Traveller Manifesto
11. Jerusalem - Today

Jerusalem – Today.

As one of the world’s premier centres for Jewish studies, the Hebrew University, and therefore some of Israel’s most notable academics, were deeply involved in the planning of a project that seemed audacious, even by the standards of Traveller missions. Partnered by scholars from the American Jewish University, they discussed the potential for a project they had dubbed ‘Israel Traveller’. Though only in the realm of theory, they knew that planning had to be initiated from as early as possible, despite it being doubtful that such a concept might not become a reality for quite some years. As they quarrelled and debated amongst themselves, there was the dawning realisation that any such mission might not offer the desired results.

Yet, thought Professor Cowen, did any Traveller Mission? Too many brave men had died, while the risky historical research projects continually produced results that seemed to fly in the face of conventional expectations. Sometimes it seemed the Gods of History used the Transporters to mock and laugh in their faces.

“Any such mission would not be developed to prove the Biblical and Tanakh accounts, but to replace out what actually happened,” he explained carefully. “Our ultimate goal would be to place Travellers into the time when David was king. As you know, the scriptures are our only source of information about King David. I know it’s a controversial topic, but no ancient inscription clearly mentions him as a person. In fact, despite the publicity to the contrary, no archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him. The quest for the historical David, therefore, is primarily exegetical. No matter what anyone believes, we can’t yet prove anything. Can’t you see how important such a mission might be?”

“But what if we replace nothing?” exclaimed Professor Rita DeMille, from Los Angeles. Rumoured to be part of the famous movie industry family, Professor DeMille had been one of the strongest advocates of Israel Traveller. Now she seemed to be seriously back-pedalling. “If the mission was to go ahead, it could be insanely dangerous from a political viewpoint.”

“Oh really! With all of the archaeological evidence at hand, do you think we won’t replace the most stupendous things? But isn’t replaceing nothing to support the modern narrative as important as replaceing fully supportive evidence?” replied Professor Cowen patiently.

The spokesman for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Professor Rubashkin, another scholar with an American background, threw his hands into the air as he gave his retort. “Professor Cowen, surely you jest? To replace nothing would be nothing short of a disaster.”

“But we will replace something! How can we not? Imagine seeing the structures preceding the great Temple and experiencing the arts and music of the time,” continued Professor Cowen.

“Yet to replace no sign of King David, even if we managed to visit that era, would turn Christian and Jewish belief on its head,” retorted the academic testily.

“But we all are united and agreed to proceed, if we could,” replied Professor Cowen in growing frustration and confusion. “This mission is no longer in the realms of fantasy. Our Transporter-3 is now ready, which will place our Travellers into around the year 980BC. We mustn’t be afraid that the stories of David might be just that, stories. This shouldn’t be a surprise to us, after all, the current evidence on David is hardly conclusive.”

There were sighs and growls around the table. “Oh Professor,” replied Professor Rubashkin wearily, “discussions in scholarly discourse are not hard images and footage from a Traveller incursion. Traveller projects have a habit of appealing to the public. Sometimes the opinions or interpretations of Historians are barely heeded.”

Professor Cowen began to feel a familiar irritation. After all he had done to make sure this clandestine Traveller mission came to fruition. The time he had dedicated and the millions spent! He had been forced to perform all kinds of backflips to get this far. Getting these scholars to agree on anything was like herding cats.

“Okay, I agree with the cautious approach, but none of this should come as a surprise. Let’s look at this carefully,” he continued. “The Tel Dan Stele does say the ‘House of David’ and does seem to support the Bible’s claim that David was the founder of the nation of Judah and its ruling family. The risk is that it was inscribed about 150 years after David’s apparent lifetime. A century and a half is still enough time for legends to develop, especially in a culture without photographs or newspapers. So yes, we all agree that we must be restrained in our final documentation. No, the Tel Dan inscription does not prove that David was a historical figure, though it does seem to tip the scales in that direction. The little we know of the Mesha Stele is the same. Not only is it of a date similar to the Tel Dan stele, but too many historians question its authenticity. Then we have the Shoshenq Relief in Egypt which describes the ‘highland of David’ would most naturally refer to an area within the territory of ‘David’, an identity that could be a clan or tribe, not an individual. The character of King David in the stories might be an abstraction of the clan, merely an eponymous ancestor or tradition.”

“This is the point!” interrupted Professor Rubashkin. “Eponymous traditions are common in the scriptures. Yes, nations and peoples of the known world are often recorded as individuals. So, ‘The House of David’ on the Tel Dan and Mesha Steles might refer to the nation or dynasty established by the individual named David, but neither proves that he actually lived.”

“So, we agree to search for proof?” continued Professor Cowen.

Professor DeMille spoke up firmly, “We agreed to proceed with our search for knowledge. No matter what.”

“And if we don’t, what then?” interrupted another eminent scholar from the American Jewish University. “Can we seriously consider publishing the results of any replaceings that might run counter to current popular belief? These replaceings could indelibly change how Jews view themselves?”

“I thought this was all agreed!” exclaimed Professor Cowen with ever growing frustration. “How many times do we want to run through the same arguments? If you want to proceed with this most incredible project, you have to rely on researching history our way, the unbiased research of the times on hand. Do you want to know or not? You have the chance to actually know if King David existed, because no archaeological discovery can be securely linked to him!”

“If the Israeli Government had any doubts pertaining to our replaceings, this project would cease to exist,” countered Professor Rubashkin fearfully. Many of the others looked up doubtfully. One did not want to run counter to the Israeli Government and the powerful business groups that purported a pure Jewish home state.

“We mustn’t scare off so easily,” encouraged Professor Cowen. “Any replaceings will change the world. Proving or disproving the common tales referred to in the Bible would change the way we look at our history and religion. We must stand firm! Now we have the potential to gather the results in person, we must not be afraid of the truth of the Time. We must stick with this.”

There were reluctant nods which had Professor Cowen roll his eyes and respond in irritation. “So, you want us to finish this?” he asked. “We’ve installed the two Transporters, taking our team back to the 1st Century, to circa 20AD. We’ve established a camp and even made contact with a Roman patrol!”

“We have a report on this?” asked one of the gathered scholars abruptly.

“I have the footage compiled and you’ll receive a copy within the next day or so. As you can appreciate, the editing of raw footage can be a time-consuming task, especially since there are over a dozen vision feeds. But thankfully there have been no problems. What is most significant is that we can now can send Traveller 3 for assembly.”

“Sending Travellers back to around 980BC,” reiterated Professor Rubashkin with a grave shake of his head. “Talking about this is one thing, but when faced with actually taking the step, it is quite another.” He looked to Professor Cowen and slowly shook his head. “The risk, it is very high!”

“And the risks will even be higher when we activate Traveller 4,” explained Professor Cowen. “That will place me and our Travellers almost 2000 years before the Christian Era.”

“Yes Professor, We know,” replied Professor Rubashkin. “This will place you around the time of the birth of Jacob, he who later became Israel himself.”

“Or not!” countered one of the other Israeli scholars. The mood had become apprehensive.

“You have no idea what this can do,” interrupted Professor DeMille quietly. The stout scholar’s hawk-nosed face had a placatory expression as if she desired to tone-down the discussion, which was becoming far too emotional. “We all agreed to this mission and, I believe, still do,” she confirmed. “We are, after all, historians. But commonly held history is beset upon by conflicts of interest, interests that wish only to be affirmed of the truth of scripture and the support of the political status-quo. The truth, the actual facts, will be of no interest to many if they threaten current beliefs and political structures. The pressure to confirm the Biblical accounts is overwhelming, because it isn’t only about infuriating one religious group or another, it’s about power. Imagine if we proved that the Biblical accounts and those referred to in the Koran were not historically correct. Suddenly we place ourselves at odds not only with all Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but we place ourselves at odds with the political interests that rely on religion to justify often controversial agendas. We will place ourselves at odds with the Vatican, the nation of Israel, and the USA, as well as most Muslim nations. How receptive do you think they will be to our replaceings?”

There was silence.

“Remember Professor, this is a secret mission funded by Israel and the USA, both of whom would prefer to have our replaceings support the current status quo,” continued Professor Rubashkin. “If our replaceings stand against the Zionist agenda of our government and the government of the USA, we might replace ourselves sharing a dusty hole in the Negev.”

“But if we stand together and publish, it will be one voice of truth. Our replaceings will capture the world’s attention,” continued Professor Cowen with a hint of alarm. What were his colleagues doing?

“My dear Professor,” replied Professor Rubashkin. The Jewish-American scholar looked genuinely amused. “Most Zionists don’t believe that God exists, but they do believe that he promised them Palestine. Don’t be so taken with what can be done. What if your visit to the dark past proves nothing? Zionists read the book of Joshua as a justification of their wars. This perspective means that God fought on behalf of Israel, ancient and modern. Joshua’s vocabulary creates the lexicon of Jewish nationalism. In 1958, David Ben-Gurion saw the biblical war narrative as constituting an ideal, a unifying myth of national identity that enables Israel’s long-held policy of ethnic cleansing. I can assure that many Israelis, Jewish-Americans and Christians will stand violently against any supposition that this is not the Promised Land of the Jews.” He paused as he looked to the other scholars arrayed around him. Most nodded carefully and even the most argumentative seemed mollified by the sudden reminder of their mortality.

Professor Rubashkin continued, “If we proceed, we must be very careful of any release of information until after the mission is completed. I mean, look at it! It is a mission that could be dangerous for Christians, Muslims and Jews. What could go wrong?” There were a few chuckles, but the mood had become sombre. “Unlike your pending Traveller mission to ancient Mississippi in the United States, this mission will see many who will violently oppose any results counter to the accepted narrative. If truth supports the narrative, we’ll be lauded as heroes by those who need that narrative to remain. But if not ….” The sentence hung in silence. Professor Cowen noted that some of the most supportive advocates for the audacious project looked suddenly unsure.

“Yes, I agree,” he conceded. “We’ll be careful.”