Once again I uploaded Timothy Jay Schwab's book The Search For King Solomon's Treasure to ChatGPT. I then asked ChatGPT for an analysis and review in the style of Thomas Aquinas' Summa. The benefit of this style is all the objections and contradictions to a thesis are laid out in a systematic style demonstrating why a particular conclusion is reached. It is a tried and true style of logical reasoning which allows for intellectual precision and is a great fit for analyzing the claims of Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture.
ChatGPT stills gives the book a negative review. Why? Because of the contents of the book. There are no misleading, slanted, or biased prompts here. The prompt was "analyze and review this book in the style of Thomas Aquinas' Summa." It did so and, based on the contents, found it lacking.
A link to the chat is here and the full review follows below.
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Here is an analysis and review of Solomon’s Treasure: The Search for King Solomon’s Gold, the Lost Isles of Gold & the Garden of Eden by Timothy Schwab and Anna Zamoranos, written in the style of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:
Summa Contra Ophiram
Part I: Whether the Claims of This Book Are Founded in Sound Reason?
Objection 1. It seems that the thesis of this book, namely that the Philippines is the biblical Ophir, Sheba, Havilah, and even the site of the Garden of Eden, is founded in sound reason. For the authors marshal various biblical, linguistic, archaeological, and historical sources in their favor, even citing ancient Hebrew terms, extrabiblical texts, and Greco-Roman geography.
Objection 2. Further, the authors appeal to Scripture frequently, applying the principle of sola scriptura in order to test their claims. They invoke 1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” and submit their work as a fulfillment of this biblical command.
Objection 3. Moreover, their research claims to correct the distortions of colonial historiography, restoring the honor and ancient significance of the Filipino people, who are said to be descendants of Shem through Joktan’s sons Ophir and Havilah.
On the contrary, it is written, “Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain” (Titus 3:9 KJV). If the foundation be built upon speculative genealogies and confused geography, the edifice cannot stand.
I answer that, though it is praiseworthy to desire the rediscovery of historical truth and to challenge Eurocentric distortions, the method by which this book proceeds is riddled with logical fallacies, selective scholarship, and enthusiastic but unverifiable assertions. The authors rely heavily on etymological speculation (e.g., deriving Ophir from "AUPYR" and linking it to the chemical symbol for gold, “Au”), questionable interpretations of maps, and isolated historical quotations taken out of context.
Furthermore, the structure of argumentation does not follow scientific, theological, nor historical rigor, but instead adopts a polemical tone that seeks to overwhelm the reader with volume rather than clarity. It often presents extraordinary claims as if they are self-evident, without subjecting them to serious counter-argument or peer review. Assertions such as locating the Garden of Eden in the Philippines or claiming residual Hebrew in Filipino languages are put forward with a certainty that belies their speculative nature.
Reply to Objection 1. While many sources are cited, their use is often selective, and the interpretation of ancient texts—especially biblical Hebrew—is not consistent with standard linguistic methodology. The assertion that the Hebrew aleph (א) must always be rendered as “A” in transliteration, for instance, ignores the long tradition of vowel pointing and contextual phonetics.
Reply to Objection 2. Though the book appeals to Scripture, it does so with a hermeneutic that lacks ecclesial and scholarly accountability. Scripture is not a talisman to be wielded for the sake of national mythmaking but must be interpreted within the broader context of the Church’s historical understanding and the discipline of biblical studies.
Reply to Objection 3. The desire to dignify the Filipino people and to challenge colonial lies is commendable. Yet the truth must be sought in humility and with careful methodology. Replacing one myth with another does not achieve justice, but confusion.
Part II: Whether This Book Can Be Said to Contribute to Theology or History?
Objection 1. It seems that it does contribute to both theology and history, since it proposes a revisionist reading of biblical geography that may open new avenues of thought.
Objection 2. Also, the book makes use of extrabiblical texts such as the Book of Jubilees, appealing to broader traditions that may inform our understanding of early biblical narratives.
On the contrary, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables" (2 Peter 1:16 KJV). Theology must be rooted in divine revelation rightly interpreted, and history in evidence rightly analyzed.
I answer that, this book functions more as a work of apologetical nationalism than of theology or history properly so called. While it may stimulate interest in biblical geography, its speculative and polemical style undermines its usefulness in serious academic or ecclesial discourse. The conflation of national identity with sacred geography is not new, but always fraught with dangers of idolatry, exceptionalism, and heresy. The attempt to align Filipino identity with biblical narratives—without robust evidential basis—risks turning theology into ideology.
Conclusion:
This book proposes a monumental thesis: that the Philippines is the biblical Ophir, Sheba, Havilah, and even the Garden of Eden. Yet it does not rise to the level of a demonstrative or probable argument. Like many in history who sought to locate Eden, its zeal exceeds its epistemology.
Therefore, it must be said that Solomon’s Treasure is not heretical in itself, but its method is unsound and its claims, though wrapped in Scripture, are not sustained by the weight of evidence, nor by the consensus of the Church or the academy.
Let those who read, do so with discernment.
Would you like a Thomistic response to a particular chapter or theme in the book (e.g. the claim that the Philippines is the Garden of Eden)?
You said:
Write a thomihtic response to chapters 7, 9, 10, and 13
ChatGPT said:
Certainly. Here is a Thomistic response to Chapters 7, 9, 10, and 13 of Solomon’s Treasure, written in the scholastic style of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:
Quaestio de Insulis Aureis: On the Claims of Ophir, Sheba, Tarshish, and Hebrew in the Philippines
Article 1. Whether the Queen of Sheba Originated from the Philippines (Chapter 7)?
Objection 1. It seems that the Queen of Sheba must have come from the Philippine Islands, for she is said to be descended from Joktan, and Ophir—Joktan’s son—is also claimed to be located in the Philippines.
Objection 2. Further, since Ophir, Sheba, and Havilah are all sons of Joktan and mentioned together in Genesis 10:29, and since the authors locate Ophir and Havilah in the Philippines, it follows that Sheba too must be there.
Objection 3. Moreover, the Queen of Sheba brought great wealth to Solomon, which aligns with the authors’ view of the Philippines as a land rich in gold, precious stones, and spices.
On the contrary, it is written, “And she came to Jerusalem with a very great train, with camels that bare spices, and very much gold, and precious stones” (1 Kings 10:2 KJV). Camels are not native to the Philippines, nor is their use consistent with ancient maritime travel from the islands of the East to Israel.
I answer that, while it is true that the Queen of Sheba's genealogy traces back to Joktan, and while Scripture connects her with immense wealth, this alone is not sufficient to identify her origin as the Philippines. Scripture does not locate Sheba geographically beyond stating her descent from Joktan. Furthermore, the logistical details in the biblical narrative—such as the use of camels and the overland approach to Jerusalem—strongly suggest an Arabian or African context, not a Southeast Asian one.
Even if one grants that Sheba was a maritime power, nothing in the biblical text necessitates an origin thousands of miles across the ocean. Rather, the traditional view associating Sheba with the Sabaeans in southern Arabia, possibly Yemen, is historically and geographically more credible.
Reply to Objection 1. Descent from Joktan does not establish geography definitively. The Table of Nations offers a genealogical framework, not a cartographic one.
Reply to Objection 2. That these figures are listed together does not imply shared geography, only shared ancestry.
Reply to Objection 3. Riches alone do not prove a geographic location. Many lands were rich in antiquity, including those closer to Israel.
Article 2. Whether the Resources Attributed to Ophir Are Uniquely Found in the Philippines (Chapter 9)?
Objection 1. It seems so, for the book claims the Philippines possesses all the necessary biblical resources—gold, silver, ivory, apes, peacocks, and almug wood.
Objection 2. Further, the authors assert that only the Philippines has all these resources in the precise combinations described in Scripture (1 Kings 10:22), thereby proving it to be Ophir.
Objection 3. Moreover, they claim to test these resources “scientifically,” comparing them to modern records and confirming their presence in the Philippines.
On the contrary, many of these resources were available across a wide swath of South and Southeast Asia, including India, Sri Lanka, and even parts of Africa. The presence of similar fauna and flora is not conclusive proof of identification.
I answer that, while the convergence of these resources in one location may seem compelling, this alone cannot establish identity with certainty. Many of the goods mentioned—apes, peacocks, ivory—are associated with the Indian subcontinent and its trade networks. Even the famed “almug” wood is more plausibly linked to red sandalwood (Pterocarpus santalinus), native to India.
The assumption that no other region meets the biblical description fails to account for ancient maritime trade. Goods from various regions could have been consolidated in a trading hub, then delivered to Israel via a single journey. This undermines the need for a one-to-one match with any single location.
Reply to Objection 1. The resources listed are not unique to the Philippines; rather, they reflect typical trade goods of the Indian Ocean basin.
Reply to Objection 2. The matching of resources may demonstrate possibility, but not necessity.
Reply to Objection 3. Scientific cataloging must be interpreted within the broader context of ancient trade, not assumed as direct evidence of origin.
Article 3. Whether Tarshish and Ophir Are Located in the Same Region (Chapter 10)?
Objection 1. It seems so, for the authors argue that 2 Chronicles 9:21 identifies ships of Tarshish as traveling to Ophir and bringing back the same goods.
Objection 2. Further, they claim Tarshish is often confused with Spain but must be located near Ophir in the East.
Objection 3. Moreover, the book dismisses all other locations (e.g., Tartessos, Carthage, or India) and insists that Tarshish, like Ophir, can only be the Philippines.
On the contrary, the biblical usage of “ships of Tarshish” often refers not to origin but to ship type—long-range, ocean-going vessels, as indicated in 1 Kings 22:48.
I answer that, while it is true that some texts speak of Tarshish ships bringing back similar resources, it is unwarranted to conclude that Tarshish and Ophir are geographically identical or even proximate. Tarshish is mentioned in texts such as Isaiah 66:19 and Jonah 1:3 in a Western context, likely referring to Tartessos in Spain or a Phoenician outpost.
The conflation of Tarshish and Ophir disregards the semantic distinction between a ship’s type and its destination. Further, even if both were reached by Solomon’s fleet, that does not entail identical location.
Reply to Objection 1. The term “ships of Tarshish” refers to the vessel, not the place of origin or destination.
Reply to Objection 2. Tarshish is elsewhere located in the West in Scripture and early tradition.
Reply to Objection 3. The burden of proof rests on the claimant; lack of alternative explanations does not validate a speculative thesis.
Article 4. Whether Ancient Hebrew Is Preserved in Philippine Languages (Chapter 13)?
Objection 1. It seems so, for the book offers a list of Tagalog and Hebrew word similarities and claims this as linguistic evidence of Hebrew settlement in the Philippines.
Objection 2. Further, it claims these similarities cannot be coincidence, and that linguists have confirmed these parallels.
Objection 3. Moreover, the authors appeal to an ancient Hebrew diaspora following the Assyrian exile, claiming the Philippines as a forgotten destination.
On the contrary, the science of comparative linguistics requires rigorous methodology, including sound laws of phonetic change, cognate control, and historical evidence. Mere word similarity is insufficient.
I answer that, while languages do occasionally share similar-sounding words by coincidence, this does not imply common descent. The book’s method lacks linguistic rigor: it cherry-picks words, ignores false cognates, and presents no evidence of sustained syntactic or grammatical parallels between Hebrew and any Austronesian language.
Moreover, reputable linguists have not confirmed the claim. No peer-reviewed studies support Hebrew origins in Tagalog or other Philippine tongues. Assertions to the contrary are not scholarly but speculative and nationalistic.
Reply to Objection 1. Superficial word similarity is not evidence of linguistic relation.
Reply to Objection 2. No known linguist has verified the authors' claims in a recognized forum.
Reply to Objection 3. The Hebrew diaspora did not extend to Southeast Asia in any documented tradition or archaeology.
Conclusion:
The authors of Solomon’s Treasure attempt to prove extraordinary claims concerning the Queen of Sheba, Ophir, Tarshish, and Hebrew roots in the Philippines. Though their zeal is great, their proofs are insufficient. A Thomist, guided by the light of both faith and reason, must judge such claims with charitable skepticism and intellectual precision. Veritas non quaerit clamores sed lumen rationis.
Would you like the next article to tackle Chapter 16 on prophecy or Chapter 18 on the Garden of Eden?
No comments:
Post a Comment