I was researching other reviews of other books by Martin and found that folks made essentially identical observations as those I made in my review. Here is an example of a review of Martin's "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot":
These seemingly irrational statements, offered without supporting archeological evidence of any kind, are repeated throughout the book. With these few words, Martin sweeps away the life work of archeologists who have spent their entire professional careers studying precisely those remains that he claims not to exist in the city of Jerusalem, or even the area around it. Entire books, filled with beautiful photographic illustrations that meticulously document the discoveries of Second Temple Jerusalem, Martin proclaims for naught. Wiped out by his statements are the poignant discovery of the Burnt House, the elegant Herodian Quarter with its stately mansions, the impressive Hippicus Tower (still standing to a height of about 50 feet), the foundations of the Western City Wall (the so-called First Wall), the Essene Gate, the Third Wall (on the north side of the city), the Struthion Pool, the Sheep Pools of Bezetha, the splendid aqueducts that brought water into the city, and a multitude of other discoveries that are seen every day by the thousands of tourists that visit the city. For most knowledgeable readers, and certainly for those who have ever visited Jerusalem, such preposterous claims will be the end of the story, and Martin's book closed for good.For comparison, here are some comments from my review of his book "Restoring the Original Bible" which remain unrefuted:
Given the overwhelming evidence that the actual historical documents exhibit nothing like the uniform sequence that Martin suggested in his second paragraph, we could wonder if he was simply ignorant of the evidence, or if perhaps his zeal had caused him to accidentally overstate his case in that one instance. Unfortunately, neither provides a viable solution to the enigma of his error. We know he did not "accidentally" overstate his case because the thesis of his entire book is that the order he advocates is the one and only "proper manuscript order." Indeed, he uses the phrase "proper manuscript order" or its equivalent ten times in chapter one to refer to his prefered sequence.After reading more of Martin's writings, I have found many examples of similar unfounded assertions that are simply stated as fact. It seems to me that this fundamental error is ubiquitous throughout his written works.