Book Review

Martin, Ernest L. The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot.

Reviewed by Chuck Pitts

[Note to students: Normally a brief discussion of biographical data on the author of the book, such as education, career, and other publications would begin the review. The format for the current review simply did not request that information.]

Martin, Ernest L. The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot. Portland, Oregon: ASK Publications, 2000, $24.95.

Dr. Ernest Martin begins his book by acknowledging his indebtedness to Professor Benjamin Mazar and Meir ben Dov, with whom he worked in Jerusalem in the 1960s. Martin states that Mazar’s son, Ory, first suggested to him that the correct site for the temples of Herod and Solomon stood on Mount Ophel, between the original Mount Zion and the Haram esh-Sharif. In the introduction, Martin then states that once the “actual Jerusalem” is recognized, “this new understanding will have a profound influence on how modern Jews and Muslims (as well as Christians) view . . . Jerusalem.” Until three years ago (presumably 1997), Martin admits that he agreed with the scholarly opinions concerning the location of the temple in Jerusalem, but now he calls upon others to mend their thinking “in favor of the truth, instead of the traditions and false teachings of former times.” He then closes the introduction with the statement, “for the first time in 800 years, this new research will restore to the world the whereabouts and the importance of ‘The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot’” (p. 6).

After this brief, and perhaps presumptuous, introduction Martin writes thirty-five chapters in an attempt to prove his thesis. His basic arguments can be summed up under five headings: Josephus, “Roman” and “Jewish” Jerusalem, Jesus, the need for a spring in the temple, and ancient and medieval literary accounts. Much of Martin’s argument depends upon the reliability of Josephus’ accounts of late first century Jerusalem. This fact requires Dr. Martin to defend Josephus. His defense of Josephus as an “eyewitness” and reliable source threads through the entire book and tends to become redundant. He argues that “it is the scholars and religious leaders who are wrong—not Josephus” (p. 18). At one point, he argues that a reference to Mount Zion on the southwest hill was a Christian insertion, “since Josephus would never had made such an erroneous statement” (p. 263, emphasis in Martin).

The arguments concerning “Jewish” Jerusalem and the prophecies of Jesus somewhat overlap. Jesus prophesied that the temple and Jerusalem would be completely destroyed. Martin argues that the only remaining building in Jerusalem after the Roman victory under Titus was the Haram. The reason this structure remained after the destruction of Jerusalem was because it was not reckoned as part of “Jewish” Jerusalem and, therefore, was not included in Jesus’ prophecy. Martin spends a great deal of space arguing for the distinction between “Roman” and “Jewish” Jerusalem, a position for which little objective evidence actually exists. This argument highlights another facet of Martin’s work. He desires to prove that Jesus’ prophecies are true, and the truth of these prophecies requires that the Haram cannot be the temple site because Jesus prophesied, “no stone would remain upon another.”

Another facet of Martin’s argument is that the temple was originally built directly over the Gihon Spring. He argues from various poetic texts that temples required a flowing spring, which the Haram lacks. This argument would be more convincing if it was based upon legal or historical, rather than poetic, texts. He does quote Aristeas and Tacitus referring to an “inexhaustible spring” in the temple. The question remains unanswered whether the use to “spring,” “river,” and “water” in reference to Zion, especially in reference to God’s heavenly dwelling, could be read as metaphorical and spiritual rather than geographical.

Martin utilizes several ancient and medieval sources to bolster his position. He describes an account contained in a Muslim work, Muthir al-Ghiram, and the Christian Arab historian, Said b. al-Bitrik, to support the Gihon Spring location. He cites rabbinic sources, Barnabus, Justin Martyr, Clement, Jerome, Hippolytus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Eusebius to support the total destruction of Jerusalem, which he previously argued could not include the Haram as “Jewish” Jerusalem. He also uses the Bordeaux Pilgrim’s description of his visit to Jerusalem in 333 C.E. as evidence that the temple was not on the Haram because the pilgrim does not mention going through a gate to get to the temple site.

The success of Martin’s arguments certainly depends upon the reader’s perspective and opinion of Josephus, but certain evaluative remarks can be presented. First, The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot is full of redundancies. While Martin may have been trying to emphasize his evidence, he often repeats his evidence, such as the Letter of Aristeas and the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. By the time the quote from Aristeas is read in chapter 33, the reader is left with a feeling of déjà vu. Furthermore, chapter 32 repeats the evidence of chapter 31 almost verbatim. The book often read as if Martin wrote several chapters as individual essays and joined them together with little or no editing. Second, some of Martin’s “evidence” seems practically irrelevant. The arguments in chapter 15 concerning Eden, Babel, and the cubical shape of the temple added little to his argument, as did the over 80 pages concerning the rebuilt temple of Simon. Third, while Martin decries a sixteenth century rabbi as “NOT a historian or geographer” (emphasis in original), many of his sources are just as questionable from a historical viewpoint, such as the accounts of Aristeas, the Bordeaux pilgrim, and various sources quoted by Eusebius. Fourth, Martin’s statement, “I have clear historical documentation which I will soon post on the ASK Web Page” to prove that “every Jewish person in the world was fully aware a generation before the time of Maimonides that the holy site . . . was over the Gihon Spring” (p. 474, emphasis in original) is inexcusable. Martin should never have relegated such evidence to prove this important part of his argument to a future posting on the Internet. The evidence needed to be in the book! Furthermore, the evidence presented on the website simply adds to his body of evidence, rather than offering “clear evidence.” Finally, he makes some arguments based upon questionable logic. For example, Martin builds a case on Josephus’ description of the temple as a square, but he dismisses the description of Fort Antonio as a square. In the same chapter, he states that the temple was a “high tower,” while the Haram was “NOT a single tower” (p. 468), while he earlier argued that a camp (i.e. the Haram) could be called a tower. Some of his arguments concerning the spring in the temple are questionable, such as his interpretation of Jeremiah 2:12, unless the latter is a typographical error (p. 151).

Despite these negative remarks, however, Martin’s work is not irrelevant or meaningless. He properly recognizes that controversy surrounds the location of architectural structures in ancient Jerusalem. His attempt to discover a solution for some of this quandary is admirable, whether or not the reader accepts his arguments. Further, his argument that Josephus’ descriptions of the temple area differ from the structures now on the Haram and those proposed by most biblical scholars. Martin is not the only scholar to suggest that Josephus paints a picture of Jerusalem incompatible with modern reconstructions. Many of Martin’s arguments have as much chance of accuracy as those of other writers, especially given the tenuous and ever-changing nature of Jerusalem archaeology. Certainly, scholars should listen to martin’s evidence and interact with it. He has compiled an enormous amount of evidence that scholars should not dismiss easily. For this collection of evidence, Martin should be duly commended. The truth remains, however, that Martin will have a greater chance of successfully convincing the scholarly world if he tones down his polemical arguments and careful edits the repetitive features, which could shorten the book considerably without altering its overall effect of the author’s arguments.

Chuck Pitts

Houston Graduate School of Theology, Houston, Texas