A New York Times article questioning whether two ancient Jewish temples actually stood at Jerusalem’s holiest site, the Temple Mount, has irked more than a few members of the press.
For the 164-year-old newspaper, the question of whether either of those temples existed where claimed, the second of which was built atop the ruins of the first, has never been “definitively answered.”
Media figures on both sides sounded off on the Times report.
“This piece is a disgrace. The archaeological evidence is literally unimpeachable,” said Commentary’s John Podhoretz.
The Atlantic’s Jeffery Goldberg added, “Proof of no progress in the Middle East: The never-ending contention that no Jewish Temple stood on the Temple Mount.”
Fellow Atlantic reporter Yani Appelbaum said in his own note, “But other than contemporary accounts, archaeological evidence, and a surviving wall, what proof is there of a Temple?”
Even the Times’ own Binyamin Appelbaum seemed confused by the report, asking on social media, “We’re seriously covering both sides of a debate about the existence of a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount?”
“Next up: How do we know Jesus existed if there’s no video footage?” he added jokingly.
Though he added later that questions about the location of the first temple are legitimate, he stressed that there’s a bevy of contemporary accounts and archeological evidence to prove the second stood where claimed.
The Times article doesn’t go so far as to dispute outright the original location of the second temple, but the newspaper does raise the question.
The Romans destroyed this second temple in 70 A.D. after the Jews of Judea tried unsuccessfully to stage a rebellion against the empire’s colonization efforts. To underscore his dominance in the region, Hadrian, the fourteenth emperor of Rome, also changed the names of Israel and Judea to Palestine. A remnant of the second temple, known as the Western Wall, exists to this day, acting as a marker for where the revered site once stood.
The temples “are integral to Jewish religious history and to Israel’s disputed assertions of sovereignty over all of Jerusalem,” the Times’ Rick Gladstone explained in the original Times report.
But the 37-acre site is also sacred to Muslims. They call it the Noble Sanctuary, and they believe it marks the spot where their prophet Muhammad began his journey to Jerusalem and his eventual ascent into heaven. As it is the third holiest location in Islam, some Muslims assert that their claim to the land is greater than the Jews.
“Many Palestinians, suspicious of Israel’s intentions for the site, have increasingly expressed doubt that the temples ever existed — at least in that location. Many Israelis regard such a challenge as false and inflammatory denialism,” the report noted.
However, as Islam wasn’t founded until 610 A.D., long after the destruction of the second temple, there’s no question as to who had first claim to that land.
The Times article goes on to offer a platform for temple supporters and deniers to debate the issue.
Wendy Pullan of the University of Cambridge, for example, is quoted saying, “The sources for the first temple are solely biblical, and no substantial archaeological remains have been verified.”
The director of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, Matthew J. Adams, is also quoted by the Times as saying, “This is a very politically loaded subject. It’s also an academically complex question.”
“We just don’t have enough primary source data, textual or archaeological, to say where it was with any confidence,” he added.
The paper quotes yet another expert, Jane Cahill, formerly of Hebrew University’s City of David Archaeological Project, who claims that, “nobody knows exactly” where the temples stood, but there’s “pretty powerful circumstantial evidence” that they did indeed exist at that spot.
“Because there have been no organized excavations there, and not likely to be, circumstantial evidence is probably all we’re going to have,” she said.
The article does note that there are contemporary accounts backing the existence of the temples, and that there is also archeological evidence. But some scholars are still unsure whether this constitutes proof of their existence.
“The answer might be ‘yes,’ if the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence, but ‘no’ if the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Cahill.
—
UPDATED 10.10.15: This post has been updated to include additional historical background on the location and destruction of the second temple.
