Fighting Words: Temple Specialist Blasts Martin's Temple Location Theory and an Irate Martin Responds

Ernest Martin places Herod's temple just south of the Haram esh-Sharif. Leen Ritmeyer ridicules the idea and dismisses it outright. So, what's the problem?

by Michael P. Germano

While James Tabor, a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, presented Martin's theory at a BAR seminar timed in conjunction with the November 2000 annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) as credible thesis archaeologist Leen Ritmeyer has taken the opposite approach. There is no doubt what Ritmeyer thinks about Ernest Martin's theory placing Herod's temple over the Gihon spring.

He says "this theory is flawed, because it does not interpret the historical sources correctly and ignores all the archaeological evidence that has been excavated in Jerusalem" (Ritmeyer 2001). In a telling admission he writes "I have not read the full account of Martin's deliberations, nor would I wish to do so" which is surprising for a scholar.

One does not have to leave the first sentence of Ritmeyer's piece to discern his opinion and the direction of his critique. He refers to historian and author Ernest Martin as "a certain Ernest Martin" which is a less than polite put down. One expects more of credible scholars. This approach demeans Ritmeyer. This nonsensical jab reduces scholarship to the level of the street not the academy. It is a classic example of the failure of biblical archaeology to become a science. Rather than clinical analysis dealing with falsification of hypotheses we read an op-ed piece simply posing as objective intellectual analysis. You can read the Ritmeyer critique at his website.

Ritmeyer, an architect specializing in archaeological design, lectures in biblical archaeology at the University of Leeds and serves as adjunct

 professor of Biblical Archaeology at Trinity College, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Originally from Holland, Ritmeyer served in the Mazar excavation of the Ophel as the project architect. His archaeological reconstruction drawings have appeared in numerous books and journals, both popular and academic. He holds a doctorate from the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom. This brings us to what may be at the heart of the problem.

The subject of Ritmeyer's dissertation was "The Architectural Development of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem". In this study he describes his discovery of the archaeological remains of the 500 cubit square Temple Mount which he dates to the First Temple period. The details of his discovery appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review (Ritmeyer 1992). Moreover, Ritmeyer claims that during his most recent research he discovered the exact location of the Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple and also that of the former location of the Ark of the Covenant. These details also appear in the Biblical Archaeology Review (Ritmeyer 1996). He is heavily invested in his own interpretation of the archaeological and historical records regarding the Haram esh-Sharif.

Nevertheless, the archaeologist, as well as the historian specializing in the first century CE must separate tradition from historical fact. For example, when considering Christian and Jewish "holy places" myth and tradition often conflict with both historical and archaeological evidence. Today's psuedo-Tomb of David is a case in point. Perhaps some archaeological sites were set aside by well-meaning people who knowingly misrepresented their nature but justified it. The logic is often that the whereabouts of the real place is not really important as a symbol is all that really matters. The problem is that such logic leads to mistaken perceptions.

The historical researcher must carefully gather and weigh evidence and retain those findings that are pertinent. When research establishes sufficient facts then the task is to reconstruct a plausible account which takes those facts into account. At best such an approach gives an approximation of the actual events. As new data is uncovered our understanding is expanded and we arrive closer to the truth of the matter. This, in spite of the rhetoric, is exactly what Martin has done. He has provided us with a new theory derived from reliable historical sources. It is irrelevant that Martin does not interpret historical sources in a traditional way. Interpretations are always in the eye of the beholder. They are interpretations not facts! Moreover, scholarly understanding of the archaeology of Jerusalem is almost wholly interpretation.

Each generation constructs its own interpretation of the past. At times this stems from unconscious expression but more often after the deliberate attempts to write its own values history. While Ritmeyer's world view, and his defense of it, is understandable, his approach is not conducive to advancing our knowledge and understanding of Second Temple and Herodian times.

I have a less serious objection concerning what I see as a severe ethical breach. Good faith and fair dealing is implicit in scholarly research. Here Ritmeyer fails. He wrote:

Did I suggest or imply any motive for Dr. Martin's work? No. Did I state that the main thrust behind his temple theory was to stimulate the building of the third temple? No. Did Ritmeyer bother to provide his readers with a citation to my work where they could verify what I wrote? No. Did he ask me if his interpretation was what I intended? No. Did he keep my work in context? No.

I assume his act was one of innocent negligence and not intentional misrepresentation. Nevertheless, such irresponsible carelessness and the obvious disdain he shows for Ernest Martin makes me question the very veracity of Ritmeyer's own temple research let alone the scholarly worth of his critique of Martin's theory.

In any case, Ritmeyer's piece prompted a paragraph by paragraph response by Martin (Ernest Martin's comprehensive response). I suggest you read both Ritmeyer's and Martin's writings. If you look beyond the rhetoric you should see that what is at issue is nothing more than interpretation of historical documents and archaeological fanciful interpretation. Even better, read Martin's book and draw your own conclusions.

As I see it Ernest Martin has stated a prima facie case for the location of the Second Temple south of the Haram esh-Sharif and over the Gihon Spring. Instead of destructing Martin's work with the dubious methodology of critical scholarship I hope biblical archaeologists will seek to test the theory scientifically. I realize this is asking a lot. The theories of biblical archaeologists are an easy target for destruction by cranky Ivy League English professors. This is because the bulk of this effort is fanciful postprocessual archaeology and not scientific fact.

Scientific research involves testing theoretical models and modifying theories not interpretation. Further articulation of a theory results from the testing of research hypotheses against data and developing new explanations for observed results. The adjustment of a theoretical model occurs with a shift of theory based upon testing of hypotheses against data resulting in a new theory replacing an old one. In this type of research an investigator has a continuing ethical duty of stating the strongest possible case for any theory in question before attempting to falsify it. Failing to do so not only invalidates the research but it is intellectually dishonest. There is no place in scientific research for proving theories as the process proceeds by falsification of hypotheses not by formal proof nor by proof texts.

So then, let's approach this exciting new theory by flushing out researchable hypotheses and testing them against the archaeological record. If Martin is right then there should at the very least be evidence of the footprint of the structure supporting the temple in existing bedrock. In any case, I hope we can be about the work of attempting to falsify Martin's theory rather than the foolish trashing of it because it doesn't fit our purpose or as it hurts our scholarly feelings. Falsification requires more than a literary tantrum.

Page last edited: 12/17/05 01:52 PM