, our faith and our relationship with God is built on more than biblical archaeology. There is too much bad science and too much bad theology dumped on us from many different  directions. We must first establish our relationship with God (draw close to him as men and women of faith) and then carefully grow in grace and knowledge--proving all things.

In other words, I suggest we need to seek to understand matters of archaeology and theology but we also need to be careful what we come to accept as truth and fact. In this bibarch website I am trying to sort out these issues carefully over time.

--editor

Has the Tomb of Ananias & Sapphria Been Found?

Hello! I love your site.  I was wondering.....I saw this archeology show on TV awhile back and it showed the little grave boxes I think they are called sepulchers? and anyways they were supposed to be Christian and they had Crosses on them. The names on the boxes were Ananias & Sapphria supposedly could have been the same as the people in Acts 5. I was wondering if you knew anything about this? Anyways thanks for the Great Site and I'm sure it will become an Excellent Resource!

--Ursula

The process of burial in the Second Temple Period took place in two stages. First the dead person was placed on a ledge or in a loculus of a rock-hewn tomb (a sepulcher). Then after about a year, when the body had decomposed, family members of the deceased, presumably women, returned to the tomb, gathered the bones and put them into a small box of limestone or wood called an ossuary. An ossuary is a �bone box� or depository for the bones of the dead, a rectangular box with lid, usually hewn out of limestone. The reason for such a custom was practical-religious since the bones were the only remains after a determined period of time. 

There appear to be crosses on some pre-70 CE ossuaries in Judea. These marks were the result of their manufacture not marks placed for religious purposes. In other words, Non-Christian Jewish burials show these marks. There is no evidence to show that cross marks were a part of apostolic Christianity. The cross symbol appears to have arisen as a part of Gentile Christianity. Ananias and Sapphria presumably collapsed dead. They would have been taken to a burial cave, a sepulcher, and laid on rock ledge. There their bodies would have decomposed and they would have been placed in an ossuary.

As far as we know only one first-century ossuary found in the Jerusalem excavations bares the name Sapphria. Without further evidence we cannot conclude that this is the ossuary of the Sapphria in Acts 5. We have no information regarding Ananias.

--editor

Did the Temple Curtain Tear in Two at Jesus Death?

I like to know if there is any information about the curtain in the Temple. Did it tear as suggested in the New Testament? This was to have occurred on good Friday at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. If this did occur where in Jewish history is this recorded.

-Carmela Gutierrez

The record of the event appears in the Jewish literature known as the Gospels nowhere else. 

--editor

Joshua's Stones

I have been reading the book of Joshua and came across the story in Joshua chapter 4. Could you tell me whether the Stones that God asked Joshua to have the 12 men from the 12 tribes of Israel take out of the Jordan were ever found? From reading about them they were to be a memorial to the children of Israel for all time so I just thought well anytime that God sets something up to be everlasting then that is exactly the way it is "All Time". If you could shed any light on this subject for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you for your time. I know from the bible story that Joshua threw the stones on top of one another in an Altar in Gilgal.

--DeAnn Thompson

There is no conclusive evidence that any ancient altar found in our day is that which Joshua constructed.  

--editor

BCE and CE or BC and AD?

I am inquiring about how historical dates are presented. For instance there is BC and AD. I believe most people know them as Before Christ and After Death. There is BP, Before Present. I have recently read about BCE and CE. They appear to be the same as BC and AD. Are they the same? And, what do they mean? Are there any other terms relative to dates that I should know?

--Kirk Bellamy

I am curious as to why you use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD when indicating dates? I would like to know.

--Ray Sais, Jr.

BCE can mean Before the Common Era or Before the Christian Era and CE the Common Era or the Christian Era. The BAR and the BR follow this norm but they see it as the common era and before the common era. AD is from the Latin. By using BCE and CE we hope we will not offend anyone. If so then they wear their feelings too close to the surface of their skin.

--editor

Who are the Apiru?

The Apiru? Have you seen this reference in your studies?

--Dr. John O. Beaver, TX

The Amarna Tablets, dating to between ca. 1400 and 1367 BCE, mention the Habiru, also known as the Apiru, as invading Canaan. The Tablets are letters written largely by Canaanite rulers to the 18th Dynasty Egyptian courts of Amenhotep III (1408-1372) and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten, 1372-1354). 

The implication of the word is in dispute. Scholars who hold to an Israelite Exodus from Egypt at an early date such as in 1443 BCE, placing the beginning of an Israelite Conquest of Canaan in 1403 BCE (see The Exodus Enigma), argue this word refers to the Israelites. Those who either deny an Exodus or hold to an early date for an Exodus hold that the word Habiru has no ethnic inference and means simply marauder, invader, raider, migrant, or persons without citizenship and attempt to minimize any suggestion that the word as used in the Amarna Tablets could have been Israelites. Minimalists argue that there is no evidence for either an Exodus or a Conquest. For more information see A Survey of Israel's History by  Leon J. Wood (Wood 1986:82-84).

--editor

Origin of the Name Jew

Please advise where the name Jew originated from?  One of my classmates in Sunday school ask this question of me last week and I was at a loss as where to begin the research. They were called children of Israel, I know that God changed Jacob's name to Israel.

--Doug Irving, Houston

This name apparently arose for a member of the kingdom of Judah (the southern kingdom) as opposed to the kingdom of Israel (the northern kingdom) after the separation of the ten tribes. Note that in II Kings 16:5-7 Israel and Syria besieged Jerusalem (the capital of the kingdom of Judah). The Syrians ran the "Jews" out of Elath (vs. 6). The Judahites became the Jews in Babylon. Today the word Jews usually has a religious context. Anciently, however, the context of the Hebrew Scriptures was ethnicity. In that culture all Jews were Israelites, but not all Israelites were Jews. The Jews were the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. Israel withdrew and disappeared from history as the northern 10 tribes. Even today, there are millions of ethnic Israelites (who only know themselves as Gentiles) who are not Jews.

--editor

The Death Toll in 1st Century Jerusalem

I am trying to find an accurate figure for the number of deaths resulting from the Roman siege of Jerusalem in the first century. Tacitus reports 600,000 fatalities (Historiae, 5:13), whereas Josephus claims that 1,100,000 died and 97,000 were captured (Wars, 6:420).  Do you know the reason for this difference? Is there any way of telling which is the more accurate figure? Any help you can offer is much appreciated.

--Dale Tolmasoff

No. Such information comes solely from ancient historical sources and we have no firm figures. 

--editor

Giants in the Holy Land?

Could you tell me if any evidence of giants has been unearthed in Israel?  I've read the following quote from Ray Stedman's Bible-study notes, and would like to investigate further: "It is interesting that archaeologists have now discovered the giant-cities of Bashan, and they confirm the fact that there did exist in this area races of gigantic beings whose beds are ten, eleven, or twelve feet long." (http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/genesis/0325.html) I wish he had that footnoted, but he doesn't.  Do you know if that's a legitimate claim, or where I might find any archeological evidence of the Bible's giants?  It would be helpful for a sermon I'm doing in a week, on Gen. 6. And by the way, what is your opinion of biblical archeologist Ron Wyatt?)

--Andy Doerksen

We are not aware of the remains of any giants found in the Levant for the biblical period. 

--editor

I understand if there were Sanhedrin records in the last temple. I have been told that the Talmud directs these records be kept. The current assumption seems to be that these records were destroyed by the Romans. Do you know if anyone is working to prove or disprove, and locate, these records?

--Bob Lewis

Well, since the Talmud came into being centuries after the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem, it has no bearing on any requirements of the ancient Sanhedrin to keep records. The Sanhedrin in the Herodian period was under the control of the Sadducees not Pharisees. The Talmud is a later Pharisee work-product preserving their own legends, myths, and traditions. If any Sanhedrin records ever existed they have not been found and presumably perished in the destruction of the city. If the Dead Sea Scrolls are actually items moved from Jerusalem archives for safekeeping they failed to include Sanhedrin records.

--editor

Ron Wyatt

Can you provide a succinct answer, or direct me to one, concerning the discovery by the late amateur archaeologist (explorer) Ron Wyatt of the Ark of the Covenant?  I'm presently reading the information at his web site on his findings beneath Golgotha. Surely had Mr. Wyatt actually discovered the Ark there is little chance the Israeli government would have ignored so momentous a finding! What then is the status of this discovery?  I am most appreciative if you can direct me into an understanding of whether additional work at this site has been done, and by whom, and when. Who might I contact for additional information?

--James Tazelaar

I was recently shown a video entitled "Presentation of Discoveries," by Ron Wyatt, introduced as an amateur archaeologist who has discovered, well, everything. Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Ark of the Covenant, and other Biblical artifacts. I am trying to locate an objective review of any evidence offered, but the only internet coverage I've seen so far is either enthusiastic, no-questions-asked acceptance, or angry, no-answers-given refutations. Is there an academic review of Mr. Wyatt's claims available?

--M. Christensen

I am not aware of any. You may have to search through hard copies of various archaeology magazines. What you are dealing with is pop-archaeology or pseudo-archaeology. There is a lot of this on the internet. If you do find an academic review please send us the citation. We looked at a number of BAR issues but could not find anything. Professional archaeologists probably simply ignore Mr. Wyatt as they do a number of other would be experts.

--editor

Where was the Location of the Garden in Eden?

I am not sure if you provide this type of assistance or not, but I thought I would just ask and take a chance that you could help me or point me in the right direction to find my answers. Is there a definitive answer as to where the Garden of Eden was located?

--Sandra Batton

It depends upon what you mean by a definitive answer. We feel that the garden in Eden was in the Promised Land. That is one of the points in Sailhamer's book. See Genesis Unbound by John H. Sailhamer. I have no reason to doubt it as it appears to be the best explanation so far.

--editor

An African Mary?

Was Mary, Mother of Jesus an African?

--Sandra Batton

If Jesus was half black his skin color would not have been so typically a Jew of his day that he was indistinguishable when in a crowd. No serious scholar regards Mary as an African. She was nothing more than a simple, sweet peasant girl from Galilee.

--editor

Where Can I Study Archaeology?

I am interested in becoming an archaeologist and would like to know how to get started. I am hoping you could recommend a particular school or university. I am a sophomore attending a community college and am planning on graduating in the spring. Any advise would be much appreciated.

--Mark Solterbeck

I am a college graduate, and I am planning on entering Graduate school to study Biblical Archaeology. The problem is, I have only been able to find a very limited number of schools offering such programs for a Master's degree. I was wondering if you would be able to inform me of any schools that offer Master's degree in this or a closely related field.

--Michael Daling

If you really want to become grounded in this field we suggest you explore the programs at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the University of Tel Aviv. In the USA we doubt you will find a regionally accredited institution with a masters degree in this specialty. Stay away from diploma mills displaying themselves on the WWW claiming that some accrediting association has accredited them. Avoid them like the plague.

The research strategy we suggest is for you to explore area studies programs such as Middle Eastern Studies and Anthropology at large universities. We like Texas A&M at College Station, the University of Arizona, Harvard University, and the University of Chicago. As long as Drs. Lewis R. Binford and David A. Freidel remain at Southern Methodist University we recommend SMU for doctoral studies in archaeology.

You might explore other anthropology programs at schools we list on the High Top Media Anthropology Links Page. We see the preoccupation of theological schools with their own denominational biases and hermeneutic much too constrictive for them to deliver a credible scientific approach to biblical archeology but there are exceptions. If you take the anthropology route you can emphasize old world archaeology in your program and undertake a biblical archaeology thesis topic. If you proceed in a doctoral program you can elect an archeology option and use biblical archaeology as a specialty. In any case, get a second and third opinion.

--editor

Page last edited: 11/28/04 08:44 AM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often