Category Archives: Biblical Sites

This feature includes photos of biblical sites and a brief overview of the significance of the site.

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

Philistine Cemetery Discovered!

5 Comments

Philistine Cemetery Discovered!

One of the skeletons excavated from the Philistine cemetery at Ashkelon.
One of the skeletons excavated from the Philistine cemetery at Ashkelon.

The 30 year excavation of ancient Ashkelon, (one of the five major Philistine cities–e.g., Judg. 14:19), is coming to a dramatic conclusion this year with the discovery of the first, and only, Philistine cemetery ever uncovered. Ashkelon was an important Mediterranean port for the Philistines and boasted a thriving marketplace. I had the opportunity of visiting this impressive site during the summer of 2009. The Leon Levy expedition, led by Lawrence E. Stager (Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel, Emeritus, at Harvard University), and Daniel M. Master, (Professor of Archaeology at Wheaton College), has been conducting large-scale excavations on the tell of ancient Ashkelon since 1985. The cemetery was first discovered in 2013 and excavation began on it in 2014, but it was only in this final season of digging that an announcement was made regarding its discovery and significance. Findings from the Philistine cemetery date from the 11th to 8th centuries B.C. That is, from the biblical period of the Judges (think Samson!) to the time of the divided monarchies of Israel and Judah. Over 210 individuals have been excavated from the Philistine cemetery.

Why Is the Discovery of the Philistine Cemetery Important?

Excavating the Philistine cemetery at Ashkelon.
Excavating the Philistine cemetery at Ashkelon.

One way to summarize the importance of this discovery is in the following statement by Lawrence E. Stager: “Ninety-nine percent of the chapters and articles written about Philistine burial customs should be revised or ignored now that we have the first and only Philistine cemetery found just outside the city walls of Tel Ashkelon” (quoted in BAR, First-Ever Philistine Cemetery Unearthed at Ashkelon). Admittedly, some may not be overly concerned with ancient Philistine burial practices, but there are other significant insights that should interest all those interested in the history of Israel and the Bible. Among them are:

  1. It is thought that the Philistines came from the island of Crete. Amos 9:7 states that the Philistines came from Caphtor (which many identify with Crete). Now DNA samples should help to resolve that question. DNA results will also help us understand how the people in the cemetery are related to each other, as well as their interconnectedness with other cultures.
  2. The skeletons will yield other interesting information such as, the average height of the people who lived here, what kinds of diseases they died from, and what the average life span was.
  3. Personal items buried with various individuals provide more data for understanding ancient Philistine culture. Although a majority of Philistines were not buried with personal items, nonetheless, the list of items found is impressive. Items include, bracelets, earrings, necklaces, rings, decorated juglets, storage jars, perfumed oil, small bowls and weapons.

Philistine Burial Practices

The Philistine cemetery in Ashkelon exhibits a unique burial process that differs from other cultures in ancient Canaan.
The Philistine cemetery in Ashkelon exhibits a unique burial process that differs from other cultures in ancient Canaan.

One of the significances of the discovery of the Philistine cemetery is how distinctive it is in comparison to the burial practices of the Canaanites and the ancient Israelites. The Canaanites and Israelites buried their dead by laying them on a bench inside a tomb. About a year later when the flesh had dissolved, loved ones would return to the tomb, gather up the bones and add them to the bones of previous ancestors. The Philistines burial practices are more similar to modern burial practices in the West. People were buried in pits dug in the earth. At times the pits were dug up and other individuals were buried on top without disturbing the remains buried a little deeper. The Philistine cemetery also shows evidence of cremation, however, one interesting aspect of the burials is that there are very few children or babies. The question remains, “Where did the Philistines bury most of their infants?” The cemetery continues to testify to the the distinctiveness of Philistine culture.

For more information addressing the discovery of the Philistine cemetery in Ashkelon see the following links: the Jerusalem Post, National Geographic, and, if you have a subscription to BAR, you can click here for an informative article.

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

Where is King David’s Tomb?

2 Comments

Where is King David’s Tomb?

The traditional site of David's tomb on Mount Zion dates no earlier than the early Islamic period.
The traditional site of David’s tomb on Mount Zion dates no earlier than the early Islamic period.

Where is the burial place of Israel’s most famous king? When touring Israel, groups are often taken to the traditional site of the Upper Room on what is called Mount Zion today. The ground floor of this structure is reputed to be the location of David’s Tomb (click here for video). This area is not only a tourist attraction, but a place of contention, as orthodox Jews have been known to block others from entering it (click here to read an article from the Jerusalem Post). I have had the opportunity to visit this site on a few occasions. It is a place believed to have healing powers by some of the orthodox faith where prayers are offered for fertility. The problem is, this is the wrong location for David’s tomb. As noted in a previous post (The City of David: Lost to History), the identity of Mount Zion was shifted from the original hill on which the City of David stood, to the hill west of it. The Bible states that David (as well as many of his descendants) was buried in the City of David (1 Kgs 2:10). The Western Hill, where the traditional site of David’s tomb is, was not part of Jerusalem in the time of David. The traditional site of David’s tomb appears to date from the early Islamic period, although some suggest it is as late as the Middle Ages (see Wikipedia on David’s Tomb, also see the link to the Jerusalem Post article above).

What Evidence Exists for David’s Tomb in the City of David?

In an article entitled, Is This King David’s Tomb (BAR, Jan/Feb 1995), editor Hershel Shanks lists 5 criteria all agree on as a starting point:

(1) King David’s Jerusalem was located on the eastern ridge of the city, south of the present Temple Mount, the area called today the City of David. All agree that this is the original City of David and that it is a mere 10 or 11 acres.
(2) There was a widespread ancient belief that corpses contaminate. Israelite law reflects the belief that corpses impart impurity. Burials were almost always outside, not inside the city. Royal burials were exceptions.
(3) The Bible tells us that the kings of Judah from David to Ahaz were buried “within the City of David”—somewhere in this small 10-acre site.
(4) Nehemiah tells us that the Davidic tombs were in the southern part of the City of David (Nehemiah 3:16).
(5) The proposed site of David’s tomb, and of others adjacent to it, is precisely where one would expect to find the burial site mentioned in the Bible—in the southern part of the City of David, an area that would normally be forbidden to burials.

In 1913-1914 archaeologist Raymond Weill undertook an excavation in the southern end of the City of David (where the Bible locates David’s tomb). He located 8 tombs hewn out of the bedrock, and found a 9th tomb in an additional excavation in 1923-1924 (Ahron Horovitz, City of David: The Story of Ancient Jerusalem, p. 150). The largest of these tombs is referred to as T1. Although Weill, and others, believed he had found the tombs of the ancient Davidic kings, objections have arisen that cast some doubt on the discovery. Some have argued:

  1. The so-called tombs are water cisterns from the Second Temple Period (famed archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon made this suggestion and she is followed in this by current City of David excavator, Ronny Reich). They have also been considered to be basements of Second Temple period houses.
  2. The so-called tombs are not impressive enough to be royal tombs. Opponents note that there are other First Temple period tombs to the north and east of the city of Jerusalem (belonging to nobility) which are much grander in style. How is it possible, they argue, that the tombs of these nobles could be grander than the tombs of the kings?
The sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos, a close contemporary to David. Ahiram's tomb is not impressive, like many royal tombs of this time period.
The sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos, a close contemporary to David. Ahiram’s tomb itself is not impressive,. This is true of  many royal tombs of this time period.

In a more recent article entitled Is T1 David’s Tomb? (BAR, Nov/Dec 2012–available at this link), author Jeffrey R. Zorn responds to the objections as follows:

  1. Regarding the cistern theory: a) Cisterns of the Second Temple Period are usually constructed of masonry (which is not true of the T1 tomb). b) The tombs are longer than any known cisterns. c) Certain features such as triangular niches and mortar cement suggest that T1 was altered during the Second Temple Period. d) Finally, even if T1 was used as a cistern in the Second Temple Period, this does not preclude its use as a tomb in the First Temple Period.
  2. Regarding the “not impressive enough to be royal tombs” theory: a) The tombs of the nobility used as comparisons (in the northern and eastern parts of Jerusalem) date from 200 years later. Since they date from a later time period, this disqualifies them. b) Royal tombs that date closer to the time of David, like the tomb of Ahiram in Byblos, are far from spectacular. In fact, while the sarcophagus of Ahiram is impressive, the tomb itself is very plain.

Zorn is convinced that T1 is David’s tomb, while the other tombs (T2-T9) are the tombs of his descendants.

Concluding Thoughts on the Identification of T1 as David’s Tomb

Tombs labelled T1 and T2 discovered by Robert Weill in 1913-1914 are thought by some to be David's tomb and that of the kings of Judah.
Tombs labelled T1 and T2 discovered by Raymond Weill in 1913-1914 are thought by some to be David’s tomb and that of the kings of Judah.

One of the unfortunate things about these tombs is that, to date, they have not yielded a single bone or artifact. There are several reasons for this:

  1. Royal tombs have been the prey of treasure hunters from ancient times to the present. In fact, if Josephus’s accounts are accurate, David’s tomb was raided twice by other royals in Jerusalem! Josephus notes that John Hyrcanus (the Hasmonean ruler from 130-104 B.C.) swiped 3000 talents of silver from David’s tomb in order to pay off the Syrian ruler Antiochus who was besieging Jerusalem (Antiquities of the Jews, XIII, viii, 4). He also reports that King Herod looted David’s tomb (Antiquities, XVI, vii, 1). From these incidents, and other potential robberies, it appears the royal tombs were emptied of their contents long ago.
  2. The area in the southern portion of the City of David also became a quarry area. Ronny Reich dates quarrying activity to the Persian Period (5th century B.C.), but others date it later. It appears that the Romans under the emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) used this area for quarrying stones in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which they renamed Aelia Capitolina. This means the original landscape has been greatly altered, along with damage to some of the tombs. One would also guess that any remaining artifacts (if there were any) would have been removed by this time.

Unfortunately, if these tombs were the tombs of David and his royal descendants, there appears to be nothing left except the hollowed out rock which once housed their bones. Because no evidence has been discovered, it leaves many questions unanswered, and therefore, also leaves doubt about whether David’s tomb has indeed been found. One of the weaknesses in Zorn’s argument for these being the tombs of the kings is that they appear to have been altered during the Second Temple period. It seems unlikely that the Jews of this period would have tolerated the desecration of David’s tomb (or that of his descendants). The fact that King Herod still knew where to find David’s tomb, as apparently did others in Jerusalem according to Acts 2:29, suggests it was still largely intact (although already looted). If the quarrying can be shown to have happened much later (i.e., 2nd century A.D. under the Romans), this leaves open the possibility that these were the tombs of the Judean kings. However, if it is proven that the quarrying happened much earlier (the Persian period), this makes it less likely in my opinion, unless the Persians were careful to avoid desecrating  the tombs. However, since ancient Jerusalem was such a small site (only 10-11 acres), and since we know David’s tomb was located in the southeast portion of the city, one wonders whether any other option is possible. So even though there are some doubts, these may well be the tombs of the Judean kings, and if so, we must live with the sad fact that they were looted and destroyed long ago, leaving us no physical trace of David and his dynasty.

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

The First Century Synagogue at Magdala

Leave a comment

The First Century Synagogue at Magdala

magdala
An aerial view of the area of Migdal, the location of ancient Magdala. Magdala can be located to the left of center in this picture. The city of Tiberius, is located approximately 3.7 miles (6 kilometers) south of Magdala and can be seen in the top of the picture.

Whenever, I have the opportunity to visit Israel, the inevitable question that is asked is, “What was your favorite place to visit?” There are always perennial favorites like, Tel Dan, the City of David, or the Garden Tomb, but I’m always excited to see something I haven’t seen on previous trips. On my most recent trip (March 4-12, 2016), I would have to say the first century synagogue at Magdala qualifies as my favorite place.

The synagogue at Magdala was only recently discovered in 2009. The discovery occurred as a result of the Magdala Project. This project was the vision of the Legionaries of Christ, a group whom Pope John Paul II had asked to take charge of the Pontifical Notre Dame of Jerusalem Center in 2004. The vision was to create a similar center in Galilee for prayer and hospitality for visitors. As with every building project in Israel, it is important to first do some preliminary archaeological investigations, so that ancient remains are not destroyed. It can be said without exaggeration that the Magdala Project hit the motherload when, not only a portion of the ancient first century town of Magdala was uncovered, but especially when a synagogue at Magdala, dating from the first century was discovered! Listen to the words of Dina Gorni, one of the directors of the archaeological excavation: “It is a kind of a miracle, I think. We didn’t know there was any ancient material on this site. We knew of material further south, where there had been extensive excavations. We were only digging here as a precautionary measure before a building project began.” (Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/stunning-find-from-time-of-jesus/#r7rL5xUJroSoJzjE.99)

The Significance of the Synagogue at Magdala

Why is the synagogue at Magdala such an exciting find? There are several reasons. First, Gorni notes that it is only one of seven synagogues in all of Israel that is dated to the 1st century A.D. Second, and more significantly, it is the oldest synagogue that has ever been found. Dates range from 50 B.C. – 68 A.D. for the life of the synagogue. Some would even date its beginnings to 1 A.D. It seems certain that the synagogue was destroyed by the Romans in 67-68 A.D. during the First Jewish Revolt. This means the synagogue dates to the time when the Second Temple (Herod’s Temple) was still standing. Third, for Christians, this means the synagogue at Magdala was in use during the life and ministry of Jesus.

The synagogue at Magdala: frontal view
The synagogue at Magdala: frontal view

Although there is no mention of Jesus teaching in the synagogue at Magdala, it seems likely for several reasons: 1) The gospels testify to Jesus preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee (Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:39); 2) Jesus’ association with Mary Magdalene (Mary of Magdala) makes it possible that he met her in Magdala (although she could have met him elsewhere); 3) The journey from Nazareth to Capernaum (a major center of Jesus Galilean ministry) would have involved passing by (or going through) Magdala (Capernaum is 5 miles further north along the Sea of Galilee). The Lexham Bible Dictionary states: “Jesus’ two journeys between Nazareth and Capernaum also would have taken Him through Magdala, which is situated between the two locations (Matt 4:15, Luke 4:16, 31). The journey from Cana to Capernaum depicted in the Gospel of John (John 2:1, 12) could also have taken Jesus through Magdala” (Ryan, J. [2012, 2013, 2014, 2015]. Magdala. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press). This means that when standing in the synagogue at Magdala, looking around at the mosaic floor (see photo immediately below), the rows of stone benches, and the frescoes still visible on the walls (see the last photo in this article), we are probably seeing the very site where Jesus would have taught, and where Mary Magdalene would have worshipped. As those associated with the  Magdala Project point out, some of the worshippers at this synagogue would certainly have been witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, including perhaps the feeding of the 5,000, as well as other miracles he performed in Galilee. Who knows, perhaps Jesus cast seven demons out of Mary Magadalene (Luke 8:2) in Magdala. Maybe even in the synagogue itself (cf. Mark 1:21-27).

This photo shows some of the mosaic floor. A pillar of the synagogue and the Magdala Stone can be scene on the left-center.
This photo shows some of the mosaic floor. A pillar of the synagogue and the Magdala Stone can be scene on the left-center.

Two Significant Finds from the Synagogue at Magdala

The Magdala Stone. The menorah, the jars, and the pillars to the Temple are clearly visible in this view.
The Magdala Stone. The menorah, the jars, and the pillars to the Temple are clearly visible in this view.

Besides the synagogue itself, there are two other important finds. One is a coin that dates to 29 A.D. This coin was found in the synagogue and firmly dates it to the time of Jesus’ ministry. The second important discovery has become known as the “Magdala Stone” (see photo above). In the main hall of the synagogue, a square stone was found with reliefs carved on the top and all four sides (only the bottom is blank). One of the reliefs depicts a menorah surrounded by amphorae (jugs) and pillars that represent the Temple in Jerusalem. The significance of the menorah (the 7-branched candlestand that stood in the Holy Place) is that it is the oldest known carving of a menorah. Since it dates to the time when the Temple was still standing, and since it is pictured in the relief as being inside the Temple, it is thought that it is a good representation of what the menorah would have looked like.

This photo is a closeup of one of the walls of the synagogue in Magdala which still shows signs of the colorful frescoes which once adorned its walls.
This photo is a closeup of one of the walls of the synagogue in Magdala which still shows signs of the colorful frescoes which once adorned its walls.

For further information on the synagogue and other archaeological discoveries at Magdala, as well as the Magdala Project, click on the links to the following youtube videos: MAGDALA and Discovery at Magdala.

Also see the following articles: First-Century Synagogue Discovered, and Ancient Synagogue Unearthed at Magdala.

 

Archaeology, Biblical Sites

Has Jesus’ Home Been Found?

Leave a comment

Has Jesus’ Home Been Found?

Jesus' home in Nazareth is located only a few miles away from the Sea of Galilee where a major portion of his ministry occurred.
Jesus’ home in Nazareth is not far from the Sea of Galilee where a major portion of his ministry occurred.

It sounds like a title to simply grab headlines doesn’t it? Throughout the centuries claims have been made to have pieces of the cross of Christ, or an actual nail used in crucifying Jesus. On and on the claims go. During the Byzantine and Middle Ages pilgrimages were frequently made to see such so-called “relics.” So when someone claims that Jesus’ home in Nazareth may have been discovered, it is quite natural to expect that claim would be met with a great deal of skepticism. However, when a reputable magazine like BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) lists Jesus’ home as one of the top ten discoveries of 2015, it’s at least worth investigating.

The Original Discovery of What May Be Jesus’ Home

Sisters of Nazareth Convent where Jesus' home may have been discovered.
Sisters of Nazareth Convent where Jesus’ home may have been discovered.

Although the discovery has only made headlines this past year (see the article by the Daily Mail here), the story actually begins in the 1880s when an ancient cistern was accidentally discovered at the Sisters of Nazareth Convent. The nuns and others associated with the school began excavating the area and uncovered a number of ancient features including Crusader period walls and vaults, a Byzantine  cave-church, Roman period tombs and other structures. The nuns created a small museum from the coins, pottery, glass, and other objects that were uncovered. Previously, construction on the convent had revealed a large Byzantine church which included mosaic floors and marble fittings, rebuilt during the Crusader period. Jesuit priest Father Henri Senès carried out further work in 1936, including making detailed drawings of the discoveries.

Recent Excavations in Nazareth and the Evidence for What May Be Jesus’ Home

The exterior of the house that may have been Jesus' home, showing a doorway which is still preserved to its original height.
The exterior of the house that may have been Jesus’ home, showing a doorway which is still preserved to its original height.

The Nazareth Archaeological Project which began in 2006, is the first professional archaeological excavation to take place on this site, although discovered long ago. This recent excavation project has revealed “a lengthy chronological sequence of well-preserved structures and features” (Ken Dark, “Has Jesus’ Nazareth House Been Found?,” BAR, Mar/Apr. 2015). These include the features mentioned above plus “a rectilinear structure with partly rock-cut and partly stone-built walls” (Ken Dark, BAR). Further investigation confirmed that this structure was a house from the earlier Roman period, built in either the 1st century AD or shortly before. A doorway survives to its original height and part of the original chalk floor is still visible. The date is confirmed by cooking pottery and other items  (including a spindle whorl) which also date to this period. The discovery of limestone vessels also suggests that this was a Jewish home, since limestone was not considered subject to impurity.

The forecourt of the tomb can be seen in this photo. Note the stone on the right and the two niches inside for bodies. These tombs cut right through the house
The forecourt of the tomb can be seen in this photo. Note the stone on the right and the two niches inside for bodies. These tombs cut right through the house

The age of the house is further confirmed by a curious feature. Two Roman period tombs cut through the house. Archaeologist Ken Dark confirms that the tombs are 1st century AD but were made after the house had already been built. Of course no Jew would have had a tomb in their house while the house was being occupied. It is interesting to speculate why the tombs were built. If this was the boyhood home of Jesus, were the tombs built by unbelievers to desecrate what had come to be considered a sacred place? Or, what seems to me less likely because of the uncleanness associated with tombs, would some zealous believer have wanted to be buried in the boyhood home of Jesus? These are questions that cannot be answered, but the presence of the tombs further confirms the date of the house.

This map taken from Ken Dark's article in BAR shows the site of the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, as well as other significant sites in Nazareth.
This map taken from Ken Dark’s article in BAR shows the site of the Sisters of Nazareth Convent, as well as other significant sites in Nazareth.

But what evidence connects this with possibly being Jesus’ home? The churches that have been built on the site are strongly suggestive of this being considered a sacred area. In fact, Ken Dark notes that great efforts were made by both the Byzantine and later Crusader churches to completely encompass the house, thus protecting it from further destruction. Why build a church on this site and why go to the trouble to protect an old house? The most obvious answer is that the house was considered to be a special place. What house in Nazareth could be considered more special by future generations of Christians than the house of Jesus? Of course, this involves making some intuitive leaps, but there is one other piece of historical information that is intriguing. An ancient pilgrim text written in 670 AD by abbot Adomnàn of Iona  known as the De Locus Sanctis, speaks of making a pilgrimage to Nazareth and seeing two churches. One can be identified as the Church of the Annunciation (well known in Nazareth). The other church is said to be built over vaults that contain a spring and two tombs. Between the tombs Adomnán says there was a house in which Jesus was raised. The church is called The Church of the Nutrition, meaning, “the upbringing of Christ.” Adomnán’s description is clearly speaking about the same house that has been uncovered and now sits in the Sisters of Nazareth Convent. Is the tradition reliable? Who can say? But the fact that a church had been established on this site before Adomnán’s trip in 670 AD suggests that the house had a long tradition of being identified as Jesus’ home.

Is the House in Nazareth Jesus’ Home?

Another 1st century house has been discovered in the recent excavations in Nazareth.
Another 1st century house has been discovered in the recent excavations in Nazareth.

The best answer to this question is given by Ken Dark himself when he states, “Was this the house where Jesus grew up? It is impossible to say on archaeological grounds. On the other hand, there is no good archaeological reason why such an identification should be discounted. What we can say is that this building was probably where the Byzantine church builders believed Jesus had spent his childhood in Nazareth.“

Besides the house that may be Jesus’ home, archaeologists have uncovered another 1st century house in Nazareth across from the Church of the Annunciation (see photo on the left). I’ve made a number of trips to Israel, but I have only been to Nazareth on one occasion and even then, we were just passing through on a bus. I inquired why tours never seemed to stop in Nazareth and was told that there was simply “nothing to see.” I asked that question back in 2006, the same year that the Nazareth Archaeological Project began. Thanks to the recent efforts of archaeologists, our knowledge of ancient Nazareth is slowly being transformed. I imagine if I were to ask the question again, the answer would be quite different!

(For another informative article on the archaeological excavations on Jesus’ home, see the Bible Blender by clicking here. Of course, if you have a subscription to BAS library you can see the original article by clicking here.)

Biblical Sites

Where Will the Battle of Armageddon Be Fought?

13 Comments

Where Will the Battle of Armageddon Be Fought?

The battle of Armageddon is pictured in the Book of Revelation as the final battle where God defeats evil.
The battle of Armageddon is pictured in the Book of Revelation as the final battle where God defeats evil.

Although the word Armageddon comes to us via the Bible, it has entered the modern vernacular as a term that refers to doomsday, or a cataclysmic event. Biblically speaking, it is the final battle to end all wars when evil is dealt a decisive blow. In the Book of Revelation, the apostle John describes it this way: “And the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth, and of the whole world to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty….And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon” (Rev. 16:12-14, 16).

Tel Megiddo and the surrounding valley is frequently identified as the site of the battle of Armageddon.
Tel Megiddo and the surrounding valley is frequently identified as the site of the battle of Armageddon.

Most bible scholars and commentators preoccupy themselves with when Armageddon will occur, based on their understanding of Revelation and end-time events. When asked where the final battle of Armageddon will take place, the usual answer is the valley of Megiddo in Israel. This identification is based on breaking the word “Armageddon” into its two parts. “Ar” is the English equivalent to the Greek and Hebrew rendering which is “Har.” “Har” in Hebrew means “mountain.” The second part of the word “magedon” (one “d” in the Greek, not two) is usually thought to refer to the city of Megiddo. Because the ancient city of Megiddo was built and rebuilt many times over the centuries, a tell or small mound has developed. This is the result of the ancient practice of building one city on top of another. Thus Megiddo has the appearance of being a small hill or mountain as can be seen in the photo to the left. Armageddon, or Harmageddon is thus interpreted to mean “the mountain of Megiddo.”

Could the Equation of Armageddon with Mountain of Megiddo Be Wrong?

In his recent book The Unseen Realm, Bible scholar Michael Heiser argues that Armageddon should be equated with Jerusalem, not Megiddo. (If Heiser is correct, this means I need to revise one of my statements in  my post entitled: Tel-Megiddo!) Heiser makes the following points to advance his argument:

  1. Megiddo is a tell, it is not a mountain.

2.  Zechariah 12:9-11 pictures Jerusalem as the place where the final battle against the nations will take place. Interestingly, Megiddo is also mentioned in this passage. Heiser states, “It is crystal clear that the final conflict occurs at Jerusalem, not Megiddo. Megiddo is referenced only to compare the awful mourning that will result.” He continues by also noting, “verse 11 tells us explicitly that Megiddo is a plain, not a mountain!” (p. 370, all italics are the author’s).

417i-jxItJL._SX337_BO1,204,203,200_3.  Heiser’s third point  is more complicated and involves knowing a little Hebrew as he attempts to show that the word “magedon” does not come from Armageddon, but from a different Hebrew expression. He points out that there are 2 letters in the Hebrew alphabet that are transliterated with a “g” in Greek and English. Transliteration means writing the letters of another alphabet in the equivalent forms of our alphabet. One of those letters is the Hebrew letter ‘ayin (ע). An ‘ayin is pronounced in the back of the throat like a hard “g” but it is represented in English transliteration as a backwards apostrophe (‘). Heiser notes that the transliteration of the city Gomorrah is ‘amorah. I would add, the same is true for the city Gaza which also begins with an ‘ayin and is transliterated as ‘aza. If the letter “g” in “magedon” is an ‘ayin, then, Heiser argues, that the Hebrew expression would be har mo’ed which means “mountain of assembly.” If you’re unfamiliar with Hebrew, I know that going from “Armageddon” to “har mo’ed” seems like a stretch. But trust me, it works. Heiser notes that this expression is found in Isaiah 14:13. This is a passage usually attributed to Satan’s defiance of God and Heiser treats it fully elsewhere in his book. To fully appreciate his point, it is necessary to read the book. For the full argument on this particular point see pages 370-373.

4. “Jerusalem is a mountain–Mount Zion” (p. 373). Heiser’s point is that when John uses the word Armageddon, he is meaning the mountain of assembly which every one who knew Hebrew would equate with Mount Zion, or Jerusalem.

Megiddo or Jerusalem?

Since David conquered Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, it has been the center and hearbeat of Israelite life. Something rings true to me about the final battle taking place in Jerusalem. After all, even today, Jerusalem remains the focal point of controversy and contention when it comes to the Middle East. Even if it can’t be proven that Armageddon means “mountain of the assembly,” Heiser’s other arguments make sense of an important biblical event that all Christians long to see take place. For more of Heiser’s arguments regarding Armageddon or his book, The Unseen Realm, check out his website at moreunseenrealm.com.