The Christian Traveler's Guide to the Holy Land

I have personally organized 20 different trips to Israel, Jordan, and Turkey/Greece/Italy. I have to say, this is a great reference book for anyone who is traveling to any of these countries. Since 2009, I have stressed to my travelers (700+) that they need to do some homework before they go or they will be overwhelmed with the information they will get on my 13-day Israel trip or 19-day Paul trip. But having a book like this along that talks about some of the key places is important. Perhaps the book tries to bite off too much, because I could see other things that could have been done for the most popular holy land site, Israel. Still, I recommend having a book like this, with color photographs and charts, along on the bus to remember what was studied and learn the importance of the next site you are driving to. I recommend you pick it up.

This book is much better than expected - with far more history and geographical information. Thanks so much!

This is a beautiful and handy little book! I can’t wait to use it for my trip!

I'm travelling with friends this year. This book while not covering everything was small, easy to read, and a good beginning look at the places I will visit. Since good travelers need to look at more than one source this is a good start.

Dyer’s publication is well-polished and a fine presentation, but you can’t judge a book by how shiny it is; all that glitters is not gold. It does have good pictures, maps, and illustrations. Unfortunately, it also uses commonly misidentified chief shrines for Biblical events. There are some major misidentified tourist traps in modern Jerusalem with the chief shrines one should be aware of that this publication points you to for a blind visit. Beware of tour misguides and travel misguides.The authors, Dyer / Hatteberg (and many others), for example have the location of Jesus’ Crucifixion in the western part of the city of Jerusalem at the Church of the alleged “Holy Sepulchre,” west of the Temple. See the pictures and illustrations on pages 104, 107. And, page 104 points to another location in the west, “The Garden Tomb, one of two possible locations where Jesus was buried.” Yet, Dyer admits in his related book the Garden Tomb is not the real location for Jesus’ burial/crucifixion, and refuses to point out the obvious tourist trap: “.. the Garden Tomb offers everything Protestant Christians want when they think about the events connected with Jesus’ death and resurrection … My head tells me the events happened at the other site ..” ( - Experiencing the Land of the Book, 2022, page 493; by Charles Dyer). And, page 107 has a diagram showing Calvary at the alleged “Holy Sepulchre” Church. But, in the Bible sacrifices were done in front of the Temple (1 Kings 8:62, 64; Tabernacle – Exod. 40:26-9; Lev. 16:18; 17:4), which faced east (Ezek. 47:1; Num. 3:38); the Roman soldiers at the Crucifixion were seeing the front of the Temple – “the veil of the temple was torn in two … the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw .. the things that had happened” (Matt. 27:51, 54). Meaning the Crucifixion was in the east across the front of the Temple (across Kidron Valley), modern Silwan Village; this eliminates the western “Holy Sepulchre” Church and northwestern Gordon’s Calvary/Garden Tomb for the location of the Crucifixion – they are on the west/northwest side of the city and Temple. And, the tomb at the Garden Tomb was not new at the time of Jesus, it dates to at least the 6th century BC, while the Bible says “laid it in his new tomb … where no one had ever lain before” (Mat. 27:60 with Luke 23:53; John 19:41). Jesus’ tomb was near the crucifixion (John 19:41-2), but the supposed “Holy Sepulchre” Church is on the other side of the city from Temple east, not nearby. Criminal punishments appear to have also been in front of the sacred structure (Num. 5:16-17; 16:43-5; Lev. 10:1, 2, 4). This would also put the Garden of Gethsemane further south along the Mount of Olives (Mat. 24:1-3) – the Mishnah explains the heifer (Hebrews 9:13; 13:11-12) was sacrificed on the Mount of Olives as the priest looked at the entrance of the Temple (Middoth 2:4; 1:3). The misnamed “Temple Mount” appears to be oriented facing the south – that’s where the staircase is, on the south side.Page 107 has a diagram showing Solomon’s Temple on the Temple Mount. But, if you think about it, wouldn’t the Temple be in the Holy City? It’s the Holy City! At the Temple dedication, 1 Kings 8:1 says the City of David is the Holy City or political and religious capital (Zion) (also 2 Sam 5:7; 2 Chron. 5:2), which is the original walled Jerusalem before Jerusalem expanded to the later size (2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Chron. 11:4, 5, 7, 8); the City of David is in the southeast corner of modern Jerusalem. The problem is that the misnamed Temple Mount is not in the Holy City, it’s about 600 feet away from the City of David (this would also mean the popular location for Mount Moriah is misidentified). Archaeologist Eli Shukron, Director of Excavations at the City of David, found bronze Roman coins underground somewhat near the Western Wall at a supposed “Herodian” level; the coins date to c. AD 20 and were of Valerius Gratus a Prefect under Tiberius Caesar (AD 15-26), which means governor Herod (died 4 BC) did not build the Western Wall as is commonly stated; Herod’s Temple is not at the Temple Mount. Also, Josephus points to the Lower City when mentioning the Temple, describing a valley that used to be there but was filled in to connect the city and temple. The “Temple Mount” is not in the Lower City, but the City of David is. Josephus states in part: “But the other hill, which was called ‘Acra’ and sustains the lower city, … near to this there was a third hill, but naturally lower than Acra, and parted formerly from the other by a broad valley. However, … they filled up that valley with earth, and had a mind to join the city to the temple” (Jewish Wars, 5.4.1 [137-9]; The New Complete Works of Josephus, 1999 Kregel, pages 851-2; by Paul Maier).There are several clues in the Bible that the Temple was in the City of David. As the Holy City, the City of David seems to be the place for holy buildings (-notice the holy correlation). The Ark of the Covenant was put into a Tabernacle in the City of David before Temple construction (1 Chron. 15:1, 25, 29; 16:1; 1 Kings 8:4), and then placed into the Temple when it was completed (1 Kings 8:6, 21) – the context for this event is the City of David in 1 Kings 8. Under Solomon (after the Temple, 2 Chron 7:11) the house for Solomon’s wife could be built in general Jerusalem since the ark did not reside there, but her house was not allowed in the City of David as that part was considered holy due to the ark’s presence (2 Chron 8:6, 11) – that’s where the ark was, in the Temple (1 Kings 8:20, 21). Outside the City of David her house could be built as the ark did not reside outside the City of David; the ark was in the City of David making the city holy – she was gentile. At that time the ark was in the Temple.Zion could be referred to as Jerusalem in general (Psalm 52:1) after the Temple, but specifically it was the City of David part of Jerusalem. Under David the ark rested in the City of David tent (2 Samuel 6:10, 12, 16, 17; 1 Chron 15:1); the ark was later removed and then ordered back “to Jerusalem” (2 Sam 15:25, 29), but that would have been specifically the City of David part of Jerusalem – that’s where the tent was it resided in, the City of David. So, the City of David could be referred to as Jerusalem (under David, before the Temple) even though it was just part of later, expanded Jerusalem. At the Temple dedication the City of David was distinctly referred to as Zion (1 Kings 8:1), and before the Temple was started (1 Chron 11:5). It was understood that Zion was specifically the City of David. Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? It’s the Holy City!The Jebusites appear to have inhabited the section of land defined as the City of David – also called Jerusalem – when David conquered them: “The inhabitants of Jebus said to David, ‘You will not come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David” (1 Chron 11:4; 2 Sam 5:4-7). Later, David built an altar where a Jebusite was – before Jerusalem expanded (1 Kings 9:15, 19; 2 Chron 8:6), and then Solomon built the Temple over that altar when he expanded Jerusalem (1 Chron 21:15, 16, 18, 28; 22:1; 2 Sam 24:16, 18, 25; 2 Chron 3:1). It appears Solomon built the Temple on the altar David built in the City of David.The end of Nehemiah 12 appears to have the praise choirs going to the City of David to stand in the house of God (verses 31, 37, 40), which is defined as the Temple (Neh. 6:10; 10:35; 13:9) (emphasis on: they went to the City of David to stand in the Temple). That praise choir was also by David’s palace (Neh. 12:37), which is in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Two praise choirs went up the stairs of the wall of the City of David (verse 37) – one choir goes in one direction on the City of David wall. In verse 38, the second choir goes in another direction “on the wall,” which was explained as the wall for the City of David in verse 37. The context for these events seems to be the City of David. The ESV reads “above the house of David” at verse 37, which was in the City of David (1 Chron. 15:1; 2 Chron. 8:11). Why would they go outside of the holy city (Zion) to be in the Temple (verse 40)? Shouldn’t the holy temple be in the holy city?But, what about at the Temple dedication when it says the ark was brought up from and out of the City of David and put into the Temple (1 Kings 8:1 -20)? Does that mean the Temple was not in the City of David? Since it was out of the City of David did it go up to the Temple Mount to reside in the Temple? Does the “bring up” refer to geographic elevation, which is where the Temple Mount would be? It doesn’t say it went “back down” to the City of David, so it must have went “up” to the Temple Mount (a geographic elevation), right? Actually, notice it says the Temple furnishings were brought up and out of the city for a celebration, including the ark of the covenant. The City of David is too small for such a large celebration and had to be brought out. After the celebration, where was the building it was put back into? It doesn’t specifically say, but the context for the celebration is the City of David (Zion). Why would you have the holy temple outside of the holy city (Zion)? And, notice the 2-step process, it went “up” and “out.” Yet, “bring up” may refer to a removal or taking out of, or emerge (the Hebrew term can mean “to lift,” see below), and not necessarily a geographic elevation. In Exodus 40:18, 33 the tabernacle was “raised up,” but that was about construction (also Num. 9:15; 10:17 – taken down). Notice 2 Samuel 6:2-4 where the ark was kept on a hill. It was brought “up” from the hill and placed into a house elsewhere (verses 10, 11), but it does not say the ark was taken “down” to the house after being brought “up” from the hill – it would have to go down the hill to get to the house. Then, the ark was “brought up” from the house and taken into the City of David (verse 12), but it does not say the ark was taken “down” to the City of David after being “brought up” from the house. 1 Chron 13:5 says they were to “bring the ark” from the hill (no elevation mentioned), so they went “up” (elevation) to the hill to “bring up” (remove) the ark (verse 6) into another house (verse 13), but it does not say the ark was taken “down” to the house after being brought up from the hill.I get the impression that “bring up” is just referring to the ark was gathered from its resting place – it was “brought up” off the floor - to go out of the city for the celebration (“bring up” wasn’t necessarily about going up to another ground to reside, but rather it’s just getting ready to move). Joshua 3:6 says “take up the ark” to cross a river. As noted above, the ark was brought “up” from locations without being described as going back down to where it was going. “Bring up” sounds like it is just referring to being gathered and readied for transport before leaving the city (or hill/house), and then it was taken out of the city (elevation unknown). For example, in 2 Sam 6:2, 3 the ark was brought up first (readied) and then carried out of the house; also 1 Chron 13:6, 7.The Interlinear Bible (2010 reprint) has the Hebrew term ala (or alah) for the words “bring up” in 1 Kings 8:1 and 2 Chron 5:2, but it’s not always about geographic elevation. “alah: A verb meaning to go up, to ascend, to take away, to lift, to offer. This Hebrew word carries with it the connotation of an upward motion” ( - The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament, 2003, page 834). “alah .. means to go up, to ascend, to take away, to lift” ( - AMG’s Comprehensive Dictionary of Old Testament Words, 2016, pages 751-2). “The verb ala describes the action of someone or something going in an upward direction. This action encompasses the movement of people, fire and smoke, sound, and various other objects” ( - The Baker Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, 2023, page 355). “alah, .. to ascend … used in a great variety of senses, primary and second., lit. and fig. … Alah means ‘to go up, ascend, offer up’ … the return from the Exile, which was a journey from north to south (Palestine), is described as a ‘going up’ (Ezra 2:1) .. Thus, the reference may not be so much to physically ‘going up,’ but to a figurative or spiritual ‘going up’ … Sometimes ‘go up’ means ‘placed,’ even when the direction is downward, as when placing a yoke upon an ox (Num. 19:2) or going to one’s grave (Job 5:26). This may be an illustration of how Hebrew verbs can sometimes mean their opposite” ( - The New Strong’s Expanded Dictionary of Bible Words, 2001, pages 712-3).“BRING DOWN … This word indicates to descend. It also means to deposit something at a location. It is used of putting down, depositing the vessels of the Temple in their proper places … also translated to carry, to place ..” ( - AMG’s Comprehensive Dictionary of Old Testament Words, 2016, page 151)The misnamed Temple Mount fits better as a Roman fortress, that’s why it’s higher than the Temple/City of David. The Roman arrogance that comes with Roman occupation would use it as a symbol of domination over the Jews – we’re elevated above your chief shrines, we’re better than you! A Roman fortress also explains why part of the “Temple Mount” wall still stands today (the Western Wall). Matthew 24:1, 2 says “the buildings [plural] of the temple” and “all these things” would be destroyed – notice the plural terms used, which sounds like more than just the Temple itself, but rather includes the courtyard or supporting structures. Mark 13:1, 2 says “what buildings [plural] are here .. Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another …” The Scripture says the sacred “buildings” (plural) of the Temple are to be destroyed, which sounds like the complex. Think about it – these are the chief shrines. Do you think the Roman army would have left part of the Temple area standing when they destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70? (-Mat. 24:1, 2) That would have given hope/encouragement to the Jews to rebuild. They would not have destroyed their own Roman building.Beware of the tourist traps and tour misguides!Recommend book: The Jerusalem Temple Mount Myth by Marilyn Sams (at Amazon)Recommend forthcoming DVD: A City Lost by Lester Wittenberger

Fantastic products. The book was well written with sections the covers just about everything you could possibly need.

I loved this book, I read it in a few days grasping all information and exact locations and destinations for the trip. I would highly recommend this book to anyone planning on going to Israel