April-June 2000
Volume 3 Number 2.1

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.

Page last edited: 12/17/05 01:31 PM

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often