Search This Blog

Saturday 4 November 2017

On the firstfruits :The Watchtower Society's commentary.

FIRSTFRUITS


The earliest fruits of a season; the first results or products of anything. The Hebrew word reʼ·shithʹ (from a root meaning “head”) is used in the sense of first part, point of departure, or “beginning” (De 11:12; Ge 1:1; 10:10); the “best” (Ex 23:19, ftn); and “firstfruits” (Le 2:12). “First ripe fruits” is rendered from the Hebrew bik·ku·rimʹ, which is used especially with regard to grain and fruit. (Na 3:12) The Greek term for firstfruits (a·par·kheʹ) comes from a root having the basic meaning “primacy.”

Jehovah required of the nation of Israel that the firstfruits be offered to him, whether it be of man, animal, or the fruitage of the ground. (Ex 22:29, 30; 23:19; Pr 3:9) Devoting the firstfruits to Jehovah would be an evidence of the Israelites’ appreciation for Jehovah’s blessing and for their land and its harvest. It would be an expression of thankfulness to the Giver of “every good gift.”—De 8:6-10; Jas 1:17.

Jehovah commanded the nation, representatively, to offer firstfruits to him, especially at the time of the Festival of Unfermented Cakes. Then, on Nisan 16, at the sanctuary the high priest waved before Jehovah some of the firstfruits of the grain harvest, a sheaf of barley, which was the first crop of the year based on the sacred calendar. (Le 23:5-12) Again, at Pentecost, on the 50th day after the sheaf of barley was waved, the firstfruits of the wheat harvest in the form of two leavened loaves made of fine flour were presented as a wave offering.—Le 23:15-17; see FESTIVAL.

Besides these grain offerings by the high priest on behalf of the nation, the Israelites were required to bring the firstfruits of all their produce as offerings. Every firstborn male of man and beast was sanctified to Jehovah, being either offered or redeemed. (See FIRSTBORN, FIRSTLING.) The firstfruits of coarse meal were to be offered in the form of ring-shaped cakes. (Nu 15:20, 21) Fruitage of the soil was also put in baskets and taken by the Israelites to the sanctuary (De 26:1, 2), where they then recited certain words recorded at Deuteronomy 26:3-10. The words were actually an outline of the nation’s history from their entering into Egypt to their deliverance and their being brought into the Promised Land.

It is said that the custom arose whereby each locality would send a representative with the firstfruits contributed by the inhabitants of the district in order that not all would have to undergo the inconvenience of going up to Jerusalem each time that the firstfruits were ripe. The quantity of these firstfruits to be offered was not fixed by the Law; it apparently was left to the generosity and appreciative spirit of the giver. However, the choicest portions, the best of the firstfruits, were to be offered.—Nu 18:12; Ex 23:19; 34:26.

In the case of a newly planted tree, for the first three years it was considered impure as though uncircumcised. In the fourth year all its fruit became holy to Jehovah. Then, in the fifth year, the owner could gather in its fruit for himself.—Le 19:23-25.

Contributions of firstfruits to Jehovah by the 12 non-Levitical tribes of Israel were used by the priests and Levites, since they received no inheritance in the land. (Nu 18:8-13) The faithful offering of the firstfruits brought pleasure to Jehovah and a blessing to all parties involved. (Eze 44:30) A failure to bring them would be counted by God as robbing him of his due and would bring his displeasure. (Mal 3:8) In Israel’s history at times this practice was neglected, being restored in certain periods by rulers zealous for true worship. In King Hezekiah’s reformation work, he held an extended celebration of the Festival of the Unfermented Cakes, and on this occasion Hezekiah instructed the people to fulfill their duty with respect to the contribution of firstfruits and tithes. Cheerfully the people responded by bringing in great quantities of the firstfruits of the grain, new wine, oil, honey, and all the produce of the field, from the third month to the seventh. (2Ch 30:21, 23; 31:4-7) After the restoration from Babylon, Nehemiah led the people in taking an oath to walk in Jehovah’s law, including the bringing to him of firstfruits of every sort.—Ne 10:29, 34-37; see OFFERINGS.

Figurative and Symbolic Use. Jesus Christ was spiritually begotten at the time of his baptism and was resurrected from the dead to life in the spirit on Nisan 16, 33 C.E., the day of the year on which the firstfruits of the first grain crop were presented before Jehovah at the sanctuary. He is, therefore, called the firstfruits, being actually the first firstfruits to God. (1Co 15:20, 23; 1Pe 3:18) The faithful followers of Jesus Christ, his spiritual brothers, are also a firstfruits to God, but not the primary firstfruits, being similar to the second grain crop, the wheat, which was presented to Jehovah on the day of Pentecost. They number 144,000 and are called the ones “bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb” and “certain firstfruits of his creatures.”—Re 14:1-4; Jas 1:18.

The apostle Paul also speaks of the faithful Jewish remnant who became the first Christians as being “firstfruits.” (Ro 11:16) The Christian Epaenetus is called “a firstfruits of Asia for Christ” (Ro 16:5), and the household of Stephanas “the firstfruits of Achaia.”—1Co 16:15.


Since the anointed Christians are begotten by the spirit as sons of God with the hope of resurrection to immortality in the heavens, they are said during their lifetime on earth to “have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit . . . while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom.” (Ro 8:23, 24) Paul says that he and fellow Christians with hopes of life in the spirit have “the token of what is to come, that is, the spirit,” which he also says is “a token in advance of our inheritance.”—2Co 5:5; Eph 1:13, 14.

Darwinists still don't (won't?)get it.

Methinks This Robot Has Been, Like, Weaseled into a Darwinian Tale


With apologies to Johnny cash.

Being Hated by the Right People




On Quirinius :The Watchtower Society's commentary.

QUIRINIUS

Roman governor of Syria at the time of the “registration” ordered by Caesar Augustus that resulted in Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem. (Lu 2:1, 2) His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius.

In the Chronographus Anni CCCLIIII, a list of Roman consuls, the name of Quirinius appears in 12 B.C.E. along with that of Messala. (Chronica Minora, edited by T. Mommsen, Munich, 1981, Vol. I, p. 56) Roman historian Tacitus briefly recounts Quirinius’ history, saying: “[He] sprang from the municipality of Lanuvium—had no connection; but as an intrepid soldier and an active servant he won a consulate under the deified Augustus, and, a little later, by capturing the Homonadensian strongholds beyond the Cilician frontier, earned the insignia of triumph . . . , adviser to Gaius Caesar during his command in Armenia.” (The Annals, III, XLVIII) His death took place in 21 C.E.

Not mentioned by Tacitus is Quirinius’ relationship to Syria. Jewish historian Josephus relates Quirinius’ assignment to Syria as governor in connection with the simultaneous assignment of Coponius as the Roman ruler of Judea. He states: “Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor of the nation and to make an assessment of their property. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jews with full authority.” Josephus goes on to relate that Quirinius came into Judea, to which his authority was extended, and ordered a taxation there. This brought much resentment and an unsuccessful attempt at revolt, led by “Judas, a Gaulanite.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 1, 2, 3, 4 [i, 1]) This is evidently the revolt referred to by Luke at Acts 5:37. According to Josephus’ account it took place in “the thirty-seventh year after Caesar’s defeat of Antony at Actium.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 [ii, 1]) That would indicate that Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 C.E.

For a long time this was the only governorship of Syria by Quirinius for which secular history supplied confirmation. However, in the year 1764 an inscription known as the Lapis Tiburtinus was found in Rome, which, though not giving the name, contains information that most scholars acknowledge could apply only to Quirinius. (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by H. Dessau, Berlin, 1887, Vol. 14, p. 397, No. 3613) It contains the statement that on going to Syria he became governor (or, legate) for ‘the second time.’ On the basis of inscriptions found in Antioch containing Quirinius’ name, many historians acknowledge that Quirinius was also governor of Syria in the B.C.E. period.

There is uncertainty on their part, however, as to where Quirinius fits among the secularly recorded governors of Syria. Josephus lists Quintilius Varus as governor of Syria at the time of, and subsequent to, the death of Herod the Great. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 89 [v, 2]; XVII, 221 [ix, 3]) Tacitus also refers to Varus as being governor at the time of Herod’s death. (The Histories, V, IX) Josephus states that Varus’ predecessor was Saturninus (C. Sentius Saturninus).

Many scholars, in view of the evidence of an earlier governorship by Quirinius, suggest the years 3-2 B.C.E. for his governorship. While these dates would harmonize satisfactorily with the Biblical record, the basis on which these scholars select them is in error. That is, they list Quirinius as governor during those years because they place his rule after that of Varus and hence after the death of Herod the Great, for which they use the popular but erroneous date of 4 B.C.E. (See CHRONOLOGY; HEROD No. 1 [Date of His Death].) (For the same reason, that is, their use of the unproved date 4 B.C.E. for Herod’s death, they give Varus’ governorship as from 6 to 4 B.C.E.; the length of his rule, however, is conjectural, for Josephus does not specify the date of its beginning or of its end.) The best evidence points to 2 B.C.E. for the birth of Jesus. Hence Quirinius’ governorship must have included this year or part thereof.

Some scholars call attention to the fact that the term used by Luke, and usually translated “governor,” is he·ge·monʹ. This Greek term is used to describe Roman legates, procurators, and proconsuls, and it means, basically, a “leader” or “high executive officer.” Some, therefore, suggest that, at the time of what Luke refers to as the “first registration,” Quirinius served in Syria in the capacity of a special legate of the emperor exercising extraordinary powers. A factor that may also aid in understanding the matter is Josephus’ clear reference to a dual rulership of Syria, since in his account he speaks of two persons, Saturninus and Volumnius, serving simultaneously as “governors of Syria.” (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280 [ix, 1]; XVI, 344 [x, 8]) Thus, if Josephus is correct in his listing of Saturninus and Varus as successive presidents of Syria, it is possible that Quirinius served simultaneously either with Saturninus (as Volumnius had done) or with Varus prior to Herod’s death (which likely occurred in 1 B.C.E.). The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge presents this view: “Quirinius stood in exactly the same relation to Varus, the governor of Syria, as at a later time Vespasian did to Mucianus. Vespasian conducted the war in Palestine while Mucianus was governor of Syria; and Vespasian was legatus Augusti, holding precisely the same title and technical rank as Mucianus.”—1957, Vol. IX, pp. 375, 376.

An inscription found in Venice (Lapis Venetus) refers to a census conducted by Quirinius in Syria. However, it provides no means for determining whether this was in his earlier or his later governorship.—Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, edited by T. Mommsen, O. Hirschfeld, and A. Domaszewski, 1902, Vol. 3, p. 1222, No. 6687.


Luke’s proved accuracy in historical matters gives sound reason for accepting as factual his reference to Quirinius as governor of Syria around the time of Jesus’ birth. It may be remembered that Josephus, virtually the only other source of information, was not born until 37 C.E., hence nearly four decades after Jesus’ birth. Luke, on the other hand, was already a physician traveling with the apostle Paul by about 49 C.E. when Josephus was but a boy of 12. Of the two, Luke, even on ordinary grounds, is the more likely source for reliable information on the matter of the Syrian governorship just prior to Jesus’ birth. Justin Martyr, a Palestinian of the second century C.E., cited the Roman records as proof of Luke’s accuracy as regards Quirinius’ governorship at the time of Jesus’ birth. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, edited by B. Orchard, 1953, p. 943) There is no evidence that Luke’s account was ever challenged by early historians, even by early critics such as Celsus.

On Wikipedia's wizards of ID

Meet the Cast of Characters Who Edit Wikipedia’s Page on Intelligent Design



In the few weeks since the fate of paleontologist Günter Bechly at the hands of Wikipedia editors came to light, we’ve been reminded of an important truth: the world is far too dependent on the well-known online encyclopedia. Its treatment of intelligent design and ID scientists, like the now-erased Dr. Bechly or the disemboweled Dr. Walter Bradley, is a case in point.


Here are links to recent posts:

We so long ago gave up on the main entry on ID itself that I’ve hardly mentioned it. But the first sentence is a distortion or a lie, depending on how charitable you feel about it.

Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God.

ID is neither of those things. Nor is it, as they go on, “pseudoscience,” a “form of creationism,” “lack[ing] empirical support and offer[ing] no testable or tenable hypotheses .” These are all complaints we’ve addressed   many times over.

What readers most need to understand about Wikipedia is that the editors are almost all pseudonyms of volunteer non-authorities. Many have an axe to grind. They wield power over mass opinion not because they’re objective or knowledgeable but simply by virtue of being dedicated to Wikipedia, on call at a moment’s notice to “fix” any correction they don’t like. The sociological profile there, someone with that kind of free time on his hands, guarantees that the page will attract people unfriendly to an idea like the design hypothesis.


Who’s been editing the ID entry lately? Check out the Revision history. The participants’ User pages can be interesting to read. The editors include, most recently, PaleoNeonate, claiming expertise in Computer Science, “a male born in the seventies in Canada. I am not notable.” He says, under Interests, that he is “an agnostic with naturalist pantheistic tendencies, who has long ceased to believe in the supernatural.”

One week ago, someone cut the word “religious” in the description of ID as a “religious argument.” That was on October 27 at 6:41 pm. At 6:43 pm, PaleoNeonate was on the scene, putting “religious” back in. Two minutes later! These people can wear anyone out.

PaleoNeonate is not a rarity. MrBill3, another editor, is “a skeptic who works as a nurse in the Intensive Care Unit.” Pepperbeast is “from Earth,” “interested in New Zealand,” “interested in religion as an anthropological and historical phenomenon,” a “freethinker,” a “skeptic,” and a “foodie.” MPants at Work is “a (male) skeptical liberal atheist feminist American gun nut SJW.” He lets loose with a paragraph of insults and profanities if you care to check it out.

Some editors sound like normal people. Others appear random. Roxy the dog is a dog owner who just discovered that his pet has lymphoma, which is sad to hear. The only other information about Roxy is that he “resists the POV pushing of lunatic charlatans.” Others give neither a real name nor any other information at all to go on.

Someone called “dave souza” sounds like that could be his actual name. In a short autobiography on his page, written in the third person, he is frank about his bias against ID:

Irritated by something in the Charles Darwin article which didn’t fit with his memory of a library book, he borrowed the book and was soon involved in extensive revisions of the page and adding related articles. Nine months later he was still renewing the book and distilling its goodness into offshoots like the “the Devil’s Chaplain” while frantically editing related texts like Radicalism. He strayed into the history of creationismm [sic] leading to an unhealthy fascination with the great intelligent design con. Soon he was spending sunny days when he should have been out mowing the lawn hunched over his laptop, as each edit spawned innumerable corrections to other articles or new red links demanding to be fed. [Emphasis added.]
Now pull back and consider. ID poses an ultimate question that should be of interest to all thoughtful people. It’s a scientific argument, not a religious one. It’s not an argument for God’s existence, though it’s compatible with theism. The latter prompts us to expect evidence of purpose in nature.

Looking up ID on Google is very often the beginning and end of people’s investigation of the design question. Directed immediately to Wikipedia, the reader will find an article that starts out with a distortion, edited by this cast of pseudonymous characters. Few visitors to the page will think to wonder where the information came from, or who maintains or edits it. It’s like something out of a very weird and bad dream.

On Adam,Eve and Darwin.

Is a First Human Pair Possible or Impossible?
Ann Gauger


Sometimes the claims that scientists make go beyond what can be definitively established. They may overestimate the sensitivity of their analytical methods, or engage in somewhat circular reasoning. These kinds of things are hard for laypeople to detect; even scientists trained in a different field may not recognize there is a problem. That’s why it is enormously useful to have important claims evaluated by someone who is knowledgeable in the particular subject under dispute, especially if the dispute matters to a great many people.

Richard Buggs, Reader at Queen Mary University of London, is a well-respected geneticist, with numerous papers published in molecular ecology, genomics, and molecular evolution. He knows something about population genetics. In a post on October 28 on the Nature Ecology and Evolution community website, Buggs questioned assertions made by Professor Dennis Venema (Trinity Western University) in his book Adam and the Genome, concerning the possibility of a first human pair. He begins thusly:


Does genomic evidence make it scientifically impossible that the human lineage could have ever passed through a population bottleneck of just two individuals? This is a question I am asked semi-frequently by religious friends….

The issue is this. Believers in Abrahamic religions who accept evolution often combine it with belief that all humans have descended from a single couple. Until now, many have assumed that this belief is compatible with evolution and mainstream science.

This needs to change, according Christian biologist Dennis Venema writing in the 2017 book Adam and the Genome. Chapter 3 of this book claims that three population genetic studies give independent estimates that the population size of humans has never dropped below around 10,000 individuals. Venema declares that a bottleneck of two is impossible, and this is a fact of comparable scientific certainty to heliocentrism. He gives his Christian readers a stark choice between embracing mainstream science, or sticking with untenable beliefs about an ancestral couple.

Buggs finds himself unable to agree with such a dogmatic statement.

This is fine, so long as mainstream science really is showing that a single-pair bottleneck somewhere in the history of humankind is an absolute impossibility. But having looked at the evidence that Venema describes and cites, I am not yet convinced. I can’t echo him and say to someone who believes in an extreme human population bottleneck that they are against science.

His article goes through the arguments that Venema addresses in his book, and shows for each why it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a first pair as the origin of humanity.

Reduction in Genetic Diversity

Venema argues that having a single pair as the starting point for humanity would cause an extreme bottleneck, leading to an extreme loss in genetic diversity. (He assumes humanity is descended from ape-like ancestors that are the source of that diversity.) On the face of it, it seems reasonable that such a bottleneck in the human lineage would cause an extreme reduction in genetic diversity. But not all bottlenecks are the same. Bottlenecks that last a long time do eliminate diversity, but short sharp ones may not, such as would be the case for a single pair at the start of humanity.


[P]opulation geneticists (M. Nei, T. Maruyama and R. Chakraborty 1975 Evolution, 29(1):1-10) showed that even a bottleneck of a single pair would not lead to massive decreases in genetic diversity, if followed by rapid population growth. When two individuals are taken at random from an existing large population, they will on average carry 75% of its heterozygosity (M. Slatkin and L. Excoffier 2012 Genetics 191:171–181). From a bottleneck of a single fertilised female, if population size doubles every generation, after many generations the population will have over half of the heterozygosity of the population before the bottleneck (Barton and Charlesworth 1984, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15:133-64). If population growth is faster than this, the proportion of heterozygosity maintained will be higher.

Buggs then goes on to address a related subject called allelic richness, or how many variants of each gene there are. Venema states the problem as follows:

Taking into account the human mutation rate, and the mathematical probability of new mutations spreading in a population or being lost, these methods indicate an ancestral population size for humans right around that 10,000 figure. In fact, to generate the number of alleles we see in the present day from a starting point of just two individuals, one would have to postulate mutation rates far in excess of what we observe for any animal.

How does Buggs respond?

We need to bear in mind that explosive population growth in humans has allowed many new mutations to rapidly accumulate in human populations (A. Keinan and A. G. Clark (2012) Science 336: 740-743). Hyper-variable loci like MHC genes or microsatellites have so many alleles that they seem to defy the idea of a single couple bottleneck until we consider that they have very rapid rates of evolution, and could have evolved very many alleles since a bottleneck.

Linkage Disequilibrium Within Populations

Linkage disequilibrium (LD) is a measure of how much recombination has occurred between sites on a chromosome, and because of mathematical relationships between LD and population size, can be used to estimate the size of a population at a particular time. Venema chose to use an LD study (Tenesa et al. “Recent Human Effective Population Size Estimated from Linkage Disequilibrium,” Genome Research 17: 520–26) to argue that we could never have come from just two. As Venema says:

The researchers found that, during this period [200,000 years ago], humans living in sub-Saharan Africa maintained a minimum population of about 7,000 individuals, and that the ancestors of all other humans maintained a minimum population of about 3,000 — once again, adding up to the same value other methods arrive at.

Buggs responds:

This is a rather inaccurate presentation of the paper. The paper’s discussion starts with the sentence: “Overall, the estimates of Ne [effective population size] appear to be much lower than the usually quoted value of 10,000”. It seems to me that the paper gives no warrant for Venema’s addition of effective population sizes above and below the Sahara, as it explains that the non-sub-Saharan populations contain a “subset of the amount of genetic variation present in the African population” due to an out-of-Africa expansion. It is the ancestral sub-Saharan estimate that therefore is of main interest to us. The mean estimated Ne for this population among chromosomes is 6286, with a standard deviation of 1357.

This study depends critically on knowing the recombination rate of the populations. Recombination rate is used both to calculate effective population size (from LD) and to estimate the time point that this is being measured for (from distance between loci). But the main method used to estimate the recombination rate by the authors is patterns of LD. Linkage disequilibrium patterns are also being used to calculate the effective population sizes given a known recombination rate. A degree of circular reasoning seems to be inevitable here. When the authors use a slightly different method to estimate recombination rate (which also relies upon measures of LD), all their estimates of Ne dropped by a mean of 27%. Thus, with the best will in the world, all we have here are ballpark figures for past effective population sizes. I am sure the authors of the study would not view their results as being of equivalent certainty to heliocentrism.

Obviously, however, the paper at no point gives an effective population size estimate as low as two individuals. Does this therefore disprove the hypothesis of a bottleneck of two? I don’t think so, because such a scenario is simply not on the radar of the methods employed. The methods assume that the populations at any given time point are at equilibrium and not expanding exponentially (the authors deliberately exclude the last 10,000 years from this analysis as they know that exponential population growth has occurred in this timeframe). It is hard to see how they could pick up on a short, sharp bottleneck even if one had happened. It would be nice to see this modelled, just to check.


Even if the results of this study are entirely correct, the authors do not make any statements about population size more than 200,000 years ago. This would appear to leave open the possibility of a bottleneck in the previous 5.8 million years.

PSMC Method

The pairwise sequentially Markovian coalescent model (PSMC) is used to analyze single genomes to infer past effective population sizes from patterns of heterozygosity. The first paper to do so was Li and Durbin 2011 (“Inference of Human Population History from Individual Whole-Genome Sequences” Nature 475: 493– 96). Buggs explains:


When run on human genomes, these analyses did not drop below an Ne [effective population size] of 5,700 for African individuals. Does this prove that a sudden, short bottleneck never happened? I don’t think so. Because a single couple can carry with them 0.75 of the heterozygosity of their ancestral population, we would not expect an extreme number of coalescence events at the bottleneck. Furthermore, those that are there were would be smeared out over a long period of time around the bottleneck.

Li and Durbin themselves acknowledge that their technique cannot detect short sharp bottlenecks.


simulations did, however, reveal a limitation of PSMC in recovering sudden changes in effective population size. For example, the instantaneous reduction from 12,000 to 1,200 at 100 kyr ago in the simulation was spread over several preceding tens of thousands of years in the PSMC reconstruction.

Buggs concludes:

Thus I cannot see that PSMC analyses (many more of which have been done on human genomes since the original paper by Li and Durbin) can be cited as rigorously disproving a short, sharp bottleneck.

Incomplete Lineage Sorting

Short and sweet: incomplete lineage sorting doesn’t matter because it all happened before the human lineage was established.

Venema makes an argument based on incomplete lineage sorting among humans, apes and gorillas, which gives a large estimated effective population size. This argument is not relevant if we are only interested in the human lineage (the occurrence of ILS does not require maintenance of large populations sizes in every lineage after speciation and so does not exclude a bottleneck in the exclusively human lineage).

Conclusion

None of the methods that Venema cites are able to address the problem of the existence of a first pair. Either they are insensitive to short sharp bottlenecks (reduction in genetic diversity, PMSC) or they are not designed to ask the questions at hand, and even engage in somewhat circular reasoning (linkage disequilibrium, incomplete lineage sorting), or they neglect the fact of explosive population growth and high rates of mutation accumulation (allelic richness). It is not to say that these papers are bad, rather they do not address the possibility of a short sharp bottleneck. For that a new approach is needed.


In closing it is best to let Buggs speak for himself:

The question asked by my religious friends is different to the questions being asked in the studies discussed above. My religious friends are not asking me if it is probable that humans have ever passed through a bottleneck of two; they are asking me if it is possible. None of the studies above set out to explicitly test the hypothesis that humans could have passed through a single-couple bottleneck. This is what we need to nail this issue down.

I would very much appreciate feedback from scientific readers of this blog. I have dealt with arguments made in a single book chapter, that has addressed this issue more directly than any other source I have come across. The author, Dennis Venema, is the go to expert on this issue within the organisation BioLogos, set up by Francis Collins (now director of NIH) to explore science-faith issues, so he ought to know what he is talking about. However, there may well be other, perhaps better, arguments that Venema has not made and I have therefore not interacted with.


If I am missing something, then I would very much like to know. Whilst this issue may seem trivial to many readers, for large numbers of religious believers in the world, this is a critical issue. Do they really face a binary choice between accepting mainstream science and believing that humans have, at some point in their history, all descended from a single couple? I am open to the possibility that they do face this dilemma, but I need more evidence before I am persuaded.


Sunday 29 October 2017

Yet more primeval tech v. Darwin.

World’s Oldest Tree Is World’s Most Complex Tree
Cornelius Hunter


I have often discussed the problem of “early complexity,” and how as we peer back in time — whether in the geographic strata or by phylogenetic reconstruction — things don’t get simpler. This makes no sense in light of evolution and this week’s news of a specimen of a fossil tree from northwest China, revealing and ancient, and highly complex, just makes it worse.

As one of the authors  admitted:

This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?


Fortunately evolution is a fact.

Blockchain demystified?

On rare earth metals.

Saturday 28 October 2017

On Jerusalem:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

JERUSALEM

(Je·ruʹsa·lem) [Possession (Foundation) of Twofold Peace].

The capital city of the ancient nation of Israel from the year 1070 B.C.E. onward. Following the division of the nation into two kingdoms (997 B.C.E.), Jerusalem continued as the capital of the southern kingdom of Judah. Throughout the Scriptures there are more than 800 references to Jerusalem.

Name. The earliest recorded name of the city is “Salem.” (Ge 14:18) Whereas some try to associate the meaning of the name Jerusalem with that of a West Semitic god named Shalem, the apostle Paul shows that “Peace” is the true meaning of the latter half of the name. (Heb 7:2) The Hebrew spelling of this latter half suggests a dual form, hence “Twofold Peace.” In Akkadian (Assyro-Babylonian) texts the city was called Urusalim (or Ur-sa-li-im-mu). On this basis some scholars give the meaning of the name as “City of Peace.” But the Hebrew form, which logically ought to govern, apparently means “Possession (Foundation) of Twofold Peace.”

Many other expressions and titles were used in the Scriptures to refer to the city. The psalmist on one occasion uses the earlier name, “Salem.” (Ps 76:2) Other appellations were: “city of Jehovah” (Isa 60:14), “town of the grand King” (Ps 48:2; compare Mt 5:35), “City of Righteousness” and “Faithful Town” (Isa 1:26), “Zion” (Isa 33:20), and “holy city” (Ne 11:1; Isa 48:2; 52:1; Mt 4:5). The name “el Quds,” meaning “the Holy [City],” is still the popular name for it in Arabic. The name shown on present-day maps of Israel is Yerushalayim.

Location. Comparatively remote from principal international trade routes, Jerusalem lay on the edge of an arid wilderness (the Wilderness of Judah), its water supplies being limited. Nevertheless, two internal trade routes did intersect near the city. One ran in a N-S direction along the top of the plateau forming the “backbone” of ancient Palestine, and this route linked together such cities as Dothan, Shechem, Bethel, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Beer-sheba. The second route ran in an E-W direction from Rabbah (modern ʽAmman), cut through torrent valleys to the Jordan River basin, ascended the steep Judean slopes, and then wound down the western slopes to the Mediterranean Coast and the seaport town of Joppa. Additionally, Jerusalem was centrally located for the whole area of the Promised Land, hence appropriate for a state administration center.

Lying about 55 km (34 mi) inland from the Mediterranean Sea and some 25 km (16 mi) due W of the northern end of the Dead Sea, Jerusalem rests among the hills of the central mountain range. (Compare Ps 125:2.) Its altitude of about 750 m (2,500 ft) above sea level made it one of the highest capital cities in the world at that time. Its “loftiness” is mentioned in the Scriptures, and travelers had to ‘go up’ from the coastal plains to reach the city. (Ps 48:2; 122:3, 4) The climate is pleasant, with cool nights, an average annual temperature of 17° C. (63° F.), and an average annual rainfall of about 63 cm (25 in.), the rain falling mainly between November and April.

Despite its height, Jerusalem does not stand up above the surrounding terrain. The traveler gets a full view of the city only when quite close. To the E, the Mount of Olives rises about 800 m (2,620 ft). North of it, Mount Scopus reaches about 820 m (2,690 ft), and the encircling hills on the S and W rise as high as 835 m (2,740 ft). These elevations give a view of the situation in relation to the Temple Mount (c. 740 m [2,430 ft]).

In times of war, this situation would seem to constitute a serious disadvantage. Any drawback, however, was compensated for by the city’s being surrounded on three sides by steep-walled valleys: the torrent valley of Kidron on the east and the Valley of Hinnom on the south and west. A central valley, apparently referred to by Josephus as the Tyropoeon Valley (or “the Valley of the Cheesemakers”), bisected the city area into eastern and western hills or spurs. (The Jewish War, V, 136, 140 [iv, 1]) This central valley has filled in considerably throughout the centuries, but a visitor still must make a rather sharp descent to a central hollow and then climb up the other side when crossing the city. There is evidence that, in addition to the N-S central valley, two smaller E-W valleys, or depressions, further divided the hills, one cutting across the eastern hill and the other across the western.

The steep valley walls seem to have been incorporated into the city’s defensive wall system in all periods. The only side of the city lacking in natural defense was that on the N, and here the walls were made especially strong. When attacking the city in 70 C.E., General Titus, according to Josephus, was faced with three successive walls on that side.

Water Supply. Jerusalem’s inhabitants suffered from serious food shortages in siege, but evidently had no great water problem. For, in spite of its nearness to the arid Judean Wilderness, the city had access to a constant supply of fresh water and had adequate storage facilities within the city walls.

Two springs, En-rogel and Gihon, were located near the city. The first lay a little S of the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys. While a valuable source of water, its position made it inaccessible during times of attack or siege. The Gihon spring lay on the W side of the Kidron Valley, alongside what came to be called the City of David. Though outside the city walls, it was close enough that a tunnel could be excavated connecting to a shaft, enabling the city’s inhabitants to draw water without going outside the protective walls. This was done early in the city’s history, according to the archaeological evidence. In 1961 and 1962, excavations revealed a substantial early wall, situated below the upper end, or entrance, of the tunnel, hence enclosing it. It is thought to be the wall of the old Jebusite city.

Over the years, additional tunnels and canals were formed to channel Gihon’s waters. One channel ran from the mouth of the cave of the Gihon spring down the valley and around the end of the SE hill to a pool located at the junction of the Hinnom Valley with the central or Tyropoeon Valley. According to what has been found, it was in the form of a trench, covered with flat stones, and tunneled through the hillside at points. Openings at intervals allowed for water to be drawn off for irrigation of the valley terraces below. The canal’s gradient of about 4 or 5 millimeters per meter (less than 0.2 in. per yd) produced a slow gentle flow, reminding one of “the waters of the Shiloah that are going gently.” (Isa 8:6) It is suggested that this canal, unprotected and vulnerable, was constructed during Solomon’s reign, when peace and security were predominant.

Jerusalem’s homes and buildings were evidently equipped with underground cisterns, supplementing the supply of water from springs. Rainwater collected from the roofs was stored therein, kept clean and cool. The temple area seems to have had particularly large cisterns, archaeologists claiming to have plotted 37 cisterns there with a total capacity of about 38,000 kl (10,000,000 gal), one cistern alone estimated as capable of holding 7,600 kl (2,000,000 gal).

Over the centuries a number of aqueducts, or conduits, were built, in order to provide water for Jerusalem. Tradition ascribes to Solomon the construction of a conduit from the “Pools of Solomon” (three reservoirs SW of Bethlehem) to the temple enclosure at Jerusalem. At Ecclesiastes 2:6, Solomon says: “I made pools of water for myself, to irrigate with them the forest.” Such a large undertaking as the building of the pools could well have included the building of a conduit for the larger supply of water that would be needed at Jerusalem after the temple services were instituted. However, there is no evidence, other than tradition, to support the Solomonic origin of a conduit from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem. A number of aqueducts can still be traced. One conduit constructed to carry water from springs in the Wadi el-ʽArrub 20 km (12 mi) SSW of Jerusalem to the Pools of Solomon is possibly the one alluded to by Josephus, who says that it was constructed by Pontius Pilate with temple treasury funds. (Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 60 [iii, 2]; The Jewish War, II, 175 [ix, 4]) Of the two aqueducts leading from the Pools of Solomon to Jerusalem, the lower one is the older, possibly dating from the time of Herod or of the Hasmonaeans. This aqueduct passed under the village of Bethlehem and ran on to the Temple Mount over “Wilson’s Arch.”

Archaeological Research. Though much research and excavation have been carried out, few concrete facts have been determined as to the city of Bible times. Various factors have restricted investigation or limited its value. Jerusalem has had almost continuous occupation in the Common Era, thus severely reducing the area available for excavation. Then, too, the city was destroyed a number of times, with new cities built on top of the ruins and often made, in part, from material of those ruins. The piling up of debris and rubble, in some places about 30 m (100 ft) deep, has obscured the early contours of the site and made the interpretation of the excavated evidence a precarious task. Some wall sections, pools, water tunnels, and ancient tombs have been unearthed, but very little written material. Principal archaeological discoveries have come from the SE hill, which now lies outside the city walls.

The main sources of information regarding the ancient city, therefore, remain the Bible and the description of the first-century city given by Jewish historian Josephus.

Early History. The first historical mention of the city comes in the decade between 1943 and 1933 B.C.E., when Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek took place. Melchizedek was “king of Salem” and “priest of the Most High God.” (Ge 14:17-20) However, the origins of the city and of the population that composed it are as wrapped in obscurity as is the origin of its king-priest Melchizedek.—Compare Heb 7:1-3.

Apparently another event in Abraham’s life involved the vicinity of Jerusalem. Abraham was commanded to offer up his son Isaac on “one of the mountains” in “the land of Moriah.” The temple built by Solomon was erected on “Mount Moriah” on a site that previously had been a threshing floor. (Ge 22:2; 2Ch 3:1) Thus, the Bible apparently links the place of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice with the mountainous region around Jerusalem. (See MORIAH.) Whether Melchizedek was still living then is not revealed; but Salem likely remained friendly territory for Abraham.

The Amarna Tablets, written by Canaanite rulers to their Egyptian overlord, include seven letters from the king or governor of Jerusalem (Urusalim). These letters were written prior to the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Thus, Jerusalem, in the approximately 465-year period between Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek and the Israelite conquest, had become the possession of pagan Hamitic Canaanites and was under the domination of the Hamitic Egyptian Empire.

The account of Joshua’s sweeping conquest of Canaan lists Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem, among the confederate kings attacking Gibeon. His name (meaning “(My) Lord Is Righteousness”) closely parallels that of Jerusalem’s earlier King Melchizedek (“King of Righteousness”), but Adoni-zedek was no worshiper of the Most High God, Jehovah.—Jos 10:1-5, 23, 26; 12:7, 8, 10.

In the allotting of tribal territories, Jerusalem was on the boundary between Judah and Benjamin, the specific border running along the Valley of Hinnom. This would place at least what comprised the later “City of David,” situated on the ridge between the Kidron and Tyropoeon valleys, within the territory of Benjamin. Apparently the Canaanite city had additional settlements, or “suburbs,” however, and part of the settled area may have overlapped into Judah’s territory to the W and S of the Valley of Hinnom. Judah is credited with the initial capture of Jerusalem at Judges 1:8, but after the invading forces moved on, the Jebusite inhabitants apparently remained (or returned) in sufficient force to form a later pocket of resistance that neither Judah nor Benjamin could break. Thus, of both Judah and Benjamin it is said that the ‘Jebusites continued dwelling with them in Jerusalem.’ (Jos 15:63; Jg 1:21) This situation continued for some four centuries, and the city was at times referred to as “Jebus,” “a city of foreigners.”—Jg 19:10-12; 1Ch 11:4, 5.

During the United Kingdom. King Saul’s headquarters were at Gibeah in the territory of Benjamin. King David’s capital city was first at Hebron in Judah, about 30 km (19 mi) SSW of Jerusalem. After ruling there a total of seven and a half years (2Sa 5:5), he determined to transfer the capital to Jerusalem. This was by divine direction (2Ch 6:4-6), Jehovah having spoken centuries earlier of the ‘site where He would choose to place his name.’—De 12:5; 26:2; compare 2Ch 7:12.

It seems that the Jebusites at that time had their city on the southern end of the eastern spur. They were confident of the impregnability of their fortress city, with its natural defenses of steep valley walls on three sides and, probably, special fortifications on the north. It was known as “the place difficult to approach” (1Ch 11:7), and the Jebusites taunted David that even ‘the blind and the lame of the city’ could hold off his attacks. But David conquered the city, his attack being spearheaded by Joab, who evidently gained entry into the city by means of “the water tunnel.” (2Sa 5:6-9; 1Ch 11:4-8) Scholars are not entirely certain of the meaning of the Hebrew term here rendered “water tunnel,” but generally accept this or similar terms (“water shaft,” RS, AT; “gutter,” JP) as the most likely meaning. The brief account does not state just how the city’s defenses were breached. Since the discovery of the tunnel and shaft leading to the Gihon spring, the popular view is that Joab led men up this vertical shaft, through the sloping tunnel and into the city in a surprise attack. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 951) By whatever means, the city was taken and David moved his capital there (1070 B.C.E.). The Jebusite stronghold now came to be known as “the City of David,” also called “Zion.”—2Sa 5:7.

David began a building program within the area, apparently also improving the city’s defenses. (2Sa 5:9-11; 1Ch 11:8) “The Mound” (Heb., ham·Mil·lohʼʹ) referred to here (2Sa 5:9) and in later accounts (1Ki 9:15, 24; 11:27) was some geographic or structural feature of the city, well known then but unidentifiable today. When David later transferred the sacred “ark of Jehovah” from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, the city became the religious, as well as administrative, center of the nation.—2Sa 6:11, 12, 17; see BURIAL, BURIAL PLACES; DAVID, CITY OF; MOUND.

There is no record of Jerusalem’s being attacked by enemy forces during David’s reign, as he carried the battle to his foes. (Compare 2Sa 5:17-25; 8:1-14; 11:1.) On one occasion, however, David saw fit to abandon the city before the advance of rebel forces led by his own son, Absalom. The king’s retreat may have been to avoid having blood shed in civil war at this place where Jehovah’s name rested. (2Sa 15:13-17) Whatever the motive for the retreat, it led to the fulfillment of the inspired prophecy spoken by Nathan. (2Sa 12:11; 16:15-23) David did not allow the ark of the covenant to be evacuated with him but ordered the faithful priests to return it to the city, God’s chosen location. (2Sa 15:23-29) The description of the initial part of David’s flight as recorded at 2 Samuel chapter 15 outlines well the geographic features of the area on the E of the city.

Toward the close of his rule, David began preparing construction materials for the temple. (1Ch 22:1, 2; compare 1Ki 6:7.) The hewn stones prepared may have been quarried in that area, for the bedrock of Jerusalem itself is easily cut and chiseled to size and shape, yet, upon exposure to the weather, hardens into durable and attractive building stones. There is evidence of an ancient quarry near the present Damascus Gate, vast quantities of rock having been cut out there in the course of time.

A further view of the layout of the terrain around Jerusalem, this time to the E and S, is given in the account of the anointing of Solomon by order of aged King David. Another son, Adonijah, was at the spring of En-rogel, plotting to seize the kingship, when Solomon was anointed at the spring of Gihon. The distance between the two points was short enough (c. 700 m; 2,300 ft) that Adonijah and his coconspirators heard the noise of the horn and celebrations at Gihon.—1Ki 1:5-9, 32-41.

Solomon’s reign saw considerable building (and perhaps rebuilding) done within the city and expansion of its limits. (1Ki 3:1; 9:15-19, 24; 11:27; compare Ec 2:3-6, 9.) The temple, his outstanding construction work, with its associated courtyards was built on Mount Moriah on the eastern ridge but N of “the City of David,” evidently in the area of the present-day Dome of the Rock. (2Ch 3:1; 1Ki 6:37, 38; 7:12) Other major buildings nearby were Solomon’s own house or palace, the cedarwood House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, and the judicial Porch of the Throne. (1Ki 7:1-8) This building complex was apparently situated S of the temple on the gradual slope running down toward “the City of David.”—MAP, Vol. 1, p. 752; PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 748.

Divided Kingdom (997-607 B.C.E.). Jeroboam’s rebellion split the nation into two kingdoms, and Jerusalem was left as the capital of two tribes, Benjamin and Judah, under Solomon’s son Rehoboam. Levites and priests also moved to the city where Jehovah’s name rested, thereby strengthening Rehoboam’s kingship. (2Ch 11:1-17) Jerusalem was now no longer at the geographic center of the kingdom, being only a few miles from the border of the hostile northern ten-tribe kingdom. Within five years of Solomon’s death, the city experienced the first of a number of invasions. King Shishak of Egypt attacked the kingdom of Judah, doubtless viewing it as vulnerable in its reduced state. Because of national unfaithfulness, he succeeded in entering Jerusalem, carrying off temple treasures and other valuables. Only because of repentance was a measure of divine protection granted, preventing actual ruin to the city.—1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:2-12.

During faithful King Asa’s reign, King Baasha of the northern kingdom made an unsuccessful attempt to build up strength on Judah’s northern frontier in order to seal it off and prevent communication with Jerusalem (and possibly expressions of loyalty to the Judean kingdom by any of his subjects). (1Ki 15:17-22) The continuance of pure worship under the rule of Asa’s son Jehoshaphat brought divine protection and great benefits to the city, including improved provisions for the handling of legal cases.—2Ch 19:8-11; 20:1, 22, 23, 27-30.

Throughout the remainder of Jerusalem’s history as the capital of the Judean kingdom, this pattern continued. True worship brought Jehovah’s blessing and protection; apostasy led to grave problems and vulnerability to attack. The reign of Jehoshaphat’s unfaithful son Jehoram (913-c. 907 B.C.E.) saw the city invaded and looted a second time by an Arab-Philistine combine, this despite the strong defense walls. (2Ch 21:12-17) In the next century the deflection from a righteous course by King Jehoash resulted in Syrian forces ‘beginning to invade Judah and Jerusalem,’ the context implying that they were successful in entering the city. (2Ch 24:20-25) During Amaziah’s apostasy the northern kingdom of Israel invaded Judah, and broke down about 178 m (584 ft) of the vital northern wall between the Corner Gate (in the NW corner) and the Ephraim Gate (to the E of the Corner Gate). (2Ch 25:22-24) It is possible that, at some point prior to this, the city had expanded across the central valley onto the western ridge.

King Uzziah (829-778 B.C.E.) made notable additions to the city’s defenses, fortifying the (NW) Corner Gate and the Valley Gate (at the SW corner) with towers, as well as a tower at “the Buttress” (“the Angle,” RS, JB; “the Turning,” JP), apparently some part of the eastern wall not far from the royal buildings, either those of David or of Solomon. (2Ch 26:9; Ne 3:24, 25) Uzziah also equipped the towers and corners with “engines of war,” perhaps mechanical catapults for shooting arrows and large stones. (2Ch 26:14, 15) His son Jotham continued the building program.—2Ch 27:3, 4.

Faithful King Hezekiah, ruling after his father, the apostate Ahaz, did cleansing and repair work in the temple area and arranged a great Passover celebration that drew worshipers to Jerusalem from all over the land, the northern kingdom included. (2Ch 29:1-5, 18, 19; 30:1, 10-26) This stimulus for true worship, however, was soon followed by attack from pagan quarters, mockers of the true God whose name rested on Jerusalem. In 732 B.C.E., eight years after Assyria’s conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel, Assyrian King Sennacherib made a scythelike sweep through Palestine, diverting some troops to threaten Jerusalem. (2Ch 32:1, 9) Hezekiah had readied the city for a siege. He stopped up the water sources outside the city to hide them and make things difficult for the enemy, strengthened the walls, and fortified them. (2Ch 32:2-5, 27-30) It would seem that “the conduit” for bringing water into the city from the spring of Gihon was already constructed at this time, possibly being a peacetime project. (2Ki 20:20; 2Ch 32:30) If, as believed, it was the conduit that includes the tunnel cut through the side of the Kidron Valley with its termination at the Pool of Siloam in the Tyropoeon Valley, then it was no minor project to be completed in a few days. (See ARCHAEOLOGY [Palestine and Syria]; GIHON No. 2.) At any rate, the city’s strength lay not in its defensive systems and supplies but in the protective power of Jehovah God, who said: “And I shall certainly defend this city to save it for my own sake and for the sake of David my servant.” (2Ki 19:32-34) The miraculous destruction of 185,000 Assyrian troops sent Sennacherib scurrying back to Assyria. (2Ki 19:35, 36) When the campaign account was recorded in the Assyrian annals, it boasted of Sennacherib’s shutting Hezekiah up inside Jerusalem like a ‘bird in a cage,’ but it made no claim of capturing the city.—See SENNACHERIB.

The reign of Manasseh (716-662 B.C.E.) brought further wall construction along the Kidron Valley. It also saw the nation drift farther from true worship. (2Ch 33:1-9, 14) His grandson Josiah temporarily reversed this decline, and during his rule the Valley of Hinnom, used by idolatrous persons for vile ceremonies, was “made unfit for worship,” likely desecrated by being made into a city garbage dump. (2Ki 23:10; 2Ch 33:6) “The Gate of the Ash-heaps” apparently opened out onto this valley. (Ne 3:13, 14; see GEHENNA; HINNOM, VALLEY OF.) During Josiah’s time “the second quarter” (“the new town,” JB) of the city receives initial mention. (2Ki 22:14; 2Ch 34:22) This “second quarter” is generally understood to be the section of the city lying W or NW of the temple area.—Zep 1:10.

After Josiah’s death, the situation deteriorated rapidly for Jerusalem, as four unfaithful kings followed each other in succession. In King Jehoiakim’s eighth year Judah came into vassalage to Babylon. Jehoiakim’s revolt three years later provoked a successful Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, after which the city’s treasures were looted and the then king, Jehoiachin, and other citizens were deported. (2Ki 24:1-16; 2Ch 36:5-10) Babylon’s appointee, King Zedekiah, tried to throw off the Babylonian yoke, and in his ninth year (609 B.C.E.) Jerusalem again came under siege. (2Ki 24:17-20; 25:1; 2Ch 36:11-14) An Egyptian military force sent to relieve Jerusalem succeeded in drawing off the besiegers only temporarily. (Jer 37:5-10) True to Jehovah’s prophecy through Jeremiah, the Babylonians returned and renewed the siege. (Jer 34:1, 21, 22; 52:5-11) Jeremiah spent the latter part of the siege imprisoned in “the Courtyard of the Guard” (Jer 32:2; 38:28), connected with “the King’s House.” (Ne 3:25) Finally, 18 months from the start of the siege with its accompanying starvation, disease, and death, the walls of Jerusalem were breached, in Zedekiah’s 11th year, and the city was taken.—2Ki 25:2-4; Jer 39:1-3.

Desolation and Restoration. The city walls were breached on Tammuz 9, 607 B.C.E. A month later, on Ab 10, Nebuchadnezzar’s agent, Nebuzaradan, entered the conquered city and began demolition work, burning the temple and other buildings and proceeding to pull down the city walls. Jerusalem’s king and most of her people were exiled to Babylon and her treasures were carried away as plunder.—2Ki 25:7-17; 2Ch 36:17-20; Jer 52:12-20; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 326.

The statement by archaeologist Conder that “the history of the ruined city remains a blank until Cyrus” is true not only of Jerusalem but also of the entire realm of the kingdom of Judah. Unlike the Assyrians, the Babylonian king moved no replacement peoples into the conquered region. A period of 70 years of desolation set in, even as prophesied.—Jer 25:11; 2Ch 36:21.

In “the first year” (evidently as ruler over Babylon) of Cyrus the Persian (538 B.C.E.) the royal decree went forth freeing the exiled Jews to “go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel.” (Ezr 1:1-4) The people who made the long trip to Jerusalem, carrying temple treasures with them, included 42,360 males, besides slaves and professional singers. They arrived in time to celebrate the Festival of Booths in Tishri (September-October) 537 B.C.E. (Ezr 2:64, 65; 3:1-4) Temple rebuilding got under way under Governor Zerubbabel’s direction and, after serious interference and the infiltration of some apathy among the returned Jews, was finally completed by March of 515 B.C.E. More exiles returned with priest-scribe Ezra in 468 B.C.E., bringing additional things “to beautify the house of Jehovah, which is in Jerusalem” (Ezr 7:27), this by authorization of King Artaxerxes (Longimanus). The treasures brought by them were evidently worth more than $43,000,000.—Ezr 8:25-27.

About a century and a half after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest, the walls and gates of the city were still broken down. Nehemiah obtained permission from Artaxerxes to go to Jerusalem and remedy this situation. (Ne 2:1-8) The account that follows of Nehemiah’s nighttime survey and of his apportioning the construction work to different family groups is a major source of information about the layout of the city at that time, especially of its gates. (Ne 2:11-15; 3:1-32; see GATE, GATEWAY.) This rebuilding was in fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy and established the year that marked the start of the 70 prophetic “weeks” involving the coming of the Messiah. (Da 9:24-27) Despite harassment, in the short space of 52 days, in the year 455 B.C.E., they ringed Jerusalem with a wall and gates.—Ne 4:1-23; 6:15; 7:1; see SEVENTY WEEKS (“The Going Forth of the Word”).

Jerusalem was now “wide and great, [but] there were few people inside it.” (Ne 7:4) Following the public reading of Scriptures and celebrations in “the public square that was before the Water Gate” on the E side of the city (Ne 3:26; 8:1-18), arrangements were made to build up the city’s population by bringing in one Israelite out of every ten to dwell there. This was done by casting lots, but additionally there were evidently volunteers. (Ne 11:1, 2) A spiritual cleansing work was done to put the city’s population on a sound foundation as regards true worship. (Ne 12:47–13:3) Nehemiah’s governorship lasted 12 years or more and embraced a trip to the Persian king’s court. Upon his return to Jerusalem, he found need for further cleansing. (Ne 13:4-31) With the vigorous rooting out of apostasy he effected, the record of the Hebrew Scriptures closes, sometime after the year 443 B.C.E.

Hellenic and Maccabean Control. The changeover from Medo-Persian to Greek control came in 332 B.C.E. when Alexander the Great marched through Judah. The Greek historians make no mention of Alexander’s entry into Jerusalem. Yet the city did come under Greek dominion, and it is reasonable to assume that it was not completely bypassed by Alexander. Josephus, in the first century C.E., records the Jewish tradition that, upon approaching Jerusalem, Alexander was met by the Jewish high priest and was shown the divinely inspired prophecies recorded by Daniel foretelling the lightning conquests by Greece. (Jewish Antiquities, XI, 326-338 [viii, 4, 5]; Da 8:5-7, 20, 21) Whatever the case, Jerusalem seems to have survived the change in control free of any damage.

Following Alexander’s death, Jerusalem and Judea came under the control of the Ptolemies, who ruled out of Egypt. In 198 B.C.E. Antiochus the Great, ruling in Syria, after taking the fortified city of Sidon, captured Jerusalem, and Judea became a dominion of the Seleucid Empire. (Compare Da 11:16.) Jerusalem lay under Seleucid rule for 30 years. Then, in the year 168 B.C.E., Syrian King Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), in his attempt to Hellenize completely the Jews, dedicated Jerusalem’s temple to Zeus (Jupiter) and profaned the altar by an unclean sacrifice. (1 Maccabees 1:57, 62; 2 Maccabees 6:1, 2, 5; PICTURES, Vol. 2, p. 335) This led to the Maccabean (or Hasmonaean) revolt. After a three-year struggle, Judas Maccabaeus gained control of the city and temple and rededicated Jehovah’s altar to true worship on the anniversary of its profanation, Chislev 25, 165 B.C.E.—1 Maccabees 4:52-54; 2 Maccabees 10:5; compare Joh 10:22.

The war against the Seleucid rulers had not ended. The Jews appealed to Rome for help and thus a new power came on the Jerusalem scene in about 160 B.C.E. (1 Maccabees 8:17, 18) Now Jerusalem began to come under the influence of the expanding Roman Empire. About 142 B.C.E., Simon Maccabaeus was able to make Jerusalem the capital of a region ostensibly free from subservience to or taxation by Gentile nations. Aristobulus I, Jerusalem’s high priest, even assumed the title of king in 104 B.C.E. He was not, however, of the Davidic line.

Jerusalem was no ‘city of peace’ during this period. Internal quarrels, fired by selfish ambitions and worsened by rival religious factions—Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, and others—gravely weakened the city. A violent quarrel between Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus resulted in Rome’s being called on to arbitrate the dispute. Under General Pompey, Roman forces besieged Jerusalem in 63 B.C.E. for three months in order to enter the city and settle the dispute. Twelve thousand Jews reportedly died, many at the hands of fellow Israelites.

It is in Josephus’ account of Pompey’s conquest that the archway across the Tyropoeon Valley is first mentioned. It served as a link between the eastern and western halves of the city and gave those on the western half direct access to the temple area.

The Idumean Antipater (II) was now installed as Roman governor for Judea, a Maccabean being left as high priest and local ethnarch in Jerusalem. Later, Antipater’s son Herod (the Great) was appointed by Rome as “king” over Judea. He did not get control of Jerusalem until 37 or 36 B.C.E., from which date his rule effectively began.

Under Herod the Great. Herod’s rule was marked by an ambitious building program, and the city enjoyed considerable prosperity. A theater, gymnasium, and hippodrome (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 535), as well as other public buildings, were added. Herod also built a well-fortified royal palace (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 538), evidently on the W side of the city S of the present-day Jaffa Gate, where archaeologists believe they have found the foundation of one of the towers. Another fortress, the Tower of Antonia, lay near the temple and was connected with it by a passageway. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 535; Jewish Antiquities, XV, 424 [xi, 7]) The Roman garrison could thus gain quick access to the temple area, as likely occurred when soldiers rescued Paul from a mob there.—Ac 21:31, 32.

Herod’s greatest work, however, was the reconstruction of the temple and its building complex. Beginning in his 18th year (Jewish Antiquities, XV, 380 [xi, 1]), the holy house itself was completed in a year and a half, but the work on the adjoining buildings and courtyards went on long after his death. (Joh 2:20) The total area encompassed was about double that of the previous temple area. Part of the wall of the temple courtyard apparently still stands, known today as the Western Wall, or the Wailing Wall. Archaeologists date the lower courses of huge 0.9-m-high (3 ft) blocks as from Herod’s construction.

From 2 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. The Christian Greek Scriptures now carry forward the description of events involving Jerusalem. Jesus’ birth took place, not at Jerusalem, but at nearby Bethlehem, “David’s city.” (Lu 2:10, 11) Nevertheless, the astrologers’ later report about the birth of the “king of the Jews” caused Herod and “all Jerusalem along with him” to become agitated. (Mt 2:1-3) Shortly after issuing his infamous decree ordering the killing of Bethlehem’s babes, Herod died, evidently in the year 1 B.C.E. (See HEROD No. 1.) His son Archelaus inherited rulership over Jerusalem and Judea as well as other areas. Rome later removed Archelaus for misdemeanors; thereafter governors who were directly appointed by Rome ruled, as did Pontius Pilate during Jesus’ ministry.—Lu 3:1.

Jesus was taken to Jerusalem 40 days after birth and presented at the temple as Mary’s firstborn. Aged Simeon and Anna rejoiced at seeing the promised Messiah, and Anna spoke of him “to all those waiting for Jerusalem’s deliverance.” (Lu 2:21-38; compare Le 12:2-4.) How many other times he was taken to Jerusalem during his childhood years is not stated, only one visit, made when he was 12, being specifically recorded. He then engaged in a discussion with teachers in the temple area, thus being occupied in the ‘house of his Father,’ in the chosen city of his Father.—Lu 2:41-49.

After his baptism and during his three-and-a-half-year ministry Jesus periodically visited Jerusalem; he certainly was there for the three annual festivals, attendance at which was obligatory for all Jewish males. (Ex 23:14-17) Much of his time, however, was spent outside the capital, as he preached and taught in Galilee and other regions of the land.

Aside from the temple area, where Jesus frequently taught, few other specific points in the city are mentioned in connection with his ministry. The Pool of Bethzatha with its five colonnades (Joh 5:2) is thought to be the one that was unearthed just N of the temple area. (See BETHZATHA.) The Pool of Siloam is located on a slope of the southern part of the eastern ridge, receiving its water from the spring of Gihon through the conduit and tunnel attributed to Hezekiah. (Joh 9:11; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 949) It is with regard to Jesus’ final visit to Jerusalem that a more detailed picture is given.—MAP, Vol. 2, p. 742; PICTURES, Vol. 2, p. 743.

Six days prior to the Passover festival of 33 C.E., Jesus came to Bethany, on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. The next day, Nisan 9, as Jehovah’s anointed King, he approached the capital city, mounted on the colt of an ass, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. (Mt 21:1-9) Coming down the Mount of Olives, he paused to view the city and wept over it, graphically foretelling the coming siege and desolation it would undergo. (Lu 19:37-44) Upon his entering the city, likely through a gate in the eastern wall, the whole city was “set in commotion,” for news would spread quickly throughout the relatively small area.—Mt 21:10.

During the remaining time, in which he spent the days in Jerusalem and the nights in Bethany (Lu 21:37, 38), Jesus cleansed the temple area of commercialists (Mt 21:12, 13), as he had done some three years earlier. (Joh 2:13-16) On Nisan 11 he was with four of his disciples on the Mount of Olives, from which the city and its temple could be viewed, when he gave his great prophecy regarding Jerusalem’s coming destruction and “the conclusion of the system of things,” as well as of his presence. (Mt 24; Mr 13; Lu 21) On Nisan 13 Peter and John arranged for the Passover meal in an upper room in Jerusalem where, that evening (the start of Nisan 14), Jesus celebrated the meal with his apostles. After his discussion with them, they left the city, crossed “the winter torrent of Kidron,” and climbed the slopes of the Mount of Olives to the garden called Gethsemane. (Mt 26:36; Lu 22:39; Joh 18:1, 2) Gethsemane means “Oil Press,” and olive trees of great age are yet to be found on the slope. But the exact location of the garden is today a matter of conjecture.—See GETHSEMANE.

Arrested that night, Jesus was led back into Jerusalem to priests Annas and Caiaphas and to the Sanhedrin hall for trial. (Mt 26:57–27:1; Joh 18:13-27) From there, at dawn, he was taken to Pilate at “the governor’s palace” (Mt 27:2; Mr 15:1, 16) and then to Herod Antipas, who was also in Jerusalem at that time. (Lu 23:6, 7) Finally, he was returned to Pilate for final judgment at “The Stone Pavement,” called “Gabʹba·tha” in Hebrew.—Lu 23:11; Joh 19:13; see STONE PAVEMENT.

Golgotha, meaning “Skull [Place],” was the site of Jesus’ impalement. (Mt 27:33-35; Lu 23:33) Though it obviously lay outside the city walls, probably toward the N, the site cannot now be identified with certainty. (See GOLGOTHA.) The same is true of the site of Jesus’ burial.—PICTURES, Vol. 2, p. 948.

“The potter’s field to bury strangers,” purchased with the bribe money Judas threw back to the priests (Mt 27:5-7), is traditionally identified with a site on the S side of the Hinnom Valley near its junction with the Kidron. Many tombs are found in this area.—See AKELDAMA.

During the apostolic period. Following his resurrection, Jesus gave orders to his disciples not to leave Jerusalem at that time. (Lu 24:49; Ac 1:4) This was to be the starting point for preaching repentance for forgiveness of sins on the basis of Christ’s name. (Lu 24:46-48) Ten days after his ascension to heaven, the disciples, gathered together in an upper room, received the anointing by holy spirit. (Ac 1:13, 14; 2:1-4) Jerusalem was crowded with Jews and proselytes from all parts of the Roman Empire, in attendance at the Festival of Pentecost. The witnessing done by the spirit-filled Christians resulted in thousands becoming baptized disciples. With thousands bearing witness to their faith, it is no wonder the angry religious leaders cried: “Look! you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching.” (Ac 5:28) Miracles performed added power to the testimony, as, for example, the healing of the lame beggar at “the temple door that was called Beautiful,” likely the E gate of the Court of Women.—Ac 3:2, 6, 7.

Even after the witnessing began to spread out from Jerusalem to “Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth” (Ac 1:8), Jerusalem continued to be the location of the governing body of the Christian congregation. Persecution early caused ‘all except the apostles to be scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria.’ (Ac 8:1; compare Ga 1:17-19; 2:1-9.) From Jerusalem, certain apostles and disciples were sent out to aid new groups of believers, as at Samaria. (Ac 8:14; 11:19-22, 27) Saul of Tarsus (Paul) soon found it advisable to cut short his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian because of attempts to murder him. (Ac 9:26-30) But there were also periods of calm. (Ac 9:31) Here Peter reported to the Christian assembly about God’s acceptance of Gentile believers and here, too, the issue of circumcision and related matters were settled.—Ac 11:1-4, 18; 15:1, 2, 22-29; Ga 2:1, 2.

Jesus had called Jerusalem “the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent forth to her.” (Mt 23:37; compare vss 34-36.) Though many of her citizens showed faith in God’s Son, the city as a whole continued to follow the pattern of the past. For this, ‘her house was abandoned to her.’ (Mt 23:38) In 66 C.E. a Jewish revolt brought Roman forces under Cestius Gallus to the city, surrounding it and making a thrust right up to the temple walls. Suddenly Cestius Gallus withdrew for no apparent reason. This allowed Christians to put into action Jesus’ instructions: “Then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of [Jerusalem] withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her.” (Lu 21:20-22) Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (III, V, 3), states that the Christians fled from Jerusalem and the whole land of Judea to a city of Perea that was called Pella.

Jerusalem’s relief as a result of the Roman withdrawal was short-lived, as it had been when the Babylonians temporarily withdrew to deal with the Egyptians near the end of King Zedekiah’s reign. Under General Titus the Roman forces returned in 70 C.E. in increased numbers and laid siege to the city, now crowded with Passover celebrants. Siege banks were thrown up by the Romans, and a continuous wall or fence was erected around the entire city to prevent escape by day or night. This, too, fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy. (Lu 19:43) Within the city rival factions quarreled and fought, much of the food supply was destroyed, and those caught attempting to leave the city were slain as traitors. Josephus, the source of this information, relates that in time the famine became so grave that the people were reduced to eating wisps of hay and leather, even their own children. (Compare La 2:11, 12, 19, 20; De 28:56, 57.) Titus’ offers of peace were consistently rejected by the stubborn city leaders.

Eventually the walls were systematically breached by the Romans, and their troops invaded the city. (PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 752) Despite orders to the contrary, the temple was burned and gutted. According to Josephus, this took place on the anniversary of Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the first temple centuries earlier. His account also states that the repository of the archives, housing the genealogical records of tribal and family descent and inheritance rights, was put to the fire. (The Jewish War, VI, 250, 251 [iv, 5]; II, 426-428 [xvii, 6]; VI, 354 [vi, 3]) Thus, the legal means for establishing the lineage of members of the Messianic tribe of Judah and the priestly tribe of Levi came to an end.

In just 4 months and 25 days, from April 3 to August 30, 70 C.E., the conquest had been effected. Thus, the tribulation, though intense, was remarkably short. The unreasoning attitude and actions of the Jews within the city doubtless contributed to this shortness. Though Josephus puts the number of dead at 1,100,000, there were survivors. Ninety-seven thousand captives were taken, many of whom were sent as slaves to Egypt or were killed by sword or beasts in the theaters of the Roman provinces. This, too, fulfilled divine prophecy.—De 28:68.

The entire city was demolished, with only the towers of Herod’s palace and a portion of the western wall left standing as evidence to later generations of the defensive strength that had availed nothing. Josephus remarks that, apart from these remnants, “the rest of the wall encompassing the city was so completely levelled to the ground as to leave future visitors to the spot no ground for believing that it had ever been inhabited.” (The Jewish War, VII, 3 [i, 1]) A relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome depicts Roman soldiers carrying off sacred vessels of the ruined temple.—Compare Mt 24:2; PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 752.

Later Periods. Jerusalem remained virtually desolate until about 130 C.E., when Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of a new city, named Aelia Capitolina. This provoked a Jewish revolt by Bar Kokhba (132-135 C.E.), which succeeded for a time but was then crushed. Jews were not allowed in the Roman-built city for nearly two centuries. In the fourth century, Constantine the Great’s mother Helena visited Jerusalem and began the identification of the many so-called holy sites and shrines. Later the Muslims captured the city. Today there are two Islamic structures on the Temple Mount. Late in the seventh century Caliph ʽAbd al-Malik ibn Marwan built the Dome of the Rock on or near the temple site. Although also called a mosque, it is in reality a shrine. South of the Dome of the Rock is the el-Aqsa mosque, first constructed in the eighth century, but largely rebuilt in the eleventh century.

For further information concerning geographic locations related to Jerusalem, see such articles as: EN-ROGEL; KIDRON, TORRENT VALLEY OF; MAKTESH; OLIVES, MOUNT OF; OPHEL; TEMPLE; and ZION.

The City’s Significance. Jerusalem was far more than the capital of an earthly nation. It was the only city in all the earth upon which Jehovah God placed his name. (1Ki 11:36) After the ark of the covenant, associated with God’s presence, was transferred there, and even more so when the temple sanctuary, or house of God, was constructed there, Jerusalem became Jehovah’s figurative ‘residence,’ his “resting-place.” (Ps 78:68, 69; 132:13, 14; 135:21; compare 2Sa 7:1-7, 12, 13.) Because the kings of the Davidic line were God’s anointed, sitting upon “Jehovah’s throne” (1Ch 29:23; Ps 122:3-5), Jerusalem itself was also called “the throne of Jehovah”; and those tribes or nations turning to it in recognition of God’s sovereignty were, in effect, being congregated to the name of Jehovah. (Jer 3:17; Ps 122:1-4; Isa 27:13) Those hostile to or fighting against Jerusalem were, in actuality, opposing the expression of God’s sovereignty. This was certain to occur, in view of the prophetic statement at Genesis 3:15.

Jerusalem therefore represented the seat of the divinely constituted government or typical kingdom of God. From it went forth God’s law, his word, and his blessing. (Mic 4:2; Ps 128:5) Those working for Jerusalem’s peace and its good were therefore working for the success of God’s righteous purpose, the prospering of his will. (Ps 122:6-9) Though situated among Judah’s mountains and doubtless of impressive appearance, Jerusalem’s true loftiness and beauty came from the way in which Jehovah God had honored and glorified it, that it might serve as “a crown of beauty” for him.—Ps 48:1-3, 11-14; 50:2; Isa 62:1-7.

Since Jehovah’s praise and his will are effected primarily by his intelligent creatures, it was not the buildings forming the city that determined his continued use of the city but the people in it, rulers and ruled, priests and people. (Ps 102:18-22; Isa 26:1, 2) While these were faithful, honoring Jehovah’s name by their words and life course, he blessed and defended Jerusalem. (Ps 125:1, 2; Isa 31:4, 5) Jehovah’s disfavor soon came upon the people and their kings because of the apostate course the majority followed. For this reason Jehovah declared his purpose to reject the city that had borne his name. (2Ki 21:12-15; 23:27) He would remove “support and stay” from the city, resulting in its becoming filled with tyranny, with juvenile delinquency, with disrespect for men in honorable positions; Jerusalem would suffer abasement and severe humiliation. (Isa 3:1-8, 16-26) Even though Jehovah God restored the city 70 years after permitting its destruction by Babylon, making it again beautiful as the joyful center of true worship in the earth (Isa 52:1-9; 65:17-19), the people and their leaders reverted to their apostate course once more.

Jehovah preserved the city until the sending of his Son to earth. It had to be there for the Messianic prophecies to be fulfilled. (Isa 28:16; 52:7; Zec 9:9) Israel’s apostate course was climaxed in the impalement of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. (Compare Mt 21:33-41.) Taking place as it did at Jerusalem, instigated by the nation’s leaders with popular support, this made certain God’s complete and irreversible rejection of the city as representing him and bearing his name. (Compare Mt 16:21; Lu 13:33-35.) Neither Jesus nor his apostles foretold any restoration by God of earthly Jerusalem and its temple to come after the city’s divinely decreed destruction, which occurred in 70 C.E.

Yet the name Jerusalem continued to be used as symbolic of something greater than the earthly city. The apostle Paul, by divine inspiration, revealed that there is a “Jerusalem above,” which he speaks of as the “mother” of anointed Christians. (Ga 4:25, 26) This places the “Jerusalem above” in the position of a wife to Jehovah God the great Father and Life-Giver. When earthly Jerusalem was used as the chief city of God’s chosen nation, it, too, was spoken of as a woman, married to God, being tied to him by holy bonds in a covenant relationship. (Isa 51:17, 21, 22; 54:1, 5; 60:1, 14) It thus stood for, or was representative of, the entire congregation of God’s human servants. “Jerusalem above” must therefore represent the entire congregation of Jehovah’s loyal spirit servants.

New Jerusalem. In the inspired Revelation, the apostle John records information concerning the “new Jerusalem.” (Re 3:12) In vision John sees this “holy city” as “coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” This is in relation to the vision he sees of “a new heaven and a new earth.” This “bride” was said to be “the Lamb’s wife.” (Re 21:1-3, 9-27) Other apostolic writings apply the same figure to the Christian congregation of anointed ones. (2Co 11:2; Eph 5:21-32) In Revelation chapter 14 “the Lamb” Christ Jesus is depicted as standing on Mount Zion, a name also associated with Jerusalem (compare 1Pe 2:6), and with him are 144,000 having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.—Re 14:1-5; see NEW JERUSALEM.

Unfaithful Jerusalem. Since much that is said concerning Jerusalem in the Scriptures is in condemnation of her, it is clear that only when faithful did Jerusalem symbolize Jehovah’s heavenly organization and, at times, the true Christian congregation, “the Israel of God.” (Ga 6:16) When unfaithful, it was pictured as a prostitute and an adulterous woman; it became like the pagan Amorites and Hittites that once controlled the city. (Eze 16:3, 15, 30-42) As such, it could only represent apostates, those following a ‘prostitute’ course of infidelity to the God whose name they claim to bear.—Jas 4:4.

It can thus be seen that “Jerusalem” is used in a multiple sense, and the context must in each case be considered to gain correct understanding.—See APPOINTED TIMES OF THE NATIONS.