- We all remember the proverb that a picture is worth a
thousand words. This is so true. When we are able to view a site that we
have been reading or hearing about, the historical and architectural information
associated with the area becomes much more meaningful and the subject better
understood.
-
- That is certainly the case with the Temple built by Herod
the Great that existed in the time of Christ Jesus along with the adjacent
fortress that dominated the landscape known as Fort Antonia. The truth
is, no one in modern history (nor for the past 1900 years) has actually
witnessed the complex of buildings that comprised the Holy Sanctuary and
the fort that was built to protect it. This is one of the reasons why I
have wanted to present to all of you on the ASK mailing list the first
general view of what the Temple and Fort Antonia looked like to the inhabitants
of Jerusalem during the time of Jesus. Once we recognize the actual situation
of the two structures that I show in the illustrations, and once you realize
their dimensions, many points of teaching that we observe in the New Testament
will make much better sense to us.
-
- In a word, a true perspective of those two buildings
that occupied the greater part of northeastern Jerusalem (west of the Mount
of Olives and the Mount of Offense) will provide a panoramic view that
will show the sheer beauty and majesty of the Mother City of the Jews in
the early part of the first century. Without doubt, it was a splendid and
awesome display of architectural grandeur at its best. My new book "The
Temples that Jerusalem Forgot" will present the full and interesting
details.
-
- What you are about the see in the illustrations at the
conclusion of this Report is the description of the Temple and Fort Antonia
as presented by Josephus, the Jewish historian. He was an eyewitness to
the City of Jerusalem before the Romans destroyed it in A.D.70. I have
had our artist draw both a horizontal aspect as though you would view the
buildings from above (in outline form as an architect would draw the edifices),
and also to show a vertical aspect that gives a three dimensional effect
as seen from the east side of the buildings. The squared or rectangular
stones that comprise both structures are very large but they are not drawn
to exact scale. They represent an artistís impression given with
my directions in accord with the descriptions recorded by Josephus. If
you will read Josephus yourself, you will find that our illustrations simply
depict the eyewitness accounts of Josephus as he stated them in his literature.
-
- The vertical sight will be that from the top of the southern
part of the Mount of Olives known as the Mount of Offense which was directly
east of the old city of David formerly located south of the Gihon Spring.
This is the best place to view ancient Jerusalem. My new book will illustrate
these points clearly.
-
- Ý Ý A Panoramic View of Ancient Jerusalem
-
- Let me start by mentioning a scene that usually occupies
the attention of each person who visits Jerusalem for the first time (or
who returns year after year to see the archaeological remains of the Jerusalem
of Herod and Jesus). That particular scene is observed from the Mount of
Olives just in front of the Seven Arches Hotel. This is where people can
obtain the best over-all view of the ancient and modern City of Jerusalem.
Before I present you with some details concerning this inspiring and unforgettable
prospect, let me relate a little about myself. This will allow you to understand
my deep interest and my personal involvement with the City of Jerusalem
over the past four decades.
-
- My first visit to Jerusalem was in the year 1961. Since
then I have returned to the city over thirty times from areas in Europe
or America where I have lived. Though I am an American, I have professionally
taught college in England where I lived for fourteen years (from 1958 to
1972). In Jerusalem, I worked personally on a daily basis with Professor
Benjamin Mazar in the archaeological excavations at the western and southern
walls of the Haram esh-Sharif. My working association with Professor Mazar
on that site lasted for two months each summer during the years 1969, 1970,
1971, 1972 and 1973. Over that period of five summers, I was the academic
supervisor for 450 college students from around the world who were digging
at that archaeological excavation directed by Professor Mazar. Time magazine
in its Education Section for September 3, 1973 featured my academic program
for granting college credits for students who worked under my superintendence
at Professor Mazarís archaeological excavation sponsored by the
Israel Exploration Society and Hebrew University. Besides this particular
professional association at the excavation, I have personally guided more
than 800 people around all areas of Israel explaining its biblical and
secular history.
-
- Though I am not an archaeologist by profession (my M.A.
is in Theology and my Ph.D. is in Education), I have written several books
and other major studies on the history and geography of Jerusalem especially
in the periods of Jesus, the Roman Empire and Byzantium. I mention these
brief biographical points to show that I have had considerable opportunity
to study and to know the history of ancient Jerusalem.
-
- With this in mind, letís return to the top of
the Mount of Olives to be reminded of the splendid panoramic perspective
depicting the remnants of ancient Jerusalem as well as witnessing the vibrant
and bustling modern City of Jerusalem. For the 450 college students and
the 800 persons I have guided in their visits to Jerusalem, I have always
taken them to this spot on the Mount of Olives in order for them to visualize,
as a beginning lesson, what ancient Jerusalem was really like.
-
- Ý Ý Observing Jerusalem from the Mount
of Olives
-
- The view is spectacular. There is no scene from other
areas of Jerusalem that can replicate the grandeur of the ancient archaeological
remains of the city. What dominates the scene, as one looks westward, is
a rectangular body of walls with gigantic stones perfectly aligned with
one another in their lower courses. These four walls present to the observer
a feeling of majesty and awe at what the ancients were capable of accomplishing
by their architectural achievements. These walls surround the area presently
known as the Haram esh-Sharif (the Noble Enclosure). The stones of the
lower courses in those walls are in their pristine positions. They are
still placed neatly on top of another without any major displacement from
their original alignments. These lower stones are clearly Herodian in origin,
and in some places in the eastern portion of the wall they are pre-Herodian.
There are certainly more than 10,000 of these stones still in place as
they were in the time of Herod and Jesus.
-
- No archaeological authority has been able to count all
the stones of the four walls surrounding the Haram esh-Sharif because many
of the stones are still hidden from view. But at the holy site at the Western
Wall (often called the "Wailing Wall") there are seven courses
presently visible within that 197 feet length of the wall in the north/south
exposure. That section contains about 450 Herodian stones. There are, however,
eight more courses of Herodian stones underneath the soil down to the ground
level that existed in the time of Herod and Jesus. Even below that former
ground level, there are a further nine courses of foundation stones. If
that whole section of the "Wailing Wall" could be exposed, one
could no doubt count around 1250 Herodian stones (probably more) of various
sizes. Most stones are about three to four feet high and three feet to
twelve feet long, but there are varying lengths up to 40 feet (with the
larger stones weighing about 70 tons). One stone has been found in the
Western Wall that has the prodigious weight of 400 tons (Meir Ben-Dov,
Mordechai Naor, Zeev Aner, "The Western Wall," pp.61, 215). If
one could extend by extrapolating the number of stones making up the four
walls surrounding the Haram, there has to be over 10,000 Herodian and pre-Herodian
stones still very much in place as they were some 2000 years ago. All of
these stones in those four walls survived the Roman/Jewish War of A.D.70-73.
-
- The grand centerpiece within the whole enclosure is the
Muslim shrine called the Dome of the Rock. It is centrally located in a
north/south dimension within the rectangular area of the Haram. To the
south of the Dome and abutting to the southern wall is another large building
called the Al Aqsa Mosque with its smaller dome. And though from the Mount
of Olives modern Jerusalem can be seen in the background (and its contemporary
skyline of buildings is interesting), the whole area is overshadowed and
dominated by the Haram esh-Sharif with those ancient walls that impressively
highlight the scene.
-
- This is the view that modern viewers are accustomed to
see. But let us now go back over 1900 years and imagine viewing Jerusalem
from this same spot. It is from this vantagepoint that Titus (the Roman
General) looked on the ruins of Jerusalem after the Roman/Jewish War in
A.D.70. The description of what Titus saw is very instructive. We should
read his appraisal in the accounts preserved by Josephus because Josephus
and Titus were both eyewitnesses. Notice not only what Titus observed,
but also what he left out of the narrative (War VII.1,1). This omission
will become of prime importance in our inquiry regarding the true location
of the Temple. Titus commanded that only a part of a wall and three forts
were to remain of what was once the glorious City of Jerusalem. Notice
what is stated in War VII.1,1.
-
- "Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay
or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury
(for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work
to be done), Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire
city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were
of the greatest eminence; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne;
and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side. This wall
was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison
[in the Upper City], as were the towers [the three forts] also spared,
in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how
well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest
of the wall [surrounding Jerusalem], it was so thoroughly laid even with
the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left
nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever
been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness
of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence,
and of mighty fame among all mankind" (Whiston trans., italics, bracketed
words mine).
-
- This eyewitness account about the total ruin of Jerusalem
has given visitors to Jerusalem a major problem in relation to what we
witness of ancient Jerusalem today. The fact is, Titus gave orders that
the Temple was to be demolished. The only man-made structures to be left
in Jerusalem was to be a portion of the western wall and the three fortresses
located in the Upper City. This was Titusí intention at first. But
within a short time, even that portion of the western wall and the three
fortresses in the west were so thoroughly destroyed that not a trace of
them remained (unless the so-called "Tower of David" near the
present day Jaffa Gate as scholars guess is a part of the foundation of
Hippicus or Phasaelus). At the conclusion of the war, the Tenth Legion
left Jerusalem a mass of ruins. Stones from those ruins were finally used
in the following century to build a new city called Aelia. But by late
A.D.70, there was nothing left standing of the Temple or the buildings
of Jerusalem. Josephus stated:
-
- "And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy
thing; for those places which were adorned with trees and pleasant gardens,
were now become desolate country every way, and its trees were all cut
down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most
beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and
mourn sadly at so great a change. For the war had laid all signs of beauty
quite waste. Nor had anyone who had known the place before, had come on
a sudden to it now, would he have known it again. But though he [a foreigner]
were at the city itself, yet would he have inquired for it" (War VI.1,1).
-
- Ý Ý What the Modern Visitor Observes
-
- These descriptions by Josephus are what he and Titus
saw from the Mount of Olives. But this is NOT what we observe today. We
see something remaining from the period of Herod and Jesus that is quite
different. Directly to the west, we view an awe-inspiring architectural
relic of the past that is splendidly positioned directly in front of us.
It dominates the whole western prospect of this panoramic view. That ancient
structure is the Haram esh-Sharif. Its rectangular walls are so large in
dimension that the Haram effectively obscures much of the view of the present
old city of Jerusalem. And certainly, without the slightest doubt, the
Haram (in its lower courses of stones that make up its walls) is a building
that survived the Roman/Jewish War. Indeed, it is an outstanding example
of the early architectural grandeur that once graced the Jerusalem of Herod
and Jesus that has withstood two thousand years of weathering, earthquakes,
wars and natural deterioration.
-
- What is strange, and almost inexplicable at first, is
the fact that Josephus mentioned the utter ruin of the Temple and all the
City of Jerusalem, but he gave no reference whatever to the Haram esh-Sharif
or that Titus had commanded that those walls should remain intact. And
through the centuries, up to our modern period, there are over 10,000 stones
still in their original positions making up the four walls of the Haram.
As a matter of fact, in Titusí time there were probably another
5,000 stones that were left on the upper courses of the four walls that
have been dislodged and fallen to the ground over the centuries since the
first century. What must be recognized is the fact that Titus deliberately
left the rectangular shaped Haram esh-Sharif practically in the state he
found it when he first got to Jerusalem with his legions. Strangely, Titus
must have ordered that those four walls be retained for all future ages
to see.
-
- Without doubt, the Haram esh-Sharif with its gigantic
walls was a survivor of the war. But how could Josephus have failed to
account for the retention of such a spacious and magnificent building that
was clearly in existence in pre-war Jerusalem? The continued existence
of those extensive remains of the Haram esh-Sharif seem (at first glance)
to nullify the appraisal of Josephus and Titus. Remember, they said that
nothing of Jerusalem was left. "It [Jerusalem] was so thoroughly laid
even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there
was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem]
had ever been inhabited."
-
- What is even more strange is the modern belief that the
Haram esh-Sharif must be reckoned as the site of the Temple Mount. If present
scholarly opinion is correct, this means that Titus and the Roman legions
did not destroy the outer walls of the Temple in its middle and lower courses.
The Romans left over 10,000 stones in place around the Haram. This modern
belief of scholars and religious authorities (whether Jewish, Muslim or
Christian) that the retention of those 10,000 stones around the Haram represents
the remnants of the walls of the Temple make the above descriptions of
their demolition by Josephus and Titus as being outlandish exaggerations.
And true enough, this is precisely how most modern scholars, theologians,
religious leaders and archaeologists view the matter.
-
- Professor Williamson, who translated Josephus, said this
was the case. He remarked that the thorough desolation that Titus was supposed
to have seen in front of him was: "An exaggeration. A great deal of
the southern part of the Temple enclosure was spared. The whole of the
south wall of its successor, the present wall round the Haram esh-Sharif,
the southern section of the west wall (the ëWailing Wallí,
where the fall of Jerusalem is still lamented) and a short stretch of the
east wall running up from the southeast corner are Herodian to a considerable
height" (The Jewish War, p.454, note 2). We will see abundant evidence
in my new book that Josephus was not exaggerating. This is because that
enclosure known as the Haram esh-Sharif was NOT the Temple Mount, nor was
the structure then officially reckoned as a part of the municipality of
Jerusalem.
-
- Our modern scholars and religious authorities consistently
state that we cannot believe Josephus literally in his accounts concerning
the important descriptions that he provides. We will discover, however,
that it is the modern scholars and the religious leaders who are wrong
and not Josephus. Josephus, the historian/priest, knew what he was talking
about. Jerusalem and the Temple were totally destroyed and not a stone
of them was left in place. The truth is, the Haram esh-Sharif was NOT the
Temple Mount.
-
- Ý Ý Josephus Was Not Exaggerating
-
- It is time for us to realize that it is the modern scholars
who are wrong, not the eyewitness accounts of Josephus and Titus. Jerusalem
and the Temple were indeed destroyed to the bedrock just as they relate.
Regarding this, there are other sections of Josephusí accounts to
show that he was not exaggerating. Josephus was keen on telling his readers
that all the walls around Jerusalem were leveled to the ground. Note his
observation: "Now the Romans set fire to the extreme parts of the
city [the suburbs] and burnt them down, and entirely demolished its [Jerusalemís]
walls" (War VI.9,4.).
-
- This reference shows that all the walls, even those enclosing
the outskirts of Jerusalem, were finally leveled to the ground. To reinforce
the matter, Josephus said elsewhere: "When he [Titus] entirely demolished
the rest of the city, and overthrew its walls, he left these towers [the
three towers mentioned above] as a monument of his good fortune, which
had proved [the destructive power of] his auxiliaries, and enabled him
to take what could not otherwise have been taken by him" (War VI.9,1).
-
- These two accounts by Josephus, along with the previous
observations given above, confirm that there was a literal destruction
of all the walls surrounding Jerusalem (except the small section of the
wall in the western part of the Upper City that was afterward destroyed
because not a trace of it has been mentioned of its retention by later
eyewitnesses or found by modern archaeologists). Indeed, after A.D.70 there
is not a word by any historical record that even speaks of those three
fortresses in the Upper City having a continuance that Titus at first thought
to leave as standing monuments showing the power of Rome over the Jews.
-
- But again, these descriptions of Josephus and Titus of
total ruin seem to be at variance with what we witness today. Letís
face it. From the Mount of Olives we behold the four walls of the Haram
still erect in all their glory, and they are prominently displayed with
a majesty that dominates the whole of present-day Jerusalem. The lower
courses of those walls clearly have 10,000+Herodian and pre-Herodian stones
on top of one another. As a matter of fact, those rectangular walls are
even functioning ramparts of Jerusalem today. They have been in constant
use throughout the intervening centuries to protect the buildings that
were built in the interior of that enclosure called the Haram esh-Sharif.
-
- Again I say, if those rectangular walls are those which
formerly surrounded the Temple Mount (as we are confidently informed by
all authorities today), why did Josephus and Titus leave out of their eyewitness
accounts any mention about this retention of this magnificent Haram structure?
They spoke of the utter ruin and desolation of Jerusalem and of the Temple,
not the survival of any buildings that the Jewish authorities once controlled.
Be this as it may, Josephus and Titus were certainly aware that the walls
of the Haram survived the war. Why did Josephus and Titus not refer to
those walls of the Haram that remained standing in their time? My new book
will explain the reason why, and very clearly.
-
- Ý Ý A Quandary for Modern Christians
-
- These facts present a major problem for Christians. If
those rectangular walls of the Haram are indeed the same walls (in their
lower courses) that formerly embraced the Temple Mount, why are these stones
(more than 10,000 in number) yet so firmly on top of one another? The continued
existence of those gigantic and majestic walls would show that Titus did
not destroy the walls of the Temple, if those walls did surround the Temple.
Why is this a difficulty for Christian belief? The reason is plain.
-
- Christians are aware of four prophecies given by Jesus
in the New Testament that there would not be one stone left upon another
either of the Temple and its walls or even of the City of Jerusalem and
its walls (Matthew 24:1,2; Mark 13:1,2; Luke 19:43,44; 21:5,6.). But strange
as it may appear, the walls surrounding the Haram esh-Sharif still remain
in their glory with their 10,000+ Herodian and pre-Herodian stones solidly
in place in their lower courses. If those stones are those of the Temple,
the prophecies of Jesus can be seriously doubted as having any historical
value or merit in any analysis by intelligent and unbiased observers.
-
- Indeed, the majority of Christian visitors to Jerusalem
who first view those huge stones surrounding the rectangular area of the
Haram (and who know the prophecies of Jesus) are normally perplexed and
often shocked at what they see. And they ought to be. The surprise at what
they observe has been the case with numerous people that I have guided
around Jerusalem and Israel. They have asked for an explanation concerning
this apparent failure of the prophecies of Jesus. Why do those gigantic
walls still exist? If those walls represent the stones around the Temple,
then the prophecies of Christ are invalid.
-
- The usual explanation, however, to justify the credibility
to Jesusí prophecies is to say that Jesus could only have been speaking
about the inner Temple and its buildings, NOT the outer Temple and its
walls that surrounded it. This is the customary and the conciliatory answer
that most scholars provide (and it is the explanation that I formerly gave
my students or associates). The truth is, however, this explanation will
not hold water when one looks at what Jesus prophesied. One should carefully
observe the prophecies of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. They plainly state
that one stone would not rest on another of the Temple, its buildings,
and his prophecies also embraced its outer walls. The Greek word Jesus
used in his prophetic context to describe the Temple and its buildings
was heiron (this means the entire Temple including its exterior buildings
and walls). Notice what Vincent says about the meaning of heiron.
-
- "The word temple (heiron, lit., sacred place) signifies
the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, with its porticos, courts, and
other subordinate buildings; and should be carefully distinguished from
the other word, naos, also rendered temple, which means the temple itself
ó the "Holy Place" and the "Holy of Holies."
When we read, for instance, of Christ teaching in the temple (heiron) we
must refer it to one of the temple-porches [outer colonnades]. So it is
from the heiron, the court of the Gentiles, that Christ expels the money-changers
and cattle-merchants" (Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament,
Vol. I., p.50).
-
- The exterior buildings of the Temple including its walls
were always reckoned within the meaning of the word heiron that Jesus used
in his prophecies concerning the total destruction of the Temple. There
were several outer divisions of the Temple that were distinguished from
the Inner Temple, and these outer appurtenances were accounted to be cardinal
features of the Sanctuary. As an example, note the New Testament account
stating that Satan took Jesus to the "pinnacle of the Temple"
(Matthew 4:5). The pinnacle section was the southeastern corner of the
outer wall that surrounded the whole of the Temple complex. The wording
in the New Testament shows that this southeastern angle belonged to the
Templeóit was a pinnacle [a wing] "of the Temple." That
area was very much a part of the sacred edifice to which Jesus referred
when he prophesied that not one stone would remain on another.
-
- There is an important geographical factor that proves
this point. When Jesus made his prophecy that no stone would be left on
one another, Matthew said that Jesus and his disciples had just departed
from the outer precincts of the Temple. This means that all of them were
at the time viewing the exterior sections of the Temple (the heiron) when
he gave his prophecy (Matthew 24:1). The Gospel of Mark goes even further
and makes it clear that the outside walls of the Temple were very much
in the mind of Jesus when he said they would be uprooted from their very
foundations. "And as he [Jesus] went out of the Temple [note that
Jesus and the disciples were standing outside the Temple walls and looking
back toward the Temple enclosure], one of his disciples saith unto him,
ëMaster, see what buildings are here!í And Jesus answering
said unto him, ëSeest thou these great buildings? there shall not
be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown downí"(Matthew
24:1). Without the slightest doubt, when Jesus in his prophecy spoke about
the destruction of the Temple, he was certainly including in his prophecy
the stones of the outer walls that enclosed the Temple as well as the buildings
of the inner Temple.
-
- Ý Ý The Whole City of Jerusalem Also to
be Destroyed
-
- Jesus went even further than simply prophesying about
the destruction of the Temple and its walls. He also included within his
prophetic predictions the stones that made up the whole City of Jerusalem
(with every building and house that comprised the metropolis ó including
the walls that embraced its urban area). According to Jesus in Luke 19:43,44,
every structure of Jewish Jerusalem would be leveled to the groundóto
the very bedrock. "For the days shall come upon thee [Jerusalem],
that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round,
and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground,
and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another."
-
- So, in the prophecies of Jesus, not only the stones that
made up the Temple and its walls were to be torn down, but he also included
within that scope of destruction even the stones that comprised the totality
of the City of Jerusalem. We are left with no ambiguity concerning this
matter. The prophecies about the Temple and the City of Jerusalem either
happened exactly as Jesus predicted or those prophecies must be reckoned
as false and unreliable. There can be no middle ground on the issue. If
one is honest with the plain meaning of the texts of the Gospels, Jesus
taught that nothing would be left of the Temple, nothing left of the whole
City of Jerusalem, and nothing left of the walls of the Temple and the
City.
-
- Ý Ý Josephus and Titus Agree With Jesus
-
- Was Jesus correct in his prophecies? Was Jerusalem with
its Temple and walls leveled to the ground? What is remarkable is the fact
that the eyewitness accounts given by Josephus and Titus agree precisely
with what Jesus prophesied. Note what these two men observed. "It
[Jerusalem with its walls] was so thoroughly laid even with the ground
by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing
to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited"
(War VII.1,1).
-
- All the land surrounding the city of Jerusalem was a
desolate wasteland. Note Josephusí account.
-
- "They had cut down all the trees, that were in the
country that adjoined to the city, and that for ninety stadia round about
[for nearly ten miles], as I have already related. And truly, the very
view itself was a melancholy thing. Those places that were before adorned
with trees and pleasant gardens were now become a desolate country in every
way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had
formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now
saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change. For
the war had laid all signs of beauty quite waste. Nor, if any one that
had known the place before, and had come on a sudden to it now, would he
have known it again. But though he were at the city itself, yet would he
have inquired for it notwithstanding" (War VI.1,1, following the Whiston
translation).
-
- After A.D.70, people would have seen utter desolation
in all directions. Every stone of every building and wall in Jerusalem
was dislodged from its original position and thrown down to the ground.
Josephus provides reasonable accounts of later events after the war was
over to show how this complete destruction was accomplished. Much of the
destruction came after the war had ceased.
-
- For six months after the war, Josephus tells us that
the Tenth Legion "dug up" the ruins of the houses, buildings
and walls looking for plunder. They systematically excavated beneath the
foundations of the ruined buildings and houses (they had many of the Jewish
captives do the work for them). They also had the whole area turned upside
down looking for gold and other precious metals that became molten when
the fires were raging. This caused the precious metals to melt and flow
into the lower crevices of the stones. Even the foundation stones contained
melted gold from the great fires that devoured Jerusalem. This plundering
of every former building or wall in the municipality of Jerusalem resulted
in the troops overturning (or having the remaining Jewish captives overturn
for them) every stone within the city. We will soon see that this activity
resulted in every stone of Jewish Jerusalem being displaced.
-
- This continual digging up of the city occurred over a
period of several months after the war. Indeed, after an absence of about
four months, Titus returned to Jerusalem from Antioch and once again viewed
the ruined city. Josephus records what Titus saw.
-
- "As he came to Jerusalem in his progress [in returning
from Antioch to Egypt], and compared the melancholy condition he saw it
then in, with the ancient glory of the city [compared] with the greatness
of its present ruins (as well as its ancient splendor). He could not but
pity the destruction of the cityÖ. Yet there was no small quantity
of the riches that had been in that city still found among the ruins, a
great deal of which the Romans dug up; but the greatest part was discovered
by those who were captives [Jewish captives were forced by the Roman troops
to dig up the stones of their own city looking for gold], and so they [the
Romans] carried it away; I mean the gold and the silver, and the rest of
that most precious furniture which the Jews had, and which the owners had
treasured up under ground against the uncertainties of war."
-
- Ý Ý Three Years After the War
-
- We now come to the final appraisal of the complete desolation
of Jerusalem. Note what Eleazar, the final Jewish commander at Masada,
related three years after the war was finished at Jerusalem. He gives an
eyewitness account of how the Romans preserved Fort Antonia (the Haram)
among the ruins. What Eleazar said to the 960 Jewish people (who were to
commit suicide rather than fall into the hands of General Silva who was
on the verge of capturing the Fortress of Masada) is very important in
regard to our present inquiry. This final Jewish commander lamented over
the sad state of affairs that everyone could witness at this twilight period
of the conflict after the main war with the Romans was over.
-
- Jerusalem was to Eleazar a disastrous spectacle of utter
ruin. There was only one thing that remained of the former Jerusalem that
Eleazar could single out as still standing. This was the Camp of the Romans
that Titus permitted to remain as a monument of humiliation over the Mother
City of the Jews. Eleazar acknowledged that this military encampment had
been in Jerusalem before the war, and that Titus let it continue after
the war. The retention of this single Camp of the Romans, according to
Eleazar, was a symbol of the victory that Rome had achieved over the Jewish
people. His words are recorded in War VII.8,7. Several words and phrases
need emphasizing, and I hope I have done so:
-
- "And where is now that great city [Jerusalem], the
metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round
about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which
could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had
so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was
believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? it is now demolished to
the very foundations, and hath nothing left but THAT MONUMENT of it preserved,
I mean THE CAMP OF THOSE [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, WHICH STILL
DWELLS UPON ITS RUINS; some unfortunate old men also lie ashes upon the
of the Temple [the Temple was then in total ruins ó all of it had
been burnt to ashes], and a few women are there preserved alive by the
enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach."
-
- What Eleazar said must be reckoned as an eyewitness account
of the state of Jerusalem in the year A.D.73. This narrative is of utmost
importance to our question at hand. This is because Eleazar admitted that
the City of Jerusalem and all its Jewish fortresses had indeed been demolished
"to the very foundations." There was nothing left of the City
or the Temple. This is precisely what Jesus prophesied would happen.
-
- Eleazar even enforced this. He mentioned the "wholesale
destruction" of the city. He said that God had "abandoned His
most holy city to be burnt and razed to the ground" (War VII.8,6 Loeb).
And then, a short time later, Eleazar concluded his eyewitness account
by stating: "I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had
seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations
of our Holy Temple dug up, after so profane a manner" (War VII.8,7).
-
- Yes, even the very foundation stones that comprised the
Temple complex (including its walls) had been uprooted and demolished.
They were then "dug up" and not even the lower courses of base
stones were left in place. According to Eleazar, the only thing left in
the Jerusalem area was a single Roman Camp that still hovered triumphantly
over the ruins of the City and the Temple. He said that Jewish Jerusalem
"hath nothing left." The only thing continuing to exist was the
"monument" (a single monument) preserved by Titus. And what was
that "monument"? Eleazar said it was "the camp of those
that destroyed it [Jerusalem], which still dwells upon its ruins."
-
- What could this Camp of the Romans have been? This is
quite easy to discover when one reads the accounts of the war as recorded
by Josephus. The main military establishment in Jerusalem prior to the
war was Fort Antonia located to the north of the Temple (which is now the
Haram esh-Sharif). In my new book "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot,"
I will give an abundance of information to show that the Haram was considered
Roman property even before the war. Because Antonia was the property of
Rome, they had no reason to destroy those buildings that already belonged
to the Romans. That is why Titus left Fort Antonia (the Haram esh-Sharif)
and its walls in tact (as we see them today).
-
-
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|