Philistines were not Aegeans Biblically

And it bothers me how people trying to discuss archeology from a Biblical standpoint do not realize that the popular association of the Philistines with the Aegean is a problem for The Bible.

Sometimes someone will make a video about further “proof” of the Aegean origin of the Philistines as if that is specifically Bible vindicating evidence, as if the Aegean origin of the Philistines is what one would assume going off The Bible alone, but it's not. For centuries before modern Egyptology began everyone including the Targums and Miamonides agreed that Caphtor was Damiette and/or Peleusium.  

The Aegean is Javan Biblically, right from Genesis 10 Javan is identified with “The Isles” (an idiom The Bible keeps using for the Islands of the Greek world) more so than Inland Greece. I know some people have it in their heads that Greece didn't become Japhethite until the Indo-European Proto-Hellenic speakers arrived between 2200 and 1900 BC.  I believe the Indo-Europeans are from Japheth but not the only people from Japheth, I believe the Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Yamnaya Culture were Gomer, maybe even just one of Gomer's three sons, and other sons of Japheth become associated with them only after their migrations to other regions and intermingling with other peoples. I believe the Minoans are Javan, maybe even just one son of Javan (perhaps Kittim) but I’m undecided on that.

Others are seeking to prove this Aegean presence in this region goes back to the Middle Bronze Age and wasn’t something brand new during or following the Bronze Age Collapse as if the when of the Philistines origins is the only problem for The Biblical picture not the where.  

Philistine is an Exonym not an Endonym, we don’t know what they called themselves, every use of the term in the Bronze or Iron Age comes from their enemies. It seems to be a term that means foreigners or invaders or migrants derived from a Semitic verb meaning “to roll off”. So I”m not saying these Aegeans the Archaeologists are focusing on were never included in who The Bible calls Philistines.  

But the few times The Bible is specific about where the Philistines came from, it is always identifying them as coming from one or two of the seven nations of Mizraim from Genesis 10:13-14, the first time it does this is in Genesis 10:13-14 but translations disagree on which son. So it is a perceived problem for KJV Onlists that Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7 all seem to support it being Caphtor. In the Peshita reading of Genesis 10 the Casluhim and Philistim both come from the Caphtorim.

Now some may argue “It’s clearly not only Egypt coming from Mizraim so what’s the big deal?” The issue is Genesis 10 is clear that languages are the key factor in how early national divisions happened. Caphtor can’t be Crete because neither language ever spoken as the dominant language on Crete was Afroasiatic. 

And arguing that none of this names offspring of Mizraim are part of Egypt property is debunked by the Pathrusim being the people of Pathros which is Thebes the capital of Upper Egypt. 

I'm tired of seeing history youtubers act like the debate over Caphtor is settled when it is far from settled even in mainstream Academia. First of all, even if Keftu and Capthor should be identified with each other is disputed. Meanwhile the identification of Keftu as an Aegean island was largely popularized by Jean Vercoutter and his interpretation of one reference to Keftu in the tome of Rekkmire an official from the 18th Dynasty. But in 2003 Claude Vandersleyen pointed out that the term Wadj which Vercoutter had translated “The Sea” actually refers specifically to the Vegetation of the upper Nile Delta, where The Nile meets the Mediterranean not the Mediterranean itself.

In the Tomb of Menkkeperreseneb the Kefitu are included in what Retjenu refers to. 

The word for “country” in Jeremiah 47:4 is usually translated as Island, but ancient languages used that word more loosely than us in many ways, many parts of the Nile Delta were absolutely considered Islands especially along the Mediterranean Coast. 

The term Cherethite is just a term for mercenary that has a perfectly explained Hebrew etymology. The overstated phonetic similarity to Crete people keep seeing is a coincidence. Its Strong number is 3774 the verb it comes from is 3772. Three verses do seem to be using it as an ethnonym and alongside references to the Philistines, 1 Samuel 30:14, Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5. Those passages could be referring to distinct peoples that were sometimes neighbors. 

The misnomer that the Philistines were Sea Peoples is entirely based on taking Ramses III’s record of the battle he fought in 1177 BC at Medinet Habu and Pyapyrus Harris I and treating all of Egypt's enemies in that account as Sea Peoples, but the the actual records are more specific then that, he identifies only the Teresh, Sherden and Weshesh as “of the Sea” and places the Denyen “in their Isles”. But the Peleset and Tjekker are given no such maritime association. We know from other records that the Tjekker were the Canaanites of Dor, so the Philistines can also be presumed to be already present in this region. (The ones who are called Sea Peoples may also be native to the Levant and just the ones who had Sea Farring capabilities.)

The term Sea People is taken from Egyptian records of Rameses II, Merneptah and Rameses III, the theory that those Sea People have anything to do with the “Bronze Age Collapse” that happened in Greece and Anatolia has never actually been a proven theory, people just like running with it. Even that there was a dramatic “Bronze Age Collapse” is disputable. There is an argument I saw from a Marxist whose username I don’t remember that the violence occurring in Greece and Anatolia at this time was Class Based Revolutions not foreign invaders.

Papyrus Harris I has already talked about the “foreigners” Ramses III’s predecessor had expelled from Egypt, the entire Irsu narrative. It is possible the Peleset are in part those Egyptian Exiles. 

Gaza, archeologically Tel es-Sakan, was first built as an Egyptian fort back in the Old Kingdom, and served as the main outpost of Egyptian Military presence in the Levant all through the 18th and 19th Dynasties. So archeology does confirm Egyptian origins for those called Philistines if people just stop being distracted by the Sea Peoples fixation. Ashkelon has a complicated history with Egypt Archeologically. 

Gerar is never specifically a City in Genesis, it refers to the entire Nahal Gerear valley, except Biblically I think it’s all of what we today call the Wadi Ghazzah. Genesis 21 mentions the Philistines only as a geographical reference, it's in Genesis 26 where Philististine is a term used for people Isaac and his family interact with.

Tel-Harar the city doesn't appear till Middle Bronze IIC, so it can’t specifically be where any King in Genesis is ruling from. Tell el-Ajul is an older archaeological site in the Gerar area possibly going back to Middle Bronze I but certainly Middle Bronze IIA, in Middle Bronze IIb it has significant Egyptian 2nd Intermediate Period imports, and it’s considered a candidate for Sharuhen the last stand of the Hyksos. Tell Beit Misrim is also interesting. 

 

The Aegean elements of Philistine culture could very well be a product of cultural exchange rather than it ever being Aegeans who conquered and ruled these cities. Maybe the Philistine cities were melting pots.

But if the people I referred to above arguing for this Aegean presence going back to the Middle Bronze Age are correct. Then there is a possible Biblical identification for them, the Anakim. 

The Anakim were NOT Nephilim or Raphaim, they are called those only in verses referring to the “false report”. They are at first associated with Hebron but do seem distinct from the Canaanites of Hebron, as in Joshua 11 the Anakim are already chased out of the Hebron region but Caleb still has to deal with the Canaanites later. They aren’t there yet in Genesis, the only Anakim linked name used is Kiratharba meaning City of Arba. But the Anakim are referred to in Middle Kingdom Egyptian records.  

After the Anakim were chased out of Hebron they continued in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod, three of the Philistine cities. According to Jodhua 11:21-22.

Anax is a Homeric Greek word for King, rendered Wanax in Mykenean inscriptions. Anakim is plural of Anak because there are three Kings and sons of Anak could mean sons of prior kings. Arba is a name for Hebron which the Anakim ruled and the supposed father of Anak, but it’s also the name of a city in Achaea in the northern Peloponnese. But both Anax and Arba are theorized to be of non-Greek linguistic origin. Maybe they are Minoan?

Those connections are the core of the argument, my following proposed Greek connections for the three Numbers 13:22 Sons of Anak aren’t necessary because Greeks ruling a kingdom in Canaan may have also had local Semitic names.  But they do make interesting speculation. 

Ahiman could be a play on Achaean since the H letter in that name in the Hebrew text in Heth not Heh. Sheshai could be cognate with the first part of Sisyphus and Talmai is how the Greek name Ptolemy was rendered in Aramaic. 

In the Amarna Letters a King of Gath seems to have an Indo-Aryan name possibly via Mitanni, Swardata coming from Surya the Vedic solar deity. Anak in Sanskrit can mean blind or inferior. And Anaka is a word for a type of Drum.But in spite of that etymology as a name Anak is associated with strength and security.

Indo-Aryran etymologies could be proposed for Sheshai and Ahiman in Shesh or Sheshai and Ahriman also called Akem Manah/Aka Manah. As well as for Talmai from Talam. Abra could then be linked for a verb meaning to approach or to hurt. 

But the Greek/Minoan identification for the Anakim suits my current views more. 

Salem isn’t Jerusalem

The popularly declared Melchizedek Temple in Jerusalem isn’t actually old enough to go back to the time of Abraham, there was a good un-biased analysis of it by the Armstrong Institute of all people. They mistakenly identify it with the "City of David" location of The Ark but that was a Tent. 

I had argued what I'm about to about Salem on a different blog in the past, but because I fell for the Melchizedek Temple hype I abandoned it, but now that I know that doesn’t hold up, I’m revisiting the issue again with some new information.

Genesis 14 is not the only time Salem is mentioned in Genesis, people just miss the other one because of a difference in transliteration. In the Hebrew text Shalem in Genesis 33:18 is the exact same name. 

The Genesis 33 Shalem is a City of Shechem, in fact Shechem is never a City name in Genesis but this general area, in fact using Shechem as a geographical term at all seems to be one of those anachronisms, it was named after the son of Hamor. So no Shechem wouldn't be mentioned by name in the Ebla Tablets. Since I place the time of Jacob and Joseph as Middle Bronze IIA at the latest the entire Genesis narrative predates Shechem ever becoming a major fortified city. 

Before the city named Shalem is where Jacob pitched his tent on land he bought from Hamor, the same land in which Joseph would be buried centuries later. Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32.

The non Canonical book of Judith 4:4 also places Salem in the allotment of Ephraim.

Salem’s other appearance in the Hebrew Bible is Psalm 76:2. I already argued that Zion here isn’t Jerusalem but Bethlehem. The gist of my reading of the verse is the same, God’s Tabernacle and Dwelling Place “YHWH is there” being different locations is actually consistent with Ezekiel 40-48’s geography where YHWH-Shammah is in the southern third of the Holy Portion but the Tabernacle (misleadingly called a Temple in Translations) is in the exact center. 

I think the Salem/Shalem of Genesis is also Salim in John 3:23. Aenon is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew/Aramaic word for Spring, so this could be any Spring in the Nablus Governorate. There is a village today called Salim in the Nablus Governorate east of Nablus and west of Joseph’s Tomb that has ruins going back to the Early Bronze Age. Ain al-Kabira is a Spring near it. 

Both David Rohl and Immanuel Velikvosky’s Revised Chronologies involve identifying the Shalem Ramses II Miamun captures in his 8th Year Campaign as recorded at the Ramesseum with Jerusalem, for Rohl that’s making him Shishak and for Velikovsky it’s to make him Necho. But the Egyptians were already calling Jerusalem by that full name from Middle Kingdom Execration Texts to the Amarna Letters. So the Salem of Rameses must be the Salim in Nablus. 

The Mount Ebal site isn't Joshua's Altar

The biggest issue is that it’s on the northern side of the Mountain while Gerizim is to the South, and Ebal is the taller of the two mountains. Since the blessing ritual foretold in Deuteronomy 11 and 27 and fulfilled in Joshua 8 requires people to stand on both mountains facing each other, Joshua’s Altar must have been on the southern side.

But also when I read Deuteronomy and Joshua I don’t picture a full structure like this site, I picture just the Stones with the Law written on them, Stones that were probably removed at some point and so are unlikely to be found by archeologists. 

This site is supported by the same Biblical Archaeology YouTube Channels that promote the 1446 BC Amenhotep II Exodus simply because they want to cling to every seemingly Bible verifying Archaeology site that isn’t seen as complete wackery like Ron Wyatt’s claims. So they ignore or explain away the fact that it is archaeologically an early Iron Age site. 

Late Exodus proponents like David Falk promote it because broadly an early Iron Age date for Joshua suits them. But since the use of this site starts in 1220 BC it’s actually too early for Falk’s model which has the conquest start in 1215 BC 40 years after the death of Ramses II’s first son, which is the earliest plausible Ramses II Exodus date. 

The fact that the animals offered here were all Levitically Clean is evidence this was an Israelite not Canaanite site, I won’t dispute that. But this wouldn’t be the only Israelite cultic site we’ve found not otherwise mentioned in Scripture, there’s also the Tel-Motza Temple and the Tel-Arad Temple. 

Arad is easy enough to expect such a thing from due to its association with the Kenites, the Pre-Aaronic Priesthood of the Father In-Law of Moses in Judges 1:16. 

But Motza is a very obscure place mentioned in The Bible only once.  I had at one point tried theorizing it was Nob using Isaiah 10 as evidence Nob must be very close to Jerusalem, but Isaiah 10 also seems to be intending locations north of Jerusalem, the direction from which  Assyria’s army was approaching. 

Back to the subject of this northern Ebal Altar. I at first considered Jeroboam (the theory that his calves at Bethel and Dan were like the Cherubim of a Nationwide Holy Place and so his Capital of Shechem was where Sacrifices were made), but he’s too late for 1220-1000 BC even in Ussher’s timeframe for Solomon. 

There is a certain type of Fundamentalist who thinks Josiah’s ban on making sacrifices anywhere other than The Temple must have applied all the way back to Moses because it seems at face value similar to the commands in Leviticus 17:3-4 and Deuteronomy 12:13-14 and 18. That of course would be a problem for even Joshua’s Altar still being a place of Sacrifices after The Tabernacle was set up at Shiloh. 

In the case of Deuteronomy this ignores the context of verse 12 being about the Levites in many Gates and verse 15 saying you can eat flesh in any Gates which would seem to contradict Leviticus 17 saying you only eat Animals offered in Levitical Sacrifices. The word for “One” in Deuteronomy 12:14 is Echad, the same word that says The Lord is One which Trinitarians should take note of.  Deuteronomy 12:21 clarified that these offerings can be made at other places that are far from the main place. Joshua 22:10-34 shows that the Trans-Jordan Tribes had at least one Altar of their own. 

The natural reconciliation of these issues is that sacrifices have to be made at proper Levitical locations.  Which means any of the Levitical Cities from Joshua 21 could house legitimate places for Sacrifices. Not all of them had whole structures like these built, but it seems some did and maybe more will be found some say.

Shechem (which both mountains are considered part of) is one of those cities, it could be the Shechemite place for offering was originally where Joshua’s Altar was, but some events that happened during the transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age caused it to change. 1220 BC is in my preferred timescale for the very late Judges period.

Or since Shechem was also the border between Ephraim and Manasseh they may have had places for making Sacrifices both on the South of Gerizim for Ephraim and the North of Ebal for Manasseh. That could be part of why Western Manasseh has less Levitical cities in Joshua 21 then other tribes, they were also sharing Shechem with Ephraim. I assume Gerizim is less excavated than Ebal because of its sacredness to the Samaritan Community, even if no remains exist there could be any number of reasons Ebal’s Early Iron Age altar survived but Gerizim’s did not. Or maybe Ebal always had the larger full structure because it was for sharing with Manasseh. 

City names that appear only in Joshua 21 are likely known by other names elsewhere including earlier in Joshua, that’s what I’ve already argued in prior posts about Ai/Hai and Kibzaim. Since Motza/Moza appears only in Joshua 18 and Almon only in Joshua 21 the possibility that they’re the same can’t be ruled out. It’s also possible that Nob is another name for Gibeon or the part of Gibeon where the Levites lived.

The only proposed locations for Ramoth-Gilead I consider plausible are those south of the Zargo/Jabbok River, it’s in the territory of Gad not Manasseh and is the middle of the Trans-Jordan Cities of Refuge leading me to conclude it should be close to the same latitude as Shechem. It may also be the site of both the Joshua 22 Altar and Penuel. 

But also sometimes the Israelites did just do things they weren't supposed to. 

On the mostly unrelated subject of the textual variations in the references to these Mountains in Deuteronomy. The DSS fragments of Deuteronomy and the LXX agree that the Altar was on Ebal. 

To the people who argue that even independent of everything else the Samaritans are clearly inserting about Gerizim it feels wrong for the Law to be placed on the Mountain of The Curse rather then Blessing. Christians should realize that this perfectly predicts Paulian theology in Galatians 3:10-13. 

It is precisely the fact that the Law being on Gerizim in the SP fixes an apparent problem that proves it's not the original, people don't alter texts to create problems. Same with Terah's lifespan being shortened in Genesis 11. 

Dan and the cities they renamed

I hold the view that Leshem in Joshua 19 and Laish in Judges 18 are not the same. But more importantly then that I doubt Tel-Dan is either of them.

Tel-Dan I think is Dan-Jaan in 2 Samuel 24:6 which is a Trans-Jordan location. 

In the context of Joshua 19:47 I think Leshem is a location outside the allotment just described but not as far from it as others.  And to help explain the context of the reference to Dan in the Son of Deborah is probably a coastal port city. 

So I lean toward Tel-Gador which was inhabited going back to the Early Bronze Age so there were people there before the Danites. It seem to be the only real Bonze Age settlement the Coat of Israel north of Joppa/Jaffa but south of Dor. Yet it's currently not believed to be mentioned in The Bible.

Laish introduced in Judges 18:7 and mentioned again in 14 and 27-29 is associated with a Beth-Rehob the only other reference to which is 2 Samuel 2:6 where it seems like close to Zobah/Homs leading me to conclude it's in the Dan used as an idiom for Israel's Northern border.  

A Rehob is also linked to the "entering in of Hamath" in Numbers 13:21 believed by scholars to be Labweh the source of the Orontes River in northern Lebanon north of Baalbek in the Baalbek District. But there is room for interpretation on that. 

A Rehob is also part of the allotment of Asher, possibly in it's north. 

I also think Laish was probably not a Coast city because given Sidon's sea faring nature it's hard to imagine Sidonians in a coastal city being this cut off.

If we take the entering in of Hamath being Labweh view, then Laish as Duris, Jdeide, Deir El Ahmar or Ras-Baalbek could all be plausible. Unless we interpret Beth-Rehob as part of Mount Lebanon and the Labweh is in the valley to it's East but Laish in a valley to it's West, in which case I'd look in the Kadisha Valley in the Bisharri District of the North Governorate. 

But in a the other model I'm looking in the Hula Valley, but west of the Joran, not in the Golan Heights, either within the pre 67 border of Israel or in the Marjayoun District of Lebanon.

Even in the context of a modern southern identification for Laish, I still The Bible hints at the Danites in time migrated further north. DNA evidence shows the Christian Population of Lebaon (Majority Maronite but with some notable Melkite Communties) are closely related to the Jews, even more so then the Arabs are. So I my theory is they descend from the Danites while the Muslims descend of Lebanon from the Canaaites.

And that's why I'm also looking at cities and regions that are still majority Christian rather then Muslim. 

I've been considering that the traditional identification of Biblical Hazor is wrong and that the archeological site currently known as Tel-Hazor which was destroyed by Fire about 1200 BC could be Laish. A Chronology that places Judges 18 about 1200 BC is not implausible. 

I haven't come to a final conclusion yet. 

Update May 10th: I have changed my mind on Leshem and Laish being separate location, mainly because  finally noticed Lasha in Genesis 10:19. All three of those names are clearly variations of the same name.

Nimrod and Babel theory.

Exactly 1903 years elapsed from the founding of Babylon to the capture of Babylon by Alexander the Great. This calculation and number of years was made according to astronomical observations by Porphyry, as we find in Simplicius, in his second book "de Coelo". This he affirms to have been transmitted into Greece from Babylon by Chalisthenes at Aristotle's request.  Since Alexander captured Babylon in 331 BC that places it's founding in 2234 BC.  The so-called Weidner Chronicle (also known as ABC 19) states that Sargon of Akkad had built Babylon "in front of Akkad" (ABC 19:51).  The short chronology has Sargon reigning in 2234 BC, so these sources line up. The Babylon of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar is not old enough to be the first Post-Flood city.  And if there is indeed evidence of some settlement around there prior to Sargon, maybe that is the still unidentified city of Akkad? 

On the subject of Babel's name.  Ignace Gelb argued in 1995 that original name was Babilla, of unknown meaning and origin, as there were other similarly named places in Sumer, and there are no other examples of Sumerian place-names being replaced with Akkadian translations. He deduced that it later transformed into Akkadian Bāb-ili(m), and that the Sumerian name Kan-dig̃irak was a loan translation of the Semitic folk etymology rather than the original name. So some this fits the already implied implication from what's said about Sargon, that some other place had this name first.

I used agree with David Rohl on both Enmerkar king of Uruk as Nimrod and Eridu as Babel, and I still agree that all the attempts to make Nimrod anyone more recent then Enmerkar on the Kings list are silly, including Gilgamesh who reigned later in the same dynasty with two kings between them.

When I look at the Sumerian King's List another candidate for Nimrod would be Etanna of the first Dynasty of Kish, he's defined as the first Conquer, at least in the Post-Flood world. The ten names preceding Etanna on Kish's list are names of Animals so that feels like artificial inflation.  And before that is Kullassina-bel which is a phrase that means "all of them were lord" so that's clearly a memory of when Kish was a Democracy.  Kish is a name that is very arguably cognate with Cush, even within Hebrew The Davidic Psalm 7:1 refers to a Benjamite Cush who I believe is the same person as the Kish who was the father of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:1.

However it could be possible that Etanna and Enmerkar are different names the same King was remembered by in different cities.  

Enmebaragesi of Kish a contemporary of Gilgamesh in the 17th century BC is called the first builder of Enlil's Temple at Nippur in one text. So Nippur's House of Heaven is also to young though it too had this significance transposed onto it and so maybe was also called Babel.

The Emerkar and the Lord of Aratta poem is why those two are seen as going together as it attributed the building of the Temple in Eridu to Enmerkar. But I disagree with the popular assumption that Nimrod was involved in building the Tower of Babel, Genesis doesn't describe The Tower of Babel as built by a King at all but as an act of Democracy.  A Babel was simply part of Nimrod's empire later. 

Meanwhile within the context of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta poem Eridu's Temple is not the first ever built, the Temple of Inanna in Uruk itself has been there for awhile. Eridu's Temple is looking in the wrong direction, Abzu refers to the Abyss, while Babel's tower should be a House of Heaven. 

When Berosrus swaps out Eirdu for Babylon as the very first city it's because he is using records from the time when Nabuchadnezzar's Babylon was the Capital, so the official propaganda inflated that city's antiquity. 

Eridu's importance in Sumerian Mythology was as the first Pre-Flood City, it was never where important things happened after The Flood. Meaning if it's in Genesis it's in chapter 4 not 10 or 11. Genesis 4:17 I believe should be translated "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he (Enoch) builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son."  The common view that Cain founded the city is contradicted by the fact he was curses to be a vagabond till he died. The next verse tells us the name of Enoch's son was Irad, a name that could become Eridu. 

Uruk can be argued to be the first City depending on exactly how you define a city, settlements like Eridu are older, but the true fullness of what a city is was arguable was achieved by Uruk first.

https://youtu.be/7jQUwWtbFjE

https://youtu.be/4AGK0YteOE0

Uruk is also arguably a twin city. It's oldest area is the Anu District centered around it's oldest Temple to Anu the god whose name mean Heaven, then it expanded to the Eanna district built around the Temple to Inanna. Maybe when Genesis 10:10 says "the beginnings of his Kingdom were Babel and Erech" it's referring to these two separate districts of Uruk. And then after that Genesis 10 is describing the Uruk expansion which did extend as far north as Nineveh in the 4th Millennium BC. And that expansion I believe happened under Enmerkar. 

The Anu Ziggurat in Uruk was the tallest building in the world from when it was built (around 4000 BC according to mainstream archeology) till the Pyramid of Djoser was built in the 27th century BC.  I suspect it was originally just built to be the Temple of Heaven and the idea of a specific god named Anu came later. The ancient name for the Anu district was Kullaba or Kulab, and a district was also given that name in the later classical Babylon. 

The Ruins of AI

I want to start by clarifying that I am not willing to question the archaeological consensus on the dating of Et-Tell. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it plays a role in the history of AI that confirms The Bible as reliable history. 

Ai is first mentioned when Abraham comes there, and it seems to be already called Ai which means Heap or Ruin. That’s uncertain because Genesis does use anachronistic place names, but when the newer name is because of something The Israelites or Patriarchs or some Biblical protagonist did we are told what the older name is in the account of the renaming, Dan was originally Laish or Leshem and Bethel was originally Luz.  If Ai was only ever called a Heap because of Joshua 7-8 then I would expect Joshua 7-8 to record the older name. But it doesn't, it’s the valley not the city that is given a new name, Achor, no older name is given for it, I can believe a valley went unnamed for a long time, but not a city.

The destruction of Et-Tell and creation of that Heap of stones so many jumped to wanting to identify with Joshua 7-8 is actually dated to around 2400 BC.  I have a post arguing for an early Isin-Larsa period for Genesis 14 which would be around 2100-1950 BC, but even with the older chronologies I’ve considered with a Maxmailist view of when to start the 430 years with the oldest theoretical date for The Exodus, since there was only 330 years from the bright of Abraham to the death of Joseph in my understanding of Genesis chronology, Abraham was still born after 2400 BC. 

So that Heap was already there to be called a Heap when Abraham first came there at 75 in Genesis 12. 

This is where the fact that other sites for AI have been proposed comes in. It’s possible the name does in fact refer to more than one Tell in this general area. In Genesis Ai is never called a City, just Ai. In Joshua it’s possible that just as Bethel refers to both the Altar that Jacob built and the nearby city, that Ai too refers to both the Heap and a city near the Heap.

After Joshua destroyed the city of Ai in chapter 7 and 8 another Heap of Stones was created. There were now two Heaps. 

Ai/Hai does not appear as a city or place name anywhere during the descriptions of the tribal allotment in chapters 15-21. But in chapter 21:22 when listing cities given to the Kohathite clans of the Levites in the territory allotted to Ephraim there is one called Kibzaim, which means Double heap.

I have another post proving the Shiloh Tabernacle wasn’t in the city currently traditionally identified with Shiloh but is the site of Abraham and Jacob’s Altars between Luz and Ai, Bethel. And that included arguing one of these Kohathite cities should be East of that Tabernacle since the children of Korah were Kohathies and they’re supposed to be keepers of the Gate of The Tabernacle which means they should be East of it. 

This also means a third city in the area called Ai could have been founded. Making at least three of the proposed Tells identified with Ai relevant. 

What I’m undecided on is which of the other potential Ai candidates play which roles in my hypothesis. 

Only Et-Tell has its own Wikipedia page. So it’s hard for a lay person to research what Archeologists think about any of these independent of their Biblical Identifications. 

As someone who is an Inerrantist and even a Literalist on a lot of things it’s controversial to be literalist about, I still consider Biblical Dates to be flexible.  To me Kathleen Kenyon’s date for the Destruction of Jericho is perfectly compatible with a Biblical timeline that trusts what Paul said in Acts 13. So I’m looking for an AI candidate destroyed at the same time as Jericho Archeologically for the city of Joshua 7-8.

Khirbet Haiyan is interesting as a very early candidate before Et-Tell was settled on. But it seems neither it nor Khirbet el-Khudra had any Middle or Late Bronze occupation. Some have argued Haiyan is specifically the much later Benjamite Ai from around the time of the Captivity. 

Khirbet Nisya has a heap of stones that look right. But I then learned it’s tied to an alternate Bethel location. 

As of my beginning to write this it is only really Khirbet el-Maqatir I have an idea of where it is relative to Et-Tell and Beitin since it’s laid out in Expedition Bible’s sloppy video on the Problem of Ai..For some reason they think Maqatir is located too far south to qualify as still East of Beitin yet their own depiction of the layout looks to me like it perfectly is still East of Beitin and closer to it. 

From what I can gather, the pottery evidence as el-Maqatir is the same as at Jericho, meaning its destruction was at the same time as Jericho’s whenever that was. It’s just that unlike Jericho no one but proponents who disagree with the mainstream view of Jericho’s Archeology are talking about it. So Google’s AI overview is going to wind up quoting a website saying Maqatir has a Late Bronze rather than Middle Bronze destruction layer. 

The alternate Bethel site linked to Nisya is also supported by some Maqatir supporters. And what I learned I didn’t even realize before is that the Expedition Bible guy’s really strict definition of what it means to be East of some other place doesn’t line up perfectly for Et-Tell and Beiten either. 

The arguments made about the Roman Mile Stones better fitting Al-Bireh as where Eusebisu and Jerome said Bethel was are compelling. Also since Bethel is supposed to mark the North-South border of Benjamin and Ephraim I am starting to think Beitin is too far north. And it looks too far east to be west of the main road going from Jerusalem to Shechem.

Part of that debate is whether Bethel and Beth-Aven are separate locations, they seem to be in Joshua 7-8, in which the name of Beitin works as coming from Beth-Aven way better then Beth-El. 

But let’s leave that aside and return to el-Maqatir.

Expedition Bible’s attempt to refute it being Ai includes comparing its proposed Western Gate to the Solomonic Gates at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo, not very honest. 

The Cleansing of The Temple didn’t actually happen in The Temple (depending what you mean by The Temple)

There is more than one Greek Word for Temple (same with Hebrew), most New Testament references use one of two main ones.

Naos is a word that arguably strictly speaking would for The Jerusalem Temple refer only to the Building that contains The Holy Place and Holy of Holies, but maybe could extend to include the Inner Court where the Brazen Altar is. The latter is the entirety of what most modern Christians are usually thinking of when they say simply "The Temple".

Heiron however is a much broader term, it could refer to a very large religious complex, and in The context of The Jerusalem Temple in the time of Herod I strongly suspect was applied to the entire Temple Mount, Haram Al Sharif.

Every reference to the location of The Cleansing of The Temple uses Hieron, Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2:14, each use Hieron. The only use of Naos in any of these Chapters is when John 2 later refers to the Body of Jesus. 

This is important because when you know the details of how this whole area worked in The First Century, the context of what Jesus is doing makes clear he is nowhere near The Inner Court. 

The place where these kinds of financial transactions went on, exchanging currencies to then buy Animals to be Sacrificed, was at the Royal Stoa (Not to be confused with Solomon’s Porch) which was part of Herod's southern expansion of The Temple Mount.  

Where this was on the modern Map of Jerusalem is the Silver Domed Al Aqsa Mosque. Muslim Usage did and sometimes still does use Al Aqsa for the entire Temple Mount and specifically The Dome of The Rock, but function wise the Golden Domed building is a Shrine while the proper Mosque is the Silver Domed structure on the Southern End of the Mount.

Now I have come to agree that the Dome of The Rock is where The Temple was at least in terms of Latitude. So it’s notable here that the Royal Stoa wasn’t just south of that but very far south, one alternate Temple location theory suggests you could rebuild The Temple between the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of The Rock without touching either and with plenty of extra space in between. 

Because the whole point of needing those Money Changers was that the regular Roman Currency with Caesar's Image on it wasn't allowed anywhere near the actual Temple.

This distinction is lost on the way many weaponize this narrative for modern purposes.  I’m a Leftist who fully supported the Minnesota Protestors, but no, interrupting an actual Church Service is not equivalent to what Jesus did when he cleansed The Temple. The Cleansing of The Temple is more equivalent to disturbing a bake sale a Church is holding in the parking lot. 

But I’m not really offended by Leftists trying to make that point. The use of it to justify Antizionists disrupting Synagogues is much more dangerous. 

What’s also troublesome is when a Conspiracy Theorist tries to use the fact that Jesus wasn’t arrested immediately to prove He must have been working for The Romans or something. 

Even if what Jesus did was a direct disruption of the main operations of The Temple, the simple fact that He was popular with the people, had large crowds of supporters, was enough reason for the authorities to be hesitant to take action right away, especially since this was during a Pilgrimage festival.  There is text in The Gospels (chiefly Matthew 26) telling us they even later in the week they still wanted to wait till after the Festival was over, but Jesus forced their hand when He revealed to Judas that He knew what they were planning.

But on top of that based on what I just showed this was definitely still a very big deal, even viewed as sacrilegious by many, but it likely didn’t actually disrupt the overall business that much, once Jesus was done they set the tables back up and got right back to business. 

So it wasn’t worth making the commotion worse by arresting one of the most popular people in the Province while the city is at its most crowded.

Haifa belonged to Zebulun

All the Maps you tend to see of the allotment of the Land to the Twelve Tribes based on Joshua 16-19 do not give Zebulun any coastal territory.

This has always bugged me because Genesis 49:13 and Deuteronomy 33:18-19 say Zebulun would be by the Seashore and a Heaven for Ships and possibly seafaring merchant traders.  

According to the Midrash the banner of the Tribe of Zebulun was a Ship on a white background.  And there are other Rabbinic traditions about them being seafarers.

Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 5 Chapter 1 Section 22 says that Zebulun's allotment includes Mount Carmel, which on these common maps is given to Manasseh.  However Josephus's credibility is hindered here by claiming Zebulun also bordered the Sea of Galilee when in Joshua that's definitely all Naphtali.  In 2 Kings 15:29 the Assyrian King Tiglath-Pileser carried away the entire tribe of Naphtali into captivity but Zebulun is not included in any of the Assyrian captivity accounts.  So I think after that happened Zebulun sorta take's Naphtali's former territory which I think explains this mistake of Josephus and any other time you see Zebulun associated with the Sea of Galilee. 

There are two places called Carmel in The Bible, there is a Carmel south of Hebron in the Judean Mountains close to the southern border of the modern West Bank.  But "Mount Carmel" always refers to a ridge of Mountains in Northern Israel in the Haifa subdistrict of the Haifa district. 

The city of Jokneam is part of that ridge. Joshua 19:10-11 and 21:34 clearly define Jokneam as part of Zebulun, but it's given to Manasseh in all these maps I've been talking about.

I think the confusion is caused by the account of Manasseh's allotment in Joshua 17, it mentions the tribe of Asher in three verses, 7, 10 and 11 and Zebulun not at all.  The first two verses seem to say Manasseh borders Asher, and then verse 11 talks about cities in territory originally meant for Issachar and Asher that Manasseh wound up claiming, but the Canaanites were not driven from those cities anyway. Dor is typically assumed, including by me in the past, to be the one that was Asher's since other reference to this group don't include Dor and the others are right by Issachar. Since none of these are mentioned in the actual accounts of those Tribes' allotments in Joshua 19 we can't say for certain.

I have to admit, if I weren't doctrinally devoted to a belief that the Hebrew Text has been perfectly preserved, I would be inclined to theorize that all three references to Asher in this chapter were supposed to be Zebulun. It is usually Zebulun that gets paired with Issachar like this. The Septuagint and Peshitta have variants here but never in ways that add Zebulun.  Neither mention Asher in verse 7, the Septuagint says Aseb in verse 10 but does say Asher in verse 11, the Peshitta has Asher in verse 10 but not in verse 11. 

Instead what I'm going to speculate is that Asher's claim on Dor did not require land continuity with the rest of Asher's allotment since Dor was a Mediterranean port city and Asher's primary allotment was also on the Mediterranean coast.  Tel Dor btw is in the Hadera Subdistrict of the Haifa District of modern Israel. 

In this reinterpretation of the Tribal Borders the land of Zebulun includes the port city of Haifa.  This city is never mentioned in The Bible (at least not by that name), but it is ancient being even a port already in the Bronze Age, but young enough to have not existed yet in the time of Joshua, so a settlement that was likely founded by Zebulunites from it's beginning.

As I said before Zebulun is not ever listed among the Tribes carried away by Assyria, in The Bible or Assyrian records.  2 Chronicles 30 lists Zebulinites among those who accepted Hezekiah's Passover invitation in verses 11 and 18, those Zebulunites became citizens of Judah and thus Jews.

Kadesh and Sinai, my current theory.

99% of everything in the post on Kadesh and Sinai I made last year I still stand by. You should read all of it before this. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/02/kadesh-and-sinai-were-not-in-arabia-or.html

But in that post I had not settled on a final specific theory, and there is one key thing said there I have changed my mind on, again.

I have returned to thinking Kadesh-Barnea and Meribah-Kadesh are different locations.  

The primary reason for seeing them as the same is that Barnea in Numbers 34 seems to serve the same role in defining Israel's southern border as "the Waters of Strife at Kadesh" in Ezekiel 47-48.  But if both are south of the border then that can work just fine. 

I suggested even back then that Numbers 13:26 perhaps never meant to use Kadesh as a proper place name.  And so Kadesh-Barnea in that case is only called Kadesh as if it's a place name in hindsight, after they've left it. 

And the fact is Numbers 20 does begin in every translation with language that only makes sense as saying they just arrived at this Kadesh, not that they are still in the place they had been since chapter 12 or 13.  And the wilderness they are in is now is Zin, no longer Paran.

Naturally this means the Kadesh in Numbers 33 (where that name is only in verses 36-37) is Meribah-Kadesh.  And indeed Paran was back in Numbers 10-12 a wilderness they entered right after leaving Hazeroth.  Meaning it would in Numbers 33 start with Rithmah and perhaps extend all the way to Ebronah. And based on the 11 days journey clue from Deuteronomy 1:2 maybe Kadehsbarnea could be identified with specifically Tahath in Numbers 33:26.

I mentioned in last's years post briefly considering Gabal Sin Bishar as Sinai/Horeb and agreeing with Ptolemy on the Wadi Feiran being Paran, I'm now going all in on that except I do think Paran as a wilderness extends beyond that River to refer to the entire Sinai south of a certain point..

As fun as the idea of Mainstream Sinai actually being Kadesh could be, I think the Mountain area from which the spies were sent to spy out the land perhaps makes most sense as Hashem el-Tarif.

I now believe Meribah-Kadesh is Ain Qedies and the Mt Hor where Aaron went to sleep is Har Karkom.   And from there they crossed into modern Jordan.  But I suppose a viable alternative is Har Karkoum as Meribah-Kadesh and then Mount Hor being the proposed site by Petra.

The Temple was on The Temple Mount, I simply haven’t made up my mind where.

The most extreme alternate theories for The Temple’s location are those that remove it from The Temple Mount entirely, I currently see no validity to doing that. But every YouTube video or documentary defending the traditional mainstream view is only dealing with those extreme alternatives, they don’t have much interest in debating where on The Temple Mount.

The well known alternative theories for on The Temple Mount are based on it being either further North or further South. The Dome of The Spirits view and the Al-Kas Fountain view are both ones I’ve entertained in the past.  But today the convictions I’ve developed regarding Dominus Flevit as the site of both the Red Heifer offerings and The Crucifixion/Resurrection tell me that the Dome of The Rock is on the right Latitude.

My main issue with The Dome of The Rock however is the titular Rock, there is no Biblical Basis for The Holy of Holies being built on a Rock, certainly not one as not flat and unsound to build on as that Rock. That Rock has just about the exact opposite qualities I would expect a “Foundation Stone” to have. 

Indeed the only Biblical basis for the concept of a sacred Foundation Stone is Isaiah 28:16 which is quoted a couple times in The New Testament, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 but they leave out the word foundation.  These verses however refer to Zion not The Temple Mount, Zion is synonymous with The City of David.  The current mainstream archaeological view on where Zion was is south of the Temple Mount, exactly the place the most well known alternative theory is trying to place The Temple. There is also a long history of giving the name of Zion to the Western Hill south of the Zion Gate where the Church of the Dormition is. I however firmly believe Zion, The City of David is Bethlehem. The New Testament verses identify that Foundation Stone as in fact a title of The Messiah like the Stone of Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, that does not contradict there being a real geographical feature Isaiah had in mind but it still could prove futile to look for one. 

However the idea of a Foundation Stone on The Temple Mount does start to develop in post AD 70 Rabbinic Literature.  But it’s complicated.  The Wikipedia page for Foundation Stone quotes midrash Tanhuma (t. Yoma 2:12; y. Yoma 5:3; b. Yoma 54b; PdRK 26:4; Lev. R. 20:4.).

"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,

so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...

situated in the centre of the world,

and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,

and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,

and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,

and the ark in the centre of the holy place,

and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,

because from it the world was founded."

Based on what it usually means to be “before” something in the Biblical Hebrew mind this would be placing The Foundation Stone East of The Holy Place. But it’s possible that by this time the use of “before” was already looser. After all Hadrian had already rebuilt Jerusalem in such a way that the main entrance to The Temple Mount was now entering from The West. 

But on the subject of that emphasis on centerness, it should be noted that currently the exact center of The Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, is not the Dome of The Rock but the Dome of the Chain east of The Dome of The Rock. 

The Hasmonean and Herodian expansions of The Temple Complex were to the West, South and North but never moved the Eastern Wall further East. So the original center of the area would have been East of The Dome of The Chain. In Ezekiel 40-48 The Brazen Altar is meant to be the Center of The Temple Complex, it’s likely both Solomon and Zerubabel’s designs were smaller scale versions of that basic idea but then Herod made it so The Holy of Holies was The Center. 

The 12th Century Islamic author al-Idrisi referred to The Dome of The Chain as The Holy of Holies. Some believe a form of The Dome of The Chain might predate the Islamic Conquest entirely (Archnet: Qubba al-Silsila).

So one of the theories I’m considering is that The Dome of The Chain marks The Holy of Holies.  

Now let’s turn to the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim from AD 333. 

 https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

If the "Pierced Stone” in that account is the Foundation Stone, even then it should be noted that the Statues of Hadrian are by it not on it.  Jerome in his Commentary on The Bible for Matthew 24:15 said the Mounted Statue of Hadrian was over the site of The Holy of Holies. 

But part of me still thinks the Chamber where Solomon wrote about Wisdom in that account is the Well of Souls and thus the Dome of The Rock’s Foundation Stone is its roof. 

Bordeaux Pilgrim also refers to a visible Blood Stain that they identify as where Zachariah was killed in The Temple, but I highly doubt the Blood from that incident wasn't cleaned up right away.  Since the Second Temple never had the Ark this could be the spot where The Ark was supposed to be and that Blood is the Blood of all those dead Goats sprinkled there every Yom Kippur for centuries. 

Another possible interpretation of the Geography would be one that placed the Brazen Alter where the Dome of the Chain is and does extend The Temple into the current Dome of The Rock building but not as far west as the titular Rock itself.  But I still lean towards what I argued above.

Some Traditional Biblical Geography identifications can’t both be correct.

The people who think none of the Mainstream Traditional locations for Biblical Sites are true and want to argue for some alt theory for every single one are kind of silly, I say that as someone who used to be pretty close to being like that. 

However those who think Tradition is wrong on absolutely none of them also inevitably face problems.

The design of The Tabernacle and Temple were both based on the idea that the Sanctuary should be facing West and entered from The East. This is distinct from a lot of ancient culture, the Mesopotamians and Greeks and Romans all tended to prefer the exact opposite.  This fact is important to what will be discussed going forward. 

Two current traditional locations that can’t both be true are The Temple being where The Dome of The Rock is and The Golden Gate’s current location. Because the Eastern Gate is obviously self evidently supposed to be lined up with The Temple. 

I’ve seen exactly one attempt to deconstruct that notion, and that was someone arguing those who think the Eastern Gate has to be lined up with The Temple are confusing it with the Nicanor Gate which was a Gate in The Temple itself. But that’s besides the point, the point is all these Gates should be lined up, it doesn’t matter if no single verse of scripture explicitly says they were, that is simply how Ancient cities were designed. There were times like on Yom Kippur when people would have to walk from outside the city entirely directly into The Temple, The High Priest into the Holy of Holies itself, and that path not being a straight line would have been very inconvenient. 

And even to my modern eyes used to more complex modern city layouts it still feels wrong when I look at modern Jerusalem from the east and the big fancy gate on its Eastern Wall isn’t lined up with the Most Sacred Holy Place.  If I saw a JRPG city laid out like this I’d call it bad design. 

The Eastern Wall of Second Temple Jerusalem had already been completely destroyed in AD 70 as documented by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter I where only the Western Wall was left.

If it’s The Golden Gate that is currently in the wrong place the change probably began with Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem as a Aelia Capitolina, any further construction done later by the Byzantines, Muslims or Ottomans were building on that blueprint.  Hadrian’s major Temples on The Temple Mount aren’t believed to have been lined up with this Gate either, but it is lined up with The Church of The Holy Sepulcher where Hadrian had built a Temple to Aphrodite. 

But what’s most important here is that Roman City and Temple design would not have been primarily based on facing West and entering from The East but rather if anything the opposite. If the current layout of The Temple Mount is still primarily based on how Hadrian redesigned it as I suspect then that fits as the main stairs to access it are approaching The Dome of The Rock from The West, the Ablution Gate and Cotton Merchants Gate.

But also if Hadrian’s Jupiter Temple Complex on The Temple Mount was following a similar pattern to the one he also had built at Baalbek (they are believed to have had the same architect) then based on how they lined up the main ceremonial entrance would have been from the North traveling southward. So the East Gate leading to a spot north of everything makes sense in that context. 

I have not 100% made up my mind yet. But these reasons are causing me to reverse my past position that it’s The Temple location that needs to be changed. 

Rabbi Yonatan Adler’s argument that the site of the Red Heifer sacrifice, which had to be directly East of The Temple at a spot where you could see directly into The Temple, was a location now in the courtyard of the modern Dominus Flevit Church, begins with the assumption that The Temple was where The Dome of The Rock currently is, but there were other details he was also looking for based on what The Mishna and Talmud say about where the Second Temple period Red Heifer sacrifices were made and he found them here.  If he made the investigation based on a different Temple location I have my doubts the other details would have lined up nearly as well. 

Wikipedia cites Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 11 Section 7 as saying the Eastern Gate was in the North Eastern Extremity of the Inner Sacred Court.  But what the text actually says is a lot less clear.  

"There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. It is also reported,494 that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple."

He's alluding to some sort of underground passage from the Antonia Fortress to near the East Gate of The Temple itself.  So I don't think this is much of a clue to where any of the Gates actually were. 

East of Jerusalem Crucifixion

I’d considered just supporting the Holy Sepulcher Site now that I’ve made an effort to restrain my bias for Alternative Biblical Geography theories, which includes that I do now mainly favor the Mainstream Sinai View and definitely do not think it was in Arabia or Jordan.

But the more I think about it and look into it the more convinced I become of an East of Jerusalem model for The Crucifixion and Resurrection rather than West or North. 

The most compelling reason is the parallel accounts of Matthew 27:51-54, Mark 15:38-39 and Luke 23:45-47.  

One can argue there is some reasonable doubt that the Veil being torn has to be specifically among what the Centurion saw, but looking at it as an an aspiring writer and one who likes to analyze the writing of others, to deny every sign here is among what the Centurion saw is worse then saying the curtains are just blue.  And if you know even the basics of the Geography of The Temple and Jerusalem then you know that is only theoretically possible if they were directly due East of The Temple.

I’m still undecided about how I fully view Zechariah 12-14, but for Chapter 14 Verses 4-5 I lean towards the Earthquake cleaving of the Mount of Olives there as being the one from Matthew:26:51-54.

John 19:20 says The Crucifixion was “nigh to the city”.  To a modern reader that doesn’t seem to say anything about which direction, but when you understand all the Torah and Scriptural Emphasis on entering The Tabernacle and Camp from the East you’ll understand that best fits being on the road leading to Jerusalem from The East.

And that also applies to Hebrews 13:10-13 and it’s allusion to Torah Passages like Exodus 29:14, 33:7, Leviticus 4:12-21, 6:11, 8:17, 9:11, 16:27, 24:14 and Numbers 19:3-8.  

Additionally Numbers 31:13-19 identified “Without the Camp” as where Censuses were held, and because of Exodus 16:13, 38:16, Number 1:2-18-20-22 and 1 Chronicles 23:3-24 the Hebrew word gulgoleth could be associated with Censuses.  So Golgotha could refer not to a Geographical feature but to a place for holding a Census.

Second Kings Chapter 23 in Verses 4, 6 and 12 refer to Josiah burning Idols and other pagan paraphernalia in the Brook Kidron which is between Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives, even saying “without Jerusalem”. Verse 12 names Ahaz and Manasseh showing this is still tied to the Tophet mentioned two verses earlier. 

Gehenna in The New Testament is a name derived from Hinnom of The Hebrew Bible.  I disagree with the popular view that it was South of Jerusalem, that’s based on a misunderstanding of Joshua 15:8 and 18:16.  Jeremiah 19:2 much more explicitly identifies Hinnom with the Eastern Gate. 

In The Bible Kidron is always the name of a brook, the Valley we today call Kidron is the real Valley of Hinnom.  I also think the valley of Jehoshaphat and valley of decision in Joel 3 is also probably this same valley and that Joel was using poetic names rather then what it was normally called, but I know other more popular theories for that valley exist.

The Tophet is why Hinnom became associated with fiery judgment in Jeremiah 7 and 19 and Isaiah 30:33.  The Tophet was something related to the worship of Molech built by Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:3 (and 2 Kings 16) and used by Manasseh in 33:6.

In Genesis 22 Moriah is the name of a land not a single Mountain, but the Hebrew word translated “mount” in 2 Chronicles 3:1 can itself refer to a mountain range rather than a single mountain.  So the Mount of Olives rather than the Temple Mount being where Abraham offered Isaac is plausible.

2 Samuel 15:30-16:1 tell us David worshipped God at the Summit of The Mount of Olives as he fled the rebellion of Absalom.  In Ezekiel 11:22-23 the Glory of God leaves the midst of The City and stands on the Mountain on the East Side of The City.

In my Sunday post at the start of 2025 I mentioned Biblical reasons to view Sunrise as a symbol of The Resurrection.  Well the Sun Rises in The East so likewise Jesus should Rise East of Jerusalem.

The Romans usually Crucified criminals in front of a City's Main Gate to make sure a maximum number saw the example being made.  And for Jerusalem especially during the Pilgrimage Festivals that was The East Gate.

The problem with having so much confidence that the local Traditions couldn’t have gotten it wrong is that the history of Jerusalem is filled with multiple discontinuities.  

There is dispute on if the Jewish Jerusalem Church after AD 70 ever returned to Jerusalem from Pella even in part, because Jerusalem was largely not actively inhabited at all during that time.  But what’s most significant is after the Bar Kochba Revolt, Jews, including Jewish-Christians, weren’t even allowed anywhere Jerusalem was visible from (according to Eusebius Church History Book IV Chapter 6 Section 3), so in Hadrian’s City a new Gentile Christian community was formed that had no direct continuity with the prior community. And the thing is I don’t believe these truly Early Christians were all that invested in worshiping as special sacred locations to begin with.  

This is relevant to debating the location of The Temple as well.  You’ll see it claimed that during this period of Jews being banned from Jerusalem they were at least allowed to visit the site of The Temple once a year on the 9th of Av, but even that wasn't there from that start, that allowance was granted by Septimius Severus.  By then it’s very well possible no Jews who had ever been in Jerusalem previously were still alive, or any who had been were very old and possibly Senile.

The Architect Hadrian used for Aelia Capitolina also oversaw a similarly shaped complex at Baalbek, where a Temple to Venus was also built nearby the Temple to Jupiter, that’s why a Temple to Venus was built where The Church of The Holy Sepulcher now stands, it had nothing to do with covering up a Christian place of worship. But maybe even before Nicaea local Christians desired to imagine it was.

Where The Church of The Holy Sepulcher is located was outside the city limits during the first century, unfortunately the early history of people arguing against it was so wrapped up in people before we knew that starting with the argument that Jesus was Crucified outside the city limits that traditionalists just think that being addressed is itself enough to dismiss alternate theories.  As I laid out above, the real issue is that it’s in the wrong direction. 

Melito of Sardis and my own Hadrianic date for the writing of Revelation (Chapter 11 verse 8) can be cited as evidence that the Crucifixion site was now in the City Limits after Hadrian's rebuilding of the City.  Neither Melito or Revelation are being strictly geographically literal, and the Mount of Olives can be considered part of the area of Jerusalem in any time period.  In the Fourth Century Cyril of Jerusalem referred to both The Mount of Olives and Bethlehem as part of Jerusalem at least as far as his clerical authority went.  But if Hadrian’s rebuilding did create some increase in a willingness to refer to the Crucifixion site as within Jerusalem maybe it was some nuance in how a Roman style city is defined.  Or maybe what Cyril claimed goes back to Marcus the first Greek Orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem.  At any rate the Mount of Olives is absolutely considered part of Jerusalem now, even when modern Jerusalem is divided between East and West because of the Partition the Mount of Olives is in the same part as the Old City both being East Jerusalem.  

The Garden Tomb has the issue of its Tomb being too old going back to the Bronze Age.  We also know the Skull like Feature tourists find so attractive probably didn’t exist yet in Antiquity.  Ron Wyatt’s claim about finding The Ark under that Crucifixion site is attractive for a lot of symbolic reasons I understand, but his story also sounds way too much like Joseph Smith’s. 

There are at least different East of Jerusalem sites that have been proposed for The Crucifixion and Resurrection.  One of the first I read about was looking way too far north not lined up with any proposed Temple Location.  Bob Cornuke places The Temple way too far South and thus is also looking for The Crucifixion way too far South.  

I have come to favor the Northern Conjecture or Dome of the Tablets view of where The Temple/Holy of Holies stood, of alternatives to the official view it’s the least extreme, it's not that far away being essentially on the same large platform. And it involves reading sources like the Bordeaux Pilgrim pretty much the same as the mainstream view does, my hunch is simply that the Rock underneath the Dome of the Rock and the “Well of Souls” beneath is the Cave where these Fourth Century Witnesses say Solomon wrote “The Book of Wisdom”.  And that’s even if the Pilgrim was still referring to the correct Temple Site, as I said above the core mistake could have been made before the 2nd Century was even over.

The main reason I like that view is it places The Temple directly due West of The Golden Gate, which is definitely where it should be.  Placing the Temple anywhere else required arguing the Golden Gate was originally somewhere else but there is was too much archeological verification that it's always been where it currently is.  

Yes I have made a point elsewhere out of the discontinuity of Jerusalem's history caused by Hadrian, but that's about population more then lay out.  If he did place an important Shrine or Status right where The Temple was the entry gate lined up with it he wouldn't want to move, especially if the road leading up to it from the east was still in place.

I therefore think the Crucifixion site should be looked for directly due East of The Golden Gate.  It is principally the Crucifixion site that has to be directly due East, the Tomb can be a little north or south as long as it isn’t too far away from its corresponding Crucifixion site. 

I think the original Jerusalem Church may have casually commemorated these locations and they may have in some form been inherited by the Greek Church set up after Hadrian, but no one built grand structures as Christian Worship sites in the area till Constantine. I think after the site of Hadrian’s Temple to Venus became the official imperial backed site the true sites may have become reframed as more obscure references, that may or may not have been at the same location anyway.  But maybe not, again I have no great confidence that the Traditions got anything right.

So I decided to look at Churches that are due East of The Golden Gate. Attempting to start in the West then moving East, but I can’t find a single Map with all of them so I may be uncertain about some of the order.  And all of this is speculative, I don’t know nearly enough about the geography of the area to propose a definitive exact location for anything.

First is The Church of All Nations and the nearby Garden believed to be Gethsemane. The Church commemorates a Rock they believe is where Jesus prayed on the Eve of his Passion. I’ve looked at pictures of this Rock and I feel it could justifiably be said to look like the top of a Skull and thus be a  Golgotha.  But I’m not gonna be like other people insisting their Golgotha is obvious and nothing else could be Golgotha, I’m self aware that there is a bit of a Rorschach test in my seeing it here, and I’ve argued against it needing to refer to what anything looks like anyway.

John 18:1-26 mentions a Garden popularly assumed to also be Gethsemane of Matthew 26:36 and Mark 14:32.  John 19:41 and 20:15 say the Tomb where Jesus was buried was in a Garden.  Could it be that they were meant to be the same Garden?  I don’t know for certain and I don’t know if this Gethsemane has or had any First Century Tombs, but this Garden is considered to have been larger than it is now in the First Century. Sometimes I’m tempted to speculate that the traditional Tomb of The Virgin located a little north of here was actually the Tomb of Jesus.

The Church of All Nations is the point on this route that I think seems to be of the same level elevation as The Temple would have been.  Whether or not this is the Crucifixion site it feels like it makes the most sense for being where the Tophet was.

Next is The Church of Mary Magdalene.  Given that her original core importance is as the first Eyewitness of The Resurrection naming a Church for her at or near where that happened makes sense. But this Church isn’t ancient. 

The Dominus Flevit Church is a bit too far south for a Crucifixion site, but it does long fascinate me not for what it in name claims to commemorate but because of the good reason for believing it marks the primary burial site used by the original Jewish Jerusalem Church.  Christians and Jews in Antiquity chose Burial over Cremation primarily as a witness to their Faith in the General Resurrection of The Dead.  To Christians the Resurrection of Jesus is the beginning of that, so it makes sense for them to choose their first burial site as close as possible to where Jesus was buried.

Last is The Chapel of The Ascension at the Mountain’s Summit.  

The idea that the Ascension happened on the Summit of the Mount of Olives originates in a misunderstanding of Acts 1:12, that verse in my view can be read as placing the Mount of Olives between Jerusalem and where the Ascension happened.  Luke 24:50 places the Ascension at Bethany, which can be considered on the Mount of Olives but is it's eastern edge not the Summit.  Bethphage was closer to the summit then Bethany was and still significantly east of it.

A lot of Prophecy students want to interpret Acts 1:11 as saying Jesus will return to the same spot he left from and tie that into Prophecies about the Mount of Olives, but that verse isn’t about location but the manner in which Jesus Ascended.  And the Eschatological significance of the Mount of Olives I think is fulfilled by the Crucifixion and Resurrection happening there, but I’ll get into that someday on my Materialist Eschatology Blog.

The “Ascension Rock” is another rock that arguably looks like the top of a Skull to me. 

Just a little south of the proper Ascension site is the Church of the Pater Noster where the Eleona was built during the reign of Constantine. It was associated with the Ascension but Eusebius also stressed it as containing a “Cave” where Jesus taught His Disciples “Secret Knowledge”, that is not a Biblical concept. The modern name implies it’s the Our Father that was taught here, but The Bible doesn’t place that in a cave and Eusebius never hints at that. A place on the Mount of Olives where Jesus taught something to the Disciples that wasn't Publicly taught would Biblically only be the location of the Olivet Discourses recorded in Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13 starting in verse 3. 

In Eusebius’s writings this site is presented as the Holiest most central site of Christian veneration prior to 325. There are reportedly first century tombs carved into the cave. 

The Bordeaux Pilgrim refers to a location near the summit of the Mount of Olives as where the Transfiguration happened, which has long confused scholars since that happened in Galilee.  Ernest L. Martin in his book on a Mt of Olives Crucifixion theory says this is a linguistic confusion with Transfixiation which could have been used to describe Crucifixion.  But I want to note that the Gospel event we typically call The Transfiguration was just a lesser preview, the true permanent Transfiguration of Jesus to a fully Immortal Unfallen state was The Resurrection. 

Jerome’s Commentarius in Sophoniam or Commentary on The Twelve Prophets is a work I can’t find an accessible English Translation of Online even though so many other Jerome works are easy to find.  There is a claim for which Ernest L. Martin sources this text on page 108 of Secrets of Golgotha that I want to independently verify about a woman named Poemenia placing a large Cross at this spot on The Mount of Olives in the late 4th Century. 

There is a lot of folklore involving Helena’s role in all this.  For one thing Eusebius’s Life of Constantine does not imply she had anything to do with choosing The Church of The Holy Sepulcher, just the Church of The Nativity and the previously mentioned Eleonia near the mainstream Ascension site.

Update August 29th 2025: I'm by no means 100% sold on the Northern Temple location, it simply being where the Dome of the Rock is could be correct.

The East of Jerusalem Crucifixion and Burial model I am firm on however.

Update September 2025: Josephus stressed the entirety of every Wall but the Western Wall being destroyed, so despite my denial before there absolutely could  be a discontinuity in the location of the Eastern Gate. 

The other pillar of the northern Temple argument is about what could plausibly be a Threshingfloor.  But I have long felt what 1 Chronicles 3:1 could mean by the Temple's construction beginning there could be flexible.  In fact I have my own reasons for thinking this Thresshingfloor was itself East of The Temple on the Mount of Olives and so wonder if anyone has looked for a plausible thresshingfloor there?

Some Rabbis have concluded the proper place for the Red Heifer Offering is on land now owned by the Dominus Flevit Church. And I have seen photos verifying the plausible visibility of the inside of The Temple from there as well.  

Update September 10th 2025: The more I learn about Dominus Flevit the more attractive of a Crucifixion site it becomes.  

One of the Trees growing in-front of The Chapel is a Thorne Tree very likely exactly the kind of tree The Crown of Thoones was made from. 

There is also an ancient wine press there, and Judges 6:11 tells us that wine presses were sometimes used as threshing floors.  Going back to 1 Chronicles 3:1 it perhaps makes sense for the site of the Red Heifer offering to be where The Temple's construction would begin.

Update September 25th 2025: I initially didn't want to emphasize the Red Heifer offering as much as others arguing for a Mount of Olives Crucifixion model.  But in Numbers 19 the Red Heifer Ashes are specifically what Purifies the Uncleanness that comes from Contact with Death. It more then any other Sacrifice in The Torah is the one can be seen as symbolizing the undoing of Death.  And then the Third Day after the Sacrifice is when the Priest who performs it is Purified. 

Update October 15th 2015: That said my view on The Red Heifer in Numbers 19 does view the use of the word "Red" as a mistranslation. 

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2025/10/debunking-myth-of-red-heifer.html

The Tabernacle of David

In December of 2023 I made the most refined version of my Zion/The City of David is Bethlehem not Jerusalem argument, more refined mainly in that I resisted the urge to trail off the main topic at hand into more specific geographical speculations.

So I do here want to speculate on where in Bethlehem the Tabernacle of David that for a time housed The Ark of The Covenant was located.  But first I need to talk about some of Bethlehem’s History.

When Emperor Hadrian banned Jews from living in Jerusalem he also banned them from living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from (according to Eusebius Church History Book IV Chapter 6 Section 3).  Jerusalem is visible from Bethlehem. That’s why it’s easy for some more fringe skeptics to try and argue Bethlehem as we know it didn’t even exist before the 130s, there was this massive discontinuity in the population. 

Hadrian also impacted the history of Bethlehem in another way, he built a Temple on the site where the Church of The Nativity now stands.  Fourth Century sources identify it as a Temple to Adonis or Tammuz, it was possibly actually originally part of the Cult of Antinous which was probably from the start Synchronized with those kinds of cults.  I doubt that Church is actually the location of the Nativity (the Cave fixation is Anti-Biblical), but even if it was, Jerome is wrong to claim that’s why Hadrian built a Temple there.  

I doubt Pre-Hadrian Bethlehem ever even had a local Christian population to identify and venerate that location.  The New Testament never refers to missions to Bethlehem focusing instead on the Church’s spread Northwards and Westwards from Jerusalem, nor does Eusebius. There aren’t even any later traditions I can find about there being an Apostle in Bethlehem in the first Century. All Ante-Nicene references to Bethlehem are from a distance, from Justin and Origen.  Christian Bethlehem as we now know it really does begin in the 4th Century.

But even if there had been, the earlier religion whose local legacy Hadrian wanted to blot out was Judaism not Christianity.  In his turning of Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina the main Temple Complex was built over the former Temple of Herod.  I’m working on another Post about why the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus had to be East of Jerusalem not West or North.

If the original local Jewish population of Bethlehem who Hadrian had just deported remembered that they were the true City of David, then maybe they also remembered where The Tabernacle of David had been?

The Church of The Nativity is most well known to those who’ve never visited it for its underground Caves one of which being where they claim the Manger was (and a Cave was already important to the Adonis mythology). But the Church proper is above those Caves on a Hill with a similar lay out to other Byzantine Churches that can be compared to the design of The Tabernacle and Temple of The Hebrew Bible.

I believe Jesus was born in a house that Joseph owned, so if St Joseph’s Chapel nearby in Bethlehem is the site of St Joseph’s House like it claims to be, then that is where the Nativity happened.

Now I know some people might eventually say “what if the Church of The Nativity is both?  Maybe Jesus was born where The Tabernacle of David was” and that would be neat.  But The Church of The Nativity is too heavily tied to the false Cave tradition.

The Cave tradition is Anti-Biblical but it also can’t be blamed on Constantine or Helena, it is Pre-Nicene, it’s in Justin Martyr, Origen and the Protoevangelium of James.  But none of them Predate Hadrian’s remaking of this entire region.  I think the Cave tradition came from a desire to presume Hadrian was desecrating the place of The Nativity.

I believe Jesus was born in a house that Joseph owned and lived in.  And if the site of David’s Tabernacle was still locally known up until Hadrian it’s unlikely any residential house was there, at best Joseph could have been living in a Davidic Family estate adjacent to it.  So a theory that the Church of The Nativity’s above ground Altar could correlate to where Jesus was born instead of the Cave would be mutually exclusive with that being the Tabernacle of David. 

If I were to consider a second option for the location of David’s Tabernacle, it would begin by asking if the location of the former Kathisma Church would have been considered part of Bethlehem territory rather than Jerusalem in Antiquity?

The Kathisma or “Church of Mary’s Seat” was an Octagonal Byzantine Church on the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem that tradition said marked a place where Mary rested on the way to Bethlehem.  Christians of Late Antiquity symbolically associated Mary with the Ark of the Covenant, so for example at Abu Gosh which was Kirath-Jearim in The Bible a Church dedicated to The Virgin Mary marks where the locals believe The Ark of The Covenant was kept when it was there.

So a Church of Mary’s Seat built around a Rock that The Ark once rested on is feasible.

Update September 26th 2025: So I've recently learned that my argument for Jesus being born in Josephs' House isn't as Mutually Exclusive with the traditional Nativity cite as I first thought. 

The claim made by the local guides at least is that the Grotto of the Nativity was part of Joseph's House.  It seems it simply was a house into the side of the Mountain and thus partially made up of Caves. 

It's possible much of this wasn't always as Underground as it is now.  There is evidence of Earthquakes in the region possibly during the Bar Kochba Revolt, like the oen Cassius Dio alludes to destroying or damaging Solomon's Tomb. 

Update October 4th 2025: Given how many like to see the contrast between the Tabernacle of David and the Tabernacle of Moses as that's a more open gathering place.  I can't help but feel the part of modern Bethlehem that in spirit embodies The Tabernacle of David is not any specific Church or Mosque but Manger Square. 

Second Kings 17:24-41 was never meant to be about the origin of the Samaritans.

The word Samaritans is used in the KJV of verse 29, but the Hebrew word used there has no T in it, it’s just Samarians, and in context it clearly refers to the people who lived here before these Mesopotamians, not them or their future descendants.

I also think it’s important to note that like the entirety of 2 Kings 17 this is really principally just about the City of Samaria, it ends the Northern Kingdom because that was its Capital.  I believe in verse 24 we’ve jumped forward to the time of Sargon II and his one account of what he did here confirms it’s about that one single city.

And Samaria the City was ironically enough never a Samaritan city, it was all through Classical Antiquity the capital of Paganism in Eretz Israel right down to Herod The Great building his major Temples to the Deified Augustus and Kore there resulting in the city being renamed Sebastia. The Samaritan community was more centered around Shechem and other villages near it.

Ezra and Nehemiah refer more to these Pagan Gentiles living in the land, now definitely in Cities plural, seemingly referring to additional settlements there under Esar-Haddon and Asnappar popularly presumed to be Ashurbanipal.  But those books still never mention Shechem, the city that was the actual core of the Samaritan community.  I’ve recently bought an English Translation of the Samaritan Chronicle and they do not connect their history to Sanballat at all, that claim only comes from those hostile to them.

2 Chronicles 30 is the account of Hezekiah's Passover.  Those of Ephraim and Manasseh who rejected Hezekiah's Passover in verse 10 are who I believe became the Samaritans, while those who accepted it in verses 11 and 18 became citizens of Judah and thus would be among those considered "Jews" in Greco-Roman/New Testament times. 

But what about Matthew 10?  Doesn't verse 5 in the context of verse 6 confirm that Jesus doesn't view the Samaritans as Israelites?  

What if the Samaritans are excluded from the "Lost Sheep of The House of Israel" classification for the opposite reason Gentiles are excluded?  What if Jesus didn't consider them "Lost" per se?  

What if the sense of lostness He's referring to is a product of the cultural influences of the Babylonian Captivity and Greek Philosophy that all three Sects of First Century Judaism had been subject to in different ways but not the Samaritans who have neither the Proto Talmudism of the Pharisees the Epicureanism of the Sadducees or the Pythagoreanism of the Essenes/Herodians?

IDK, that's one possible answer, there could be others. 

Euphrates in The Bible

There is possibly no type of thing that shares its name with others of the same type of thing more commonly than rivers.  People who study the geography of Britain love to make fun of how most of its many rivers have one of only three different names.  This is partly caused by a lot of communities just calling whatever river is important to their way of life simply what their word for river is.

Biblically that’s why the Nile is never mentioned by name, The Israelites spent so much time in Egypt that an Egyptian word for River simply became a loan word in Hebrew that gets translated River and used synonymously with Nahar.

However there is one River name in The Bible people continue to insist can only ever refer to one very specific river, The Euphrates.

In Speculation on where Eden and it’s Garden was, the most respectable theories are considered the ones built on assuming there is only one Euphrates and that Euphrates is the River that runs through Iraq, Syria and Turkey, which then forces so many other place names in this passage to be somewhere other then what they usually mean in Scripture. Frankly I think after The Flood (and I think this even when entertaining a local Flood view) the naming of all places were essentially rebooted, there is no real point in trying to identify any Genesis 2 locations.

However, the appearances of the name Euphrates in The Bible that really bug me are when it’s used to define the boundaries of The Promised Land in Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 1:7, Deuteronomy 11:24 and Joshua 1:4. 

Because the most truly detailed descriptions of the boundary of what is promised to The Twelve Tribes of Israel in Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47-48 clearly make The Jordan the eastern border.  The three Trans-Jordan Tribes are depicted as departing from God’s intention when they ask to settle in those Trans-Jordan regions, God allows it but it’s still not his ideal. In Deuteronomy 1-2 God even talks about Edom, Moab and Ammon also having their lands because God gave it to them.

And at any rate the parts of modern Jordan God merely tolerated allowing these three Tribes to settle in was not all of Jordan and certainly no where near reaching the Euphrates in Iraq.  Reuben's allotment roughly corresponds to the Madaba Governorate, Gad to the Balqa Governorate and East Manasseh aka Gilead to Irbid maybe also Ajloun and Jerash and sometimes the Golan Heights. That's it. 

If it was just the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15 we could argue the other side of Jordan is what's for the other Abrahamic Peoples.  The other three verses are the real concern.

Maybe the Euphrates is somehow a Northern Border rather than Eastern, especially given its pairing with the Al-Arish (River in Egypt) in the South?  No serious scholars thinks the "River in Egypt" is the Nile, hypothetical borders based on that interpretation are pure fantasy.  I also talked about the Southern Border when discussing Kadesh.

Well the Northern border of Israel is more complicated to explain but the mounting evidence is that it too doesn't extend further north then Sidon at the absolute most but probably no further north than the northern extent of modern Israel pre taking the Golan Heights.

The Tribe of Dan in Judges 18 leaves their intended allotment and I suspect the intended allotment of Israel altogether just like the Trans-Jordan tribes did except without even asking permission first.  So even if Laish is much further North then Tel-Dan or Banias (Caesarea Philippi) the use of Dan as an idiom for Israel’s northern extent is still in my view a matter of the Southern Border of Dan being the Northern Border of Israel, possibly northern Israelite cities like Kafr Bir'im or Jish/Gishcala or perhaps Mount Meron which I suspect is what Israelites and Canaanites south of Lebanon meant by Mount Zapphon(North) rather then Jebel Aqra.

Hamath as the name of a specific City is not even in Lebanon but Syria north of Lebanon.  However I think many Biblical uses of it are of a wider territory and that specifically the “Entering in of Hamath” is that space between the southern Litani River and the northern Jordan. 

Obadiah 1:20 is difficult to Translate it seems, but many versions make Zarephath the northern extent of Israel and that is most likely a reference to Sarepta, a city located south of Sidon.  

Joshua 19:28 defines Asher’s northern border with places approaching Sidon. 

Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 27-28 use names for the northern boundaries not found anywhere else and thus seemingly impossible to identify on their own now.  But I'm compelled by Joseph Schwars’s argument that this northern Mount Hor is the southern tip of the Lebanon Mountain Range. 

And back in Genesis 10:19 Sidon was the northern limit of the land of Canaan.

The name Lebanon in The Bible refers to a Mountain Range not a Nation-State, but it is pretty much all in modern Lebanon. And that’s the thing about the Deuteronomy and Joshua Euphrates references, if you read them carefully they are clearly placing their Euphrates in or right next to the Lebanon Mountains. Which makes the most viable river to match that description the Litani River.

When you google “Is the Litani River mentioned in The Bible” you’ll find that it’s not by that name but people see it in the references to Misrephothmain in Joshua 11:8 and 13:6 which is clearly placed south of Sidon like the northern border of Asher, but that name I think refers specifically to where it meets the Mediterranean.

I think the Euphrates in early Israelite history was always the Litani and in The Bible doesn’t refer to the river in Mesopotamia till the Babylonian Captivity or maybe at the soonest the references to Necho King of Egypt fighting Assyria there.

So that’s my take, the northern border of Israel is the East-West flowing part of the Litani River. 

1 Chronicles 5:9 associates the Euphrates with a border of the Trans-Jordan Tribes in Gilead.

David and Solomon and other Kings wound up ruling a larger territory, but that was as Tributaries, they never tried to annex anything beyond what the Twelve Tribes were allotted.

As far as the small piece of Lebanon that is Biblical Israel in the argument I just made.   God tolerated Tyre being Sidonian in Antiquity. I'm sure he’s fine with it now too.