Archaeologists Discover King Herod's Temple Construction Compound

The Associated Press has just reported that archaeologists have discovered the site of Herod's Temple construction, a quarry over 2,000 years old. The AP news clip reads,

"JERUSALEM - Israeli archaeologists said they have discovered a quarry that provided King Herod with the stones he used to renovate the biblical Second Temple compound — offering rare insight into construction of the holiest site in Judaism."

Here, the ordinary archaeological nomenclature "Second Temple," refers to the temple built by the Jews following their return from the Babylonian exile, after Persian King Cyrus declared their release, around 529 B.C. This is that Temple destroyed by the Roman under the command of Vespasian in A.D. 70, of which the Lord Jesus had prophesied "not one stone will be left upon another," which is exactly how Josephus describes its extraordinary destruction.

He carries the name (given him by secular historians) "Herod the Great" for his zealous building program, especially toward the end of his life, which was marred by excessive bloodshed and some form of mania or paranoia.

He reigned over Judaea (37 B.C. - 4 B.C.), and then Galilee, dying most probably very shortly after the Lord Jesus was born. How long Jesus remained in Egypt with his parents we do not exactly know. Among Herod's other construction projects, he greatly built up the Temple complex known to Jesus and the apostles, adorning it at length.

Israeli antiquities authority's archaeologist, Yuval Baruch, "said coins and pottery found in the quarry confirm the stone was used during the period of Herod's expansion of the Temple Mount in 19 B.C."

You can read the yahoo! article on topic here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070923/wl_mideast_afp/israelarchaeologyjerusalem_070923215014;_ylt=ArluaiYK.O6TRgEOHMERhagUewgF

Comments Regarding the Significance of the Find:

Digs like this pop up in archaeological literature from time to time, and the details always tend to confirm the biblical accounts. Gone are the days that historians dare challenge the veracity of Luke, except in a few special details where they seem to misunderstand the reading of the text (as with Luke's claim that Quirinius was governor in Syria at the time of the birth of Christ -- they say -- which was NOT in fact Luke's point.). But they are historians and not exegetes, and some often confuse the two. One can, of course, be both with proper training in each. But the two are not synonymous. The art and science of interpretation -- hermeneutics by name -- requires a special skill set only partially learned by most historians.


Here, we have another confirmation from the annals of archaeology establishing a background picture to the Gospel narratives wholly consistent with their testimonies. Yet, quixotically, no number of such finds will persuade a determined skeptic, who will cling to any apparent inconsistency he can find, despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of Luke and the other Gospel writers. This is why the Lord Jesus, in the person of Abraham (Luke 16) said:


"They have Moses and the Prophets. Let them hear them. But if they will not believe Moses, then will they not be persuaded, even though one were to rise from the dead [to tell them]." Interestingly, the Lord implies a self-reference as a subtext, in his rising from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of the Scriptures [Moses and the Prophets].


And, as usual, He was correct. If they will not believe the first Testament [Moses and the Prophets], they will not believe the Second [the Gospels, etc]. This is because each book of the canon, by the foreordained purpose of God, implies all the others by mutual affirmation, so that the rejection of any one part implies the rejection of the whole. Discovered inscriptions with the name "Joseph Ben-Caiaphas," and a host of recent discoveries with an abundance of detail, which should have utterly overthrown the New Testament were it simply a pious fiction, have done nothing but confirm its themes and empirical details.


The simplest and best explanation for this tenacity to survive the plethoric testimony of the world of archaeogical discoveries can be summed neatly in one word: "Eyewitnesses." The Gospel writers knew they were testifying about God, what He did and said, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, which bound them strictly and with great fear, to tell the truth, the whole truth (as much as was practical and relevant), and nothing but the truth, so help them God. And He obviously helped them quite a bit, since no other extensive text of antiquity compares to the detail and comprehensive historical insights of the Gospels.


We can even learn all about Roman customs -- should one care to study them -- from the Gospels, including the right of Romans only to impose the death penalty, the status of slaves and insurrectionist in Roman law, the right of roman soldiers to compel a man to carry his burden one mile at will, and a host of other background teachings of the Gospels and NT writings which get these right in the least detail. Even linguistic idioms and phrases current at the time have parallels which show up in other like ancient documents of the time. Thus, can we compare the Greek of Josephus with that of Luke and John. This can yield some surprising -- and still largely unearthed -- detailed accuracies of the NT which might otherwise go overlooked.

While Josephus cannot disprove the NT by any contradiction of it - this would prove Josephus in error - yet his writings are of great interest in accurately describing the temper of the times over a large portion of the history of the Jews (See Antiquities of the Jews), their customs and interactions with other peoples. It helps us fill in some of the places we might easily have overlooked from the NT writings, and even offers a few novel insights not mentioned in the Christian writings. which elucidate them further. For instance, with Josephus, we get an excellent personality profile of one "Pontius Pilate," which helps explain his actions in the New Testament, and the likely rationale behind them. But that is another post.


This highly detailed accuracy of the Christian writings would simply be impossible were the apostles not exactly what their qualifications allege: people who told what they knew firsthand, and wrote with the utmost care for accuracy and fidelity to God, for the generations of God's people to come who would --like Theophilus -- need instruction in the faith of Jesus, once for all delivered to the saints.


Christians do not fear, you will notice, additional archaeological discoveries. The more, the merrier. And this has been the trend for a very long time now. But the proof for the truth of the Word of God is found in its own testimony, which is necessarily the case for final standards in all world-views. These discoveries can only confirm and illuminate what we already know.


If one were to depend upon the discoveries of historians to prove each and every point of the biblical account before believing it, this would undermine the very authority of the Word of God, shifting it instead to the testimony of modern men, who often get it wrong. Empirical evidence is a pool never finished. But the Word of God is eternal and infallible. Only its inscripturation took time -- but what was to be written was in the mind of God from of old -- for the writings concerned historical persons yet to be born when the world was new. Once finished by A.D. 70, the canon became the standard God uses for all men of all ages, and by which He will judge them on a great Day known only to Him.

Until then, the study of archaeology remains a helpful tool to historian and exegete alike. And Christians would do well to pay attention, now and again, to the latest insights which debut in the news.